U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Marine annd Estuarine Protection
ound
National Estuary Program
Tier III Training Workshop
\
Monica Bay
Programs
• Fxistinq Programs
jrMassachusetts Bay»
s 0-iy
I onq IsUnd Sound
NY NJ Harbor
Delaware Bay
vy> J Dnlaware Inland Rays
" Alberrwrie Pamlico
Sounds
^
J0rrabonn« Bays 1
Tampa Bay
Sarasota Day
Indian River Lagoon
-------
Table of Contents
Pages
Table of Contents..... ii
Introductory Materials 1
I. Agenda 1-1
II. Presentation Talking Points 1-2
III Participants Worksheet 1-2
~ '•• \
National Program 2
I. Clean Water Act §317/320 2-1
II Coastal Zone Management - National Estuary Program
Agreement 2-2
III §320 Grant Regulations 2-3
IV Policy Memoranda 2-4
Management Conference 3
I. Management Conference Structure
A. BuzzardsBay 3-1
B SarasotaBay 3-2
C. Delaware Inland Bays . . . 3-3
// Position Descriptions
A Director
1. Sarasota Bay 3-4
2 Santa Monica Bay 3-5
3 Galveston Bay National Estuary Program 3-6
B Public Outreach
1 Sarasota Bay . . . 3-7
2. Delaware Inland Bays . .. .. 3-8
C. Scientist
1. Santa Monica Bay 3-9
D Data Manager/Resources Planner
1. Santa Monica Bay 3-10
2. Delaware Bay 3-11
E. Administrative Assistant
1. SarasotaBay 3-12
2. Galveston Bay 3-13
H
• •
ii
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
IH. Priority Problems
A. Existing NEP Estuaries 3-14
B. New Estuary Programs 3-15
1. Baratana - Terrebonne Estuanne Complex 3-15
2. CascoBay 3-16
3. Indian River Lagoon 3-17
4. Massachusetts Bays 3-18
5. Tampa Bay 3-19
Public Outreach. 4
/ Puget Sound Issue Papers 4-1
II. Long Island Sound Fact Sheets 4-2
III. Action Plan Demonstration Project Fact Sheets 4-3
Planning 5
/ State/EPA Managment Conference Agreement 5-1
A Galveston Bay National Estuary Program 5-2
II Annual Workplans
A Puget Sound 1990 5-3
B. Sarasota Bay - First Year 5-4
OMEP Assistance.. 6
/. Contracts
A Contracts Available Through OMEP
LAMS 6-1
2.Battelle 6-2
3. Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay 6-3
B. List of Uses 6-4
C. Procedures 6-5
// Other OMEP Assistance
A. Finance 6-6
B Data Management 6-7
C. Characterization 6-8
D. Coastnet 6-9
Lisf of Program Contacts 7
/. Headquarters 7-1
II Regions 7-1
III Program Directors 7-2
IV Key Staff 7-2
V. Committee Chairs 7-3
in
-------
Introductory Materials
-------
I. Agenda
-------
II. Presentation
Talking Points
-------
The National Estuary Program
Tier III Training Workshop
Melbourne, Honda
September 19 - 21, 1990
Topics for Discussion
Wednesday. September 19. 1990
9:00 - 9:15 am Welcome/Workshop Goals Tom Laverty, OME1’
9:15 - 9:45 am Overview of the
National Estuary Program Tom Laverty, OMEP
9:45 - 11:00 am Getting Started:
Priority Problems and Setting Goals
Discussion Leaders: Brigitte Farren, OMEP
Rosemary Monahan, Ri
Ted Bisterfeld, R4 / APES
Jack Gakstatter, RiO/PS
Discussion Points
• After the Management Conference framework is established, an
important first step is to list problems of estuary, establish priorities,
and agree which problems to address.
o The Management Conference must establish criteria to define and
rank environmental problems.
• Set broad goals to guide programs related to the desired condition of
the estuary and its segments. Goals can range from maintaining
current conditions to restoring to a past condition to restoring to a
pristine quality.
• Use the Nomination package as starting point and not reinvent the
wheel.
• Important to include all committees and general public in selecting
problems to address.
-------
• Criteria for prioritizing problems.
• Process to derive list of problems/issues to address in Conference.
How to obtain public involvement in identifying problems.
• Reasons to set goals. Establish general goals early. How and why to
identify important goals.
• Goals or problems changed/evolved over time.
11:00 - 11:15 am Break
11:15 - 1:00 pm Getting Started: Program Office & Conference
Structure
Discussion Leaders: Ray Hall, OMEP
Russell Kiesling, GBNEP
Rosemary Monahan, Ri
Discussion Points
I.
• Program Office
Functions of the office
Role in Conference
Staffing, Location decisions
II.
• Setting up Conference Framework
- Purpose of Conference; function as a whole, why it should
be inclusive.
- Jmportance of getting everyone up to speed on long-term
program; importance of making sure they understand
where headed, relationships between committees.
- Conference composition:
a. A brief description of committee structure;
b. How does the Conference determine who should be
on particular committees;
c. The size of the committees;
d. What is the responsibility of each committee, why
it is important to keep active; and
e. Should by-laws, or procedural rules be used. What
ablility to add/remove members.
-------
1:00 - 2:00 pm Lunch
2:00 - 3:30 pm Responsibility of Conference: Consensus-building;
Intercommittee Communication; and Federal, State, Local
Program Integration
Discussion Leaders: Mary Lou Soscia, OMEP
Ted Bisterfeld, R4/APES
Russell Kiesling, GBNEP
Discussion Points
• Purpose of consensus.
• (from Primer) Conference is a vehicle for decision-making. It serves
as forum for open discussion, cooperation and compromise among
different and often conflicting interests, resulting in consensus.
• Equal partners - single entity “runs” program. How do programs
deal with conflicting opinions, and ways to reach a “consensus”
• Intercommittee Communication
- The importance of communication.
- I-low to ensure/improve intercommittee interaction.
• Inter-agency integration
- Importance in federal, state, local program involvement
so “ortboard” for CCMP.
- Examples of how it is working or how you wish it would
work better.
- Existing CZM integration; how to integrate.
3:30 - 4:30 pm Responsibilities of Conference:
Public Education and Participation
Discussion Leaders: Margherita Pryor, OMEP
Chet Arnold, US
Discussion Points
• Role of CAC and role of public
- Importance of both and how to keep active throughout
program
- Long-term public participation strategy
- Use of existing advocacy groups
- Legislative and political outreach
- Ideas for public outreach
-------
4:30 - 5:15 pm General Discussion
6:00 pm until... Dinner on the Beach
Reggae by the Pool
Thursday. September 20. 1990
9:00 - 9:45 am Annual Workplans; Grant Regulations Tom Armitage
OMEP
9:45 - 10:15 am State/EPA Conference Agreements Lore Hantske
OMEP
10:15 - 10:30 am Break
10:30 - 12:00 pm Annual Workplans - Development & Budgets
Discussion Leaders: Tom Armitage, OMEP
Jack Gakstatter, RIO/PS
Rainer Hoenicke, SMBP
Frank Shipley, GBNEP
Discussion Points
• Selecting projects annually so move closer to CCMP. How do you set
priorities annually?
• Workplan development process and timeframe. How to incorporate
all of the committees comments. Do all committees review all
projects?
• Development of an annual budget
- Allocations among elements (ex. program office support,
travel, newsletters, scientific studies)
• State vs. federal FY coordination; how to coordinate state
match so it is available for the federal FY.
- Federal FY deadlines (ie., workplans/contracts completed
for July/August processing)
12:00 - 1:00 pm Lunch
-------
1:00 - 1:30 pm Local Government Perspective Hal Bickings
DE Program, LGAC
Discussion Points
Determining the Committee structure responsibilities. Keeping the
Committee involved and committed throughout program.
1:30 - 2:45 pm Program Funding
Discussion Leaders: Stephanie Sanzone, OMEP
Frank Shipley, GBNEP
Rainer Hoenicke, SMBP
Mark Alderson, SBP
Jack Gakstatter, RIO/PS
Discussion Points
I.
• Funding mechanisms and associated workload
- RFP ’s
- JAG’s
- Cooperative Agreements
- Examples of in-house work
U.
• Procurement problems (federal and state)
- Examples; things to be aware of
2:45 - 3:00 pm Break
3:00 - 3:45 pm Program Funding (cont)
ifi.
• 25% Match
- Cash vs. in-kind vs. non-profit/private contributions.
- What contingencies are available if the cash match from
state appropriations is not received as expected.
- How to determine “appropriate” in-kind services.
IV. OMEP - Mark Curran
• Available OMEP support contracts and other OMEP assistance.
• Record keeping
- Why it is important.
- What should be kept.
- Who should keep the records.
-------
3:45 - 4:30 pm General Discussion
5:00 - 6:00 pm Informal Discussions among Tier 3 Program staff
6:45 pm Leave Hotel for Riverboat Cruise on the Indian River
Friday. September 21. 1990
8:30 - 10:30 am Getting to the CCMP or “Where the Whole Parade is Headed”
Discussion Leaders: Mark Curran, OMEP
Jack Gakstatter, RiO/PS
Ted Bisterfeld, R4/APES
Frank Shipley, GBNEP
Discussion Paints
• Characterization
- Linking science to management and policy
- Environmental conditions of estuaries analysis of
institutions / programs
- Identification of the sources of problems to be able to
determine corrective actions
- Basis for CCM1’
• Early implementation
- Benefits of taking early action
- Action Demonstration Projects (Curran)
• Consensus-building is time consuming
- Planning for next year; general timeframe
- General types of projects (historical data collection; DIMS,
federal/state/local program review and evaluation)
10:30 - 10:45 am Break
10:45 - 12:45 pm Questions
Closing Discussion
1:00 pm Field Trip
-------
In.
Participants
Worksheet
-------
The National Estuary Program page 1
Tier III Training Workshop
Worksheet
/ Getting Started: Priority Problems and Setting Goals
List problems of estuary, establish priorities, and agree which problems to address.
Establish criteria to define and rank environmental problems.
(J Set broad goals to guide programs related to the desired condition
of the estuary and its segments
Use the Nomination package as starting point.
Importance or bringing in all committees and general public.
(J Criteria to prioritize problems.
CJ Identify list of problems/issues to address in Conference.
Establish general goals early.
] Goals or problems that change/evolve over time.
t.4 __________________
-------
page 2 The National Estuary Program
Tier HI Training Workshop
Worksheet
I Getting Started: Program Office and Conference Structure
I. Program Office.
Functions of the office.
E Role in Conference.
Staffing, Location decisions.
II. Setting up Conference Framework.
Purpose of Conference Framework.
Importance of complete involvement
( Conference composition.
-------
The National Estuary Program page 3
Tier III Training Workshop
Worksheet
I Responsibility of Conference: Consensus-building
Intercommittee Communication; and Federal, State,
Local Program Integration
Purpose of consensus.
Conference is vehicle for decision-making.
1 Equal partners - no single entity “runs” program.
Intercommittee communication.
Inter-agency integration.
I s’
-------
page 4 The National Estuary Program
Tier Ill Training Workshop
Worksheet
/ Responsibilities of Conference:
Public Education and Participation
Role of CAC and Role of Public
(J Importance of both and keeping active throughout program.
Long-term public participation strategy.
Use of existing advocacy groups.
Legislative and political outreach.
Ideas for public outreach.
J
-------
The National Estuary Program page 5
Tier Ill Training Workshop
Worksheet
I State/EPA Conference Agreements
9 .
/ Annual Workplans; Grant Regulations
-------
page 6 The National Estuary Program
Tier Ill Training Workshop
Worksheet
/ Annual Workplans: Development and Budgets
U Selection of projects annually.
U Process and timeframe for developing a workplan.
U Development of an annual budget.
U Allocations among elements.
U State and federal FY coordination.
U Federal FY deadlines.
I Local Government Perspective
U Committee structure.
U Committee responsibility.
U Maintaining local committment.
)
-------
The National Estuary Program page 7
Tier Ill Training Workshop
Worksheet
/ Program Funding
I. Funding mechanisms and associated workload.
RF?’s
tJ JAG’s
I Cooperative Agreements
J Examples of in-house projects
II. C Procurement problems (federal and state)
C Examples.
-------
page 8 The National Estuary Program
Tier III Training Workshop
Worksheet
/ Program Funding
III. 0 25% Match
0 Cash vs. in-kind vs. non-profit/private contributions
0 Contingencies for state appropriations
0 Appropriate in-kind services
IV. 0 Available OMEP support contracts and other OMEP assistance.
0 Record keeping.
U Importance
U What to keep
U Who should keep
)
-------
The National Estuary Program page 9
Tier Ill Training Workshop
Worksheet
/ Getting to the CCMP or “ Where the Whole Parade is Headed ”
L Characterization
(J Unking science to management and policy
(J Environmental conditions of estuary and analysis of institutions/programs
C Identification of sources of problems to determine corrective actions
J Basis for CCMP
Early implementation
J Taking action
J Action Demonstration Projects
[ J Consensus building: plan ahead
C Planning for next year: general timeframe
General types of projects
-------
page 10 The National Estuary Program
Tier III Training Workshop
Worksheet
/ Additional Notes
A
-------
National Program
-------
Clean
Water Act
§317/320
-------
— SPRY
100th Congrcss C0MMU’rEE PRINT
2d Session
THE CLEAN WATER ACT
AS AMENDED BY
THE WATER QUALITY ACF
PUBLIC LAW 100-4
OF 1987
Printed for the use of the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works
U 8. GOVERNMENT PRRrT1PJG OFF CI
WASHINGTON: 1988
MARCH 1988
73—3 56
For iat, by the S psrufl.ndent or Documents. Con r ion.J Ss Offl
U S Covenimeni PnntLng O . Wsahington, DC 20402
-------
200
SEC. 308. INDIVIDUAL CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS.
e a a
(g) WATER QIJAU’TY IMPROVEMENT STUDY.—
(1) S’ruDY.—The Administrator shall study the water quality
improvements which have been achieved by application of best
available technology economically achievable pursuant to sec-
tion 301(bX2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Such
study shall include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the
effectiveness of the application of best available technology
economically achievable pursuant to such section in attaining
applicable water quality standards (including the standard
specified in section 302(a) of such Act) and an analysis of the
effectiveness of the water quality program under such Act and
methods of improving such program, including site specific
levels of treatment which will achieve the water quality goals
of such Act.
(2) REPORT—NOt later than 2 years after the date of the en-
actment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit a report
on the r sults of the study conducted under subsection (a) to-
gether with recommendations for improving the water Quality
program and its effectiveness to the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate.
SEC. 309. PRETREATMENT STANDARDS.
S S S S S S *
(b) INCREASE IN EPA EMPWYE S.—The Administrator shall take
such actions as may be necessary to increase the number of em-
ployees of the Environmental Protection Agency in order to effec-
tively implement pretreatment requirements under section 307 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
SEC. 314. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.
S S S S S
(b) REPORI ON ENFORCEMENT MEc nsMs.—The Secretary of
the Army and the Administrator shall each prepare and submit a
report to the Congress, not later than December 1, 1988, which
shall examine and analyze various enforcement mechanisms for
use by the Secretaq or Administrator, as the case may be, includ-
ing an administrative civil penalty mechanism. Each of such re-
ports shall also include an examination, prepared in consultation
with the Comptroller General, of the efficacy of the Secretary’s or
the Administrator’s existin enforcement authorities and shall in-
clude recommendations for improvements in their operation.
SEC. 317. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Pua os s A1 PoucIEs.—
(1) FINDINGS—COngress finds and declares that—
(A) the Nation’s estuaries are of great importance for
fish and wildlife resources and recreation and economic
opportunity;
(B) maintaining the health and ecological integrity of
these estuaries is in the national interest;
-------
201
(C) increasing coastal population, development, and
other direct and indirect uses of these estuaries threaten
their health and ecological integrity;
(D) long-term planning and management will contribute
to the continued productivity of these areas, and will maxi-
mi.ze their utility to the Nation; and
(E) better coordination among Federal and State pro-
grams affecting estuaries will increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of the national effort to protect, preserve,
and restore these areas.
(2) PUaPosF.s.—The purposes of this section are to—
(A) identify nationally significant estuaries that are
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse;
(B) promote comprehensive planning for and conserva-
tion and management of, nationally significant estuaries;
(C) encourage the preparation of management plans for
estuaries of national significance; and
(D) enhance the coordination of estuarine research.
SEC. 318. UNCONSOLIDATED QUATERNARY AQUIFER.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may—
(1) locate or authorize the location of a landfill, surface im-
poundment, waste pile, injection well, or land treatment facili-
ty over the Unconsolidated Quaternary Aquifer, or the re-
charge zone or streamfiow source zone of such aquifer, in the
Rockaway River Basin, New Jersey (as such aquifer and zones
are described in the Federal Register, January 24, 1984, pages
2946—2948); or
(2) place or authorize the placement of solid waste in a land-
fill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, or land
treatment facility over such aquifer or zone.
This section may be enforced under sections 309 (a) and (b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act. For purposes of section 309(c)
of such Act, a violation of this section shall be considered a viola-
tion of section 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
SEC. 404. ANTI-BACKSLIDING.
S S S S S S S
(c) S’ruDY.—The Administrator shall study—
(1) the extent to which States have reviewed, revised, and
adopted water quality standards in accordance with section 24
of the Municipal Waatewater Treatment Construction Grant
Amendments of 1981; and
(2) the extent to which modifications of permits issued under
section 402(aX1XB) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
for the purpose of reflecting any revisions to water quality
standards should be encouraged or discouraged.
The Administrator shall submit a report on such study, together
with recommendations, to Congress not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 404. SEWAGE SLUDGE.
• S S S $ S S
-------
144
ble water quality standards, and (ii) the goals and require-
rnents ofihisAct;
(F) include recommendations of the Adrnini.strator con.
cerning future program.s (including enforcement programs)
for controlling pollution from rionpoint sources; and
(G) identify the activities and programs of departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States which
are incon.szstent with the management programs submitted
by the States and recommend modificat ions so that such
activities and programs are consistent with and assi.st the
States in implementation of such management programs.
(n) SET ASIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL—Not less than 5
percent of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (j) for any
fiscal year shall be available to the Administrator to maintain per
sonnel levels at the Environmental Protection Agency at level-s
which are o4equate to carry out this section in such year.
SEC. 230. NA TIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—
(1) NOMINATION OF ESTUARIES—The Governor of any State
may nominate to the Administrator an estuary lying in whole
or in part within the State as an estuary of national signifi-
cance and request a management conference to develop a corn
prehen.sive management plan for the estuary. The nomination
shall docu,nent the need for the conference, the lihelihood of
success, and information relating to the factors in paragraph
(2).
(2) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE. —
(A) IN GENERAL—in any case where the Administrator
determines, on his own initiative or upon nomination of a
State under paragraph (1), that the attainment or main te-
nance of that water quality in an. estuary which assures
protection of public water supplies and the protection and
propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shell.
fisk fi sh and wildlife, arid allows recreational activities,
in and on the Water, requires the control of point and non•
point sources of pollution to supplement exz.sting controls of
pollution in more than one State, the Administrator shall
select such estuary and convene a management
conference.
(B) PRIORITY cONsIDERATION.—The Administrator shall
give priority consideration under this section to Long
Island Sound, New York and Connecticut; Narragansett
Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Puget
Sound, Washingtoa; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New
York and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New
Jersey; Delaware inland Boys, Delaware; Albetiarle Sound,
North Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida, San Franc i,sco Bay,
California,- and Galveston Bay, Texas.
(8) BOUNDARY DISPUTE EXCEPTION.—Ifl any case in which a
boundary between two States passe .s through an estvary and
such boundary is disputed and is the subject of an action in
any court, the Administrator shall not convene a management
-------
145
con fervace with respect to such estuary before a final ad udica.
tion has such dispute.
RPOSES OF CONFERENC ?‘he purposes of any management
to an estuary under this svbsectton
shall be to—
(1) assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses
of the estuaiy;
(2) collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients,
and natural resources within the estziarine zone to identify the
causes of envLronmentol problem.s;
(8) develop the relationship between the inpiace loads and
point and nonpoint loadings of pollutants to the estuarine zone
and the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural
resources;
(4) detelop a comprehensive cori .servation arid management
plan that recommends priority corrective actions arid compli-
ance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollw
tion to restore and maintain the chemical,’ physical, and
biological integrity of the estuary, including restoration and
maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous popula-
tion of shellfish, and wildlife, and recreational activities
in the estuary, and assure that the designated uses of the estu-
ary are protected,
(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the
plan by the States as well as Federal and local agencies partici-
pating in the conference;
(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the
plan) arid
(7) review all Federal financial assistance programs and Fed-
eral development projects in accordance with the requirements
of Executive Order 12872. as in effect on September 17, 1988, to
determine whether such assistance program or project would be
consistent with and further the purposes and objectit’es of the
plan prepared under this section.
For purposes of paragraph (7), such programs and projects shall not
be limited to the assistance programs and developm.ent projects sub-
ject to Executive Order 12872, but may include any programs listed
in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which
may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the plan devel-
oped under lhi-s section.
(c MEMBERS OF c0NFERE.vcE.—The members of a management
conference convened under this section shall include, at a mini-
,num the Administrator and representatives of—
(1) each Stale arid foreign nation located in wlwle or in part
in the estuaririe zone of the estuary for which the conference is
converted,
(2) international, interstate, or regional agencies or entities
having jurisdiction over all or a significant part of the estuary;
(V each interested Federal agency, as determined appropriate
by the Adrnini.strcztor;
(4) local governments having jurisdiction over any land or
water within the estuarine zone, as determined approprzate by
the Administrator; and
-------
146
(5) affected industries, public and private educational iastuu-
tioris, and the general public, as determined appropriate by the
Administra tot.
(d) UT!LIz . r ,oN OF EXISTING DATA.—Th developing a conservation
and management plan under this section, the management confer-
ence shall survey and utilize existing reports, data, and studLes re-
lating to the estuary that have been developed by or made available
to Federal, interstate. State, and local agencies.
(e) PER 10D OF Co 4 VFERENcE,—A management conference convened
under this sect ion shall be convened for a period not to exceed 5
years. Such conference may be extended by the Adrnuu.,trator, and
if terminated after the initial period, may be reconvened by the Ad-
ministrator at any time thereafter, as may be necessary to meet the
requirements of this section.
(f) APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS.—
(1) APPROVAL—Not later than 120 days after the completion
of a conservation and management plan ar id after providing for
public review and comment, the Administrator shall approve
such plan if the plan meets the requirements of this section and
the affected Governor or Governors concur.
(2) IMPLEMENTATJ0N.—Upon approval of a conservation and
management plan under this section, such plan shall be imple-
rnented. Funds authorized to be appropriated under titles It
and VI and section 319 of this Act may be used in accordance
with the applicable requirements of this Act to assist States
with the implementation of such plan.
(g) GMNTS.—
(2) Rtc ,przavn.—The Administrator is authorized to make
grants to State, interstate, and regional water pollution control
agencies and entities, State coastal zone management agencies,
interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies,
institutions, organizations, and individuals.
(2) PURposss.—Grants under this subsection shall be made to
pay for assisting research, surveys, studies, and modeling and
other technical work necessary for the development of a conser-
vation and management plan under this section.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE.—The amount of grants to any person (in-
cluding a State, interstate, or regional agency or entity) under
this subsection for a r i scal year shall not exceed 75 percent of
the costs of such research, survey, studies, and work and shall
be made on condition that the non-Federal share of such costs
are provided from non-Federal sources.
(ii) GRANT REPORT /Na—Any person (including a State, i nterstate,
or regional agency or entity) that receives a grant under subsection
(g) shall report to the Administrator not later than 18 months after
receipt of such pant and biennially thereafter on the progress being
made under this section.
(i) AzrzwoRlzAnoN OF APPR0PRbITI0N5.—-There are authorized to
be appropriated to the Administrator not to exceed $IgJ 000,000 per
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1.987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991
for—
(1) expenses related to the administration of management con-
ferences under this section , not to exceed 10 percent of the
amount appropriated under this subsection,
-------
147
(2) making grants under subsection (g); and
(8) monitoring the implementation of a Conservation and
management plan by the management conference or by the Ad.
mini.strator, iii any case in which the conference ha been termi-
nated.
The Adrnini.strator shall provtde up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year of
the sums author!zed to be appropriated under this subsection to the
Administrator of the National Oceanu and Atmospheric Adrrztnz.s.
tration to carry out àubsectzon 0).
Q) RESEARCH.—
(1) PR0Gaufs.—!n order to determine the need to conven.s a
management conference under this section or at the request of
such a management conference, the Administrator shall coordi-
nate and implement, through the National Marine Pollution
Program Office and the National Marine Fisheries Service of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as ap-
propriate, for one or more estuarine zones—
(A) a long. term program of trend asse ment monitoring
measuring variations in pollutant concentrations, marine
ecology, and other physical or biological environmental pa.
rameters which may affect estuarine zones, to provide the
Adrnini.strator the capacity to determine the potential arid
actual effecl s of alternative management strategies arid
measures;
(B) a program of ecosystem assessment assisting in the de.
velopment of (i) baseline studies which determine the state
of estuarine zones and the effects of natural and anthropo-
genic changes, and (ii) predictive models capable of trans-
lating information on specific discharges or general pollut-
ant loadings within estuarine zones into a set of probable
effects on such zones;
(C) a comprehensive water quality sampling program for
the continuous monitoring of nutrients, chlorine, acid pre-
cipitation dissolved oxygen, and potentially toxic pollutants
(including organic chemicals and metals) in estuarine
zones, after consultation with interested State, local, inter-
state, or international agencies and review and analysis of
all environmental sampling data presently collected from
estuarine zones; and
(D) a program of research to identify the movements of
nutrients, sediments and polfufants through estuarine
zones and the impact of nutrients, sediments, and pollut-
ants on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or po-
tential uses of the estuarine zones.
(2) REPORTs—The Administrator, in cooperation with the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration, shall submit to the Congress no less often than bi-
ennially a comprehensive report on the activities authorized
under this subsection including—
(A) a listing of priority monitoring and research needs;
(B) an assessment of the state and health of the Nation’s
estuarine zones, to the extent evaluated under this
subsectiorg,
-------
148
(C) a discu-ssiori of pollution problems and trends in pol-
lutant concentrations with a direct or indirect effect on
wuter quality, the ecosystem, and designated or potential
uses of each estuarzne zone, to the extent eLalLia ted under
this subsection; and
(D) an et’aluattonz of pollution abatement activities and
management measures so far implemented to determine the
degree of improvement toward the objectives expressed in
subsection (bX4} of this section.
(k) DEFImTI0NS.—For purposes of thi.s section, the terms “estu
ary” and “estuarzne zone” have the meanings such terms have in
section 104(nX4) of this Act, except that the term es.uarine zone”
shall aLo include associated aquatic ecosystems and those portions
of tributaries draining into the estuary up to the historic height of
migration of anadromoiss fish or the historic head of tidal in/lu-
erzce, whichever is higher.
TITLE IV—PERMITS AND LICENSES
CERTI FICATION
SEC. 401. (aXi) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to
conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction
or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into
the navigable waters, shall provide the licensing or permitting
agency a certification from the State in which the discharge origi-
nates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water
pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable
waters at the point where the discharge originates or will origi-
nate, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable pro-
visions of sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of this Act. In the
case of any such activity for which there is not an applicable efflu-
ent limitation or other limitation under sections 301(b) and 302,
and there is not an applicable standard under sections 306, and
307, the State shall so certify, except that any such certification
shall not be deemed to satisfy section 511(c) of this Act. Such State
or interstate agency shall establish procedures for public notice in
the case of all applications for certification by it and, to the extent
it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in connection
with specific applications. In any case where a State or interstate
agency has no authority to give such a certification, such certifica-
tion shall be from the Administrator. If the State, interstate
agency, or Administrator, as the case may be, fails or refuses to act
on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time
(which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the
certification requirerrients of this subsection shall be waived with
respect to such Federal application. No license or permit shall be
granted until the certification required by this section has been ob-
tained or has been waived as provided in the preceding sentence.
No license or permit shall be granted if certification has been
denied by the State, interstate agency, or the Administrator, as the
case may be.
(2) Upon receipt of such application and certification the licens-
ing or permitting agency shall immediately notify the Administra-
-------
I I.
CZM-EPA
Agreement
-------
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
In order to avoid duplication of effort, unnecessary
expenditures of Federal funds, and the development of conflicting
regulatory mechanisms, involving the Coastal Zone Management
Program (CZMP) and the National Estuary Program (NEP), the
enclosed coordination paper, which we endorse, has been prepared
to address NOAA and EPA responsibilities.
This paper serves as guidance to NOAA and EPA program managers in
carrying out their respective responsibilities under these two
programs. Steps will be undertaken to begin impleinen—
tation of the specific actions called for under Section V,
including the establishment of a mechanism at the national level
for coordination and oversight of individual estuary programs
under the NEP and to ensure continued integration of the NEP and
CZMP.
Coordination of NOAA and EPA activities related to this
agreement will be handled by John J. Carey, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, NOAA, National Ocean Service and Tudor T. Davies,
D rector, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, EPA.
Enclosure
as
Under Secretary for Administrator
Oceans and Atmosphere Environmental Protection
Department of Commerce Agency
DATEQf DATE 1 flfr
-------
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
I. GOALS OF THE TWO PROGRAMS
The Coastal Zone Manaaement Act (CZMA) was enacted by
Congress to create a comprehensive management umbrella for the
beneficial use, protection, and development of the resources of
the nation’s coastal zone. Coastal management was conceived as
a voluntary program that States would undertake in partnership
with the Federal government. To achieve comprehensive management
of coastal resources, States wishing to participate were
required to develop programs that addressed protection of coastal
development in coastal areas to avoid loss of life and property,
priority consideration of water dependent uses, improved access
to and enjoyment of the coastal zone, conservation and management
of living marine resources, and increased coordination of
governmental activities. Wetlands and water quality in estuaries
are important elements of State coastal management programs.
States are required to weigh the concerns of different
levels of government, various interest groups, and the general
public in both the development and implementation of coastal
management programs. There are 29 approved State CZM programs.
coastal zone programs encompass, through the application of
program policies, interagency and Federal coordination and a
wide range of management issues throughout the State’s entire
coastal zone.
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in the
Water Quality Act of 1987 to develop and implement plans to
protect the integrity of nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development or overuse. In some
estuaries, the water pollution control requirements have been
shown to be inadequate to protect the environment from
degradation. The main direction of the NEP is to strengthen
these requirements.
Some nationally significant estuaries will be selected for
inclusion in the program. In the estuaries selected, the
participants of a Management Conference are responsible for
defining the environmental problems, investigating and
determining the causes of system-wide problems, and developing
and implementing plans of action to address the problems.
Sources of point and non-point pollution are the focus, although
the management of living resources, water resources, and land use
in the watershed may also be identified causes of some
environmental problems.
The conference membership consists of representatives of
EPA, each affected State and foreign nation, international,
interstate, or regional agencies, each interested Federal agency,
local governments, affected industries, public and private
educational institutions, and the general public.
-------
II. A MUTUAL GOAL
Although the CZMA is broader in scope, both the NEP arid C MA
are focused on the protection of coastal resources and share a
common environmental goal: to maintain and enhance or protect the
health of the riation 1 S coastal resources. In achieving this goal
both EPA ’s and NOAA’s programs seek to ensure that population
growth and corresponding development occurs in an environmentally
sound mariner.
III. POINTS OF INTERSECT OF: NE? AND CZM
— Both NE? and CZM are dependent on the political will
and institutions of State and local government to take
action. These Federal programs depend on the
establish.ment and implementation of effective programs
through State and local government.
— Both NE? and CZM have a strong orientation for public
education, awareness and involvement.
— Both NE? and CZM programs require the development of
comprehensive plans but also have a strong action
orientation.
— Both NEP arid CZM are designed to comprehensively
address pollution abatement, living resources, and
land and water resource management.
IV. TOOLS
There are several distinct tools available within the two
programs to integrate these programs and work toward the same
environmental goal:
— A NEP Management Conference is convened under Section
320 of the Clean Water Act to provide a forum for
consensus building and problem solving.
— A NE? CcmDrehensive Conservation and Management Pl n
(CC?1P) is developed by the Management Conference. The
plan specifies goals and objectives for restoring and
maintaining the estuary, and identifies actions,
schedules and resources to meet the goals.
— A Special prea a agement Plan is developed by CZM
States which create a comprehensive program providing
special protection for a designated geographic area.
— A CZM Section 312 evaluation is a biennial review of a
CZM program which recommends future actions.
— Section 3O7fc i(l ) of the CZMA requires Federal agencies
conducting or supporting activities directly affecting
-------
the coastal zone to do so in a manner which is
consistent, to the maxiinwn extent practicable, with
Federally-approved State coastal zone management
programs.
— A CZM jmtilementation rant is made to States with
approved CZNPS requiring “significant improvements”
ensured in part by Section 312 evaluations.
— A CZM Section 309 grant is a competitive grant to
States to integrate coastal prograitis and salve prob1e s
in Coastal Zones affecting more than one State.
V. EPA/NOAA CONCEPTS TO INTEGRATION OF } EPs AND CZMPs
NOA.A
— To the extent permitted by law, States will be required to
submit CCMPs developed under the NEP for incorporation into
approved State CZM programs after approval by the
Governor(s) and the EPA Administrator. CZMA Section 312
biennial evaluations will be used to ensure compliance.
CZNA Section 312 biennial evaluations will stress activities -
identified by Management Conferences convened under the NE ?,
including activities outlined in a CCMP, or activities to
support the overall objectives of the national demonstration
program as defined under the NEP. As appropriate, an EPA
representative would be invitedto participate on the
evaluations.
— CZM gilidance governing the allocation of Section 309 grants
for interstate coastal waters will give priority
consideration to interstate estuaries and seek opportunities
to coordinate activities where Management Conferences have
been convened under the NE?.
— NOA.A will provide scientific support and technical
assistance to EPA for the development of national guidance
on the management of pollution abatement and control
programs to better address the survival arid health of living
estuarine and marine resources.
EPA
— CCMPs developed under the NEP will voluntarily, as a matter
of policy, be submitted for review under the Federal
consistency provisions of Section 307(c) (1) of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
-------
NEP guidance and/or regulations will provide that CCMPs
should be incorporated into approved CZMPs and will stress
the use of existing CZMA tools, including the designation of
areas of special concern and public participation and
education programs, for implementation activities identified
by the Management Conference.
— Decision criteria for the selection of new estuaries for the
National Estuary Program will include the existence of
federally approved CZMPs.
In order to facilitate the development of CCNPs such that
they are consistent, to the maximum extent practicable with
the state CZMPs, NE? guidance and/or regulations will
require a state coastal zone management liaison to
participate on the management committee of the conferences
convened pursuant to the NEP and in the development of the
CCMP.
EPA/NOAA Joint Activities
NOAA and EPA will jointly sponsor a national workshop for
estuary and coastal zone management program staff,
headquarters, regional, and state participants, to further
explore avenues and mechanisms for coordination between and
integration of these programs at the national, regional and
state level.
NOAA and EPA will conduct, where appropriate, joint reviews
of state programs to facilitate the coordination of the
Management Conference with state CZM programs, sharing of
information sources, and the use of existing CZM tools to
solve problems.
EPA/OMEP and NOAA/OCRN will establish a mechanism at the
national level for coordination and oversight of individual
-estuary programs under the NEP and to ensure continued
integration of the NE? and CZMP.
VI. SUM1(ARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The National Estuary Program and Coastal Zone
Management Program are being coordinated between NCAA
and EPA.
2. The CZMA provides the broad umbrella for state
management actions in the entire coastal zone; the NEP
focuses on estuaries and supports the overall
achievement of CZMA goals.
3. NEP iE demonstration program to show how
Federal/State/local agencies can develop effective
programs for dealing with environmental problems.
-------
4. CZM/NEP program efforts are aimed at encouraging state
initiative and implementation through guidance and
cooperative planning — — not unilateral Federal
regulation or direction.
5. Mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that
Management Conferences convened under the NEP will be
coordinated with applicable State CZM planning
processes and administration of CZM plans. Similarly,
CZM program reviews and grant decisions will seek
opportunities to coordinate activities where Management
Conferences have been convened, or where objectives of
the national demonstration program have been defined,
under the NEP.
-------
Ill.
§320
Grant
Regulations
-------
Tuesday
October 3 1989
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 35
Financial Aeslstance for the National
E3tuary Program,. Interim Fln& Ru1
-------
O796 Federal Ret,. r / VoL 54, No. i / T. 1 csday. October 3, i9 / Riiles and Reatloni
ENV1ROPIMENTAL PAOTECflOW
&GENCY
40 CFR Part 35
(rRL-3 5S3-4)
RIM 2040-AB54
Financial Auistanc, for the NatIonal
Estuary Program
ADENCY: En ,ronrnental Protection
Agency (EPA].
acrio n Interim fInal rule.
SUMMARY: The Ern’i;onrnerital Protection
Agency (EPAI is prcmulganng an
interim final rule on the award of
financial assistance under the Clean
Water Act (CWA) for the National
Estuary Program (NE ?). Th:s rule
codifies policie, and procedures for
financial assistance a aj-ded by EPA to
state. iri erstaIe. and local agencies and
other eligible agencies. instiiuiiong,
or 5anlzat :ons. and individuals for
pollution abatement and control
programs under the NE?,
DATES: Effective Date: This interim final
rule is e1fecti e on October 3, 1989 EPA
will accept public comments on this ruLe
until No ember 2. 1989 The docket for
this rule and copies of the public
comments submitted will be avatiable
for public inspection and copying at a
reasonable fee at EPA Headquarters
Library. Public Information Reference
Unit. Room 2904. 401 M Street SW..
‘Vashangton. DC 20460. Telephone 2O2)
,82—5928.
ADDREI$U: Comments may be mailed
to Mr Thomas Armitage, Office of
Marine and Estuarme Protection (WH—
556F). U.S Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M Street SW. Washington.
DC 2046
FOR FURThER IWFO*UAT)Ow CONTACT:
Mr Thomas Arrmtage, (202) 473—7376.
SUP LLMCWTA Y INFORMA *
I. Backgrowid
The Clean Water Act (CWA). as
amended by the Water Quahty Act of
1987 (WQA). eutablished in section 320
the Naticnal Estuary Program (NEP) to
promote long-term p 1 snning and
management in nationally significant
estuaries threatened by pollutlo .
development, or overuse Overall
responsibility (or the program Is ghen to
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The CWA also
authorizes up to $12 million to be
appropriated by Congress in each year
through 1991 to support the NEP. For
fiscal years 1989 arid 1990, CWA section
205(1) directs the Administrator to
reserve 05 percent of Title LI fund.
appropriated for construction grants for
carr ing out the NE?. EPA Is today
promulgatIng a regulation outlining the
eligibility requirements for receiving
funds under the NEP arid specifylr.g the
general contents of an Annual Work
Plan to be prepared by Management
Conferences convened by the
Administrator under the Act.
I. Description of the Not;on . ) Esiuor ,
Ptogroni
The NE? is managed by EPA, Office
of Marine arid Esluanne Protection
(OMEP) to identify nationally signi cant
estuaries threatened by pollution.
development, or overuse, and to
promote the preparation of
comprehensive conservation and
management plans to ensure the
ecological integrity of these estuaries
The program seeks to protect and
improve water and sediment quality.
and to enhance living resources. To
achieve these general goals. the IP
conducts activities to help to:
• Establish working partnerships
among Federal. State. and local
governments
• Transfer scientific arid management
experience and expertise to program
participants
• Increase public awareness of
pollution problems and ensure public
participation in consensus building
• Promote basinwide planning to
control pollution and manage living
resources
• Oversee development and
implementation of pollution abatement
and control programs.
The NE? builds on the experience of
the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake
Bay programs as well as six programs
Initiated In 1985 and 1986 In
Narragansett Bay In Rhode Island.
Buzzard, Bay In Massachusetts, Long
Island Sound In New York and
Connecticut. Puget Sound In
Washington. San Francisco Bay in
California. and Albemerie/Psnillco
Sounds in North Carolina. Thea, efforts
provide useful models end lessons for
the NE?. One lesson Is that the success
of these programs in Identifying and
controlling pollution evolved from a
phased process: identifying pollution
problems, evaluating alternative
solutions. and recommending acid
Implementing cost.effeclive plan. to
alleviate the problems. Perhaps more
Importantly. these experience. indicate
that collaborative problem salving I.
crucial to the success of an estuary
program. The collaboration process
Involves all concerned parties In every
phase of the program acid secures
commitments from these parties to carcy
out recommended actions.
Drawing on the lesions learned from
these programs. the NE? focuse. on the
most significant problems. uses existing
and readily available data. emphasizes
applied research. provides funding for
specifically targeted research, end
employs time-tested and cost effective
management strategies to meet lt.s
Congressionally mandated purposes.
These technique. lead to early
protection and corrective actions a. well
as erncierit use of allocated resources.
(a) Water Quality Act of 1987
Prior to the enactment of the WQA.
EPA made assistance awards for
estuary activities based on its broad.
ger.erel authority contained in section
104(b)(3) of the CWA. In the WQA.
Congress provided a specific
authoriza non for the NE? Section 317(a)
of the VQA declared that the increase
in coastal population. demands for
development, and other direct and
indirect uses of the estuarie. threaten
these unique bodies of water Section
317(b) of the WQA amended the CWA
to add a new section 320. Under section
320(a). the Governor of any state may
nominate an estuary located wholly or
partly within the state and request that
a Management Conference be convened
to develop a comprehensive
conservation end management plan
(CCMP) for the estuary. Such
nominations must document the
national significance of the estuary, the
need (or the conference. arid it.
likelihood of success The nomination
must also show that ad Jtional control
of point and non point sources of
pollution Is necessary to attain or
maintain the water quality required to
protect public water supplies, protect
and propagate balanced, indigenous
populations of shellfish, fish. arid
wildlife: and allow recreational
acihitles in and on the water.
lii response to a Governor’.
nomination or on hi. own Initiative, the
EPA Administrator Is to determine
whether the attainment or maintenance
of a desired level of water quality in an
estuary requires additional pollution
abatement and control proçam. to
supplement existing controls. The
Adznini,trstor Ii authorized wider CWA
section 3*s)(2)(A) to select such
estuaries and to convene Macagement
Conferences to develop CQi4P$ for
managing the estuaries. The conferees
are charged with developing plans that
balance the conflictIng uses (a the
estuary while restoring or mainta(rtlng
Its natural character.
CWA section 320 also authorizes the
appropriation of up to $12 million per
year dirough fiscal year i91 to support
-------
1.aeral Re later / Vol. 54, No. 1 J I Tuesday. UctoD8r 3, iue c tiles artd KSU]itlona
the NEP. These funds must be
appropriated annually by Congress to
support grants or coopers tiv*
agreements under section 3 I(g).
monitoring the Imp’ementatIon of a
CCMP by the Management Conference
or the Administrator, and the
administration of management
conference, (not to exceed 10 percent of
the annual appropriation). These funds
assist in developing and conducting the
initial three of four phases of an estuary
program. as described below.
In addition, other sources of funds
have been authorized or appropna ed
for estuary program activities. Section
205(l) of the CWA reserves funds to
support section 320 activities. For
convened Management Conferences.
EPA currently uses portions of these
funds to support Priority Action
Demonstration Projects These projects
are d”signed to test. In part of an
eEuary, important environmental
actions that have implications for the
whole estuary. The CWA specifies this
fund to be ‘a of 1.0 percent of the
secttort 207 funds appropriated under
title 11 of the CWA in fiscal years 1987
and 1988. and Si oIi.0 percent of the 207
fun ls i.n fiscal years 1989 and 1990.
Grants under section 320(j) using
section 320 (i) fu.-rds or section 205(1)
funds rats only be used for activities
leadir.g to the preparation of CC lPs.
Section 320 (g) grants cannot be used for
impeme ntati cn.
Fuz ding for unpiementation activities
may be available under CWA title U.
title VI. and section 319 to the extent the
activities meet the applicable
requ:rements of these provisions.
(b) Ma’ching Funds
Assitance awards under section
3 0(g) using either section 3 (g) or
sections 205(1) appropriated funds for
each estuary program must be matched.
in proportion. by non-Federal funds..
Cons scenl with CWA section 320(gXS).
EPA is requiring that 25 percent of the
total estuary program coat be provided
from non-Federal sources. The Annual
Work Plan developed and approved by
the Management Conference must make
a demonstration showing that non.
Federal sources provide at least 25
percent of the a egsIe Costa of
research. surveys, studies. modeling.
and other technical work necessary for
the development of. C MP for the
estuary. Each assistance application
must contain * copy of the Annual Work
Plan that demonstrates the 25 percent
match r.quirement Ii being met.
In many cases. reclpienLs of
Individual assistance award.. may nut
be required to provide matching hinds
for their projects because the aggregate
cost share Is being provided by a stat.
or a third party. Nevertheless. because
such assistance awards are conditioned
on compliance with the aggregate cost
share requirement. the recipient remains
responsible for matching funds LI they
are riot provided as specified In the
Annual Work Plan.
fo) Phases of an EstuAry Program
Once an estuary has beers selected for
inclusion in the NEP. the Administrator
convenes a Management Conference to
oversee Its activities. The CWA defines
seven purposes for the Management
Conference:
1. Assess trends In water quality.
natural resources, and uses of the
estuary.
2. Collect characterize, and assess
data and identify the causes of
environmental problems.
3 Evaluate relationships between
poilutant loadings and environmental
effects.
4. Develop a CChD’.
5 Develop plans with states and other
agencies to coordinate implementation
of the CCMP.
8. Monitor the effectiveness of actions
taken pursu.ant to the CCMP.
7. Review Federal financial assistance
programs and development projects for
consistency with the CCMP.
To accomplish these purposes. the
Management Conference first organizes
the management framework for the
estuary program—the Planning imilative
in Figure 1. Acthitles relating to the
se!,en purposes are then divided among
the three remaining phaseE
CharacterizatIon. CC? U’ Development.
and CC.% Implementatioa.
During the Characterization Phase. the
Management Conference objectively
assesses the state of the estuary and
evaluates existing management
programs designed to protect the
estuary. CharacterIzation Is the basis for
Identifying and selecting the problems to
be addressed by the CCMP.
In CCMP Development. the
Management Conference eatabhshes
Implementation goals and objectives
through a collaborative process and
determines desirabl, and atiowable
u.es for the entire estuary and parts
thereof. The goili may range from
maintaining present conditions to
restoring the estuary to a past condition
to maintaining pns tine quality. Cost-
effective pollution contral and resource
management strategies. designed to
meet each ob ectlve. are the core of the
CC? W.
After carefully evaluating the
strategies. the conferees select for
Implementation those strategies that will
produce tha greatest envtrOtimtntal
benefit—in the most cost.ffectiv. aiiJ
the most timely manner.
The final phase Is Implements
the CCMP Strong public support a
poLitical commitments are required
accomplish the actions agreed upon In
the CC?.W A key objective of the NEP iS
to help foster the necessary support a
commitment for successful Staid local
implementation.
(d) Planning for Estuary Programs
As provided in I 35. )O5. EPA Is
establishing a three.level process to
assist individual estuary programs with
planning and oversight of their activities
and to manage the funds available to the
NEP. The first level of planning Ii the
Five-Year SIateIEPA Conference
Agreement that Is developed by each
Management Conference shortly after it
Is convened. This Agreement eet out
milestones to be achieved over the term
of each proyam.
Based on this Agreement. OMEP sets
budgetary targets for each Management
Conference when the budget for the NEP
is announced in each fiscal year. These
budget targets establish the amount of
F deral funds available to the
C .nslerence (the NEP contribution) an3
are used to support activities carried out
by each Management Conference in a
gt en year as specl ed, ’o the
Agreement. Given the posaibility
required acu ties may change di.
the course of the Characterizations ani
CC Development phases.
Management Conferences may request
that OMEP reconsider previously
established targets prior to the budget
cycle.
The second level of planning
culminates In an Annual Work Plan
which Is developed by the Management
Conference usIng the budgetary targets
provided. ‘Tbcse Annual Work Plans
present progress to date indicate major
program directions necessary to meet
previously established milestones.
document projects to be undertaken in
the upcoming year. end specify funds to
be used to support the projects. They
also document the way in which 25
percent program match requirement)
wt l be met.
At the moat detailed level, the third
lesol of planning Is a series of individual
assistance applications that are
prepsied by potential recipients and
submitted to the Regional Administrator
for review. Thes. applications specif) in
dotall the we:k to be conducted, who
will do It. what will be accomplished
and how, sad the cost, and schedule for
completion to meet the overall goats fr
the work on a project.bY.Proiect be’
Assistance applications are cue
-------
40800 - Federal RegIstet 1 Vol. 54. No. iaó J Toesday, October3, 1989 J Rules and R u1adoni
i te same as other grant applications for
EPA fur di. but the YCEP ias certaIn
additional reqmremerrts. as addressed
below.
a) Annual Cycles
The first three phases of an estuary
program f i e. Planning Initiat ive,
Chara cteriza non and Problem
Definition, and CCMP Development) are
completed within 5 years
lmplementa non may equire as much as
20 yeari before all gcal.s set in the
CCMP can be acb’ eved.
Within the major phases of each
estuary proje . there are annual cycles
fnr program rrnew. assislance
applications, and project activ i ty.
Although there is some flexibility in the
annual cycle. OMEP ericouragee each
Management Conference to adopt a
cycle that al lows for completing Annual
Work Plans and assistance application
reviess within the firit quarter (by
anun I I of each Federal fiscal ,year ti
October to 30 September) A typical
annual cycle IFigire) calls For
establishing progrsti targets for total
expenditure on each estuary program by
October 15. submitting draft
Management CSe.rence Annual Work
Plans by Denher 1. and submitting
assistance apphcanons by January 1.
However, the mial schedule
depends on the th:e a rt which OMEP is
‘ brmed of:ts azzual biidgel. If
ogress do iiot appropiate Funds
.til after Octobert OMEP will not be
able to inform conferences of program
targets tnt] a t least 2 weeks alter it has
been informed of its budget The
schedule for such a year will be delayed.
(fl Dei.e opmeni and Submission of
Aniiua %%‘ork Plans and Assistance
Appl icobons
As specified in 359065(b ). the
Annual Work Plan for each estuary
program must be approved by the
Management Conference before
ind Ividual assistance awards can be
made b) the Regional Administrator.
Annual Work Than should be prepared
within O days of the receipt of targets
for that year The Management
Conference must submit $ draft Annual
Work Plan to EPA Headquarter, tbvugh
EPA Regions for renew and comment
before final rat-Jic.ationby the
Management Conference.
thdividoal ass’.stance applications
may be developed at the sane time as
the Armus] Work Plan, but should not
be subtitled tmil after the Annual
Work Plan is approved by the
Management Conference. In FY 1989,
and subsequent fiscal years. assistance
iird decisions wi f l be made by the
Reglonsl Administrator and thus
applications shcoldbe se n to the
apps’oprtate EPA Regional pants office.
In additIon to provid i ng for asststanc.s
awards by ‘the Regional Adnurustratar
to support Individual estuary programs.
the regulations 9359070) authorize the
Assistant Administrator for Water at
EPA Headqunrs to approve National
Program assista.nce agreements.
These headquarters awards are
lunitedioprojects the results of which
have broad appl cabibry to estuaries of
national signilicance and shall be
deemed to be consistent with Annual
Work Plans and Five-Year State/EPA
Conference Agreements approved by
individual management conferences.
Applications for such protects should be
sent to OMEP for considerabon.
Each Assistance Application
subrnrtsed as part of an mdrndual
estuary program must be endorsed by
the Management Conference before
funds are awarded by the Regional
Aimin±stator This requirement ensures
tha i the ?Aariagement Conference has
control o er how funds are spent on Its
estuary. This requirement also allows
the Management Conference to direct
the effort tobe conducted on its behalL
ensuring that each project is consistent
with annual goals and cbjectves of the
Management Confertce.
(g) E aluation otA.nrual Work Plans
Section 35 9065 Ib) and (c) of the
regulation require the compilation of an
Annual Work P lan. This ‘reqwrerrient
allows each Management Conference to
review Its current activities in light of it.s
goals and pastact lvities. and
encourages direct focus on necessary
activ’ es for the upcoming year. The
Annal Work Plan should be the result
of extensive planning and review by
each of the conference comminees and
should represent a consensus on
directIons to be taken.
The Management Conference’s
development of the Annual Work Plan
should address the following questi ona:
• Rave successes and (allures In the
program In the previous year been taken
into account 1st planning the activities of
the upcoming year ?
• Is p anned work foe the npcomxng
year consistent with be seven purposes
of be Management Conference
cpeci$ed Ineectlon 333(b) of the CWA?
• Is planned work for the upcoming
yeas directed toward meeting negotiated
milestones contalnedb the Five-Year
State/EPA Conference Agreement?
• Will Individual projects undertaken
diai’lng the upcoming year obtain
informat ion necessary to further define
problems or develop solution..?
• Are the problems to be addressed
during the upcomIng year significant to
the entire estuary?
• Is there a demonstratIon aIthe 23
percent program cost sbare l
(h) Evaluation ci Assistance
Applications
Based on the information presented in
each Assistance App bcation. the
Rejionul Administrator approves or
disapproves each applicauon on the
following co tena:
• Is the work. achedule. and budget
consistent with the Annual Work Plan?
• Has the proposed work been
adequataly reviewed by the
Management Conference. Conference
committees. EP& arid i 1 appropn ate.
other peerreviewers’
• Do the benefits of the proposed
effort exceed the costs of obtaining the
products?
• In the case of cooperative
agreements. is there substantial Federal
involvement in the project? (Cooperative
agreements require some form of
substantial Federal involvement.)
• lathe organization that would
perform the work qualified to do so?
• ls’the2S percent non-Federal cost
share requirement of CWA section
310(g%3) being demonstated?
It Annual Work Plans
- Each year a Management Conference
sets realistic goals using the resources
available. These goals are enunciated in
the Annual Work Plan, desIgned as a
blueprint for ‘their schievemen1 Such a
blueprint Is a measuring stick agaipat
which to gauge the successes, delays.
and failures of program activities and to
identify the need. if any. to redirect
program efforts. Accordingiy. It must
Indude a number of elements, each
dealing with $ different facet of the
designed program. These elementa are
discussed below.
(a) introduction
As provided in j 35S065(c)(1). the
Introduction to the Annual Work Piaa
must Identify and discuss the mafor
goals and milestones pursued in the past
year and establish the goals and
milestones to be achieved In the year to
come. Coalt are based on the five-yeas
program goals established by tha
Management Conference. They are
comprehensive and broad by desIgn and
will dictate the oven]] scope Or primary
emphasis of the program fur tha
upcomIng year.
An expIration of the key sctivl tin
undertaken to accomplish these goals
also should be Included In the
Introduction. This narrative should not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3. 1989 / Rules end Regulations’
4O8
d 1 sc ,, the .ntlrety of the proiects or
tasks performed, but rather should
relate how attainment of goats was
furthered, It should stat. whether the
goats pursijed were achieved, and If not.
it should discuss any Important
Information obtained from the endeavor.
lnforn ation acqu red from pursuit of
past goals may cause modification of
existing goals or redistribution of
program resources and efforts. It is
expected that t ie Management
Conference wiil taka a flexible app:oach
to drafting and implementing the Awiual
Work Plan Goals and milestones will be
established at the beginning of the year.
but as activities mike more definitive
technical information available, these
goa!s and milestones may be updated.
This re .evaiuat ort and re-orientation
can be conducted informally duru g each
year, but is formally documented in the
upcoming years Annual ork Plan.
(b) Fund Sources
As provided in 35.90 ’35(c)(2). before
the Ajir ,ual Work Plan can be adopted
by the Management Conference, the
kinds and amounts of funds to be used
in the upcoming year must be
documented. These funds may come
from a variety of sources and take a
variety of forms. Mostly. the funds will
come from Federal and State
government sources, but i ill be
aug.”iented with funds from private or
local government organizations.
Fund sources must be summarized In
a table showing the source of funds to
be used during the upcoming year (e.g..
EPA. state matching funds, state in.kind
services, or private donations), the
amour.t c i funds committed during the
upcoming year, and the specific type of
award or fund within each source during
the upcoming year (e.g Clean Water
Act section 320. state appropriation, the
type of state ui-kind contribution, and
other pnva:e sources olfwtds). The
table must üirlude. at a minimum. bun
types of sources:
• CWA section 32mg) funds
• CWA section )5(1j funds
• Matching fund, (from non.Federal
sources)
• Matching in-kind contributions
(from non-Federal sources).
The table must also quantify the total
amount of funds. by source, to be
devoted to the ‘EP FIgure 3 Is an
example of the Fund Sources Tabis.
When a Management Conlerence uses
in.kind cart tnbut:ons or services as part
of Its matching share, It must .ventuutl
p;ov de an accounting of the sources o
funds for those contributions. The CWA
requires that matching funds come from
r.on-FederaI sources. Thus. details of
appropna non.. gifts, or non-Federal
grants that support these projects must
be specifically Identified iii the Annual
Work Plan.
(c) Projects
in addition to Information on the
amount of funding arid Its sourcebs).
consistent sith U 33.9063(c)(2) and
33 9063(c ) (3), an acceptable Annual
Work Plan contain, iriI irmatIon on how
f. r.ds ha re been spent in the past year
and hew the Managerne t Conference
p ans to spe id funds in the upcoming
} ear.
Te discussion should be project.
specific—a three- or few-sentence
d scusston of the activities of each
project to be undertaken during the
upcoming year in relation to the seven
purposes of the Management
Conference. The narrative description
explains the relationship between the
product for each project and the
Management Conference purpose being
served and outhnes the activities being
conducted as part of the project For
example. phrsses such as ‘field
collection of data to identify the cause
of algal blourns” tell the reader the
nature of the activity and Likely
products, end relate directly to the
Mar.a emen Conference purpose of
identifying causes ci enviroruneotsi
problems. The rest of the narrative can
describe project stat’is and any
problems or results that have been
reported. A table summarizing tusks will
include the following Items:
• Project or task namr
• Products delivered or to be
produced:
• Schedule for (or date of)
completion.
• Total projected (or actual) cost
• Source of hmds
• Respcns.ble organization.
A sample format Is shown in Figure 4.
U1 . Assistance Apeement Appllcatloes
Before EPA will aflocat. Federal grant
funds for any estuary program, the
organization or agency requesting the
funds must submit the appropriate
completed application forms.
In accordance with f 35.9065, the
application must have been appro ed by
the Management Conference and be
consistent with the Annual Work PLane..
Is’. addition, projects must comply with
applicable adminIstratIve requirements
contained In the 40 CFR parts * 30,31.
3. 33, and SOss well as other applicable
Federal laws such as the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA). In
Implementing these requirements. O)v
policy specifies that projects must h.av ,
a combined work/quality sisurance
project plan and Office of Research and
De’.elopmenl LORD) concurrence,
IV. Effective Date
This regulation Is effective
Immediately The only purpose of this
rile Is to codify policies and procedures
for financial assistance awarded by EPA
under the t’ .I’EP. Accordingly, this Is a
grants-related Me arid the
Adininistra live Procedure Aol, 5 U S C.
533(a), does not requir, that it be
published. Iii p:opoaed form. pnor to
promulgation.
V. Executhe Order 12291
Under Executive Order 22291, EPA
must judge whether a new regulation is
“major” and therefore subiect to the
requirement ala Regulatory Impact
Anaysis. These amendr ertts do not
satisfy arty of the criteria the Executive
Order specifies for a major rulemaking.
Therefore, this is not subject to a
Regi.z!atory Impact Analysis
This regulation was submitted to the
Of!ice of Ma agement and Budget
(0MB) for review as required by
E ecutlve Order 12291. Any comment,
from O! tB and EPA response to those
comments are available (or public
inspection at the EPA Public Information
Reference lJrut Room 2904. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 402 ‘.1
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Information collection
requirements contained In this intenm
final nile have been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (0MB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980,44 U.S.C 3 et
seq. An information Collection Requeit
document ha. been prepared by EPA
(ICR No, 1500) and a copy may be
o’otaLned from Harold Woodley,
lr ’lormstion Policy Branch: EPA 401 M
Street SW. (PM-223) Washington. DC..
20480 or by calling 1202) 382-2738. ThIs
ICR covers the information collection
requirements in both the Financial
As tstance for the National Estuary
Program Regulation and the Guidance
on the Contents of the Governor’s
nomination.
Public reporting burden for this
coUectton of information Is estimated to
average 2500 hcu.rs foe sack of ths
governor’s nominations under the
Guidance and 50 boors for each of the
annual work plans under the Regulation.
Send comments regirding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of Information. Including
su estions for r,du&g this burden . to
chief. Wormadoo Policy Branch. P%I—
222. US. Environments) Protection
Agency, 401 M Sireet SW.. Washington.
DC wae and to the Office at
Informs tion and Regulatory Affairs,
-------
4 O2 F.d al RagLsL I Vot 54. ¶ Jo. 190 I Tuesday, October 5. 1989 Rules gnd ReBulations
Office of Management and Budget.
Washington. DC2 O3. marked
“8ttentlon: Desk Officer for EPA.” The
‘ zial rule will teipond 10 any O or
blic omention the Information
..olleciton requirement, contained In this
niterim final rule.
V I I. Rigulatosy FIsidbflity Ad
EPA did not develop a egulato
flexibility Analysis for this regulation
becauee cant regulations are not
sublect to the analytical requirements of
sectIons 603 and 604 of the Regulatoi7
Flex.ibliuty Act.
Wllflam K. R 1j.
Adnunirnotor.
UiI oT Sub scts in CTR Past 35
Stale and local assistance.
s J os
-------
PlannIng Initiative
I Charoclerizallon
CCMP Development
Implementation
OM P notiliod ol buck,jet
Esluavy targets set
FI ur. I. Ph.... of a Typ$c*1 I.t ary ProJ. e
Draft Annual WoiK Plans due
Review 01 Annual Work Plans compte led
Cooperaliv Agreement Appbcallons duo
1 Doclsions on C operatlve Agreements made
MdesIar.e we k aRe, O AEP
nutiedol c vlaj fk1.
fweek
1..!I!
Ii
20 24 28
IIII$IItIIII1!IIIlIitII I
32
III
I
36
Iii
40 44
11111111
48,
111111
I
October
October 1
15 Februavy4
.January7
December 24
Pecember 10
Dates of n s’o*s wf n OM P
hea’s fbu ef a wjat nj
I.
V uI. 5. CycIq of Sub.$•itoø .sd lsvlew of AOnu l Vorh PIaes
•nd Coop.r tIv• A,.t.taqc. ApplIcaeWq
— 5 yea ’s
iipio2O yeats
F
I
I
I
•iiij q __ . 5 4.40
-------
40804 Federal Register / Vol. 54. No. 190 JTuesday. October 3. i9 f Rules and Regulations
FIgure S. Sample Table of Fund Sources ‘ FUNDuIG TatE. FISCAL. Ya..aa 1989—
FUNO ENO Tat.E. FISCAL YEAR t989 Continued
Fuwou9 Taii. Ftsca. YEAR ‘989—
Continued
Soi,a ol 1it5
Mo n
type 04 iwwd
5e 04 MS Anon f TpVs Watt
o ‘i”s I l it. o and
EPA -. - . 54% 000 tWA Sect 320 p,,,s Oonaons J S e 000 C4nVbjtorl EPA 9w.- 5400000/5625000 .64%
Sisi. MsW’cg 25000 S In I I (SPYS tm as 1 R.c. Stiar...1235.0001562 5000a38%
App ’s I 1
Stat. Sstva,r 52000 h*catwflQ 1- —1
K it. P iopsa Toiall,rtthtg....i 625000 I
Figure 4 Sample Table of Pro;ect S:anu,
Pnojact STATUS Thati FiSCAL YEAR 1989
-‘-
Proci rs
Mansgrr
60niw. ,a
Pu’PO54
dewred/
Cm a ’
Coat
Son. 04 hits Pseponiole ugnzaton
I
Pn
I S O .
,
(pecsni)
Wails load sflocauwt
tm
NPOESoomptaecs r on
UPS etuay reconwtend.
l,2........ ......... 1 Sludyrsco.i
1
1 2. ss3 ..4 S.snnwy o4 onenpWc.
by seth pscmflsd
‘ V
2 ,3 srid 4 - . Rsconvnsndsd t IPS onn.
but
10/1/91
3 /30.59
101 l193
1160000
10000
30000
60000
EPA........... Jstat. W its Ouay Man-
1 flms Offce
S lats Appeogrston Stat. NPVES Pvogam
27 527ic). Otfa
1
EPA
Sian A opnato’ Stat. Wits Psaou’cn
27S2 1 (q i Sca ld.
0
2$
‘00
I _ _ _ _ _ _
-
Minagnelt conlnnc. anon Iflt5fl a’s to Uas sr anoaa 01 a mnra’.sm nfet 5 P ’ t tt ec on 320 04 TM Oar Wile Act TM
co lumn p’DvOes an rOcabon 04 I re PuQOsfltsl servud by eacn WOteCt
For the reasons set out in the
preamble. title 40. chapter 1. subchapter
S. pan 35 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. is amended as follows:
PART 35—(AMENOEDI
I Pan 35 is amended by adding an
‘uthonty citation ic subpart P to read
as follows:
Authority Sec. 320 of the Clean Waler Act
as smenàed (33 USC. 1330J.
2. Subpart p is added to pan 33 to
read as follows:
Subpafl P—Financial Assistance to , the
National Estuary Program
Se c
339000 Applicability.
35.9006 Purpose.
33 ,9010 Deftnitlons.
35 aits Summary of annual procns.
35.9020 Planning lain.
35 90 Work program.
359035 Budget penod,
35 9040 Application for assistance.
35,9 S EPA action on applicabon.
35.9050 Assistance amount
359033 Evaluation of recipient perfoe nra
3&9060 Maximum Federal sbass
35.9005 Linutatlona.
339070 National program assistance
agreements.
Subpart P—Fbsanclai Auislroe for
the National Estuary Program
4 359000 A.pØcabsty .
This subpart codifies policies and
procedures for financial assistance
awarded by the EPA to state. interstate.
and regional water pollution cont’ol
agencies and entitles and other eligible
agencies. tnstituttons. organt1attons. and
indanduals for pollution abatement and
control programs under the Nationa l
Estuary Program (NEP). These
provisions supplement the EPA general
assistance regulations In 40 CTR paris
30 and 31.
* 355001 Purpose.
Section 320(g) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) authorizes assistance to eligible
states. agencies. entitles. Institutions.
orgs.nizaticns. and Individuals for
developing a comprehensive
conservation and management plan
(CC(Pl for an estuary.
, issoio De imeas.
Aazea ate Costs. The total cost of all
research. surveys. studies. modeling.
and other technical work completed by
a Management Conference during a
fiscal year to develop a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for
the estuary.
Mnuoi Work Plan. The plan.
developed by the Management
Conference cccli year . which documents
projects to be uztderiaken during the
upcoming year. The Annual Work Plait
Is developed within budgetary targets
provided by EPA.
Five- Year S l ate/EPA Conferena
Agreement. Agreement negotiated
among the States represented In a
Management Conference and the EPA
shortly after the Management
Conference is convened. The agreement
identifies milestones to be achieved
during the term of the Management
Conference.
Management Conference A
Management Conference convened by
the Administrator under Section 320 of
the CWA for an estuary in the NE?.
)Vhtianaa’Psvgmm Assistance
Agreements. Assistance Agreements
approved by the EPA Assistant
Administrator for ‘Rater for work
undertaken to accomplish broad NE?
goals and objectives.
Work Program. The Scope of Work of
an assistance application, which
identifies how and when the applicant
wilt use funds to produce spec3fic
outputs.
I 35.5015 SummaryotsnnhiIlPtOCflt
(a) EPA considers vanous factors to
aflocate among the Management
Conferences the funds requested in the
President’s budget for the NEP. Each
year. the Director of the Office of
Msrlne and Estuarirte Protection Issues
budgetary targets for the NE? for each
Management Conference. These targets
are based upon negotisted Five-Year
StsteIEPA Conference Agreements.
(b) Using the budgetary targets
provided by EPA. each Management
Conference develops Annual Work
Plans describing the work to be
completed during the year and Identifies
Individual prolects to be Funded for the
-------
p .j g fstr- / V a ? . 54, No. 190 I D esdey October 3 198 I Rules and R guIat onz
completion of such woik. Each sppflcmsf
havIng. scope of work .pp , *dby the
Management Confe,en complete ,.
standard D A applicatica. theluding.
proposed work proçim. After the
applicant submits en .pplc.efon. the
Regional Administrator iviews it and.
if it meets applicable requireTnents
approves the application and agrees to
make an awed when funds are
available. The Regional Adm:rustrator
awards asaistance from furid
appropriated by Congress fo, that
purpose.
(c) The recipient conducts ac .iv ties
according to the approved application
and assistance award. The Regional
Admirustra or evaluates recipient
performance to ensure compliance with
all conditions of the assistance award..
td}The Reg2orial Administrator may
use funds not awa.rded to an apptcant
to supplement awards to other
recipients who s.ibmit a score of work
a Dproved by the management
conference for N funds.
(e)The EPA Assistant Adnrin trator
f ’r Water may approve National
Program awards as provided in
35 9070.
35.9020 Ptannlrig targets.
The EPA Assistant Administrator for
Water develops planning targets each
ar to help each Management
Conference develop an Annual Work
Plan. These targets are broad budgetary
goals for total expenditures by each
eltuary program and are directly related
to the activities that are to be carried
out by each Management Conference In
that year as specified in the Five .Year
State/EPA Conference Agreement. The
par.ning targets also are based on the
Director ’s evaluation of the ability of
each Management Conference to use
appropriated funds effectively.
35.9030 Work program.
The work program Is part of the
a pl.catlort for finandal asslstanca and
becomes pa.’t of the award document It
ii part af the basis foe an award
decision and the basis foe management
and evaluation of performance under an
assistance award. The work program
must specify the level of effort arid
amount and source of funding estimated
to be needed for each identified activIty.
the outputs committed for each activity.
and the schedule for dclii cry of outputs.
359035 Sudget period.
An applicant may choose i .s budget
period in consultat on with and subject
tu the approval of he Regional
Adn iinistxaior.
f 359040 Applc.tIo.v f asa t ics .
Each applicant should submits
complete application at least 80 days
before the beginning of the budget
period In addition to meetw.g applicable
requirements contained in 40 CFR part
30 or 31. a complete application must
contain a discussion of perfornanca to
date tinder an existing award, the
proposed work program, and a List ofa.il
applicable EPA.epproved State
strsteges and program plans, with a
statement certfying that the proposed
work program is consistent with these
elements. The annual workplan
developed and approsed by the
management conference each fIscal year
must demonstrate that con-Federal
sources provide at least 25 percent of
the ag .gregate costs of research. surveys.
studies, modeluig. and other technical
work necessary for the de ’ .elo rnent of a
CCMP for the estuary Each application
must contain a copy of the Anc a1 Work
Plan as specified in 35.9065K) (Z} and
(3) for the currer.t Federal fiscal year.
The funding table in the workplan must
demonstrate that the 25 percent match
requi.rements is being met. and the
workplari table of project status must
show the sources of funds supporting
each project.
f 35.9045 EPA action on app8cadoe.
The Regional Administrator will
review each completed application and
should approve. conditionally approve.
or disapprove the application within 80
days of receipt When funds are
available, the Regional Administrator
wiU award assistance based on in
epproied or conditionally approved
application. For a coininuatlon award
made after the beginning of the
approved budget period. EPA will
reimburse the applicant for allowable
costs Incurred from the beginntn of the
budget period. provided that suth costs
are contained in the approved
application and that the application was
submitted before the expiration of the
prior budget period.
(a) Appruici. The Regional
Adjauusu’ator will approve the
application only if it satisfies the
reqwrements or CWA section 320i the
terms, conditions. arid limitations of this
subpart and the applicable provisions
of 40 CFR parts 30. 31. and other EPA
assistance regulations. The Regional
Administrator must also determine that
the proposed outputs are consistent with
EPA gu:dance or otherwise
demonstrated to be necessary end
appropriate: and that achievement of the
proposed outputs Is feasible. considering
the applicant’s past performance.
program authonty. orgsnilalion.
resources, and procedures.
(b) Coadib’onat cppru vol The
Regional Adtriiriistrator may
conditionally approve the .pplTcadcn
after consulting with the applicant if
only minor changes are required. The ’
award will include the conditions the
applicant must meet to secure final
approval and iii . date by which those
conditions must be met.
(c) D sopprovaL if the application
cannot be approved or conditionally
approved, the Regior.al Athncnuu’ator
will negotiate with the .ppkcacii to
change the output commitu ents. reduce
the assistance amount or make any
other changes necessary for approiaL If
negotiation fails, the Regional
Administrator will disapprove the
application in wilting.
{ 35.9354 AulaLwic. wiouilt.
(a) Dete ’rr int.ig the ossistor.i’ amounL
In determining the amount of assstance
to an applicant, the Regional
Administrator will considerthe
? .fanagement Conference planrwi2
target. the extent to which the
applicant’s Work Program is cansistene
with A guidance. and the anticipated
cost of the apphcant’i program relative
to the proposed outputs.
(b) Reduction of assistance amount if
the Regional Administrator determines
that the proposed outputs do not juslift
the level of funding requested. he will
reduce the assistance amount lithe
evaluation indicates that the proposed
outputs are not consistent with the
pnonties contained in EPA g iidar.ce.
the Regional Adniurustrator may reduce
the assistance amount
35.9055 Evaluatton at reciptent
p.ctormance.
The Regional Administrator will
oversee each recipient’s performance
under an assistance agreement In
conauftation with the applicant the
Regional Administrator will develop a
process for evaluating the recipient’s
performance. The Regional
Aninistrator will Include the schedule
for eialuation in the assistance
agreement and will evaluate recipient
perfomiance and progress toward
completing the outputs In the approved
work program according to the schedule.
The Regional Administrator will provide
the evaluation findings to the recipient
and will include these findings In the
official assistance file. lithe evaluation
reveals that the recipient Is not
achieving one or more of the conditions
of the assistance agreement the
Regional Administrator will attempt to
resolve the situation through
negotiation. if agreement Is not reachr
the Regional Administrator may imp’
-------
43806 Federal Register / Vol 54. No.190 / Tuesday , October 3 . 1989 /Ruies and Regulations
sanctions under the applicable
provistons of 40 CTh part 30 or3t
31.9060 Ma mr tideS share.
The Regional Adininirator may
provide up to 100 percent of the
approved work program costs for a
particular application provided thai non.
Federal sources provide at least 2$
perceni ofihe ag. ?ega1e cos ts of
research. surveys. arudiet modeling.
and cther tech.rucai work necessary for
the deveopment cl a comprehensive
conservation and management plan for
the estuary as specified in the estuary
Annual Work Plan for each fiscal year
{ 35.9065 Umltatlons.
(a) Monogement conferences The
Regional Administrator will riot award
funds pursuant to CWA section 32C(g) to
any applicant unless and until the scope
of work and overall budget have been
approved by the Management
Conference of the estuary for which the
s ork is proposed
(bJ Consiszency with work plans, ma
Regional Adnitnistrator will not award
fund, pursuant to section CWA 320(g) to
any applicant whose appLication is not
consistent with work plan elements in
an approved Annual Work Plan and an
approved live-Yen State/EPA
Conference Agreement by the
Management Conference of the estuary
for which the work Is proposed.
(c i EIenieijls of oitnuo! work pions.
Annual Work Plans to be prepared by
estuary Management Conferences must
be reviewed by the Office of Marine and
Estuartne Protection before final
rltJiCatLOn ty the Mansgement
Corference ard must include the
following elements:
(i) introduction—A discussion of
achievements in the estuary, a summary
of activities undertaken in the past year
to further each of the seven purposes of
a Management Conference specified us
section 320(b) of the CWA. the major
emphases for activity in the upcon-.ing
year. and a schedule of milestones to be
reached during the year.
(2) Funding sources—A table of fund
sources for activities in the new )ear.
including a description of the sources
and types (e g.. in-kind contributions to
be performed by the applicant) of fund s
comprising the contribution by
applicants or third parties. and the
source and type of any other non-
Federal funds or contributions.
(3)Prolects—A description oleach
protect to be undertaken. a summary
table of project status llsLlng all
activities. the responsible orgaruz.atioa
or Individual, the products expected
from each protect, approximate
schedules. budgets. and the source and
type of the non.Federal 25 percent
minimum cost share of the agçegste
costs of research. surveys, studies.
modeting. and other tethr.icat work
necessary for the develcpment of a
comprelieiuive conservaticn and
managereni plae icr an estuary.
1 3.5.9070 Nadonal program assistance
agreemanu
The Assistant Administrator for
Water may eppro e the award of NE?
funds (or work that has broad
applicability to estuaries of national
sipsi f lcance. These awards shall be
deemed to be consistent with Annual
Work Plans and Five-Year State/EPA
Confereric.t ?.gne.uienta approved by
Individual management conferences.
The amount of a national program
award shall not exceed 75 percent of the
approved work program costs provided
the non-Federal share of such costs is
provided fro m non-Federal sources.
fFR Doc. aa—n235 Filed iO—2—Ot 845 c)
-------
Iv.
Policy
Memoranda
-------
.r “
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. o.c. 204e0
APR -9-90
oPPICI OP
WAT
SUBJECT: Policy on Storag. of Environment I ta fo the
National Estuary Program
FROM: T’. dor Davies, DirectoL...-
Off ice of Marine and Estu ne Protection
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions I, II, IV, VI, IX, and X
Environmental Servicss Division Director, Region III
The importanc. of data management to the National Estuary
Program (NEP) can not be stress.d enough. Development of an
effective comprehensiv, conservation and management plan (CcMP)
depends on both the quality of informatior on which it is based
and an ability to interpret this information during the decision—
making process.
Responsibility for managing and analyzing environmental data
collected under the NEP lies with the Management Conferences.
These data are used both to characterize the estuaries’ present
conditions and to monitor the effectiveness of actions that will
be iapl.ment.d under Cc31Ps. Management Conferences are
encouraged to consider data management and analysis requirements
necessary to support characterization and monitoring at the
earliest possible time.
In managing the national program, EPA is responsible for
ensuring that all potential users, both inside and outside the
NEP, have access to environmental data generated under the
program. To address this responsibility, OMEPs interim policy
(1986) concerning data storage established that, in the absence
0 f in-place regional or state data management support, all NEP-
generated data would be submitted in National Oceanographic Data
Centsr (P400C) format in machine readable form. These data were
then stored on the National Computer C.nt.r (NCC) mainframes
using an OMEP national contractor for data •ntry, and could be
downloaded locally for analysis.
The Interim policy on storage of NEP data was developed in
the absence of an EPA-approved data management system that could
address the specific characterization and monitoring needs of the
-------
—2—
estuary programs. The Agency’s Ocean Data tvaluatjon System
(ODES) was evaluated in 1986 as a potential data management
system for the NEP. That evaluation indicated that the QA/QC
requirements of ODES were too rigorous for the NEP, data entry
was time consuming, and analytical capabilities were inadequate
for estuary characterization.
Recent refinements to address thes. concerns now make ODES
an acceptable data management option for use under the NEP.
Originally developed for the Agency’s 301(h) program, ODES is a
menu-driven system designed specifically for storing and
analyzing marine environmental data. ODES accommodates most
marine monitoring data, and can be expanded to include new data
types as required. The system offers a library of state—of-the-
art statistical routines for’ analysis of marine and estuarjne
data, as well as graphics and presentation capabilities.
LICY
Because ODES is compatible with OMEP’s data storage needs
under the NEP, we are issuing the following policy statements
concerning data management in the NEP:
1.. Management Conferences convened under the NEP are
required to submit all environmental data generated
with NEP fund, to EPA in ODES format and machine
readable form for storage on the NCC mainframe. This
policy applies to data generated with funds awarded in
FY90 and beyond.
2. Responsibility for identifying and selecting data
management support remains with the NEP Management
Conferences. The selection of a data management system
by each program should be based on an evaluation of
characterization and monitoring requirement. for the
estuary.
Please note that the requirement for submission of data in
ODES format deals with data storage at the national level. The
use of ODES by estuary programs for data management and analysis
is an option to be considered along with other existing or
proposed systems.
SUPPORTIIIG nhlORMArIOl
wS are aware of the following issues these policy statements
may raise with regard to data management choices being made by
the estuary programs, arid have developed the associated
responses.
-------
—3—
lIP data already entered in NOOC format on cc majnframe
OMEP’s interim policy concerning data storage required that
all NEP-generated data be submitted in NODC format, in machine
readable form, for storage on the NCC mainframe. Under the new
policy, ONE? will pay for conversion of those data already
entered on the NCC mainframe for roarani that.
for data analysis . The conversion of data from NODC to ODES
applies only to Tier 1 estuaries (Buzzards Bay, Narragansett Bay,
Long Island Sound, Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, San Francisco Bay,
Puget Sound), as they were the only programs that had data
entered into the NCC mainframe under the interim policy.
Miitorical data that will be lied durina estuary
characteriiat ion
Although it is quite likely that historical data from other
sources will be used during characterization, the requirement for
submission of environmental data in ODES format only applies to
new data (i.e., FY90 and beyond) generated using NE? funds. If a
program decides to use ODES for data management and analysis,
historical data (i.e., prior to FY90) will also have to be
entered in ODES format. But since conversion of these data would
- be required for entry to any data management system that is
selected, it will be the responsibility of the individual estuary
programs to pay for entry of these data either to ODES or their
own system for analysis.
Data tvDes aetna aenerated bw the NIP that can not currently be
handled b ODItL .
Although a preliminary review indicates that ODES can
accommodate approximately 90 percent of the data types currently
generated by the NE ?, we recognize that creation of new data
types (e.g., agricultural runoff data, stream flow data) will be
required. We currently have a work assignment in place to
develop two new data types for ODES. These data types will be
identified by polling the NE? Management Conferences to determine
the greatest overall need across the program. ONE? will provide
support, either solely or on a cost-share basis, for creation of
additional data types when a need is demonstrated.
The colt of .nt.rina data intqQ Jf 1
Each Management Conference should cover the cost of
providing ODES formtted data to EPA in their annual work plans.
We r.comaend that grant/cooperative agreement recipients be
informed of the ODES requirement and instructed to Include the
cost of formatting data in their proposals. Menu-driven (dBase
type) data entry packages at. being developed by ONE? for all
ODES data files. Upon completion, these data entry packages will
-------
—4—
be made availabl, to MEP programs for formatting data. Prior to
availability of the data entry packages, data should be formatted
following instructions in the ODES DATA SUBMISSIONS MANUAL
(copies of the manual are being distributed to all NEP Program
Directors).
Once the data hay, been properly formatted and submitted to
EPA, 014!? will pity the cost of snt.ring data into the ODES
database. Our estimates indicat, a cost of S500—$l000 per 15,000
records of data entry into ODES. These costs include
approximately 20 hours of contractor time per data set for data
entry and associated quality assurance (i.e preparation of
summary statistics, identification and confirmation of suspicious
values, preparation of an online QA/QC report). As noted
previously, the cost of entering non-NEP and historical data, not
already on the 0CC mainframe, to ODES will be borne by the
individual programs.
Transfer of data between ODES and other •zistina SPA databases
We have received many inquiries concerning data exchanges
between ODES and the water quality Storage and Retrieval System
(STORE?). Th. formats used by th. two systems do not currently
allow for direct downloading of data from one system to the
-other. However, we ar. pursuing various #ptions that viii allow
data transfers to be accomplished with minimal effort. For
instance, we are initiating work that will allow estuary programs
to download STORE? data on the P4CC mainframe into ODES format.
This will allow the analysis of STORET date from NE ? study areas
using the ODES statistical tools. We will also be modifying the
data entry packages being developed for ODES so that estuary
programs can format data simultaneously for both ODES and STORET.
Use of NIP fund. for the desion and dtvelenment of nev data
manacement svstus
We recognize that there are characteristics that distinguish
th. estuaries designated to the NEP from one another and, for
that reason, each Management Conference should conduct an
evaluation of its specific characterization and monitoring
r.quirea.nts before selecting a data management system. However,
OMEP has a responsibility to avoid duplication of effort within
the national program. Therefore, existing data management
systems (Federal, state, or private) should b given priority
consideration. This may include modification of existing systems
to address specific n.eds. So that ONEP can make a determination
concerning duplication of effort, justification for all proposed
expendttur.s associated with data system design, development, and
implementation should be included in annual work plans developed
by the NE? Management Conferences.
-------
—5—
GrantItCQODSrative agr..minti awarded u dar the imp .
Starting in FY90, grants and cooperative agreements awarded
with NEP funds should contain the following special condition:
“The recipient will, submit all data generated by this
grant/cooperative agreement in Ocean Data Evaluation System
(ODES) format in machine readable form.”
This is a modification of the previous requirement for NODC
format. Any grants or cooperative agreements from previous years
should be amended to reflect this change if they will. requir.
FY90 or later funds. Consistent with regulation. concerning
grants and other federal assistance (40 CTR section 30.900),
noncompliance with terms end conditions of assistarics agreements
can result in the award official taking the following actions:
o Issue a stop-work order
o Withhold payment
o Suspend or terminate the assistance
agreement
o Annul the assistance agreemant
o Request that the Grants Administration
Division debar or suspend the recipient as
ineligible
o Take other appropriate administrative action
o Institute judicial proceedings.
CONCLUSION
We believe that this policy is the best compromis. to ensure
accountability at the national level. while providing the
individual programs the flexibility to determine their own data
management needs. Attached is a summary of cost responsibilities
associated with NEP data management under thi. policy.
Contractor support is available from OWE?, on request, both to
advise estuary program. on broad data management issues and to
demonstrate the capabilities of ODES. If you have any com tents
or questions, please contact me at rrs 382—7166 or Mark Curran of
the Technical Support Division at FTS 475-8483.
cc: Regional NEP Branch Chiefs
Regional WE? Staff
State NE? Program Directors
OMEP NE ? Staff
-------
ATTACI4$ENT
OWO1ARY 0? CO8TI TO O)ISP/I(IP PROGRAXI
UNDU DAT ? 1 MAIIAGIXZNT POLICY
Data Yormattingi
o OMEP pays for conversion of historical NEP data already
on NCC mainframe when ODES will be used by program for
data management and analysis.
o Program pays for formatting new (FY90 and beyond) data.
Data Entrys
o OMEP pays for entry of new data to ODES database.
Data Management and Analysiss
o Program pays for system use, be it ODES or some other
data management system of its choice. Annual cost of
ODES usage estimated at $20,000 for each program that
decides to use ODES, regardless of total NEPS that us..
ODES.
Creation of ev ODES Pile Types i
o Existing ti]. types include:
-Benthic Infauna -Trawl/Seine Catches
-Bioaccuaulation -Bioassay.
-Fish Pathology -Plankton Abundance
-Receiving Water Quality -Primary Productivity
-Sediment Grain Size -Fish and Sh.llfish Landings
-S.diasnt Pollutants -Bacterial/Viral Contaminants
-Influent/Effluent
Measurements
o OMEP pays for development of two new file type..
o Cost share of additional file type. to be determined on
a case-by-case basis.
-------
UNITED SThTES F.NV!ROHMF 4T PPOTECTIO GENC(
OFFICE OF W ITER
SUBJECT: Draft Policy on Storage of Eflv3rortjnental Data for the
Nationaki Estuary Program
FROM: Mary\B: irector
Reso ;e: er t. dfld ? dzTunistrat ion Office
TO: Tudor Da ies.\J’irector
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
I concur with your proposiil as an interim solution until the
information management study we are jointly sponsoring Is completed.
t that time, of course, we will be In a better position to address
the policy question on a longer time frame.
s e discussed last spring, I believe that your staff Should brief
t Pesacriowitz on the policy before it becomes fhial. One issue I
believe you need to discuss with OIRII is the annual costs to OMEP of
entering the ODES formatted Information Into ODES for those estuary
programs that don’t use ODES. This should Include an assessment f
how that cost will change over time as the estuary programs begin
monitoring the effectiveness of their management plans and the vo1u me
of the data that they are submitting increases. I think t would
also be beneficial to discuss the number of estuary programs
utilizing STORE? for storag. of water quality informat on and the
need for this information to be ODES formatted if you are building a
gateway between ODES and STORET this fiscal year.
I .ould like to attend the briefing with M. I would appr ciate it if
you would have Mark Curran coordinate with Wendy Blake-Coleman on
dates for the briefing. I nov you want to have this pac ,ge
finalized by early pril so let me know if I can help expedite a
meeting wtth M.
CC: W nrIy fllake-Colem. ri
.J . rry WiritOv on
Mark C i ii r ’in
-------
,Io I’
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 2O4
OFFICI o
l MO RAN DUI4
SUBJECT: EPA/State Conference Agreements for I Estuary
FROM: Tudor?. Davies,
Office of Marine and Estuarins Protection
TO: Wator Management Division Directors.
Regions I, IV, and Vt
This memorandum sets forth the policy and process for
negotiating EPA/Stats Conf.r.ncs Agreements for National Estuary
Program Management Conferences convened in Casco Bay,
Massachusetts Bay., Indian River Lagoon, Tampa Bay, and
Barataria-Tarrebonne Estuarin. Compl.x.
Background
A critical task in the National Estuary Program is for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states to
negotiat. individual conferenc. agreements intended to achieve
the seven purposes of a management conference as laid out in
section 320 of the Clean Water Act. Thes. seven purpose. are to:
o assess trends in the estuary’s water quality, natural
resources, and uses:
o identify causes of environmental problems by collecting
and analyzing data:
o assess pollutant loadings in the estuary and relate
them to observed changes in water quality and natural
rssourc.ss
o recommend and schedule priority actions to restore and
maintain the estuary, and identify the means to carry
out these actions (this is the comprehensive
conservation and management plan, or CCXP);
o ensur. coordination on priority actions among federal,
stat., and local participants in the conference:
o monitor the effectiveness of actions taken under the
plan: and
-------
—2—
a ensure that federal ass istanc. and development programs
are Consistent with the goals of th. plan.
The first six estuary projrams, known as Tier I estuaries,
approached these task. through very specific agreements
negotiated between EPA and the states that detailed increu entai
program milestc es, products, nd schedules.
Since these first agreeme. t. were n.gotiat.d, EPA has issued
program guidance for nominatinir estuaries into ths NEP. This
“Guidance on the Contents of a Governor’s Nomination 0 has served
as a framework to help nominating states identify environmental
problem., determine needed actions, and also identify
improvements in their base pollution abatement and control
programs. OMEP used the guidance when negotiating conference
agreements for th. six Tier II estuaries to identify meaningful
products and schedules and to develop agreements that specified
only the major elements critical to succ.ss in an estuary
program.
we will negotiat. conference agreements for the five Tier
l it estuaries based on our experienc, with the Tier It
agreements. That means in addition to activities related to
problem identification and characterizatiorr, we will emphasize
improvement in base programs, establishment of an action agenda,
and development of a financing strategy as part of CQ4P
development.
Tb. SPA/state Conference Agr..aent
The EPA/State conference agreement is a written agreement
between EPA and the state(s) participating in a management
conference. The agreement spells out the activities, products,
and schedules by which the management conference will complete
its C MP within five years. At a minimum, the agreement commits
the sponsoring state(s) to:
o establish and support a project office or its
equivalent, to support the activities of the management
conferenc. and its participants:
o tak. early action where problems and solutions have
been identified, such as improving base programs within
the state’s immediate control:
o educate and involve the public in the development of
the CCMP: and
o develop a COMP and it. supporting financing strategy.
-------
—3—
on irforaatjon and priorities deVOlOped during the
nomination prociss, Tier III conference agreements should
identify the following kay activities and products:
t. an identification of priority problems of the estuary
based on public and other input;
2. an i ientory of applicable federal programs to identify
potential conflicts with the final CcXP. This is part
of the consistency reviev required as one of the tasks
of the management conference;
3. an analysis of the current scope and effectiveness of
existing federal, state, and local resource management
program. to evaluate gap., targeting opportunities, or
potential for leveraging. This base—program analysis
is essential for identifying and developing
recommendations of the CCIIP;
4. a financing plan based on state and public input that
considers costs of potsntial pollution control options
and identifies how those options will be financed;
5. final reports on the estuary’s status and trends,
probable causes of environmental problems, and
pollutant loading.. These reports ar. required under
purpose. 01—3 of the aanag.m.nt conferenc. and say be
combined in a final characterication report;
6. a draft CcII that includes a federal consistency report
and plans for coordinated implementation and
monitoring; and
7. a final CO that identifies action plan. for
implementing the CCMP, including:
- a discussion of their likelihood of success;
- lead implementation agencies;
— funding required and the sources of funding; and
— schedule for implementation.
Under program policy, the Office of Water approves
negotiated agreements before transmittal to the Regional
Administrators (RA) for signature. Therefore, OI’IEP will
participate actively in the negotiations, including visiting on
site if necessary. To make the process as smooth and timely as
possible, NEP coordinators in OMEP will work closely with your
-------
-4—
staffs to identify and resolve any issues. Contractor support
.iii also be available, on request, to assist in developing the
conference agreements. After approval by the Assistant
7 1mjnjstrat0r for Water, the agreement viii be transmitted fo
signing by the Regional Administrator and the state Governor(s)
:r the ?ppropriats state ag.ncy official(s). Once a sianed
agreement is in place and the management conference has developed
and approved an annual workplan, authority to award grants under
siction 320(g) of the CWA is delegated to the PA.
We look forward to working with you in this new phase of the
National Estuary Program. Our goal is to complete all five
Tier III agreements by January 1, 1991. If you have any
questions on this policy or process, please contact Michelle
Miller, Director of the Technical Support Division, at
rrs 475—7102, or call on the OMEP NEP coordinators listed below.
Realon i .
Casco Bay Margherita Pryor FTS 475-7176
Massachusetts Bays Ray Mall FTS 475-6182
Reaion IV
Indian River Logoon Stephanie Sanzone FTS 475-7137
Tampa Bay Mary Lou Soscia rrs 475-7109
Region VI
8arataria-Terrebonns
Estuarine Complex Lore Hantske FTS 475-7111
cc: Region I, IV, and VI NEP Branch Chiefs
Region I, IV, and VI NEP Tier XII Coordinators
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WA5HINOIC 4. D.C. 20410
MAY -fl99)
oppIc c I.
WATI
MEXOPANDUX
SUaJECT : National Estuary Progra3 Action Plan Desonstration
Project S.l.ction for FY90
FROM: j3sfrudor T. Davies, Dir.cto ‘
% Off ice of Marine and Estua in. Prot.ctio’h
TO: Water Managu.nt Division Dir.ctors
Regions I, II, IV, VI , IX and I
Environs.ntal Ssrvicss Division Director, Region III
The ulti iate charg. of the National Estuary Progras
Managasent Conf.rences is to develop a Coaprehensive Conservation
and Managuent Plan (CQ P) to restore and protect estuaries of
national significance. The process of developing a CQP as
defined in section 320 of the Clean Water Act includes the
identification of priority probiw, an identification of the
sources of pollutant loads and the d.velopaent of rcoaasndations
for priority actions. In this light, it is anticipated that
Action Plans will be developed for each aajor problas area
identified by the Conferenc. as a part of the CQIP. Once
sufficient progress has been sad. in developing these plans, the
Manageaent Conferenc. is encouraged to tak. action prior to
coapletion of the
Action Plan D natratiea Projects (APDP) aro scaled-down
versions of COIP Action Plans. They are designed to dasonstrate
the effectiveness of s.lsctsd clean-up strategies and
iaprov.sants which can be achieved on a saall scale, and to help
define the tiii. and resources required for basinvide
isplasentation.
A total of approxiastely $600,000 is available for APDPs in
FY90. This is th. third year that Action Plan Desonstration
Projects will b funded. Only those estuary prograss which have
signed Conference Aqree.ents will b eligible to coapete for APDP
resources, and a ainisus 25% non-federal cost share will be
required on each project. The selection of projects will be on a
cospstitive basis across all eligible estuary prograss, with
federal funding not to exceed $75,000 per APDP. Kanagesent
Conferences should subait their best sinale reposal to OMEP for
review. Proposals should include all required intonation
outlined in the attached docusents: Criteria for Selection of
-------
Action Plan Demonstration Proj .cts und.x h. Nationsi. Estuary
Program (Attachment A), and Action Plan Demonstratio, pz je
Proposal ecklist (Attachment B). My staff will b available to
further .xplsin the selection critsria and assist in final
proposal development prior to submittal to OMEP.
As dsacribed in the Criteria for Selection, the propesed
project lust address a priority problem id.ntifi.d by the
g: ent ference. Ther,f’ r in eIecting proposilI th
forward to OMEP, Management Conferences should plac. the highest
priority on projects which are most needed to assist in the
development of CCNPs. However, OXEP is also interested in
funding a range of proj.cts to demonstrat, management approaches
for the variety of priority problems identified at NE? sites.
With the APDPI selected in FY88 and FY89, vs have funded projects
in a number of these problem areas (see Attachment C). In the
selection of FY90 APDPI, we would like to expand our coverag, of
environmental problems where possible. Therefore, we are
particularly interested in receiving proposals which address
impacts resulting from combined sewer overflows, dredging
operations, and shipping and marinas, as well as projects
relating to living resource management.
In order to award all cooperative agreements prior to the
end of FY90, we have developed ths following schedule for
selection and award of APDPsz
Proposals due to O)UP June 20, 1990
O) P selection of projects July 15, 1990
Begin award process August 1, 1990
V. look forward to working with you on ths development of
demonstration project proposals. Them. projects are a vital part
of the National Estuary Program, allowing_management actions to
be tested prior to the completion of Cows and creating momentum
for CO implementation. If you have any questions on the
selection proc. .., please call me at ITS 382—7166, or have your
staff contact Stephanie Sansone at ITS 475—7137.
Attachments
-------
Attachant A
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OP ACTION PUN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
UNDER THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAX
April, 1990
PreDari.ng an Action Plan Deionatration Prolect Proposal
An Action Plan Dsionstration Project (APDP) is a s al1 scale
cap Action Plan. Th, project proposals should call for action
now! rundinq for APDP will not pay for planning, but is
strict. y for inpleaentation of sp.cific sanagesent strategies.
Action Plan develops.nt should be provided through section 320 or
other pollution abat. .nt, control ox reource aanagMnt funding
sources. Tb... projects are b.ing funded to desonstrate the
process of isplissentation and the effectiveness of a control
strategy prior to besinwids application. Ths APDP proposals
subpitted to th. Office of Marine and Estuarins Protection for
funding should discus. each of the ten coaponents described in
the APDP Proposal Checklist (Attacha.nt B). It is i oortant that
each of the coa onenti be addressed under its own section in the
Use of the checklist should ensur. that the proposal
is coaplet..
Selection Criteria
In s.l.cting Action Plan Desonstration Projects for funding,
proposals will be reviewed according to and awards iads based on
the following criteria:
1 • A Managesent Conference convened under the National Estuary
Progras, with a Conference Agr.esent in place:
Projects aust address a priority probles in an estuary with
a signed Conference Agr.essnt under the National Estuary
Prograa.
2. P.rforpanc or progress towards a.etinq relevant coaaitm.nts
aade in Conference Agreesent. and annual work plans in the
priority problea area:
Proposals should deaonstrate that the problea identified for
action has been adequately charact.riz.d arid evaluated arid
show that the cause(s) of the problea hav, been adequately
assessed.
3’ Endorsesent of the Mariagesent Conference:
The project should have the full endorsesent of the
Managesent Corifer.nc., proposals should be signed by the
Chair or Co—chairs of the Policy or Managesent Coesittees.
-------
4. Evidence of strong State and local coa itaent to take the
necessary action:
proposals should establish the coaaiti.nt to action ‘ads by
the respective Stat. and local entitles, plus other
Agencies. co iit ente aust include a iiniaui non-federal
cost ehare of 25% for each project. Coisitsent to snsurinq
regulatory, adainistrativ., financial, end political
cooperation that would enhance project succ.ss is
beneficial.
5 • chances for success and iaprovesents in environsental
quality:
Proposals should establish that the opportunities for system
recovery arid the chances for project success ar. both good.
6. Coapleteness of proposal for priority action:
Proposals aust accurately and thoroughly address all ten
required coaponents, as described in the APOP Proposal
Checklist (Attachasnt B).
7. Basinwide/nationel applicability:
Deion.tration of innovative techniques or approaches which
can be transferred to other watersheds in the basin or the
nation, and viii expand the range of problea areas being
addressed by APOP5 nationally, viii iaprove chances of
select ion.
8. Coalit3ent to develop cost estisates for basinvide
application:
Proposals lust guarantee that the project will include the
devsiopssnt of cost estiaates for full-scale application of
the action plan in order to assist in the developssnt of a
financial plan for iapiwntinq the desonstration project
basinvide.
-------
Attachaent 3
I
AC?IOK PLAN DD1ONSTRATION PROJECT
PROPOSAL CHZCKLIS?
1. Discussion of the problea, identifying the probable
— usea and sources
2. Stateaent of the specific objectives related to the
— problea, source, or cause
— 3. Discussion of the various lanagesent options considered
4. Discussion of the chosen option with referenc. to
likelihood of success, public support, and tias and
resources
— 5. A coaplete outlin, of the specific plan nsaded to abate
and control the probies or protect the resource. Each
outline should address
Q8 Identify who viii act, play, and enforce; spell
out roles and resource coaaitaents for each
participating agency, institution, and enterprise.
wIu : Describ, specific environaentai objectives and
related seasures of success and what viii be done to
attain thea. For ezaipi., specify nua.rically-based
load reductions and use designations in this location.
s Describe the location this project viii affect,
WHEN : Include schedules.
: Outline the procedure used to perfors this
activity.
. Description and schedule of activities to sonitor
success of the ispieasntation action
— 7. Tisotable and description of reports concerning
progress, costs, and results
— S. Discussion of sethods and schedules for review,
reevaluation, and redirection of the project
— 9. -. Discussion of possible basinwide and/or national
application of the action plan
10. Coasitsent to develop cost estisates for basinwide
application of the action plans this inforsation is
necessary to devise financial strategies for
ispiesentation of CQ(P Action Plans.
-------
Arr Nr C
? ria1 TS F1I D4 FY88 ard FY89
A1b rl./Psa1&as nds
sssrd Bay
M1aVST GI$ pr.j.ot
Dslsvar Bay
Dslswar IsisM Says
G.lv..ton My
Isutsiana vstlsnds r..toration proj.ct
1smq Island Sound
Barraganoatt My
$sw York-Mw J.rs.y Marbor
Or.qon ooa.tl rcoourv. action plan
Peconic Bay. WY . artificial w.tlanda proj.ct
Pardido Bay AL. ooop.rstiv. aana .asnt prc j.ct
Puq.t Sound
Salinas Blv.r, Ck, NPS proj.ct
Sarasota Bay
San Prancl.co Bay
Santa Nonics Bay
.o.n souScU
ssOseOINT ICUA ctS
OTHER
tzzç 1 _
—
-
sa
—
-
-
T.ika
‘ —-p-u
&I 4
— — — — —
- -——— -——————---
us IC
LIS
ws* L.
- -
ii
—
-
PS
SAH
Y-
ma
a.,,
U
D I I
GAL
I A
LIS
SAl
,l Ic
P S
SALINAS
SAl
Sr
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20413
- 9 i g
HE cOPANDUM OP
ATIN
SUBJECT: Review of Annual Work Plans
FROM: Louise Wise, Acting Directo Pk) 3 .
T.chnical. Support Division
Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection (WH-556F)
TO: Regional and M.adquart.rs Estuary Program
Coordinators
—
Attached is a checklist to be used in evaluating annual work
plans developed by estuary program Management Conferences. The
new estuary program grant regulation specifies that certain
elements must be included in an acceptabl. annual work plan, and.
that work plans must be reviewed by EPA Headquarters prior to
final approval by Management Conferences. The attached checklist
describes all of the required work plan element.. In order to
demonstrate that the 25 percent cost share requirement has been
met, the new grant regulation also specifies that a copy of the
approved conference annual work plan must be submitted to EPA
with each grant application.
The annual work plan should be dsveloped by Conferences
using budgetary targets provided by OMEP. The plan should be
us•d as a tool by EPA Headquarters and the Regions to gauge
program successes, delays, and failures, and to identify any need
to redirect program efforts. The annual work plan can serve as
an effective program planning document by answering the following
questions:
o Is planned work consistent vith the seven purposes specified
in section 320(b) of the Clean Watsr Act?
o Is the planned work directed toward meeting negotiated
EPA/State Conference Agreement milestones?
o Will individual projects obtain information necessary to
further define problems or develop solutions?
o Have successes and failures in the program been taken into
account in planning the activities of the upcoming year?
o Are the problems addressed significant to the entire
estuary?
-------
o Ii ther. a d onstration of the 25 percent program cost
share?
In requiring OMEP Headquarters review of annual work plans
p:ior to Conference approval, it is not cur intent to dictate
estuary program activities to the Regions. We do feel, however,
that reviowing and co.nting on annual work plans will provide
vJ p H adq uartecs with the opporturdty to offer the R qiun
guidance consistent with national program policy.
-------
Checklist for Evaluation of Annual Work Plans
The work plan must include the following sections: Introduction,
DiscusSiOn of Fund Sources, and Discussion of Projects to be
Funded.
Inl:roductionk
______ Identifies and discusses major goals and milestones
pursued in th. past year.
______ Establishes the goals and milestones to be achieved in
the year to come.
_______ The goals are based on the five—year EPA/State
Conference Agreement.
_______ Explains the key activities undertaken to accomplish
the stated goals.
_______ States whether the goals pursued were achieved, and if
not achieved discusses any important information
obtained from the work.
Discussion of Fund Sources :
_______ Documents kinds and amounts of fund. to be used in the
upcoming year and includes fund sources table (sample
attached).
The fund sources table includes:
_______ The amount and source of funds, e.g. EPA, state
matching funds, state in-kind services, private
donations.
______ The specific type of award, e.g. CWA Section 320 funds,
CWA Section 205(1) funds, State appropriations or
specific in—kind services, or contributions from non-
Federal sources.
_______ A calculation of the aggregate fiscal year cost share
for the estuary program.
Discusaign of Prof ects Funded Inc1udes
_______ Brief discussion of activities to be conducted as part
of each project.
_______ Discussion of how activities relate to the seven
purposes.
-------
_______ A summary table describing the status of each project
(sample attached) including:
_______ The name of each project.
— - Management Conference purposes served by completing
each project.
_______ Products projected for delivery.
- Projected dates for product delivery.
_______ Cost of each project.
• Sources and types of funds supporting each project.
Organization responsible for each proj.ct.
Perc t r federa1 s are.
-------
oeoi Federal R.platseI Vol. 54. Nc. 190 / Tuesday. OCtober 3. 1933 / RUIN hid Regulations
Flgi re 3. Sample Table of Fund gow .ces
FUNOseG TAILI, Ft$CM. Vane 1933
Tsst.i. F sca.i,. YLoR 1931—
co w
FW,OV.O TAa J. Flicel. YIAO 1083—
I S Amn4II So.es 0 .I I — I
I
EPA — $ o0X0 CWA r. rews 4 31000 Co’, .w. £PA ,
, at, I4elirr9 1 i2tXC ItMs
ISise re Sap sic. iev.$Z3S 000. lIZ!
t .J.ct
12000
?o o’.i ii J 3 5 I
Figura 4. Simple Tabl, of Project S arua
PnOJiCT STATUA lasu Fisca’. vu.e 1933
1
I
I
I o en —
£
I
—-,
Co
I
0 *. *., ..s
o1w
I
.-- .
ow,
IRX1 J
m .____
5I .enca ‘,o00
#$ earn swro’.wio..
—
1, L
1
Ii. a’W)
1.3. r 4
$$ y l —
l. p at ...u. ....
d *
‘p.
. NPS oo
, ,
10 11110
S/30 SI
1011110
1100.000 (Pa_______ as w
‘ ° ‘° ___
‘0.000 Stew h_.. Slew P0U O rew
Q
3 0X (,A
00000 Stew A., . ..._ . 5ww w
I I
o
fl
io
• vw w 0. I 0.
0 O 5 5
ata . en -. 0 NC I 32000. eni WIIW . T
For the reasons U I out in the
preamble. t tJe 40. chapter L subchapter
B. pan 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulado a. Is amended as fdllow . :
PAST 35—(AMINCW3
1. Part 33. intended by adding an
utbenty cfta lion Ic .. subpart P to read
.5 follow.:
Aul tly Se 320 of the Ceso W.ter A
ii aThilIlad (33 U S C 2330 .
2. Subpart P Is added to part 33 to
read as follow.:
SuOeNi -fl C ASa 500 I II
N.Uooa (p Proyim
33.1000 Appllcabtluy.
33.0000 Pwpose .
331010 Diftolttoas.
33.1015 Summary 01 annual procesa.
stwng ta, ,ta.
33.0020 Ww pro am.
3S 1 Sud$0
335000 Ap wadon (or asststaass.
33.501* EPA echos as apçllca es.
3’ pw AaiiuIai amoast.
33 l Evaluattoe 01 mapleel port. .
mum Federal abets.
33.9001 LimitaUcas.
33.5000 P sUortel proper .rslslaaas
a esa .nte .
SubØavl P-Fbisidi Aaalstancs go,
Uls NiUon EsSl ary logrsm
This subpart codifles palicies and
proc.dwe. for nanctaJ .a.talanca
awarded by the EPA to state. Lntenlsts.
and re ponal waist pollution conool
agsndes and entitles and other curb!.
ageslaon. inadlultoiu. o?gsrdzatlooa. sod
IndiwlduIa for pollubo abatement and
coit vl propams wtdaz the atiou1
Estuary Pro sm ( Thea.
provisions supplentent the EPA general
assistance regWatlou In 10 CFR pane
SOand3I.
* flM33
Section 3Z g) of the Clean Water Act
(CWAJ suthonres assistance to eligible
stitU. agensile. STUIUIs. Institutions.
organleationa. and Individuals for
develop ng a contprsheusivs
cr’ ’vstion and management plan
(4 for so estuary.
I *9310 tsans .
A ,qar. Caegs. The total cost o(aiJ
reasss m eya. studies. modefta
and eth, tsehnic& work completed by
sI auusnt Conference duruig a
ansl pear to develop a ComptO.oak.
Coourndon and Management Plan for
the estuary.
AerIal Ww*Plaii The plan.
developed by the Management
Conference seth year. which documenta
prn scta to be undertaken dw n the
uprn t ’ig year. lb. Annual Work Plan
Is developed within budgetary targets
previdedbyEPk
FWi* Year S l ot s /EPA Conference
AVeaO1.nI Açoemsnt no gottshed
amOng is States represented In $
Management Conference and the EPA
sbosily after the Management
Conference is ccttveoet The sgreemont
ident fWs nulestonis to be achieved
during the arm of he Man spement
Conference.
Mcnpmsnt Conference A
Management ConI*rsnce convened by
the Administrato, under Section 320 of
the CWA for an eltuar, In the NEP.
Nor:onoJP7ogm t Assistance
Agivsmsnts. Assistance ApeemenLs
approved by the EPA Assistant
Adinthisuator for Water for work
undertaken to accomplish broad NT?
gosis sod oblectives.
War* P ugront The Scop. of Work of
an suistanca application. which
Id.nttfles how and when the epplicarn
will use funds to produce sp,c flc
outputs.
31.N1I k.. y 01 verI oroceas
(a! EPA cocmders vailous factore to
aLlocate among (ha Management
(he flinda requested In the
Presidents budget foe the NEP. Each
year. the Director of the OffIce of
Marine and E.atvsrtne ProtectIon Issues
budgetary targets to, the NT? for each
Management Confer ce. These .ge
are based upon negotiated F1 e Year
Slate! EPA CosIst*ti e Apesmente.
(hi Using the budgetary targets
pr vtdsd by WA. each Management
Cob .fViflCS develops Anausi Work
Plans ducnbü10 the work to be
completed during the year and Idsotifles
Individual pto(eCt* to be funded for ( hi
-------
October 3, 1S$$
Part I V
Environmental
Protection Agency
4a FR Part 35
FInw,dal Assistance for th* NationaL
Estuary Program Intsdm Final Ru ).
-------
, e .s&sv . . 93 / October 3. 1980 / R Jes •n4 Regulauons
INV1RONMV(TAL P OT*C11ON
A 1NCT
Pest U
(?R 4SI1-4)
* I 3 AI$4
P nsoctal AaslsLancs for t 4 N1 O
Estuory Prograsn
AQ1NC? En%irownental ProtecUon
Agency t WA).
U11O ln enm Thai ruis.
suu aav The £nvironmsnial Protcenon
Agency (WA) is promulgating an
inisn ftnal rule on the award of
financial assistance under the C e rn
Wits, Act (CWA) lot the Pclatlo aJ
Eatuaty Proçsm (NEP). Th a nile
codifies polici., end procedures for
finan sl assistance swvded by WA to
state. intsrst.ats. end local ageedes end
other ,IlgibIe agencies. nsdtuUon.s.
orpnizatlons. and ndivtduais for
poflutlon abatement and conomi
prov.ms undes be NW.
oaigm EIf.ctlvs Date: This Interim final
ruis La effecdve on October 3. 1S . WA
wiLl accept public comments on this rule
until November 2.1980. Th. docket for
this rul, and copies of tha public
ccmsniots iubm tted wW be evaUsbie
for public ln .p.cdoo end eop 1ng am
reasona We 1w at WA Meadquartsrs
Library. Public information Reference
‘hut. Room L sot M Stow SW..
Ja.hlngtsn. DC 20400 Telephone (X2)
50080$sSm Comment. may be mailed
to Mt. Thomas Armitags. OfSce of
Mafln. and Latwias Protscfloe (W)
556?). UI En*oiimental Protacflon
Agency. 401 M Susot SW.. Washington.
P05 A TtIU u uaiM?lOss COWTICTt
M i. Thorns. Armitags (J 473 —7373.
&Uw AaV u oau*Tioe.
I. $.ck v
The Clean Water Ad fCWA ) . as
amended by the Water Quality Ad of
isIl (WQA). established In MC1IOn 3
the National Cstwy Pioçsa (NW) to
promote Iong.teim ptansthig and
management iii netlonally alp1l ceM
eitu.nn threatened by poUudon,
dsvslopm.nt. or ovenhla. Ovarsi
ruponsibilily foe the iu sm Is Øvsn to
the UI Cntlionntrnttal Ptotec
Agency (WA). The CWA also
auiho taes up to $11 miULoo to be
appropriated by Con vsa In each yani
through 1801 to support the NW. Fe.
fiscal years till and 1910 CWA section
20341) dIrects the Adrthgctrutar t.
rnei . 0$ parcant of TIde U funds
appropriated for construction pants foe
ca,i 1 not the NW. WA Is today
promulgating a ragulation owIIMng the
efigiblUty requirement. for receiving
lands under the NW sad apecaf 1ng the
ginarsi contents of en Annual Woit
Plan to be prepared by Management
Conferences convened by the
Adminlatralor under the Act.
S. Dncnp ion of the Notional £atisory
The NW is managed by EPA. Office
of Mann. and Estuanne Protecuos
(O?’ ) to Identify nationally sipificant
estuaries threatened by poliuuoa.
development, or overuse, sad to
promote the preparstion of
compmbendvs coowvatlon and
management plans to ensure the
ecological thts ty of these estuaries.
The propam seeks to protect end
Improve wetet and sediment quality.
and to . nbajt living rssouatss. To
achieve these ganarel goal. the NW
conducts activities to help te:
• Establish working parmerehips
among Federal. Stats. and local
govsroments
• Transfer eclentiflo and management
expenence and experbie to propam
participant.
• Loersase public awareness c i
pollution problems and ensure public
participation In consensus building
• Promote bulnwld p ) in g to
control pollution and menag . living
• O ecw. development and
laplemeotados of pollution abatement
and omuul propsas.
The NW build . on die ixpormonce of
the Groat Lakes and the .sapsaka
Bay propame as well usia propams
In itiated to 1980 sad lOSS to
Narragansett Isp to Rhode “ ant
aids Isp to “ etto . Long
“ lend S d to New T ,t and
C scflcit Pages Sound to
Washirgiss. Sea Vfwiaco Sap to
Califoruls. and AlbssesihlPamlico
Sounds to North ComMas. These sifoals
piuvids e.e l models sad Isseons foe
the NW. One lesson to thu the suotiss
of these papeas in Identifying sad
— — ouelved tom
— Identifying poilutios
problems . mba Wig altsrnativs
seIv s . sad recommending sad
Iap’enantias coss.sffsctive plans to
aUssiste the problems . Psitaps more
Importantly, these experiences tadlests
that .o&Lsbeewdv. problem asking to
in the . s . of an estuary
prsps The collaboration process
Involves .11 concerned parties be esiry
phase of the p.,,.am and secures
commitment. from these parl.o In carry
sot recommended action..
Drawing on the lesson. hamad from
these peopama. the NW foceses on the
most signiflcant pro&oms . uses existing
and resdã)y syllabi, date. emphasizes
applied research. presides ft iodlni foe
specd$caily targeted research. sad
employ. tune.tested and cost effective
inaniganent strategies to meet lii
Congreistanilly mandated purposes.
These tadinlqnas lead to early
;roiectfon and corrective act :rs es well
as efflczen t urn of sliocatsd resources.
(a) Water Quality Act of 1957
Prior to the enactmsnt of the WQA.
WA made assistance awards foe
estuary activities based on lii broad.
general authority contained In section
1044bX3) of the CWA. In the WQA.
pm od a dSe
authorization for the ND. Section 317( i)
of the WQA declared that the Loasase
La coastal population. demands foe
development. sad other direct and
Indirect ales of the estuaties threaten
these unique bodies of water. Section
317(b) of the WQA amended the CWA
to add a new section m Under section
32 a). the Cuvernw of any state may
nominate an estuary located wholly or
partly within the stat. and request that
a Management Conference be convened
to dguwlop • cornpebenstvi
conserestlon and management plan
(CQIP) for the estuary. St
namlnadces must docun”t the
national scance of lbs setterS ’, the
need for Lb. conference. and Its
likelihood of success . Tb. nomination
muit also show that additional control
of point and nospoint s..orcaa c i
pollution I. necessary to attain or
maintain the water quality required to
protect public water euppliom protect
and propagate balanced. bndIg.moua
oovulations .1 sb ,llfiik fish. sad
wildlifs . and aflow isguadonal
ectivtties in and .. the water.
In respons , tos C tvernoes
nominetiss or on hi. own toltlatvs. the
WA A toutol I. to determine
whether the attn’ or maintansace
c ia dastad lovel c i water quality to an
ssturnp — additional pollution
abatement and control propama to
supplS eOt — a. The
Administrator Is authorized under CWA
section 3 eKl A) to select such
estuaries and to Management
Ccnfuom in develop . foe
maaa the sriss. Ths comferese
are charged with developing plan. that
boleros the onsP’’g uses Is the
estuary whils essteetas or maintaining
ft. natersi cha r ec2.
CWA pecfl 3tm ala. authednes the
apropslatias dupi .llZtdUIo p.
year thiv Baca) yes, 180 3W suppost
-------
Federsl k. ) v 4, No. 1001 Tunid4j Oct r 3 ’1 , ( l . 4
the NEP. Thee. Panda mast be
appropriated snossily by Coopesa to
support cuts ii cooperative
aptemsnts wider eetlos fi3 .
monitoi1n the h Iasenlatjoo 1 a
CCMPby thsMuittCariterencs
Or L’ le Adminietr$toI. and the
.dmimstrslint o(zanqemeet
con ferencai (not to exceed 10 pe?cent Of
th. annual eppropttatloni. fl,s. funds
ails, in d.vel pin ad conducting the
rnttal hive of four phases of an eItuII7
pro am. as described below.
In addition. other sources of fund.
have been authorized or appropriated
for estuar! propsm actiutUeL Secttoo
5(tj of the CWA res es fUnds to
support section 3 activities. For
convened Management Conferences.
EPA currently us ia portions of these
funds to support Priority Actios
Denionetratlon Projects. Thee. proI.cto
art designed to int.tnpantofu
Siusry. Important environmental
actions that have Implications for the
whole .sniuy. The CWA sp.cl(lee this
fund to be l of 1.0 percent of the
section funds appropriated under
title U of the CWA to scal years I S V
and 1951. and % . 11.0 percent of the 2V
- funds in fIscal years 1995 sad 1995.
Grants wider section 3X(g) using
section 32 l) fuads or section (1)
funds nan only be used for activities
Ietdirg to the preparation of COiel.
Section 32mg) puts can t be used for
Imp lementation.
Fur.dirig for implementation activities
may be available wider CWA title I L
title VI. and section 319 to the ernest the
activities mast the applicable
r.qu r.msnts of thass provisloen.
(b) Matching Fund.
Msistaaca awards under e e ’
3*g) using tither section 330(g) or
section 305(1) approprIated
each estuary propam must be metebed.
in proportion, by noa.Vedenl fonda.
ConEs tent with CWA esctlos $*sX3L
EPA a requiring that a percent
total calvary propase cost be provided
ft ton federal se.ices . The ft i t.l
Work Plan developed end a,p . 4.5d by
the Management Conference ssl saks
a dimonstratios thewlag that uo
Federal sources preside at least 95
percent of the agpageau costs of
nuarr b.. cortege. sivd mo4
and other technical work n,c.uegy for
the development of a G For the
estuary. Each uslstsnce application
must contain a copy of the Anaaai Work
Plan hat demcna?zetes the percent
match requirement Is being t.
In many case.. relpleets of
individual assistance awSMI say Out
be required to provide matching funds
for their pro ed t because the . egste
cost share Is b.th provided by a slate
or a third party. l4ivertheleu, because
such assistance awards are CondItIoned
on compliance with the a ,,at. cost
share requirement, the reoploat remains
respcnstble for matching funds U they
ace not provided as specifIed in the
Annual Work Plan.
(c) Phases t f an E.tuar, Program
Onre an estuary hea been seIec od Far
inclusion in the NEP. the M .&ruI.tialor
convenes a Management Conference to
oversee Its activities. The CWA defInes
seven purposes for the Management
Conter.ncm
1. Assess treads In water quality.
natural resources. and uses of the
estuary.
2. Collect. charectertze. sad asasos
data and Identify th. causes of
envtronmantsl problems.
3. Luluate relationships bstwsen
pa lutant loadings and envIronmental
effects.
4.DevelcpaCCh .
S. Develop place with stitia and other
agencies to coordinate lmpIeeinIatiOfl
of the COW.
S. Monitor the e ecdvenese ctactio a
taken pursuant to the CCiW.
7. RevIew federal fInancial u*tstance
programs and development projects for
consistency with the COW.
To accomplish thee. purpoess. the
Management Conference fIrst ofgal I2va
the management framework for the
estuary propaia- .ths Pliltithig Initiative
In FIgure 1. Acthlties relating to the
seven purposes are then thvtded am ng
the three remaining phases
Oaracterftstlon. COW Development.
and COW Imolementatiom.
During the Cbarac&arludoo aas. the
Management Conference o ectinly
.isesses the stats .1 the estuary arid
evaluates arusting management
programs d.sigead to protect the
eatusa7. arectvtaatios is the basis for
identifyIng and selecting the probtama Is
be addressed by the CC .
In CC Development. the
M nqement Conference establishes
Implementitlon goals and objectives
through a collaborative ass and
determines diatrable and allowable
uses for the coWs estuary and parts
thereof. The goals may range from
maIn’els’ ng present conditions so
mtOltA$ the estuary to a past condition
to maintaining pristine quelily. Cost.
effective pollution coatiol and resource
management strategies. desiped to
meet each oblectiv .. are the core of the
ca .
Al l an carefully evaluating the
strategles. the conferee, select
Implementation these strategies that will
produce the çestest environmental
b,n,fIi... .üi the most CoIt4ff.cti
the moat timely
The Nna lp u. Is lmplemeniauo
the COW. Strong public support and
political commj ents are required to
accomplish the scUon e agreed upon in
the CChW. A k objectiv, of the NEP is
to help faster the Oesusaiy support end
comntt tent for svccaoafi J State/local
(dl Planning foe Estuary Program,
Aaprot1dedln$*9t i7p*ta
establishing a three.Ievel prucasa
assist Individual estuary programs with
p l iii,th 1 and oversight of their actli*tisa
and to manage the funds available to the
! EP. The Lust level of ; 1 nning Is the
FiveYss, Stats1 A Conference
Apaesent that Is developed by each
Management Conference shortly after It
Is convened. Thu Agreement seit out
milestones to be achieved over the term
of each pru ra
Based on this Agreement. OMEP sets
budgetary targets foe each Management
Conference when the budget fot the 1T.P
Is an ooaced In each fIscal year. These
budget targets establish the amount of
F dersI funds available to thr
C.snle,ence (the NEP conathation) cia
are used to support scthitlea carried out
by each Management Conference in a
gIven year as speclZed.’n the
A reement. Civen the possibility t
required actitades may change thu
the course of the Oaractsriutioo ann
COW Development phases .
Managea..nl Coofereocas may request
that OI reconsider prevIously
established targets prior to the budget
cycle.
The second level of planning
culminates In an Annual Wotk Plan
which Ii davetoped by the Manage mrnt
Conference ulag the budgetary tarse s
provided. These Annual Work Plans
present progresa to date. Indicate malor
programdir.c ascaslary to meet
previously established milestones.
document projects to be widartaken in
the upcoming pest, and specify funds to
be used to support the projects. They
else document th. way to whIch 23
percent program match requirements
will be met.
At the moat detailed level, he third
level of planning Ii• series of Indivithual
assistance sppbcations bat ate
prepared by poieotial gecipieots and
subsDti’d to the Regional Administrator
for review . These applicatiocs specify In
detail the wmk to be aducted. who
will do It. what will be accomplis t tid
and how, and the mets and schedule toe
completion meet th. overall goal, f . r
the work on a project ’by’ProI bs
AUIutance applications Sri essential
-------
o oo F.d.reI R. atar/ Vol. 54. No. 190 / 1 sesdiy. O tob.r 1.1590/ Rules tn4 R o1*ttoaa
he same as other pant spplicaocsts for
EPA 1widj butth baa csrtals
additional is thsmnt& an addressed
below.
e)Mnu& Cycles
ro IIn fi.e_ Ptatnin 9 lsutial ’S
Ch araLlenzl lion and Ptoblsm
tlefin ticn. and CQ (P D.,alopmatil) are
c e within 5 years.
1n plsmeniaboct may ?equII as much is
20 yeats b.for , alt oala set to the
CC).IP can be sc eve4.
W thut the vns ot phases of nob
cen ITy pro).ct sr, ire anmialcydes
for propsm ,vrtiir, assistance
eppl cattone. and project a vley.
Aithougb theists some s3dbfflly to the
si ztuit cycle. O encowiges e*ob
Matta3emsnt C srtnce to adopts
cycle Lb*I aliowi for compl.Wt9 Annual
Work P ana and assistance application
rtvtsw withis he fIrst quarter (by
Jaoua l}ofsaobFedarsiflscaJjeu 1
October to 30 ptaber) . A typMal
annual cycle (flwe ) calls for
estabhshgt pw LO ter for total
exp.end nirs on sach ssntaiy propim by
October13. ,ubmtulol draft
Manigemint Conference AaovaI Work
Plans by De ber 2. and subesktul
cu t. ance nppbns.tiooa by Janua. 1.
Howe er the “ -‘ schedule
depends on daa hicbO ls
‘tfou ed of * uaI budiet. U
npiss doer not appru ntaIe Ituods
.int &ft.r Octorberl. O1 will not he
able to Inform confere s of P. wi1
arpi. W ii isut I wieks after It bits
been utform.d of Its budiut. The
acheduls (or such a year MU be delayed.
(I) D a t etopment and S bmlukte of
Annual Work Plans and Ausslaace
Apphco oo n s
As.pedi .dthI33J0e3 ( bJ.Ihe
Mn al Work Plan (c i snob estuary
program must be approved by the
Management Conference befoas
rnd dud assistance awards ca n be
made by the Regional A4r 4 ’tlrDasu.
Annual Work Plans should be prepared
w ihin days of be o(la,gais
for that veer. The Mansgemg
Conference must submit a drift
Work Plan to EPA Headqsartsro on5b
A Regions for tt 1 w d rs I
before final rat l&atloaby th .
Management Conference.
lndni dual asrstanc. applicitioce
may be developed it the same time as
the Annual Work Plan. but ibesid not
be subithted uidl after the Atonal
Work Plan Is approved by the
Manag,st.nt Confsreecs. In FT l
and nubsequent fiscal jean. auletaace
•wrrd decisions wlflbe made by the
Regional Midthlutor and os
a plicedons uhouldbe sent to the
pysvytista EPA Regional grante omcs.
In addition to provtdtog for assistance
award. byth. Regional Adroieia itor
tomupponl darith al estuary propime.
the regolstlans ti 33J 0l authorize the
Assistant Adrouu,tnstar (or Water at
EPA Hsadqwsen to approve National
Propam assistance agreements.
These headquaaers awards in
limIted to protects the results of which
bays broad applicability to estuaries of
national alpaficmnce and shall be
deemed to be consistent with Annual
Work Plans and flveYsar $*ateIEPA
Conference Agreements approved by
tndFv4dual management conferences.
Applications for inch protects ahould be
sent to O) for consideration.
Each Aulalance Application
subnuaed as part of an IndivIdual
estuary prugrem must be endorsed by
the Management Conference before
funds are awarded by the Regional
Mmlstsnetor. Tha requirement ensures
thst the Management CcoIeseTa has
connol over how funds are spent on to
estuary. This?squlnemant also allows
the Management Conference to dsses
th. effort tubs conducted onus behalf.
eftswlng that each project Is consistent
with annual goals and obl.c@vss of the
Management C a ca.
(g) Evaluation c i Annual Work Plans
S0S$ b)end(c oIths
regulutlon requireth. cecep”.ticn of an
Annual Work Plan. This requis .t
allows each Mua t Conferenc, to
1... . Its nsnt ctitlties In lijf of Ito
go.Ja and put activities. and
ee repu direct feces on nen,sesy
scti’ es Ice the vpcom1i year. lb.
Annual Work Plan should be rends
of extensive plannIng and levi . . . by
each of the conference co ft.ss and
should rspraust a eons s on
to be takes.
lbs Management Confuincse
desekpim c i the Anneal Work Pies
. h the followIng
• Pie,. , uu uw and fillers. is the
is the pnvloso year been takes
Into acu uunt In p 1 ”I g the acttdties of
the u mins pier? ______
• Is p nned work for the cir th
year ‘ st with the seven pwposes
of she Management Conference
specified laesction 3*b) of the CWA)
• 1. planned work for the vpc’o’
year *scted tiw.id meeting negotiated
mlfe,tce s contaIned is the P lvs.Yeav
St a t e /EPA Conference Agreement?
• WIll Individual projects undertakia
daring the 4c ’5 year obtaIn
Information necessary to ?uithei define
problems or develop solutions?
• Are the prebldsma tobs addressed
di&r the upoclilting YM 51p Cut to
the enitse tgt
• Is hereademcegUet l00 0f the 2$
piroens program ci i i share?
[ h)Eveh uat iccafAufst anc,
Appllc adc s
u.4 c m the Informebos presenead In
each Assistance Applir.ffi’n. he
Rigtonal AA ii,usw approves or
disapproves each eppilcatian on the
following ulterta
• lsthaworLschedul&udbud et
cou tas* with the AnnuaL Work Plan?
• Has the pruposed work been
adequately te ,low.d by she
Management Codssen Coal erence
cmesltt.ea. EPA. and Uapprupriats.
other peer riviowan?
• Dothebeveflusolthepeppoeed
effort ened the costa ciob( ithtg the
• Inih. cans of coopentive
agreements . is there subitantial Federal
Involvement to the pru eca (Coopeneti,.
agreements require some form of
substantial Federal Involvement.)
• Is the organlution that would
perform the work qualified to do so?
• Is the 23 a . ni non.f.danel cost
share reqofremeel of CWA eaction
320fgX31 being demcou eted?
Work
Each year a Management Conference
Wa realistic goal. using the meo s
available. These goals are vr tad In
the Anrosi Wab Plan. diilgoa.d an a
blueprint foe ibe achievement Seth a
blveprtattasmeaawlns stick egInot
which to gage r’ ms . d4.ys.
and faflwen of program activities and to
identify the nnd any, to redir
puuem efforts. Aceordlii y. It morn
Indies a umber of elements, each
dssl with a different facet of the
d. red These onta are
( s )kU
Anprovidadla I1 3 cXfl the
lnp,ductioe to the Anneal Work Plan
mstIdenttfy sad dIer-e the maid
goals and milestones ptnssed In the pest
year and astabhsb the goals and
milestones to be achieved Is the year to
co Goal. are based the Iv yw
program goals . stab 5 ed by the
Management Comidmas. They a ’,
k. lve and heosd by deslge and
w dictate the overall meg. or primary
ek r 1 ofthegw g iafmthe
MerspiesatiQu of the bay v1dce
undertakes to acco p them goals
also sb uld be L.ckdid is
In iesc1K’s . Tha narrative shøuld not
-------
Federal *. stseI Vol. 54.No . 190/ Tuesday October 3. 1990 / Rid, Lstlonl
d1.riu . lb. cIth.p*cbor
tacki performed. but tither should
Iats h*w a iinme .1 goal.. wu
It should i$i1 whether thu
goal. p*arcued were ashJsv,d. and it
it hcvld dIscuss any portant
:c auon obt . . Md t’mt i.hs snd..vor.
Irtfonrtstion qui red from punult of
past j % i mey c1u u eodtfic&tiori of
tXlItutS goals or rew,vtbuuon of
proçsm mourcus and efforts. itta
expected that the Manapimeitt
CorJ.renc. wiil taku a flexible app.”oach
to drafting and mpIansaWt$ the An.ival
Work Plan. Goals and maleslonsi wW be
established at ths beginning of thu year.
but a* activi tee m k. more d.ftaidv.
rec m .sl tgtlormettoa e’vaüble. these
goals and mduslous may b. updated.
ThIs re..valuttou and e4r1*ntLtiOe.
can be cønduct.d lafoemsily duticg sack
year. butte formally documented in the
upcoming years Mausi work Plan.
(bi Fund Sources
Aa provided in I lLgou5(c)(Zj. before
the Anstusl Work Plan can be edapted
by he Management Corhte c*. thu
kinds and amowtts of funds to be used
in ha upcoming y.at mast be
documented. Thus. funds may coma
from a vaflely of sown., and lakes
variety of forms. Mostly the funds wID
coate from Federal and Slat.
govvnmern sources, but will be
augmented with funds bum private or
local govarometti oep at1oo&
Fund sources must b.eummattzedto
a able shov,1r4 thu poome of funds to
be used during he upcoming year (e.g..
EPA. stats matching fUnds. state in .kind
s.rv ceI. or private dooationsL the
a tow.t of funds committed during the
upcnmilt$ pear. sad ths specIM type at
award or fund within auth somus d tsg
the upcoming yea, (e.g. Oun Wa
Act section 320. us I a apy4 IIttOO. thu
type of state in-kind onualbeden. and
other pnva:e sources ollundsi. Th.
table must include. ate uIP” fuse
typic of aouzce
• CWA NCdOS 3 2 0 (g) f ands
• CWA secfloO U t
• Matching (from ioe-f .dmaI
Sources)
• Matching ln .klad ou.tt bedoas
(from nw Federal soerons) .
The table must iii. ir ’ ’lfy the total
amDW%I of funds. y IomC& is be
devoted to the ? lgut I to U
.ug t p l eo ltb.Fmd Se.rcUT$bls .
When a Managsmanl Conference sees
in•kind contributions orueMcu as putt
of its matching shire. It suit .veomally
prov:de in occowthng of the sources
funda for those conutbubai& The CWA
requires that matdtinajsoda come from
ton.V,dssal sources. T . details of
spproprtaUonL gifts. or nooFedersi
gnat. that support thus. projects must
be specifically identified I n he Aanuei
Wqirk Plan.
( ) Pru cts
In addition to mnfwmatlon on the
amount of widIrtg and Its source(s).
c nisIItant with 1 33.1093(d112) end
33.% S(cl(3l. an acce ’abIe ‘innual
Work Plan c utains infirmatlon on how
d* have bets i ant n the past year
and bow thu Msag.ms t Conference
p ans to spitid funds in lbs upcoming
T t. d l icisiton sh u1d be project-
specific—. three- or four.sentence
dtscoasion of the activities of each
pro .ct to be undertakes during the
upcoming year ts relation to thu seven
p _-pesuu ofth.e Management
Conference. The narrative description
ezpl ias the relationship between the
product for each project and the
Management Codierence purpose being
served end outlines the activities being
conducted as part of th. project. For
example. phres.s such as “field
collection of data to Identity the cause
of algal bIou ts isU the reader the
autuze of the activity sad likely
products, end relate directly to the
Mansgemeo Conference pvrpoee of
Ida otif)lrg causes of enytronmititul
problems. The rest of the wrative can
desatbi project status and any
problems orresultu th&t have bios
reported. A table summertaing tasks WiLD
Ir.chsde the foiloWing tta
• Project a, task simm
• products daUvsred or to be
produced:
• Schedsilefor(ordatssf )
• ‘rout protected (or scitial) cost
• SourciotIlseds
• ResponsIble sesealsetion.
A sample format Is shows I n VIsion 4
DL Asaiataom Apseseut ApØci
Before EPA wil allocate P.d.tsi gemS
funds for sap estassy progesa. the
or sgescy rsqseedng the
funds suet submit the a proputite
— application fo
I n so inca with IIIIOIL the
application must have been eppruved by
the HI 4rs.ef it Conference sad be
sllteni with the Annual Work Vise.
In ad&tlom. prol.c*$ must sply with
applicable a ’m”oitive Ts4eiueaeata
cintatoed In the 40 CFR p a res a a st.
. 33. and 405. waU as othir applIcable
Fedeimi laws such u lb. Coastal Zoos
Management Act ( MA). in
Implementing these requiremesto. 0 5W
policy specifies that projects suet have
a combIned worklquailty esearase
prefect plan arid Office of Research and
Devu1 pmuftI (ORDI concwre .
IV. Ule ,e Dais
This regulation i effective
immedIately. The onjy purpose of this
rile Is to Codify policies and procidutti
for !nancist Isslstin c i swe.rded by EPA
under the NF l. Actordingly. this lea
grints .nlatsd rule and the
Adntlzuatrsttve Proced ae Act. USC.
33 3(a). doss not require that it be
published. In Proposed form, prior to
promulgation.
V. £usutivs Order 1 1
l’tder F.xamitive Order tZzBl. EP
must judge whether a new mgu1stin. p
‘nisior and thsrefose subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analyst... Thes, amendments do not
satisfy any of the alterta the Executive
Order upeciflee fate major rulemaking.
Therefore. this is not subject to *
Regulatory linp.d Analysis.
This regulation was submitted to the
Oiflce of Ma agement and Budget
IO’ ) for review as required by
E.’cscudve Order 3 1. Any comments
from O% and EPA response to those
commenla are available for pvb1t .
inspectix at the EPA Public Information
Rafermoca Unit Room oe. U.S.
En1i 1. , taI Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW. Wuhlngtis. DC 490.
VL Pepeework Reductios Act
The Inforitatloc collection
requiremente contained In this int.nn
flcal rule have been submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (Ohs) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1950.44 U3C 3301 ci
sac ,. An Information Collection Requcil
document has been prepu.d by EPA
(ICR Ne. 15 } and a copy may be
obtained from Harold Woodley.
Irlorm*UOn PalleT &eachi EPA 401 M
Street SW. (PM-333k Washington. DC_
204900r byc*Wa$1205)3$2-V3$ ThL
I CR covers the information collection
In both the F inariclal
Aealstsco for the National !etuary
Peoeraa Reguistbcs and the Guidanc .
on the Costa ito at the Cwemoss
nomination.
Public reporting bvtden for thu
collection of tntormatloe Is estimated to
average 1500 how e fir s.cb of the
sovirnori io d a tinder the
ui4a ce and 0boon lot each of he
snutusel work plans soder the Regulation.
Send onainsota repseding the burden
estimate or any o* aspect of this
collection of Information. tr 4 dudlttg
S i estlone f md..rtng this burden. to
chief. Woruedos Polkj Branch. PM-
m U.S. L o1 11t*] Protection
Alamo!. 401 M Steel SW .. Waahingl on.
400. arid to the O ce of
informs tics and Regulatory A lt sin.
-------
t 3 F.d.rtl bVst I Vol. 54. 1 o. i I Tuud y. Oct sr I. 19 7 Rul.s m d Rlafto ti
Offic. of M.ni,mSflI ant3udpi.
W.shm tonD6O ark.d
sttanUoo. Disk om ar f A. 1%.
flnat rule will ?upoa4 to so Oh or
,ubllc i o .nu on the bjormad.s
colt .ctisn ?uqtitrsm.nti conta1c.d n this
interim fina’ ruls.
va a*osy ?Is Ad
A did not dsv.lop • lsiu1ato
F1.zib4Uty MsIysl, for this rs uIailoo
b.csi . çsot rt ulsdonI Ni not
sub .ct to the snolyttcal i.qulsn mts of
s.ctona eQs and eoe of thu Rqulatol3P
I1.xlb&IlIy Act
Di iiN
W K. tap.
Ust olSuhf ta b ai Pail3i
Stat. and local aulaiaoc..
• JIS NIS N I
-------
Planning lnIIlalIv• CCMP D.v.lopm.nl
I C wPcS,lzation
OItP r.oAikod ol budget
E $uary IatgeII set
I. P a... .1 . T pSc.$ I.I,.,p P .)s.C
Omit Annual Wodi Plans c i&
Rview ol Miiu W Plans completed
Coepetollvo Agiasm.r ApØcetP ns ai
I on CQoperaUvs Agmomsnts
I I
(klobef 15 February 4
October I January 7
December 24
December 10
I
-Sywi I- - pIo 0y. — -- -I
—, w. s a
I pd iN1V., q pr
Week* —
I ‘ill h h I i’i1
I!
D4w •fl
tIu1. 1. C cSq . 4 I. I.w .1 M. l W.u Ph ..
•.d C.psr. I , £s.l.t. c. *,,ltc.iIes
LP4 U — I•-
-------
F.dsral R. tic/ vot. 54. No. so Tuesday. October 3. 19N I Rules and R.gulaUOflI
P1gw, 3. Simph aW. Of FIiIIId Sowos I Finioo u T*st.i. Ftscaj. rim IPli—
Fut esQ 7*3 14 3CaI. Yiaa 19 ) 5 Co tta d
Fta ss Ts g, Fisca’. Yim iieg - ..
Con tusd
I Ai ii 7 .s5 I laAiSSa’* A mfl ‘ Wa I —
.1 1— ii — —
£PA__ ‘—. 1400000 I * iss.
CcllsV . vs !P* 31 a joOX.4
Sty M .sw I 1 Q I
(S• . 5 by ñlM$0OC.3i%
I lvsh *,J 6 COI
S s Sw i . SL C0 I h& J
Fig ire 4 Samplc TAble Of Ptc;ect Status
P jicT $r*rug Tast.g F gc*i. Vim 1 us
—.-
.II0SS’
.iiW
I
1.
- O $ __
_
W5 050
S C IIOIV vuesit.
m.
NPi 00 — - — ii-
-
1.3
I. 3. 3_ 3.imesc
I
P l .
I ,
a. a. v s s... ..i wsa ti ’s
I’
10t 1100
V3O N
to,iies
$I00. X CPA Oat wvs O.y
10000 S w A .- at
e at
2?W OI
StOOD CPA
.o.oco o - W$W .1SO
1trUIk.
o
ii
tat
‘ Mêii. u td.sMc . oi ss w S w S I I 4S.t 5s* t. c 3 Sw Ws 16. TIw
bt 01 Sw y i n.
For thu reasons eel out In the
preamble. dtls 40. cltapt.r L subchapter
B. pail3S otib*Cod.cfF,datul
Pqulsdons. Is intended as folio’wL
PAM 31-4ASWIDIDJ
1. Part 351* amended by idd1 a n
utberfty dtaUon I c 4 subpart P to read
• foUawn
Ai lbatl?yt Se c. 320.1 the Oua Water Act.
.,amen6ed(13(J.&C .1$
2. Subpaii P Is sddsd to part 3510
read as (oUows
S *pws P—meancus u wice fey me
Wsbw bDat PoØri
33.5000 ApplIcability.
130Th Pw poss.
330010 OstIntOcet
33 3I Semmaiy c i uuniial p.vca.e.
33J l Plannlrg tai,rs.
flIWO Waib prvçe
- —
331040 Appbcat*ce fat suLsta
33.5043 EPA uctian as
33. 5030 Aaalstuies ameesa.
33 i E .luaiioe of rsnplsoi pm(s,wes.
3 00 Hulntua f.ds,*I sbus
33.5005 Untliailc
331000 l sllcrsl o sa anlsta
Subpesl P-Pb arie I Aaalstatos for
me NaSonci £ab ary Progus
131.1000
This .ubpaii cothltss policies and
pr cedtires lot ftnanctal assistance
awarded by the DAle claw. interstate.
and regions) waler pcUu on cornoL
agencies sod infuse and other eligibi.
a ,nc1n. Inaftuilona. OrgsnlzaUons. and
i,lduais (or pollution abatement and
control prc sma under lbs National
Esiwy Puvçsnt ND). Thee,
ptv rislona supplsntant the EPA haul
assistance re$ulatloits 1040 .- pails
10 and 31.
Section 320(g) of lbs Clean Witse Act
(CWAI authottzn sulstano* to eligible
plates. ags dM. antilles. lnatitutioes.
and ladluiduali foe
desoloçlng • COmpIIhonIIV.
ccnssr stion sod management plan
(cDIP) foe an sstuaty.
•*.Ni. O.D 31wu .
A regola Cmla. The total cosi of sU
NNN A 7L 5 medal
and thsc tsdtnlcal work completed by
• Managemsel Cooht ,ncs during.
ftscal year to develop • Comprehensive
Consecvsfo end Management Plan is,
the estuary.
Mmml Ward P1 n. The plan.
41.ak5ted by the Management
C.otsratca iso year. which doatmenta
pro)ects to be wuderiakes during the
upt A1 yw. The Annual Work Plan
is develapod within bu4setai targets
provided by WA.
Plsv . Yost SIct./ZPA Conference
Agreenwill. Agesemect n.gcUu l.d
among t he States represented In a
Management Coef.r,ztca arid the EPA
shortly alter the Management
Conference Is convened. The egesemern
identifiss cutiutones to be achieved
during lbs term c i the Management
Mw,qanvetnl Con(.swucs A
Management Conference convened by
the Adntlzilsbitcr undsi SectIon 320 of
the CWA foe an erwy In the NEP
Notionc Prcgr nt Assistance
Ag ,.awit€s . Assistance Açe.msnl.e
approved by the EPA AssIstant
AdodnisOator for Water for work
undartWn to accomplish broad ND
goals and objectives.
Wor*PP,gina ThsScopeOfWork of
so assistance applicedoL witiob
JdanDfla, bow and when the epplicant
wtlj use funds to produce upec]3c
Ou lp ’Jt$ . ___
131.0011 s . _ .;;- ci esmci # .‘4’$
(a) EPA considers ‘reMus factors to
allo e1e amO the Managsment
Conferences th. funds requested in the
Presidents budget foe the ND, Each
the Director of the Office of
Marine and EstuaMe ProteeMn Issues
budgetaiy targets foe the ND for each
Managemesi Conference These targete
are based upon negotiated Ftv. .Ysu
Stete/DA Confers Apiemests.
(b) Using the bedgelasy targets
prewidsd by EPA. each Management
CoOfsse0 develop. Anntaal Work
Piers describing the work to be
completed dwlng the pear and Identities
ividoal projects to be funded toe the
-------
r.derol la srF VoL 54. No. i F 1’a.dsy. Ociabor’ 3 lat / Rules in4 pjgulatloni
comptedee of such work. lath epp csat
having $ .cop.o( h tho
Mans.ntirn Cootcni oaexplste, a
itandard EPA applIcsd . nef.dW,
proposed work Me, the
applicant submits lit lpp l dOft the
P rgi’ n el. Admini,trsOt ti’vliwi It and.
it ii n’ e.ts . phcable sqwresnents.
pcowe, the appl ca oø aid riren, 15
mu. an .wa d w isn fuidi ire
ava labl.. The Regfo tal AdmudsOstor
awards auistanct 1mm (widi
appropriated by Conçess for that
purpose.
Cc) The recipient conducts s Lvit1es
.ccacdlng to be .pprov.d application
arid auiatance a ud. The Pe ,iul
Adnunistra or eralnatit iectplona
pormaaca to snzun comp anca with
ali condilione of be ssaista ce award.
(d}The Regional M hdi ator .ay
i ss Iwidi not sws.-dsd in an applicant
to supplement awardi to othor
recipients wbo submft I IGOfl of work
a;proved by the maiiageniant
conferenca for P4EP funds.
I’) The EPA Ass tant A n tco
f.,r Water may a plu, , Naat aa
P oçasn awards as provldsd to
*
The EPA Asmstant Mfr in soutoe foe -
Water develops pIarm1 tupsts sack
sat to help each Manapmaml
Conference drreLcp an Annual Work
Plan. These ta eti an broad budgetaiy
g als for total .xpsndftures by each
eatuary program and are dlrecdy related
to the activities that are to be canted
out by each Management Con! arsnce In
that year as specifled in the ftv, .Ysse
Slate/EPA Conference Agreement The
p:annlng targets also are based as lb.
Directors evaluation .f lb. ability of
each Management Conference to ass
appropriated funds effectively.
UI lo30 Welt •.epsm .
The work propemis parts(th
s,pl c.st on for ?inaasial assiste sod
b.otr.aa pal of the awntd dorvirat 1*
i part .if the basis for on award
decision and the buls
rid evalustlo of peibua asd an
saslalance award. The wark program
g gst specify the level .1 effort and
amount and sowca of ttin estimated
to be needed for lick ldenti ed a ,ltp.
the outputs committed for each activity.
and lb. schedule foe delivery oloulpels.
{3L I uti,ets 1o.t
An applicant may choose Iti budget
period in consultation wIth and rebut
ti he approval of he Regional
Adnwu ,tretor.
I3tN
Each applicant should submit a
complete application at east on days
before the begliming ofik budp&
period. In addition to medcg applicable
requitvnents contalned In 40 R part
30 or 31.e conp’.te a;pL 1 c.ation mud
contain s discussion of perform.rica en
t. uuler en s*isiing award. ike
wopoud work piugrani. arid a üat at a Z
applicabis EPA.approved Slats
Ira ewes and program plans, with.
statement certifying that the pr po.ed
w program Is canals tent with this.
elements.. The annual wortplan
developed and approved by the
management cosfsnnce each ftscei year
must demo unite that øoa ’Fsderaf
sources prov d. at least Z5percentot
the aggregate coats of research. snneye.
s ’ud3es. modeling. end other technical
work necessary (or the development of a
CC W for the estuary. Lath application
must contain a copy of lbs Ms..iil Work
Pian as specified to t 1&P 8(cJ ( and
(3) for the currant Federal !bcal yam.
The funding tabl. in lb. workpla meat
demonstiate that lb. 23 percent match
requirements Is being met. and the
i orkplan table a! prol.ct stains m
show the sources C! funds supporting
each pro jet.
f 351041 IPAsctiono,, .j&
The Regional tAi, Ini.trstor will
review each completed epplicados and
should approve. coadltio’ 1iy approve
or dIsapprove the application withIn 50
day. of receipt. When funds ire
available, the Regional Administrator
will award assistauce based noon
a;prov.d or conditionally approved
application. For a ‘ ‘tios award
made .11 ., the bigiiu1 . o(tha
approved budget period . EPA will
reimburse the applicant for ellowuble
c’ sts Incurred from the beginning of the
budget period. provided that L
are contained in the approved
application and that he application wu
submitted before lbs expire tics of the
priorbudgel period.
(a) Appres ’C!. The Regional
*A IStrItOt will approve the
application only It It satisfies lb.
requirements of CWA section 3* the
teems. condi lions. and limitations of this
subpart and the applicable provisions
of 40 CFP . parts 30. 31. and other EPA
assistance regulations. The Regional
ffiuitr must also determine that
the proposed outputs ate consistent with
EPA guidance or otheawtas
demonan*ied to be necessary and
appropriate. and that achievement of the
proposed outputs Is feasible. consldirtrq
the applicants past performance.
program authority. organiutlon.
resources. and procedures.
(b) The
Reglonat AdalIrifsiretor may
conditionally approve the appllcaffon
after consulwtg wIth lbs applicant if
only minor changsa an ,qwr.d. Tb.
award wiU include the conditions. c a
applicant must meat ta ae ,e final
approval and hails’, by Nhich & ca
conditions must be met.
(c i DisapprovaL If the application
cannot be approved or condt’lcnathj
approved. the Regior.al Ademiutti tot.
“ill negotiate with lb. applicant en
change be output commienents. reduce
the assIstance amount . or make any
other changes necessary for approvaL If
negotiation tails, the Reglanel
AdmintstiatorwW disapprove the
application in wiltIng.
*
(a] Oetvcihirng the awstonr amount.
In d t.rmlning the amsimi of ass stanCe
to a n appLicant. the R.glcnsi
Adimnisuator will conalderthe
? fanagsmant Conference planning
target the extent to which the
applicants Work Program is consisleni
with A guidance. and the andsipited
cost of lb. apphcant!, program relative
to the proposed outputs.
(b) Reduction of assistance amount. if
the Regional AdmiriLstiator de:erriww
that the proposed outputs do not jusri
the level of funding requested. he will
reduce the uslitaoce amount. U the
evaluation indicates that the proposed
Outputs are not consistent with lie
priorities contained In EPA r.udar.ce.
the Regional M” ’suator may reduce
the auistance amount.
* 35.1015 1vaim of , ad,.I.i*
The Regional M .li.tstiitor will
oversee each recipients performance
under so assistance agreement. In
consultation with the applicant. the
Regional AdmInistrator will develop a
process for evaluating the redpiects
performance. The Regional
Ai’.istatar will Include the schedule
for evaluation In the assistance
agreement and wdf evatueta recipient
performance and proper. toward
completing the ourpola In the apprv ed
work program according to the schedule.
Th. Regional Administrator will provide
the evaluation i iiiga to th. recipient
and will include these flnd ’igs In the
official assistance file. It the evaluation
reveals that the retplent Is not
achieving one or more at the conditions.
of the assistance egreemect. the
Regional Admlnlwslor will attempt to
resolve he situation through
negotiation. It agreement Is not reach’
the Regional Admuilsiraior may rmpc
-------
40800 - Fed.ral RiVals , / VoL 54. No. iOO / Tuesday. October 3. u aa I Rwe. and Regidatiofti
sattetloM ti da the applicable
provisions of 40 FR put 30* , 31.
IL SON a eaa feJar -_
The Regional Ad__. ito, may
prn%lde up to i percent of the
tpproved work propam costs foe a
par lcula; application provided that non
Federal sAw i provide at hut 25
percent of the sggregste costs of
research. 3urveys. atud ea. modeling.
and other technical work necessary for
the development of a comprehensive
conurvsi oe and a anagement plan (or
the estuary as specified in the estuary
Annual Work Ptan for each fiscal year.
3LSOS$ UiWteOone .
(a Afanog.m.n conference.. The
Regional Adothuitrator will not award
funds pursuant to CWA section 3 ( ) to
any appLicant unie. . srid until the scope
of work and overall budget have been
approved by the Management
Conferenc, of the estuary for which the
work is proposed..
(b) Consistency wJt?l work plans. The
Regional Administrator will not award
funds pursuant to section CWA 32mg) to
any applicant whose application Is not
ccrisistsiit with work plan element. in
vi approved Annual Work Plan sad on
approved Flve.Year Stai.1V2A
Conference A. ment by the
Management Conference of the estuary
for which th. work Is proposet
(c) £J.muts of annual weth p/otis.
Macal Work Plans to be prepared by
uniaiy Mansgement Conferences mull
be reviewed by the Office olMarine and
Estuanne Protection before final
ratification by the Management
Conference and must include the
following eleotenta
(11 ltitruductlon—A dlscus .lcn of
achievements In the estuary. a iummary
of activities undertaken in the past year
to further each of the seven purposes of
a Management Confuince specified to
section 32O(b of the CWA. the ma Jot
emphases (or activity La the upcoming
year. and a schedul, of milestones to be
r,sched during the ysar.
(2 FInding sources—A table of fund
sources for activities in th. new year.
uicludlng a desalpdon of the sources
and types (ej.. ln tod cortuibutions to
be performed by the applicant) of funds
comprising the contnbutton by
applicants or third paitiss and the
source and type of any other noo
federal funds or contributions.
(3) Pro ject..—A dssalpdon of each
project to hi undertaken. a summary
table of protect stanis listing all
Ictivftiss. the te.potsibls orgsnizatioo
or ndlvldual. (ha products expected
from each prefect approximate
sehedi.iiss. budgets. and the source and
type of the non FederaL 23 percent
minimum cost share of the awegst.
Co. 5 of research. survayl. studies.
modeling. and other technical work
necessary for he devclcpmant of a
compr.h*nvvs conservation and
management plan for in estuary.
I 3& 5O7O
The Assistant Administrator far
Water may approve the award of NEP
f l u ids for work that has broad
appllcabWty to estuaries of national
al tificanca. These awards shall be
deemed lobe consistent with Arizwal
Work Plans and flvs .Yeu St*t./ A
Conference Agiusmvits approved by
lnd1 1dual management conference..
The amount of a national prugiam
awaid shill nol exceed 3 percent of the
approved work progiw costs provided
the noo .Federal share of such costs is
provided from non .Federil sources.
(TI Doc. - 235 rUed tO. - nsa
- a
-------
Management Conference
-------
Management
Conference
Structure
-------
Buzzards Bay Management Conference
Buzzards Bay PoUcy Committee
EPA Adnün1p*zat
rsquirsd ( dN gM )
PA cg4osI
‘Paul K.ough. Aathg
Adn’ilMa a r
E’A Ra oe I
Governor of MUUChUSItb
rsqu (or d 1g au)
M E t iO
E
•Jo ,dJJITl ,SS, I.Yj
F.O A
Buzzards Bay Pro ct Office: Massacbuaetb Coas aI Zone Maz ageTneI t
Southeuten Rtg ona1 Office, Marion, MA
Policy Co,nniiftee: Admjnsstvatfo,, and Fvnding
charg . t gosLi and pT )rn I (or estuary , m.ka (thai dectricos oit all
u lttos recomnidattoos
I
Manawne vt Committee? Direction
Buzwdi Bay Management Committee
EPA. COE, NOAA Federa
EOEA, D , Dt . M M CS t.) PEDO. cQ’EDC (mØoMD
Otsln ot B8AC. CB8, MPAC,, TAC
•Davld F1.m, Dt,eceor, Wa rManag r t Division, EPA Rag. I.
dtargs deftyis/rank m uary. p btrma,d.vetop annual and Syw woi phna.
e ka con wja an mg all *i In devetopIng CQ ’
I
Advisory Grovpi: Varied Corutffi ency Input
lozurd. Bay Advi.ory
Con mitts, (BBAO
CoalitIon los
iouuda Bay ICBB1
Mptt. Plan Adelm*y
Committee O AO
T.d nica1 Advtaory
Committee (TAO
I. L town o da1s and
EPA(PndiitI )d M,
DMP I*IOI 5 ?WO.
cc isO
Lloyd r
•Tmi , IIICtU’SIt.
Mazics t ,O *
dtIZ.M,
tomi unlv,nltls. ,
d* orpfl 1tioM and
vmssv b IltutIcos
‘Nation MConneU ,
Eve Dtiec ot
•Sa sth. ,
Pros ldr*
,
/acadamis
eCami Kflbrid.. EPA
p
‘Judy P,dm øii , M M
(Co.O ta ln)
EPA. NOAA. CCL FDA,
S(3 (Fed.riD MCZM.
DWPC, D$ ff bte).
Uo ’d Cantos, WHOI. I
SMU, MEL. IJMA.a; CBS
‘Torn BI 8 JOVd, NOAA I
I
atuan (Co-C1 aIr I
L
j
-------
Sa! Isots Bay national Estuary ?rog a.
Management Conference StT eture
POLICY COMMITTEE
Coittee of toc iL
Elected Officials
. EI ! ttt Off
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Mike McGhes - EPA Region l v
Randy Armstrong — Florida DER
Mark Farrell — Southwest Florida WM
Local Coverumeat Representative (appointed by Policy Committee)
Co—chairman of Technical Advisory Committee (federal Or state govt.)
Co—chairman of Technical Advisory Committee (research or acadenje Inst.)
Chairman of Citizens Advisory Committee
Z \
TECI NICAL ADViSOR! COMMITTEE
Data Management [ Monitoring
Subcommittee 1Subcoc tttts
Federal govt. agencies
Stat. govt. agencies
Local govt. agencies
Regional agencies
Mademic institutions
Research Institutions
CITIZENS ADVISOR! COMMITTEE
Environmental groups
Cbambe s of commerce
Educttors
Tourism industry
Developers
Coercial Fishermen
Recreational Fishermen
Boaters
Others
- Other
J Subcommittees
-------
STRUCTURE OF DELAWARE INLAND BAYS ESTUARY PROGRAM
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Directs all program
activities
aEnsuTes availability of
resource fundh g
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
• j0p center of
program
Local, State & Federal
agencies
I J I
sci m ic & c m uc CITIZEN ADVISORYCOMMI1TEE
ADVISORY COMM ITEE
Citizens advisory
Review and Public participation
and education
___ I
WATER QUAL Y LiVING RESOURCES INFO/DATA MANAGEMENT
WORKING GROUP WORKING GROUP - WORKING GROUP
-------
management conference, and the likelihood of success of the conference. The
Administrator of EPA convened the management conference on July 18, 1988.
1.3 INLAND BAYS ESTUARY PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STRUCTURE
The organizational structure of the Inland Bays Estuary Program is
depicted in Figure 1. Descriptions of council and conrittee roles and
responsibilities, and membership are included in Sections 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3
and 1.3.4.
1.3.1 Executive Council
The Executive Council directs all Inland Bays Estuary Program activities
and ensures that resources and funding needed to support the program are
available. The Executive Council sets program goals and objectives and
establishes priorities and direction for the estuary program. Its members
decide on reconrendations from all committees. Executive Council
responsibilities include the following:
• Approves all Annual Work Plans and Grant Applications
• Approves the State/EPA Conference Agreement
• Approves committee members and comittee duties
• Approves and implements all Actions Plans
• Approves and implements program policy
• Approves and implements the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan for Delaware’s Inland Bays
Executive Council members include: the Director, Environmental
Services Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III; the
Secretary, Department of Health and Social Services; the Secretary,
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control; and the County
Administrator, Sussex County.
1.3.2 Implementation Committee
The Implementation Committee defines and ranks the problems of the
estuary, produces characterization reports, develops management strategies,
and designs the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
Delaware’s Inland Bays. In perfonning its duties, the Implementation
Committee must consider advice from the Inland Bays Monitoring Committee
(IBMC), and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). All
action plans and other management actions of the Implementation Committee
must be approved by the Executive Council. Implementation Committee
responsibilities include the following:
• Develops annual work plans and grant packages
-------
• Develops the State/EPA Conference Agreement
• Approves all resource and funding allocations
• Oversees and supports the activities of the STAC and the IBMC
• Develops and assesses management strategies
• Develops action plans
• Develops policy, regulations, ordinances, and laws
• Develops the Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for Delaware’s Inland Bays
• Issues Annual Reports
• Approves the STAC’s Research Plan
• Approves the IBMC’s Public Education and Participation Plan
Implementation Comittee membership will Include representatives from
EPA Region III, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, Department of Health and Social Services, Department of Agriculture,
Delaware Development Office, Sussex County Planning and Zoning Conriission,
Sussex Conservation District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, USDA Soil
Conservation Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Inland
Bays Monitoring Comittee, Scientific Technical Advisory Co rinittee, and
others as approved by the Implementation Coanittee and the Executive
Council.
1.3.3 Scientific and Technical Advisory Comittee
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Comittee (STAC) reports to the
Implementation Coninittee and its chairman sits on the Implementation
Coni nttee. The STAC provides advice and guidance related to research, data
management, modeling, and sampling and monitoring efforts, which affect the
scientific adequacy of estuary program activities. The STAC also conducts
peer review of studies, reports on the status and trends in the estuary, and
alerts the Implementation Coninittee to emerging environmental problems, In
addition, it oversees the assembly and analysis of historical data bases for
characterizing the estuary.
The Inland Bays Estuary Program STAC will be composed of the following
working groups: Living Resources; Water Quality; Information and Data
Management, and others as necessary to address specific topics and issues.
Scientific and Technical Advisory Carrinittee responsibilities include
the following:
• Identifies research, monitoring, and demonstration project needs to
be included in annual work plans and grants
-------
• Develops project descriptions, awards contracts, and manages
research contracts for the Inland Bays Estuary Program
• Advises the Implementation Coninittee on management strategies based
on scientific data
• Prepares a status and trends report
• Prepares a characterization report
• Identifies data gaps
Proposed Scientific and Technical Advisory Convuittee membership
includes the EPA Re 9 ion III Coordinator, Living Resources Working Group
members, Water Quality Working Group members, information and Data
Management Working Group members, other working group members, and other
scientists, researchers, and data management specialists.
1.3.4 Inland Bays Monitoring Comittee
The Inland Bays Monitoring Covmiittee (IBMC) will serve as the citizens
advisory committee for the Inland Bays Estuary Program. The IBMC will report
to the Implementation Committee and the chairman will be a member of the
Implementation Committee. The IBMC will help to ensure that the
Implementation Committee includes the public in the decision—making process
and integrates public opinion and expertise into each program phase. The
IBMC will recommend the most effective ways to inform the public and solicit
its participation. It will also identify key people and organizations that
can help bring estuary-related issues to the public’s attention and build
support for program activities. IBMC responsibilities include the following:
• Helps to establish program goals and objectives
• Participates in determining funding levels for program activities
• Comments on research priorities
• Reviews technical findings and analyses
• Helps develop actions plans
• Assists with public participation activities
• Educates user groups concerning the purpose and benefit of proposed
programs
• Oevelops a Public Participation and Education Plan for the program
-------
II.
Position
Descriptions
-------
L .. —
M M lNs fl. NS W !Y IIN I S.ISW, MSI
EXAM NATI0N ANNOUNCEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM MANAGER II
OPEN
s i — i u N. 01 C smU IW S 4fv ftsl 1 wt pisi i
Ml C$ Slip .iupvul d l N s W .sM p N
cM ssWm. v a. IpscIrvi P .l P
wDY 11a Tt$1 O( D
N s *sw .41 m i01r
WOW TO * P4
____VS L iv’d may bifid i prim rby w
STATE WATt SOU S CONT 4. POA
& ThAi G
S S’T T
SAG A& NTO, CA 05111
DO NOT IU$ T APPIXATIOI4$TOThL 5TAT P RSOI NE . SOMO
Iymg a sb mM nssd iØ N malt N aprapii*
X x c i Psi 201 N A 01*mn br £ n Yow II N i d
i WV I(MrS.
L 1Jl3 DAT !: eb31,1SM
Axi e1 ( 0ri 07$ ) s’iur be POSTWPI D no Xi i tw Pp Sit
* no vn*rusd, praoniii 001riI0 ii PusroEos m& 0 1 w
N n bi V Aid br v ruci
WOT! Mc I,4 p1ei*s i i, m MdIe bliiiasSbere lda
$Q01iom oeM i hrw.ol s9wd Idriljkiljon ii the
ou m
I I snI d U m Msoe .5 Is Pii ds’irrQ Ar510p 1905 *dj . tWis
VS , sth.N u 0muiii* . Os v01 m M .oe M u m s1on 01
vsmc map dwça oeomM or .vrut
S&LARY ANG :$ 471? .4577 •
MEi $ FØR AD OntW M W
NOTI hi lc nselml I4lr m siN, uip#1.imO
tr, IvN sisW sa W t1 1IN, 1I, diii.
Ous ç iip&snas rrs be r d ii s p coVs.t Na N m Myw
sXs b7c . bc ds iw. Iw one rn eM sa iVSç iiNd a V I, V
i, v m, it For .nni* oeM dsiss D uIuI’g q vq s1pin* CS iiWlf
00% 01 N rso w.d ‘ e *1 piusm I, eM i aam .zprw s smaw Wç ii
01 5s mn mad w 01 Pattern 9, m N . r4id v iamk 01on a mssw’
01 N r01si snema I 5 IU 5MI
E oet .n tqiiv01ent hm e w4 m* .ci m noul sass...
sOi*tei. ii I IIIJI)4 Site (Addiort qu*
m 9e iiMSIiPd N N r * Sm m l yw’ó W
__ C01tb site wiN p&N1111 l ie di Sis 01 in
On
! sdiaoet flii 01 v01. iN iVia m l rusW , ,sapmeisiis a .lr e i
VS or N but yam 01 W ai4t
Pam P.m V i an .imMPam or siv ory posmon m là 01s sit
‘usx .N N N dVSL IeM IllØSfl4 .m 01 VSvVuii
IWIL V 1U01 1 S* • i or v lb4”q eM
1wv A V Vi mm sn m 01 N ‘t iii P.51 p di isd
w . nI bwsiS9sily it! 015 l it ivNsM 5 in 1 OU$IIX PlvpfsI
ii, lii CIdsrrS c i wiN (Poamsion ill Mii*s Ds ma h i a
Ø m01 amnim. sitiorwihsa) i. or a neliut N
siNl%isl N oe psv 01 his niqirid apinenee. pineucn iii iuas ii N
,ma,.4 * Is siMfli N Pm am01 t$gvb . )
SWRCB
STAT! WA1I s.IQJ U NTnOL SO&
RWQCB
1I OUALITV O*4TRQ gCA D
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
bdt CstJi L.nt P TlQIIl% l1Wl St I I, OI I SM 4V 5 N
wsim v01 oom hsi & civ s .ms 01 N lost Vi aNa r siP.ni
N Ctit 01 S INn or a Dsow but* CUr s pXiw eM
N nt 01 a *iam or . r iw
wiai . boinbs Pam p rdI *U isp N N,n& q c M
lsord p or Nøibsnl m iN wvsu lii C M I o l e sbus
ohms *di I , ri5&M Ni r g,k gs sci Sr te
* flssowoes Omat Iosd Exa *, Dlsctr. l anosni aIp
. 1 .am 5ia. Pr 01 ui l4as.ii or oeisr si pamwip tevsi
Po01*siamt m$sctulwLwduskçiN.
UA UT N WC M
ThI s s ion iN msnealO a uiIIN1ons owsial ciswiw N mirmaw w1
V M a .1 idNuuums4 joblebud quii$one Vi r r is
tie 01 N be. s u*winn nut 01 0OO% sir be i risd xi a.
Q 01lomIp,th01 .Ws .d1O X%
hi tlson N ampsNsa riN ii abIXx U onetrsied bç
qii aM hit ’ c i apr4sno. pnplsl hi N iisTinrq NI!new iii Ps on
& ___
1. ditsidwms t maesrU
2. piN.
S ____ ____
4. Lutkie pi Us iii Iñm&a ItiV soerI u en
tututt t eM N S t sr &t
I
S N. . . d v U. ____
7. &ith 4p01Naw rqririssndpmfc.s& ii
S. tIs la a. s onpm isno &*as. arid his
tHtt olhimaN s on mM his pno m amible
*n iNói ob 1 imsii
S. Pi eWsvrd is01m uss 01 &xipsr m1 SM
eM oiutmrieflhi, P ra.
S. A*y is
1. Os ç iw . a ,ans N sixi rimonmanai n .s a un,i
. ____o mp0 irg Xxis kx ne it
I. 4diis w’çrsllwtsPibs .45 S,*Yhii
iwi iia .mM bedim wpmmm&lvd.iNvp.
4. II utisbas is lie Smuts s&ssNVSonchpriiqs.
S. waeM*. ti 01oN i.
I Pisulm N iNiUma ii*M Vi N t’ 01 ss sssm
piNhuutsils nsiNomuam 01
IM A scm hit ii Is ss Xd. T I. be . be sP.hiMd 31
sorE. iNn I seI diuiad IsdiN Pu Audi 01 tie mimbes *01 mu%dK ’nI 01 N
iww(i dwçshi hi psd.
Vm4’ms pmlsrsise us wU i N rxid là ammr.w em
qi ain i iw n eMs
sri RIVFRSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL INO -O IIMATION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROORAM
MANAGER
93080
RH75.0759
FINAL FLING DATE: MARCH 31, 1959
-------
UG—20—9O TUE 10 : 1
P.04
cpcning Datas 12. 1 88 Job ..4tir g )wrboz; 88025
Monthly Starttrq Wage: S2528/S2701 -
S28B3J$ 3o79
c1c irq te: _ OPD U)ql’IL TI11 claes Ø/Crosp 155613. 1555
1551120.. 15581 .
STMt h CY
JOB VACANCY T1
iVSITI(V TITLE: _ G lvestqi B v Pzt um Manaaer
JOB i 1( : Ga1vesta Bay Initiative Program Manager. Act as program nager
for a a1ti-ycar st .dy of Ga1vest Bay urder the National Estuary Program; rer
all rk ith will u1tii ate1y result in the develcçm nt of Qx ,rehenglve servat.tcn
and Manag nt Plans for prot ticn and restoration of the estuary. This person will.
ers the dcve1cçm nt of t - ar and five-year rk prcqmii , data uag rent____
strategy ard ongoliq piblic izwo1v nt &rlrq the rse of the project. The program
manager will be resp s1ble for preparlzq_and/or edit izq t.d inical reports, rkirq
with vari is interest gtuçe and project and pt iidizq all specific
)1Oj eCt man it iw y to xai 1et. pr a.ztpata iii a tlmily, efficient
rw nsr. P IODICs L ve1cp rk plans and c itracts, nueqctiata tracts with piblic
entities and private consultants as a r riat.. Travel to the Mc*3st04/Galveston area
for n tirqs as r uired.
OP u I L T T1C1 OP D
WGfl( PZ J1J D I $ position re LLires e.xtensiv. xzt.ton and e)çe ?ier * in
ter cp a1ity & nt In g sra end estharthe pr , in paitio.ilar. nica1
program e perien * ahc,ild be belar with inistrativWmanagerial capabilities and
tJ ability to ticata with pkvject *rittees, local officials, interest gr
and the general_p b1ic. Tethnical writirq end pfr ic spea3d skills era assential
itract aanag t sçeri€noG and )a leige of feisral grant re itire its are
helpful. )ff)C1 3( ‘iai J i Gr tiatitm frcin an acx editei fair year
college or w tveraity with siajor rs z1c in biological_ecieces,_eogineer zq,
eztv1x ntal pla thig or other field relevant to assigrr ent. F rmu $ Mastere or
ThD degres in relevant ewlruiiintal or &tnlnistrative field. )D (
Quij $ Ext.e ive a inistmtivs . çeriece, IZc1 43Jq_e çerierce in a supervisory
or managerial capacity in the water quality/estharire YCI L a area. D s D .
or re years of çsrvisory e çsrierce in kM1tion to other i’slat 1
managerial/a tinistrativa eperienoe. Prwl start-W eçierier * with r
eiwirorr nta1 prc r ma in a managerial capacity is strcwqly d ired. j.r CATIC OR
REGIUrRA.TXc11 REQ(JZR s oollsgs transcript required J .iat&r than ti veska after
c flY L ) LrLw OP ‘11 l2 4 OR ‘I’IC .
i JCYLT x a Water Oertssiori
S. ’.A. Bl.jcz, 1 5 4, At1 tJfl ZIP aX :7871L
Sa eAsAbovs
(Restm s will r beacoeptal in
— Personnel laoe of & o 1eted a lic5tiOfl. I TEt. O E: 512/463—7840 —
T S IPIV L.t &; YE .. .NO____ tU OF OPDJINO& ‘
DJRkTICI4: P &JOJf /W L4Q
TRAVEL R JTR : YFS 3 NO__ ICY CAR UI I W: flS - - NO ) 0L
DrVi5I 1s Water Qjality/St.ardardS aid EveluatiCm - 5212
-------
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT POSITION DESCRIPTIQ
class Coda: 37B Title: PUBLIC CO 24UNICATIONS PROJECT
Position No. COORDINATOR -
1. Workweek 40 hours
2. FLSA: Exempt from overtime
3. !EO Category: 02 (Professional)
4. Department: Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
S. Section:
6. Location: Sarasota
—— —— n — —— —— aaaa
7. Job Summrv; This employee develope and implements
communications plans and strategies including, but not
limited to, public education and water quality resource
ass.ssztent efforts. Employee work. closely with Citizen
Advisory Committee members to develop and implement resource
protection and public participation, information and
education strategies. Work will. receive considerab le
visibility, including at the national level.
—_ — —
8. Working Conditions Standard office
9. Degree of budgetary responsibilities: None
10-. Degree of supervisory responsibilities: None
rna n nan flflafl n —— aflflfl fl — na — a_a———— a__an n
11. Minimum Glific&tions Graduation from an accredited four
year college with a degre. in Mass Communications, Public
Relations or a related field and three years’ experience
working with publications, public relations or other mass
media involving field, preferably related to water resources
and/or environmental issues or other issues of public
concern.
Equivalent combinations of training and experience may be
considered.
12. Illu trative duties and responsibilities :
25% Develops and implements the Programs. public relation.
campaigns. Builds an environmental coalition through
information dissemination to help forge and implement
program findings. Provides stat! support to the Citizen
Advisory Committee.
20% Makes presentations regarding the Program and its goals to
local government agencies and other organizations. Interacts
and shares with other national programs, information on
successful public relations strategies.
15% Coordinates media, publicity, promotion and other
communication elements of the Program such as water quality
end resource assessment grants and demonstration projects
public education programs, conferences and workshops;
-------
interagency meeting., etc.
25% Develops and writes newsl.tt.r., brochures, reports, public
service announcements, press release, and other
communication elements regarding the Program.
10% Plans and targets communications messages and delivery
strategies.
5% Works with staff to develop press releases and collateral
material..
5% Assists in compiling department mailing lists and monthly
calendar of events.
5% Participates in Program projecta and performs other duties
as necessary.
23. Re uirad krtow2edae . skills and abilities ;
Knowledge of communications techniques and mass
communications media.
Ability to design innovative programs to prepare and
disseminate information about such programs.
Ability to establish and maintain positive and effective
working relationships vith staff, Management Conference
members, other agencies, media representatives and the
public
Ability and proven skill in written and verbal
communications, skill in presenting recommendations and
reports clearly and concisely in oral and written forms.
Knowledge of graphic layout end design techniques and
ecp.IipTtent.
Ability to work in a high pressure, “deadline oriented”
environment.
Knowledge of personal computers and ability to use various
software package., including desktop publishing and word
processing.
Ability tO work indepsndently and efficiently.
14. Equipment or machines routinely used in this position:
Personal computers; word processing and desktop publishing
software; audio-visual equipment: c 1cu1 tor, copier lAX
machine and other standard office equipment.
-------
i i. Directions and amount of supervision given to this pOsitions
Employee receives minimal supervision from the Program
Director. Employ.. receives and completes assigned tasks
with minimal supervision.
16. Ravisw Procedures: Performance is reviewed through p.r ona].
conferences and written reportsi employee receives a formal
written performance evaluation at least annually.
——— ——————— a____ ______ ____ ——————u— — • ————— __._ U... —— —— —
17. This position description list, the dutie, and
responsibilities an incumbent would generally expect to
perform. Percentages of time, when Used, Ar. annual
averages and as such are subject to periodic fluctuation.
Incum bent
—)
Immediate Supervisor
Deputy Executive Director
Date
- 7 c9
Date
Date
Personnel Manager
Date
-------
—3Q-8Q THU
Jp3Thw I nI!RLY. JR • SENIOR RESOURCE PIANN!R
tAVA1A IiflJJ(D RAYS ESTuARY PROCR.AM
—
i, tasks and budgets
• atsrials
si.1.o .duc.tton*t •vints
I inL.t.r contracts and pass. through grants
ft d. staff support to ths Citiz.ns Advisory Committee
o Dav.lop apnda ., ms.ting package. and correspondence
• MaLl out notices of meetings and meeting packages
o Chair the Public Participation and Education Sub-committee
o Writ, annual and special report.
o Maintain msmberehip information and mail hits
o Assist the Committee Chair as n.c..ssry
o Attend m..tings of the oth.r coum tttee. in the Estuary Program
o on th. Water Use Planning Working Group (of the DNREC
Inland Says Task Force)
Level of Authority
o All plans are coordinated with and approved by the Program Manager
prior to implementation.
o Approved plans are administered directly by me; consulting with
the Program Manager as I may deem necessary or proper.
o Th. Program Manager ii kept fully informed of my progres, and
activities.
o Examples
o The Program Manager and myself determine th. scope of the
teacher mini-grant program based on resources. Following
that, I handle all the details of implementation -
announcement., correspondence 1 project approval initial
voucher paym.nt processing, etc.
GENERAL
o Serve on various ad hoc working groups
o Example - D.sktop Publishing System
o Represent Planning Section on the Division of Water Resources
Computer Advisory Group
-------
-C-• 43 ID;Q B - L RE 1ON
TEL NC: 2t3—G2 —6432
fl 42 P
SWRCB
syaji *t
ANNOUNCEME
La .Uti,.atLV. astilS ‘ 47st — i Q(JB
•pport LIY I. all Tiiud sia l taco lG1ONaI. .&TL OuA.ITI
c a l . ? 1 ..r.d, stio a1 •Tt L1,, •acS$U7
ou, sartiat •tacus. dt..biliiy, TsII Lei a
St ,ollc1c.IL •tItllattoa, op or • usl
The s e O Ic& U I U5tO IO P 3IC? (SMBRP) has an opening for
an Zr*viroam.ntal Specia list I t t, or equivalent clams, to assist in
all aspects of creating a Comprehensive Conservation end Management
Plan for Santa Monica Bar. Although a solid aci.ntific background
in ecology, biological oceanography, environmental engineering, or
similar field oounuerlBurate with the ES III level is the primary
r.quir.m.nt for this position, the applicant is expected to have
strong writing and communication skills tot preparation of feature
jtories for SMBRP publications, quarterly newsletters, and other
educational/informational material.
The SMBRP is located in th. new offic. of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board located near Ca]. State Los Angeles in
Monterey Park (fre. parking). For mar. information about the
position, please contact the Projact Director, Catherine Tyrrell,
t (213) 266—7515. If interested, please send an application form
(Std. 678) by August 31, 1989 to:
Marlene Martinez, Regional Administrator
Regional Water Quality Control Board
101. Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park, CA 91574—2156
-------
—‘— “. —‘ •JL ..t — LI -I u Lih
IE.L NU: 3- 2 -643
p542 Pe2 —
ANNOUNCEMENT
M •SfD ,atlv, Iton .ip oy.r • STRCB
opporew%ltv tC S ?spvd esI Of TaCt,
co’or, c•.sd, i it1ot a1 •r in, &i c•str , . VII
Iu, .iritsl t.tvs, dls*blflt) •
i poltucel efSI1iet Oi . •$C Of
R TqCB
RIGIO.IAI, A I OI a ity wt o .
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGION
VACANCY 7Jfl?OUWCE* lT
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration ProJ.ct (SMBRP), administered by
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region, has an immediate opening for a qualified person currently
in, or eligibl, for, appointhent to the Environmental Specialist
series (ES I/Il/It!) or equivalent classifications, particularly
thos. requiring a scienc. background.
Under the direction of the Project Director, the incumbent will be
involved as part of a team in all aspects of creating a
comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Santa Monica
Bay. Scientists able to take leadership in applying innovative
approaches to solving problems, who are ad.pt at facilitating
meetings, who can demonstrate excellence in oral and written
communication, and who show a balance bstv.in cjsntjfjc
proficiency and public effectiveness, are strongly encouraged to
apply. Duties include the preparation of scientific and technical
issue pap.rs and developa.nt of quarterly newsletters and feature
stories for SMBRP publications and other educational/informatjonai
materials based on scientific findings generated by the SMBRP. The
incumbent will also be expected to provide consultative advice and
act a. liaison to various governmental entities and various
int.r.st groups, manage contracts fo scientific studies, and
assist the Technical Mviaory Committee and various •ubcoi mittees
in workplan development, in evaluating and reviewing technical
studies and proposals, and asiist with mestthg logistics
Per more information about th. position, p].ass contact the Project
Director, Cath.rin. Tyrr.1l, at (213) 266.7535. . poijtion is
open until filled. If interested, pleas. send an application form
(Std. 678) to:
Pat Guoku, Regional Administrator
Regional Water Quality Control Board
103 Centre Plate Drive
Xont.r.y Park, CA 93754 -2156
Distribution Lists Attirmstive Action Int.r..t Group Liats
All State Agencies
PAI r.I.s • •O O -&aQ, Ds sdi A .qisst ii, &••9
VACANCY
-------
ANNOUNCEMENT
£ sttt? aItvs settea s toyst — s e S TI1,CB
•ppoTtwr tv to e l t.ga?d3111 01
color. £ i•is 1 IUCM orL iv , •flCC$1T) 1 flAti OA L0 OVCC($ COWt. 1 •es
sea, e.rlta2 aI.vvi . dti.blllt>, r. 1Sto ,
D l p.HI1te dI3lIstIIIl, •$‘ o’r S.zvil
!{“ ‘ QIJ B
*CGIONAi CAT (0 el aI .I!, CO ’cP. u. so
CAL TORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CO TRQL BOAJ D
LOS ANGELES REGION
The SMBRP has an opening for an Information Officer I or equivalent
classification (e.g. Associate Government Program Analyst). The
position is contingent upon approval of the 1 90/9l Budget Act,
with an anticipated starting date of August 1 , 1990. Under the
direction of the Proj.ct Director the Infonnation Officer will
implement elements of the Public Outreach Strategy for the SMBRP
and develop public support for Bay restoration efforts,.
The 10 will manage public outreach contract activities, staff the
Public Advisory Committee, and coordinate volunteer, conference,
end special event activities, Responsibilities will also include
editing reports, assisting technical staff in translating
scientific docum•ntn for public consumption, and coordinating the
publication of aimouncemente, newsletter., brochures, and reports.
The 10 will have lead responsibility for computer mailing lists,
including system developm.nt and management and provide
consultative advice and act ae liaison betw..n various governmental
entities and the general public.
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) unites the public,
local gencioe , and industry - and in charged with the task of
restoring and protecting the ecological integrity of Santa Monica
Bay. The SMBRP was formed in 1988 when the Bay was included in the
National Estuary Program in recognition of its special resource..
Xt is a unique partnership of 49 zo.ii ber organizations — reaching
out to thousands of citizen, throughout Los Angeles County. All
of SMBRP’. activities are designed to increase public awareness
about ocean pollution and create public support for the
implementation of a rnanagiaent plan. The SMBRP is located in the
offic, of the Regional Water Quality Control Board located in
Monterey Park. For more information about the position, please
contact Catherine Tyrrell, Director, at (213) 266-7565. Pleas.
send en application form (std. 678) and resum. to: Marlene
Martinez, Regional Water Quality Control Board, 101. C.ntr. Plaza
Drive, Monterey Park, CA 91754.2156.
Distribution: M Interest Group List.
R.gionat Administrator I All State AgencieS
RPA No: 140-01
Dated:
VACANCY
-------
Employment Opportunily
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER
Salary: $3710 — 4434/mo.
or
ASSOCIATE ENVIRONMENTAL. PLANNER
Salary: $2915 — 4045/mo.
One environmental planner/policy analyst is needed to join the Santa
Monica Bay Restoration PrO .ct team, located in Monterey Park, CA.
The duties of the position include: under the guidance of the Pr .ct
Director, and with the involvement of ths Project’s Management
Committee, develop management options to address Bay pollution
problems, prepare issu. papers on Bay management concerns, manage
contracts related to the devslop ent of the Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan for Santa Monica Bay, organiz. agendas for the
Project ’s Management Committee meetings. and staff subcommittees of
the Management and Technical Advisory Committees.
The successful candidate should have the following skills and/or
experience: 1) knowledg. of the agencies at the local, state and
federal levels responsible for Bay management: 2) experienc
developing environmental plane and programs and conductin ,
environmental policy analysis; and 4) strong writing and analysis
skills. l.eo of value are financial analysis skills, knowledge of
public financing approaches, and a broad understanding of Bay
pollution problems.
The qualifications for the Associate level require the equivalent of a
master’s degree in planning, public administration, or a related field
and two years of relevant professional planning experience. The
qualifications for the Senior level have the same educational
requirement as the Associate plus four years of relevant experience.
The successful candidat. will be an employee of SCAG, however he/she
will, work for and be funded by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project.
*** **********k*â*k* *****a*************I **â**i*** *********** ***** **
Announcement ssu.d August 8, 1990, Resumes are due by August 24,
1990 or until the position is filled.
To apply. please submit resume to:
Pe r i ortne 1
Southern California Association of Governments
818 N. 7th St., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
t213) 236—1800
M l EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTiON EMPLOYER
-------
DEFgZRThENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES EW ”RDNMENTAL CONTROL
RICHARDSON AND ROBSINS COMPLEX, W9 t WAY, P.O. SOX 3601
DOVER. DE l99O
Fersc,nnel Section Tt’ e :027;a • a;:
AFfrLICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMEN 1ATION NOT ‘ED AT LOCATION
LISTED BELOW BY CLOSING D Z E WILL NO CONSIDERED
December 2Z. 1988 Announcement 86—89
REPOSTED - - MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REVISED
Resources Planner Cunderf ill Sr Resources Planner) (P7643l8a)
(Professionals)
Paygrade 12 Starting Salary 5 19,984.00
Division of Water Resources
Section: Planning and Support
Location of kJor$c: Kent County
SUMMARY STArEMENJ : A class incumbent is responsible 4cr
accomplishing assignments concerning a variety of professional
p1annir g proolems in natural resource ., land use and areas of
environmental concern.
NATIJRE AND SCOPE : The object and scope of assignments are
specified, but the incumbents are responsible for the development
of plans, the assembly and analysis of data, and the preparation
of appropriate reports. Assignments require interpretive analysis,
subject to supervisory review and are broadly covered by functional
precedent, professional practices, or policy, incumbents represent
the Department before public bodies on issues of fact, they arrange
and conduct conferences with community groups, other public agencies.
property owr,ers, and other concerned with the projects. Incumbents
plan, coordinate, or monitor complete resources planning projects or
studies, or carry out operating assignments which involve planning
problems which are conventional in nature, but of considerable scope;
they exercise in itiat ive and resourcefulness in obtaining and
analyzing information related to problems or projects, and planning
the presentation of findings supporting their recommendations or
conclusions in narrative or graphic form.
F’f jNCIPAL ACCOUNT4BXLITJES : Serve as a sta4f coordinator for one
or more intermediate level programs Sn resources and environmental
control, together with support of the committees/councils with which
they are concerned. Tracks status of task force/committee/council
recommendations and prepares timely reports; contacts a variety of
sources +or çpntent/data. Composes cor róspondence/memoranda/recom-
mendations ssigned task forces/councils/committees. Conduct
environment4j pact.assesEment and write technical reports. Organne
public information seminars as required; arrange for speakers and
meeting places and draft publicity releases. Participate as a
team member Sn studyinq the financial, economic, social, and
cultural implications and impact on communities/groups/individuals
of proposed Department actions in natural resources conservation and
environmental control. Performs related work as required.
,NOWLED3E5 . SKILLS Q fl ABTLITIE KnowledQs of environmental
problems and possible solutions i.nowledge of planning practices
and principles; knowledge of channels to use in obtaining or dissemznjt in’ 2
information) ability to understand the interrelationship of tan
assignments, department policies and the planning process! ability to
draft descriptive background memoranda or eummarliel ability to
nUG 30 ‘9 )3:42 302 2 t40
-------
ti e’- .Jv C V tilu i s dLJ I t0 0 I tng .)UpporL rrtn iiLj. gi )3OLqU P 04
recogni ze significant and controll .ng aspects found in assignments,
and to bring to supervssor ; attention the inadequacy 04 standard
practices in a particular situat ion; ability to search department
files and the technical literature for material having a bearing on
a specific problem; ability to develop and plan a work schedule for a
resources planning project; ability to evaluate planning projects
‘for technical validity and prepare analytical repcrte ability to
relate the effect Cf natural resources and snvaronmental control
planning decisions on the mission and goals of the Department.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Applicants must have education, training
and/or experience demonstrating capability in each Of the following
areas: (1) Knowledge of research techniques to gather data. t2
Ability to asses; state plans or program ; and make recommendations
regarding the effectiveness of existing programs or feasible
courses of alternative action. ( ) Ability to prepare grant
application plans, reports 1 positloffi papers, requestu for proposals
or technical reviews in support of organizational programs relative
to policy development, fiscal monitoring or program initiatives.
(4) Knowledge of statistics and their use in different types of
analytical and evaluative modes. ( ) Knowledge of natural resourcis,
the environment or environmental problems including, but not
limited to air and water pollution, erosion control and preservation
of wetlands.
These include i paid vacation days the first year, 12
paid holidays a year, sick leave with pay, liberal pension and
health and life insurance. Benefits ore credited on a pro—rata
basis for part—time employees.
PLICATION CLOSING DATE : january 28, 1989
WEIGHT QE EXAMINATION : Training and Enperlence. ‘.-Applicants
should attach resumes, transcripts and all other pertinent
information to the State Applicatton Form since assessment will
be made on the basis of the in4ormati n submitted.
E2& INFORrI?TION CALL I ’ . Robert MacPhwrson at (302)736—5409.
APPLICATION ?DCEDURES One application must be submitted for
each classiflcation 4cr which you apply. , Each application will
remain activeforéne year. Completed applications must be
received at following location on befoçe ‘the closing date to be
considered. DNREC Personnel Section. Richardson and Robbins
Complex, 89 Kings Highway, P. O. Box 1401,1.DoverjDE 49903. • t
IL? .. ,.:tL bna 4flQ(j4 LfO4 t J vt.
APPLICATIONS t kg . OBTAINEOL EROM jjjg FOLLOWINQ LOCATIONS : at-a --
State Personnel, Townsend Building, P .O. Box .14Ol,- Dover,’DE 19903
Applicant Services, Carvel Bldg, 9&French Sts, Wilmington, Dt 19801
tlQTICEI Early submission Li ao l1caticnt is imi3ortant is IS c.aD.
jfggj standinQ CSGQ i tied oraa. - - .
g STATE QE DELAWARE-AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION k OuAL, OPPORTUNITY EMPLOVEr
-------
Administrative Asst
For Texas Water Commission. Galveston Bay-National Estuary Program at
University of Houston Clear Lake Campus. $27,468/year. Duties include
coordination of Governor Appointed committee meetings, assistance in
public participation and interagency communication, oversight of program
office including supervision of clerical staff and microcomputer systems.
Degree required. Exp. in state agency procedures helpful. Hi-profile
environmental program offering challenge and rewards. Send resume to
Personnel Office P.O. Box 13087, Capital Station, Austin TX 78711 (E.O.E.)
-------
III.
Priority
Problems
-------
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
PRIORITY PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary Study
o Impairment of nursery area function
o Habitat loss
o Shellfish bed closures
o Agricultural best management practices to control excess
nutrients from nonpoint sources
o Declines in fish production
o Ulcerative sore disease in finfish and crabs
Buzzards Bay
o Stormwater treatment to control bacterial contamination of
shell fish
o Contamination of fish and shellfish by toxic metals and organic
toxicants
o High nutrient imputs and potential eutrophication
Delaware Estuaries Program
o Restore living resources
o Nonpoint and point source reductions
o Promote public participation
o Manage economic growth
o Protect public water supplies
Delaware Inland Bays Program
o Habitat loss/modification
o Eutrophication
o Pathogen contamination
o Sedimentation
o Water use impacts
o Circulation/flushing
o Toxics
o Atmospheric deposition
-------
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
o Reduction/Alteration of living resources
- loss of physical habitat
- alteration of salinity gradients
- alteration of nutrient and organic loadings
- bathymetric and circulatory changes
- land subsidence and sea level rise
- chemical and pathogenic contamination (biotic impairment)
o Public health issues
- discharge of pathogens from point & nonpoint sources
- chemical contamination of water and sediments
- restriction of contact recreation due to chemical and
pathogen contamination
o Resource management issues
- regulatory problems
- fisheries resource depletion
- marine debris
o Shoreline erosion
- land subsidence and sea level rise
- bathymetric and circulatory changes
- loss of buffer vegetation (wetlands)
- use of littoral property
Lona Island Sound Project
o Hypoxia
o Toxic contamination reduction
o Living marine resources
o Pathogens
o Floatables
Narragansett BaY Project
o Toxics
o Nutrients and potential eutrophication
o Fisheries management
o Health and abundance of living resources
o Health risk to consumers of contaminated seafood
o Land use impacts on water quality
o Recreational uses
New york-New Jersey Harbor Program
o New requirements for sewage treatment plants
o Combined sewer overflows
o Pathogen contamination
o Floatable debris
o Toxic contamination
-------
Pu et 8ound
o Stormwater control in highly urbanized, urbanizing and rural
environments
o Urban bay toxicants control
o Nonpoint source pollution
o Shellfish protection
o Contaminated sediments
o Wetland protection
Ban Francisco BaY Prolect
o Decline in biological resources
o Increased pollutants from point and nonpoint sources
o Freshwater diversion and altered flow regime
o Increased waterway modification
o Intensified land use
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Prolect
o Human health risks from consumption of contaminated seafood
o Human health risks from exposure to pathogens and other
contaminants
o Impacts of human activities on bentic communities
o Impacts of human activities on wetlands and beach habitat
Sarasota Bay Proiect
o Development pressures
o Improve water transparency
o Reduce and improve stormwater runoff
o Loss of seagrass/shoreline habitat
o Reduce dredging through better coordinated maintenance
o Increase managed access to bay resources
-------
BARA TARIA.TERREBONNE ESTUARINE COMPLEX:
EPA’S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
The Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 formally
established the National Estuary Program to promote long-term and comprehensive
planning and management in nationally significant estuaries. Recognizing the
threats to the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex posed by pollution and
development, EPA has selected the estuary for inclusion to the program. Barataria -
Terrebonne is a valuable addition to a national demonstration program because it
will need to address nationally significant habitat and wetland issues in additional
to pollution problems.
The Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex consists of an extensive array of
estuarine wetlands and waterbodies approximating 3,600 square mile. It contains
more coastal wetlands than any other estuarine system in the United States. At least
19% of the nation’s estuarine-dependent commercial fisheries is sustained by the
Barataria-Terrebonne system. It is also heavily used for recreation by boaters,
fishermen, and hunters, and supports important elements of the local economy and
culture. However, as much as one-half of the national loss of coastal wetland may
have occurred in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex. The principal
environmental problems facing the system include the following:
U hydrological modification
U habitat loss / modification
U changes in living resources
U toxic substances
U pathogen contamination
The Management Conference for Barataria-Terrebonne must deal heavily with
wetland management and restoration, as well as other water quality issues. Six
overall goals have been defined for the management conference:
U To improve basin hydrology and manage salinity
O To reduce natural habitat loss an improve sediment management
U To improve water quality by implementing point source and nonpoint
source pollution controls
U To maximize fish and wildlife carrying capacity of basin habitats
U To protect human and cultural resources
U To inform arid educate the public concerning the estuarine environment -
their resources and their environmental problems
-------
CASCO BAY:
EPA’S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
The Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 formally
established the National Estuary Program to promote long-term and comprehensive
planning and management in nationally significant estuaries. Recognizing the
threats to Casco Bay posed by pollution and development, EPA has selected the teh
estuary for inclusion in the program. Casco Bay is a valuable addition to a national
demonstration program because of its focus on growth management and the
preservation of pristine areas.
Casco Bay represents a new biogeographic region for the National Estuary Program.
Its rocky coastline contains a diversity of habitats that support an abundance of
living resources, both commercial and non-commercial, and indudes endangered
and threatened species. Nearly one quarter of Maine’s populations live in Casco
Bay’s watershed, and direct pressure on Casco Bay is increasing as the region
experiences rapid economic growth.
U Once considered pristine, toxic materials are present in elevated levels in
Casco Bay’s sediments and living resources.
U Safe swimming standards are routinely violated i some of the more
heavily used areas of the bay.
U About 11% of the bay’s shellfish areas are closed due to pollution.
U Nutrient loading to the eastern end of Casco Bay is though to have partly
responsible for a massive shellfish die-off in 1988.
Four primary goals have been identified for Casco Bay:
U To prevent further degradation
U To attain water quality classifications
U To eliminate discharges of pollutants causing impairment
U To develop a comprehensive master plan for Casco Bay which considers
living resources and use in addition to economics
-------
THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON:
EPA’S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
The Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 formally
established the National Estuary Program to promote long-term and comprehensive
planning and management in nationally significant estuaries. Recognizing the
threats to the Indian River Lagoon posed by pollution and development, EPA has
selected the estuary for inclusion to the program. The Indian River Lagoon is a
valuable addition to a national demonstration program because it will be addressing
preservation and water resource issues in additional to pollution problems.
The Indian River Lagoon system is an area of vital ecological, economic, aesthetic,
and recreational value to the entire east central florida region. The lagoonal
ecosystem, with oceanic input, represents an ecotone between the temperate and
subtropical provinces and supports high spedes diversity, as well as numerous rare
and endangered species. Current ecological concerns include:
preservation of biodiversity and endangered / threatened species
0 the alteration / destruction of critical habitats for fish, manatees, birds, and
other species
0 a decrease in water quality associated with increased nutrient and
sediment loading
0 elevated toxicants, such as heavy metals, in sediments
0 expansive population growth in the absence of proactive, basin-wide
control strategies
O alterations to the natural hydrologic balance
Three broad goals have been identified for the Indian River Lagoon Management
Conference:
0 To achieve water quality parameters
U To protect and improve existing natural habitats
0 To protect endangered and threatened species
-------
THE MASSACHUSETTS BAYS:
EPA’S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
The Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 formally
established the National Estuary Program to promote long-term and comprehensive
planning and management in nationally significant estuaries. Recognizing the
threats to the Massachusetts Bays posed by pollution and development, EPA has
selected the estuary for inclusion in the program.
The growing environmental problems that affect the Massachusetts Bays are
evidence that there is an urgent need for a Management Conference, provided by
the National Estuary Program. There is a strong consensus that Boston Harbor is
one of the most polluted and degraded harbors in the United States. The
Massachusetts Bays Committee has identified CSOs, nutrients, toxic loading, living
resources, and development issues as priorities for their Management Conference.
C] Forty-three communities discharge to the sewage treatment facility and
rivers feeding Boston Harbor. This is resulting in greater numbers of
shellfish bed closures due to bacterial contamination.
C] Huge amounts of toxic materials have been discharged into the harbor,
with the resultant contamination of sediments and living resources. The
incident of disease in fish and shellfish from Boston Harbor is among the
highest in the nation.
C] Increased development pressures along the coast, particularly on Cape
Cod, Have exacerbated existing nutrient, pathogen, and toxicant problems.
The nomination acknowledges that in order to protect the Commonwealths water
resources, Massachusetts Bays must be protected through comprehensive,
coordinated, and integrated approaches that reach beyond single environmental
agencies or policies. Four specific management goals have been adopted by the
Massachusetts Bays Program Management Committee. These goals are:
C] To improve the habitat of the living resources
C] To protect public health by minimizing risk from environmental
contaminants
C] To protect and improve the water and sediment quality
C] To enhance the aesthetic quality and improve recreational opportunities
in the Massachusetts Bays
-------
TAMPA BAY:
EPA’S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
The Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 formally
established the National Estuary Program to promote long-term and comprehensive
planning and management in nationally significant estuaries. Recognizing the
threats to Tampa Bay posed by pollution and development, EPA has selected the
estuary for inclusion to the program. Tampa Bay is a valuable addition to a
national demonstration program because it will need to address timely
development and growth management issues.
Tampa Bay is the largest open water estuary in Florida and supports a myriad of
uses, including: commercial and recreational fishing, shipping and port-related
activities, benefits to the sanitary and electrical service industries, waterfront
property values, and tourism and recreation. The total annual value of these uses
in approximately $3 billion. General water quality is good to excellent in much of
lower and middle Tampa Bay, declining in old Tampa Bay, and undesirable in
Hilisborough Bay. The causes of degradation and the conditions that threaten
degradation of remaining healthy areas led the State to focus on five program
priorities:
Eutrophication, especially due to nitrogen overloading and internal
recycling from sediments
Loss of habitat, including seagrasses and emergent vegetation
0 Loss of fisheries, possibly due to the first two priorities, but also due to
fishing techniques and overfishing
0 Increased user conflict between various recreational activities, industrial
and navigational needs, and urban development
O Increased need for coordinated multiple jurisdictions in planning,
managing, and ufflizing Tampa Bay
Three general goals have been identified for the Tampa Bay ecosystem. These goals
are:
O To reverse the environmental degradation of the Tampa Bay estuarine
system;
0 To optimize water quality and other habitat values, thereby promoting the
sustained existence or re-establishment of thriving, integrated biological
communities; and
0 To ensure the maintenance ad infinitum of a productive balanced
ecosystem complementary with human needs and uses of the resource.
-------
Public Outreach
-------
Puget
Sound
Issue
Papers
-------
COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOWS
WHAT IS A CSO?
There are two kinds of sewer systems--combined and
separate. Combined sewers carry away “sanitary sewage”
from homes, businesses and industries as well as storm-
water runoff from homes, streets or land. In separate
systems, one system of pipes carries only sewage and
another carries stormwater. Both stormwater and sewage
contain pollutants.
Until the 1950s, most cities around Puget Sound built
combined sewer systems. Newer urban areas, especially
suburban developments, have separate systems.
The pipes in a combined system are sized to carry both
sanitary sewage (dry weather flow) and stormwater (wet
weather flow). During a heavy storm, the volume of water
and sewage in the pipes can exceed the pipes’ capacity.
Most combined systems have overflow locations where this
excess water and sewage can be discharged--untreated--
directly into lakes, streams or salt water. These combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) prevent overload of the sewage
treatment plants as well as the backup of sewage into
homes, factories and streets.
Emergency overflows at pump stations are another source
of raw sewage. They discharge directly into water bodies
during power outages or other emergencies.
EFFECTS OF CSOs
CSOs are a major concern for the water quality of Puget
Sound. They discharge raw (untreated) sewage, industrial
wastes and urban runoff directly into Puget Sound, often in
sensitive shoreline areas. The discharge from a CSO may be
small compared to the total discharge of a sewage treat-
ment system, but its effects can be significant, especially
in the immediate vicinity of the overflow pipe.
Effects of CSOs include sludge buildup, turbid water,
floating material and extremely high bacteria concentra-
tions. For example, studies have found high percentages of
metals in the bottom sediments near Metro’s CSO at the
end of Denny Way in Seattle. Other studies found human
viruses in the discharge from this CSO as well as harmful
effects on mussels and other organisms.
WHERE ARE CSOs?
At least ten municipalities around Puget Sound have
CSOs. Sixty-three percent of the CSOs are in the Metro!-
city of Seattle system. Some cities have taken substantial
steps to control CSOs, but in most, very little data is
available on the volume, frequency, location or impacts of
CSOs.
HOW ARE CSOs REGULATED?
Until recently, federal and state programs and regulations
virtually ignored CSOs. Construction of sewage treatment
plants and control of industrial discharges had a much
higher priority. However, a new state law calls for CSO
control plans in every city by July 1988.
WHAT CONTROL OR TREATMENT
MEASURES ARE AVAILABLE?
o Enlarge sewer pipes to transport more or all of the
flow to a sewage treatment plant.
o Increase storage in the system so water can be held
and treated after a storm has passed.
o Separate storm drainage from sanitary sewers by
constructing a new system to handle only stormwater.
However, this generally results in stormwater being dis-
charged without treatment.
o Disconnect roof drains and parking lot drains from the
combined system and divert to dry wells or storage basins.
o Construct sewage treatment facilities at the overflow
point to remove some pollutants before discharge.
o Install computer controls to improve operation of the
sewer system and provide in-line storage.
-------
o Limit groundwater flow into the system in order to
provide more capacity in the pipes.
o Flush combined sewer system during dry periods to
transport solid materials that have settled in the pipes.
Thus less untreated sewage will be transported to CSOs
during storms.
o Construct deeper outfall pipes to move SOs from
shoreline areas and disperse the discharge more widely.
ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS THE CSO PROBLEM:
1. CSOs and discharge permits
The Department of Ecology could adopt an aggressive
program to address CSOs in Puget Sound. Ecology could
include CSOs in discharge permits with information on the
CSO’s location, frequency and volume of discharge. The
permits could require regular monitoring of the discharge.
Ecology could require all cities with CSOs to file reports
on their discharges within one year and other cities to
document that they do not, in fact, have SOs.
2. Source tracing within the combined system
When higher levels of toxic materials are discovered near
a CSO, a city could trace the sources of toxicants arid
prevent their discharge into the sewer system. This re-
quires cities to have personnel for investigations and
authority to regulate discharges.
3. Coordination of planning
Planning for upgrade to secondary sewage treatment
could include planning for control of CSOs as well as
industrial pretreatment, household hazardous waste reduc-
tion and stormwater runoff. Each of these elements has an
impact on water quality that could perhaps be addressed
more effectively through coordinated planning.
4. CSOs and shellfish and swimming
The Department of Ecology could determine which CSOs
discharge to waters near sensitive shellfish beds (commer-
cial and recreational) and swimming beaches. For those
CSOs, Ecology could require chlonnat ion or disinfection of
the discharge.
5. Emergency overflows and discharge permits
All sewage treatment plants could have their emergency
overflows listed in their discharge permits. Contingency
plans could be required to minimize the impact of emergen-
cy overflows and structural changes required for recurring
emergency overflow problems.
6. Planning for CSO correction
The Department of Ecology could award planning grants
to the cities with CSOs but without CSO control plans
Control measures could be site-specific for optimum control
in each location.
7. CSOs and local ordinances
Cities with CSOs could amend local zoning or drainage
ordinances to require new developments with impervious
surfaces (roofs, parking lots, driveways) to install systems
to retain stormwater and reduce or delay flows of storm-
water into the combined system.
8. CSOs and water consumption
Public education to encourage reduced water use by
people and industry during heavy storms could reduce flows
entering the combined system and increase the capacity of
the pipes to handle stormwater. Large industrial dischargers
could be required to have holding tanks or to limit the
volume discharged during storms.
9. CItizen education about storm drains
Most people are unaware of the fate of chemicals, waste
oil and antifreeze that are poured into storm drains An
education program could improve their awareness that
anything put into a drain could be discharged directly to
Puget Sound.
TO ORDER the complete issue paper on Combined Sewer
Overflows, write or call the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, 217 Pine St., Suite 1100, Seattle, Washington
98103, (206) 464-7320 or 1-800-54-SOUND
-------
Pt ; El SOt \ I) 1 F K QI A FIT - [ THOR! 1
ISSUE BRIEF
RESPONSE 10
OIL SPILLS ON
PUGET SOUND
On December 21, 1985, the oil tanker Arco Anchorage
went aground in Port Angeles Harbor. There was major
damage to the hull, and about 239,000 gallons of crude
oil leaked from the vessel into harbor waters.
The Coast Guard was the lead federal agency and the
Department of Ecology the lead state agency in respond-
ing to the spill. The Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO)
accepted responsibility and assumed the lead for cleanup
actions. Federal and state efforts are governed by con-
tingency plans that have been prepared for response to
oil spills and spills of hazardous substances.
ARCO funded and managed the cleanup as well as
several studies to assess biological damages resulting
from the spill. Cleanup efforts included protecting the
most sensitive beaches by booming and skimming, clean-
ing beaches, tracing oil movement, cleaning oiled logs
inside the harbor and cleaning birds. Eventually, hundreds
of employees and volunteers and at least eight large
vessels were involved in activities associated with the
cleanup.
The effects of oil in the marine environment vary
according to a number of factors, including the type of
oil; what organisms it encounters; water temperature,
currents, waves and tides; and cleanup procedures. It can
affect plants and animals on beaches, birds and fish eggs
on the water surface, and fish and marine mammals in
the water. Oil which reaches the bottom will affect fish
and animals such as crabs or shrimp. Oil may persist in
habitats such as kelp beds, eelgrass beds and salt mar-
shes.
Several issues have arisen with respect to the response
to the Port Angeles spill. These are related to:
o The role of local government in spill response, clean-
up and damage assessment.
o The role of volunteers in spill cleanup.
o The type, quantity and location of oil spill contain-
ment equipment in Puget Sound.
o The management of cleanup actions when the respon-
sible private party conducts the cleanup.
o The funding and management of damage assessment
studies.
o Communication and public relations during oil spill
incidents.
ALTERNATIVES THAT ADDRESS RESPONSE
TO OIL SPILLS
The Department of Ecology is currently studying oil
spill issues with the assistance of an advisory committee.
Several of the alternatives relate to participation by the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority in this study.
The Authority could:
* Use the rest of 1986 to gain further insight into the
issues and recommend revision of the state contingency
plan beginning in 1987.
* Recommend specific solutions for each of the identi-
fied issues in the 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Man-
agement Plan.
* Recommend that issues identified be considered and
alternative solutions developed as part of the ongoing
Ecology study to be completed in December 1986.
* Discontinue planning for oil spill issues.
* Prepare policies for use in addressing oil spill-related
issues.
* Recommend immediate revision of the state contingen-
cy plan to address the role of local governments and
volunteers in spill response.
TO ORDER the complete issue paper on Response to Oil
Spills on Puget Sound, write or call the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, 217 Pine St., Suite 1100,
Seattle, Washington 98103, (206) 464-7320 or 1-800-54-
SOUND.
-------
P U (; F ‘I S 0 1 ‘ I) \V A 1 F k Q t A U I 1 ‘t A U T II 0 R I 1
ISSUE BRIEF H
COMPREHENSIVE
MONITORING
OF PUGET SOUND
Monitoring of the environment is important for under-
standing the natural processes of Puget Sound and the
effects of human activities on the Sound and its resources.
Monitoring is used for managing resources and for regula-
tory and clean-up activities.
Although at least 20 federal, state and local agencies
monitor one or more aspects of Puget Sound, and over 500
dischargers regularly monitor some aspect of their dis-
charges, there is no comprehensive monitoring program in
Puget Sound. There are no measures to assure that
comparable data are generated by each program, to store
the data, to analyze the results, and to guarantee that data
are shared with the appropriate agencies, researchers and
the public.
Currently there are numerous, fragmented programs that
sample and analyze water, sediment (mud and sand that
make up the bottom of the Sound) and biological resources
(plants and animals). This has led to unnecessary duplica-
tion of some monitoring programs and data gaps in others.
Most existing monitoring programs are narrowly focused on
a certain geographic area or on a few specific measure-
ments. Because of this fragmentation, public funds are not
now used efficiently.
A comprehensive monitoring program can be divided into
four major categories:
1.Anibient monitoring or routine, long-term monitoring
at fixed stations at regular intervals. Water and sediment
quality and biological resources would be monitored in an
ambient program.
2. Discharge monitoring of point sources (such as sewage
treatment plants and industrial wastes) and nonpoint
sources (such as septic systems and runoff from farms and
city streets).
3. Intensive surveys or short-term monitoring programs
to identify sources of pollutants. These programs are used
to identify and solve specific pollution problems.
4. Other programs such as monitoring of weather,
population growth, shoreline changes, shellfish contami-
nation and populations of plants and animals.
ALTERNATiVES FOR A COMPREHENSWE
MONITORING PROGRAM
1. Standardization of protocols
Protocols are standard procedures for collecting and
analyzing data. Currently protocols are not standard from
agency to agency, making comparison of data difficult. All
agencies monitoring Puget Sound could adopt standardized
protocols.
2. Central or coordinated data management system
A centralized data management program could be
developed. All agencies that monitor any aspect of Puget
Sound could enter data into the system, and the data could
be made available to researchers, agencies and the general
public.
3. Data interpretation and report production
Data that are collected are often not analyzed and pub-
lished; thus the information is not available for making
regulatory and management decisions. Each agency could
have enough staff to ensure that data are interpreted and
the results distributed. A central location for the informa-
tion could be established to make it more easily available.
-------
4. Adequate laboratory capability
Laboratory capacity is often the “weak link” in monitor’
ing programs. Delays of several months in analysis of data
is not uncommon. If the state cannot provide adequate
laboratory capability, there could be arrangements with
private or contract laboratories or cooperative agreements
between agencies.
5. Rc icw of water column monitoring program
Although $(67,000 is spent each year gathering data on
the water quality of Puget Sound, the programs do not
al ays provide the information most useful for drawing
conclusions about trends or sources of pollution The
programs could be reviewed to determine what monitoring
would be most useful and whether there are better ways to
nionitor the water column
6 Sediment monitoring program
No programs currently exist to monitor sediments Four
sediment monitoring programs could be establishe& ambient
sediment monitoring, intensive surveys, discharge monitor-
ing and dredging and dredged material disposal
7. Improved point and nonpoint discharge monitoring
Although over 500 dischargers regulated under state and
federal permits routinely submit discharge monitoring
reports, fewer than 10 dischargers are required to report
anything about toxic materials in their discharges The
state laboratories or a contractor could be made respon-
sible tor collecting samples and analyzing and reporting
data The Department of Ecology could increase its
ncpecrions of all commercial and industrial facilities and
could aggressively search tor illegal dischargers.
8. Greater number of intensive surveys
After the ambient monitoring program has identified
environmental problems, intensive surveys could be done to
identify sources and develop control measures This would
require close coordination between the two monitoring
programs.
9. Biological monitoring
There is very little monitoring of the plants and animals
of Puget Sound At a minimum, there could be monitoring
to determine if populations are stable, declining or
increasing In addition, monitoring of plants and animals
may provide better indicators of pollution than monitoring
of water and sediment.
10. Iinpro ed shellfish monitoring
Decisions on the closure of shellfish beds are made on
the basis of samples taken every two years Shellfish could
be sampled more often and intensive surveys done here
problems are discovered
11. Monitoring by citizen volunteers
Citizens could assist with and increase the effectiveness
of some monitoring programs. For example, a year-round
resident can observe changes that may not be detected in
monthly samples. Monitoring could also increase people’s
awareness about problems and how individual actions car
contribute to a problem or its solution
TO ORDER the complete issue paper on Comprehensi c
Monitoring, write or call the Puget Sound \Vater Qu iliry
Authority, 217 Pine St., Suite 1100, Seattle, \Vashington
98 103, (206) 464-7320 or 1-800-54-SOUND
-------
PUBLIC INVOLVEMEP ff
IN WATER QUALIFY
POLICY MAKING
• The role of public involvement in policymaking is em-
phasized in the legislation establishing the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority. The Authority’s comprehensive
management plan must include “public involvement strate-
gies,...and public participation in developing and imple-
menting the plan.”
Public involvement strategies vary according to issues
and context. The issues to be included in the first Puget
Sound plan cover a wide spectrum: wetlands protection,
contaminated sediments, industrial and municipal dischar-
ges, oil spills and pollution from urban and agricultural
runoff. Different institutional structures affect and arise
from each of these issues. Consequently, there are dif-
ferent ways in which the public may affect the decisions
made in those areas.
A survey of citizens groups, city and county govern-
ments, tribes and agencies showed that, whatever the
issue or the structure, there were some basic elements
necessary for effective public involvement. These include:
1) timely, understandable and complete notice of pending
action; 2) access early in the decision-making process; 3)
ease of access to the process; and 4) response to citizens
on how their comments or recommendations were used.
Three programs that illustrate how public involvement
can vary by issue and by context are: 1) the Shoreline
Management Act, 2) the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, and 3) the control of on-site sewage
disposal systems. These programs relate directly to the
issues being addressed in the first Puget Sound plan.
1) The Shoreline Management Act, passed in 1971,
arose from citizen participation and community concern.
Shoreline areas were seen as a public resource and man-
agement of the resource as a collective responsibility.
The SMA established a joint state/local role for manag-
ing shorelines. The SMA requires opportunities for citizen
participation in both the development of shoreline master
programs and in their implementation through the shore-
line permit process. There has been extensive citizen
participation in all phases of shoreline planning, from
development of the initiative which prompted the passage
of Shoreline Management Act to review of individual
permits.
2) The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem was established as part of the federal Clean Water
Act and is now administered by the Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology. The program is based on a permit sys-
tem for regulation of industrial and municipal dischargers
of wastewater (“point source” pollution). The regulations
governing NPDES require public notice but do not require
public involvement. There has been only minimal public
involvement at all stages of the NPDES process, and
there is disagreement about whether this indicates a lack
of interest or a lack of access to the process.
3) Control of on-site sewage disposal (septic) systems
is decentralized and managed at the local (county) level
through health departments. There has been some public
involvement at the policymaking level: at the state level
when minimum standards for design, installation and
maintenance of septic systems are set; and at the county
level, where ordinances often set higher standards than
those set by the state. The consensus is that in this
issue the greatest need for public involvement is not in
setting policy but in implementation. This requires a
widespread public education effort that explains why
failing septic systems threaten water quality and how
individuals can prevent such failures.
-------
ALTERNATIVES TO IMPROVE
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
1. General alternatives
* A position for a local government liaison could be
created within state agencies.
A newsletter on public involvement programs and
techniques could be prepared.
Coordination between Ecology and the Department of
Social and Health Services on water quality programs
could be improved.
• Regular meetings could be set up between state agen-
cies and local government officials.
* Public meetings could be scheduled at more convenient
times and places, and earlier notice of these meetings
could be provided.
* Agencies and local governments could prepare sum-
mary materials on policies and regulations.
* Awards could be given to governmental entities that
make a special effort to involve the public.
2. ShorelIne Management Act
* A brochure and advertisements explaining the SMA
process could be prepared.
* Local governments could be encouraged or required to
use citizen advisory committees for program revisions.
Local governments could prepare better materials
describing revisions in local master programs and cnteria
for permits.
• Local governments could designate a community liai-
son.
* Large signs could be used on proposed development
sites to identify proposed actions.
3. National Pollutant Discharge EliminatIon System
* Ecology could give wider and more accurate notice on
permit renewals, drawing attention to less stringent
permits.
• Ecology could establish cntena for holding public
hearings on NPDES permits.
• Ecology could define a policy encouraging public in-
volvement in the NPDES process.
* Ecology could include public review earlier in the
permit application process
* Ecology could establish a permit review committee.
• The state could reward individuals for reporting viola-
tions of permits.
* The state could encourage citizen enforcement actions.
4. Control of on-site septic sewage disposal systems
* The Department of Social and Health Services could
activate the state advisory committee as required by law.
* State and local health authorities could be encouraged
to use broad-based advisory committees.
• Education programs on the installation and mainte-
nance of on-site septic systems could be organized on a
county level.
TO ORDER the complete issue paper on Public Involve-
ment in Water Quality Policymaking, write or call the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 217 Pine St., Suit
1100, Seattle, Washington 98103, (206) 464-7320 or 1-80.
54-SOUND.
-------
II.
Long Island
Sound
Fact Sheets
-------
FACT SHEET #10
LONG
ISLAND
SOUND
STUDY
Of the 65,000 chemicals in use today, many are
poisonous or toxic. The effect of toxic contaminants on
the health of Long Island Sound, and on those who use
it, is a major concern of the Long Island Sound Study
(LISS).
What is Being Done About Toxic
Contamination?
LISS investigators are evaluating information
that identifies which toxic substances are of concern,
where they come from, where they end up, how they
affect the ecosystem, and what the health risks are for
human consumers of seafood products. Ultimately, the
LISS will produce a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) that will include a section on
management of toxic substances. One goal of the Study
is to reduce impacts from toxic contamination on Long
Island Sound resources. Another is to minimize human
health risks.
Which Toxic Contaminants Should
We Be Concerned About?
Land use and the manufacture, use, and
disposal of everyday products all contribute
contaminants to the system. The LISS has established a
list of toxic pollutants we should be concerned about in
our area that reflect past and present activities in the
Sound’s drainage basin (Table 1). Although metals are
naturally found in the environment, their levels are often
elevated by human activities. Because copper, zinc,
cadmium, and chromium are commonly used in industry,
they are found on the LISS target list. Other metals on
the list such as lead have also built up in the Sound as a
result of everyday activ ies, pnmarily automobile use.
The LISS list also contains organic (carbon-
based) pollutants. Many of these substances are
synthetic, that is, they do not occur naturally in the
environment. Polychlorinated biphenyis (PCBs) and
most of the pesticides listed are no longer in general
production: some are still found in the Sound, however,
because they take years to disperse and break down.
Also listed are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH5) which are ubiquitous components of petroleum
products. They are also produced during the combustion
of organic materials such as fossil fuels, trees, trash, and
even charcoal barbecues. PAHs are widely distributed
by the atmosphere. Long Island Sound is likely to be
contaminated with PAHs near sources such as
petroleum terminals, urban harbors, coal piles, and
industrialized basins. Some PAHs are known
carcinogens and pose a potential problem wherever they
are found.
What Are The Sources of Toxic
Contaminants in Long Island Sound?
Understanding the relative contributions of the
various sources of toxic substances is necessary in
order to develop effective strategies to protect the
Sound. Both active sources or discharges and any
environmental contamination resulting from hiStOriC
activities must be evaluated. Currently, active discharges
are regulated under the pollution discharge ehrnination
system (PDES) permits. Management strategies are
more cost effective when they are preventative. i.e.
developed for ongoing activities and discharges. Once
contamination occurs, cleanup is extremely costly and
difficult.
Toxic substances enter the Sound’s waters as a
result of natural processes and human activities.
Pollution sources are categorized as either point
-------
sources, for example, discharge pipes, or nonpolnt
sources, such as stormwater runoff and atmospheric
deposition (see Fact Sheet #7). Wastewater and runoff
have different types and concentrations of contaminants.
For example, in the Long Island Sound area, sewage
treatment plants appear to be a major source of copper
pollution, whereas urtan runoff contributes much of the
lead contamination. Recent research has shown
atmospheric depositon is an important source of heavy
metals such as copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Another
pollution source which cannot be ignored, is sediment
already in the Sound. Prior to the 1970s, lack of stringent
discharge controls led to locally contaminated sediment
that can release pollutants when resuspended (see
Figure 1). The contaminants may also be accumulated
and redistributed by marine organisms when ingested or
physically disturbed.
What Happens to Toxic Substances
Once They Enter The Sound?
Once toxic chemicals are released into the
environment, they may move back and forth between the
water column, bottom sediment, and the food chain
many times. This cycle ends when they are buried deep
in the sediment or, as for some toxic organic substances
(DDTs), broken down into harmless compounds (Figure
2). The residence time (average length of time a
contaminant remains in a system) of a toxic organic
substance depends upon the characteristics of the
substance as well as the environment in which it is
found. Controlling factors include the compound’s
structure, the medium’s chemistry, and the presence of
other chemicals. PCBs and chlorinated hydrocarbons
such as DDT have long environmental residence times.
They are foreign to the natural environment and natural
metabolic processes have not evolved that quickly break
them down.
Although toxic substances are found in
organisms and in the water of Long Island Sound, the
majority of the contaminants are attached or bound to
sediment particles. Sediment found in urban harbors
often contains high concentrations of contaminants since
the harbors are adjacent to past or existing pollutant
sources (Figure 1). It follows that sedentary and some
mobile marine life living in areas that have highly
contaminated sediment usually contain higher
concentrations of contaminants than those found in
cleaner areas such as the open Sound (Figure 3).
The uptake of organic and inorganic substances
by fish and invertebrates is controlled by environmental
conditions, the character of the substance, and the
physiology of the organism. Generally the level of a
pollutant in an organism’s tissue is determined by factors
such as the length of exposure (concentration over a
period of time), how much fat tissue the organism has,
and by its ability to metabolize and/or excrete the
pollutant. Considering the wide range of contaminants,
physical and chemical conditions, and marine I de, it’s not
surprising that straightforward relationships between
exposure and pollutant concentration in living tissues
have not been defined.
Studies conducted for the LISS and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Mussel
Watch indicate that levels of some metals and pesticides
in Long Island Sound shellfish tissues have declined.
Figure 4 shows the levels of metals in oyster meats have
declined since the 1970s, This is the result of numerous
factors, including improved treatment of industrial and
sewage treatment plant discharges as required by the
Federal Clean Water Act. Other factors are the
movement of industries that pollute away from the
Northeast and the phasing out of products that pollute
such as leaded gasoline, lead paint, and persistent
pesticides.
How do Toxic Substances Affect The
Ecosystem?
Some substances in high concentrations can kill
marine lite. Other substances have a more subtle effect
on marine lite in terms of behavior, reproduction, or how
they impact the key components of intricately balanced
food webs. The net result could be a reduction in
productivity and an imbalance in marine Ide communities
towards pollution tolerant species such as the
opportunistic benthic worm Cap’rtetla . This factor is more
pertinent to the condition or health of marine resource
populations rather than to the health of seafood
consumers.
What Are The Human Health Risks?
Often, toxic substances are found at higher
levels in organisms than in the water in which the
organisms are found. This phenomenon,
bloaccumulatlon, has special sign’rficance for seafood.
Bioaccumulation occurs when the amount of
‘C
I
Figure 3. Copper in oysters from Long Island Sound.
Source: Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection, 1986.
800
I. ..
MdIO d’GuIt Pond IGP
$ ‘.09.Df1(RP)-\ \ ,.
SIac oct urn -
G ) .
I’
r
C.gsi .. g O ,’y I.dsl’uI’l
‘O C. g — SO ‘X.41 ‘ ?X ,41
Figure 1. Distribution of Copper in sutiace sediments of
Long Island Sound. Source: Greig, et al,, 1977.
GR BR BP GP NH
LocatIon
-------
* *
Figure 2. Fate of chemicals in Long Island Sound.
vol it di z at ion
biochemical and hotochemicaJ
reactions ri urface rnicrolaver
dilution in waler
adsorption to sediment particles or algae
/
settling
(
N.
uptake through skin or gills
,—
release in f es
other chemicals
S
photochemjcaj reaction
/7
* ingestion by predators
ingestion by filter feeders
contaminant taken into the organism exceeds the
amount removed or excreted. Bioaccumulation can
cause organisms to have high levels of toxic substances
in their tissues, and consequently may be a health risk to
seafood consumers. Public health advisories are
published to inform consumers about potential risks from
chemical alterations in sediment pore
waters and sediment ater interface
eating large amounts of specific types of seafood (see
Fact Sheet #9). In Long Island Sound, advisories for
saltwater fish exist for only striped bass. b!uef:sh, and
lobster tomafleys. New York also has an advisory for
American eels. These advisories are all because of
elevated levels of PCBs. The state health o f cats in
dischargc into the Sound
* 0
changing by bacterial action
export
)
ingestion by filter feeders
resuspension by water currents or organisms
ingestion by predators
0
C
0
EU
.
burial by new sediments
-------
Connecticut and New York involved wdh the LISS are
working to ensure that heaTh risks are addressed as pail
of the CCMP
Managing Toxic Contaminants in
Long Island Sound?
The LISS will provide information to help
environmental managers locus on reducing toxic
contamina’cn in the Sound The LISS is attempting to
reduce toxic contamination in the Sound and educate
the Long Island Sound corr inunity about contamination
issues
Presently, New York has water quakty standards
for over 20 chemicals The 1155 may also recommend
addrnonal cr revised water quality standards for some
toxic substances Currently. critera for toxic chemicals in
the sediment are not well defined but they are being
developed at the Federal level The LISS will monitor
progress in the development of sediment criteria and
other guidelines for seafood and make
recommendations for criteria usage when appropriate
Control of toxic contaminants from point
discharges around Long Island Sound is an ongoing
process The industrial pretreatment program requires
industries to reduce levels of toxic substances in their
effluent prior to discharging to sewage treatment plants
Conversely, any industries that discharge directly to
surface waters are regutated by the PDES permitting
program The regulatory approach has evotved trom
being sotey based on effluent limits to a combination of
30
t5
these timits with biological methods Permits require
some dischargers to conduct a b Ioassay, a test that
exposes sensitive fish and aquatic invertebrates to
wastewater discharge tithe test organisms are impa
or die, the tacitity is required to deter mine the cause ,,
the rcrtatity and modify their operations to e ininate or
neutralize the toxicity Although the bioassay test does
not evatuate the cumulative impacts of the buildup of
pollutants within the system, it does evaluate the
combined effect of all contaminants in the dischacge.
providing an added level of protection that numerical
timits do not otter
The densely populated nature of the land
surrounding the Sound makes Stormwater runoll a
critical issue Runofi carries contaminants picked up
from the land to surface waters Tackling the problem of
runoff as a source of contaminants requires effective
land use controls and wetland protection programs
Unfit the controts being developed for all types ot
discharges and waste reduction become etfective at
reducing the levels of toxic substances in the Sound.
health concerns are being identified and the public
informed of them In the future, additional control over
the input Irom both point and nonpont sources ci
chemical contamination should be the result of the
coordinated efforts 01 an informed community ut c izens,
environmental scientists and managers, and elected
government officials
120
I
, - - so
0’
19 SO s
0
Chromium Copper
Figure 4 The mean and range of concentrations (mg/g dry *1) of selected heavy metals in oysters collected at
the mouth 01 the Housatonic River n the 1970s comparedtothosecollectedlnthe 1980 5 Source 1970
data, Feng and Ruddy and 1980 data, CT Department of Environmental Prolection
I a — — -
The Long Island Sound Study
The Long tsland Sound Study (LISS) is a six year research and management pro 1 ect that began in 1985 as pan ot he
fJationat Estuary Program, a recent addition to the tederal Clean Water Ad created to protect estuaries of nationat imporiance The
LtSS is a cooperative effort involving research institutions, regulatory agencies. marine user groups and other concerned
organizat ions and individuals The purpose of the Study is to produce a management plan tor the Sound Ihal wilt be adrninis’ered
by the three major 115 5 partners, the Environmental Protection Agency and the states of New York and Connecticut To gel
involved w4h the Study, or for more iniormation, contact the New York Sea Grail Ec.ension Piogram, 125 Nassau l-la.I SUNY
Siony Biook, NY 11794, Tel (516)632-8737. or the Connect i cut Sea Grant Marine Athisory Program, 43 Marne Street. Harnden
CT 06514. Tel (203)789-7865.
,it
This fact sheet was produced by the New Yor*i Sea Grant Extension I _ _ _ _ _ [ S
Program and the Connecticut Sea Giant Maine Advisory Program J bt] I t
Written by Paul Stacey and Melissa Senstain, artwor* by Catherine Walker and Mitzi Eisel •. ,, c C ,’
Funding provided by the Long Is /and Sound Study Cccperaring Agencies The U S Environmental Protection Agi ncy
Connecticut Deparvnert of Env,ronm ,ntai Protection. New Voi* Oepartnent of Environmental Conservat ion
Codmium
0
197 0g 5000
197 Os
E 1980s 2500 H i9SOs
0 - a -
250
l2
g iGs
0
1980 5
Nickel
690
-------
flKTC . 89-37
FACT SHEET #5
ISLAND
SOUND Supporting the Sound
STUDY
How Can I Help The Sound?
i—.—.’ ‘, #._—_.
Cleaning up and protecting Long Island Sound (LIS) is a complicated and expensive process, involving Scientists,
politicians, regulators, and educators, and others — but where do citizens fit in? The answer is almost everywhere’ The
tiuth is that without public involvement and support, the pollution of the Sound will continue The battle for LIS is being
fought on many fronts, and there are many ways that you, as a concerned citizen, can help
This fact sheet describes three ways’ staying informed, joining a marine user group or citizen action group, arid
communicating with elected officials. The lists below are not exhaustive, but they should give you an idea of how and where
to get started. As you contact some of the people working for the Sound, you’ll likely discover other options in your area,
However you choose to become involved, it’s important that you make your voice heard !
• Become Informed
Everyone concerned about the Sound should become informed on the subject, beginning by following LIS stones in
the newspapers andother media. By becoming more knowledgeable, you will be a more convincing advocate for the Sound
in your conversations with friends and neighbors. In addition, you will be able to identify organizations, programs, and
elected officials that share your concerns Detailed information on the Sound is available from a number of educational
organizations in the LIS area. Contact the groups below to see what they have to otter
LONG ISLAND SOUND RESOURCE CENTER
The Center is a recent cooperative effort of the UCONN Marine Sciences
Institute arid CT DEP to create and maintan a collection of US publications
and data that will be available to researchers, managers, educators and
the public Ralph Lewis, (203) 445-3473
LONG ISLAND SOUND TASXFORCE
LIST is a regionai chapter of the Oceanic Society in Stamford, CT which
produces the USS newsletter and condects courses, seminars, and field
mps focusing on the Sound Rick Sctveiner, Director (203) 327-9786
THE MAR ME CENTER
The Center is a combination museum, theater, aquanum, and niarine
e icabon center in Norwalk, CT, effenng LiS oriented school and aduit
programs Slup Crane, Education Director. (203) 838-1488
MYSTiC MARINEUFE AOUARIUU
The a anum is a nonprofit organization in Mystic, CT offenng exhibits
and conducting field ti ps and programs for both school chii en and
a<s Kenneth P Sherwood Jr, Director of Education, (203) 536-4208
OCEAN CLASSROOM
Ocean Classroom is a nonprofit organization in Bridgeport, CT offering in-
school and in-the-field marine educational, vocational, and recreational
programs for all ages Valerie Coumoyer, Director, (203) 333-8744
PROJECT OCEANOLOGY
Project 0 is a nonprofIt manne ed.ication center that conducts programs
for sdiooi children and a jits onboard its two boats and in its waterfront
lab in Groton, CT Dr Mickey Weiss, Director, (203) 445-9007
SCHOONER, INC.
Schooner is a marine e Jcabon organization located in New Haven, CT
offanng classes for school groups and the public teatunng the sailing
vessel J N Caner Pamela Wuerth, Executive Director. (203) 865.1737
SEA GRANT
In addition to organizing the public ou each activities of the LISS. the Sea
Grant Programs offer information arid advisory services on a number ci
marine topics In CT’ the Marine Advisory Program. (203) 445-8664 In
NY the Sea Grant Extension Program. (516) 632-8730
THE LONG ISLAND SOUND STUDY - -
The Long island Sound Study (USS) is a six-year research and management project that began in 1985 as part of the National Estuary
Program, a recent ad tion to the federal Clew, Water Act created to protect estuaries of national importance The USS isa cooperative elf oil
involving research institutions, regulatory agencies, marine user groups, and other concemed organizations and individuals The purpose
ot the Study is to produce a plan to clean up and protect the Sound that will be administered by the three major LISS partners, the
Environmental Protection Agency arid the states of Connecticut and Now York The Sea Grant Programs of Connecticut and New York
coor nate the public education and participation activitieS of the LISS, inclu ng fact sheets, lectures, and workshops For more information
on the Study or USS public education activities, contact
• Melissa Bensta,n, New York Sea Grant Extension Program, Dutchess Hall, SUNY, Stony Brook NY 11794, Tel (5 16)632-8737
• Kathy Rhodes, Connecticut Sea Grant Manna Adwsory Program, 43 Mama Street. Hamden, CT 06514. Tel (203) 789-7863
Should you want drect input to the three major parti ’ier agencies, contact
• US Environrnentei Protection Agency Susan Beede (617) 565-3518
• New York Dep:artment of Eiws’omiental Conservation Sophie Morris (5 16) 751-7900 ext 215
• Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Wanda R,cAerby (203) 566-2110
-------
1!
It you use LIS to swim, fish, scuba dive, or boat, there is probably a “user group in your area that represents people
who share your particular interest in the Sound. These organizations often have a US agenda of some kind, and ma
aclive in fund-raising or lobbying efforts. There are too many to list here, but you can ask around at your local marina, L
shop, dive shop, or beach
Citizen’s groups are for those who wish to take an active role in issues that affect LIS. on a local, regional, or national
level Joining a citize n’s group typically involves going to meetings and supporting staff people who serve as environmental
watchdogs, lobbying for particular programs or taking legal action on behalf of the group Below are a few organizations
that concentrate much of their efforts on the Sound and related rnanne environmental issues.
V ACTiON FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE NORTH SHORE V LONG iSLAND SOUNDKEEPER FUND
ACTION is concerned about environmental issues affecting the North
Shore of Long Island, indu ng the probienis of LIS Nina Marden,
(516) 271-3029
V CONNECTICUT FUND FOR THE ENViRONMENT
CFE promotes enwonmentai law enforcement in Connecticut through
Iegai action, scientific investigation, and edi.icabon New Haven
Suzanne Manei, Esq (203) 787-0646 Hartford Katharine Robinson,
Esq (203)524-1639
V FEDERATED C0NSERVAT NiSTS OF WESTCHESTER COUMTY
FCWC is a coalition of organizations and individuals based in Pur-
chase, NY dedicated to preserving Westchester’s natural resources
FCWC runs watchdog activities, takes legal action, and sponsors edu-
cabonai forums Diana Blair, Executive Director, (914) 253-8046
Contact Elected Officials
The Soundkeeper Fund maintains a shore watch program and other
watchdog activities focusing on LIS water quality and coastal habitat
preservation Terry Backer, Soundkeeper, (203) 854-5330
V ThE SOUNDS CONSERVANCY
TSC is dedicated to protecting and restonng the natural resources of
the marine region of southern New England Based in Essex. CT, TSC
also provides grants for smail researoh projects that enhance its goals
Christopher Percy, President, (203) 767-1933
V SOUNOWATCH
Sounth alch, based in City island, NV, is a coalition of advocacy arid
edijcebon groups focusing on water quality ri the western Sound
Susan Balhinson, President, (212) 885-2566
Voice your concerns about LIS to elected officials directly. Listed below are groups that specifically address LIS issues
Of course, an elected official (at any level of government) need not be a memberof a fomial LIS group to hear yourconcerP
Find out who your local, state, and federal government representatives are and Jet them know that the Sound is impor
to you. Because many decisions affecting the Sound are made at the local level, you can personally make an impact ,
interacting with municipal commissions. Your input really does make a difference!
GROUPS THAT SPECIFICALLYADDRESS US ISSUES
US CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS
The US Caucus is a biparti son coalition composed of 10 Congressional
Representatives in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island whose
disti’icts abut the Sound Formed in the spring of 1987, theCaucus works
locally and in Washington to support LIS dean-up programs The
Caucus members are Sthneider (RI), Gejdenson, Momson, Shays
(CT), Engel, Garsia, Hochbruecknor, Lowey, Mrazek, Scheuer (NV)
They can be readied through their dismct offices, listed in the blue
pages (governmental dredory) of die phone book.
STATE SENATE US CAUCUS
Consisting of state senators from CT and NY representing disttids
around the Sound. the Caucus seeks public opinion on the Sound’s
condition, and promotes interstate cooperation in dealing with its
enwonrnentelitis Contacttheofficesof CTStatoSenatorJohnAdun
(203) 240-0480, NY State Senator Owen Johnson (516) 669-9200, NY
State Senator Suzi Oppenheimer (914) 235-4710
BISTATE US MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Composed of environmental oifioais and state legisiators from both
states, the Commi ee was created in die fat of 1988 by parallel bills
passed by the CT and NY legislatures The Con’in,ittee will help to
identify and coordinate bistale actions affecting the Sound A list ol
members can be obtained from the offices of CT State Senator Atkin
(203) 240-0480 or NY State Senator Johnson (516) 669-9200
NYS SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE
ON ThE LONG ISLAND MARINE DISTRICT
The Subcommittee M’oàices and reviews legislation pertaining to the
state’s marine and coastal dusbid Marine issues investigated include
pollution, fl her’ies management and boating State Senator Owen
Johnson, Chairman, (516) 669-9200
a NYS ASSEMBLY TASKFORCE ON US
Composed of NY State Assemblymen concerned with the Sound’s
health, die Taskforce holds hearings and studies legislation affecting
LIS Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli, Chauman. (518) 455-5192
This fact theer was oduced by the Connecticut Sea Grant Mann. Advisory Program
end U t. New York Sea Grant Extension Program. Written by Chester L Arnold and
edited by Peg Van Parren
Funded by the Long Island Sound Study Cooperating agencies. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wat
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
• Join Marine User & Citizen’s Groups
-------
IH.
Action Plan
Demonstration
Projects
Fact Sheets
-------
CEPA
Office of Marine and Estuanne Protection
August 1990
National Estuary Program
I IDnATEQ
I! i 1989 Action Projects
Long Island Agricultural Non point Source
Sound Nutrient Management Demonstration Project
Estuaries and other coastal and marine waters are national resources that are increasingly
threatened by pollution, habitat loss, coastal development, and resource conflicts Congress
established the National Estuary Program (NEP) to pioneer a broader focus for coastal
protection and to demonstrate practical, innovative approaches for protecting estuanes and
their living resources
As part of this demonstration role, the NEP offers funding for member estuanes to design
and implement Action Plan Demonstration Projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of
selected cleanup strategies in priority problem areas, show improvements that car’ be
achieved on a nall scale, and help determine the time and resources needed to apply
similar approaches basinwide
The NEP currently includes 17 estuaries Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, NC, Barataria-Terre-
bonne Estuarine Complex, LA, Buzzards Bay, MA, Casco Bay, ME, Delaware Estuary. NJ,
PA, and DE, Delaware Inland Bays. DE; Galveston Bay, l x; Indian River Lagoon, FL. Long
Island Sound, CT and NY; Massachusetts Bays, MA, Narragansett Bay, RI; New York-New
Jersey Harbor. NY and NJ: Pu get Sound, WA: San Francisco Estuary, CA, Santa Monica
Bay, CA: Sarasota Bay, FL; and Tampa Bay, FL This fact sheet describes an acton demon-
stration project in Long Island Sound
The Problem Hypoxia is the condition of dangerously low levels of dissolved oxygen in the water.
It often results from explosive growths of aquatic algae caused by excess supplies of
nutrients such as phosphorus arid nitrogen. When these algal masses die, their
decay consumes the dissolved oxygen in the water, depleting the supply available to
other aquatic life. Below a certain threshold of oxygen, those aquatic organisms that
can’t migrate from the hypoxic area will suffer increasing physical stress and even-
tually suffocate.
In Long Island Sound, an important source of excess nutrients is agricultural non-
point source (NPS) runoff. Tillage systems that remove cover vegetation, some farm
irrigation methods, and applications of fertilizer and manure are practices that
exacterbate normal runoff problems. Pasturing livestock near streams without
restraint can also lead to manure runoff.
The Housatonic River is the second largest river draining into the Sound, carrying
thousands of tons of nitrogen and other nutients to the western Sound where hy-
poxia is most severe.
-------
The Long Island Sound Study (USS) Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan will most likely call for a reduction of agricultural nutrients to the Soun’
To achieve this goal, farmers in the severly affected watershed must be convinced
that nutrient runoff can be reduced without affecting crop production.
The Project This project seeks to reduce nonpoint sources of agricultural nutrients to Long
Island Sound by implementing individual nutrient management plans on 27 se-
lected farms within the Housatonic River watershed. Coordinated by USS through
a number of federal, state, and local agencies, these plans are intended to demon-
strate how good management can control agricultural NFS nutrient pollution.
Participating farmers will work with officials of the US. Soil Conservation Service
and Cooperative Extension Service (CES) to develop nutrient management plans
based on analyses of their soils’ specific needs. With this information, individual
plans can be drafted to show how to use existing manure supplies and commercial
fertilzers to meet these needs. Farmers will also learn about various erosion control
methods to profitably reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, including conserva-
tion tillage, crop rotation, contour plowing, the use of concrete manure pits, and
fencing-off stTeam banks. Existing USDA and conservation district programs are
ready to help with one-to-one technical assistance and some cost sharing. The
prospects of reduced commercial fertilizer expenses and payments for manure
management are expected to entice farmers to participate.
To promote broader use of the demonstrated techniques, the Litchfield County (CT)
Soil and Conservation District manager will publicize the successes achieved by
demonstration project participants. CES will conduct tours and on-farm demoristra-
tions and distribute information to farmers on the benefits of using agricultural
nutrient management planning.
Each farms current nutrient levels, fertilizer and manure application practices. and
nutrient levels after implementing the individual management plans will be moni-
tored to assess progress and demonstrate successful cooperation among farmers
and local, state, and federal agencies.
Final Products Nutrient management plans for seven farms will be completed by fall 1990 with
and Schedule support from Connecticut’s Department of Environmental Protection. Nutrient
analysis for the 20 additional farms began in spring 1990 under the demonstration
project, and management plans are expected to be complete by the fall of 1991.
Susan Beede OR Mark Tedesco
US. EPA Region I US. EPA Region II
JFK Federal Building (WQE-1900C) 26 Federal Plaza
Boston, MA 02203 New York, NY 10278
(617) 565-3550 (212) 264-5170
Contact for More
Infonnation
-------
CEPA
Office of Marine and Estuanne Protection
August 1990
National Estuary Program
I IDA ATg’e
I — 1 1989 Action Projects
Sarasota Bay City Island Habitat Module Project
Es! uanes and other coastal and marine waters are national resources that are ,ncreasingly
threatened by pollution, habitat loss, coastal development, and resource conflicts Congress
established the National Estuary Program (NEP) to pioneer a broader focus for coastal
protection and to demonstrate practical, innovative approaches for protecting esluares and
their living resources
As part of this demonstration role, the NEP oilers funding for member estuaries to design
and implement Action Plan Demonstration Projects rhat demonstrate the effectiveness of
selected cleanup strategies in priority problem areas, show improvements that can be
achieved on a small scale, and help detetimne (he time and resources needed to apply
similar approaches basinwide
The NEP currently includes 17 estuaries Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, NC, Baratana-Terre-
bonne Estuaririe Complex, LA, Buzzards Bay, MA, Casco Bay, ME, Delaware Estuary, NJ,
PA, and DE; Delaware Inland Bays, DE, Galveston Bay, 1X Indian River Lagoon, FL, Long
Island Sound, CT and NY, Massachusetts Bays, MA, Narragansett Bay, RI; New York-New
Jersey Harbor. NY and NJ, Puget Sound, WA, San Francisco Estuary, CA, Santa Monica
Bay, CA, Sarasota Bay, FL, and Tampa Bay, FL This fact sheer describes an action demon-
stration project in Sarasota Bay
The Problem Sarasota Bay is a small, urbanized estuary in southwest Florida. In recent years,
dredging, filling, and other activities have threatened the productivity of habitats
such as tidal creeks and coves, degraded water quality, and greatly altered a large
percentage of the Bay’s shoreline. Most of the remaining natural shoreline is in
private ownership.
To avoid the expense and legal requirements of working with private property, this
project has developed a “module” approach to habitat restoration. The intent is to
demonstrate how to build or restore small, but highly productive, habitats on pub-
licly owned property in appropriate areas of the Bay. These individual habitat
pockets are intended to substantially revitalize the more threatened parts of the
estuary, and ensure that still pristine areas remain protected.
The Project The Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program will construct a module on City Island
to demonstrate Baywide application of this habitat restoration strategy. This site fits
in with the City of Sarasota’s reclamation effort and park improvement program;
adjacent to the office of the Sarasota Bay Program, the site should also become a
visitor attraction for those attending the Mote Manne Laboratory Science Aquarium
and revitalized City Island park area.
-------
The module will incorporate diverse subbabitats appropriate to the physical and
biological characteristics of the area and the needs of fish, birds, and wildlife. Th
restoration is also intended to provide a natural setting for both public enjoyme
and learning. Walkway(s) over inaccessible areas will offer increased public acc€..
for birding, nature study, and general Bay viewing. Signs and marked nature trails,
supplemented by pamphlets and other information, will explain the importance of
natural habitats, their role in the Bay ecosystem, and the mission of the Sarasota Bay
National Estuary Program.
Administered by the City of Sarasota, in cooperation with the Sarasota Bay Program
office and the Mote Marine Laboratory, this first module will be completed in two
phases. The first phase will survey existing plant species and their needs as a basis
for developing a habitat plan. The resulting design will identify the subhabitats
needed for an integrated and productive habitat. Components to be added or
restored to the habitat may include red and black mangroves, buttonwood, and
Spartina and Juncu.s marshes; shoal (Halodule) grass; and intertidal oyster/rock reefs,
subtidal artificial (rubble) reefs, tidal creeks, lagoons 1 channels, and deep-holes. In
addition to considering the planting and elevation requirements of each species, the
project will also include a public walkway to ?romote viewing of native plants and
other habitat elements.
During and after construction, the City of Sarasota will monitor the success of the
new vegetation and assess habitat utilization and public awareness. Experience
gained in developing the first module will guide the selection of other suitable sites
for habitat restoration throughout the basin. Development at these other sites may
begin before completion of the City Island project.
The goal of the project is both to teach Sarasota Bay residents the importance of
preserving and restoring habitats essential to protecting the Bay and to serve as.
first step toward actually accomplishing this goal throughout the Bay.
Final Products Excavation, grading, construction, and planting are expected to continue through
and Schedule November 1990. A report on the Baywide applicability and financing of habitat
modules will be produced in April 1991, along with a final report on project success.
Contact for More Mark Alderson
Infom,ation Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
1550 City Island Road
Sarasota, FL 34236
(813) 388-3318
-------
CEPA
Office of Marine and Estuanne Protection
August 1990
National Estuary Program
I IDflAT ’
i II N 1989 Action Projects
NY.NJ Harbor Marine Debris Handling and Recycling
Estuaries and other coastal and marine waters are national resources that are increasingly
threatened by pollution, habitat loss, coastal development, and resource conflicts Congress
established the National Estuary Program (NEP) to pioneer a broader focus for coastal
protection and to demonstrate practical, innovative approaches for protecting estuaries and
(heir living resources.
As part of this demonstration role, the NEP offers funding for member estuaries to design
and implement Action Plan Demonstration Projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of
selected cleanup strategies in priority problem areas, show improvements that can be
achieved on a small scale, and help determine the time and resources needed to apply
similar approaches basinwide.
The NEP currently includes 17 estuaries Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, NC, Barataria-Terre-
bonne Estuarine Complex, LA, Buzzards Bay, MA, Casco Bay. ME Delaware Estuary, NJ.
PA, and DE; Delaware Inland Bays, DE; Galveston Bay, 7X, Indian River Lagoon, FL: Long
Island Sound, CT and NY: Massachusetts Bays, MA, Narragansett Bay, RI, New York-New
Jersey Harbor, NY and NJ, Puget Sound, WA; San Francisco Estuary, CA, Santa Monica
Bay, CA: Sarasota Bay, FL; and Tampa Bay, FL. This fact sheet describes an action demon-
stration project in New Vork.New Jersey Harbor.
The Problem Floatable marine debris in the waters and on the shores of New York-New Jersey
Harbor is costing these states billions of dollars in lost tourism and recreational/
commercial fishing revenue. Debris is also harmful to birds, turtles, marine mam-
mals and fish.
Major sources of floatable marine pollution include combined sewer overflows, poor
transfer operations at marine solid-waste stations, careless medical waste disposal,
river and coastal discharges, nonpoint source pollution, boat discharges, and beach
litter. New York and New Jersey have cooperated with federal agencies to address
many of these sources, but beach, boat, and shoreside street litter remain largely
uncontrolled. The public needs to realize the harmful effects of littering and marine
dumping and how individual citizens both contribute to the problem and can assist
with its solution.
The Project New York and New Jersey will carry out joint projects to demonstrate that marine
waste can be minimized through proper handling and recycling at recreational
boating marinas. These projects will accustom marinas and the public to proper
disposal methods; they will also help the U.S. comply with provisions of MARPOL
Annex V. an international treaty banning or restricting the disposal of plastics and
other pollutants at sea. Coast Guard regulations under this treaty will require that
coastal marinas docking 10 or more vessels must provide waste disposal facilities.
-------
New York The New York project will install bulletin boards to promote vessel waste exchange
Project and recycling and set up highly visible facilities to receive wastes at five recreatio
marinas: Sheepshead Bay, Brooldyn; City Island, Bronx; Oyster Bay, Nassau
County; Port Jefferson, Suffolk County; and Mamaroneck, West Chester County.
“We Care About New York,” a nonprofit New York City beautification orgartiza-
tion, will help to coordinate the system by providing support at all five areas; local
sanitation departments will transport and dispose of the waste. At Oyster Bay, a
vessel will help expedite trash collection from other vessels.
The marinas will feature a daily “debris catch of the day” as well as exhibits ex-
plaining the harm caused by marine debris, the aesthetic values of the local areas,
and ongoing efforts such the NEP to protect coastal resources. To further promote
use of the facilities, the project will conduct public meetings, provide a mobile
exhibit, and coordinate with Beach Day 1990.
Project success will be measured by increased volume of trash collected. The
amount of public involvement, foot traffic, sign ups, and literature given out will
also be a measure of effectiveness.
New Jersey The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) will administer a
Project pilot recycling project at three recreational marinas, building on the states manda-
tory recycling efforts and anti-litter beach campaign, and utilizing the campaign s
existing resources and contacts with coastal interest groups.
The New Jersey pilot project targets plastics because they are particularly harmful
in the marine environment and because recycling of this material is only mandatory
in 200 New Jersey municipalities. In addition, the project will ensure that state-
mandated recyclables (paper, glass, and metal cans) are collected.
The experiment will begin this coming summer at the Winter Yacht Basin, Man-
toloking, Ocean County; the Lincoln Harbor Yacht Club, Weehawken, Hudson
County (in the New York-New Jersey Harbor); and the state’s Senator Frank S.
Farley Marina, Atlantic City, Atlantic County.
A public educational exhibit will be set up at each trial marina with fact sheets,
brochures, and other literature highlighting recycling, the detrimental effects of
marine pollution, the problems caused by plastic in the water, and ways individuals
can assist with the prevention of pollution in our waterways. Some of these materi-
als will be provided by the Center for Marine Conservation and the California
Coastal Fisheries Foundation as well as created through funding from the grant.
Banners, reflective road signs, and posters will be posted at the end of each dock
promoting the anti-litter marine theme and advertising the marina’s recycling
program.
To promote participation, reusable totebags displaying the project’s message will be
given to boaters for their recycling convenience. The recyclable items can be placed
in the tote while at sea and easily discarded into the recycling receptacle when back
at port. Other items including t-shirts, sun visors, and stickers will be distributed to
promote the recycling effort as well as the coordination of special events and activi-
ties. Presentations will be given to interested communities and civic groups about
this project and the impact of ocean pollution on marine life.
Success will be measured by increased volume of recyclables and floating debris
collected. Garbage dumpsters at each marina will be checked to ensure proper
disposal of non-recyclable trash as well.
-------
Project oversight is provided by a task force that includes representatives from New
Jersey Sea Grant, the Marine Trade Association, United Boatmen, the Ocean County
Department of Solid Waste, the US. Coast Guard, the Marine Bureau of the State
Police, and the three marinas.
Meetings will be held with each coastal county’s municipal recycling coordinators to
discuss the goals of this project and to develop future support for implementing this
project on a statewide basis.
Schedule and New York and New Jersey submitted preliminary work plans to affected agencies
Final Products and local environmental, recreational, and commercial groups in January 1990;
program implementation began last spring. As one measure of project success, New
Jersey will survey mariners about their participation in the project and their under-
standing of marine debris in September 1990. The states will jointly submit a col-
laborative report in November 1990.
Contact for More Seth Ausubel
Information U.S. EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
(212) 264-5170
-------
Planning
-------
State/EPA
Conference
Agreement
-------
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
EPA/State Management
Conference Agreement
October 1989
GBNEP- 1
-------
GALVESTON BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
EPA/STATE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AGREEMENT
Publication GBNEP. 1
September 1989
-------
Galveston Bay
StateIEPA Conference Agreement for National Estuary Program
Designation Under the Water Quality Act of 1987
We recognize the need for a Management Conference on Galveston Bay to better define
the environmental concerns in the system; to address the extent, complexity and sources of
pollutants; and to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for action. We
further recognize that the State and EPA share the responsibility for management decisions and
resources regarding priority issues in the system.
In signing this agreement, we are committing to products and schedules which will: assess
trends in water quality, natural resources and uses; determine the causes of change through data
collection, characterization, and analysis; evaluate point and nonpoint loadings and relate them to
observed changes; write a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan which includes
recommendations for priority actions; develop plans to coordinate implementation of a
comprehensive plan with federal, state and local agencies; provide monitoring to assess the
effectiveness of the implementation actions; and review federal financial assistance programs and
federal development projects for consistency.
We also agree that the statutory requirements for Management Conference membership
have been met and that we will participate in that conference. Further, we commit that the
statutory requirements for matching funds will be met to complete the characterization of priority
problems and develop the comprehensive conservation and management plan.
_______ LIJ
B. . Wynn HI Robert E. Layton, Jr.,
Chairman 1 Regional Administrator
Texas Water Commission Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
-------
PREFACE
Tne National Estuary Program (NEP) was established by the Water Quality Act of 1987. The
Act authorizes the Mministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to convene
Management Conferences to develop Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) for estuaries of national significance that are threatened by pollution, development,
or overuse. Section 320 of the Act outlines the estuary designation process and the purposes
of a management conference.
The justification for convening a Galveston Bay Management Conference was specifically
recognized by Congress prior to passage of the Act, and was further established by the
Governor’s Supplemental Nomination of May 1988. A cooperative agreement between Texas
and the U.S. EPA was signed in October 1988, enabling initial developmental work to begin
on the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (hereafter referred to as GBNEP, composed
of the conference membership, the EPA Region VI program staff, and the State Program
Office).
This document is the resulting commitment of the GBNEP to begin working to improve water
quality and enhance living resources in Galveston Bay. As an agreement, it represents State
commitments for what work will be accomplished, as negotiated among the EPA Region V I,
the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP), and the State Program Office, and
as approved by the Management Conference and EPA headquarters. As a workplan, the
activities specified here compose an overall road map for the project, an overview and schedule
for work culminating in a CCMP by September 1994.
As work toward maintaining and enhancing Galveston Bay commences, specific activities will
be committed to in annual workplans, and reports of accomplishments will be put forth in
quarterly and annual reports, and in a newsletter and other publications for the public.
Throughout the process, extensive involvement will be sought from the numerous groups,
industries, organizations, and individuals with interests in Galveston Bay.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Preface .
Introduction 1
I. Summaiy of Accomplishments 5
II. Summary of Commitments 7
III. Identification and Ranking of Priority Problems 11
IV. Program Inventory 15
V. Base Program Analysis and Action Now Implementation 17
VI. Data and Information Management System 18
VII. Characterization of Historical Trends,
Current Status, and Human Impacts on Galveston Bay . 19
VIII. Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan . 21
APPENDIX 1, Planning Initiative Elements
Accomplished Through April, 1989 .23
U
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Organization of Program Committees 6
Figure 2. Time Line for Completion of
Tasks 10
111
-------
INTRODUCFION
By all measures, Galveston Bay ranks high among the nation’s significant estuaries. As a result
of its abundant living resources, Galveston Bay is thc nation’s second moat productivc estuary.
The commercial value of fish and shellfish harvest attributable to Galveston Bay in 1986 totaled
63 million dollars, with 1.196 full-time job equivalents and some 7 million dollars in taxes.
From this estuary, an additional 1.1 million pounds of fish were landed in 1986 by recreational
fishermen, accounting for about half of all sport fishing expenditures on the Texas Coast and
resulting in nearly 600 million dollars in gross Texas business, the equivalent of more than
10,000 full-time jobs, and about 20 million in taxes. Seventy-one percent of all pleasure craft
registered in Texas coastal counties come from the four counties surrounding Galveston Bay,
and gross business from additional tourism and non-fishing recreation in the Bay amounts to
another 425 million dollars yearly, with 7,726 full-time job equivalents and more than 15 million
dollars in taxes.
And yet, despite its productivity, Galveston Bay is among the most urban and industrial of the
nation’s estuaries. The more than 3.5 million people residing in the four surrounding counties
(1990 projection) depend on more than 600 utility, water, and drainage districts that affect the
Bay, with half of all permitted wastewater dischargers in Texas occurring in Just these four
counties. Fully, half of the nation’s chemical production occurs on the Bay’s shoreline, and 30
percent of the nation’s petroleum refining. These and other industries heavily depend on
shipping in the estuary, and the Port of Houston is now the third largest U. S. port in
tonnage.
All told, Galveston Bay provides some 2.74 bililon dollars in direct and indirect economic
benefit annually. The benefits provided by this natural resource fall to industry, shipping,
commercial and recreational fishermen, and the public at large. And the benefits extend far
beyond Texas, as Congress recognized in designating the Bay as an Estuary of National
Significance. As a major deep water port and petroleum and chemical producing center,
Galveston Bay represents billions of dollars in impact on the world economy. Biologically,
more than 90% of all commercial and recreational fishing dollars derived from the entire Gulf
of Mexico depend on species that require estuaries like Galveston Bay for one or more critical
life stages.
Historically, the surprising natural resilience of the Galveston Bay System has allowed these
greatly contrasting uses to occur with relatively small losses in productivity of its living re-
sources. In the past, this resilience has allowed the various governmental agencies involved
in planning and management of Galveston Bay to proceed in diverse directions with incomplete
coordination. But the capacity of the Bay to sustain current uses under existing management
strategies is limited, and has already been exceeded in some cases. The Bay cannot sustain
further population growth, industrial uses, and commercial and recreational harvests without an
integration of management efforts to effectively target emerging problems. Without a
coordinated effort among users, regulators, and the public, the value of the Bay as a natural
resource will decline.
1
-------
The need to more effectively manage nationally significant estuaries like Galveston Bay has
been recognized by Congress in the creation of the National Estuary Program (NEP). The
need to convene an NEP Management Conference for Galveston Bay has been documented
in the Governor’s Supplemental Nomination of May 1988, resulting in an initial cooperative
agreement signed in October 1988. Work under this initial agreement between Texas anu the
U.S. EPA has consisted of developmental activities to initiate and establish the GBNEP, with
the goal of producing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) n
September 1994.
This Five-year Management Conference Agreement sets forth the work to be accomplished
during the Management Conference itself (October 1, 1989 - September 30, 1994). The
negotiated work activities and timeline presented in this workplan will be the general guide
to GBNEP activities, while annual workplans (the first of which is submitted concurrently with
this document) will lay out detailed projects and associated budgets.
The overall framework for the five years of work outlined here consists of seven purposes put
forth in the Water Quality Act of 1987 and directly quoted here:
Purpose 1. Assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary.
Purpose 2. Collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, and natural resources
within the estuarine zone to identify the causes of environmental problems.
Purpose 3. Develop the relationship between the in place loads and point and nonpoint
loadings of pollutants to the estuarine zone and the potential uses of the zone,
water quality, and natural resources.
Purpose 4. Develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan that recommends
priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the estuary, including restoration and maintenance
of water quality, a balanced indigenous population of shelLfish, fish and wildlife,
and recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the designated uses
of the estuary are protected.
Purpose 5. Develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the plan by the States
as well as Federal and local agencies participating in the conference.
Purpose 6. Monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the plan.
Purpose 7. Review all Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development
projects in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in
effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance program
or project would be consistent with and further the purposes and objectives
of the plan(s) prepared under this section.
2
-------
Because this agreement is based on the above Legislation, any future legislative changes could
entail a re-evaluation and possible revision of this agreement. Also, the EPA OMEP has
provided additional specific guidance designed to ensure that the seven purposes of the WQA
will be met. This guidance provides that the State:
1. Establish and support a Program OfIicc to support the activities of th Con crcncc and
its participants.
2. Improve base programs in the protection of water quality and living resources.
3. Establish an “action now agenda” to implement critical needed actions prior to
implementation of a CCMP.
4. Educate and involve the public.
5. Develop a comprehensive plan supported by a financing strategy.
The guidance provided by OMEP further enumerates eight key activities and major products
to be part of the state commitment:
1. Priority problem identification with public involvement.
2. An inventory of federal programs applicable to the priority problems in the estuary.
3. A base program analysis and “action now agenda”.
This is consistent with the Administrator’s determination to convene the Conference and
the guidance on the “Contents of Governor’s Nominations” as well as Chapter 3 of the
Primer . A base program analysis would entail the review, evaluation, and potential for
redirecting eidsting regional, state, and local resources and programs to address the
priority problems in the estuary. This “targeting” should be accomplished during the five
years provided for development of the CCMP.
4. A financing plan.
This program requirement was introduced in the guidance on the “Contents of
Governor’s Nominations” and commitments were obtained to develop these plans in the
nominations. The financial plan should be developed to: provide the Conference
information on the costs of pollution control options to assist in determining what
actions will be identified in the CCMP; and second, to describe how the CCMP will be
financed. The strategy should include state and public involvement.
5. A final status and trends report
3
-------
6. A final “probable causes and pollutant loadings” report.
7. A draft CCMP.
The CCMP must include a federal consistency report and plans for coordinated
implementation with monitoring.
8. A final CCMP including the state strate ’ to finance implementation.
This, then, is the guidance utilized in preparing this StatefEPA Management Conference
Agreement. The signing of this Agreement represents the commitment and direction
established for the five years of the Conference, and ultimately, for the protection and
enhancement of Galveston Bay as a vital national resource.
4
-------
I. SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The organizational framework of the GBNEP is now in place and functional. The structure
of the program reflects the plan in the Governor’s Nomination (Figure 1). Most committees
are now meeting regularly with coordination from an established Program Office. The public
is actively involved in plans for the first year of work, and a newsletter has begun quarterly
distribution. State matching funds for the program are being secured and work to be
accomplished in the first year (FY 1990) has been detailed in the first annual workplan,
submitted to the EPA concurrently with this Management Conference Agreement. Appendix
1 lists, step by step, the critical planning initiative elements that have been completed through
April, 1989, to firmly establish the Program.
5
-------
Galveston Bay
National Estuary Program
Management Conference Structure
Governor
EPA Administrator
Policy Committee
8 members appointed
Nov., 1988
Local Goveniments
Advisory Committee
16 members appointed
August, 1989
Management I
20 members (3 Ex officio)
appointed Nov., 1988
Scientific & Technical
Advisory Committee
29 members appointed
March, 1989
FIGURE 1.
Management Conference committee structure as outlined in the Governor’s
Su pIemental Nomination and adopted by the GBNEP.
Citizens Advisory
Steering Committee
llmernbers(1 Exofflcio)
app nIedMarc 1989
Galveston Bay
Public Forum
Unlimited membership
6
-------
II. SUMMARY OF COMMITMENTS
Individual work commitments for the GBNEP are documented in the following sections of this
report. These commitments will result in six key reports (products) related to the explicit
purposes of the Water Quality Act of 1987 and to guidance supplied by EPA, Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection (Table 1). While these are the program emphases agreed upon by
the EPA and State, additional project work and interim publications will be required to
accomplish these commitments, and will be specified at the more detailed level appropriate in
annual workplans.
The first report will be a ranked list of the Bay’s environmental problems. This Priority
Problems List will be the basis for undertaking analyses of existing Galveston Bay data, and for
specifying new investigations. The environmental problems on this list are ranked for
importance to the program, based on specific criteria listed herein, to insure that work
progresses toward effective management solutions to pressing problems in the estuary. The
Priority Problems List has already been approved by the Policy Committee in draft form
(February 3, 1989), and is expected to be modified as the program proceeds to continually
direct the work toward an effective management result. A final Priority Problems List will be
published by April 1990. The list will reflect ongoing direct public involvement from public
forums and from organized Scientific,Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory
Committee efforts.
Second, a Program Inventory will be produced in June 1990. This will summarize current and
historical programs conducted by a wide variety of agencies and institutions. The Program
Inventory will gather this information as a general resource for program participants, but more
importantly, the Inventory will characterize existing data sets to determine their potential use
for better understanding the Bay’s problems. The Inventory will moreover lay a foundation for
integration of the historically diverse management efforts directed at Galveston Bay by the
various arms of government. The Program Inventory will exceed OMEP requirements by
including all agencies and institutions, rather than Just federal agencies.
Third, a Base Programs Action Plan will be developed in July 1991 to improve existing federal
and state programs in Galveston Bay. The Plan will make direct use of the Program Inventory
and will contribute to formulation of improved monitoring and management activities during
CCMP development. The Base Programs Action Plan will include recommendations aimed at
eliminating duplicated efforts and filling gaps or strengthening existing base programs. This
effort is begun early in the program so that program changes can be implemented prior to the
CCMP for more immediate protection of water quality and living resources. In combination
with the Base Programs Action Plan, and to further contribute to “Action Now” guidance
supplied by OMEP, interim management actions will be undertaken whenever program findings
indicate the need. The initial direction for these management actions has already been supplied
in action plans proposed on pages 56-60 of the Governor’s Supplemental Nomination , and these
management actions will also result from future program findings.
7
-------
TABLE 1
RELATIONSHIP 8ETVEEN VATER QUALITY ACT PtRPOSES.
EPA GUIIMIICE PROVIDED. MD GOTIATED G81(EP PRODUCTS
1. Priority Probls List
2. Federal Progren Inventory
3. Base Progra., Analysis!
ktian Now Agenda
Priority Probl s List
Prcgra . Inventory
Base Progrs Action Plan
April 1990
June 1990
July 1991
1. Trend Study
2. Cause/Effect Study
3. LoadIng Study
4. C*
5. Feder.l/State Coordlnst ton
6. Monitoring
1. Federal Consistency
5. Status/Trends Study
6. Cause-Effects/Loading Study
7.8. Managenent I l entetion
Final Characterization Report
Final Characterization Report
Final Characterization Report
Draft. Final COW
Draft. Final COW
Draft. Final COW
Draft. Final COW
Craft. Final COW
Jan. 1993
Jan. 1993
Jan. 1993
Sept. 1994
Sept. 1994
Sept. 1994
Sept. 2994
Sept. 1994
WQA of
1987
EPA/OI(P
GBIIEP
Purpose
Guidance
ita.
Proó ct Date
00
4.7.8.
7.8.
?.8.
Financial Strategy
Monitoring
Federal Consistency
March
March.
March.
March
March
-------
Fourth, a Characterization Report produced in January 1993 will encompass all efforts to define
environmental trends, determine the causes of detrimental trends, and to link pollution and
other human impacts to their associated problems in Galveston Bay. The Characterization
Report will include the results of analyses of existing data, as well as work contracted to fill
in any “gaps” identified in this historical data. This major three-year effort to characterize
human impacts will result in annual “State of the Bay” reports in addition to other interim
publications that will sustain involvement of participants and contribute to interim management
actions. The final Characterization Report will be unique in summarizing all characterization
work, as a basis for CCMP management recommendations.
The final two key reports are the Draft CCMP in March 1994, and the Final CCMP in
September 1994. These will be a culmination of all GBNEP efforts. The CCMP will represent
the consensus of participants for corrective actions to be undertaken, and for the compliance
schedules, funding needs and sources, institutional jurisdictions and regulatory bases for these
management activities. Some aspects of CCMP development, for example investigation of
funding alternatives, will begin early in the program, concurrent with characterization studies.
The Draft CCMP will be completed a full six months prior to the final CCMP to allow for
extensive review and comment. The final CCMP will then be the foundation for years of
management efforts beyond the five-year life of the GBNEP, and as such will provide for
effective monitoring and flexible management responses for the future.
Throughout the five years of the GBNEP, much effort will be devoted to formulating an
effective CCMP. However, numerous improvements in existing management activities are
expected to be implemented prior to the final CCMP approval. The Base Programs Action
Plan will recommend early actions to improve existing management activities. Interim “Action
Now” projects will be implemented as critical problems are recognized in the estuary. The
GBNEP will be a mixture of planning for long term improvements, and immediate actton to
address problems as they become better defined. These activities will, for the first time,
integrate the efforts of the numerous governmental agencies and institutions.
Also throughout the GBNEP, public involvement and education will be key requirements for
success. Public participation is vital because any regulatory changes or increased government
efforts eventually cost the taxpayer. The public has a right to know the true condition of
Galveston Bay and a right to figure in the solutions to its problems, just as it has a right to
enjoy its economic and recreational benefits. Therefore, numerous public involvement activities
will be undertaken. These include a quarterly newsletter, public meetings, slide and video
presentations, and other activities detailed in the annual workplans.
Figure 2 summarizes GBNEP activities outlined in this agreement, along with the time schedule
for their accomplishment.
9
-------
Time Line for Completion of
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Tasks
__________________________ ICY 19891CY 19901CY 19911CY 19921CY_19931CY_19 4J
Task (OMEP Guidance No.) IFY 1989 FY 1990IFY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994
Priority Problems (1) -4/ 0
Program Inventory (2) — A 6/90
Base Programs/Action Now Agenda (3) ------___ “ . .-7/91 .
Data Information/Management
Requirements i 11/89
Feasibility 3/90
Implementation 9/90
Characterization
0 Status/Trends (5) A - 12/92
Causes/Loadings (6) — _______ A - 12/92
Interim Publications ---
CCMP Strategy Development
Financial Plan (4) 4/93
Management Alternatives 4/93
Implementation Strategy 10/93
Monitoring Plan --- 3/94
Federal Consistency Report 3/94
Draft, Final CCMP (7, 8 ) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ ________
A negotiated commitment and date 3/94 9/94
probable related activity and date
ongoing activity with no firm dates
-------
III. IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING OF PRIORITY PROBLEMS
Recognition of critical problems in Galveston Bay is the basis for formulating both general and
specific rrianagcment goals. The recognition of and ranking of these problems is an on.goir.g
process that is only complete when results of the scientific/technical work are available.
However, a working list of ranked problems is necessary from the program’s inception, in order
to effectively guide the work.
The GBNEP has already completed a draft Priority Problems List (Table 2). Development of
this list was greatly helped by two related conferences that brought together numerous scientists
and others to discuss Galveston Bay and its problems. The rust of these was an “Estuary of
the Month Seminar” presented in Washington, D.C. hosted by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, on March 14, 1988. The second was a similar public seminar
sponsored by the Coastal Society, the Texas Environmental Coalition, and the Galveston Bay
Foundation on July 23, 1988 in Houston.
Speakers at these two seminars included many of the scientists and technical people most
familiar with Galveston Bay, many of whom are now on various committees of the Management
Conference. From these meetings a list of identified problems was compiled, was approved
by the GBNEP Policy Committee on February 3, 1989, and was transmitted to EPA Region
VI on February 13, 1989.
This work will specifically address OMEP guidance element number 1, development of a
Priority Problems List. The following program components describe work to be completed:
o Compile draft Priority Problems List based on previous work concerning Galveston Bay,
summarized in Galveston Bay Issues. Resources. Status and Mana2ement (NOAA.
Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series No. 13), and based on the Governor’s Supplemental
Nomination of Galveston Bay as an Estuary of National Significance . (completed)
o Submit draft Priority Problems List for review by Management Committee, and approval
by Policy Committee as a working list for public and scientific/technical review and
ranking of problems. (completed)
o Revise Priority Problems List based on review by the public, CAC and STFAC, and rank
problems utilizing the suggested criteria below. An affirmative response for each
criterion would tend to confer higher significance, and additional criteria may be included
as necessary.
- Is the problem real (vs. perceived)?
- Does the problem have a general (systematic) influence on the estuary (or if not,
is it serious enough to warrant inclusion anyway?)
11
-------
- Does the problem affect public health?
• Can the probable cause of the problem be identified?
• Is it feasible to correct the problem?
- Is a reasonable research effort/expenditure sufficient to develop managene t
activities to correct the problem?
• Is the problem of great concern to public, private, and governmental parties
involved?
o Submit ranked Priority Problems List for recommendation by Management Committee
and approval by Policy Committee and distribute list to the public and EPA Region VI
and OMEP as a basis for work during the characterization phase of the Program.
o Re-evaluate Priority Problems List as necessary during the characterization phase of
program, as new information becomes available, so that final management
recommendations reflect the best possible knowledge of critical estuary problems.
12
-------
DRAFT
TABLE 2
PRIC tITT P O8LEIG LIST
Approved by Policy Caimittee
February 3. 1989
Prob1 Areas
Potential Causes
Possible Effects
Suqqested Act ions
o Water quality deterioration
Increased wastowat.r loading
loopoint source ispacts
Toxic s.dint resuspension
Salinity concentration chances
Fishery declines
Shellfish bed closures
Eutrophication
Changes in designated uses
Identify noncaspliant point source
dischargers; effect c lIanc.
Investigate nonpoint source mitigation
through use of 8*s in segeents
identified in NPS Asses nt Report
Examine existing pretreateent progr
Determine freshwater inflow needs of
estuary
o Frestw.ater inflow redoction
Reservoir construction in
watershed
Water consIWt ion increases
Redoction in species diversity
Increase in undesirable species
Wetlands loss
Ccwiplete/refine studies on fresheater
Inflow requir nts
Isplesent freshwater releases in
accordance with estuary needs
o Pathegenic hiipacts
Increased wastowater loading
Ioproper sludge handling practices
Septic tank probleus
Sewer line overflows/bypasses
Shellfish bed closures
Changes in contact
recreational uses
Public health ispacts
Adjust wastewater discharge permit
parameters as necessary
Identify and correct nonc lisnt point
source discharges
Identify and correct sewer line bypasses.
overflows and septic tai* malfunctions
o Toxic iopacts
Dredge spoil disposal
Vastewater loading
Hazardous waste site runoff
Nonpoint source ispacts
Fishery declines
Changes in species diversity
Shellfish bed closures
Evaluate alterr ative spoil disposal
mathods/beneficial uses of spoil
Evaluate current pretreat nt progr
effectiveness
Identify/iopl nt appropriate nonpoint
source BliPs
o Wetlands loss
FresFwater inflow redoction
Subsidence
Bay water level increases
Urban expansion
Dredge spoil disposal
Living resource declines
Water quality deterioria-
tian
Shoreline erosion increases
Iirpleeent/recamiend fresheater releases
Evaluate ongoirg subsidence control
programs
[ valuate wet lards crest ion/restoration
teclwiiques ircluding beneficial uses
of spoil
o Shellfish loss
Salinity concentration changes
Dredge spoil disposal
Increased wastewater loading
Nonpoint source impacts
Fresheater inflow reduction
Negative economic impacts
Redection in species diversity
Insure adequate fresliwiiter releases
Examine alternative spoi 1 disposal
methods/benel ic ial uses of spoil
Identify/ioplmnent nonpoint source
mitigation owasures
Insure point suurce oischarge cai liance
-------
DRAFT
TA8L( 2 (Coifl inued)
Probl n Areas
o Habitat reduction
PotentIal Cuse
Subsidence/Eros ion
Fresbeater inflow reduction
Dredge spoil disposal
Energy resource extraction
Urban expansion
Possible &fects
Living resource declines
Reduction in species diversity
Negative economic t acts
Suqgested Act ions
(valuate ongoing subsidence control
progress
Insure adequate freshwater inflow to
estuary
Examine alternative spoil disposal
mettmds/benettcial uses of spoil
Insure c 1tance with energy develop-
ment license/permit requir nts
0 Eutrophication
Vastowater loading
Nos oInt sourc. loading
In—situ regeneration of nutrients
Interactive processes
Habitat loss
Water quality deterioration
Reduction in species diversity
Insure point source discharge permit
ccm l lance
Iu le nt recaissended nonpoint source
mit igat ion noasures
Examine feasib 1ity of nutrient budget
model for estuary
I- .
o Living resource reductions
Bacterial continat Ion
Toxic material i acts
Freshiater inflow reduction
Habitat loss
Salinity cixicentratlcsi changes
Energy resource extract ion
Negative economic iqiacts
Reduction In species diversity
Point source discharge permit/
pretreatment program c lIancs
Investigate wet lands crest ion/restoration
teciviiques including beneficial uses
of spoii
Insure adequate fresheater releases
Insure energy extraction license/psmait
c l lance
o Modification of circulation
patterns
Alteration In freshwater inflow
Channel ization activities
Placent of fill material
or artificial reefs
Subsidence/Erosion
Watar quality deterioration
Habitat loss
Reduction in living resources
Negative economic ispacts
Develop a hydrudynamic model for the Bay
Develop mitigation strategies
-------
W. PROGRAM INVENTORY
Achieving the purposes of the NEP will require compiling and analyzing large quantities of
physical, chemical, and biological data and other information. Most existing information is
scattered among various institutions, representing a variety of projects, parameters, study
locations, and periods of record. Making use of this information will require that a Program
Inventory be conducted to identify and describe all federal and state programs (and other
information sources) related to Galveston Bay. Only the Federal portion of this Inventory is
required by OMEP, but most existing data have been collected by State agencies. The
purposes of this Program Inventory are:
o To compile and publish project/program descriptions, each containing an overview
of significant findings and management activities, and to make the source generally
available.
o To characterize existing data sets to a level of detail necessary to determine
potential usefulness in a DIMS during scientific/technical investigations, and as an
ongoing general archive.
o To characterize federal and state agency regulatory roles and jurisdictions in order
to integrate overall governmental efforts during scientific/technical investigations and
management implementation.
This work specifically addresses OMEP guidance element number 2. The following program
components describe work to be completed for the Program Inventory:
o Develop a program list for all agencies, universities, institutions, and other groups
with past, present, or planned research/management programs related to Galveston
Bay.
o Submit draft program list to Management Committee and Region VI for
completeness review.
o Prepare draft Program Inventory, including individual program summaries for each
agency/institution. Summaries are classified by federal, state, local government,
academic, or other involvement. The summaries emphasize detailed descriptions
of data bases and regulatory criteria related to Galveston Bay, including periods of
record, parameters, computer formats, quality assurance and control (QAJQC),
summaries of findings, and publication references. Draft Program Inventory
submitted for review to all committees, the general public, and Region VI.
o Submit final Program Inventory for review by Management Committee, approval
by Policy Committee, and distribution as a basis for determining data available to
15
-------
address priority problems, for possible roles of various programs during
characterization, and for federal and state regulatory program consistency.
Distribute Program Inventory to the public, with copies to EPA Region VI and
OMEP.
16
-------
V. BASE PROGRAMS ANALYSIS AND ‘ACTION NOW’ IMPLEMENTATION
Once the Program Inventory has been completed 1 existing base monitoring and management
programs can be scrutinized for effectiveness in relation to the identified problems of the
estuary. This analysis is necessary because various agencies have differing jurisdictions resulting
in varying regulatory and monitoring approaches which have never been considered from a
system-wide perspective. The human impacts to Galveston Bay are cumulative in the entire
system, and affect the Bay’s identified problems in the estuary as a whole.
The goal of the base programs analysis is to identify duplicated efforts, gaps and weaknesses
in ongoing management and regulatory programs and in base data collection efforts for
monitoring (see pages 56-60 of Governor’s Nomination) . Results of the analysis are then
incorporated into a Base Programs Action Plan to correct any noted deficiencies. The
appropriate changes will be implemented as “Action Now” activities representing interim
management implementation, undertaken well ahead of the final CCMP. This assures effective
actions are taken early to conserve vital living resources.
This work will specifically address OMEP guidance element number 3, development of a base
programs analysis with an “Action Now” agenda. The following program components describe
work to be completed:
o Identify existing base programs based on the Program Inventory and characterize
their scopes, overlaps, and deficiencies.
o Prepare draft Base Programs Action Plan, based on existing base programs and
their relation to identified priority problems in the estuary and pertinent bay
characterization data. Draft report is reviewed by ScientiflcIFechnical Advisory
Committee and transmitted to Management Committee with any public comment.
o Submit final Base Programs Action Plan to Policy Committee for approval.
o Distribute final Base Programs Action Plan to public and EPA Region VI and
OMEP.
o Set a schedule and implement modifications recommended in Base Programs Action
Plan to redirect existing agency base programs toward solving targeted priority
problems.
o Modify action plans, as necessary, throughout the process, as supported by new
information or deliberations of the Management Conference.
17
-------
VI. DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Data and Information Management System (DIMS) will become a centralized source of
information for Galveston Bay. It may include an information center for bay-related
publications, as well as one or more computer data base systems for critical numerical data now
present in various agency data bases and files. The DIMS will serve as a focus for collection
and analysis of new data during the scientific/technical investigations and during development
of the CCMP. It will provide for general access to technical and non-technical information
both during the Management Conference and subsequently during management implementation.
Although a DIMS is not specifically required in OMEP guidance, it remains a critical need for
adequate characterization of Galveston Bay.
The following program components describe work to be completed for the DIMS:
o Identify necessaiy requirements for a DIMS, based on the Program Inventory,
expected new characterization data, expected long-term monitoring needs, the
Priority Problems List, and user community comments.
o Compile a draft Feasibility Report for DIMS alternatives, including evaluation of
currently existing systems as they relate to DIMS requirements and constraints
imposed by historical data. Draft report reviewed by ScientificiTechnical Advisory
Committee, Management Committee, and Region VI.
o Choose and specify a DrMS, for recommendation by the Management Committee
and approval by the Policy Committee.
o Screen the data described in the Program Inventory for relevance to Priority
Problems and for adequate QA/OC. Incorporate acceptable data and information
into the DIMS for general availability during characterization work.
18
-------
V I I. CHARACTERIZATION OF HISTORICAL TRENDS, CURRENT STATUS, AND
HUMAN IMPACTS ON GALVESTON BAY
The characterization of Galveston Bay will be based on about three years of work to analyze
historical data and conduct new scientific/technical investigations. This work will be specifically
directed toward investigating pnority problems, and will make use of the DIMS. The focus of
work will be to determine historical trends to date in Galveston Bay and to identify the causes
.for these trends. Particular attention will be directed toward human impacts, including
contaminants from point and nonpoint sources. This knowledge, summarized in issue papers,
annual State-of-the-Bay reports, technical publications, and the final Characterization Report
will become the basis for implementing effective management actions.
The goal of the characterization process is not to completely define cause-effect mechanisms
and natural ecological processes in Galveston Bay. Rather, it is to investigate, at an applied
level, those aspects of the estuary specifically affected by human impacts addressable wuh
environmental management. The characterization phase is too short for new long-term research
efforts, and the need for effective management is too great to expend resources on programs
not specifically aimed at true problems in the estuary.
This work will specifically address purposes 1, 2, and 3 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 and
guidance item number 5 and 6 from OMEP concerning trends analyses and cause/effect studies
of human impacts to the bay. The following program components descnbe work to be
completed:
o Review priority problems and historical data to determine analyses to be conducted on
existing data and to determine new investigations to gather and analyze additional data.
Investigations and analyses are tied to the priority problems and their management
solutions, and will explicitly address historical trends, current status, and human influences
on Galveston Bay. Individual analyses and investigations are recommended by
Management Committee and approved by Policy Committee, based on extensive review
of each analysis or investigation by the scientific and regulatory community.
o Publish issue papers and an annual ‘State of the Bay Report’ concerning study findings
and critical problems and management questions. Distribute these to participants and
public during the investigations to stimulate comment and involvement and to enhance
general knowledge. These publications will augment any interim technical reports or
papers resulting from the work.
o Compile draft Characterization Report based on analyses and investigations. Report will
explicitly address historical trends, current status, and human influences on Galveston
Bay. Report is written to both address and revise the Priority Problems List based on
investigations, and is reviewed by project participants, EPA, and general public.
19
-------
o Submit final Characterization Report for recommendation by Management Committee
and approval by Policy Committee, as a basis for determining and implementing
management solutions to the priority problems.
0 Distribute final Characterization Report to public and EPA Region VI and OMEP.
20
-------
VIII. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT P lAN
Dcvclopmcnt of the CCMP is the major objective of NEP management confcrcnc . The
CCMP combines results of the scientific/technical investigations with proposed management
activities designed to address the problems of the estuary. Integral components of the CCMP
include:
o workable implementation plans
o strong public participation and commitment
o consensus among program participants concerning regulatory aspects of proposed
management
o integral funding strategy for proposed management and regulatory actions
o integration of the diverse roles of government agencies at all levels
o an effective means of measuring the success of management actions
The CCMP will specifically address purposes 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Water Quality Act of 1987,
including guidance from EPA on these purposes and on the need for a financial strategy. The
approach begins early in the five-year process with consideration by all participants of a
financial strategy and management action alternatives. Results are then integrated in a draft
CCMP which also includes plans for implementation, agency coordination and monitoring
efforts. This draft CCMP is a critical point in the process for extensive review and consensus
building among participants and the public. Only then can a final CCMP be approved by the
Management Conference.
The following program components describe work to be completed during CCMP development:
o Develop a draft financial plan which provides an array of financial alternatives for
funding of possible management alternatives.
o Develop a draft list of management alternatives with rough cost estimates to address
priority problems, based on scientific/technical investigations and the Program Inventory.
Report is submitted for extensive review by regulatory community, regulated community,
local governments, and public.
o Develop a draft management implementation strategy to explicitly address priority
problems in Galveston Bay. Report is based on draft management alternatives list, draft
financial plan, and any additional work deemed necessary by the Policy Committee.
Implementation strategy will include management activities, funding, and an
21
-------
implementation schedule. Strategy is submitted for extensive review by regulatory
community, regulated community, local governments, and public.
o Develop a draft CCMP to include:
• A management implementation strategy to include recommended technical,
financial, and regulatory aclions and a compliance schedule.
- A monitoring strategy to integrate existing monitoring efforts by various agencies
making use of the DIMS, and aimed at tracking the compliance schedule and
measuring resulting improvements in Galveston Bay.
• A federal agency consistency strategy to eliminate inconsistencies and duplicated
efforts and identify possible new federal agency contributions to management
implementation and monitoring.
o Submit the draft CCMP for comment by all interested parties including EPA OMEP and
the public and for written response by all interested parties. Final recommendations
made to Policy Committee and Local Governments Advisory Committee.
o Submit final CCMP to Policy Committee for approval as the basis of management
implementation.
o Distribute final CCMP to public and EPA Region VI and OMEP.
22
-------
APPENDIX 1
PLANNING INITIATIVE ELEMENTS ACCOMPLISHED
THROUGH APRIL 1989
Date Planning Initiative Work Element
1988 May Governor’s Supolemental Nomination of Galveston Bay as an Estuary of
National Significance .
July EPA Administrator Lee Thomas convenes Management Conference for
Galveston Bay.
Sept. National Estuary Program (NEP) grant award of $227,318 ($150,000 federal
+ $77,318 state match) for Galveston Bay made by EPA Headquarters.
Projectlbudget period of 9/15I88-9/14’ 9.
Developed a brief summary of the Galveston Bay project in preparation for
the signing ceremony (see below). Information included first year outputs,
proposed program office, and Management Conference committee structure.
Signing ceremony for the State/EPA Conference Agreement for NEP
Designation Under the Water Quality Act of 1987 held aboard the tall ship,
Elissa. Robert E. Layton, Jr., Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6 and
Allen Beinke, Executive Director, TWC.
Oct. NEP grant signed by Allen Beinke, Executive Director, TWC
Letter from Allen Beinke to Frederick L Meadows, Chief, Grants Operation
Branch, EPA Head-quarters, indicating conditional acceptance of the NEP
Assistance Agreement provided that Special Conditions #11 and 12 are
removed and replaced with a new condition.
Advertisement for the Galveston Bay Program Manager position posted.
Nov. Provided an information packet on the Galveston Bay Estuary Program to the
Chief Clerk’s office, TWC. Information included a copy of Section 320 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended; the interim final rule on State and Local
Assistance drafted by EPA; the grant agreement; and the Governor’s
nomination package. A status report on the program manager position was
also provided.
23
-------
APPENDIX 1 (ContInued)
Date Planning Initiative Work Element
1988 Nov. Letter from Beinke to Mr. T. C. Mams, Governor’s Office, commenting on
the final EIS for the Galveston Bay Area Navigation Study (GBANS) proposed
by the Corps of Engineers to widen deepen the Houston Ship Channel.
Letter from Beinke to Meadows transmitting signed acceptance of Amendment
No. 1 to the Cooperative Agreement which reflects the modification of the
Special Conditions.
Press release announcing the appointments to the Policy and Management
Committees by Governor Clements.
Dec. Letter from Buck Wynne, Chairman, TWC and Policy Committee, to Policy
Committee members congratulating them on their appointment and announcing
the time and location of the first meeting. Agenda and resource material were
included.
Letter from Clyde Bohmfalk, Director, Water Quality Division, TWC and
Vice-Chairman of the Management Committee members congratulating them
on their appointment and transmitting the Governor’s nomination package and
a meeting announcement.
Finalized Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Agreement with EPA,
Region 6 for a six-week detail of EPA employee to TWC to assist with
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
24
-------
APPENDIX 1 (ContInued)
Date Planning Initiative Work Element
1989 Jan. Initial Policy Committee meeting (Buck Wynne, ifi, Chairman). Planning
initiated for committee organization, advisory committee nominations, ancillary
funding, required products and deadlines for FY 89, and open meetings policy
was discussed.
Letter from Policy Committee Chairman Buck Wynne to Governor Clements
requesting the cap on Earned Federal Funds be raised by $200,000 to help
finance the GBNEP.
Initial Management Committee meeting (Myron 0. Knudson, Chairman).
Members received program briefings, and agenda included review of the
- Governor’s Nomination, Priority Problems and Goals, the FY 89 Time Line,
the One-year and Five-year Workplans, Public Participation Plan, and DIMS.
Nominations and Procedures were discussed for advisory committees, and
ancillary funding was considered.
Meeting of Management Committee. Revised bylaws adopted, final
recommended nominee lists approved for ScientificlTechnical Advisory
Committee and Citizens Advisory Steering Committee. Priority Problems list
recommended as working list for Policy Committee approval for EPA March
I deadline.
Feb. Dr. Frank S. Shipley hired as Program Manager, from among 22 applicants.
Policy Committee Meeting. Frank Shipley was introduced as new Program
Manager. Open meetings act requirements were discussed and Management
Cornniittee activities were summarized. The SIFAC nominee list was approved
with addition of a Texas Railroad Commission member to be named. The
CASC nominee list was approved as asked for forwarding to the Governor.
Recommended Priority Problems and Goals were approved as working versions.
The Committee instructed Frank Shipley to recommend a permanent Program
Office location for approval at the next meeting. Proposed program logos
were reviewed, and a Public Meeting concerning Priority Problems was
approved.
Job opening for Public Participation Director posted by Program Manager.
Position to be located in (Jralveston/Housron area.
2.5
-------
APPENDIX 1 (ContInued)
Date Planning {nltlative Work Element
1989 Feb. Letter from Governor Cements to Buck Wynne delegating Buck Wynne the
authority and responsibility of appointing members to the ScientificTFechnical
Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Steering Committee.
Letter from Buck Wynne to Policy Committee members notifying them about
the Governor’s delegation of appointments and requesting nominees for the
Citizens Advisory Committee and Local Governments Advisory Committee.
First Draft of Five-year Management Conference Agreement completed by
Program Manager based on EPA OMEP guidance.
March Letters of appointment sent to all SITAC and CASC approved nominees by
Buck Wynne, requesting reply by March 13, 1989.
Program status report prepared by Program Manager for Representative Frank
Collazo and Texas Legislative Budget Board to support state matching
appropriations.
Meeting held with Frank Shipley (Program Manager), Lore Hantske (EPA
OMEP), and Ken Teague (EPA Region VI) concerning Five-year Management
Conference Agreement. New OMEP guidance for five-year Management
Conference Agreement required Agreement to be re-written by Program
Manager.
Public Participation Director applicants interviewed by Program Manager.
Letter to all Management Committee members from Committee Chairman
Myron Knudson reporting conference progress, scheduling a meeting on April
12, and requesting that CAC and LGAC nominees be forwarded to the
Program Manager.
New draft of Five-year Management Conference Agreement completed based
on new OMEP guidance.
Proposed draft FY90 project descriptions completed, with approximate funding
leveb.
26
-------
APPENDIX 1 (ContInued)
Date Planning Initiative Work Element
1989 March Kevin Hamby hired as Public Participation Director by Program Manager from
among 60 applicants.
Letter from Myron Knudson (Chairman, Management Committee) to Texas
Legislative Budget Board supplying program information to support state
matching appropriations.
Initial meeting of the S/TAC, Dr. Sammy Ray, Chairman. Orientation
presentations by EPA and Program Office personnel. Consideration of Priority
Problems List, Goals, Five-year Management Conference Agreement, Proposed
- FY 90 scientific/technical projects and other future committee business.
Appointment of subcommittees for work on critical projects required for
funding. Future regular meetings scheduled.
Initial meeting of CASC, Sharron Stewart, Chairwoman. Orientation
presentations by EPA and Program Office personneL Consideration of Priority
Problems List, Goals, Five-year Management Conference Agreement, Proposed
FY 90 public participation projects, April 10 Public Meeting, and other future
committee business. Future regular meetings scheduled.
Letter from Buck Wynne to Policy Committee members, reporting conference
progress.
April Photographic work for GBNEP slide presentations begun.
Public meetings held to report GBNEP progress and request oral and written
comments on projects and Galveston Bay Priority Problems list. Attendance
was about 50 individuals at each of two meetings, with numerous comments
submitted.
Management Committee meeting held. The five-year Conference Agreement
and FY 1990 workplan were both recommended to the Policy Committee with
minor revisions. A list of Local Governments Advisory Committee (LGAC)
nominees was recommended.
27
-------
APPENDIX 1 (ContInued)
Date Pl2nnIng Initiative Work Element
1989 April An Action Plan Demonstration Project concerning Coastal Preserve Status for
Armand Bayou and Christmas Bay was recommended.
Policy Committee meeting held. The flvc-ycar Conference Agreement and FY
1990 Workplan were approved for submission to EPA OMEP. LGAC
nominees were approved. Approval was given for establishing the Program
Office at the University of Houston Clear Lake, for the hiring of additional
Program staff, and for a budget revision to establish the Program Office.
28
-------
This project has been funded wholly or In
part by the United States Environmental
ProtecUon Agency under assistance agree-
ment #CX-815448-O1-O to the Texas Water
Commission. The contents of this document
do not necessarily represent the views of the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency. nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products consUtute an endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
-------
II.
Annual
Workplans
-------
Eatiia,y ProgfWl
FY90 WORK PLAN
ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE
The Puget Sound Estuary Program (PSEP) was formally initiated in 1985
The Program has been jointly managed from the beginning by representatives of
three agencies: the Washington Department of Ecology, the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Region 10. In
March 1988. PSEP was officially designated as a participant in the National
Estuary Program.
The Program Is supported by numerous committees and work groups, the most
important being the PSEP Management Committee and the PSEP Technical Advisory
Commi ttee.
The Management Committee helps guide the overall program, giving advice
on which studies or projects should be funded each year. pointing out ways
agencies can better work together and highlighting policy and political
implications of various parts of the developing Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provides advice on the technical
merit of scientific studies proposed for funding by the Office of Puget
Sound. The TAC members serve on committees and work groups which critique the
technical aspects of proposed projects and peer review draft reports, thereby
ensuring that the PSEP products are scientifically credible.
EPA funding of the PSEP activities has focused on three general areas;
urban bays. characterization (problem identification, status and trends
assessment) and management—related studies. The urban bays work has stressed
early and decisive action in identifying toxic contamination problems in these
bays and Initiating actions to reduce the Inputs of these contaminants. The
characterization studies have evaluated real or perceived emerging
environmental problems arid documented temporal and spatial trends related to
these er ironmental issues. Lastly, the management—related studies or
projects have developed technical tools and programmatic strategies to improve
our success and efficiency in managing the water quality and resources of the
Sound.
Approximately 80 final reports have been produced with the EPA funds
which have helped support PSEP. In the early years of the program much of the
funding went to urban bay projects, while the emphasis has now shifted to
characterization and management—related work. Several of our projects arid
reports have national as well as regional significance. Exanipies of these
projects include: evaluation of risks associated with consuming Puget Sound
seafood, the development of sediment quality criteria and the development of
standard protocols for measuring environmental variables.
-------
2
Office of Puget Sound staff continue to assist both OMEP, other EPA
Regions, and various state agencies by serving as facilitators, speakers, and
panel members at virtually all National Estuary Program meetings.
In addition, we have distributed reports to, and discussed our approach
to estuary evaluation and cleanup with, scientists and managers from around
the country
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority (PSWQA) produced the Initial
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan as part of the PSEP in 1987. This
plan is a partial Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). A
second Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan , the 1989 edItion, was
completed in December 1988. ThIs second plan is an update of the 1987 Plan
and addresses several major Issues which weren’t addressed In that Plan. A
third version of the plan, the 1991 edition, will be completed in late 1990.
The PSWQA also produced State of the Sound reports in 1986 and 1988.
These reports reviewed the status and condition of the Sound’s resources as
well as current and foreseeable trends In Puget Sound’s water quality.
FY89 ACTIVITIES IN PURSUIT OF THE SEVEN PURPOSES OF THE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
The Office of Puget Sound addressed all seven purposes of the Management
Conference In FY89. The activities supporting these seven purposes are
discussed below.
Purpose 1 : Develop Spatial and Temporal Trends for Priority Problems.
Several studies which either reported the status or trends of’ potential
problems in Puget Sound, or dealt with monitoring environmental variables,
were completed in FY89. The following reports were completed and distributed
to scientists and managers in the Puget Sound area as well as EPA’s Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP):
• 1988 Reconnaissance Survey of Environmental Conditions in 13 Puget Sound
Locations
o Puget Sound Mini—Trend Investigations
The following projects were Initiated In FY88 or FY89 and will be
completed in FY90:
0 Characterization of the Distribution and Abundance of Marine Fish in
Puget Sound
Characterization of Changes in Estuarine Habitats of Puget Sound
0 Development of a Protocol to Monitor Changes In Puget Sound Wetlands
Development of a Protocol for Monitoring Habitat Restoration Projects in
Puget Sound
o A study to Put Atmospheric Loadings to Puget Sound into Perspective with
other Toxic Contaminant Sources
-------
3
Purpose 2 : Identify Causes of Environmental Problems
Probable causes of the environmental problems identified to date in Puget
Sound have been identified in the 1986 and 1988 State of the Sound reports as
well as in the 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan Additional
probable causes will be identified in individual technical reports, the 1990
State of the Sound report and the 1989 and 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plans.
Purpose 3 : Develop the Relationship Between Loads and Potential Uses.
Purpose 3 is largely complete for the Sound as a whole. Existing reports
show that current estimates of relative loadings of toxics from var1ou
sources (e.g.,riverine Input, atmospheric deposition, industrial, municipal.
nonpoint sources,) are adequate to start control programs without the
extensive collection of additional field data. Based on the result of
PSEP—sponsored studies (especially analyses by Jones & Stokes in the Water
Quality Management Program for Puget Sound and results In their Puget Sound
Pollutant Loading Study , 1984 and 1985, respectively), It Is felt that the
costs associated with collecting the data required to run predictive models
are too great In relation to both the PSEP annual budget and the expected
return on Investment.
Rather than undertaking extensive field sampling programs for the
specific purpose of collecting loading data, new data will be collected
through existing and Dlaflfled regulatory and management programs. Emphasis
will be placed on aggressive control of contaminants from all sources and
comprehensive monitoring rather than loadings analyses and modeling. There is
strong State support to undertake broad based control actions. Industrial and
municipal point source controls will be Implemented through secondary sewage
treatment requirements, development and implementation of detailed toxics
control action plans for the urban/Industrial bays, enhanced effluent and
ambient monitoring of contaminants in water, sediment and blota, and increased
toxics reporting and controls in NPDES permits. Information on nonpoint
loadings In urban areas will result from storm drain surveys and
state—mandated city and county CSO planning and control efforts. Wonpoint
source loadings to nonurban areas will be addressed through development of
priority watershed action plans, Implementation of watershed management plans.
and river mouth monitoring (part of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
program). Baseline surveys and Implementation of a comprehensive Ambient
Monitoring Program for Puget Sound will provide the data needed to track
Improvements in environmental quality resulting from enhanced source control.
During FY89 the Office of’ Puget Sound worked with the Washington
Department of Ecology to Increase monitoring by new and existing NPDES
dischargers. We are serving on the Permit Writers Procedures
Manual/Monitoring Guidelines Advisory Committee and are helping the state as
it prepares to require increased permittee monitoring. Some of the data to be
collected will help with refining the presently broad loadings estimates for
the Sound. In addition, the Office of Puget Sound Initiated the previously
mentioned study of atmospheric loading to Puget Sound in FY88.
-------
4
Purpose 4 : Develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)
During discussions with OMEP during the “Designation” process, it was
agreed to integrate the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority’s state—mandated
requirements for producing water quality management plans with the National
Estuary Program’s CCMP. The 1987 and 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plans are recognized as partial CCMPS and the Plan scheduled for
1991 will be the most comprehensive Plan to date as well as the final CCMP.
Purpose 5: Develop Coordinated Plans for Implementation of the CCMP
The 1987 and 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plans , the partial
CCMPS, included plans for Implementation. They Identified legislation,
regulatory programs, responsible agencies and costs for implementing the
recommended control actions and programs. Implementation requirements for the
final 1991 CCMP will be Included in the 1991 Plan’.
Purpose 6 : MonItor the Effectiveness of Actions
The Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program plan was completed in FY88.
The monitoring described In this report will measure the “effectiveness” of
existing programs in the Puget Sound receiving environment. Memoranda of
Understanding have been prepared between the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority and the state agencies that will conduct the monitoring.
Funding exists to implement part of the monitoring program and sampling
began in the spring of 1989. The State Legislature was asked to provided
additional funding for part of the remainder of the program and some
additional monitoring was conducted in the summer of 1989.
A data and information management system for the monitoring program is
operational although adjustments and refinements will continue to be made as
needed. Monitoring data collected during 1989 have been entered into the
system.
Reports on the status of Implementation of the partial 1987 and 1989
plans will be contained In the 1991 Plan.
Purpose 7 : RevIew Federal Financial Assistance Programs and Federal
Development Projects for Consistency with CCMP
During FY89 a full—time state employee was detailed to the Office of
Puget Sound to work on this issue, supported by funds secured by OPS. Issues
related to the compliance of the eight Puget Sound military facilities with
the CCMP were Identified, and discussions were formally inItiated with each
facility. OPS expects to resolve these issues during FY90. Work has begun on
the consistency report on federal financial assistance programs and
development projects. The report will describe the federal programs and
projects which may have an Impact on Puget Sound. and explore alternative
means of resolving any Inconsistencies between these activities and the CCMP.
OPS hopes to have a draft report ready in late spring of 1990.
-------
5
ACTIVtTIES IN FY90 WORK PLAN
The projects in Table 1 will be initiated with FY90 funds. Project costs
are estimated and subject to revision as detailed project plans are developed.
We have not included specific action projects in the work plan but have
made provisions for adding them later. When action project funding becomes
available through OMEP, the Management Conference will solicit and review
project proposals. Proposals recommended by the Management Committee for
funding will be submitted to OMEP for final consideration.
-------
6
TABLE 1. Projects to be initiated with FY90 funds.
Management
Conf.
Products
Deliverable
Date of Delivery
Estimated
Primary
Source
Responsible
a.
(Projected)
Project Name
Purposes(s)
Projected
Cost
($K)
of Funds
Organization
(1) Budd Inlet 1.2 Report 10/90 35 EPA WA Dept. of
Action Team Ecology
Support
(2) Chemica’ 1 Report 3/90 25 EPA Contract
Contaminants in
Sea Cucumbers
(3) Dioxin In Report 1/91 40 EPA Contract
Fish/Shellfish
(4) TAC Support 1 2,3,4,5, Agendas, all FY90 7 EPA Univ. of Wash.
Mi flutes,
Represent
TAC at
Select
National
Meetings
(5) Puget Sound 6 Report 3/91 250 EPA PSWQA
Monitoring and
Research Program
Support
(6) Puget Sound 1.2,3 Updated 6/91 85 EPA PSWQA
Atlas Update Atlas
(7) Protocol 6 Report 3/91 35 EPA C ntractor
Development
(8) Mercury and PCBs 1 Report 1/91 15 EPA Contractor
in Clams and
Crabs
-------
7
Project Name
Management
Conf.
Purposes(s)
Products
Deliverable
Projected
Date of Delivery
Estimated
Cost ($K)
Primary
Source
of Funds
Responsible
Organization
(Projected)
(9) South Sound 1,2,4 Report 1/91 100 EPA WA Dept. of
Reconnaissance Ecology
Survey
(10) Chemical 1,2,3 Report 6/91 100 EPA NOAA—NMFS
Bloaccumulation
and Effects on
Juvenile Salmon
(11) Determine 1 Report 6/91 60 EPA Contract
Chemical Levels
in Puget Sound
Nil dli fe
(12) Evaluate Harvest 1,2,3 Report 1/91 25 EPA University of
Pressure on Washington
Puget Sound
Non—game Species
(13) Update Puget 1,2,3,4,6 Updated 6/91 25 EPA PSWQA
Sound’s Bibilo—
Computerized graphy
Bibliography
(14) Develop Micro— 5 User— 3/91 15 EPA Contract
Computer Version friendly
of the Puget model
Sound Reflux
Model
(15) Classifying and 2,3,5 Report 6/91 80 EPA WA. Dept.
Disposing of Ecology
Catch 8asin
Sediments -
-------
8
Management
Conf.
Products
Deliverable
Date of Delivery
Estimated
Primary
Source
Responsible
(Projected)
Project Name
Purposes(s)
Projected
Cost
($K)
of Funds
Organization
(16) Development of 5 Report 6191 72 EPA HA. Dept.
Net Pen Ecology
(Aquacul ture)
Management Plan
(17) Development of 5 Report 3/91 50 EPA WA Dept. of
Standards for Ecology
Puget Sound
Reference Areas
(18) Development of 5 General 6/91 35 (PA HA Dept. of
Shipyard Permit Ecology
General Permits
(19) Evaluate 6 Report 6/90 20 EPA Contract
His tor cal
Water Quality
Data Sets
(20) Entry of Puget 6 Database 6/91 35 EPA NOAA-NMFS
Sound Hater
Quality Data
Into a Database
(21) Hake S Report 6/91 25 EPA Contract
Improvements
in Microtox
Bioassay
(22) Reduce Flydro— 5 Report 6/91 60 EPA N Dept. of
Blasting Wastes Ecology
and Stormwater
Toxics
-------
9
5% match on all cooperative agreements not included in EPA cost.
All monies awarded and managed by Office of Puget Sound (OPS), Region 10; level of
OPS Is PT! Environmental Services.
Proiect Name
Management
Conf.
Purposes(s)
Products
Deliverable
Projected
Date of Delivery
Estimated
Cost ($K)
Primary
Source
of Funds
Responsible
.
Organization
(Projected)
(23) DetermIne
Microlayer
Distribution
and Toxicity
(24) Storm Drain
Tracing in
Bell ingham
(25) Storm Drain
Training in
Everett
1,2,3
2,3,5
2,3,5
Report
Report
Report
6/91
6/91
6/91
36
100
70
EPA
EPA
EPA
Contract
Wash. Dept.
Ecology
Wash. Dept.
Ecology
TOTAL FEDERAL COST $1,400
Priority Action projects have not been identified yet but will EPA State/Local
be submitted by Management Conference Agencies
**
effort contractor to
-------
10
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS LISTED IN TABLE 1
1. Budd Inlet Action Team Support:
At the request of the Budd Inlet Action Team, a limited number of
sediment and tissue samples from Budd Inlet will be analyzed for toxicity
and toxic chemicals.
2. Determine Chemical Contaminant Levels In Puget Sound Sea Cucumbers:
Sea cucumbers are being commercially harvested throughout the Sound
Because the animals live on, and ingest, sediments, the tissues from
specimens In chemically contaminated areas should be analyzed for
chemical contamination and contaminant levels related to human health
risks.
3. Determine Dioxin Levels in Selected Puget Sound Sediments, Fish and/or
Shellfish:
The minimal sampling of fish tissues from Puget Sound and British
Columbia, Canada, waters for dioxin have indicted dioxin in measurable
concentrations In these tissues. Because dioxin is highly toxic, a
survey of seafood collected around possible sources of dioxin (pulp mills
and refineries) is a high priority for FY90
4. TAC Support:
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Chair will be reimbursed for the
considerable time he spends preparing for, conducting, and following—up
on TAC meetings. These funds will also provide travel support for the
chair to represent the Puget Sound TAC at National meetings.
5. Puget Sound Monitoring and Research Program Support:
These funds will support continued development and coordination of a
state—funded Puget Sound monitoring program. Data produced by the
monitoring program will be evaluated to determine Its quality and will be
entered into the Puget Sound database. An annual report summarizing the
monitoring program will be produced. in addition recently completed
research results from Puget Sound will be disseminated to a broad
audience.
6. Puget Sound Atlas Update:
Based on the Atlas pilot project that was completed with FY89 funds, some
or all of the Puget Sound Environmental Atlas will be updated and
converted to a GIS.
7. Protocol Development:
Update an existing sampling and analysis protocol or develop a new
protocol as determined by the TAC.
-------
8. Btoaccuniulatlon of Mercury and PCB’s by Crabs and Clams in Bellingham Bay:
Sediment levels of mercury and PCBs in Belllngham Bay have been elevated
in the past. Crab and clam tissues will be analyzed to determine whether
or not existing chemical levels pose a risk to human health.
9. South Sound Reconnaissance Survey:
Field sampling and laboratory analysis of sediments will be conducted at
several South Puget Sound locations. The locations chosen will be those
where chemical contamination of the sediment may have occurred, but where
no, or limited, samples have been collected or analyzed.
10. Effects of Contaminated Estuaries on Juvenile Salmon:
As juvenile salmon leave their native rivers and head for salt water,
they often pass through chemically contaminated waters. This study, in
its second year, will evaluate the effects of exposure to these toxic
chemicals on juvenile salmonids.
11. Determine Chemical Contaminant Levels in Puget Sound Wildlife:
Determine PCB and other chemical levels In marine mammals (harbor seals)
that are predominantly fish eaters and may be at risk. In addition,
Puget Sound area wildlife (sea birds and waterfowl) will be collected and
analyzed for chemical contaminants.
12. Evaluation of Harvesting Pressure on Puget Sound’s Non-game Species:
Recent informal and undocumented Information indicates that unprotected,
non—game species of plants and animals are being heavily harvested from
many Puget Sound beaches. A formal survey of this potential problem will
put it in perspective for the Washington Department of Wildlife (the
managers of non—game species) and may be the basis for future regulations
concerning some of this harvesting.
13. Update/DIstribute Puget Sound Access (Puget Sound’s Computerized
Bibliography):
Update this bibliography of Puget Sound’s literature and distribute it to
more potential users.
14. Produce a Microcomputer Version of the Puget Sound Reflux Model:
Produce and distribute to the Puget Sound research community (and
governmental agencies) a user—friendly, graphics—oriented microcomputer
version of the Puget Sound Reflux Model. The model may be used to
predict the dispersion of conservative materials throughout the Puget
Sound basin.
15. Procedures for Classifying Catch Basin Sediments and Determining Means of
Disposal of these Sediments:
A plan will be developed for addressing, evaluating and disposing of
sediments from catch basins.
-------
12
16. Development of Net Pen Aquaculture Management Plan:
Assist several Washington State agencies in the development of an
interagency aquacuiture management plan.
17. Development of Standards for Puget Sound Reference Areas.
Gather sediment samples from several potential Puget Sound reference
areas and conduct chemical analyses and bloassays on the sediment. These
data will be used to develop criteria for acceptable reference area
performance for chemical and biological testing.
18. Development of General Permits for Shipyards:
Develop general permits for small and medium shipyards. Developing
general permits is more cost effective than developing individual
permits, but since permit fees cannot be used for general permit
development. Ecology has insufficient sources of funding to develop these
general permits
19. Evaluate Water Quality Data Sets Stored on the U.H. Oceanography Barge:
Catalog and evaluate the Puget Sound water column data sets presently
being stored. The barge has been sold and these data sets, dating back
to the early 1900’s must be reviewed to ensure that the data are in some
existing database (I.e., NODC or STORET). or in published reports, before
they are discarded.
20. Entry of Puget Sound Main Basin Data into a Database Management System:
Enter trace metal and ancillary data collected by NOAA PMEL from the
Main Basin of Puget Sound since 1975 into a database management system
and produce one or more data reports.
21. Make Improvements in the Microtox Bioassay Process:
Conduct laboratory studies to determine which type of Microtox bioassay
(saline, organic, or interstitial waters) should be conducted routinely
on Puget Sound sediments
22. ReductIon of Toxics Associated with Hydroblasting Wastes and Contaminated
Stormwater:
Develop disposal guidelines and design criteria to treat and discharge
hydroblasting wastes, bilge and ballast water and contaminated stormwater
to state waters, sanitary sewers or off—site treatment facilities.
23. DetermIne the Distribution and Toxicity of the Sea Surface Microlayer in
Puget Sound:
Based on the reconriendations of the microlayer workshop held in
November 1989, determine the distribution and toxicity of the
contaminated microlayer in Puget Sound.
-------
13
24. Storm Drain Sediment Characterization and Source Tracing In Belllngham
Bay:
Analyze storm drain sediments to assess chemical contaminant levels.
Trace pollutant sources by sampling “up the pipe.’
25. Everett Harbor Storm Drain Tracing
Use a remote sensing cameras to Identify illegal hookups to storm drains
entering Everett Harbor’s East Waterway. Conduct key manhole studies to
identify current and past sources of chemical contaminants.
-------
14
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Table 2 suri narizes anticipated funding sources for PSEP in FY90 and shows
that the minimum 25% match will be provided by the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority.
TABLE 2 FY90 FUNDING
Source of Funds Amount Tyoe of Award
EPA $1,400,000. CWA Section 320
State Programmatic Match $500,000. State Appropriation
(PSWQA)
Total Funding $1,900,000.
EPA Share $1,400,000./$1,900,000 • 73.7%
Recipients Share $500,000./$1,900,000 • 26.3%
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPROVAL
This workplan was approved by the Puget Sound Estuary Program Management
Con nittee November 28, 1989.
-------
** Please note: Fo t of Work lans rt ist
conform with 320(q) qrant requlations.
S %
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RCGION IV
341 COU TLAND ST CaT
ATLANTA. OKORGIA 3015$
MEMORANDUM
DATE: AUG 181989
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program FY1989
Annual Workplan
FROM: Earl Bozeman
Project Officer
TO: Stephanie Sanzone
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Attached is the above referenced workplan which has been revised
according to your coents of 7/20/89. Please note that attachment 2
has not been deleted, as we discussed. I wanted to leave the
attachment in the workplan to give OMEP an idea of the types and
levels of effort the program Is planning to expend in FY90. Perhaps
this will assist OMEP In setting target budget levels that are
consistent with the needs of the program.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this revised
workplan. I will be on vacation from 8/24 — 9/5, during which time,
please contact Mark Alderson if you have questions.
Attachment
-------
SARASOTA BAY
NATIONAL ES’1 1ARY PROGRAM
FT 1989 ANNUAL WORXPLAN
INTRODUCTION
In July, 1988, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator Lee Thomas convened a National Estuary
Program (NEP) Management Conference for Sarasota Bay,
Florida. Governor Bob Martinez designated the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) as lead
agency for the project, and FDER and EPA entered into a
cooperative agreement in the amount of $200,000 for
program planning and development for the Sarasota Bay NEP
in August, 1988. The Manasota Basin Board of the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)
provided the $50,000 cost-sharing (25% of total program
costs for the budget/project period) required by Section
320 of the Clean Water Act of 1987.
The Management Conference has been formally established
and contains five committees: Policy Committee, Management
Committee, Elected Officials Forum, Technical Advisory
Committee and citizen Advisory Committee.
Six goals have been identified as targets upon which to
focus the attention of scientists, elected officials, and
the public at large. Those goals include:
- Improve water transparency to the maximum allowable
by the gulf and local weather conditions.
- Reduce the quantity and improve the quality of
stormwater runoff into Sarasota Bay.
— Prevent further losses of seagrass beds and
shoreline wetlands, and restore lost habitats.
— Coordinate beach/inlet/channel activities to
enhance the bay.
— Provide increased access to the bay.
- Establish a coordinated management system between
local, regional, state and federal levels of
government.
A seventh goal was added to the program by the Policy
Committee on June 26, 1989.
- Restore and sustain fish and other living
resources in Sarasota Bay.
The Policy Committee is charged with the development of
policy for the program and final approval of funding
actions. During the February meeting, this committee
1
/
ornE
-------
established the policy themes for the program:
- make public awareness a high priority
— develop and produce a “State of the Bay” report
during the first year of the project
- seek the required level of funds to implement the
project from all available sources
- increase the overall visibility of the project
- focus the program on action, not study, whenever
possible.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
The scope of work from the PDER cooperative agreement with
EPA details the activities and tasks which were undertaken
to initiate the Sarasota Bay NEP:
1. Establish a Project Office
2. Structure and Appoint Management Conference
Committees
3. Develop an Information Management System
4. Develop a Bay-wide Monitoring Plan
5. Develop a Public Participation Program
6. Develop a Program Quality Assurance / Quality Control
Plan
7. Develop an Annual Workplan
8. Develop a Five Year Workplan
The Sarasota Bay Program has made substantial progress
towards completing these tasks. The following section
discusses progress on each cooperative agreement task
and/or product, work remaining, and anticipated completion
date.
1. Establish Drolect office
During the fall of 1988 the Sarasota Bay NEP Policy
Committee conducted a nationwide search to recruit a
Project Director. After receiving more than 50 applica-
tions and interviewing six candidates, the Policy Commit-
tee selected Mr. Mark Alderson to serve as Sarasota Bay
NEP Project Director. Mr. Alderson is an EPA Region IV
employee who is being detailed to the program under the
Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA). Mr. Alderson’s IPA
assignment is to SWYWMD, a regional agency that is
administering the funds for Project Office operations,
salaries, and expenses.
The project office is located adjacent to Mote Marine
Laboratory (141 (L) on City Island Park, Sarasota. XML is
2
-------
providing apace for the project off ic. in a building which
was donated to the laboratory. The program is paying for
utilities and maintenance through a lease agreement
between SWFWMD and )O L. Equipment for the office was
purchased with NEP grant fundB and includes a desk top
publishing system.
Mr. Alderson was authorized by the Policy Committee to
hire three staff members: an Of tic. Administrator, a
Public Affairs Director and a Secretary—Receptionist.
All positions have been filled.
The project office is fully functional at this time and
continues to experience a period of extremely heavy
workload including:
— the continued development of the Management
Committee, Technical Advisory and Citizen Advisory
Committees and relevant subcommittees and the Elected
Of ficials Forum;
- the continued development of a Program Study Plans,
annual and five-year workplans:
- development of requests for proposals and selection
of organizations to conduct technical work;
— the award of grants / cooperative agreements and
contracts to the organizations selected to complete
the work;
- production of a draft “State of the Bay” report.
Task Status: 100% Complete
2. Structure and aD oInt management conference committees
The document entitled Structure and Function of the
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Management Con-
ference (see Attachment $1) details the committee struc-
tures, roles and responsibilities of participants in the
Sarasota Bay NEP. To date, the Policy Committee (PC),
Elected Officials Forum (EOF), Management Committee (MC),
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) have been formed. The Project Office has
conducted a series of citizens briefings on the Sarasota
Bay NEP to solicit involvement in the program and compiled
candidates for participation on the Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) via a program questionnaire. The Policy
Committee made appointments to the CAC on June 26, 1989,
based on an analysis performed by program staff on each
3
-------
candidates affiliation and geographic representation. The
CAC will create sub-committees to address the various
public participation and education aspects of the
program.
The Technical Advisory Committee met on April 5, 28; May
24, and again on June 28, 1989. Monthly meetings are
planned during the summer. The TAC contains 73 scientists,
planners, engineers and technicians and was formed first
because of the need to refine the technical components of
the program to make funding decisions in August.
The TAC is composed of seven sub-committees, which met bi-
weekly in May and June:
- Monitoring and water quality
- Data management
- Point / non-point source pollution
- Habitat
- Technical review
— Fisheries
- Beach and bay access
These sub-committees reviewed the proposed workplans,
suggested modifications, provided technical input on the
parameters to be measured, established the criteria for
project success and provided insight on scientific
techniques to be used. The Technical Advisory Committee
approved a Technical Program Study Plan on May 24, 1989.
Briefings for the Elected Officials Forum (EOF) were held
April 26 and June 14, 1989. State senators and
representatives, as veil as staff, were briefed in
Tallahassee April 24. Other elected officials at the
national level or their staff were also apprised of the
program status.
The Citizens Advisory Committee met on July 20, 1989 and
August 3, 1989 to develop the public participation,
involvement and education strategies.
Task Status: 100% Complete
3. DeveloD information management system
The Data Management Subcommittee has made a preliminary
recommendation that the SWFWMD ARC/INFO-based Geographic
Information System (GIS) be used for data archives and
mapping, coupled with a statistical analysis system for
data processing and analysis. All data collected by the
4
-------
program will be in the format established by SWFWMD. The
system is currently being developed under contract with
the Surface Water Improvement and Management program in
Tampa Bay. A data management scoping project will be
funded in the fall of 1989 to poll users, review hardware
and BOftware currently available, develop user guide and
recommend system configuration.
In addition to formatting requirements for the Data
Management systems ultimately used by the Sarasota Bay
NE?, all data generated by NEP activities will be put in
Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) format in machine-
readable forms and provided to EPA, OMEP.
Task Status: 70% Complete
Work Remaining: Complete the data management scoping project.
Expected Completion Date: March, 1990.
Expected Implementation of Data Mgt. System: October, 1990
4. Develoø monitoring elan
Substantial progress has been made towards developing a
bay—wide monitoring plan for collecting baseline
information on water quality, sediment quality and living
resources in the study area. In August, 1988, a panel of
water quality and monitoring experts was convened by Mote
Marine Laboratory. Manatee County, Sarasota County, the
City of Sarasota, Mote Marine Laboratory and two private
consulting firms were represented on the panel. A draft
monitoring plan was produced which focused on three areas
in the bay where environmental changes are anticipated due
to sewage treatment plant effluent diversion and the
possible reopening of Midnight Pass.
The Policy and Management Committees have directed the TAC
to expand the draft monitoring plan to include the entire
study area, with more intensive monitoring in the three
areas mentioned above. A contract was let with )D L to
assist with various technical aspects of the Sarasota Bay
NE?. A draft monitoring plan was produced by Mote in late
June, 1989. The plan was presented to a TAC task force on
July 12, 1989. Efforts are now underway to finalize the
monitoring plan.
Task Status: 90 percent complete
Work Remaining: Finalize monitoring plan; Approval of Water
Quality and Monitoring Sub-committee and TAC;
5
-------
Implementation in coordination with Manatee and
Sarasota County.
Expected Completion Date: October, 1989.
5. DeveloD a Dublic DarticiDation proaram
The Sarasota Bay NE ? Project Office has hired a Public
Affairs Director whose chief responsibility is to develop
and implement, with the assistance and advice of the CAC,
a public participation and education program for the
project. While the CAC is being formed, the Project
Office has initiated several public education/involvement
efforts. An information brochure on Sarasota Bay and the
National Estuary Program has been prepared, and a
newsletter will be produced in August, 1989. In
addition, several projects are planned for FY 1990 (see
Projects section of this vorkplan) which will fully
implement the Sarasota Bay NEP public participation
program.
Negotiations with Manatee and Sarasota County are
completed to jointly produce a Sarasota Bay Repair Kit.
It is anticipated a publication will be in print by Fall,
1989. The kit is a guide to how homeowners can help
clean up the bay.
Also, the program has begun to develop a public education
and outreach program based on existing county educational
activities.
The program has developed a public participation,
information and education strategy (PIE) which was
presented to the CAC in July for discussion, review,
approval and implementation.
The CAC was officially formed on July 26, 1989. Three
meetings were held in July—August, 1989.
Task Status: 100 percent complete.
6. Develop a roaram quality assurance / qualitY control ølan
Two efforts are underway to ensure the precision and
accuracy of data collected in the program. Under contract
with the program, MML has developed a program quality
assurance plan and guidance on quality assurance / quality
control (QA/QC) project plans. These documents are
components of the request for proposal (R.FP), and the
6
-------
QA/QC plans of the respondents to the RIP will be one
crit.rium upon which proposals are judged. All data
collected through the progra will be in a format
compatible with the SWFWMD data system in Brooksville,
Florida and will be provided to OMEP in machine-readable
ODES format.
Task Status: Completed
7. Develoo anannual workDlan
A study plan was prepared by the Project Office in
February, 1989. This plan has been discussed in depth by
the PC, XC, and TAC has been approved by these committees.
The draft study plan contains 20 characterization and
public participation projects which were identified by the
Management Conference as priority areas to begin work in
1989 and 1990. Fifteen of those projects were developed
into Request for Propoeals, which were approved by the TAC
and MC, and were released on June 1, 1989. The remaining
projects, mostly dealing with public participation, will
be refined by the CAC during the summer of 1989. Two of
these projects, “Sarasota Bay Repair Kit” and “Areawide
Questionnaire” have already been started in-house. The MC
will refine and identify contractual mechanisms by aid-
August, 1989.
A Technical Review Committee (TRC) has been formed and
evaluated all proposals. Each proposal has also been Bent
out for external peer review and evaluation (at least 3
per proposal). Contractors and grant recipients were
selected by the XC on August 10, 1989, based on
recommendations from the TRC. See page 12. for projects to
be funded under the 1989 workplan.
Task Status: Complete
8. DeveloD a five year workplan
The Sarasota Bay KEP five-year workplan was negotiated
with FDER on April 24, 1989, received Management
Conference approval on May 19, 1989 and was transmitted by
the MC chairman to OMEP for comment on May 23, 1989. The
Sarasota Bay Management Conference agreement was signed by
Mr. Dale Twachtmann, Secretary, FDER; Mr. Greer Tidwell,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IV, and elected or
appointed officials from Manatee County, Sarasota County,
7
-------
the City of Sarasota, the Southwest Florida Wat.r
Management District, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council on June 26, 1989.
The agreement calls for three major products:
1. State of the Bay report - January, 1990
2. Framework for Action - August, 1992
5. Final Comprehensive Conservation Management
Plan - June, 1994
Task Status: Complete
Several other major tasks have been completed under this
agreement as veil.
1. State of the Bay report
A draft of the State of the Bay report has been prepared
by the Project Office and will be released to the TAC and
then to the CAC for comment in August and September.
2. Action Plan Demonstration Prolects
The TAC and MC has recommended three action plan
demonstration projects for funding in F? 89:
o City Island — habitat module on City Island.
This action plan demonstration project will focus on
restoring wetland habitat and will provide a
transferable module to be used elsewhere in the study
area.
o Seagrass signage project bay-wide. This project
will develop and implement a signage program to
protect selected seagrass beds in th. Sarasota Bay
study area, monitor the effectiveness of these
actions, and educate and inform the public as to the
ecological value of these areas.
o dower Creek stormwater control project. This
project will reduce the quantity and improve the
quality of storawater entering Sarasota Bay from
Clover Creek. Reduction in quantity and improvement
in quality of stormwater runoff will be achievedby
the retrofitting of existing stormwater control
structures.
8
-------
PROGP.AM GOALS FOR 1989-1990:
In 1989—1990, th. program viii:
- Initiate a bay-wide monitoring program. Thi, program will.
help satisfy Management Conference Purposes 1, 2, 3 and 6, and
establish the groundwork for the satisfying of Purpose 4.
- Begin the basinwide characterization of trends in water
quality, habitat and living resources. This process will help
satisfy Management Conference Purposes 1, 2 and 3, and
establish the groundwork for the satisfying of Purpose 4.
- Activate an aggressive public participation program and
develop a public school outreach program in concert with the
local school systems and MML which will begin the coalition
building process. The program will help satisfy the public
involvement and public educational goals of the National
Estuary Program.
- Produce a preliminary “State of the Bay” report based on
currently available information. This report will help
satisfy Management Conference Purposes 1, 2 and 3 and will
establish the groundwork for satisfying Purpose 4.
— Continue to seek the required resources to implement future
Management Conference-approved workplans.
9
-------
SOURCE AMOUNT TYPE
FEDERAL
EPA $400,000 Sec.320g/
205(1)
EPA $145,000 Sec. 205(1)
NON-FEDERAL
Manasota Basin Board $128,000 Appropriation
Sarasota County $35,000 Appropriation
Pelican Cove Assoc. $21,000 Donation
SWFWMD $30,000 In—kind
services for
fund admin.
Sarasota County $10,000 In-kind for
Bay Repair
Kit
Mote Marine $6,276 I n - k i n d
New College Found. $1,250 I n - k i n d
services for
action plan
development
city of Sarasota $2,500 In-kind
services for
action plan
development
TOTAL $234,026
FEDERAL RESOURCES $545,000 70 percent
NON-FEDERAL RESOURCES $234,026 30 percent
GRAND TOTAL $779,026 100 PERCENT
-------
PROJECTS P lANNED FOR 1989-1990:
A total of 20 information acquisition and public
participation projects have been approved by the
Management Conference to be conducted over the first three
years of the Sarasota Bay Project. Detailed workplans for
15 projects have been developed in concert with the
Technical Advisory Committee for the technical components
of the program (see Attachment #2). The public
participation projects, Projects 13 to 17 (see Attachment
#2), have started or are in the process of vorkplan
development. First year projects to be funded, the
Management Conference purpose, the product to be
delivered, the projected dat. of delivery, the projected
cost, the funding source and the organizations responsible
are outlined below. This information is summarized in the
attached table (see Attachment #3). Please note that only
10 of 20 projects viii begin with FY 89 resources.
PRO.JECr A: Baywide Segmentation — This project is to
design a baywide segmentation scheme which viii divide the
Bay into like hydrologic and habitat components. This
segmentation scheme will be used in the characterization
effort to organize data and help focus attention on
problem areas. All data collection and further analysis
on Sarasota Bay will reference these segments.
Segmentation of project areas is strongly recommended by
NEP guidance. The Sarasota Bay study area will be divided
to component areas that are as small as practical but
sufficient in size to satisfy monitoring,
characterization, demonstration project, land and water
management, data management, and other requirements.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3
Products Delivered/Projected: Segmentation scheme with GIS
compatible maps
Date of Delivery: December, 1989
Total Cost: $8,000
First Year Allocation: $8,000
Funding Source: Federal/local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
PROJECT B: Basinvide Monitorina - This project is to
implement a basinvide monitoring program to assess the
current condition of Sarasota Bay. The extent and
complexity of the program will be developed and approved
in cooperation with the Sarasota Bay Technical AdvisOry
Committee. The monitoring program viii include: a) Water
Chemistry; b) Living Resources; and C) Sediment work (core
11
-------
analysis). NE? guidelines clearly emphasize the necessity
of a meaningful monitoring program in order that actions
taken to improve the bay can be evaluated with respect to
effectiveness. NE? guidelines further advis. againBt
structureless data collection efforts and therefore
require that each monitoring program be related directly
to the estuary’s goals, major problem areas, and findings
of the status and trends report.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,6
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report on station
locations, sampling frequency and parameters measured
Date of Deliverj: June, 1990
Total Cost: $300,000
First Year Allocation: $50,000 plus $50,000 in-kind
services from Manatee and Sarasota Counties
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible organization: Sarasota Bay Project Office
PROJECT C: Wetland Status and Trends - This project
describes technical aspects of a Sarasota Bay NEP Project
dealing with the historic loss of fresh water and marine
wetlands, the present status of wetlands and projected
losses in the future. An essential part of the NEP
process involves the assessment of status and trends for
critical living and other natural resources. Information
from this effort will document losses end their causes,
and help define restorative measures.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Phase I * Report on
assessment of available information
Date of Delivery: January, 1990
Total Cost: $100,000
First Year Allocation: $20,000 (remainder to be funded in
Fl 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
* Phase I provides for an inventory of available
information on Sarasota Bay wetlands.
PROJECT D: Estuarine Habitat Assessment — This project
describes technical aspects of a Sarasota Bay NEP Project
on the historic loss of submerged aquatic vegetation,
present status of estuarine habitats, and opportunities
for habitat restoration and protection. An essential part
of the NEP process involves the assessment of status and
trends for critical living and other natural resources.
Information from this effort will document losses of
12
-------
submerged aquatic vegetation and their causes, define the
extent and condition of remaining vegetation and other
habitats, and help define restorative measures in the
CcMP.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,23,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report including
GIS compatible maps of bay bottom habitat types
Date of Delivery: March, 1990
Total Cost: $75,000
First Year Allocation: $35,000 (remainder to be funded in
FY 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
PROJECI’ K: Fishery Resource Assessment — This project
provides for an assessment of tint ish stocks and
populations, their harvest for sport and commerce, and
their habitat use, requirements and relationships,
throughout the Sarasota Bay Study Area. In cases where the
extent and condition of resources are unknown, NE?
guidelines emphasize the need for these facts to be
established, especially for sport and commercial
fisheries. Extent includes habitat preferences,
recruitment, stocks, temporal variations, and
availability. Condition includes containment levels;
environmentally-induced pathology; over-harvesting
impacts; and stock declines due to habitat loss,
degradation and related factors.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report on sampling
stations established, sampling frequencies and
results
Date of Delivery: March, 1990
Total Cost: $100,000
First Year Allocation: $45,000 (remainder to be funded in
FY 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
PROJEC’r IF: Shellfish Contamination Assessment — This
project describes a program of data collection on
shellfish and their contaminants, leading to recommended
C 1P measures to open bay waters to harvest and re-
establish commercial shellfish industries. Protection of
human health is one of the NEP’s primary objectives where
use and enjoyment of estuarine resources are concerifed.
This project will undertake assessments of health risks of
bay use, particularly with respect to shellfish
13
-------
sanitation. Also, two of five priority threats identified
in ths Near Coastal Waters Initiativ, speak directly to
toxicant. and pathogen contamination. Given th. unknown
but probably high recreational harvest of Sarasota Bay
shellfish, an assessment of major contaminants is
justified.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report on sampling
stations established, including mapping and initial
data reduction
Date of Delivery: March, 1990
Total Cost: $100,000
First Year Allocation: $10,000 (remainder to be funded in
F l 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
PROJECT fG: Point and Non—Point Loading Assessment - This
project uses existing information to identify upland areas
making the largest contribution of nutrients, metals, and
other contaminants, to receiving waters of the Sarasota
Bay Study Area. This assessment will include analysis of
loads from stormwater, sewage treatment plants and
agricultural sources. NEP projects are expected to
characterize point and non-point loads to estuaries,
especially where such loads are known or suspected to
cause adverse impacts. Such characterizations are meant
to build on existing local data and data transferred from
more distant but comparable areas. The characterizations
guide additional data collection and restoration efforts.
Projects defining singular impacts of stormwater are
nationally significant.
Management Conference Purpose: 3
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress study report and
preliminary point/NPS loading model
Date of Delivery: September, 1992
Total Cost: $105,000
First Year Allocation: $105,000
Funding Source: Federal/local
Responsible Organization: Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
PROJECT B: Public ODinion SurveY — This project is to
develop an areawide questionnaire to ascertain information
on the public perception of the priority issues and
willingness to pay and adopt laws to protect resources.
NEP guidelines provide for obtaining the public’s
perception of the and problems of the bay. This project
will help meet that objective.
14
-------
Management Conference Purpose: Step A
Product. Delivered/Projected: Survey result.
Dat. of Delivery: January, 1990
Total Cost: $8,000
First Year Allocation: $8,000
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project Office
PROJECT I: Sarasota Bay Newsletter - This project is for
the preparation of four newsletters in th. first year
informing the public on program studies and status. These
funds will provide for printing and distribution costs.
Management Conference Purpose: Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: First issue of newsletter
Date of Delivery: November, 1989
Total Cost: $42,000 (over three years)
First ‘lear Allocation: $2,000 (first issue publication
only)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT J: Sarasota Bay Users Guide (Bay ReDair Kit —
The preparation of this document informing the public of
what homeowners can do to help assist with bay clean-up
efforts is already in progress.
Management Conference Purpose: 4, Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: Booklet
Date of Delivery: December, 1989
Total Cost: $15,000
First Year Allocation: $5,000 ($10,000 by Sarasota County)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organizations: Sarasota Bay Project Office,
Sarasota County, Ton Cross, Inc.
PROJECT K: Data Manaaement (Phase A: Scopina — This
project provides for the rapid determination of the
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program’s data management
needs. Protocols need to be established as an early
project effort in order to affect data collection and
other tasks. The project will identify and implement a
system of hardware, software, policies and procedures for
efficient data entry, storage, retrieval, analysis and
reporting. Establishment of a bay project’s data
management program is an early NEP milestone that must be
accomplished. NEP guidelines provide guidance on
assessing data bases, systems and uses for each bay
15
-------
program. The data management program must make full use
of existing local efforts.
Management Conference Purpose: Step B
Products Delivered/Projected: Report on recommended
hardware and software, formatting and users guides
Date of Delivery: January, 1990
Total Cost: $25,000
First Year Allocation: $25,000
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc.
16
-------
A11 AC1O(ENT #1
STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION OF THE SARASOTA BAY
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
On July 17, 1988, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator convened a National Estuary Program (NE?) Manage-
ment Conference for Sarasota Bay. Section 320 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 outlines the estuary designation process, the
purposes of a Management Conference, and authorizes funding for
this national program; however, the roles and responsibilities of
participating organizations in this planning process are not
detailed in the legislation. It is the purpose of this document
to clarify the roles of federal, state and local government
agencies, the scientific and academic community and the general
public in the Sarasota Bay Program and to present the management
framework which has been adopted to implement this project.
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
Organizational Structure and Representation
Section 320 prescribes NE? Management conference membership as:
a The Administrator of EPA, and
* Representatives of
— each state and foreign nation located in whole or in
part of the estuarine zone of the estuary for which the
conference is convened;
— international, interstate, or regional agencies or
entities having jurisdiction over all or a significant
part of the estuary;
- each interested federal agency, as determined
appropriate by the Administrator;
— local governments having jurisdiction over any land
or water within the estuarine zone, as determined
appropriate by the Administrator; and,
— affected industries, public and private educational
institution, and the general public, as determined
appropriate by the Administrator.
The entities listed above are involved in the Management Con-
ference via memberships on various committees with policy,
management, technical and oversight functions. The attached list
of Management Conference representation includes federal, state,
regional and local government agencies, academic and research
institutions and citizens’ groups which were identified in the
1 AUG 21 is g
-------
Sarasota Bay NEP nomination document for inclusion in the
program. In general, the management structure for estuary
programs under the NEP consists of a Policy Committee, Management
Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, Citizens Advisory
Committee and a Project Office. A lead state agency is usually
designated by the Governor to implement the program and serve on
the Policy, Management and Technical Advisory Committees.
POLICY CO)Q(IT -
Greer Tidwell — Co-chairman
Regional Administrator
EPA Region IV
Dale Twachtmann - Co-chairman
Secretary
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Anne Sager
Governing Board
Southwest Florida Water Management District
Kerry Kirschner
Commissioner
Sarasota City Commission
Representing the Elected Officials Forum (see below)
Jeanne McElmurray
Commissioner
Sarasota County Board of Commissioners and
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council
Patricia Glass
Commissioner
Manatee County Board of Commissioners and
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
In addition to the Policy Committee, the Sarasota Bay Management
Conference structure will consist of an Elected Of ficials Forum,
a Management Committee, a Technical Advisory Committee and a
Citizens Advisory Committee. The attached organizational
structure indicates the relationship and makeup of the various
committees.
ELECI’ED OFFICIALS FORUM (EOFI
The EOF will consist of elected officials from Manatee County,
Sarasota County, the Town of Longboat Key and the citiep of
Sarasota, Bradenton, Bradenton Beach and Holmes Beach. Federal
and State legislators will also be invited to participate. The
bylaws of the Sarasota Bay NEP Policy Committee provide for
2
-------
active participation by all interested local governments. This
is achieved by allowing local government elected officials, other
than those currently seated, to serve on the Policy Committee on
a rotational basis. Establishing this committee at the initi-
ation of the program, and keeping its members informed and
involved, will provide a pool of elected officials for Policy
Committee terms that are knowledgeable of program goals, objec-
tive and activities.
MANAGEMENT CO1Q11TrE (MC )
The Management Committee chairman will be Robert McGhee, Chief,
Water Quality Management Branch, EPA Region IV. Randy Armstrong,
Director, Division of Water Management, Florida DER, and Mark
Farrell, Deputy Executive Director, Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) will serve as vice chairmen. Other
members of the MC will be the chairmen of the Technical Advisory
and Citizens Advisory Committees, a representative of the EOF,
and a local government staff representative to be appointed by
the EOF.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY CO)Q(ITI’EB (TAC )
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will be composed of
representatives from research and academic institutions and
appropriate local, regional, state and federal agencies. The
program will solicit involvement from these groups based on the
need for expertise to address the technical aspects of the study.
Each institution or agency that is interested in participating in
the program will appoint one or more individuals to serve on the
TAC. The Policy Committee will have final approval of member-
ship. The TAC will form subcommittees to address the various
technical and administrative aspects of project activities.
Potential TAC subcommittees are: habitat, monitoring/water
control, fisheries, data management, technical review and
storinwater runoff control.
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMI E (CAC )
The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) will consist of members
from user and special interest groups that are not represented
elsewhere in the Management Conference structure. These citizens
groups will include but are not limited to those which appear on
the attached list of Management Conference representation.
Nominations will be solicited from the user and special interest
groups to be included and the Policy Committee will appoint the
CAC. The CAC will also form subcommittees to address specific
activities related to public education and citizens involvement
in the Sarasota Bay NEP.
3
-------
PRO 1 TECT OFPI E
The Project Office will initially be staffed with a minimum of
four individuals: Project Director, Office Administrator, Public
Communications Project Coordinator and Secretary/Typist. The
Policy Committee recently hired Mr. Mark Alderson to serve as
Project Director for the Sarasota Bay NEP. Mr. Alderson is an
EPA Region IV employee and is on an Intergovernmental Personnel
Act (IPA) detail to SWFWMD. Mr. Alderson is currently recruiting
and staffing the other positions in the Project Office. The
Project Office is located next to Mote Marine Laboratory at 1550
City Island Park, Sarasota, FL.
STATE AGENCIES
Governor Bob Martinez designated Florida DER also the lead state
agency for the Sarasota Bay NEP. Florida DER, in cooperation
with Mote Marine Laboratory, provided the documentation to
support the Governor’s nomination of Sarasota Bay to the NEP.
Florida DER made application for federal funding to implement the
initial planning phase of the project, and has delegated the
implementation of the Sarasota Bay NEP to SWFWMD. SWFWMD is
administering funds to establish and operate the Sarasota Bay NEP
Project Office, and is represented on the Policy, Management and
Technical Advisory Committees.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF MANAGEMENT CONr ZNCE COMMIV EES
AND PARTICIPANTS
Policy Committee :
The Policy Committee was appointed to establish general
policies and goals for the program and to execute ultimate
authority in program administration; to review and approve
all substantial expenditures of funds under the project; to
structure appoint and replace members of the various
Management Conference Committees and subcommittees; to
approve and appoint program staff; to approve annual and
five-year vorkplans for the project; to evaluate the
progress of the study towards established goals and to
provide broad based support for the project in policy and
political matters. The Policy Committee will develop and
adopt bylaws to govern its activities in these areas and
will modify those bylaws should it become necessary.
Elected Officials Forum
As previously mentioned, the EOF will provide a pool of
local elected officials for Policy Committee terms that are
knowledgeable of program goals, objectives and activities.
4
-------
The EOP’ will also provide input to the Management Conference
on local government priorities for environmental restor-
ation/preservation activities and will serve as a focal
point for local government cost sharing in the Sarasota Bay
NE? and in the implementation of the Comprehensive Conser-
vation and Management Plan.
Management Committee
The Management Committee will serve as liaison between the
Policy Committee and the Technical and Citizens Advisory
Committees 7 will advise the Policy Committee on all matters
for which the various committees have direct responsibili-
ties; will review workplans, funding plans, work products
and all other activities of the project and make recommend-
ations to the Policy Committee regarding approval of same;
will coordinate all activities of the committees and Project
Office to ensure that schedules are adhered to and mile-
stones and objectives are accomplished.
Technical Advisory Committee
The Technical Advisory Committee’s major role is to provide
technical support to program staff during the planning phase
of the study; to assist in developing annual and five-year
vorkplans; to review draft documents and make recommenda-
tions to the Management Committee on document technical
merit; to help design and evaluate an effective information
management system; to develop requests for proposal and to
review and evaluate proposals received and make recommend-
ations on projects to be funded. Additional duties may be
assigned at the direction of the Policy Committee and
Management Committee.
Citizens Advisory Committee
The Citizens Advisory committee is to provide a mechanism
for structured citizens input to the Sarasota Bay NEP and
assist in disseminating to the public information relevant
to the program; to help establish program goals and objec-
tives; to help set funding levels; to assist with public
participation activities; to help communicate program
activities to user groups; to provide public input on
research priorities; to review technical findings and
analysis and to help develop implementation plans. The CAC
viii work closely with the Project Office, through the
Project Director and the Public Affairs Director to assist
in developing an effective public education and participa-
tion program.
5
-------
Prolect Director
The Project Director will have chief staff responsibilities
for coordinating and managing the Sarasota Bay NEP. This
will include: staff support for the Policy and Management
Committees; coordination, management and quality control for
contractor work; development and oversight of a data
management system; coordination of public participation and
education initiatives; analysis and evaluation of technical
and scientific reports; preparation of reports and docu-
ments; coordination of contractual, budgetary, audit and
personnel aspects of the project; coordinating this project
with other relevant state, federal and local projects; and
liaison with media, public, academic and other interested
parties.
Lead State Aaencies
The Florida DER and SWFWMD will be responsible for ensuring
that activities under this program are coordinated with
other coastal resource management activities of the state,
including the Coastal Zone Management Program and the
Surface Water Improvement and Management Program; will also
be responsible for ensuring that financial activities of the
project are in accordance with the laws of the State of
Florida; may also apply for federal financial assistance to
conduct administrative or technical aspects of the project;
will be responsible for assuring that the 25% cost sharing
of federal funds required by Section 320 of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 is met.
EPA Region IV
The NEP is administered by the EPA Regions with oversight
and funding provided by EPA’s Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection in Washington, D.C. (see next section). EPA
Region IV is involved in the Sarasota Bay NEP through
participation on the Policy, Management and Technical
Advisory Committees. It is the primary responsibility of
Region IV to ensure that the Sarasota Bay Project is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the NEP as
stated in Sections 317 and 320 of the Water Quality Act of
1987. Region IV will negotiate with the state the schedule
of milestones and products to be included in the five year
vorkplan as part of the State/EPA NEP conference agreement.
Region I v’s participation on Management Conference Commit-
tees ensures direct involvement in and responsibility for
the allocation of federal funds to the project. The funds
are disbursed via cooperative agreements (grants), to
participating state, regional and local government agencies,
academic institutions, public or non-profit private agen-
cies, institutions, organizations and individuals. Begin—
6
-------
ning in Fl 1989, EPA Region IV will be delegated grant
making authority for the NEP. All applications for federal
assistance under the NEP vii]. be processed through the
Grants and Contracts Administration Section in the Region IV
offices in Atlanta. The Management Conference must obtain
the approval of the Policy Committee for all funding actions
associated with the project. Earl Bozeman, Water Quality
Management Branch will serve as Region IV Project Officer
for the Sarasota Bay NEP. His responsibilities include:
staff support for Region IV Policy and Management Committee
members; coordination of all phases of the program with the
Project Director, TAC and CAC; serving in a technical review
capacity for all proposals to conduct work under the
program; approval of all federal financial assistance
agreements and amendments with program participants; and,
other responsibilities as may be assigned by the Regional
Ad.ministrator.
EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP
As previously stated, OMEP provides guidance, oversight and
funding for this national program. Management Conferences
for new estuaries in the NEP such as Sarasota Bay must
produce five year and first year workplans and obtain OMEP
approval for same in order to secure Fl 1 funding for the
program. The five year workplan will include a negotiated
schedule of milestones and products necessary for the
development of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan. A detailed annual workplan must also be approved by
OMEP for each subsequent year of funding.
OMEP will set target budget levels each year for the
Sarasota Bay NEP. For Fl 1989, the target level is—
$400,000. This level of funding will require a minimum
state/local cost share of $133,333. In subsequent years,
upon the approval of the annual workplan, OMEP will release
funds to Region IV, and the Region will disburse funds to
the program participants.
7
-------
8
-------
ATTACHMENT $2:
PROJECTS PLANNED FOR F? 89-9 1
A total of 20 information acquisition and public
participation projects have been approved by the
Management Conference to be conducted over the first three
years of the Sarasota Bay Project. Detailed workplans for
15 projects have been developed in concert with the
Technical Advisory Committee for the technical components
of the program. The public participation projects,
Projects 13 to 17 have started or are in the process of
vorkplan development. First year projects to be funded,
the Management Conference purpose, the product to be
delivered, the projected date of delivery, the projected
cost, the funding source and the organizations responsible
are outlined below. This information is summarized in the
attached table (see Attachment $3). Please note that only
10 of 20 projects will begin with FY 89 resources.
PROJECT $1: Bavwide Seamentation - This project is to
design a baywide segmentation scheme which will divide the
Bay into like hydrologic and habitat components. This
segmentation scheme will be used in the characterization
effort to organize data and help focus attention on
problem areas. All data collection and further analysis
on Sarasota Bay will reference these segments.
Segmentation of project areas is strongly recommended by
NEP guidance. The Sarasota Bay study area will be divided
to component areas that are as small as practical but
sufficient in size to satisfy monitoring,
characterization, demonstration project, land and water
management, data management, and other requirements.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3
Products Delivered/Projected: Segmentation scheme with GIS
compatible map
Date of Delivery: December, 1989
Total Cost: $8,000
First Year Allocation: $8,000
Funding Source: Federal/local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
PROJECT $2: Basinwide Monitorina - This project is to
implement a basinwide monitoring program to assess the
current condition of Sarasota Bay. The extent and
complexity of the program will be developed and approved
in cooperation with the Sarasota Bay Technical Advisory
1
(wu 211989
-------
Committee. The monitoring program will include: a) Water
Chemistry; b) Living Resources; and c) Sediment work (core
analysis). NEP guidelines clearly emphasize the necessity
of a meaningful monitoring program in order that actions
taken to improve the bay can be evaluated with respect to
effectiveness. NE? guidelines further advise against
structureless data collection efforts and therefore
require that each monitoring program be related directly
to the estuary’s goals, major problem areas, and findings
of the status and trends report.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,6
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report on station
locations, sampling frequency and parameters measured
Date of Delivery: June, 1990
Total Cost: $300,000
First Year Allocation: $50,000 plus $50,000 in-kind
services from Manatee and Sarasota Counties
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project Office
PROJECT #3: Wetland Status and Trends - This project
describes technical aspects of a Sarasota Bay NE? Project
dealing with the historic logs of fresh water and marine
wetlands, the present status of wetlands and projected
losses in the future. An essential part of the NE?
process involves the assessment of status and trends for
critical living and other natural resources. Information
from this effort viii document losses and their causes,
and help define restorative measures.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Phase I * Report on
assessment of available information
Date of Delivery: Phase I - January, 1990
Total Cost: $100,000
First Year Allocation: $20,000 (remainder to be funded
in FY 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
* Phase I provides for an inventory of available
information on Sarasota Bay wetlands.
PROJECT $4: Estuarine Habitat Assessment - This project
describes technical aspects of a Sarasota Bay NEP Project
on the historic loss of submerged aquatic vegetation,
present status of estuarine habitats, and opportunities
for habitat restoration and protection. An essential part
of the NEP process involves the assessment of status and
2
-------
trends for critical living and other natural resources.
Information from this effort will document losses of
submerged aquatic vegetation and their causes, define the
extent and condition of remaining vegetation and other
habitats, and help define restorative measures in the
CcMP.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report including
GIS compatible maps of bay bottom habitat types
Date of Delivery: March 1990
Total Cost: $75,000
First Year Allocation: $35,000 (remainder to be funded in
FY 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT #5: Basinwide Circulation Prolect — This project
provides for the design and development of a basinwide
circulation model which includes data collection and
analysis, model calibration and verification, and
reporting. Emphasis will be placed on tides, wind, runoff
and turbidity. Scoping must begin soon for the model to
be ready in three years. The characterization of NEP
estuaries depends in large measure on a description of the
system’s hydrological structure. Physical conditions such
as poor flushing can only be remedied by a predictive
capability provided by modeling. Also, NEP guidelines
require that corrective actions reflect an understanding
of the relative improvements to be expected as a result of
each, and a circulation model is essential to evaluating
many of the actions likely to be proposed for Sarasota
Bay.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Report
Date of Delivery: 1992
Total Cost: $500,000
First Year Allocation: $0
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project, Manatee
County, Sarasota County, United States Geological Survey,
Manasota Basin Board
PROJECT #6: Regional Beach and Inlet Manaaement Plan
( Phase A: Scppinq - This project provides for the design
of a regional plan to manage beaches, inlets and
navigation channels, including data collection, analysis,
and plan preparation. Scoping must begin soon for the
plan to be implemented on before the CcMP. An NE? Project
3
-------
is expected to develop and implement management strategies
which achieve goals set for the bay and/or alleviate major
bay problems. One area of specific interest to the NEP is
the coordination of ongoing projects sponsored by
different levels of government. Coordination of beach,
inlet and navigation projects has national applicability,
another NEP objective.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Plan
Date of Delivery: 1992
Total Cost: $150,000
First Year Allocation: $0 (request to be made to WCIND)
Funding Source: Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT #7: Impacts of Sea Level Rise — This project
provides for an assessment of impacts to environmental and
cultural resources in the Sarasota Bay area given
different rates of sea level rise. The Sarasota Bay
Nomination Report state of sea level rise that “federal
involvement in this issue far outdistance state activity
despite Florida’s special relation to the sea. The
development of a meaningful assessment of SLR impacts for
Sarasota Bay. would help the area in terms of research and
contingency plans and alBo represent a national
demonstration project for community-level participation.
The issue is also relevant to turbidity, habitat,
stormwater and other major problems.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Report
Date of Delivery: 1990
Total Cost: $25,000
First Year Allocation: $25,000 (scheduled for FY 90
funding)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT 18: Fishery Resource Assessment — This project
provides for an assessment of finfish stocks and
populations, their harvest for sport and commerce, and
their habitat use, requirements and relationships,
throughout the Sarasota Bay Study Area. In cases where the
extent and condition of resources are unknown, NEP
guidelines emphasize the need for these facts to be
established, especially for sport and commercial
fisheries. Extent includes habitat preferences,
recruitment, stocks, temporal variations, and
availability. Condition includes containment levels;
4
-------
any ironmental ly- induced pathology; over-harvesting
impacts; and stock declines due to habitat loss,
degradation and related factors.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report on sampling
stations established, sampling frequencies and
results
Date of Delivery: March, 1990
Total Cost: $100,000
First Year Allocation: $50,000 (remainder to be funded in
Fl 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Mote Marine Laboratory
PROJECT $9: Shellfish Contamination Assessment - This
project describes a program of data collection on
shellfish and their contaminants, leading to recommended
CCMP measures to open bay waters to harvest and re-
establish commercial shellfish industries. Protection of
human health is one of the NEP’s primary objectives where
use and enjoyment of estuarine resources are concerned.
This project will undertake assessments of health risks
of bay use, particularly with respect to shellfish
sanitation 0 Also, two of five priority threats identified
in the Near Coastal Waters Initiative speak directly to
toxicants and pathogen contamination. Given the unknown
but probably high recreational harvest of Sarasota Bay
shellfish, an assessment of major contaminants is
justified.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report on sampling
stations established including mapping and initial
data reduction
Date of Delivery: March, 1990
Total Cost: $100,000
First Year Allocation: $10,000 (remainder to be funded
in Fl 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT #10: Point and Non-Point Loadina Assessment -
This project uses existing information to identity upland
areas making the largest contribution of nutrients,
metals, and other contaminants, to receiving waters of the
Sarasota Bay Study Area. This assessment will incl9de
analysis of loads from stormwater, sewage treatment plants
and agricultural sources. NE? projects are expected to
characterize point and non-point loads to estuaries,
5
-------
especially where such loads are known or suspected to
cause adverse impacts. Such characterizations are meant
to build on existing local data and data transferred from
more distant but comparable areas. The characterizations
guide additional data collection and restoration efforts.
Projects defining singular impacts of etormwater are
nationally significant.
Management Conference Purpose: 3
Products Delivered/Projected: Progress report and
preliminary point/NPS loading model
Date of Delivery: September, 1990
Total Cost: $105,000
First Year Allocation: $105,000
Funding Source: Federal/local
Responsible Organization: Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
PROJECT Ill: Point _ and Non-Point Source Pollution
Measurements - This project describes a collection of
field measurements needed to improve calculations of point
and non-point source loads to the study area, and focuses
on sites and processes that have national usefulness. The
study will collect new information on representative tidal
creeks, golf courses, barrier island, STP effluent use by
agriculture, and subscription lawn care services, which
can be used to improve methods by which loading
calculations are make; said improvements contributing to
more accurate characterization and control efforts in the
Sarasota Bay Project Area. The NEP encourages work with
national significance being accomplished within the
context of specific bay projects. Maximum benefit from
the least possible original research also is stressed.
Given the incomplete state of P/NPS science and
engineering and the nature of data shortfalls in the
Sarasota Bay Study Area, carefully designed projects in
well-chosen sites will do much toward improving
characterizations described in Project 10, and also
advance similar undertakings in southern, coastal plains
states.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Report
Date of Delivery: 1990
Total Cost: $120,000
First Year Allocation: $0 (to be funded in FY 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT •12: Prof ectinc Future P/NP Source Pollutant
Loads - This project describes the projection of future
6
-------
population, land use, and infrastructure in the study
area, with respect to point and non-point source pollution
loads to the bay. The study will identify the pollutants
and their quantities likely to reach the bay in 25 and 50
years given three different scenarios for population
growth, land use and infrastructure. Forecasting of
impacts such as P/NP load is recognized by the NEP as a
useful way to identify the likelihood of success for
major CCMP recommendations. The Nomination Report stated
that Sarasota Bay is a good setting in which to study NPS
impacts because industrial and other pollutant loads are
few. If consequences of specific NPS control measures can
be estimated now, later NEP investigations, demonstration
projects, CcXP elements, and implementation strategies
will be more effective. Such a process and its results
are of national importance.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Report
Date of Delivery: 1990
Total Cost: $175,000
First Year Allocation: $0 (to be funded in Fl 91)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT #13: Public Opinion Survey - This project is to
develop an areawide questionnaire to ascertain information
on the public perception of the priority issues and
willingness to pay and adopt laws to protect resources.
NEP guidelines provide for obtaining the public’s
perception of the issues and problems of the bay. This
project will help meet that objective.
Management Conference Purpose: Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: Survey results
Date of Delivery: January, 1990
Total Cost: $8,000
First Year Allocation: $8,000
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project Office
PROJECT 114: Sarasota BaY Newsletter — This project is
for the preparation of four newsletters in the first year
informing the public on program studies and status. These
funds will provide for printing and distribution costs.
Management Conference Purpose: Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: First issue of newsletter
Date of Delivery: November, 1989
Total Cost: $42,000 (over three years)
7
-------
First Year Allocation: $2,000 (first issue publication
only)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PR TECT #15: Media (TV Radio) SDots - One of the most
important components of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary
Program public outreach program will be the development of
a public relations campaign. The development of this
program is in accordance with EPA guidelines and Policy
Committee directives to develop an effective public
participation program.
Management Conference Purpose: Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: TV, Radio spots
Date of Delivery: 1990
Total Cost: $110,000
First Year Allocation: $0 (to be funded in FY 90 and
FY 91)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT #16: Sarasota Bay Users Guide (Bay Repair Kit) -
The preparation of this document informing the public of
what homeowners can do to help assist with bay clean-up
efforts is already in progress.
Management Conference Purpose: 4, Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: Booklet
Date of Delivery: December, 1989
Total Cost: $15,000
First Year Allocation: $5,000 ($10,000 by Sarasota County)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organizations: Sarasota Bay Project Office,
Sarasota County, Tom Cross, Inc.
PROJEc”r #17: Public School Outreach - A priority
technique for improving the understanding of the Bay is
through the public school system. This project will be
developed in connection with the MML Science Center.
Management Conference Purpose: Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Plan
Date of Delivery: 1990
Total Cost: $10,000
First Year Allocation: $10,000
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible organization: Sarasota Bay Project
B
-------
PROJEC’r #18: Data Manaaement (Phase A: Scooinal - This
project provides for the rapid determination of the
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program’s data management
needs. Protocols need to be established as an early
project effort in order to affect data collection and
other tasks. The project will identify and implement a
system of hardware, software, policies and procedures for
efficient data entry, storage, retrieval, analysis and
reporting. Establishment of a bay project’s data
management program is an early NEP milestone that must be
accomplished. NEP guidelines provide guidance on
assessing data bases, systems and uses for each bay
program. The data management program must make full use
of existing local efforts.
Management Conference Purpose: Step B
Products Delivered/Projected: Report on recommended
hardware and software, formatting and users guides
Date of Delivery: January, 1990
Total Cost: $25,000
First Year Allocation: $25,000
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc.
PROJECT #19: Prolect Document Control - This project
provides for the rapid design and implementation of a
document control system by which the project office and
members of all Management Conference committees can keep,
identify, use, and update project records and other
written material. The project will create a logical and
easy-to-use system for identifying and keeping draft and
final reports and other project documents so members of
the Conference can be more effective participants and the
project office can be more efficient. Effective
communication is an integral part of the NEP process. A
key element of effective communication is ready access to
information, most of which will be written. A document
control system will improve access and foster effective
communication. It also responds to guidelines established
by the federal Paperwork Reduction Act.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Plan
Date of Delivery: 1989
Total Cost: $5,000
First Year Allocation: $0 (may not be funded)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
9
-------
PROJECT 020: Resource Access and Use Assessment - This
project describes an inventory of recreational resources
and access opportunities, measurement of recreational
resource use, and management of use conflicts. This
project will assess types and extent of recreational
resource use in the bay area, including under-use, abuse
and use conflicts, and recommend improvements where
needed. NEP projects are to protect and enhance bay
resources supporting commercial, recreational and other
human uses. In this area, tourism and recreation are
very important to the local economy, including commerce.
The NEP process calls for the resource base to be
described; levels of use measured; and recommend
opportunities to enhance use or solve use problems.
Management Conference Purpose: 1,2,3,4
Products Delivered/Projected: Study Plan
Date of Delivery: 1992
Total Cost: $40,000
First Year Allocation: $0 (to be funded in FY 90)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project
PROJECT $21: Public Participation - This project will
encompass all activities developed under the public
participation, information and education strategy.
Specific elements of this project will be developed over
the next fiscal year in conjunction with the Citizen
Advisory Committee and respective sub-committees.
Management Conference Purpose: Step A
Products Delivered/Projected: To be determined
Date of Delivery: To be determined
Total Cost: $171,000
First Year Allocation: $0 (to be funded in Fl 90 and
Fl 91)
Funding Source: Federal/Local
Responsible Organization: Sarasota Bay Project Office
10
-------
ATTACHMENT 3 - PROJECT SUMMARY FOR FY 89 FUNDING
MANAGEMENT
Wetlands
Bay Bottom
Habitat I
Fisheries
Shellfish
Point & NPS
Loading Model 1,2,3,4
Public Opinion I
Surv.y Step A
Newsl•tter Step A
Data Management 1,2,3,4
Bay R.pair Kit 4, Step
Habitat Module Early
APDP* lAction
Seagrass Signage lEarly
APDP Action
Stormwater Early
APDP jActi on
IReport 6 baBe map
Progress Report
Phase I Report & Workplan
for Phase II
Progress Report & Workplan
for Phase II
Progress Report & Workplan
for Phase II
Progress Report & Workplan
for Phase II
Progress Report, Loading
Model & Workplan for Phase II
ISurvey Report
let Issue
Final Report
DIMS Implementation
Document
Final Report
Final Report
Final Report
SOURCE OF RESPONSIBLE
LORGANI ZATIONS
Mote Marine Lab
Project Office,
Manatee County,
Sarasota County
Mote Marine Lab
Mote Marine Lab
Mote Marine Lab
Mote Marina Lab
Camp, Dresser
& McKee
Project Office
Citizens Advisor
Committee
Project Office
Camp, Dresser
& McKee
Project Office
Sarasota County
City of Sarasota
New College, US}
EPA/Local/I Sarasota County
PROJECT NAME
CONFERENCE
PURPOSE
Segmentation
Monitoring
1,2,3
1,2,3,6
DATE OF
DELIVERY
C ‘I’
FUNDS
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
B,óOO
$100,000
$ 20,000
$ 35,000
$ 45,000
$ 10,000
12/89
6/90
1/90
3/90
3/90
3/90
9/90
1/90
2/90
1/90
10/90
12/89
4/91
9/91
9/91
EPA/Local
I EPA/Local
I EPA/Local
EPA/Local
EPA/Local
EPA/Local
EPA/Local
EPA/Local
EPA/Local
EPA/Local
Local
EPA/Local
EPA/Local
A
$
$
S
$
105,000
B, 000
2,000
25,000
15,000
52,500
26,250
$121, 000
Private
-------
OMEP Assistance
-------
Contracts
-------
4r4)
STATD1 T OF WORK
Background
The Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) is one of
seven offices within the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. OME.P programs deal with protecting estuarine,
coastal waters (including the Great Lakes), and the open oceans
under the authorities of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Marine
Protection, Research arid Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, and the Plastics Pollution
Research and Control Act of 1987. OMEP’s mission is the
implementation of these Acts to protect human health and the
environment, to reduce risk to human and aquatic life from
pollutants, and to restore environmental benefits and uses.
OMEP’s activities to protect the marine environment include the
implementation of: the Near Coastal Waters Strategy; the National
Estuary Program; the ocean disposal program and impact
assessments and monitoring of marine discharges (CWA Sections
301(h) and 403(c)). The office also pro’iitc1es oversight on the
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes programs. Finally, OMEP plays a
leadership role in enhancing coordination of estuarine and marine
research and promoting comprehensive planning and management of
estuarine and marine waters threatened by pollution, development,
and overuse.
The purpose of this contract is to provide OMEP with a variety of
program support services. The contractor shall perform work in
the following areas as directed in work assignments issued by the
Contracting Officer:
Regulation and Guidance Development and PolicyReviev and
Analysis
Th. contractor shall perform various tasks to support OMEP in
the development and Lmpl.r .ntatton of various marine and
estuaitne programs. These efforts include support in CPA’s
analysis and interpretation of EPA, State and other P.d.ral
açency regulations. guLdanc. and policies and in conducting
impact analysis of Congressional legislation related to marine
and estuarine activities. Tasks shall be similar in nature to
the following:
1. Review newly proposed and existing legislation,
regulation arid policy to determine their regulatory
impacts. From these findings, prepare an analysis on
Attachment A
68-C9—0029
Page 1 of 6
-------
their effects on marine and estuary program resources.
2. Prepare analysis on the impact of legislation on OMEP’s
marine and estuarine programs.
3. Research, compile, draft, and edit responses to
comments submitted on proposed rulemaking and draft
guidance for marine and ocean programs.
4. Evaluate public comments on proposed ruleinaicing and
draft guidance and prepare written response for EPA
review.
5. PerIorm tasks to support EPA in carrying out the
requirements of the Paptrwork Reduction Act and Federal
Information Collection R,quust (ICR) as related to marine
and estuarç programs.
6. Compile information needed for the preparation of the
administrative record for regulatory actions.
7. The contractor shall prepare issue papers, guidance
documents, and reports related to various aspects of
the OJ4EP S estuarine protection program. These types
of documents range in scope from instructional to
descriptive in nature. These types of documents will
include:
a. technical guidance documents
b. handbooks
c. grant guidance
d. informational brochures
Assistance in DevelopinQ a Network for Teehno1o y Transfer
The technology transfer initiative undertaken by OMEP and the
Regions will involve the establishment of a national network for
the exchange of knowledge and expertise from the National
Estuary Programs, the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay Programs,
the Near Coastal Water’s pilot projects, and information on point
source discharges. The contractor shall provide assistance in
these efforts by performing the following tasks:
1. Assist OMEP and the Regions in identifying and
evaluating technical transfer needs.
2. AssIst in planning, organizing, and implementing
activities related to OMEP and the Region
tech transfer efforts.
3. Review other efforts of this nature that have been
undertaken, to make reco en4ations on the most
Attachment A
6O—C9-002q
PaQe 2 of 6
-------
effective and innovative approach.
Financial and Economic Analysis
The contractor shall conduct cost and financial analysis for the
purpose of identifying and evaluating programs, developing case
studies, and assisting with the preparation Of handbooks related
to technical, financial and management alternatives for program
implementation. Areas of financial and economic support shall
include:
1. Prepare analysis on user fee impacts on the regulated
community and their potential revenue generation to the
government.
2. Perform economic analysis of existing and newly
proposed regulations to determine their impact on the
public and the regulated community.
3. Perform cost benefit analysis for marine and estuarine
program activities.
4. Perform economic analysis of impacts from releases of
hazardous materials into marine and estuarine
environments.
5. Assess and develop alternatives for financing estuary
program implementation and provide support to the
implementation of the selected alternatives.
Technical Assistance
The contractor shall provide technical assistance to
Headquarters, Regions and States. Technical assistance shall
involve applied scientific and engineering methods of analysis
and evaluation specific to marine and estuarine activities.
These activities include but are not limited to the following:
1. Prepare technical support documents that include but
are not limited to guidance documents, technical
assistance manuals, primers, and management handbooks
that support OMEP program activities.
2. Prepare documents in support of environmental, impact
statements for marine and ocean activities.
3. Perform statistical, impact, and trend analysis.
4. Assist in identifying and evaluating alternative
approaches to resolve specific technical, cost,
economic and policy issues related to marine and
estuarine programs.
Att.cIlm,rit A
6 —C 9—0029
Pig. 3 of 6
-------
5. Provide assistance in planning and implementing newly
proposed initiatives and pilot programs. —
Public Education. Communication and Outreach
The contractor shall assist OMEP in its efforts to inform the
public of the marine and estuarine protection activities
undertaJcen by To aid these efforts, the contractor shall
perform the following activities:
1. Design public outreach methods that educate and inform
the public on marine and estuarine issues, activities
and actions. Outreach forums and training may be
required.
2. Provide support for information exchanges through
electronic bulletin board systems including design,
set-up and maintenance.
3. Distribute information to the public by means of
technical papers and journals and provide assistance in
format design and layout, desktop publishing,
reproduction and distribution.
4. assist in the preparation of reports, speeches,
newsletters, magazine articles, brochures and public
announcements aimed at audiences ranging from technical
experts to school children.
5. assist in the development and implementation of
communication strategies for the various marine and
estuarine protection activities.
Conference Workshom and Seminar Coordination
Provide logistics coordination for meetings, conferences,
workshops and seminars for both National and International
events. Coordination includes but is not limited to:
— meeting arrangements and set-up
- managing housekeeping details
- preparing agenda
— scheduling panels
— handling registration
- preparing and distributing handout materials
— recording proceedings
- preparing minutes and summary reports
— distributing follow-up material.
Attachment A
68-C 1 -OO29
Pig. 4 of 6
-------
Data Evaluation
In support of marine and estuarine protection programs, a wide
array of environmental data has been generated. To manage this
data, ONE? has employed a variety of program data base systems.
These systems provide a clearinghouse for marine and estuarine
information. This information is accessible, on a need to )ciow’
basis, to the general public, the regulated community, and States
and Federal agencies. The contractor shall assist in these
activities,, by performing the following:
1. Design, implement and support automated data bases of
information in support of the National Estuary Program
data characterization d ta base, and other ocean
dumping, National Estuary Program and Clean Water Act
Section’s 301(h) and 403(c) activities.
2. Assist in the development of comprehensive strategies
for data management.
3. Assist in the design and operation of environmental
modelling for ocean and estuarine activities.
4. Provide support in the areas of data management and
program ADP requirements.
5. Input data and information to existing and newly
developed data base systems.
6. Analyze existing data management systems and systems
operations and make recommendations on improvements.
7. Develop and apply quality assurance/quality control
procedural guidelines for marine and estuarine
program data.
General Program Su ort
In addition to the above, the contractor shall provide support to
ONEP’s marine and estuary programs by performing the following
tasks:
1. Assist in the coordination of activities between ONE?
and other Federal agencies. Activities of this nature
At tachm.nt A
Pig. of 6
-------
include the review and comparison of reports generated
by EPA and the other agencies so that there is a
minimal duplication of effort.
2 Pr.par. pr..ntation mat.r1al , including short f 1m
pre .ntations. short vidso prssentat&ons slides.
ov.rh.adi maps. graphics, and charts.
3. Conduct information and literature searches for
technical and non-technical information.
4. Prepare proceedings, minutes and transcriptions of
public hearings, conferences, and meetings.
5. Prepare program suii maries and status reports
6. Conduct literature and information distributions
7. Research, compile, and summarize historical and current
technical and non-technical data and information that
describe and reveal trends that affect marine and ocean
activities.
8 Support EPA in preparation of Càngre,sional report, an
other r.ports/lnformation requests on marine and e ,t’jarine
activities.
Attachment A
60-C9—0029
Page 6 of 6
-------
7 ttachmeItt A
SThT ft OP I RL
Technical Support for the Off I c. of Marina and 1.stuarine
Protection —Ocean Disposal, !stuartho Protection, and Near
Coastal Water Programs Zaplement thg Mar in. Protect ion
Legislation ( )
Background
The Of f ice of Marine and Estuarthe Protection (OMEP) is one of
seven offices within the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. O) programs deal with protecting estuaries,
coastal waters (Including the Great Lakes), and the open oceans
under several federal authorities. OMEP’s mission is the
Implementation of these Acts to protect human health and the
environment, to reduce risk to human and aquatic life from
pollutants, and to restore environmental benefits and uses.
OMEP’s activities to protect the marina environment thclude the
implementation of: the Near Coastal Waters Strategy; the National
Estuary Program; the ocean disposal program; and Impact
assessments and monitoring of marine discharges (CW). Sections
The Office also provides oversight on the
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes programs. Tinally , OMEP plays a
leadership role in enhancing coordination of estuarine and marine
research and promoting comprehensive planning and management of
estuarine and marine waters threatened by pollution, development,
and overuse.
The contractor shall perform work in th. following five Task
Areas as directed in work assignments issued by the Contracting
Officer:
I. Yield Work and Lab Maiysis
o Design and implement field sampling programs.
o Participate in survey cruises and assist in the design of
surveys that assess the environmental impacts of pollution
abatement in marine/estuarine studies.
o Conduct on-shore and on-ship physical, chemical, and
1 Narine Protection, Research. and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSPd,
Clean Water Act (CWX) (as amended), Plastics Pollution Research
and Control Act Water Resources Develope ent Act of 1986, and the
London Dumping Convention.
Attachment A
Contract No. 68-CB-0 105
Page 1 of S
-------
biological analyses of samples (water, tissue and sediment)
obtained during survey cruises and studies of the
marine/ostuarini environment. This work may include
bloassays, identification of benthic orga nisms and fish, and
conduct of fish hietopathological studies.
o Design, fabricate, and test hardware needed during air,
microlayer, water and biota sampling and analysis tasks.
II. ivironmant*l, cologica .l , and Health Risk asess=ents
o Examine effects of pollutants introduced into t’ e marine
environment and relate those effects to human alth as wall
as to the marine/estuarins ecosystem.
o Conduct laboratory simulation, field verification, and
engineering and process chemistry analyses.
o Conduct analyses of new and existing data to assess the
existing and potential environmental impacts of
marine/estuarin. pollution inputs.
o Provide technical support and cond.act analyses to assess the
potential impacts of chemically contaminated sediments on
living mazins resources.
o Predict the impacts and ec- logical risks of toxic chemical
contamination of estuarin. md ma—ins living resources.
o Provide technical support for cot acting health risk
assessments for consumption of chemically contaminated
fish or shellfish and fish or shellfish from surface an.
shallow waters potentially contaminated with human pathogens.
o Provide technical support for assessing ecological risks from
nutrient enrichment and/or eutrophication in coastal waters.
o Provide technical support for assessing the ecological risks
to adjacent water bodies such as wetlands (include risks such
as wetlands loss or degradation).
o Conduct area—wide analyses of potential cumulative impacts of
multiple martn•/estuarlne pollution sources, including
wasteload allocation for specific pollutant parameters.
o With regard to the dredging of highly contaminated sediment,
the contractor shall be eble to:
—evaluate tna effectiveness Of ‘capping’
-evaluate the effectiveness of the various mitigating
measures to alleviate the impacts of contaminants, including
containment
P ttachment A
contract Ho. 6e—ce-oloS
sg.2of 5
-------
-continuously monitor the water Colu during dredging
operations
o Assess and evaluate the at facts of marine debris and plastics
on the marine environment including:
—the mff.cts on marine creatures and their habitats such as
beaches and waterfront areas (including study of the
aesthetic and economic impacts);
—identifying the types of sources of marin, plastics
pollution, including land-based sources;
—identifying the impacts of plastics on the overall marine
pollution stream and how these impacts compare with other
pollution sources;
—evaluating the feasibility and desirability of substitute
products for plastic products that are own to have adverse
effects on marine life;
-evaluating the feasibility and desirability of using
recycling;
-analyzing the incentives that could decrease the amount of
plastic debris;
—evaluating the feasibility of making articles from
degradable plastic materials;
-assessing existing federal legislation dealing with plastics
pollution problems.
o Analyze the effects of releases of hazardous materials to the
marine environment and evaluate the potential economic
impacts.
III. Ocean Disposal Activities
o Conduct field tests of ocean disposal systems, analyze field
samples, and evaluate analytical results.
o Develop and support a data system that will be used to monitor
an ocean disposal permittea compliance.
o Prepare environmental impact statements for ocean disposal
sites.
o Sample and analyze hazardous wastes and marine samples for
trace metals, erganics. and other constituents.
o Prepare written responses to technical public comments on
ocean dumping regulations.
o Assist in the review of ocean dumping permit applications and
in the preparation of draft permits.
o Develop and update the monitoring plans for assessing ocean
dumping site impacts and carrying out long term site
Attachment A
Contract No. 68-C8-O%O5
Page 3 of S
-------
management.
o Design and conduct oceanographic surveys of offshore sites to
assess the •nvironmental impacts of ocean dumping.
o Perform environmental assessments for land-based alternatives
to ocean dumping.
IV. Data Base Dove lo ent and ) delling
o Cas, and potentially develop, atmospheric and later computer odeLa
to predict th. transfer, fat ., and effects from conventional waste
and toxic pollutants introduced into the marin./.stuarin.
environment, either from routin, disposal operations or by accident
during transport.
o Develop and support a data system(s) that will be used to
monitor the effectiveness of pollution abatement measures
initiated under marine/estuarifle programs.
o !stimatø pollutant loading from point and nonpoint sources.
o Compile and format data on technical ocean topics and deliver
to £P in dBase III for use.
o Collect and format ocean dumping data destined to be used in
the Ocean Data Evaluatidn System.
o Input water quality and monitoring data and information to
existing and newly developed data base systems.
o .nalyze existing data management systems and systems
operations and make recommendations on improvements.
o Support the selection and/or developcient of a Geographic
Information System for marine/estuarine r.lated information.
V. Preparation of Status Reports, Guii mce Documents, and
Workshops
o Prepare program status reports on ocean site management and
pollution abatement activities.
o Prepar. technical guidance and support documents for use by
7i Regions and other federal agencies on programs related to
ocean disposal methodologies and ocean dumping regulations and
ravia i ens.
o Msiat in preparing technical guidance for implementing the
marine protection legislation. See Toot.note 1 of this
Statement of Work.
attaChment
ContrACt No. 6B-C8010S
Page 4 of S
-------
o Support development of technical guidance on methods for
assessing toxic chemical impacts and toxicity in
marine/estuarins water and sediments.
o Present expert testimony and pr.pars technical documentation
and briefing packages including text, graphics, and
visual aids to be used for briefings, hearings,, etc.
o Develop, serve as facilitator, and conduct technical
workshops, public briefings, and scoping meetings.
o Perform limited nontechnical work that is required as a
follow-on to technical tasks. Such work may include, but is
not limited to, organization of administrative records and
coi w ents, reproduction and distribution of literature, and
preparation of public education materials.
o Provide technical. writing and technical editing services for
preparation of annual reports and other status reports
required during m.arine/estuarine studies.
The contractor shall prepare a Quality P ssurance Project Plan
(QP.PP) for each work assignment involving environmental
measurements. The QAPP shall be prepared in accordance with
P ttachment D to this contract, ‘Guidance for Preparation oc
Combined Work/Quality Msurance Project Plans for 3ays Program
Studies.’
Mtachment P
Centzict Ho. 68-Ce-OIOS
Page 5 of S
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
General Rules
All OMEP contracts, with the exception of Ship Operations,
are level of effort contracts. OMEP and its “sister”
organizations in the Regions may use the contracts, provided
these rules are followed:
1. The work falls within the scope of work of the
particular contract.
2. The funding comes from within an organization’s
own fiscal budget.
3. The work assignment is received in a form
acceptable to the project officer, and includes a
scope of work, justification and background, and
procurement requisition for the full amount of the
work assignment. The project officer must receive
the assignment at least 30 days before work is to
begin, to allow time for processing through the
Contracts Office, and for the contractor to
develop his work plan.
4. The work assignment manager (WAX) must have taken
the Contract Administration Course and must be
certified by the Contracts Office.
5. The WAX must be an EPA employee.
6. The WAN must submit award fee performance
evaluations as required by the contract and
administered by the project officer (usually every
six months).
There are situations when projects may be jointly funded by
both EPA and another agency (COE, NOAA, etc), or by another EPA
Office alone. These work assignments will be reviewed for
acceptance on a case-by-case basis. In general, the project must
support OMEP’s mission and be endorsed by the OMEP Office
Director or the appropriate OMEP Division Director. In all work
assignments funded outside of EPA, an EPA employee who is
certified must be the primary WAX, working in partnership with
the person from the other agency.
L&Rlpdrar 3
-------
Procedures
I. General Procedure
When a need for a work assignment is determined, please
contact the OMEP project officer to discuss it and ensure
that it may be performed under a given contract. It is
often helpful to send a draft scope of work to the project
officer for preliminary review.
II. Format for Work Assignments
All work assignments submitted under an OMEP contract must
contain the following:
1. Work assignment number (assigned by the project
officer) and title.
2. Period of performance.
Start-up Work assignments should be submitted to OMEP
at least 30 days in advance of the need to start work.
It takes this long: to approve an assignment, to run it
through the Contracts Office, for the contractor to
prepare his work plan (10 to 20 days depending on the
contract), and for the work assignment manager and OMEP
project officer to approve the work plan.
A work assignment manager may request a start date more
than 30 days into the future if desired. Under special
emergency circumstances, a work assignment may be
permitted to start faster——if this is needed, a
justification from the WAIOs division director to the
project officer is required.
Completion The intended date of completion must also
be listed. This date should be as accurate as
possible. Solid completion dates push a project firmly
toward completion, and they also ensure that the funds
are spent within their appropriated period.
3. EPA work Assignment Manager. This person must: be an
EPA employee, have taken the Contract Administration
Course, and have submitted a WAX certification form to
the project officer (form 1900—65).
4. Background Statement. This is a general discussion of
why the work is needed, legislation the work supports
or helps to implement, and what it will accomplish.
5. Scope of Work. This is a very precise statement of
RfrR/prImsr 4
-------
exactly what the contractor shall do. It can be in
simple “bullet” format, stating each task in sequence.
6. Estimated level of effort (hours). This estimate
should be as accurate as possible. The number of hours
expected to be needed in each professional level may be
listed.
7. Deliverables and when they are due.
8. A fi .led-out and signed Procurement Request for the
full amount of the work assignment.
III. Work Assignment Approvals
Work assignment managers should review and respond to
contractor work plans as soon as they are received. A brief
note of approval or approval-with-comment should be sent to
the project officer within one week of receiving the plan.
The contractor cannot proceed beyond writing the work plan,
without work plan approval.
Be certain that the budget, hours, and deliverable schedule
shown in the work plan are acceptable. If they are
different than expected, prepare a comment note, as above.
IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT OFFICER AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE.
2 Some work assignments may be incrementally funded. See the
project officer to discuss this option, if full funding is not
available when you initiate the assignment.
RAR/pr1 r 5
-------
Public Participation and Outreach of the National Estuary Program
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
6. Statement of Work : The Alliance will support the Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection Near Coastal Waters Initiative by working in the
general project areas described below. The project areas include 1) ongoing
support of existing programs, 2) assistance to new programs, 3) citizen
monitoring, and 4) support for national program activities.
Since 1987 the Alliance has provided support to localities involved in
NEP. Alliance staff have attended meetings of all the twelve in the National
Estuary Program except Santa Monica Bay. We have assisted in the design,
planning and execution of two national conferences on volunteer
monitoring. We have worked with staff on establishing volunteer
monitoring programs in their local areas. We have worked with staff to
design and implement public participation strategies and to organize effective
citizens monitoring and produced a draft guidance document on using
volunteers in water quality assessment programs. We have reviewed
proposals and served on consultant selection teams. We have conducted
training sessions, spoken to CAC’s, attended management committee
meetings, met with staff, and in general acted in a support capacity on issues
related to public participation.
In 1989 we increased our level of effort on volunteer monitoring by
producing the draft guidance document and publishing the first issue of a
national bulletin called Volunteer Monitor.” 10,000 copies of the bulletin
were printed and circulated to volunteer programs around the country in
October. In addition, we worked in 1989 to assist several programs to plan
their CCMP process. The involvement of the Alliance with staff as they
move into this crucial phase in their programs has met with enthusiasm.
We plan to continue and expand this aspect of our work in 1990.
In 1990, we propose to support the Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection by doing the following tasks:
1.) Provide support to the six original programs (Puget Sound, San
Francisco, Buzzards Bay, Long Island Sound, Narragansett Bay and
Albermarle-Pamlico Sounds) as they move into the CCMP phase of their
programs. This may entail detailed discussions about how to develop
consensus on the management plan, what sorts of public involvement
processes are appropriate, how to generate media coverage of the plan, and
what steps should be taken to assure implementation.
2.) Provide support to the second group of programs (Gulf of
Mexico, Sarasota, Galveston, Delaware Bay, Delaware Inland Bays, New York -
New Jersey Harbor, Boston Harbor and Santa Monica Bay). This may entail
continued advice on CAC operations, planning of public meetings,
-------
publications and other activities, and training in how to incorporate
volunteer monitors into their programs.
3.) Meet with OMEP staff to develop criteria and strategies for
incorporating volunteer monitoring into local programs.
4.) Market the volunteer monitoring guidance document and train
new monitoring staff and volunteers. Additional effort will be devoted this
year to actually training personnel in new programs to assure they are
planning credible programs and designing adequate quality control and data
management. This training will be provided on site when requested by
program staff.
5.) Produce and make available a slide show for use in training staff
and volunteers at the local level to plan and carry out a volunteer
monitoring program.
6.) Provide support for any new estuaries that may be included in
the program in 1990. This will entail initial planning assistance to organize
citizen advisory committees, plan outs each activities, organizing designation
ceremonies, and whatever else may be required during early stages of new
programs.
7.) Plan and conduct, in conjunction with the Center for Excellence
for Coastal Environmental Protection, a national workshop for members of
estuary citizens advisory committees (CAC’s) to discuss the substance and
process of developing comprehensive conservation and management plans
(CCMFs). This workshop will draw on the experiences of three programs
(Puget Sound, Great Lakes, and Chesapeake Bay) to discuss technical and
policy issues as well as the political process of drafting, approving and
implementing a CCMP. The workshop will be small (75 people) and may be a
prototype for others to be organized in later years.
8.) Plan, research, write, edit and produce four issues of a national
estuary newsletter for distribution among participants in NEP. A prototype
first issue will be prepared by April 1990, and pending approval by OMEP and
the agreement of ACB, three additional issues will be prepared on a quarterly
schedule. The newsletter will be 8-12 pages in length, will contain at least one
in depth artide per issue on a topic of significance to NEP participants, as well
as updates on program progress, national legislation, upcoming meetings,
publications of interest, and regional events. ACB will design an original
banner for the newsletter. Each issue will be planned jointly by OMEP and
ACB staff and OMEP shall reserve the right to review copy prior to
publication. The newsletter mailing list will be the responsibility of a separate
contractor who will supply labels to ACB prior to each issue.
2
-------
9.) Provide general support to OMEP staff in the form of advice and
consultation on outreach related to the national marine policy and other
issues of interest to the agency. This assistance may take the form of advice in
planning strategies, design of publications and outreach materials, and
organizations of public meetings.
Principal staff on this project will be Frances H. Flanigan, Kathleen K.
Ellett, Cynthia A. Dunn, and Karl Blankenship. Flanigan will devote
approximately one half of her time to project oversight and to tasks related to
public participation (#1, 2, 6, 7, 8&9). Ellett will devote approximately two
thirds of her time to the volunteer monitoring task (#3, 4, 5), which will
include more travel in 1990. Dunn will work on the CAC workshop (#7).
Blankenship will oversee the production of the newsletter, working with a
variety of writers who will be responsible for individual articles. Support will
be provided by Sally Neumeier and Ann Berger.
7. Reports : Written trip reports will be submitted to the project officer
after each trip. Written reports on general progress and on the volunteer
monitoring project in particular will be submitted quarterly. Meetings with
OMEP staff will be scheduled as needed.
8. Level of Effort : During this year ACB will provide to OMEP 3000 hours
from six staff members plus contractual -writing assistance. Frances Flanigan
will continue to serve as project manager and will be responsible for
completion of all work. The budget reflects the expected level of effort and
compensation for each person contributing to the project, as well as other
costs.
3
-------
CURRENT USES OF OMEP SUPPORT CONTRACTS
For more information contact: Roy Rathbun FTS/202 382-7193
M IS Contract No 68-C9-0029
o Minsch, Implementation of NEP/CZM Agreement ($83,000)
o Sanzone, Assessment of State and Local Financing Mechanisms for
Action Plans to be Included in the LIS Study CCMP ($100,000)
o Hantske, Program Support for the Selection and Convening of New
Estuary Management Conferences ($10,000)
o HantskejPutt, Gulf of Mexico Program Video ($50,000)
o King, ODES Maintenance and Support ($160,000)
o Bisland, Program Support for the Approval of CCMPs ($10,000)
o Armitage, NEP Handbook of Tactics: Case Study on Volunteer
Monitoring ($9,000)
o Curran, Entry of NEP Data to ODES ($60,000)
o Curran, Guidance for Base Program Analyses Under the NEP
($45,000)
o Sanzone, Financial Planning for Implementation of CCMPs
Developed Under the NEP ($135,000)
o Sanzone, Conduct a Pilot Financial Planning Seminar for a
Selected NEP ($38,000)
o Puffer, Workshop on the Identification and Analysis of
Management Strategies for the Bangs Lake, MS and Grand Bay, AL
Estuaries ($25,000)
o R. Hall/Pryor, Development of a Casco Bay GIS Pilot Project
($50, 000)
o Hantske, Assistance to NEPs with Characterization and Problem
Definition ($45,000)
o R. Hall, Final Report on NPDES Dischargers to Near Coastal
Waters (NCW) ($50,000)
o J. Hall, Support for COASTNET Electronic Bulletin Board
($15,000)
o King, Integration of SORET Data with ODES Databases and Tools
($48,000)
-------
o Minsch, Coastal Nonpoint Source Programs ($15,000)
o Hantske, Planning and Support of the 3rd National Coastal
Programs Conference ($15,000)
o Arrnitage, Program Support for the NEP Technical Symposium
($40, 000)
o King, Description and Use of ODES Tools ($50,000)
o Marr, Region 9 NCW Regional Marine Directory and Document
Production ($11,000)
o Marr, California Coastal GIS Framework Development ($43,000)
o Armitage/DeMoss, Support to Develop an User Network for the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for NCW
($200, 000)
o Soscia, Support for Preparation of the 1991 Report to Congress
on the NEP ($25,000)
o Soscia. Great Lakes Program Technology Transfer ($20,000)
o Kliina, Program Support for Education Initiative ($60,000)
o Soscia, Pilot State NCW Scheme ($50,000)
o Minsch, NCW Strategies ($30,000)
o Minsch, NCW Pilot Projects ($30,000)
Battelle Contract No. 68—C8—O1O5
o O’Malley, Support for the Delaware Bay Estuary Planning
Initiative ($30,000)
o Bisland, Developing Program Guidance for Purpose 7 of the WQA:
Federal Consistency ($20,000)
o Bisland, Support for Tissue Contaminant Studies for the NEP and
NCW Programs ($10,000)
o Ausubel/Glomb, Support for the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program
Planning Initiative ($30,000)
o Kilbride, Assistance with Annual Reports - LIS and Buzzards Bay
($47,686)
o Lindsay, Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project ($15,000)
o Curran/Ziegler, Data Management and Environmental Analysis
Support for athe San Francisco Estuary Project ($108,000)
-------
o Finazzo/Gloinb, Stormwater Mitigation in Mamaroneck Harbor - LIS
Action Plan ($70,000)
o Curran, Planning Support for Tier 2 Data Management Under the
NEP ($40,000)
o Kopfler, Updated Summary of Status and Trends in Indicators of
Nutrient Enrichment in the Gulf of Mexico, ($23,000?)
o Ziegler, Preparation of the SFEP Characterization Report
($250,000)
o Armitage, NEP Program Guidance Document: Measuring the Economic
Benefits of Improved Estuarine Water Quality ($14,000)
o Beede, LIS Annual Report and Preliminary Plan ($28,000)
o Kilbride, Determination of Flushing Rates and Hydrographic
Features of Selected Buzzards Bay Embayinents ($40,000)
o Burgan, Dredged Material Disposal Stragegy Document ($50,000)
o Soscia, Support for the Development/Revision of the State/EPA
Conference Agreements Under the NEP ($20,000)
o Collins, Inter and Intralaboratory Study of the Rapid Chronic
Test with Mysidopsis Bahia ($40,000)
o Redford, Field Studies fo CSOs and Storm Sewers ($200,000)
o Redford, Development of Site Designation, Monitoring and
Management Guidance Document for Dredge Materials ($10,000)
o Dieterich, Development of Floatable Debris Action Plan for a
the New York Bight ($49,500)
o Armitage/Cooksey, Delaware Inland Bays; Water Use Plan and
Assessment of Marina Impacts ($168,357)
o J. Hall, Regional On-site Accountability Audits and Reports
($50, 000)
o Glomb/Wood, Study Plan for Validation Procedures in Support of
EPA’s Bioconcentration Guidance ($25,000)
o Burgan, Dreged Material Ocean Dumping Permit Review Manual
($75, 000)
o Amson, OSV Anderson Public Outreach ($75,000)
o Redford, Statistical Design of Marine Debris Beach Surveys, 25K
o Glomb, Technical Support for the Development of Estuarine Rapid
Bioassessinent ($25,000)
-------
Desi
e’EPA Work
gnation and Appointment of Project Officer!
Assignment Manager/Delivery Order Officer
(For Other Then Small Purchases)
Note: This form is not a Contracting Officer warrant Delivery Order Officers and Administrative Delivery
Order Officers require a warrant of Contracting Cflicer authority Any request for a Delivery Order Offtcer
warrant must be accompanied by the additional in ormation required in Chapter 8 of the Contracts Manage-
ment Manual
b Title
d Maii Code
a Telephone f Years of Contract Etperience
Manager
Officer
Delivery Order Officer
Project Officer
3 The Nominee Has Yes No
a Compieted the basic Project Officer Course 0
b Compieted the Contract Administration Course 0 0
C Incorporated appropriate contract management
criteria in position description and performance
slandard (II criteria have not been incorporated,
that must be incorporated within 30 days of
appointment)
d If the nominee has not completed the basic Pro. 0 0
sect Officer Course or the Contract Adn,inss-
(ration Course. has a waivar or interim
certification been provided
If fhe answer to items a, b. or c is “No,” or the
answer to item d’s “No,” attach an expfanarion
of Coritrac , Work Assignment, or Delivery Order
one)
work assignment, or delivery order entitled
Protect Officer Work Assignment Manager, or Deiivery Order Officer on Contract No
assignment no /delrvery order no is
Certification
nominee and requesting official certify that the designation of this
complies with the workload limitations and other requirements set forth in
the Contracts Management Manual.
b Date
Official b Name and Title
Highe I
C Daie
OIt,ciai b Name end Titis
c 0..
(PA Form 1900 6 (6 86 1
Qflicbot Contract F.t. Coç
-------
II.
Other
OMEP
Assistance
-------
Tier 3 Workshop Notebook Materials
“Other Assistance from OMEP”
o Financial Planning — Technical Assistance:
Upon request, ONE? can provide technical assistance for
forming financial planning committees, including selection of
appropriate types of members and establishment of the mission or
role of a financial planning committee in the Management
Conference. In addition, OMEP can share information on the
development of finance plans for CCMP implementation by other NEP
programs.
Contact: Stephanie Sanzone 202/FTS 475—7137
o Data Management Assistance:
In managing the National Estuary Program, EPA is responsible
for ensuring that all potential users, both inside and outside
the NEP, have access to environmental data generated under the
program. The Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) is being
offered as the system to meet these needs. ODES accommodates
most marine monitoring data and is being expanded to include new
data types required. OMEP believes ODES is the best compromise
in assuring accountability at the national level while providing
individual programs the flexibility to determine their own data
management needs.
As the national program manager for the NE?, ONE? is
currently providing data management support to the current
estuary programs (17 programs). This support includes entry of
ODES-formatted data into the database, conversion of historical
data to ODES format, development of data entry screens for
formatting data, as well as linkage between the STORET database
and odes. OMEP will also provide training, upon request, in the
use of ODES. General data management cosultation, not specific
to ODES, is available through ONE?.
Contact: Joel Salter 202/FTS 475—6145
-------
o Assistance with characterization and Problem Definition:
Ma .ement Conferences are charged with characterizing an
estuary ..n terms of environmental quality, uses and impacts in
order to clearly define problems, identify actions to address the
problems 1 and develop a COIP. OMEP is developing a “basic guide
to characterization” to describe the purpose of characterization,
its role in CCMP development and the key steps necessary for
conducting characterization. The guide is expected to be
completed by November, 1990.
In addition to the guide, on-site workshops for Management
Conference participants can be held, upon request, to assist in
determining an approach and steps to characterization and its
relationship in developing a COW. The workshops will be planned
with the Management Conference in order to meet its individual
needs.
Contact: Lore Hantske 202/FTS 475-7111
-------
3.0 REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
-------
3.1 TRANSiTION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Delegation of grant authority in the NEP brthgs changes in
responsibility for two main categories of activities: (1) program planning and
trackin& and (2) resource allocation and management The shifts in
responsibility from Headquarters to the Regions began in F? 1987 and will
continue through F? 1989. The Management Conference for each estuary
program must commit to meeting the two steps and seven purposes defined
in the Water Quality Act of 1987. To evaluate each program’s progress in
meeting the two steps and seven purposes, the programs developed program
milestones. As delegation progresses, Headquarters will delegate the
responsibility for tracking progress of individual projects in an estuary
program fuLly to the Regions and will monitor only an estuary’s progress
toward achieving the estuary program milestones. Outlined below are the
activities in each fiscal year that reflect these changes.
FY 1987:
Program Planning and Tracking-Headquarters and the Region
together negotiated program milestone commitments for the
particular estuary program. The Region then developed an
estuary program work plan and tracked individual projects.
Headquarters tracked the estuary program’s progress toward
meeting commitments by tracking Individual projects.
Resource Allocation and Management—Headquarters prepared
the NEP budget and allocated those resources among the
3 -1
-------
individual estuary programs. Headquartdrs approved each
estuary program’s budget, prepared and tracked grant and
contract award packages, and tracked each program’s overall
expenditures. The Regions, in turn, prepared estuary program
budgets and statements of work for their projects.
FY 198&
Program Planning and Tracking-Headquarters has continued to
monitor progress toward the program milestone by tracking
individual projects. The audit was conducted to ensure all
project files and products are in place. The Regions will
complete their project flies as needed in response to the audit
recommendations, and continue tracking progress on their
projects.
Resource Allocation and Management-Headquarters and
Regions will continue their respective 1987 activities into
FY 1988.
FY 198P.
Program Planning and Tracking—Progress in the estuary
programs will be monitored by Headquarters through traddng
program milestones. The Regions will assume full project
tracking responsibilities providing reports to Headquarters on
their progress toward meeting program milestones.
32
-------
Resource Allocation and Management-Headquarters will
prepare the overall NEP budget and allocate these resources
among the estuary programs; the Regions will be preparing
estuary program budgets and their funding packages, as well as
satements of work. The allocation of resources will depend
upon the performance. The Regions will retain full
responsibility for tracking their grants and contract packages.
3.2 MAINTAINING OFFICIAL PROGRAM FILES
Following delegation of grant authority, the Regions will be
-responsible for maintaining the official files of the estuary programs. The
Regions must keep all documentation pertaining to the program, projects,
and products. After delegation, OMEP will only maintain a library of NEP
products. It is the responsibility of the Region to provide copies of all
products to OMEP. The following discussion is to provide the Regions with
guidance from OMEP to successfully carry out the responsibility of
maintaining estuary program files in the future.
Proper file maintenance is one of the primary responsibilities in
managing a successful estuary program. The official estuary program file
serves not only as an Important tool for the estuary coordinator on a daily
basis, but also as a record of flnandal and technical management for the
program. Therefore, clear organization and identification of the file elements
are essential characteristics. The files should be centrally located so that
information In the files is readily accessible, and official files should be
separate from the working files of the estuary coordinator(s). To avoid
3-3
-------
information gape in a project file, two copies of information that a
coordinator uses frequently should be made, and one copy should be marked
as the file copy. One method of file organization recommended and used by
OMEP is a hierarchical approach (see FIgure 3.1). This approach comprises
three tiers of file information: a program file, a project file, and a product file.
Depending on the s ucture of an agreement, the project file may contain
several activities/task files (if the agreement has several components), as in
the case of Narragansett Bay. The type of Information that should be present
in each information tier Is desaibed below.
Program File-The program file Is the offidal file that contains
information pertaining to the program, rather than to individual projects.
This file should Include the dengnation package, estuary program work
plans, any program correspondence, and eventually the comprehensive
conservation and management plan. It Is important for the program file to
contain any record of correspondence that discusses any approval, change in
the scope of work or overall work plan pertaining to progress of the estuary
program. Examples of relevant correspondence include workgroup/
committee comments; minutes of meetings; program responses and actions;
correspondence with State representatives or other agencies; memos, letters,
and telephone notes If appropriate. In certain Regions, the minutes of
management advisory committee (MAC) or technical advisory committee
(TAC) meetings serve as a record of MAC or TAC review of an Individual
proposal or deliverable-the approval should also be cross-referenced In the
individual project file.
Project Files—Project files should contain an accurate, current, and
complete accounting of all finandal ansactions and deliverables for each
project Specific attention should be given to the purchase of equipment and
3-4
-------
f Files Organization I
Figure 3.1
Technical Suport Division
Estuary Program
Files Organization
id CoMra EN.
£a Progrom
EU.
Representation of
Files Organization
-------
use of property for documentation during project closeout. The items
required in ead file depend upon the type of agreements. There are three
types of funding instruments: cooperative agreements, interagency
agreements, and contracts. The items required to be in the project file for each
of these funding instruments are found on the checkllct.’ The following
items required in the file are unique to the NEP: review of the application by
the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC); and review of an application by the Office of Research and
Development (not normally required for interagency agreements or
contracts). However, OMEP has adopted a policy requiring ORD concurrence
for all estuary projects, as well as a certification of positive/negative quality
assurance. The examples of an ORD concurrence and positive/negative QA
certifications are shown in Figures 3.2,3.3, and 3.t The estuary program staff
should no longer rely upon a reference In the decision memo as
documentation of QRD approval or QA certification. In the future, the
Regions should provide documentation signed by EPA ORD/QA officials as
part of the application. If the MAC and TAC review Is mentioned in the
decision memos, dates of the application approval by the MAC and TAC
should be mentioned In the decision memo so that documentation can be
found in the program file under MAC and TAC minutes of meetings. State
Clearinghouse Reviews were not adequately addressed given the time
constraints of the audit-the Regions tended to keep such documentation
I If thee is an ame dment to the scope of work and project funding, the ifie ShoUld contain
those ttesns (I.e., funding order, coinmiW nt notice, dedsion mo, e .) requited for an
onginal application. These lte s are not required for no-cost amendnwnta or pro ct officer
changes.
34
-------
Ftguze 3.2
Ilt *27 Pzogrw
Grants and Cooperative Aqre.a.nts
Of fic. of R.s.arc.b aM Oisvslopunt Concurrence ?or
1. Istuary 541’I Francisco Estuary Project
3. proposal Titisi Si Francisco Estuary Proiect/Osta Minageiant
Hibitat Institute
3. Grant/Cooporative kqresaent a.cipLent: 5JS8
4. Technical/&ci.ntific Advisory Coaaittsa Approval
Dat* AprIl 12, 1988 (Further Review Meeting Scheduled for July 20. 1988).
S. Office of Isaearc and D.v.iopsent
(J This proposal doss not duplicate current IPA/ORD
rese*rc pro scta or activities.
1 The quality of science in thi, proposal is adequate
( ] ?he research protocols in this proposal are consistent
vith thos. established by SPA and O D.
Therefore. ! rscca and concurrence
vith fundinq in this project aMer the
$ational Istiaary Progree.
k. S z Lee, Mttn Directot
Wales IPA !VJ !L Pe jfjc btvtst
Dates I ms 30 l $1
aiqnatures
3-7
-------
U UTE STATU £NVI ONMCNTAi. P O1tCTIQN A (P4Cy
ESION I V
341 C Nfl ..ANØ SY UT
*TI.AN?A. OXOCOJA 31311
us vuom4 TaL P r TIOW &G ICY
TALITY ASSUP.AIICI C ?UICATZ N
fe z
OPAT v ? W
Proj.ct Titles
Project
Prlaary l(urssry Axs$ Protection, An l.pl ution Pilot
AppLtcant (Principal Investigator). Lonard J. Pt.traf.es, Prof. of Mirthe
Sei ce and Gerald S. Jsnovttz, Prof. of Maria. Sci c., SCSV
‘ ander the klb..arl.—PasUco gatnarins Stndy
DATI. 7-Q-28
ñh/’
We have reviewed the Quality Assursz cs Project Plan for this
pcoject and certify that this grants. .ets the Agency quality
assutance z.quiz..ents u sp.cifL.d in 41 R Part 31.
t(L 1 AL L?J
Wads EaiØt
legion I v Qnaltty Ms ra.nc. Off icsz
• SaIL, U
ty &IsUxa.ncs Officer
OkTIi
3XG IA1’TiUs
$ IGNATOUs
3 -8
-------
S —— I
UNITED STArES £NVI ONMENTA1. PROTECTION AGENCY
\ .,/ RI ION I V
811 O AR$ VT II?
£T .AN?A. SSO OIA $ 5241
03 VIP 3MThTAL P .riO$ AG CT
QOAL!?! AS! UWCI CU?UIC&TIOI
cooPDA- . R ?
concsrninq
Proj.ct Titles j 14J, 4 L.. j4ftJO
1 , t r ACL I 34 s d s , zrn Q.ia e
Applicant (Principsi ZneestLqatQr)l P’f OALIL A tef Jsi ,p p
Y,/ DA) ft £ ) 7 4- JI,4-77 0
mdsr the Sanaots Bay Zst axine St y
te bays x.vt.vsd this aqrssaent and d.tsr.Ln.d that it doss ot involve
.nvtroi ..ntal.]y—reLatsd sesaures • ‘Thsrsf or. e Q a.lity &asurancs Project
Plan La rq .Lred.
3X A1’0U $ LLJá L. ___ 7-I-It
Va4c ZAi t
eqion XV Q a1itT Msiusncs Officer
SX kT0Us 1 Z?/JJJ o ’s 7i jIF
mu, i / /
• QnaLity Alsurlacs Officer
3-9
-------
separate from the program and project files. The application for a project
must either contain a letter from the ii stitution conducting the State
Clearinghouse Review, or reference the date when the application was
submitted for review. The State will have 60 days to act upon the application.
Ifnoactionhubentaken approvaloftheprojectispresumed. Ifan
application is funded within 60 days of the submittal of the application, the
review must be on file.
Although the EPA grants and contracts office may have copies of many
items found in the application, it is essential that copies are also present in
the estuary program file. Every item In the file should be identified with an
official EPA Identification number. In general, the official records of a project
file must be kept for three years from the end of the project If litigation, a
laim, dispute or an Noffidaiw audit Is begun before the end of the three-year
term , all records must be kept until the three years have passed or until the
litigation, dispute, daim , or audit is completed and resolved, whichever is
longer. Many of the file maintenance requirements for EPA project officers
are the same as those for the grantees. For more detailed information
concerning accurate project documentation, refer to the specific regulations
for grants and other federal assistance (40 CFR Subchapter B., Part 30).
Every project application should contain a QA certification. A quality
assurance certification Is a statement by an EPA QA officer that represents
proof of an official QA review of a project For all projects Involving
environxnentafly•related measures, a positive QA certification should be on
file. For specific items that should be induded in a quality assurance plan for
an assistance agreement, refer to 40 CFR 30.503, Guidance and Specifications.
for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAMS 500/80) and Guide for
Preparation of Quality Assurance Project Plans.
3-10
-------
If the project has been officially audited, all documentation of the audit
should be present in the files. Such documentation Includes requests for
audit, Interim and final audit reports, any related audit correspondence,
Regional and General Counsel opinions and final disputes decision, and any
appeal or reconsideration determination/resolution documents.
Project Closeout-Upon completion of a project, the Regional estuary
coordinator is to initiate project closeout as soon as possible to terminate all
obligations between the EPA and the project recipients. One of the most
Important responsibilities of the estuary coordinator is to ensure that the
project file contains proper documentation at the close of the project This
documentation (I.e., equipment disposition report, financial status report and
final project report) should address the purchaslng use, and disbursement of
equipment, and the receipt and acceptance of all deliverables. For specific
requirements about dosing of a project, please contact the grants or contiact
office for specific ins tiuctiorts.
Product Files-Depending on space limitations, the product file may or
may not be located after the individual project file. In either case, the
Identification number of the agreement should be written on the product for
ease in product Identification. The file should contain every item identified
In the scope of work or work plan. In several cases, the scope of work for an
agreement did not contain a specific section that listed deliverables; therefore,
the Region would be expected to have records for any item listed as a
milestone, Inchading progress reports, outlines, etc., if the program were
subject to an official program audit To simplify these requirements, it is
recommended that each scope of work contain a separate section that lists
specific deliverables. For every report, it Is recommended that the file contain
the draft report, final report, and peer review comments. Interim drafts not
3-Il
-------
Included In the scope of work or work plan are not required to be In the files.
If the product Is released to the public, the product must be In compliance
with EPA’s peer and administrative review process. If any change in the
scope or date of the deliverable, a record (notes from a telephone
conversation, memorandum) documenting approval of the extension should
be in the project file. Documentation from EPA acknowledging receipt and
acceptance of every final product should be Included In the product file.
Aclaiowledgement of acceptance of a final product does not denote approval
of the product’s findings, but it does demonstrate that the product meets the
requirements under the funding Instrument and the redplent Is under no
further obligation for the deliverable.
According to regulations for grante and other federal types of assistance
4O CFR 30.518), each sdentific, Informational, and educational document
should contain a EPA statement of release aedltlng EPA for funding. If an
agreement is reached that a document should be released, the following
statement should be included In the document:
The information in this dxument has been funded wholly or in
part by the United Slates Environmental Protection Agency
under assistance agreement (no.) to (recipient). It has been
subject to the Agency’s peer and adminish’at*ve review and has
been approved for publication as an EPA dxument. Mention of
trade names or commercial prcducts does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
If an agreement has not been reached regarding the release of the
document, the following statement should be Induded in the document:
3-12
-------
Although the information in this document has been funded
wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency under assistance agreement (no.) to (recipient), it may
not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official
endorsement should be inferred.
U the document is not tobe released as an EPA publication, the
document should include the following statement
This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance
agreement (no.) to (recipient). The contents of this document do
not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial pri4ucts constitute
endorsement or recommendation for uu.
For specific information regarding the publication of products, please
refer to the specific regulations.
3.3 THE DELEGATION PROCESS
Based upon the audit findings, OMEP will be evaluating each Region’s
efforts to conduct follow-up activities from the audit (described In Section
2.0). The goal of the follow-up activities is to obtain 100 percent of Items in
the files. OMEP believes that the Regions will be able to obtain 100 percent of
the foLlowing items by contacting EPA contract and grant offlces
3-13
-------
Cooperative Agreement: Application
Decision Memo
Commitment Notice
Signed Agreement
Amendments (where applicable)
QA Plan (where applicable)
Interagency Agreement Statement of Work
Decision Memo
Commitment Notice
Signed Agreement
QA Plan (where applicable)
OMEP recognizes that the Regions may not have completed certain
activities s ich as ORD concurrences and State Clearinghouse approvals for
projects in the past and it is impractical to require them alter a project has
begun. Therefore, a Region should obtain the maximum number of items
possible by obtaining items present in files from OMEP, the contract office,
and the grant office. The summary matrices from the audit of OMEP files
(Appendix A) will assist the Regions in identifying which iten s are present in
the OMEP files .
Upon successful completion of the follow-up activities, OMEP will
assist the Region informing them that their grant files axe acceptable to OMEP
and the Region in preparing for grant delegation. To ensure that the Regions
are meeting their responsibilities for grant delegation, OMEP Is planning to
audit each estuary program as necessary to check that their files are acceptable.
3.14
-------
Figure 1.2
DATE
TTh
NATIONAL UTUAIY PIOGEAM
CR _ IC1a ErT OR FINAL P*OJICTCOWLETION
Dk.cuo.u: F.Y (Pru ) N.l V t’N Fri,4 N.4.tVON APPLJCADLS (F., t. i Pr j )
1. PftOGIAM FILE Ey
A. EPi mmW p1
B. C np ia uv*
C. Coneipcnde cs RE Pr s
Pip N...L.m _________
— Typc
o WOñpO N
o Piv im N cMM1
o M olANmnM a
o d
o
o —
Ps iI $
Ra $
PROJECT FILE (Tub:
iseipsit
,
?
I
COOP AGI!ZMVCT
CONTEACT
i c
COMM 4TS
57 .I2
Wc (WA)
—
SOW
—
Fo utS7 .33
W PIN(WP)
=
- c
Ap
LCou .A .
M .r LAff
AC R.vN
TAC jpq
TAC 1I IW
—
D A u
OlD App
OlD A
.
.
I
N
Ii
h .
Mmio
—
—
I,- .’—-
—
.
F m O , r
—
—
—
Cxv,wm t P
Ptw. . P
Foim
(S ped Ag,tanal)
W E l A 1 yvv
PO 16104
A m a)
P
Fo 51OO.2OB
WA’—’ —
£A L__
‘.
.(
—
QA C.,oA oN
=
QA ‘-
=
QA
=
r *) r.i ?
=
QA P,opa P
—
QA p •__
—
QA P ,c sa M
—
—
p ,oà u(s)
—
COMME(TS
3. PRODUCT1DEUYUA3LE FILL Tills:
—
Capy liv ibM
.
L l s is ( w ’O N
d Ci. . .. ,’-’-— Fo
Pvoduci uicludci Pi r C.
lw. f !uc. —“.,
Peor wiew Pw we
I Ravwe(s) Cs
.
1-7
-------
SuTninary Matrix (see Appendix A): The checklist results were
totaled and transferred to the summary matrix. The matrices
provided an overview of both the present and missing items
listed by agreement and were to be used by the Regions to guide
their foilow-up activities. Matrices for each program are
included in Appendix A.
One-Page Synopsis of Findings (see Figure 2.2): To present the
results of the audit in terms of percentages of required items
present in the files, the audit team used a one-page synopsis.
This report lists the number of each type of funding instrument
used by the estuary program, and the number of required items
that were found in each funding Instrument as compared to the
number of Items that should be present in the file.
Product Status Report (see Appendix B): The product status
report lists the deliverables under each funding instrument that
are present or missing in the Regions, and whether the
deliverable was subject to peer review. The team developed the
list by merging the list of products that were present in each
project file with the list of deliverables and deliverable dates in
ü OMEP tracking system.
Dividers: The audit team encouraged the Regions to develop a
logical method of file organization for each estuary program.
Colorcoded file dividers developed by the audit team were
1.8
-------
QUICK SIGN ON GUIDE FOR THE NEW USER
• There are two COASTNET phone numbers:
202-475-7296
202-475-8482
• After establishing a connection with the bulletin board (see reference card), you will be
asked to supply your USER-ID:
• Type In your USER-ID and press the (ENTER> key.
• You will then be prompted for your PASSWORD:
• Type In your PASSWORD and press the key.
• The bulletin board will send you the following message:
• The maIn menu of services available will now appear on the screen:
• To access one of the above services, simply select the appropriate letter and press
.
WELCOME TO THE COASTNET BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM
SPONSORED AND OPERATED BY
ThE OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE PROTECTION
OFFICE OF WATER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
If one is busy, try the other. Two users can log on at the
same time.
Greetings, XXXX, glad to see you back again.
LIUEI Froc Uashington DC 201601 You have 2000000000
credits I
T ... Teleconferencing
C ... COASTIIET Bulletin Menu
E •.. Electronic Flail
A ... Account display/edit
F ... COASTtIET File Library
R ... Registry of Users
X ... Exit (terilnate session)
-------
• The Registry of Users keeps a record of everyone who has access to the bulletin boafr
system. In case you have not filled out your Registry entry yet, now Is the tIme!
• Simply select the R key and press .
• You will be asked a series of questions:
Please enter your full name:
What Is your Job title?
Where are you located (city and state) ?
What Is your office phone number ulth area code?
What computer are you using (make & model)?
What operating system does your computer use?
What computer program are you using?
• Next you will be asked to supply a brief summary of yourself. If you prefer not answer
certain questions for personal reasons, type N/A. If you leave the questionnaire before
completion, It will not be saved. (to exit questionnaire before completion, type X
.
• Remember, in order for other users to know those who use the system, the Registry
should be completed for each user.
• Once you have completed entering your information Into the Registry of Users, you
should type A CENTER> to see what has been registered In your account file. You can
change any entry except the USER-ID entry. This Is the section where you can change
your password, If you so desire.
• When finished with this section type X (ENTER> to return to the main menu prompt.
• Please select a letter (T, C, E, A, F, R, H, or? for menu): ?
• Touch the key to display the full menu.
-------
COAS YNET
The Marine and Estuarine
Electronic Bulletin Board System
May 1990
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Office of Water
U.S. EPA
ams
-------
.
vvnatis
COASTNET
COASTNET STRUCTURE
• About COASTNET
• Estuary Program
• Near Coastal Waters
• Activities Calendar
• Legislative Updates
• Weekly Reports
• Workgroups
• Documents Available
• Directory
• Teleconferencing
• User Registry
• Personal User
Information
• Receiving • Libraries
• Sending • Downloading
• Attaching • Uploading
Files
-------
c3ASTNET
COASTNET is an electronic Bulletin Board System (BBS)
for persons working with or interested in marine and
estuarine protection. The BBS provides:
• Timely Information about Marine and
Estuarine Programs, Projects, and Events
• An Alternative to “Telephone Tag”
• Contact Names and Telephone Numbers
• Instantaneous Communication to a Wide
Group of Users
-------
List of Program Contacts
-------
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM STAFF
A1be ar1e/Paa1ico Estuary Study
Stephanie Sanzone
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 N Street SW
Washington DC 20460
(202) 475—7137
Region 4
Ted Bisterfeld
Marine and Estuarine Branch
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
AtMnta, GA 30365
(404) 347—4727
North Carolina
Director
Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary Study
DNHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611—7687
(919) 733—0314
Joan Giordano, Public Participation Coordinator
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
(919) 946—6481
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Program
Lore Hantske
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 14 Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7111
-------
Region 6
Barbara Reeler
U.S. EPA Region 6
Water Management Division (6W-QM)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
(214) 655—6680
Buzzards Bay
Ray Hall
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 N Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—6145
Region 1
Bruce Rosinoff (WQM)
U.S.EPA Region 1
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—3514
Massachusetts
Joseph Costa, Project Director
Coastal Zone Management
2 Spring Street
Marion, MA 02738
(508) 748—3600
Casco Bay
EQ
Margherita Pryor
OMEP (WN—556F)
U.S. EPA
401 N Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7176
-------
Region 1
Mark Smith
U.S.EPA Region 1
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—9461
Maine
Lee Doggett
Department of Environmental Protection
Station #17, State House
Augusta ME 04333
(207) 289—7811
Delaware Bay
Torn Armitage
OMEP (W14—556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7378
Region 2
Barbara Finazzo
U.S. EPA Region 2
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264—5170
Region 3
Marria O’Malley
U.S. EPA Region 3
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 266—9180
New Jersey
Mary Downes Gastrich, State Program Coordinator
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 633—7020
-------
Deborah Zabel, Public Participation Consultant
c/o Hoffman, Williams, Lafen & Fletcher
300 Kings Highway East
Haddonfield NJ 08033
(609) 429—1767
E ennsy1vanjp
William Johnson, State Program Coordinator
Department of Environmental Resources
Evan Press Building, #114
P.O. Box 1467
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 783—9500
Delaware
Marjorie Crofts, State Program Coordinator
Division of Water Resources
DNREC
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739—4590
Delaware Inland Bays
Diane Davis
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 N Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7378
Rec ion 3
Krista Mendelman
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia PA 19107
(215) 597—3360
Delaware
John Schneider, State Program Manager
Division of Water Resources
DNREC
P.O. Box 1401
89 Kings Hwy
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736—4590
-------
William Brierly, Public Participation Coordinator
Planning and Support Section
DNREC
P.O. Box 1401
89 Kings Hwy
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736—5409
Karen Robertson, Administrative Assistant
Division of Water Resources
DN RE C
P.O. Box 1401
89 Kings Hwy
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736—4590
Ben Anderson
Division of Water Resources
DNREC
P.O. Box 1401
89 Kings Hwy
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736—4590
Galveston Bay
Lore Hantske
ONE? (WH—556F)
U.S. EPA
401 N Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7111
Region 6
Ken Teague
U.S. EPA Region 6
Water Management Division (6W-QM)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 752701
(214) 655—6680
Texas
Dr. Frank Shipley, Director
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
University of Houston-Clear Lake
2700 Bay Area Boulevard, Box 164
Houston, TX 77058
(713) 283—3950
-------
Kevin Hamby, Public Participation Director
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
University of Houston-Clear Lake
2700 Bay Area Boulevard, Box 164
Houston, TX 77058
(713) 283—3950
Russell Kiesling, Research Administrator
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
University of Houston-Clear Lake
2700 Bay Area Boulevard, Box 164
Houston, TX 77058
(713) 283—3950
Carol Ward, Administrative Assistant
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
University of Houston - Clear Lake
2700 Bay Area Boulevard, Box 164
Houston, TX 77058
(713) 283—3950
Gulf of Mexico Program
Lore Hantske
OMEP (WH—556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7111
Region 4
Lloyd Wise
U.S. EPA Region 4
Water Quality Management Branch
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347—2126
Region 6
Russell Putt
U.S. EPA Region 6
Water Management Division (6W-QM)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
(214) 655—6680
-------
GuJ.f o Mexico Program Office
Dr. Douglas Lipka, Director
Gulf of Mexico Program
Building 1103, # 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
(601) 688—3726
William Whitson, Public Participation Coordinator
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Building 1103, * 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
(601) 688—3726
Dr. Fred Xopfler, Chief Scientist
Gulf of Mexico Program Office
Building 1103, # 202
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
(601) 688—3726
Indian River Lagoon
Stephanie Sanzone
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington DC 20460
(202) 475—7137
Region 4
Carol Tarras
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347—2126
Long Island Bound
Margherita Pryor
OMEP (WH—556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7176
-------
Region 1
Sue Beede (WQM)
U.S.EPA Region 1
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—3518
Connecticut
Paul Stacey, Project Coordinator
Water Compliance Unit
Department of Environmental Protection
122 washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566—7049
Chester Arnold, Public Participation Coordinator
Connecticut Sea Grant
43 Marne Street
Hamden, CT 06514
(203) 789—7865
Region 2
Mark Tedesco
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264—5170
New York
Karen Chytalo, Project Coordinator
Department of Environmental Conservation
Marine Habitat Protection
SUNY
Building 40, #228
Stony Brook, NY 11794
(516) 751—7900)
Melissa Beristain, Public Participation Coordinator
New York Sea Grant Extension Program
SUNY Stony Brook, Dutchess Hall
Stony Brook, NY 11794—5001
(516) 632—8730
-------
Massachusetts Bays
1 12
Joel Salter
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—6145
Region 1
Matthew Liebman
U.S.EPA Region 1
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—3514
Narragansett Bay
liQ.
Brigitte Farren
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—9799
Region 1
Katrina Kipp (WQM)
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—3523
Rhode Island
Caroline Karp, Project Director
Narragansett Bay Project
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908—5767
(401) 277—3165
Judith Korch, Public Participation Coordinator
Narragansett Bay Project
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI 02908—5767
(401) 277—3165
-------
New York-New Jersey Harbor
Brigitte Farren
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—9799
Region 2
Seth Ausubel
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
(212) 264—5170
Eric Stern
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
(212) 264—5283
New York
Joanne Moisides
Department of Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Water Quality Management
50 Wolf Road, #201
Albany, NY 12233—3508
Mike Olahan, Public Participation Coordinator
Hudson River Foundation
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
(212) 924—8290
New Jersey
Mary Downes Gastrich
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 633—7020
-------
Puget Bound
112
Eathy Minsch
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—9552
Region 10
Jack Gakstatter, Chief
Office of Puget Sound
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442—0966
John Armstrong
Office of Puget Sound
U.S. EPA Region 10
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442—1368
Michael Rylko
Office of Puget Sound
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442—4014
Jacques Feigenbloom
Office of Puget Sound
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442—8511
Washington State
Jerry Boese
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, #1100
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 464—7317
David Peeler
Department of Ecology
Water Resources and Planning Section
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 438—7060
-------
Sheila Kelly, Public Involvement and Education
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine Street, #1100
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 464—7320
San Francisco
Joe Hall
OMEP (WH-556F0
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7102
Region 9
Amy Zimpfer, Director
San Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604—2050
(415) 464—7990
Mark Flachsbart, State Liaison
San Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94694—2050
Marcia Brockbank, Public Information Manager
San Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94694-2050
(415) 464—7990
Jean Auer, Public Information Specialist
San Francisco Estuary Project
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94694—2050
Santa Monica Bay
Carin Bisland
OMEP (WH—556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7112
-------
Region 9
Paul Jones
U.S. EPA Region 9
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 705—2159
California
Catherine Tyrrell, Project Director
SMBRP c/o Regional Water Quality Control Board
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park CA 91754
(213) 266—7500
Rainer Hoenicke
SMBRP c/o Regional Water Quality Control Board
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park CA 91754
(213) 266—7500
Jessica Loffer, Public Participation Coordinator
SMBRP c/o Regional Water Quality Control Board
101 Centre Plaza Drive
Monterey Park CA 91754
(213) 266—7500
Sarasota Bay
Stephanie Sanzone
OMEP (Wli-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7137
Region 4
Rhonda Evans
U.S. EPA Region 4
Water Quality Management Branch
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347—2126
-------
Florida
Mark Alderson, Director
Sarasota Bay Project
1550 City Island
Sarasota, FL 34236
(813) 388—3318
Public Participation Coordinator
Sarasota Bay Project
1550 City Island
Sarasota, FL 34236
(813) 388—3318
Susan Walker, Administrative Assistant
Sarasota Bay Project
1550 City Island
Sarasota, FL 34236
(813) 388—3318
Tampa Bay
Susan Jackson
OMEP (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475—7109
Region 4
Rhonda Evans
U.S. EPA Region 4
Water Quality Management Branch
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347—2126
-------
) IEP COMMITTEE CHAIRS
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary Study
Policy Committee:
Mr. Ray Cunningham, Director
Water Management Division
U.S EPA Region 4
345 Courtlarid St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4450
Mr. William Cobey, Jr., Secretary
NC DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611—7687
Technical Committee:
Mr. Bo Crum
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA Region 4
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347—2126
Dr. Ernie Carl
NC DEHNR
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611—7687
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Mr. Brewster Brown
Albemarle Citizens Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 527
Winton, NC 27986
Mr. Derb Carter
Pamlico Advisory Committee
So. Environmental Law Center
130 E. Franklin St. S—30
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Buzzards BaY Project
Policy Committee:
Ms. Julie D. Belaga, Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—3400
-------
Mr. John P. DeVillars, Secretary
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs
Management Committee:
Mr. David A. Fierra, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 2.
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—3478
Technical Advisory Committee:
Ms. Judith McDowell-Capuzzo (Acting)
Quissett Campus
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, MA 02543
(508) 548—8700
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee:
Mr. Edwin Pratt
522 Point Road
Marion, MA 02738
(508) 748—2500
Management Plan Advisory Committee:
Ms. Judith Pederson
Office of Coastal Zone Management
100 Cambridge St.
Boston, MA 02201
(617) 727—9530
Delaware Estuaries Program
Policy Committee:
Mr. Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, Administrator
U.S EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264—2525
Mr. Edwin B. Erickson, Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597—9814
-------
Management Committee: (Chair rotates annually)
Mr. James Tabor
Division of Coastal Zone Management
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 1467
Harrisburg, PA 17120
(717) 541—7807
Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee:
Dr. Jonathan Sharp
College of Marine Sciences
University of Delaware
700 Pilottown Rd.
Lewes, DE 19958
(302) 648—4259
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Mr. John Campanelli
70 Concord Creek Rd.
Glen Mills, PA 19342
(215) 388—1751
Delaware Inland Bays Program
Policy Committee:
Mr. Edwin H. Clark, II
Secretary, DNREC
P.O. Box 1401
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736—4860
Implementation Committee:
Mr. Gerald Esposito
DNREC
P.O Box 1401
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 736—4860
Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee:
Dr. Kent Price
700 Pillottown Rd.
University of Delaware
College of Marine Sciences
Lewes, DE
(302) 736—4590
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Ms. Patricia Campbell-White
702 Rehoboth Ave.
P.O. Box 312
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
(302) 277—6101
-------
Galveston BaY 4ational Estuary Program
Policy Committee:
Mr. B.J. Wynne, III
Chairman, Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711—3087
(512) 463—7910
Local Government Advisory Committee:
The Honorable Ray Holbrook
County Judge, Galveston County
722 Moody
Galveston, TX 77550
(409) 766—2244
Management Committee:
Mr. Myron 0. Knudson, P.E.
Director, Water Management Division 6W
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202—2733
(214) 655—7100
Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee:
Dr. Sammy Ray
Marine Biology Department
Texas A&M University at Galveston
P.O. Box 1675
Galveston, TX 77553—1675
(409) 740—4526
Citizens’ Advisory Steering Committee:
Ms. Sharron Stewart
Texas Environmental Coalition
P.O. Box 701
Lake Jackson, TX 77566
(409) 297—6360
Galveston Bay Public Forum:
Dr. Martin Arisco
711 Bay Ridge Road
La Porte, TX 77571
(713) 422—2020
Long Island Bound Prolect
Management Committee:
Mr. Kevin Bricke, Acting Director
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 254—2513
-------
Ms. Gwen Ruta
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565—3478
Mr. Gordon Colvin
NY DEC
Division of Marine Resources
SUNY at Stony Brook
Building #40
Stony Brook, NY 11794
(516) 751—7900
Mr. Bob Smith
CT DEP
Water Compliance Unit
122 Washington St.
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 566—2588
Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee:
Dr. Donald Squires
Maine Science Institute, #109
438 Whitney Road Ext.
Storrs, CT 06268
(203) 486—2363
Dr. Jerry Schubel
Marine Sciences Research Center
SUNY, Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY 11794
(516) 632—7012
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Mr. David Miller, Director
Northeast Office
National Audubon Society
1789 Western Ave.
Albany, NY 12203
(518) 869—9731
Mr. Tom Steinke
1673 Melville Ave.
Fairfield, CT 06430
(203) 225—8267
-------
Narragansett Bay Project
Policy Committee:
Mr. Dan Prentiss
Prentiss & Associates
70 Kennedy Plaza
Providence, RI 02903
Management Committee:
Mr. Malcolm Grant
RI Department of Environmental Management
9 Hayes St.
Providence, RI 02903
Public Education Committee:
Mr. David Abedon
Cooperative Extension
URI - Nutural Resources
Woodward Hale
Kingston, RI 02881
New Yor -Nev Jersey Harbor Program
Policy Committee:
Mr. Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264—2525
Management Committee:
Mr. Richard Caspe, Director (Kevin Bricke, Acting)
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264—2513
Technical Advisory Committee:
Dr. J. Fred Grassle
Institute of Marine and Coastal Science
Cook College
P.O. Box 231
Old Blake Hall
New Brunswick , NJ 08903
Mr. Dennis Suszkowski
Hudson River Foundation
40 West 20th St.
9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
-------
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Ms. Eugenia Flatow
Coalition for the Bight
121 Avenue of the Americas
Suite 501
New York, NY 10013
Puget Sound Estuary Progran
Management Committee;
Mr. Jack Gakstatter, Chief
Office of Coastal Waters
U.S. EPA Region 10, WD-139
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. John Dorhinann, Director
Planning and Compliance
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine St., Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Mr. Dave Peeler
Washington Department of Ecology
rn/s PV-11
Olympia, WA 98101
Technical Advisory Committee:
Dr. John Armstrong
Office of Coastal Waters
U.S. EPA Region 10, WD-139
1200 Sixth St.
Seattle, WA 98101
Research Committee:
Mr. Tim Ransom
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine St., Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
Public Education and Outreach:
Ms. Nancy McKay
Acting Executive Director
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine St., Suite 1100
Seattle, WA 98101
-------
San Francisco Bay Project
Sponsoring Agency Committee:
Mr. Dan McGovern, Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 9
1235 Mission St.
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 556—6478
Management Committee:
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 9
1235 Mission St.
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 974—8115
Technical Advisory Committee:
Mr. Tom Wakeman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
211 Main St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744—3263
Public Advisory Committee:
Mr. James Haussener
Northern California Marine and Harbors Association
40 San Leandro Marina
San Leandro, CA 94577
(415) 357—7447
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Prolect
Management Committee:
Mr. Harry Seraydarian, Director
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region 9
1235 Mission St.
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 974—8115
Mr. Ted Finster
State Water Resources Control Board
90]. P st.
Sacramento, CA 95814
Technical Advisory Committee:
Mr. Craig Wilson, Chief
Marine Waters Standards Unit
State Water Resources Control Board
901 P St.
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322—4506
-------
Public Advisory Committee:
Ms. Susan McCabe
949 N. Larrabee St. #321
West Hollywood, CA 90069
(213) 629—0602
Sarasota Bay Program
Policy Committee:
Mr. Greer Tidwell, Administrator
U.S. EPA Region 4
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347—4727
Mr. Dale Twachtmann, Secretary
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Rd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488—4805
Management Committee:
Mr. Mark Farrell
Aset. Executive Director
Southwest Florida Water Management District
2379 Broad St.
Brooksville, FL 34609
(904) 796—7211 EXT. 4605
Mr. Stuart C. Anderson
Deputy Executive Director
Southwest Florida Water Management District
2379 Broad St.
Brooksville, FL 34609
(904) 796 2l1 E) . 4608
Technical Advisory Committee:
Dr. Jeffery L. Lincer, Director
Sarasota County Ecological Monitoring
1301 Cattleman Rd., ldg. A, Room 216
Sarasota, FL 342 3
(813) 378—6141
Citizens Advisory Committee:
Mrs. Margaret Warson.
2714 Valencia Dr.
Sarasota, FL 34239
(813) 955—4336
------- |