July 30 - August 2, 1991
OWOW National Program Meeting
Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds
Charlottesville, Virginia
-------
Organization of
OWOW National Program Meeting
Notebook
Section Title
Number
1 Agenda
2 OWOW -- Getting To Know Us
3 Customer Survey
4 Watershed Protection Initiative
5 Cross-cutting Issues
6 Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
7 Wetlands Division
8 Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
9 Regions 1, 2, and 3
1 0 Regions 4, 5, and 6
11 Regions 7, 8, 9, and 10
12 Miscellaneous
-------
£11
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Charlottesville, Virginia
July 30 - August 2, 1991
AGENDA
Prelude
Monday Evening. July 29
5:30 - 9:00 pm Registration
Salon C
________________ Reception
Day One
Tuesday. July 30
8:00 - 8:30 am Registration
Salon C Continental Breakfast
Joint Session
Salon C
8:30 - 9:15 am Welcome Wayland/Davis
Introduction
Meeting Objectives
OWOW Organization and Functions
9:15 - 10:15 am Customer Survey and Regional Discussion Regions/Wise
10:15 - 10:30 am Break
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
Customer Survey and Regional Discussion
10:30 - 11:30 am
11:30 - 12:00 pm Budget Davis
12:00 - 1:30 pm Lunch The Hardware
Store Restaurant
Keynote Speaker Trevor Clements 316 E. Main St
North Carolina Division of Environmental On the Historic
Management Downtown Mall
1:30 - 2:30 pm Long Term Vision and Wayland/Davis
Short and Long Term Goals
Reorganization Implications
Common Challenges/Opportunities
Discussion
2:30 - 2:45 pm Break
2:45 - 4:30 pm Watershed Protection
WPI Wise
Regional Examples Manfredonia
Barriers and Incentives McGhee/Regions
4:30 - 5:30 pm Crosscutting Issues
CWA Wise
Outreach Eugster/
Pawlukiewicz
SAB/Habitat Grubbs
Agricultural Pollution Prevention
Water Conservation Davis
5:30 pm Adjourn
-------
OffIce of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
6:30 - 7:30 pm Social Hour
Atrium Room
7:30 pm Group Buffet Dinner
Atrium Room
Keynote Speaker Trudy Coxe
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Day Two
Wednesday. July 3i
8:00 - 8:30 am Continental Breakfast
Salon C
Joint Session
Salon C
8:30 - 9:30 am NPSFCZMA Grubbs
9:30 - 10:30 am Delineation Manual Meagher
10:30 - 10:45 am Break
10:45 - 11:45 am Sediment Strategy Lishman
11:45 - 12:45 am Lunch
on your own
Breakout
Sessions
12:45 pm Refer to the Division Agenda Division
Directors
Meeting room You will find the Division Agendas following this
assignments will agenda in your notebook.
be posted.
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
Day Three
Thursday. August 1
8:00 - 8:30 am Continental Breakfast
Salon C
Breakout
Sessions
8:30 - 10:15 am Refer to the Division Agenda Division
Directors
Meeting room You will find the Division Agendas following this
assignments will agenda in your notebook.
be posted.
10:15 - 10:30 am Break
Joint Session
Salon C
Remaining Issues and Action Items Wise
10:30 - 11:30 am
11:30 - 12:00 pm Wrap-up Regionsi
_______________ Waylan d
Breakout
Sessions
12.00 pm Options for the Division Directors Division
Refer to the Division Agenda Directors
Meeting room
assignments will You will find the Division Agendas following this
be posted. agenda in your notebook.
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
Day Four
Friday. August 2 (Optional for Division Directors)
8:00 - 8:30 am Continental Breakfast
Salon C
Breakout
Sessions
8:30 am Options for the Division Directors Division
Refer to the Division Agenda Directors
Meeting room
assignments will You will find the Division Agendas following this
be posted. agenda in your notebook.
-------
OCEANS AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Draft Agenda July 17, 1991
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division/Regions
Wednesday, July 3lJoint Session Leads
8:30- 9:30 Non-point Source/Coastal Zone Management Act Grubb
9:30 -10:30 DelineatIon Manual Meagher
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:45 Sediment Strategy Lishman
Southerla nd
11:45- 12:45Lunch
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division Session Begins
12:45- 2:00 Introductory Comments and Regional Issues and
Meeting Expectations Mlay/Barsamian
2:00 - 3:30 National Estuary Program Curranl
Post CCMP Activities Region X
o Role of EPA In Implementation, e.g. Multi-state
estuaries.
o 320 ‘oversight-evaluation”
o Other resources; 319 et.al.
o Evaluation protocol/how to proceed.
New NEPs Curran/Barsarnian
o FundIng availability for new NEPs
o ‘Ultraslimfast” approach to CCMP development
Current NEPs CurranJNIanfredonia
o Support activities
o Oversight activities
:o Funds management
o Earlier date for plans and funds release
Coastal America Curran
o Status Report
o Review of FY91 Pilot projects
o Coastal America support other coastal programs, e.g. NCW.
3:30 - 4:30 Near Coastal Waters Program’ Soscia/Monahan
o Status of NCW Guidance and next steps
o Region I and X experlences-->guidance document
o Base Programs support of NCW Strategy Implementation
o NCW vs. Watershed Initiative: Relationship
OWOW .t,o a$ Pro im 4 i*i. DID o.I.
JiiI O Augu I 2. 1991
-------
4:30 - 5:30 OCPD - AWPD • Regions Round Table Discussions VogtiPepino
o CZM - relationship to OCPD and AWPD
o NPS Control Measures
o CoordInation/cooperation
o Information Management
o Monitonng
Thursday
8:30 - 10:30 FY92 Planning Mlay
o Regional input to HQ Workplan
-Process
-Areas for consultation
o [ nformation Transfer
Joint Session
10:30 -11:30Remaining Issues and Action Items Wise
11:30 •12:OOWrap-up Regions/Wavland
Noon - 1:00 pm Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 OCPD - Wetlands Division - Regions Soscia/Eugsteri
Round Table Discussions Crum
o Habitat enhancement
o Mitigation Banking
o Wetlands and the NEP
o Coordination/cooperation
2:00 - 3:00 FY91-93 OCPD Budget Issues Mlay.Vogt
o FY91 Budget: Remaining Issues
o FY92 Budget (See Plan)
o FY93 Budget Process: Initiatives - outlook
3:00 4:00 Ocean Dumping Lishman/Muir
o LTMS for Dredged Material/Beneficial Uses
o Status of Green Book/Regional Manuals
o CZMA ConsistencylOD Designations
;o National Marine Sanctuaries/DM Sites
o Site management and monitoring.
4:00 - 4:30 Marine Debris Strategy/Action Plans Redford!
Region I i
O’..OW ‘ .aiuonaI Program M tia; Droll OCIt) .
JuI O 2. L991
2
-------
Frld !y
8:30 - 9:00 ANDERSON Klima/
o NCW and NEP Monitoring Region I I I
o Schedullng 2-3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting strategies
9:00- 9:30 Outreach lClima/
o Coastal Pollution Workshops Region IV
o Beach Cleanups
o ANDERSON PR
o Mechanisms for transferring information?
9:30 - 10:00 Research & Development Strategy & Needs VogtlHood
o Determining needs
o WorkIng with ORD to keep on track
o NCW and NEP Monitoring
o Scheduiing 2-3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting Strategies
10:00. 10:30 403 Program: Planned Actions Klima/
o Moving 403 inside the Baseline Region X
o Resource allocation/STARS
o ANPRM Schedule/Scope
o TraIning
10:30- 11:00 InformatIon Management KIimaI
o Status of ODES Region Vi
o What are needs/gaps Information management
o Use of ODES in NEPs, OD and 403(c) Programs
o Interface with ODES now that it is not in OCPD
o Environmental Indices
11:00 - 11:30 Issues closure, review of action Items, next steps. Mlay
11:30 - 12:30 Ocean Dumping (Workload Model) LishmanlVogt/
Barsimian
Region4i Leads to be decided after consultation with Lead Region
and potentIal Regional co-leads.
q ç A briefing book to be provided in advance of she meeting.
3
-------
OCEANS AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Final Agenda
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division/Regions
LEAD
12:45- 2:00 Introductory Comments and Regional Issues and
Meeting Expectations Mlay/Barsamian
2:00 - 3:30 National Estuary Program Curran/Rylko
Post CCMP Activities
o Role of EPA in implementation, e.g. Multi-state
estuaries.
o 320 “oversight-evaluation”
o Other resources; 319 et.al.
o Evaluation protocol/how to proceed.
New NEPs Curran/Barsamian
o Funding availability for new NEPs
o “Ultraslimfast” approach to CCMP development
Current NEPs Curran/Manfredonia
o Support activities
o Oversight activities
o Funds management
o Earlier date for plans and funds release
Coastal America Soscia
o Status Report
o Review of FY91 Pilot projects
o Coastal America support other coastal programs, e.g. NCW.
3:30 - 4:30 Near Coastal Waters Program Soscia/Monahan
o Status of NCW Guidance and next steps
o Region I and X experiences--> guidance document
o Base Programs support of NCW Strategy Implementation
o NCW vs. Watershed Initiative: Relationship
4:30 - 5:30 OCPD - AWPD - Regions Round Table Discussions VogtlPepino
o CZM - relationship to OCPD and AWPD
o NPS Control Measures
o Coordination/cooperation
o Information Management
o Monitoring
OWOW N.Iuonal Progr.m Mvcflng OCPD Agendu
July 30 Auguul 2, 1991 July 23, 1991
1
-------
Thursday
8:30 - 10:30 FY92 Planning Mlay
o Regional input to HQ Workplan
-Process
-Areas for consultation
o Information Transfer
Joint Session
10:30 -11:30Remaining Issues and Action Items Wise
11:30 -12:OOWrap-up Regions/Wayland
Noon - 1:00 pm Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 OCPD - Wetlands Division - Regions SosciafEugster/
Round Table Discussions Barsimian/Cr-um
o Habitat enhancement
o State Wetlands Conservation Plans
o Wetlands and the NEP
o Coordination/cooperation
2:00 - 3:00 FY91-93 OCPD Budget Issues Mlay-Vogt
o FY91 Budget Remaining issues
o FY92 Budget (See Plan)
o FY93 Budget Process: Initiatives - outlook
3:00 - 4:00 Ocean Dumping Lishman/App
o LTMS for Dredged Material/Beneficial Uses
o Status of Green Book/Regional Manuals
o CZMA Consistency/OD Designations
o National Marine Sanctuaries/DM Sites
o Site management and monitoring.
4:00 - 4:30 Marine Debris Strategy/Action Plans Redford/Del Vicario
OWOW Nation.I Progr.m Meeting OCPD Agenda
July 30 - Auguil 2, 1991 July 25, 1991
2
-------
Friday
8:30 - 9:00 ANDERSON Klima/App
o NCW and NEP Monitoring
o Scheduling 2-3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting strategies
9:00 - 9:30 Outreach Klima/Cnim
o Coastal Pollution Workshops
o Beach Cleanups
o ANDERSON PR
o Mechanisms for transferring information?
9:30 - 10:00 Research & Development: Strategy & Needs Vogt/Hood/DelVicario
o Determining needs
o Working with ORB to keep on track
o NCW and NEP Monitoring
o Scheduling: 2-3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting Strategies
10:00 - 10:45 403 Program: Planned Actions Kilma/Rice
o Moving 403 inside the Baseline
o Resource allocation/STARS
o ANPRM Schedule/Scope
o Training
301(h): An Update
10:45 - 11:15 Information Management Klima/Hon’ath
o Status o IODES
o What are needs/gaps information management
o Use of ODES in NEPs, OD and 403(c) Programs
o Interface with ODES now that it is not in OCPD
o Environmental Indices
11:15 - 11:30 Issues closure, review of action items, next steps. Mlay
11:30 - 12:30 Ocean Dumping (Workload Model) Lishman/Vogt
OWOW National Prvgram Meeting OCPD Agenda
.julj 30 August 2, 1991 ,Joly 25, t991
3
-------
Agency planning/budgets/effects
of reorganization/etc
in a nutshell
Regional roundtable
Now that we’re here, what do we do
about it? (Regional strategic
initiatives)
WETLAND DIVISION
NATIONAL PROGRAM MEETING
Draft Agenda
Mondav Evenina. July 29 - Prelude
5:30 — Registration/reception
DaY 1. Tuesdav . July 30
8:30 — 5:30 OWOW Joint Session
6:30 - 7:30 OWOW Social Hour
7:30 - OWOW Group Buffet Dinner
Day 2. Wednesday. July 31
8:30 — 11:45 OWOW Joint Session
11:45 — 12:45 Lunch
Breakout Session
12:45 - 1:30 Welcome/introductory comments
1:30 — 2:15
2:15 — 3:45
Meagher/
Lead Region
Meagher
Region 9,
Moderator
3:45 — 4:00 Break
4:00 - 6:00 Where are we and how did we
get here? (status updates on
DPC/Congress, including CWA
reauthorization/Reilly and LaJuana’ $
positions on categorization/etc.,
and discussion) Schwartz
7:30 - Wetlands Division Dinner
Day 3. Thursday. Auqust 1
Breakout Session
8:30 — 10:15
Eugster/
Pomponio
-------
10:15 — 10:30 Break
OWOW Joint Session
10:30 — 12:00 Remaining issues, action items
and wrap-up
Breakout Session
12:00 — 1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 OCPD/WD Joint Session (habitat
enhancement, mitigation banking,
wetlands/NEP, coordination! Crum/Eugster
cooperation) /Soscia
2:00 - 3:15 Where have we been told we will
be going? (categorization; mitigation
banking; Manual; created wetlands;
section 404 assumption; state Eugster/
wetland comprehensive plans) Peck
3:15 — 3:45 Break
3:35 — 4:45 Example of approach to field
testing the Manual Region 3
4:45 - 6:15 What can we do while we’re here?
(elevated cases; enforcement;
delineations; getting better, more
specific data; public outreach;
working with states/locals; working
with other programs) Peck/Eugster
/Vodehna l
8:00 - Open discussion on Manual and
any other issues raised/beer bash
Day 4. Friday .
Breakout Session
8:30 - 10:00 Where do we want to go? (ORD
research plan; beyond the
strategic initiative) Group/ORD
10:00 - 11:30 Wrap-up (action items, etc ) Schwartz
11:30 - 12:00 Good-byes
-------
ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JOINT MEETING
Day 2 Wendesdav July 3] .
12:45 - 1:15 OST/OWOW Coordination Han lon/Grubbs
1:15 - 2:30 Monitoring and Assessment Jester/Regions
o Indicators/EMAP
o Inter-Agency Coordination
o Data Systems Modernization
2:30 — 2:45 Break
3:00 - 4:30 Nonpoint Source Program Weitman/Regions
o Grants: Buying better results
o National NPS monitoring projects
o Tracking/accountability
4:30 - 5:30 Joint Session with OCPD
Day 3L Thursday,. Au ust 3 .
8:00 - 9:45 Water Quality Criteria Stasikouski
and Standards /Leutner
o Criteria: Current program, future needs
o Toxics Rule
o Implementation Issues
9:45 - 11:00 Watershed Program Grubbs/Han lon
o TMDL8
o Targetting
o Regi nal WPIs
-------
-------
OFFICE OF WATER
REORGANIZATION
( Pohoy & Resources
ManaQement
I Office
( OBERT F. PAVLIK, DIRJ
•Po lcyStaff
- Commu atoris and Information
Mariag.m.rii Staff
- Budget and Adrninistralrve
Manegernani Staff
• Human Resources Staff
F
Office of
Wastewater,
Enforcement and
Office of Science
and
Technology
Office of Wetlands,
Oceans
and Watersheds
Cornphance
TUDOR 1. DAVIES, DtR
MICHAEL B COOK, DIR
JOHN P. LEHMAN. DEP.
—.4
JAMES HANLON, DEP.
ARNOLD M. KUZMACK,
SR. SCIENCE ADVISOR
.—
ROBERT H WAYLAND, DIR
DAVID G DAVIS, DEPUTY
—.4
Office of
Ground Water and
Drinking Waler
JAMES R. ELDER, DIR
PETER L. COOK, DEPUTY
Ground Water
Protection DMsiori
RAMONA TPOVATO, DIR
Enforcement & Program
Implementation Division
ROBERT J. BLANCO, DiR
Drinka g Water
Standaids DMs ion
JAMES U. CONLON, DIR
Technical Support Div.
(Cindnn*ti)
ALAN A.. STEVENS. DIR
Office of Water
LAJUANA S. WILCHER, kA
MARTHA G. PROTNROI D 4A
WILLIAM MATUSZESKI, AAA
I
Municipat Support Division
MICHAEL OUIGLEY, DIR
PAUL. N BA .TAY. DEPUTY
Enginis ng and AnalysIs
Division
ThOMAS OFAARELL, DIR.
£nforc.m.nt Division
RICHARD KOZLOWSKI, DIR.
Perm s Divis n
CYNThIA DOUGHERTY. DIR.
ans 8 Coastal
Protection DMsion
MAR IAN MLAY, DIR.
Health and
E bca Crtteria
Drvsbn
MARGARET STASIKOWSKI.
DIRECTOR
Standards and Apç ’hsd
$cianc Diviscn
WiLLIAM R DIAMOND. DIR.
Watlands Div ion
JOHN W. MEAGHER. DIR.
(Acting)
Assessment arid
Wal.rsl*d Division
GEOFFREY H. GRUBBS, DIR
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS, AND WATERSHEDS
Policy & Communications
Staff
Louise Wise, Chief
382-7166
Robert H. Wayland, III, Director
David G. Davis, Deputy Director
382-7166
Budget & Program
Management Staff
Beth Craig, Chief
475-8580
ASSESSMENT & WATERSHED
PROTECTION DIVISION
Geoff Grubbs, Director
Carl Myers, Deputy Director
382-7040
Monitoring Branch
Elizabeth Jester, Chief
382-7074
Information
Monitoring Section Services Section
Mary Belefski,
Chief
Robert King,
Acting Chief
Watershed Branch
Bruce Newton, Acting Chief
382-7046
Watershed Lakes, Grants, and
Management Section Outreach Section
Don Brady, Chief
Frank Lapensee,
Chief
Nonpoint Source Control Branch ^
Dov Weitman, Chief
382-7100
Urban Sources Rural Sources
Section Section
Rod Frederick, Chief Steve Dressing,
Acting Chief
Program Implementation
Section
Stu Teller, Chief
WETLANDS DIVISION
John Meagher, Director
Suzanne Schwartz, Deputy Director
475-7791
Wetlands Strategies &
State Programs Branch
Glenn Eugster, Acting Chief
382-5043
Outreach &
State Programs
Section
Glenn Eugster, Chief
Strategies &
Initiatives
Section
Dianne Fish, Chief
Wetlands & Aquatic Resources
Regulatory Branch
Greg Peck, Acting Chief
475-7799
Enforcement &
Regulatory Policy
Section
Cliff Rader
Acting Chief
Elevated Cases
Section
Will Garvey,
Acting Chief
OCEANS & COASTAL
PROTECTION DIVISION
Manan Mlay, Director
Craig Vogt, Deputy Director
245-3952
Marine Ecological Assessment
Branch
Karen Klirna, Chief
475-7130
Marine Permits & Monitoring
Branch
John Ushman, Chief
475-8448
Coastal Protection Branch
Mary Lou Soscia, Acting Chief
475-7102
Estuarine Management
Branch
Mark Curran, Chief
475-7102
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Robert H. Waylarid, Director 382-7166
David C. Davis, Deputy Director 382-7166
Janice Wingfield, Secretary 382-7166
Policy and Communications Staff
Manages special OWOW projects and initiatives, supports office-wide outreach,
coordinates policy and legislative activities that cut across the OWOW divisions,
and serves as the general point of contact for congressional staff, state and local
governments, and other external groups. Special projects include, for example, the
Watershed Protection Initiative (an initiative to promote an holistic approach to
addressing targeted Watersheds) and national forum on nonpoint source issues.
Louise Wise, Director 382-7166
John T. Pai, Senior Analyst 475-8076
Betty Moore, Secretary 382-7166
Sally Proctor 382-7166
Joan Warren 475-7796
Sandy Cerrnann 475-7218
Paula Monroe 475-6182
Janet Pawlukiewics 382-7194
Budget and Program Management Staff
Provides overall program coordination on issues involving wetlands, oceans, and
watershed activities. Functions also include budget, planning, contract
management, human resources management, and administrative services.
Elizabeth Craig, Director 475-8580
Vacant, Secretary 474-8580
Elena Tidwell, AARP 475-8075
Gloria Hamm 475-8077
Mary Em ton 475-7797
Pat Wilkins 475-8580
Bob Brown 382-7194
Mary Hinton 475-7797
Ray Baum 475-9553
Roy Bathbun 382-7193
John W. Meager, Director 382-5043
-------
Suzanne E. Schwartz, Deputy Director 382-5043
Vacant, Secretary
Geneva Funderburk, Receptionist 382-5043
Renea Davis, Stay-in-School
Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Branch
Glenn Eugster, Acting Branch Chief 382-5043
Virginia Fickling, Secretary 382-5043
Stanley Franczak, Clerk Typist 382-5043
Curtis Clark (AARP) 245-3903
Outreach and State Programs Section
Develops and implements programs, strategies and activities for 1) assisting State,
Tribal, and local governments with wetlands protection including the
administration of Headquarters responsibilities for formal delegation of the CWA
section 404 program to qualified States or Tribes and State Wetlands program
Development Grants; 2) public education, information and outreach on wetlands
values, functions and protection alternatives induding the Wetlands Hotline; 3)
coordination and joint activities with Federal agencies concerning wetlands
protection; and 4) supporting various wetlands related international programs and
organizations.
Glen Eugster, Chief 382-5043
Lori Williams 382-5084
Majorie Wesley 245-3905
Judy Johnson 245-3907
Cory Giacobbee 382-5043
Jeanne Melansort 382-7073
Strategies and Initiatives Section
Develops strategies, policies, technical or program guidance and conducts activities
in the following areas: 1) Assists other EPA programs with the design and
implementation of methods to factor consideration of wetland functions and values
into actions undertaken, managed, funded, or permitted by the Agency (especially
other water programs and Superfund); 2) Initiates and participates in ecosystem
initiatives to address problems of wetland loss and degradation which require
comprehensive strategies or landscape scale approaches; 3) Develops or improves
strategies and approaches to wetlands protection including: state wetland
conservation planning, and Section 401 certification, 4) Coordinates non Section
404 legislative activities for Division and 5) Serves as liaison with the Office of
Research and Development on research planning wetland research related to water
quality and monitoring, and addresses issues of wetlands for wastewater treatment.
-------
Diane Fish, Chief 382-7071
Sherri Field 245-3932
Fran Eargie
Doreen Robb 245-3906
Martha Stout 475-6745
Bill Sipple 382-5066
Wetlands and Aquatic Resources Regulatory Branch
Greg Peck, Acting Chief 475-7799
Stephanie Noble, Secretary 382-7946
Elevated Cases Section
Provides policy and technical support and assistance to the Regions on the review of
activities regulated under Section 10 of the 1899 River and Harbors Act and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. Analyzes cases elevated to EPA Headquarters, providing
programmatic and technical advice for agency decision making on Section 404
actions. Coordinates with the Regions, EPA Headquarters Offices and other Federal
agencies in executing these responsibilities.
Will Garvey, Acting Chief 245-3900
Sandy Sieg-Ross
Joe Davia 245-3902
Enforcement and Regulatory Policy Section
Develops regulations, policies and guidance to provide environmental criteria and
regulations for discharge of dredged and fill material in regulated waters under
CWA Section 404 (b) (1); to restrict or prohibit the use of a discharge site under CWA
Section 404(c); to enforce provisions that address discharges of dredged and fill
material under Clean Water Act Sections 301, 309 and 404; to determine the scope of
waters regulated; and to determine the implementation of exemptions from
regulation. Works with the Regions, the Army Corps of Engineers, other Federal
agencies, and external groups in executing these responsibilities.
Cliff Rader, Acting Chief 382-5087
Hazel Groman 475-8798
John Goodin 475-7799
Cliff Rader 382-5087
Mike Fritz 245-3913
Tom Kelsch 475-7799
Menchu Martinez 382-5299
-------
OCEANS AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Marian Mlay, Director 245-3952
Craig Vogt, Deputy Director 245-3952
Pearl Smith, Secretary 245-3952
Claire McKenzie 245-3952
Marine Ecosystem Protection Branch
Develops and implements programs for 1) the ocean discharge programs under
sections 403 and 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, including marine ecological risk
assessment, regulations, information management, technical guidance for the
Regions and States, and pollution prevention initiatives; 2) manages the Ocean
Survey Vessel, Peter W. Anderson in support of Regional and Headquartefs
monitoring surveys, maintains an active public outreach program through OSV
Anderson activities; 3) coordinates interagency and international oceans programs
and policies including land-based sources.
Karen Klima, Chief 475-7124
Wanda Resper, Secretary 475-7130
Floretta Hanson, AARP 475-7130
Jonathan Amson 475-7125
Barry Burgan 475-7134
Brigitte Farren 475-7530
Ginny Fox-Norse 475-7129
Tim Kas ten 475-7181
Dan Olson - (Sea Grant Fellow)
Kevin Perry 475-7133
Marine Permits and Monitoring Branch
Develops and implements programs and strategies for (1) the regulation of ocean
dumping under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, including
development of regulations and technical guidance, enforcement support and
training, ocean dumping monitoring and guidance to Regions; (2) marine debris
activities, including public education activities, marine debris monitoring activities,
and coordination with other EPA offices and Federal agencies; and (3) technical
support and participation in international programs under the London Dumping
Convention (ocean dumping) and MARPOL (ship-general wastes).
John Lishman, Chief 475-8448
Bernadette Campbell, Secretary 475-8448
Bertye DeSh.ields, AARP 475-8448
Ellen Delaney 475-9798
Susan Hitch 475-7178
-------
Ed McLean, OCPD 475-7122
(Cent. Regional Lab 8 -266-9180)
David Redford 475-7179
Coastal Protection Branch
Implements policies and provides guidance related to the National Estuary (NE ?)
and the Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Programs, including: 1) implementation of
EPA Marine and Coastal Policy and Federal policy development; 2) coordination of
estuarine international issues; 3) work with Regions 2, 3, and 5 and GLNPO on the
Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay (including Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan approval process, Federal consistency, benefits analysis, and
bioassessment procedures; and 5) staff support to manage EPA ’s role in Coastal
America.
Mary Lou Soscia, Acting Chief 475-7102
Joanne King, Secretary 475-7102
Delois Jones, AARP 475-7102
Steve Glomb 475-7114
Betsy Tam 245-4366
Ray Hall 475-6145
Diane David 475-9738
Mark Flory 475-7104
Leanne Stahl 475-9799
Sam Pett - (Sea Grant Fellow) 475-7109
Donna Nickerson 245-4364
(Detail from Office of Air)
Estuarine Management Branch
Implements policies and provides guidance related to the National Estuary Program
(NE?) and the Near Coastal Waters Program (NCW), including 1) implementation
of the NEP data management policy; 2) coordination of the NEP with Federal and
State coastal zone management agencies; 3) implementation of information
transfer tools; 4) oversight of the NE? Action Plan Demonstration Program and the
NCW Pilot Projects; 5) development and application of NE? guidance on
monitoring, estuarine characterization, and action plan financing; and 6) oversight
of public outreach and involvement.
Mark Curran, Chief 475-8483
Nadeen Thompson, Secretary 475-7102
Tom Armitage 475-7378
Stephanie Sanzone 475-7137
Lore I-Iantske 475-7111
Joe Hall 475-8484
Margherita Pryor 475-7176
Susan Jackson 475-7104
-------
ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION
Geoff Grubbs, Director 382-7040
Carl Myers, Deputy Director 382-7040
Barbara Williams, Secretary 382-7040
Monitoring Branch
Responsible for base surface water monitoring programs for the Office of Water and
for designing and directing related automated information systems. Prepares
biennial reports on the status of the Nationrs water quality based upon State Section
305(b) reports, develops water quality indicators, prepares technical guidance for
assessing water quality and coordinates OW surface water monitoring programs
with related programs elsewhere in EPA and the Federal establishment. Manages
and modernizes water quality data and information systems such as STORET, BIDS
ODES, and the Waterbody System to increase the availability and usability of water
quality information nationwide.
Elizabeth Jester, Chief 382-7046
Paulette Williams, Secretary 382-7046
Information Services Section
Robert (Bob) King, Acting Chief 382-7028
Mary Baechtel - (Tetra Tech) 382-7074
Dora Craig 382-7032
Madeline Green 382-7031
Tom Pandolfi 382-7030
Monitoring Section
Ruth Chemerys, Acting Chief 245-3665
(Mary Belfski, Chief - on detail)
Herman Baucom 382-7021
Chris Baulkner 382-6228
Jack Clifford
Nina Harilee 382-7017
Roger Thoma 382-7060
Alice May10 382-7018
-------
Watershed Branch
Responsible for developing national watershed-based policies and programs. These
include activities related to targeting waterbodies for priority dean up, maintaining
and reconciling lists of impaired waterbodies identified by States, and developing
watershed-based total maximum daily loads. Focuses on broad nonpoint source-
related program issues induding grants policies, Clean Lakes program, outreach,
technology transfer, and research needs.,
Bruce Newton, Chief 382-7076
Jendayi Oakley-Gordon, Secretary 382-7074
Martin Brossman 382-7023
Watershed Management Section
Don Brady, Chief 382-5368
Irene Su.zukida 382-7010
Amy Sosin 382-7060
Sue Laufer - (Tetra Tech) 382-6385
Peggy Michell 382-5378
Lakes, Grants and Outreach Section
Frank Lapensee, Chief 382-7105
Tern Hollingsworth 382-7840
Susan Ratcliffe 382-5404
Don Kunkowski 382-7159
Henry Cooke 382-7159
Paulette Ballard 475-9588
Hal Wise (AARP) 382-7109
Carol Forshee (AARP) 245-3665
Harold Owens (AARP) 245-3666
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Concentrates efforts on the implementation of State and Federal nonpoint source
programs. The highest priority is development and execution of State nonpoint
source control programs required by Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and by
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act of 1990,
induding the development of technical guidance for best management measures for
major categories and classes of nonpoint sources. Responsible for establishing
effective nonpoint source control programs in collaboration with major Federal
agencies and departments, especially USDA, DOT, DOT, and NOAA.
Dov Weitman, Chief 382-7085
-------
Jan Shifflett, Secretary 382-7100
Dov Weitman* - Ni’S Forum 392-7085
Program Implementation Section
Stuart Tuller, Chief 382-7085
Lynda Buie, Secretary 382-7085
Ann Beier 382-7108
Ed Richard 475-7314
Pamela Harris 382-3800
Anne Weinberg 282-7107
Rural Sources Section
Steve Dressing, Acting Chief 382-7110
John Cannell 382-7062
Robert losco - (ll’A) 382-7025
Urban Sources Section
Rod Frederick, Chief 382-7056
Ed Drabkowski 382-7056
Bob Thronson 382-7103
Chris Zabawa
Robert Goo 382-7025
-------
OFFICE OF WATER
Assistant Administrator
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Associate Assistant Administrator
Policy and Resources Management Office
Policy Staff
Human Resources Staff
Communications and Information
Management Staff
Budget and Administrative Management
Staff
Lajuana S. Wilcher
Martha C. Prothro
William Matuszeski
Robert F. Pavlik
Cynthia F. Puskar (Acting)
John A. Alter (Acting)
Michelle Hiller
Kathi Wilson (Acting)
OFFICE OF WASTEWATER ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
Office Director
Deputy Office Director
Resources Management & Evaluation Staff
Municipal Support Division
Director
Deputy Director
State Revolving Fund Branch
Construction Grants Branch
Program Management Branch
Municipal Technology Branch
Enforcement Division
Director
Compliance Information & Evaluation
Branch
Enforcement Support Branch
Policy Development Branch
Permits Division
Pretreatment And Multi-Media Branch
NPDES Program Branch
Water Quality And Industrial Permits
Branch
Michael B. Cook
John P. Lehman
Edward A. Kramer
Michael J. Quigley
Paul M. Baltay
Richard T. Kuhiman
Elaine Greening
Stephen P. Albee
Robert E. Lee
Richard C. Kozlowski
Stephen E. Martin
David N. Lyons
Mildred A. Lassiter
Cynthia C. Dougherty
James D. Taft
Ephraim S. King
William F. Brandes
-------
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Office Director
Deputy Office Director
Policy and Communications Staff
Budget and Program Management Staff
Engineering and Analysis Division
Director
Deputy Director
Analytical Methods Staff
Commodities Branch
Chemicals Branch
Energy Branch
Metals Branch
Economic & Statistical Analysis Branch
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Director
Human Risk Assessment Branch
Sludge Risk Assessment Branch
Ecological Risk Assessment Branch
Standards and Applied Science Division
Director
Deputy Director
Water Quality Standards Branch
Risk Assessment & Management Branch
Exposure Assessment Branch
Tudor T. Davies
James M. Hanlon
Mary E. Blakesiee
Linda Bell Wilbur
Thomas P. O’Farrell
Mark A. Luttner
William A. Telliard
Donald F. Anderson
Elwood H. Forsht
Marvin B. Rubin
Ernst P. Hall
Nilesh M. Patel
Margaret J. Stasikowski
Edward V. Ohanian
Alan B. Rubin
Robert W. April
William R. Diamond
Frederick D. Leutner
David K. Sabock
Elizabeth Southerland
Vacancy
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS
Office Director
Deputy Office Director
Policy and Communications Staff
Budget and Program Management Staff
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Director
Deputy Director
Monitoring Branch
Watershed Branch
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Robert H. Wayland ifi
David G. Davis
Louise P. Wise
Elizabeth Craig
Goeffrey H. Grubbs
Carl F. Meyers
Elizabeth J. Jester
Bruce Newton (Acting)
Dov Weitman
-------
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Director Mariart Mlay
Deputy Director Craig Vogt
Marine Ecological Assessment Branch Karen S. Klima
Marine Permits & Monitoring Branch John Lishman
Coastal Protection Branch Mary Lou Soscia (Acting)
Estuarine Management Branch Mark D. Cuman
Wetlands Division
Director John W. Meagher
Deputy Director Suzanne E. Schwartz
Wetlands Strategies & State Programs
Branch Glenn Eugster (Acting)
Wetlands & Aquatic Resources
Regulatory Branch Greg Peck (Acting)
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
Office Director James R. Elder
Deputy Office Director Peter L. Cook
Resources Management & Evaluation
Staff Jane T. Ephremides
Ground-Water Protection Division
Director Ramona Trovato
Deputy Director John Trax
Technical & Regulatory Analysis Branch Ron Hoffer
State Programs & Policy Integration
Branch Robert W. Baries
Source Assessment & Information
Management Branch Nobert Dee
Underground Injection Control Branch Francoise M. Brasier
Drinking Water Standards Division
Director James M. Conion
Deputy Director Alan B. Hais
Regulatory Management Branch Alan B. Hais (Acting)
Drinking Water Technology Branch Stephen W. Clark
Enforcement and Program Implementation Division
Director Robert J. Bianco
Deputy Director Carl B. Reeverts
Drinking Water Branch Connie M. Bosma
Enforcement Branch Vacant
-------
Technical Support Division-Cincinnati
Director Alan A. Stevens
Water Supply Technology Branch James J. Westrick
Drinking Water Quality Assess Branch Herbert J. Brass
-------
REGION
R1 cPON 1RIc. OFFWF.S INTFIF. RF( TONS FOR (IWOW PROGRAM
—&_• lLSpMa.d
Wetlands
NEPINCW/Oceans
304(1)/305(b)TrMDL
NPS/Clean Lakes
as. ...,
Monitoring
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Environmental
Evaluation Branch
(Ron Lee)
Office of Deputy Director
(Ron Kretzenbeck)
Water Management Division (WMD)
Waler Quahxy Branch
(Ron Manfredonia)
Water Management Division
Enviro. Svcs. Div.
Moal g/Envjro.
Studies Branch
(Cami Wood)
Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch
(Mario Del Vicario)
Water Standards &
Planning Branch
(Robert Vaughn)
Environmental Services Division (ESD)
Envirosimcntal Assessment Branch
(Richard Papino)
Enviro.Svcs. Div.
Surveillance &
Monitoring Branch
(Richard Spear)
Water Mgmt Div . 1
Program Support
nch
(Victoria Binetti)
En*o Svcs. Div.
Environmental
M
(Robert Kramer)
Water Management Division
Water Quality Management Branch
(Mike McGhee)
Water Division 2
Water Quality Branch
(Ken Fenner)
Envtro.Sc iences
Division
Monit. 4 A Branch
(Valerie Jones)
Environmental
Services Division
Federal Activities
Branch
(Norm Thomas)
I
I Water Management Division 3
I Water Quality Management Branch
(Richard Hoppers)
Environmental
SCI rI Division
Surveillance Branch
(Jim Sceibmg)
Assistant Regional
Adminisnator for
Policy & Mgmt
(Susan Gordon)
Bay. Review Branch
(Kerty Herndon)
Water Management
Division
Water Compliance
Branch
(Larry Ferguson)
Envio. Services
Division
Enviro. Monitoring
Comphance Branch
(Thomas Holloway)
Water Mgmt. Div.
State Program
Management Branch
(Dale Vodehoal)
Water Management Division
State Program Management Branch
(Dale Vodehnal)
Water Management Division
Wetlands, Oceans and Esniaries Branch Water Quality Branch
(Loretta Barsamian) (Cat Kuhlman)
10
Water Division 1
I In a.ç 3, 304 (1) TMDI. . npd by s I Wnu Enfotc. ! Br cb (Jc*q b I P o ooob) of thi With, M a i I vi
m d 303(b) • by i mzmuom N M ini md Sw ,sdImm Brmcb of t Enouin sn i S.r ,uo Dn,noo.
3 In jm 3, )03(b)i. ozma4 by Mm n 1 md QA B b of cIn Euou cmn J Sccmcis cU
3 lo Rapm 6, Om j o thmn.d jomOy by . ,coocom Sc.somo D .c.cao md Wotho Mma mt Divcoco
4 In Rsgicm 10. 11401 ci icina d by cb. A b*nc Mcmcmnni mod Amlyon Bcm of cIn En ,c o couj Ss,..cos Dcowm.
Enviro. Svcs. Div.
Ambient Mon. &
Analysis Branch
(Bienvenido Eusebio
-------
REGIONAL CONTACTS FOR THE NATIONAL ESTURARY PROGRAMS
REGION
National Estuary Program
Contact
FTS
1
Buzzards Bay
Bruce Rosinoff
835-3514
Casco Bay
Mark Smith
835-9461
Long Island Sound
Sue Beede
835-3581
Massachusetts Bay
Matthew Liebman
835-3514
Narragansett Bay
Katrina Kipp
835-3523
2
Delaware Bay
Eric Stern
264-5283
Long Island Sound
Mark Tedesco
264-5170
New York - New Jersey Harbor
Seth Ausubel
264-5170
3
Delaware Bay
Mama O’Malley
301/266-9180
Delaware Inland Bays
Krista Mendelman
597-3360
4
Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary Study
Ted Bisterfeld
257-4727
Gulf of Mexico
Lloyd Wise
257-2126
Indian River Lagoon
Carol Tarras
257-2126
Sarasota Bay
Rhonda Evans
257-2126
Tampa Bay
Rhonda Evans
257-2526
5
Great Lakes National Program Office
John Piper
353-8030
6
Barataria - Terrebonne
Barbara Keeler
255-6680
Galveston Bay
Ken Teague
255-6680
Gulf of Mexico
Russell Putt
255-6680
7 &
8
No National Estuary Programs
9
San Francisco Bay
Amy Zimpfer
484-1952
Santa Monica Bay
Paul Jones
484-1984
10
Puget Sound
Jack Gakstatter
399-0966
-------
REGIONAL COMPACTS FOR OWOW PROGRAMS 1
[ PROGRAM
REGION
WETLANDS
NCW
OCEAN
DUMPING
MARINE
DEBRIS
403(c)
301(h)
304(1)
305(b)
TMDL
NPS
CLEAN
LAKES
MONITORING
1
Douglas
Thccçscn
ITS 835-4622
Ros mry
Honahan
ITS 835-3518
Gwen Rute
ITS 835-4423
Juan Butte
ITS 835-4420
David Teney
US 835-4425
Phil Coterusso
Us 835-4428
Nancy Sullivan
ITS 835-3544
Nancy Sullivan
US 835-3544
David Pinctathe
ITS 835-3564
Nancy
Sullivan
US 835-3546
Warren Howard
FTS 835-3515
Diane Switter
ITS 6604.377
2
Den Montello
ITS 264-5170
Janice
aol (wagon
FTS 264-5170
Bruce
Kiselica
ITS 264-5692
Paul Molinari
ITS 264-2513
Felix
Locicero
ITS 264-5691
Fells Locicero
ITS 264-5691
Rosetta
OCossier
FTS 2648479
Pat Pergola
ITS 264-5623
Roselia
O’Corsier
ITS 264-8479
Tony Dore
US 2642059
Theresa Faber
IT 264-8708
Randy Bratli
ITS 340-6692
3
Barbara
DAngelo
ITS 597-9301
Bill Muir
ITS 597-2541
Dill Muir
ITS 597-2541
Charles App
ITS 597-9589
Dill Muir
US 597-2541
Thomas Henry
ITS 597-8243
Chuck Kenetsky
ITS 597-8176
Thusms Henry
115 S978243
Hank Zy suit
ITS 5973429
Hank Zygoszit
FTS 5973429
Chuck Kanetsky
ITS 5978176
Wesley Do’
Cr i.
US 257-4450
Orb Lord
ITS 257-2126
Bob Howard
ITS 257-1740
Bob Howard
US 257-1740
Bob Howard
ITS 257-1740
Dan Ahern
ITS 257-2126
Duane
Robertson
ITS 257-101.0
Jim Greenfield
ITS 257-2126
Beverly
(thridge
ITS 257-2126
Howard
Marshall
ITS 257-2126
Dan Aherri
ITS 257-2126
Doug (horn
ITS 886-0243
Janet Causey
ITS 353-2079
Jane Defiose-
Bannem
ITS 353-2105
Wayne Davis
ITS 886-6233
Robert Pepin
ITS 886-1505
Tom Davenport
ITS 886-0209
Tom Davenport
ITS 886-0209
Wayne Davis
ITS 886-6233
6
Jerry Senders
ITS 255-2263
Russell Putt
FTS 255-6680
George
Horvath
ITS 255-6680
George
Norvath
ITS 255-6680
Brian Burgess
ITS 255-7175
Russell Bowen
ITS 255-7140
Carl Yo.sig
ITS 255-7145
David Neteigh
FTS 255-7145
Susan
Alexander
ITS 255-7140
Mike Dire
ITS 255-7140
Charles Hornig
ITS 255-2289
7
Diane
Hershberger
ITS 276-7573
Bob Steiert
ITS 276-7443
John Houlihan
ITS 276-7432
John Houlihan
ITS 276-7432
Julie ((tying
ITS 276-1475
Doswia Set ton
ITS 276-7500
Tom Holloway
ITS 276-3881
8
Gene Reetz
ITS 330-1570
Bruce Zander
ITS 330-1580
Tony Ott
ITS 330-1573
Bruce Zander
ItS 330-1580
Roger Dean
ITS 330-1571
David Rathke
ITS 330-1574
David Vane-Miller
ITS 330-5061
9
Phil Oshida
ITS 464-1971
Suzanne Marr
FTS 684-1963
Stephanie
Wilson
ITS 484-1962
Aaron Setren
ITS 484-1967
Stephanie
Wilson
175 484-1962
Janet
Hashiemto
FTS 484-1962
Ten Johnson
ITS 484-2006
Laura Ten
ITS 484-2006
Laura Toss
ITS 484-2006
Javuta
Parjarillo
ITS 484-2011
Wendell Smith
ITS 484-2018
Laura Tom
ITS 484-2006
10
Williem M.
Riley
FTS 399-1412
Jack
Gaketetter
FTS 399-0966
John Malek
ITS 399-1282
John
Arsmtrong
ITS 399-1368
Chuck Rice
ITS 399-8504
Carla Fisher
ITS 399-1756
Rick AIbright
ITS 399-8514
Gretchen
Iiayslip
ITS 399-1685
Bruce Cleland
115 399-2600
((bert Moore
ITS 399-4181
Ji. ith
Leckrone
PTS 399-6911
Gretchen Hayslip
ITS 399-1685
1 Contacts for the National Estuary Progrmris are Listed separately.
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 1 June 18, 1991
Phil Colarusso Nancy Sullivan
301 (h) 304 (I)
Water Quality Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 1 U S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
FIS 835-4428 FFS 835-3548
Nancy Sullivan David Tomey
305 (b) 403 (c)
Water Quality Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region I U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
Fl’S 835-3546 FTS 835-4425
Warren Howard Juan Rutte
Clean Lakes Marine Debns
Water Quality Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1 U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building, Rm 2203 JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3515 FTS 835-4420
Diane Swilzer Rosemary Monahan
Monitoring N W
Monitoring & Environmental Studies Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1 U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
FTS 860-4377 FTS 835-3518
Bruce Rosinofi Mark Smith
NEP Buzzards Bay NEP Casco Bay
Waler Quality Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1 U.s. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3514 FTS 835-9461
Sue Beede Matthew Liebman
NEP Long Island Sound NEP Massachusetts Bays
Water Quality Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1 U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3518 FTS 835-3514
Katrina Kipp Nancy Sullivan
NEP Narragansett Bay NPS
Water Quality Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region I U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3523 FTS 835-3546
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region i June 18, 1991
Gwen Ruta David Pincumbe
Ocean Dumping TMDL
Water Quality Branch Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1 U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203 Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-4423 FTS 835-3544
Douglas Thompson
Wetlands
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-4422
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 2
June 18, 1991
Felix Locicero
301 (h)
Marine and Wetland Protection Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5691
Pat Pergola
305 (b)
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5623
Theresa Faber
Clean Lakes
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
NewYork,NY 10278
FTS 264-8708
Randy Braun
Monitoring
Surveillance & Monitoring Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 340-6692
Enc Stem
NEP Delaware Bay
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5283
Seth Ausubel
NEP New York - New Jersey Harbor
Manne and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
FTS 264-5170
Bruce Kiselica
Ocean Dumping
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5692
Rosella O’Conner
304 (I)
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-8479
Felix Locicero
403(c)
Manne and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5691
Paul Molinan
Manne Debns
Manne and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-2513
Janice Roliwagon
Manne and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5170
Mark Tedesco
NEP Long Island Sound
Manne and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5170
Tony Dore
NPS
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-2059
Rosella O’Conrier
ThIDI
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-8479
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 2 June 18, 1991
Dan Montella
Wetlands
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Pla2a
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5170
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 3
Thomas Henry
304 (I)
Permits Enforcement Branch
U S EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8243
Chuck Kanetsky
305(b)
Environmental Monitoring & Surveillance
U S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8176
June 18, 1991
Bill Muir
403 (c)
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-2541
Charles App
Marine Debns
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-9589
Bill Muir
NCW
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-2541
Krista Mendelman
NEP Delaware Inland Bays
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-3360
Bill Muir
Ocean Dumping
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-2541
Barbara D’Angelo
Wetlands
Environmental Assessment Branch
U S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia. PA 19107
FTS 597-9301
Hank Zygmunt
Clean Lakes
Program Support Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-3429
Chuck Kanetsky
Monitoring
Environmental Monitoring Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8176
Mama O’Malley
NEP Delaware Bay
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
3011266-9180
Hank Zygmunt
NPS
Program Support Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-3429
Thomas Henry
IMDL
Water Permits Enforcement Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8243
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 4
Dan Ahern
304 (I)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Duane Robertson
305 (b)
Water Quality Management Branch
U S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-1040
June 18, 1991
Bob Howard
403 (c)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-174.0
Bob Howard
Manne Debns
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA. Region 4
345 Couriland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 347-1740
Bob Lord
N W
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Lloyd Wise
NEP Gull of Mexico
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtiand Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Rhonda Evans
NEP Sarasota Bay
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Beverly Ethndge
NPS
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FIS 257-2126
Howard Marshall
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Dan Ahem
Monitoring
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA. Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Ted Busterfeld
NEP Albemarte!Pamlico Estuary Study
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-4727
Carol Tarras
NEP Indian River Lagoon
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Rhonda Evans
NEP Tampa Bay
Water Quality Mana9ement Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Bob Howard
Ocean Dumping
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-1740
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 4
Jim Greentield
ThDL
Water Quality Management Branch
U S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Wesley 8o Crum
Wetlands
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-4450
June 18, 1991
-------
June 18, 1991
OWOW Contacts in Region 5
Jane DeRose-Bannem
304 (I)
Water Quality Branch
U S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 353.2105
Wayne Davis
305(b)
Monitoring and QA Branch
U.S EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-6233
Tom Davenport
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-0209
Wayne Davis
Monitoring
Monitoring & QA Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-6233
Janet Causey
NCW
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 353-2079
Robert Pepin
ThIDL
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago IL 60604
FTS 886-1505
Torn Davenport
NPS
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-0209
Doug Ehom
Wetlands
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. IL 60604
FTS 886-0243
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 6
Russell Bowen
304(l)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7140
Carl Young
305(b)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue. Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7145
June 18, 1991
Bnan Burgess
403 (c)
Water Quality Management Branch
U S. EPA, Region 6
1455 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7175
George Horvath
Marine Debns
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue. Surte 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-6680
Russell Putt
NCW
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-6680
Ken Teague
NEP Galveston Bay
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 255-6680
Susan Alexander
NPS
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7140
Norm Thomas
Ocean Dumping
Water Quality Management Branch
U S EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 484-2260
Mike Bira
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Management Branch
U S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Street, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7140
Charles Homig
Monitoring
Surveillance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-2289
Barbara Keeler
NEP Baratana - Terrebonne
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 255-6680
Russell Putt
NEP Gulf of Mexico
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 255-6680
George Horvath
Ocean Dumping
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-6680
David Neleigh
TMDL
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA. Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7145
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 6 June 18, 1991
Jerry Sanders
Wetlands
Federal Activities Branch
U.S. EPA. Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-2263
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 7
Bob Steiert
304 (I)
Water Compliance Branch
U.S EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7443
John Houlihan
305 (b)
Water Compliance Branch
U S EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas Culy,KA 66101
FTS 276-7432
June 18, 1991
Donna Setton
Clean Lakes
Water Compliance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7500
Tom Holloway
Monitoring
Environmental Monitonng & Compliance
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-3881
Julie Elfving
NPS
WaterComphance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7475
Diane Hershberger
Wetlands
Environmental Review Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7573
John Houhhan
1MDL
Water Compliance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7432
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 8
Bruce Zander
304 (I)
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FIS 330-1580
Tony Ott
305 (b)
State Program Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 330-1573
June 18, 1991
David Rathke
Clean Lakes
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FIS 330-1574
Roger Dean
NPS
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
One Denver Place, 999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
FIS 330-1571
Gene Reetz
Wetlands
State Program Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500. Denver Place
Denver, CO 80202
FIS 330-1570
David Vana-Miller
Monitoring
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 330-5061
Bruce Zander
TMDL
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 293-1580
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 9
Janet Hashimoto
301 (h)
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 98105
FTS 484-1962
Tom Johnson
304 ( I)
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
June 18, 1991
Laura Tom
305 (b)
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
Wendell Smith
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2018
Stephanie Wilson
403 (c)
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1962
Aaron Setran
Marine Debris
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484.-i 967
Laura Toni
Monitoring
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
Amy Zimpfer
NEP San Francisco
Wetlands Oceans ans Estuanes Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1952
Javita Parjarillo
NPS
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2011
Suzanne Marr
NCW
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1963
Paul Jones
NEP Santa Monica Bay
Wetlands Oceans ans Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco , CA 94103
FTS 484-1984
Stephanie Wilson
Ocean Dumping
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1962
Laura Tom
TMDL
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
Phil Oshida
Wetlands
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1971
-------
OWOW Contacts in Region 10
Carla Fisher
301 (h)
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1756
Rick Albnght
304 (I)
Office of Deputy Director
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-8514
June 18, 1991
Gretchen Hayslip
305 (b)
Office of Deputy Director
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1685
Chuck Rice
403 (c)
Office of Deputy Director
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-8504
Judith Leckrone
Clean Lakes
Office of Water Planning
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-6911
John Armstrong
Marine Debns
Office of Coastal Waters
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1368
Gretchen Hayslip
Monitoring
Ambient Monitoring & Analysis Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-8514
Jack Gakstaller, Chief
NEP Puget Sound
Office of Coastal Waters
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-0966
Jack Gakstatter
Office of Coastal Waters
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
F S 399-0966
Elbert Moore
NPS
Water Permits and Compliance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-4181
John Malek
Ocean Dumping
Office of Deputy Director
U.S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1282
William M. Riley
Wetlands
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U S. EPA. Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FIS 399-1412
Bruce Cleland
Na
Ambient Monitoring & Analysis Branch
U.S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-2600
-------
Gwen Ruth
Ocean Dumping
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FIS 835-4423
Bruce Kiselica
Ocean Dumping
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5692
Bob Howard
Ocean Dumping
Water Quality Management Branch
U S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FIS 257-1740
Norm Thomas
Ocean Dumping
Waler Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-2260
John Malek
Ocean Dumping
Office of Deputy Director
U S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FIS 399-1282
Bill Muir
Ocean Dumping
Environmental Assessment Branch
US. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FIS 597-2541
George Horvath
Ocean Dumping
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-6680
Stephanie Wilson
Ocean Dumping
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1962
Regional OWOW Contacts for Ocean Dumping
June 18, 1991
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for Monitoring
Diane Swilzer
Monitoring
Monitoring & Environmental Studies Branch
U S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 860-4377
Gretchen Hayslip
Monitoring
Ambient Monitoring & Analysis Branch
US EPA. Region 10
1200 Stxlh Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-8514
June 18, 1991
Randy Braun
Monitoring
Surveillance & Monitoring Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 340-6692
Dan Ahern
Monitoring
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtiand Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Charles Homig
Monitoring
Surveillance Branch
U.S EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FF5 255-2289
Chuck Kanetsky
Monitoring
Environmental Monitoring Branch
U.S EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8176
Wayne Davis
Monitoring
Monitoring & QA Branch
U.S. EPA. Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-6233
Toni Holloway
Monitoring
Environmental Monitoring & Compliance
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas GUy, KS 66101
FTS 276-3881
David Vana-Milier
Monitoring
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 330-5061
Laura Tom
Monitoring
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for 304 (I)
Nancy Sullivan
304 (I)
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA. Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-354
Rick Aibright
304 (I)
Office of Deputy Director
US EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FIS 399-8514
June 18, 1991
Rosella O’Conner
304 (I)
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264.8479
Dan Ahem
304 (I)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtiand Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Russell Bowen
304 (I)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7140
Bruce Zander
304 (I)
State Program Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 330-1580
Thomas Henry
304 (I)
Permits Enforcement Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FFS 597-8243
Jane DeRose-Bannem
304 (I)
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 353-2105
Bob Steiert
304 (I)
Water Compliance Branch
U S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7443
Tom Johnson
304(I)
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for 305 (b)
Nancy Sullivan
305 (b)
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3546
Gretchen Hayslip
305 (b)
Off ice of Deputy Director
U S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1685
June 18, 1991
Pat Pergola
305 (b)
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5623
Duane Robertson
305(b)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA. Region 4
345 Courtland Streel, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-1040
Carl Young
305(b)
Water Quality Management Branch
U S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7145
Tony Ott
305 (b)
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 330-1573
Chuck Kanetsky
305 (b)
Environmental Monitoring & Surveillance
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8176
Wayne Davis
305 (b)
Monitoring and QA Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, II 60604
FTS 886-6233
John Houlihan
305 (b)
Water Compliance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KA 66101
FTS 276-7432
Laura Tom
305 (b)
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for 403 (c)
David Tomey
403 (c)
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-4425
Chuck Rice
403 (c)
Office of Deputy Director
U S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
FTS 399-8504
June 18, 1991
Felix Locicero
403 (c)
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5691
Bob Howard
403 (c)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-1740
Stephanie Wilson
403 (c)
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1962
Bill Muir
403(c)
Environmental Assessment Branch
U S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-2541
Brian Burgess
403 (c)
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1455 Ross Avenue, Swte 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7175
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for Clean Lakes
June 18, 1991
Warren Howard
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building. Rm 2203
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3515
Judith Leckrone
Clean Lakes
Office of Water Planning
U S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-6911
Theresa Faber
Clean Lakes
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-8708
Howard Marshall
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Branch
U S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street. NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Hank Zygmunt
Clean Lakes
Program Support Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-3429
Tom Davenport
Clear, Lakes
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-0209
Mike Bira
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Street, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7140
David Rathke
Clean Lakes
State Program Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 330-1574
Donna Sefton
Clean Lakes
Water Compliance Branch
U S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7500
Wendell Smith
Clean Lakes
Water Quality Branch
U S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2018
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for Marine Debris
Juan Rutte
Marine Debris
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA. Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-4420
John Armstrong
Marine Debris
Office of Coastal Waters
U S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-1368
June 18, 1991
Paul Molinari
Marine Debris
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-2513
Bob Howard
Marine Debris
Water Quality Management Branch
U S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
F S 347-1740
Aaron Setran
Marine Debns
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1967
Charles App
Marine Debris
Environmental Assessment Branch
U S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-9589
George Horvath
Marine Debns
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA. Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-6680
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for NCW
June 18, 1991
Rosemary Monahan
NCW
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3518
Jack Gakstatter
Office of Coastal Waters
US EPA. Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-0966
Janice Roliwagon
NCW
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5170
Bob Lord
NCW
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA. Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Russell Putt
NCW
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-6680
Bill Muir
cw
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-1181
Janet Causey
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 353-2079
Suzanne Marr
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FIS 484-1963
-------
Phil Colarusso
301 (h)
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA. Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
F l ’S 835-4428
Felix Locicero
301 (h)
Marine and Wetland Protection Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5691
Carla Fisher
301 (h)
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U S EPA, RegLon 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FT’S 399-1756
Janet Hashimoto
301 (h)
Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U.S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 98105
FTS 484-1962
RegIonal OWOW Contacts for 301 (h)
June 18, 1991
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for NPS
Nancy Sullivan
NPS
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-354.6
Elbert Moore
NPS
Water Permits and Compliance Branch
U S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-4181
June 18, 1991
Tony Dore
NPS
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-2059
Beverly Ethndge
NPS
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Susan Alexander
NPS
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7140
Roger Dean
NPS
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
One Denver Place, 999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2413
FIS 330-1571
Hank Zygmunt
NPS
Program Support Branch
U S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-3429
Tom Davenport
NPS
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-0209
Julie Elfving
NPS
WaterComphance Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7475
Javita Parjarillo
NPS
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2011
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for NEP
Bruce Rosinotf
NEP Buzzards Bay
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3514
Mark Smith
NEP Casco Bay
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-9461
June 18, 1991
Sue Beede
NEP Long Island Sound
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3518
Katnna Kipp
NEP Narragansett Bay
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3523
Eric Stern
NEP Delaware Bay
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5283
Seth Ausubel
NEP New York - New Jersey Harbor
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 1 0278-0090
FTS 264-5170
Krista Mendelman
NEP Delaware Inland Bays
Environmental Assessment Branch
U S EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597.335
Lloyd Wise
NEP Gulf of Mexico
Water Quality Management Branch
U S EPA. Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
Matthew Liebman
NEP Massachusetts Bays
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3514
Jack Gakstatter, Chief
NEP Puget Sound
Office of Coastal Waters
U S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-0966
Mark Tedesco
NEP Long Island Sound
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5170
Marria O’Malley
NEP Delaware Bay
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S EPA, Region 3
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
301/266-9180
Ted Busterfeld
NEP Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary Study
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-4727
Carol Tarras
NEP Indian River Lagoon
Water Quality Management Branch
U S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for NEP
Rhonda Evans
NEP Sarasota Bay
Water Quality Management Branch
U S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtlarid Street, NE
Atlanla, GA 30365
FTS 257.2126
Rhonda Evans
NEP Tampa Bay
Water Quality Management Branch
U S EPA. Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
June 18, 1991
Barbara Keeler
NEP Barataria - Terrebonne
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 255-6680
Russell Putt
NEP Gulf of Mexico
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 255-6680
Paul Jones
NEP Santa Monica Bay
Wetlands Oceans ans Estuaries Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
1235 Mission Street
San Francisco ,CA 94103
FTS 484-1984
ken Teague
NEP Galveston Bay
Waler Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 255-6680
Amy Zimpter
NEP San Francisco
Wetlands Oceans ans Estuanes Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1952
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for Wetlands
Douglas Thompson
Wetlands
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA. Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-4422
William M Riley
Wetlands
Environmental Evaluation Branch
US EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixlh Avenue
Seattle. WA 08101
FTS 399-1412
June 18, 1991
Dan Montella
Wetlands
Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
U S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-5170
Wesley Bo” Crum
Wetlands
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-4450
Jerry Sanders
Wetlands
Federal Activities Branch
U.S EPA. Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-2263
Gene Reetz
Wetlands
State Program Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver Place
Denver, CO 80202
FTS 330-1570
Barbara D’Angelo
Wetlands
Environmental Assessment Branch
U.S EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-9301
Doug Ehorn
Wetlands
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS 886-0243
Diane Hershberger
Wetlands
Environmental Review Branch
U S EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
ETS 276-7573
Phil Oshida
Wetlands
Wetlands Oceans and Estuaries Branch
U S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-1971
-------
Regional OWOW Contacts for TMDL
David Prncumbe
TMDL
Water Quality Branch
U S EPA, Region 1
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 835-3544
Bruce Cleland
TMDL
Ambient Monitoring & Analysis Branch
U.S EPA. Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS 399-2600
June 18, 1991
Rosella O’Conner
TMDL
Water Standards and Planning Branch
U.S EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS 264-8479
Jim Greenfield
ThiDi
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2126
David Neleigh
TMDL
Water Quality Management Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Surte 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
FTS 255-7145
Bruce Zander
IMDL
State Program Management Branch
U.S EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS 293-1580
Thomas Henry
TMDi
Water Permits Enforcement Branch
U.S EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS 597-8243
Robert Pepin
ThDL
Water Quality Branch
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago IL 60604
FTS 886-1505
John Houlihan
IMOL
Water Compliance Branch
US EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS 276-7432
Laura Tom
ThIDL
Water Quality Branch
U.S EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS 484-2006
-------
MARK D. CURRAN
Chief, Estuarine Management Branch
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
I was born and raised in Newburyport, Massachusetts, along
with the other 240 kids in my High Scool graduating class.
Newburyport really set the stage for my choice of careers, living
at the mouth of the Merrimack River, working around fishing
boats, and spending much of my “recreational time” on the beach
at Plum Island. When I told him that I wanted to be a marine
biologist when I grew up, my misguided guidance counselor (a big
fan of Jacques Cousteau) thought that sounded great, so off I
went to the University of Rhode Island. After four years, I left
URI with a BS in Zoology, a minor in Marine Affairs, and a wife
(not in that order).
After college, I joined a small environmental consulting
firm called TAXON, Inc. in (you guessed it) Massachusetts. Our
capabilities statement was pretty much limited to benthic
monitoring. With a staff of about 10 people, everyone did
everything; sample collection, laboratory analysis, data
synthesis, report writing, and marketing. About a year after I
arrived, the company’s owner (a benthic ecologist from New
Zealand) succeeded in acquiring enough debt for the company
to qualify for Chapter 11. seeing the hand writing on the wall,
I moved on to a larger contractor; Battelle Ocean Sciences in
Duxbury, Massachusetts.
I continued with benthic monitoring studies for the first
couple of years at Battelle, but gradually began to move out of
field and lab work and into marine policy and assessment. In
Year 5 of a 7 year stint with Battelle, I became Deputy Program
Manager on the technical support contract with EPA’S Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection (remember OMEP?). In Year 6 I
relocated to Washington, DC to manage Battelle’s staff assigned
to the contract, with primary responsibility for all work being
done in support of the National Estuary Program and Near Coastal
Waters Program. This prepared me for a position that opened up
in 1989 with the Technical Support Division of OMEP; I applied
and was hired. I became Acting Chief of OMEP’s Technical
Services Branch in January of 1990, and became permanent in
October 1990. This Branch, which became the Estuarine Management
Branch after the OW reorganization, shares responsibility for the
National Estuary Program and the Near Coastal Waters Program with
the Coastal Protection Branch.
My wife Donna, three kids (Emma 6, Jessie 4, and Christopher
2, in case you want to send birthday cards), dog, and I live in
Fairfax, VA, which is 15 miles and 2 hours from Washington, DC.
After living in the Washington area for the last three years,
we’re starting to unpack the boxes. But not all of them!!
-------
DAVID G. DAVIS
Autobiographical Sketch
I was born and raised in a tiny coal-mining town in the hill country of
Southern Illinois. Thanks to the local culture and natural environment and
parents interested in nature and conservation, I spent much of my time
wandering the fields, woods, and bottomland swamps fishing and hunting.
Very early on I became particularly interested in birds and native plants. I
followed my dad’s footsteps to the University of fllinois where I majored in
Microbiology and minored in Biochemistry and fraternity social life (Delta
Chi). I got my BS and a U.S. Air Force Commission in 1967. The Air Force
allowed me an extra year to get my MS in Microbiology, and in late 1968 I
entered active duty. For reasons never made clear to me, the Air Force placed
me in the supply services field involving the management of dining halls,
commissaries, exchanges, housing, and the like--not very glamorous but good
management experience. I spent 3 years in Charleston, South Carolina
(where I met and married my first wife), eventually becoming a Captain and
Squadron Commander of an almost 500-person squadron. My last year was
spent at Udorn in Thailand where I got to participate at a generally safe
distance in the war. Upon leaving the Air Force, I went back to school
(Harvard Business School) and got an MBA. I then combined by biology and
management education with my lifelong interest in conservation, and found
a job in the recently-created EPA. Over the course of time, I worked as an
economic impact analyst, a general policy analyst, and a manager at various
levels and in a variety of program areas including industrial effluent
guidelines, sewage sludge management, toxic substances control,
environmental impact assessment, federal facilities compliance, Indian
activities, and wetlands protection. It has been in the latter area that I have
spent the most time (about 13 years) culminating in being chosen to head the
Office of Wetlands Protection shortly after its establishment in late 1986, a
position I held until the Office of Water reorganization of April 1991. I
remarried in 1979 and have two children--Richard (1982) and Lisa (1985). My
wife, JoAnn Mills, worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service until Lisa
was born and is now doing volunteer environmental work for Fairfax
County, Virginia. We own an old farm in the Appalachians in northwestern
Virginia where we spend as much time as possible enjoying the woods, creek,
and wetlands. My main pastimes, in addition to hunting and nature study
generally, include birding, bicycling, and hiking and reading books on
evolutionary biology, paleontology, and history.
-------
Larry 1. mrgusom
chief, Water Compliamc. Bzano
ftt.r Msaagememt Di i.ion
*sqion VII
aviroam.atal. Proteotiom kqency
flmsas City, Janus
After giving tap on farming, I entered college and graduated
from Kansas Stats University in 1963 with a 5.8. in Civil
Enqine.ring.
t7pon graduation, I immediately embarked upon a cars.r as a
federal. bureaucrat with the Bureau of Rsclsmation where I
remained until 1971. After “fighting” with EPA on several dam
and rsservoiz projects, I decided to join the environmental
movement and in the spring of 3.972. began my EPA career working on
water resources proj.ats. (The other side of the fence.)
In 1973 I accepted an IPA with the stats of Iowa where I had
the privileg, of dsveloping a growing state program to handl, the
water quality planning, construction grants, and NPDES require-
ment. of PL 92-500.
In 1977 I returned to EPA in the Construction Grants Program
and b.caus Water Quality Planning Branch Chief in 2.978 during
the 208 Program “glory” days. I moved to Construction Grants ai
Branch Chief in 1983 . and to my current position as Water Coap].i-
anos Branch Chief in 1983. Our Branch is rssponnible for most
Clean Water Act programs, including water quality planning and
standards; nonpoint souross; and NPD!S psrmits, pretreatment and
enforcement,
I enjoy the outdoors and with my wife, Jaci (who is also an
engineer and EPA .nploy.e), and our two daughters reside on a
small acreage where we apsnd our spar, tins riding and caring for
our horses.
-------
ELIZABETH JESTEK
Chief, Monitoring Branch, AWPD, OWOW
My career has spanned (even began before) the “environmental movement” that
surfaced in the 70s. In fact, I remember winding up a Vietnam protest on the
Boston Common, and watching in amazement as everyone around me begin
picking up their trash, and thinking that the environmental was going to be
the next big movement. And Indeed it was. I got to the field just before
everyone else decided to look for jobs In the area. My first was with the
Massachusetts Audubon Society, (not just for the birds) involved with banning
DDT, inland and coastal wetlands Issues, and writing lots of articles for lots
of publications. Exciting times, exciting issues, and I was permanently
hooked.
Went from there to design and run an Environmental Action Resource Center
at a regional museum In Connecticut, working with planning and zoning
commissions, again on wetlands, and again writing multiple publications,
including one on natural pesticides.
Moved to be the Assistant to the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection, working with Conservation Commissions and
Planning and Zoning Commissions on wetlands and land use (remember when we
could talk about it?) in specific and the totality of State and Federal laws In
general.
Moved to Washington to run the citizen participation, and then, thanks to
Chuck Spooner, who became my boss, the impact assessment efforts for the 208
plan at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Was thrilled to
hear one of LaJuana’s Management Advisory Group members praise 208 and say
its major problem was that it was ahead of its time. I can stop leaving It out
of my biographies now, which I thought I should do when I saw the EPA
reaction to my mentioning 208.
Once the plan was out, took a short “Interesting” foray into the Feds, working
for President Carter’s U. S. Regulatory Council analyzing the major regulations
all the Federal agencies put out. My intended six month “I’m In DC so I
should get a Federal overview” turned into a multiyear stay which lasted
through the Reagan Administration disbanding of the Council. They kept my
project, which turned into the Regulatory Information Service Center, funded
by a complex action that Is still not understandable, but got absorbed into the
Office of Management and Budget.
There designed a computer system that collected and analyzed Information on
all x ,000 regulations all Federal agencies issue, and oversaw the analysis.
Finally realized I wanted to come back “home”, so quit to take a sabbatical and
get back Into the environment. Sabbatical lasted three weeks because Rebecca
Hanmer offered me a job I felt I couldn’t refuse (someday I’ll get that
sabbatical), so came to EPA to do the State Funding Study looking at the
shortfall States faced to implement the 86 and 87 Clean Water Act and Drinking
Water Act amendments, and how to get alternative financing to make up the
shortfall.
Became the Chief of the Water Policy Team in the Water Policy Office, and now
Chief of the Monitoring Branch, which seems to synthesize all the past -
Information systems, assessment. I love the job, and in between doing it I
sing Gilbert and Sullivan, opera and concert recitals, pat my cats, read,
plant and weed, and do anything I can In, on, or around the water or In the
woods.
-------
Karen S. Klima
Branch Chief
Marine Ecosystems Assessment Branch
Ocean and Coastal Protection Division
I grew up in middle Georgia but escaped to graduate from high
school while traveling with a musical group know as Up With
People . A college education in biology and chemistry during the
Earth Day heyday led me to a job doing water quality surveys and
basin planning for the State of Georgia. I got my graduate
degree in environmental engineering, married, and moved to
Washington, D.C. where I worked in the EPA construction grants
program doing advanced wastewater treatment reviews, needs
surveys, CSO modeling, and facility planning. To help implement
the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, I moved to the marine and coastal
program and stayed as Branch Chief to manage the marine point
source program and the Anderson.
I live in Arlington, Virginia with my husband and 2 young sons -
soon to begin kindergarten and second grade - and a 70 pound
german shepherd. Free time centers around family activities. My
husband and I juggle intricate schedules to make enough personal
time for exercise, golf, and swimming. I try to stay awake at
night long enough to read for fun. As working parents of young
children, we find simple joys are the best right now.
-------
JOHN LISHMAN
CHIEF, MARINE PERI(ITS & MONITORING BRANCH
I was born in 1950 in Washington, DC in 1950 and grew up
there. I went to the University of California, San Diego where I
got a BA in 1972. After that, I went to law school at American
University in Washington, DC where I graduated in 1977. My
principal interest in going to law school was to enter a career
in environmental law. During law school I worked as a legal
intern with the National Wildlife Federation, working on wetlands
protection issues, innovative and alternative treatment
techniques under the CWA Title II construction grants program,
the Endangered Species Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899.
After graduating from law school, I spent one year with EPA
in the construction grants program as an attorney-advisor working
on grantee procurement practices, bid protests, and construction
safety issues. After that, I went back to law school for post-
graduate work in environmental law with an emphasis on water law.
I returned to EPA as an attorney-advisor in 1980 to work on the
301(h) secondary treatment waiver program, helping draft 301(h)
decision documents and revisions to the 301(h) regulations.
Following the creation of OMEP, I moved to the ocean dumping
program.
I am married, with two children, a boy aged 7, and a girl
aged 4.
-------
I
____ T UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COUMYLANO STRLEt
ATLANTA. GEORG IA 3O3 5
BIOGRAPHY
ROBERT F. “MIKE” MCGXEE
Mike McGhee has both a BS and Masters Degree in civil and
sanitary engineering front North Carolina State University.
HG has worked for EPA and its predecessor agencies for 21 years
and is a regiflored Profeasiona3 Engineer. His work with EPA
has been at the Philadelphia and Atlanta regional offices and
his assignnents have included all aspects of water programs
within EPA. Mr. MaChen, as a State employee, directed the water
quality assessment and standards-setting program in North
Carolina for four years. Mr. NcGhee has served for two years in
his present position as Chief of the Water Quality Management
Branch in EPA’S Region 4 office, His primary responsibilities
include EPA’s review of 404 dredge and fill activities, water
quality standards, wasteload allocations and monitoring
programs, an welt as directing EPA ’s involvement in activities
in aetuarine and coastal programs in the Southeast.
-------
John Meagher (pronounced Mah’-har), is the Director of the Wetlands
Division in EPA.
The work of the Division includes:
- managing the agency s role in the implementation of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404, which
is co-administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and
EPA, regulates discharges of dredged and fill material
into waters of the United States, including most
wetlands.
— assisting State, local and foreign governments in
wetlands protection efforts,
- providing public information and education,
- promoting environmentally sound approaches in federal
programs impacting wetlands, and
- improving the scientific data base for wetlands
protection
John joined EPA in 1973 in its Rochester, New York field office
doing water quality monitoring of Lake Ontario and its tributaries.
In 1975 he moved to EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., in the
municipal wastewater treatment program, and subsequently worked in
the National Environmental Policy Act program before joining the
wetlands program in 1981.
He holds an undergraduate degree in civil engineering and a
Master’s degree in environmental engineering, both from Manhattan
College in New York.
-------
MARIAN MLAY
I was born in Pittsburgh, PA, at a very early age. Some of my first recollections
are of the environment. It used to turn me and the curtains black with soot requiring
us both to be washed at rather frequent intervals. Early local pollution control laws
alleviated this situation to my great relief.
Through grade, high school, and my Freshman year of college, I was an
aspiring musician--French horn. I concluded, however, the pay was low, and one
likelihood was I’d end up as a high school band and chorus director, a fate I felt I
didn’t deserve. Besides the neighbors were complaining. So I turned to political
science and decided to “ask not what my country could do for me” and came to
Washington as a Management Intern at the old DHEW.
I worked through a variety of assignments: The Cuban Refugee (Health)
Program; Medical Referral Services for Men Rejected from Military Service;
Certification of Priorities of Care Under Medicare and Medicaid, ever honing my skills
at outwitting personnel and budget offices.
That was about the time I discovered that both blondes--and program officials
had more fun and began my grand conversion. I received a fellowship at Princeton’s
Woodrow Wilson School for a year, served two years as Deputy Director of DHEW in
Chicago and then moved to the PHS Policy Office where I learned the health policy
game. I also co-authored a rather infamous document for my Assistant Secretary for
Health which made such outlandish assertions as the need for National Health
Insurance (a spiritual precursor of Groundwater Protection Strategy). I also attended
nite law school and obtained a J.D. and voila -- a Program Person.
I then moved on to EPA’s PED and then the Drinking Water Office. This is
where my opportunity of a lifetime came along....it was called GROUND WATER!!! A
ripe, policy-making plum for the picking, or so I thought. I could do something
original. I could make a difference! I could frustrate the blazes out of myselfl Ah
well, Administrator after Administrator, strategy after strategy, the fledgling program
trudged on.
Currently, as I bask by the Ocean near Rehoboth, and gaze out over the
porpoises swimming through the waves confident that OCPD and I are there to care
for them, I know I am home at last (programmatically speaking)!
In my spare time, I continue to enjoy music--opera and ballet; travel (especially
international); food; mysteries (wanna trade?); my two fat cats and my many dear
friends.
-------
CARL MYERS
Deputy Director, AWPD/OWOW
“I’m an engineer, but there’s still hope (I hope)!”
Entering Johns Hopkins in 1966 as a math major who subsequently gave up on
trying to understand n-spaces (3 dimensions plus time is confusing enough), I retreated
into engineering science (BES, 1970). Blessed with a high draft lottery number and an
FWPCA fellowship, I completed a masters program at Stanford in 1971, emerging as an
environmental engineer (the new name for sanitaiy engineering adopted by the
department while I was there).
EPA was formed. For a good reason at the time, I came back East (having
grown up in the Washington, DC suburbs) to work for EPA Headquarters, starting in
ORD (acid mine drainage research). I quickly transferred to Water Programs to work
in basin planning and construction grants (facility planning, not cement). I became a
registered Professional Engineer (and proud of it).
In 1976, I left EPA to work for local government (Fairfax County, VA) on water,
sewer, and stormwater as part of the then radical PLUS (planning, land use, services)
program. (PLUS attempted to tie development and zoning to the phased provision of
government services [ highways, sewers] with environmental protection as a major
objective. PLUS was ultimately stuck down by the Virginia Supreme Court as an
unconstitutional taking of private property rights.) I survived numerous public hearings:
“Exactly where in my backyard do you intend to put that awful, Communist sewer?”
My L.U. appetite whetted, I rejoined EPA in 1978 to work on the 208 program
which was then receiving substantial funding. As 208 evolved, I eventually came to lead
EPA’s initial NPS program during the mid-1980s (before 319 and $ and CZMA). The
first NPS Report to Congress (1984), several Administrator’s NPS Task Forces, fun with
0MB, regulatory vs. voluntary, and depending on the kindness of strangers (USDA)
followed. As part of a major OWRS reorganization in 1989, the NPS group was merged
with the old MDSD to form AWPD; I became the Deputy Director of AWPD, retaining
that position when AWPD recently joined OWOW.
My wife Tillie (self-employed marketing consultant) and I are paying a mortgage
in Arlington, VA, and raising our 5-year old daughter, Sarah. I personally hand-apply
best management practices to Little Pimmit Run, a small stream in my backyard needing
constant maintenance and dredging to ameliorate NPS loads from upstream. My “spare”
time usually involves carpooling Sarah and her friends to swim team practice/meets,
ballet lessons, tumbling, etc. Sarah and I participate in the YMCA Indian Guides
program for fathers/daughters (my Indian name is Running Water).
-------
BRUC! i JEWTON
Chief, Watershed Bianch
Assessment and Watcrshed Protection Division, OWOW
I first got my feet wet (literally) growing up on Long Island Sound where I
spent much of my free time mucking about in marshes and messing about in
boats. I attended Ohio Wesleyan University in the corn belt (a major change of
scenery) and studied ecology, graduating with a B.A. in botany and chemistry.
The conventional wisdom at the time was that you couldn’t make a living in
ecological science so I opted for engineering.
Rutgers University offered me the best deal for graduate study ( the Department
was fat with several EPA grants in the mid-l970 ’s). Being an old turd herding
program dating back to the turn of the century, I got a strong dose of sewage
and cement. My research, which gave me as much bench chemistry experince as
I could stand for a lifetime, concerned changes in the speciatlon of metals during
sludge composting (and was immediately used by the State in their sludge
application rules)
I joined EPA in 1979 working in the Permits Division for Bill Jordan. I
worked on a broad range of issues but came to focus primarily on toxics
control. I developed the 1984 toxics policy (although Rebecca Hanmer descr ’es
all the credit for getting it out) and wrote the TSD along with Rick Brandes
and Betsey Southerland. In 1985 1 jumped ship to the RCRA program “where
all the action was.” I hated it. With the newly gained knowledge that the
water program really is the best-working and most interesting program in the
Agency, I moved back within one year to head the monitoring program in the
old MDSD. I became the Branch Chief in Spring, 1990, and when AWPD
reorganized this last Spring took the newly established Watershed Branch.
My wife Wendy (a city planner) and I have a 6 year old daughter, Elissa, and
a 4 month old son, Andy (who is still keeping us up at night). In what little
spare time we have we enjoy gardening. Although we had to trade-in my boat
for the daughter, we still enjoy sailing when we can.
-------
JOI* T. PAl
Who is he?
I was born in Hupei Province in the mainland China as the youngest
of six children in the family. (One of my early lessons for
survival in a large family was to eat fast because, as they say,
time and food wait for no one). My family engaged in what we would
now call agri-business. We had a large farm with good soil. People
were hardworking. Still, the living was hard. The reason was
water, either too much or too little of it. We would have flooding
and disease one year and then draught and hunger a couple years
later.
I majored in hydraulics and hydrology in college. In graduate
school, I chose water resource management and operations research.
(I don’t want to mention the names of my schools or professors to
protect their reputation). Throughout my graduate study and for
several years after that, I worked as a Registered Professional
Engineer for an environmental engineering consulting firm in
Chicago and got involved in the early stages of the Construction
Grants Program and the Areawide Waste Management Planning Program.
The apex of that career was managing the study and design of the
world largest POTW5 - Chicago MSD Southwest Sewage Treatment Plant
with a design capacity of 1,400 MGD.
I joined EPA in 1975 with the belief that my ground level
experience could be helpful to carry out its mission. I started in
the Construction Grants Program as the Chief Engineer responsible
for troubleshooting in engineering design. Later, I was
responsible for user charge, industrial cost recovery and
pretreatment. When the Office of Narine and Estuarine Protection
was established in 1984, I first served as Chief of the Marine
Permits and Monitoring Branch in the Marine Operations Division and
later as the Chief of the Technical Services Branch in the
Technical Supports Division. In OWOW, I am the senior analyst in
the Policy and Communication Staff working on strategic planning
related issues such as Watershed Protection Initiatives and
Regional liaison (I hope this National Program Meeting will be a
huge success).
My wife Susan and I have a 22 year old daughter who just graduated
from University of Virginia and will go to law school this fall,
and a 20 year old son, a junior in the College of William and Mary.
I enjoy almost everything from reading (any subject) to sports, but
tend to feel lost in a large and aimless crowd. I also enjoy well—
kept gardens in my neighbors’ yard.
-------
Rich Pepino
chief, Environmental Assessment Branch
Region I I I
I joined EPA as a stunner hire in 1976, and again in 1977 working on the
Chesapeake Bay Program. When the Bay acquired some additional positions, [ officially
became a PFr in 1978. PrIor to 1976, I taught school for 11 years starting in high
school and moving on to college. I have wandered, rather aimlessly, through a variety
of programs during my EPA career.
However toy greatest experience has been with N!PA. My present job includes
Wetlands, NEPA, Estuaries, Oceans, and Planning. I have been in this position about
one year. I followed Randy Pomponio in this job, and walking in his shoes, especially
on wetlands issues, is an enormous challenge.
I am very happily married and have three wonderful children. My teenage son is
currently up for sale and I ’m taldng bids at the meeting. Fm a member of the faculty of
Drexel University end Cabrini College.
-------
SUZANNE E. SCHWARTZ
Deputy Director, Wetlands Division, OWOW
Yes, I’m a lawyer, and yes I’m from New York . . . yes, the
City (and I love it)!
Now that that’s out of the way: I went to Queens College in
New York. I started out as a biology major, but didn’t like
cutting up dead things -- I think it was the fetal pig that did me
in -- so I became a math major instead. Although I enjoyed
mathematics, I couldn’t think of anything useful I would want to
do with it for the rest of my life. Therefore, I did what any
college kid with no idea of what to do would do.
I went to law school. I wanted to become an environmental
lawyer. It was a brand new field at the time, and I wasn’t exactly
sure what environmental lawyers did, but I was sure it was for me.
At Columbia University Law School (yep —— still in New York) I was
very involved in student body environmental activities, including
a Council that was very involved in wetlands issues under the
State’s tidal wetlands law (this is the start of a pattern).
I meant to stay in New York, but when I graduated law school
the Natural Resources Law Institute at Lewis and Clark Law School
in Portland, Oregon made me an offer I couldn’t refuse. I had to
teach one seminar after a year of research into the regulation of
wetlands and coastal zones. For that I got paid!
That was only a one-year fellowship, so it was back to New
York for me. But it’s hard to aim well from 3000 miles away, so
I wound up in D.C. instead, with the Environmental Law Institute.
They hired me to start up the National Wetlands Newsletter in 1978,
and I am proud to say that it is still going strong today.
However, in 1979 the Newsletter was losing money, so I was doing
contract work as well as putting the Newsletter out.
One of those contracts was for an obscure group in EPA, headed
by a not-so-obscure Section Chief, Dave Davis. I took advantage
of the revolving door we hear so much about, and in 1980 came to
work for EPA on State wetlands programs. Except for a brief stint
working on integrating marine waters policies (a good idea that
finally seems to have caught on!), I’ve been with the Section
404/wetlands program at EPA ever since.
I really didn’t mean to stay in D.C. this long. But at EPA
I met and fell in love with an engineer (I still can’t believe it,
but then he can’t believe he married a lawyer), Robert Crim. With
a house in Arlington (with an addition we built), a stepson in the
Virginia college system, a dog (a BIG dog), and a couple of cars
(okay, BIG cars), I guess we’re here to stay. In my little bit of
spare time I tutor a woman in basic literacy, ride a tandem bicycle
with Robert (the real cyclist in the family), and do some black
and white photography (Robert’s also the real photographer).
-------
Ref: 810
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Name: Dale J. Vodehj l
Education: Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering
University of Nebraska
1 966
Masters Degree in Environmental Engineering
University of Nebraska
1 967
Current Job: October 1986 to Present
Chief State Programs Management Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
(Region VIII includes the States of Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming)
I currently manage a Branch of scientists and engineers
responsible for the management and implementation of a variety of
environmental protection programs in EPA Region VIII. These
ineJ.ude the wetlands protection program, nonpoint source control
program, water quality standards program, Clean Lakes program, as
ugi]. as activities associated with the Colorado River Salinity
control program and various International Joint Commission
activities.
Affiliations: Water Pollution Control Federation
Society o Wetland Scientists
Licensed Professional Engineer
Birth Place: Ord, Nebraska
Marital Status: Married with three children.
FCD:November 19, 1990:vodehnal/dv/SIODALE
-------
Bio - OWOW Branch Chiefs Meeting
Mary Lou Soscia
Acting Branch Chief, Coastal Protection Branch
Born in Washington D.C., moved to Virginia Beach where I
developed my love for the outdoors and the water. I went to
Virginia Tech where I majored in Sociology and Geography.
Attended Graduate School at the University of Maryland and
received a Master’s in Geography with a specialty in water
resources and environmental policy. While in school I interned
for American River Conservation Council and the Environmental
Policy Center.
My first job in 1978 was with the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources where I developed 208 plans for Maryland watersheds.
has heavily involved in agricultural issues (RWCP) and acid-mine
drainage. I then worked in the flood management program and
helped communities develop watershed plans, helped industries
handling hazardous materials to floodproof their facilities and
generally promoted community flood plain management.
From there I went to Wyoming in 1982 to develop a state flood
plain management program. While there, I developed a watershed
management plan for the Big Horn drainage area, developed a vast
number of public information and educational materials, provided
technical assistance to Wyoming communities on how to develop
flood plain management ordinances (which were often designed to
protect wetlands as well), managed a large hydologic study of the
Snake River, and was on the Board of Directors of the Association
of State Floodplain Managers.
I came to EPA in 1985 and set up the State/EPA Committee in
External Affairs. Having done that I moved on to Office of
Federal Activities to work on Indian and wetland issues. I came
to OMEP in 1986 and was involved in the early development of the
NEP and NCW programs.
In my free time I am committed in community recycling efforts and
established recycling education programs in pilot middle schools
last year. This program won a national award through the Junior
League. I am continuing to head up this effort this year. I
also garden, sail, take pictures, and have fun with my dog.
-------
Bob Wayland
When oil from Union Platform A washed ashore in Santa Barbara, I really didn’t expect that
more than 20 years later I would be reporting that it had been a major influence in my career.
A few years after the spill, I became Legislative Assistant to Congressman Charles Teague,
who represented Santa Barbara. I instituted an environmental newsletter for his constituents,
and began closely monitoring issues at EPA, and conferring with the Agency’s Legislative
Director, leading eventually to my first EPA job. Seven years earlier, I started my first Hill job
during my freshman year at George Washington University. I progressed from envelope
stuffer to legislative assistant during 5 years with California’s Senator George Murphy. When
his re-election bid was unsuccessful, I got my first taste of the Executive Branch, at the
National Transportation Safety Board. In 1973, I jumped at the chance to try the House side
of the Capital, and was really stimulated by the array of environmental issues confronting Mr.
Teague’s District. Condors, transportation control plans, and, of course, legislation to cancel
leases in the Channel were among the recurring topics of our environmental newsletter.
Alas, Mr. Teague unexpectedly passed away less than a year after I joined the staff.
So in 1974 I traded the marble hallways of the Longworth Building for Waterside Mall, with its
2 floors of shops and restaurants! My tenure on the Hill, and the 7 years I spent in
Congressional Affairs at EPA taught me the importance of coalition building. A key to forming
alliances is establishing trust, and that means dealing straightforwardly and honestly with
both adversaries and allies.
The best thing about the early ‘80’s, when I moved to the Office of Enforcement and then
OSWER -- and about which I should wnte a book - - was that I took the opportunity to get
involved in local government. As a planning commissioner in Falls Church, I got a taste of
decisionmaking that directly affected neighbors and the qulaity of life in our community.
When things turned around at EPA, I was really fortunate to find myself working for Lee
Thomas, first as OSWER’s Policy & Communications Staff director, and then as a Special
Assistant when he became Administrator. As an SES candidate, I rotated to an exhilirating
stint as chief of Region Ill’s Superfund Branch, and then to OPPE as Acting DAA for Jack
Campbell. Linda Fisher asked me to become “permanent” DAA when she was appointed
AA. We endeavored to turn OPPE towards a more “customer-oriented” direction, reinforce
the value of management with our Office Directors, Division Directors and Branch Chiefs, and
to reach out to Regions.
Jimmy Buffett sings, “Mother mother ocean, I have heard your call. I’ve wanted to sail upon
your waters since I was three feet taIl.” Me too. Summer camp on Bogue Sound in North
Carolina was where I first had the chance. Now we take a sailing vacation in even years,
and get a day sail in once in a while. My wife Susan and I also snorkle coral reefs whenever
we can!
-------
BIOGRAPHY OF DOV WEITMAN
I was born in 1952, and grew up in the “nice” part of New
Jersey -- northwestern N.J., in a little community called White
Meadow Lake. I grew up across the street from the lake, with woods
behind my house (and behind my friends houses too). Ever since
then, Ive lived in less environmentally pleasing environments than
lovely New Jersey -- how s that for irony!
I graduated Yeshiva University with a B.A. in mathematics in
1973; Harvard Law School in 1976; and worked for a law firm in
Newark, N.J. for two years. I hated private practice, came to work
for EPA in 1978, and have happily been with EPA ever since.
I began at EPA in the Permits Division, working for Leonard
Miller (and alongside such staffers as Geoff Grubbs and Bill
Diamond) on the NPDES program during 1978-80. I then joined OGC,
where I remained for nine years (1980-89). At 0CC, I authored many
of the original RCRA regulations on hazardous waste treatment and
land disposal; worked on Superfund programs; and did a lot of
pretreatment work (including lots of litigation). I also did a lot
of wetlands work in the last two years there. But I take most
pride in the work I did to help write the effluent guidelines
regulation for the organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers
industry and then successfully defend it in the U.S. Court for the
Fifth Circuit against the largest onslaught EPA has ever faced in
such an appellate litigation (30 industry petitioners and NRDC
filed 750 pages of briefs; EPA filed a 450-page brief in response,
not counting any of the attachments).
Since November 1989, I have been Chief of the Nonpoint Source
Control Branch.
Outside of work, I have two main sets of interests. First is
my wife Alice, who is a CNN (certified nurse-midwife) specializing
in home birth, and my two stepchildren, Jennifir (20) and Ben (17).
Second, I play a lot of music of different sorts on guitar,
mandolin, recorder, fiddle, dobro, bass, etc. I perform with
various groups and individuals in the Washington area and sometimes
out of town (e.g., Seattle and Philadelphia). My music ranges from
folk to rock and blues to jazz. Most of my performing consists of
Jewish music (klezmer, Yiddish, Israeli), Spanish dance music, and
other traditional music. Some years back, I was a member of a
country music trio consisting of me, an NRDC attorney, and the
Chief of the Justice Department’s Environmental Defense Section;
we called ourselves Sagebrush Rebellion!
-------
Louise P. Wise
Director
Policy and Communications Staff
I was born in Jackson, Mississippi where I spent most of my
childhood riding my 20-year old horse in the swamps (I mean
wetlands) or fighting with my twin brother. We “twins” were the
youngest of five children, and of those five, the three who did not
know what to do when they grew up became lawyers (was this
because our father, all of our grandfathers, and all of our uncles
were lawyers? Notice none of our aunts were lawyers).
In the late 60s, I attended Vanderbilt University in Nashville,
Tenn. (which was considered to be “the North” by my family) where I
studied French and English (evidence that I still didn’t know what I
wanted to do when I grew up). I then went to Georgetown University
Law Center for law school in Washington, D.C., and hence my move to
D.C. where I’ve been ever since.
After law school, I went to work for a judge as a law clerk, met
my husband who was an assistant U.S. Attorney at the time, and
married him. I then went to work for a law firm that specialized in
keeping pesticides like Chlorodane on the market. I essentially
spent the next five years on FIFRA section 3(c)(1)(D), a very
lucrative provision for big chemical companies.
Finally, I got wise (get it?), and decided to join EPA. I began in
the Office of General Counsel working on RCRA and Superfund issues.
After two years there, I joined the AA for OSWER’s staff to work on
groundwater issues and LUST (that’s what we called it, Win Porter
was the one who wanted it changed to UST). After about a year, I
actually joined the UST office as a Division Director, and had the
pleasure of ushering the UST rules through the “system.” (We did it
in record time considering that we received about 5000 comments).
I then took a job as special assistant to Jim Barnes and Lee Thomas
on RCRA/Superfund issues. Then, when it was time for Lee and Jim
to leave, It was Jim Barnes who advised me to talk to Tudor Davies
about becoming his Deputy, which I did, and voila, ended up in the
Fairchild building with a nice view of the Capitol.
All during this time, I was having three Irish kids (Liam - 8 yrs.,
Terence - 5 yrs., and Conor - 2 yrs) and singing in the church choir.
-------
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
National Branch Chiefs Meeting
July 28 — August 1, 1991
Charlottesville, Virginia
Customer Survey Results
-------
Table of Contents
Regional Participants 3
Results of Customer Survey -- Part I 4
OWOW-Wide Average Rankings by Service 4
Program Specific Rankings by Service 5
Budget Development and Funding 6
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison 7
National Tools 8
Leveraging Other Programs 9
Technology Transfer and Outreach 10
Overall Administration 11
Division Rankings by Service 12
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division 13
Wetlands Division 14
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division 15
Results of Customer Survey -- Part II 16
Regional Suggestions -- Improving Overall OWOW Support 16
Regional Suggestions -- Improving Communications Between OWOW and the Regions 17
Regional Comments -- Developing a Common Vision 20
Opportunities/Barriers for Office Director Attention 22
Regional/HQ Roles 24
Regional Comments -- Division Program Agendas 25
Appendix 1: Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds Customer Survey 2
-------
Regional Participants
Region I Region VI
Ron Manfredonia Russ Bowen
Richard Hoppers
Region II George Horvath
Mario Del Vicario Gulf of Mexico Program
Bruce Kiselica
Dan Montello Doug Lipka
Janice Roliwagon William Whitson
Richard Spear
Robert Vaughn Region VII
Region III Larry Ferguson
Kerry Herndon
Charles App John Houlihan
Victoria Binetti
Chuck Kanetsky Region VIII
Robert Kramer
Richard Pepino Dale Vodenahi
Chesapeake Bay Program Region IX
Charles Spooner Loretta Barsamian
Catherine Kuhiman
Region IV
Region X
Wesley “Beau” Crum
Mike McGhee Ron Kreizenbeck
Ron Lee
3
-------
Excellent
OWOW-Wide Average Rankings by Service
Poor 1
Budget Legislative
Development Strategies
and Funding and
Congressional
Liaison
National Leveraging Technology Overall
Tools other Programs Transfer and Administration
Outreach
I
4
-------
Program Specific Rankings by Service
5
-------
Excellent 5
Poor 1
Budget Development and Funding
NEP/NCW
• Development process
cjood but implementation
weak
• NEP 5 year plan provided
but tunas delayed -
again, puts $ in
jeopardy
• NEP workplan comments
• Confusion about NCW
pilot eligibility
• Inappropriate for HO to
pick NCW/Action Plan
priorities
• Need to notify Regions
when being transferred
late
NPS
• Heroic efforts to
convert $ to FTE
• Competition for
support $ time
consuming and
ineffective
• Allocation formula
not focused enough on
problems
• Need to streamline
process for getting $
to Regions
S Good support to
certain geographic
programs
Oceans
• Better - - no
part icu ar problems
Wetlands
• Seriously under r uncleci
- HO must be n-ore
agc ressive in huJ ’ et
deve 10pm ent
• E ; cellent sharinq or
resource; with kecpons
• HO must assume
stronger role in
resource al location to
Regions — current
process t n rc
consuming, ineft cot ive
MonItoring NEP/NCW
NPS Oceans Wetlands
Monitoring
• — iiysterv — no
i i I ’ ! b lier—i— ei t b’/
kel ions
• Losses of FEE
every year
• I eel dedicated
tate resources
6
-------
Legislative Strategies and Congressional Liaison
Excellent 5
Poor I
Monitoring NEP/NCW
Monitoring
NE P/NC W
NPS Oceans Wetlands
Oceans
• Unclear who is driving
CWA Process
• Not well coordinated
with keciions
I lEsion
EViteii’Eiit very
‘ ‘ I tEll it to
I -i ItLIJ
i n c ut I ’
• :L”ull
ii t
I I • ‘ I
I — l
lie;
• No significant
problems
NPS
• Good liaison viuth
Congress. but not
aware of any overall
str at eg
• Unclear where headed
or who is driving
• Need to get on top of
agriculture and
mining issues
Wetlands
• Responsive to
conç lressional dl1.lest ion;
but no overall s tr E lte_ly
• I U)t be much ii ore
am1r ;sive, less
reactive
• —‘ i— j Oh
con ri urn cat m ci •• i
outside mntere;tE
• Less ot a team Epirmt
with Peclions than in tre
past
7
-------
National Tools
Excellent 5
Poor 1
Monitoring NEP/NCW
Monitoring
• ‘r . t happened
to riced a
icleitil ied in
I-i JtreWOrI tor
‘_irr c u ?
• I I L’L dijidiance
• ‘;J:ter bccly
ti 1 i nq y at em
received
• I r jiriiriCi needs
I ukL I , Water
bolt tract inq
;terr. use ni
a :. ;;rrent t)ols
NEP/NCW
N OK for most part, but
still missing NCW
guidDnce
NPS
• Newsletter great
• Excellent support,
responsive to
regional questions
• Pleased with
guidance, now need to
focus on priorities
• Good job in meeting
CZl1 deadlines
• Still need national
grants tracking info
system
Oceans
• ODBA support very
good
• 30 1(h) guidance
great
• Slow on regulation
revisions, Green
Book
• Need secondary
equivalency guidance,
COE MOU revisions,
more on ocean
dumping enforcement
Wetlands
• Problem with
delineat ion
n-anual——input ias
tot en—uncharacter 1st K
• Miticiation banl inq
needs strengtheiiinc
• Some unresolved
requlatory issues ,ith
C C L
• Pcir iculture stratediv
never materiali:ed
• Still need i3’1
entorcerrent tr :iininq
NP S Oceans Wetlands
8
-------
Excellent 5
Leveraging Other Programs
Poor 1
Monitoring NEP/NCW
Monitoring
• Ci iou ;
NPS
NEPI ’NCW
Oceans Wetlands
• Prociress — — A for effort
• Credible Job in a tough
NP S
thin ciency —
t I I—Ic’ and
I— CCiiOi
• uper ate; in a
it e \ ‘ or Id
— ULrl t u;e clata/
; ;;rcent; to
iii’ ’ ‘Iinh’flD
• I ICC It O Voi i
better .‘, itt -i 051
hi.criterra
Oceans
• No significant issues
are a
• Good work with permits
• Dont drop the bail on
post-CCMP activities
• Need more coordination
with enforcement
activities
• Could use geographic
programs more
effectively
Wetlands
• Positive signs with
other agencies
• Effective in leveraging
SPE programs in States
• Needs continuing
work with NOAA on
CTh, integrated
guidance with
groundwater, better
coordination with
OPPE, more attention
to USDA
• Everyone else trying to
leverage nonpoint
program — could be a
pro b I em i
• iie l
ii i rn at i’)i I r ,r l
• in’provemerlts, hut
could do better
• Pretty etlective in
won i rici with ;t and and;
and nonpoint source
• Need; work iitli
superf’ind, ;edirent
strategy, ent orcei ent —
iudicial reFerral;,
famn ing com m unity
9
LI
-------
Excellent
Technology Transfer and Outreach
NE P/NC W
• c.,oacl 5upport
• Do more to communicate
Rectiorial approaches /
1 nnovat 1 OflS
• 5orne conrus ion over
which are most
important meetings
Oceans
Wetlands
• Need to act velv r art et
va I’j Ot pr.: cir cii i — to
ne p clef end cier:’’ t ram
attack
• Outreach to Pecli:ns on
delineation manual
uripleacant e per i rce
• liore vork needed .‘ ith
private sector. r anti iii’
cc i i rI un1 ty
Poor 1
Monitoring NEP/NCW
NPS
Monitoring
• l-ec ::rclve t:
I —i i I i1I 1: 1
I .i’I E tS
• ‘ . ieater iiCCCIS
thit resources
Oceans Wetlands
• No corn ment
NP5
• Excellent newsletter
• Huge improvement
• Items of interest sent
to Regions periodically
10
-------
Excellent
Poor I
Overall Administration
Monitoring
Monitoring NEP/NCW NPS
NEP/NCW
Oceans Wetlands
I- Cil positive
EiJiiS lost C
ii •_i itliD in
inter Si: t i on v it ti
1- eliOib
• I 1e Ito develop
El are:l vision
il FOC’_i5
• I u:t trnn l
I i ‘.‘ l ats
i e ll
I:ort Lint t i:
totes
• Good - generally
responsive to resolving
policy issues
• Some direct
communications with
estuary programs
without letting Regions
Know
Oceans
• Goodjobwithsotew
people
• Need to focus on
priorities and get
products out
Wetlands
NPS
• Staff has been very
responsive
• Tendency to
micromanage — too
focused on details
• Need to get overall
policy defined -
lnvolvecl Regions more
in policy development
• Some lackof
understanding of
western problems
• Generally good
partnership spii it ith
F ec ons and good sei vice
• Lo’Jlcl i i aLe better use 01
ReLional e pertise
• Soire problems ith
F eepincl Regions to
speed
• Need ne vY list ot cr1 it act
poii its
11
-------
Division Rankings by Service
12
-------
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Excellent 5
‘oor 1
5udget Legislative National Leveraging Techno logy Overall
Development Strategies Tools other Programs Transfer and Administration
and Funding and Outreach
Congressional _______________
Liaison
•NEP/NCW
• Oceans
13
-------
Excellent 5
Wetlands Division
Poor 1
budget
D eve 10pm en t
and Funding
Legislative National Leveraging Technology Overall
Strategies Tools other Programs Transfer and Administration
and Outreach
Congressional
Liaison
14
-------
Excellent
Budget
Development
and Funding
Legislative National
Strategies Tools
and
Congressional
Liaison
other Programs
Transfer and
Outreach
Overall
Administration
•NPS
a Monitoring
5
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
3.4 1
2.8 1
2.9
Poor 1
Leveraging Technology
15
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS
RESULTS OF CUSTOMER SURVEY
July 1991
REGIONAL SUGGESTIONS IMPROVING OVERALL OWOW SUPPORT
PLANNING AND BUDGETING: Provide more leadership. Set clear national direction
and priorities. Need a more integrated OWOW budget -- particularly for overlapping
programs, such as NCW, WPI -- currently too many diverse pots of money. Need travel
increases to support additional positions. Provide more attention to Administrator
priorities of strategic planning and Total Quality Management.
RESOURCE ALLOCATION: Explain the process used to allocate and distribute funds
and how regional input is used. Be more timely in getting resources out to the
Regions. Need stronger HQ role in workload models -- should arbitrate disputes over
allocation issues and make decisions on some rational basis. Lead region concept
does not work effectively on resource allocation issues -- one Region devoted
approximately a year’s worth of effort to the wetlands workload model this year.
PROGRAM AGENDA: Staff are working extremely hard on existing activities. Finish
the current agenda before adding any new initiatives. For any future initiatives,
discuss with Regions what might already be in place in the field to address the issue.
LEGISLATION: Be more aggressive, especially in wetlands -- have been too
vulnerable to Congressional attacks.
LEVERAGING OTHER PROGRAMS: Facilitate other agency and other office
participation in OWOW programs. This involvement will be the difference between
success and failure of OWOW programs.
Perhaps a HQ communication strategy for each agency/office would be a useful tool.
NATIONAL MEETINGS: Plan these meetings well ahead of time and be cognizant of
regional constraints in making decisions about concurrent programs, travel and site
location.
REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN POLICY: Seek more opportunities to use Regional
expertise. Make better use of regional short term details to work on specific issues,
such as the regional details to HO to work on a nationwide wetlands permit.
16
-------
REGIONAL SUGGESTIONS
IMPROVING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OWOW AND THE REGIONS
NATIONAL MEETINGS:
Use the customer survey to identify issues so that the upcoming national
meeting can be focused on issue resolution Get beyond the dialogue. Each
program should pick one or two issue areas for discussion at the national
meeting and develop action plans to address them. Meetings should also be
used to develop consensus for the program agenda.
• OWOW sponsors many national meetings -- need to support Regions with travel
and look for other ways to ease costs of participation.
• Conduct a national OWOW-wide meeting each fall and continue having
Division specific meetings each spring. Important to continue separate forums
for resolution of Division issues.
• Include Monitoring Branch Chiefs in appropriate meetings.
• Include Office of Science and Technology issues on agendas and invite
appropriate staff.
• All meetings should be well planned and facilitated. Meeting objectives should
be clear, action items should be developed during the meeting and followup
tracking of actions should occur. Oceans meetings have been good as models.
• Other vehicles for communications are also important. Conducting a meeting
every 6 months will not be sufficient.
CONFERENCE CALLS:
• Monthly conference calls should be used by Divisions to review hot” items, as
recently conducted by Wetlands. Important to keep these calls open and frank.
Calls should also be used to solicit input on HQ projects.
• Office Director should also conduct periodic conference calls with the Branch
Chiefs.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS:
• Build on the positives of the Divisions. Nonpoint Source newsletter is excellent.
Office-wide Updates are good as well.
• Branch Chiefs need monthly highlights to identify key areas for attention. There
is a materials overload and it’s hard to determine what’s important to OWOW.
17
-------
• Continue the practice of sending OWOW information packages to multiple
levels in the Regions -- helps shore up regional communication problems.
• A new key contacts list is needed.
• An annual calendar of events would be helpful -- developed and circulated by
each Region, geographic office and OWOW.
REGIONAL REVIEWS:
• Reinstitute HO visits to the Regions for mid-year reviews. Include other Regions
in these visits.
REQUESTS FOR COMMENT:
• Regions should always have 5 days to respond to HO requests. -- after allowing
time for receipt.
• OWOW Divisions tend to use the same Regions over and over again for input.
All Regions are interested. If time prevents a comprehensive review, requests
for input should be rotated among the Regions or a key contacts list should be
used -- based on Regional expertise.
• Regions need feedback when their views have been solicited.
• Include Regions on workgroups for policy input -- the Monitoring Division has
begun doing this effectively.
PERSONNEL DETAILS:
• Explore more short term personnel details between HO and Regions -- look for
creative solutions to the travel issue.
OThER:
• In general staff to staff communication has been good. There has been less
communication with Branch Chiefs across the programs.
• HO reviews of Regional workplans, etc. have been time consuming and not
value-added.
• Regions need to receive annual Operating Guidance by April of each year.
• HO should inform Regions, as a courtesy, when communications have occurred
between HO and NEP programs -- or to verify feedback received from other
sources.
18
-------
• HO should continue to explore ways to share Regional expertise across the
Regions and to teambuild between OWOW and the Regions.
• Communications within OCPD have been confusing -- NEP responsibilities
cross both Branches.
• In addressing communications issues, be careful not to lose strengths of
individual programs -- i.e. strong wetlands network, camaraderie among
Regions.
19
-------
REGIONAL COMMENTS DEVELOPING A COMMON VISION
APPROPRIATE GOALS
• OWOW functions are supported by the SAB Reducing Risk report, Water Planet
2, Wetlands Forum, etc. -- thus the long term strategy has been set by experts,
citizens.
• Currently goals and objectives appear to be in a state of flux -- i.e. wetlands “no
net loss”. Need to get out front with wetlands in particular.
• OWOW should build a common vision among its programs, one that builds on
the strategic themes and geographic initiatives. The vision should articulate
how the Office will move the Agency forward, identify what is needed from other
federal agencies, how the Watershed Protection Initiative can be used to
advance the vision and how success will be measured.
• Any overlaps among initiatives, such as Coastal America and WPI should be
addressed.
• The vision should be realistic in terms of funds availability at both the federal
and state levels, should be sensitive to the issue of political will, and assure that
real needs can be met in addition to the implementation of mandatory functions.
• Need to emphasize waters of the U. S. -- both inland and coastal -- HO is
currently somewhat fixated on estuarine areas.
• OWOW should provide leadership in communicating the vision and expand
outreach capabilities.
• Use the Clean Water Act reauthorization process to reinforce the vision.
• Specific recommendations for programmatic goals:
-- tighten the nonpoint source program to deal with the most serious
problems,
-- increase wetlands and nonpoint source resource base,
-- increase enforcement authority for both CWA and MPRSA,
-- accelerate reuse of dredged material for resource enhancement,
-- implement CCMPs,
-- evaluate CZMA state enforceable policies for effectiveness,
-- integrate resource monitoring with ocean and ground water monitoring --
look at the aquatic resource as a whole,
20
-------
- - conduct short term demos for TMDL’s in complex watersheds, and
-- increase S & E base for OWOW programs.
PROGRAM INTEGRATORS
WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE has potential -- exactly the way we should be
doing business i t - i the 90’s. Solid approach by OWOW thus far -- 6 month phase-in
needed. Still too focused on coastal areas. AA must communicate importance of this
initiative to get other offices on board -- permits, enforcement, groundwater. Potential
handicap is the political fallout of picking areas. Important for Regions and States to
see HQ incentives. A few Regions claim to still be out of the loop.
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM is also an important integrator -- OWOW should not
let WPI diminish its importance -- must commit to what we have underway now.
INTEGRATED GUIDANCE should be required -- wetlands/nonpoint source and
wetlandslwater quafity standards have been good products.
Votes were also cast for the nonpoint source, wetlands, near coastal waters, and
stormwater programs and the use of TMDLs as important program integrators.
Targeted programs stiJJ suffer from turf problems within the Regions. Must recognize
that Regional and State infrastructures are not necessarily conducive to these
initiatives. Also have been subject to resource cuts at HO and Regions.
21
-------
OPPORTUNITIES/BARRIERS
FOR OFFICE DIRECTOR ATTENTION
MONITOR ING
• Monitoring programs at EPA operate in another world -- must do a better job of
using data and assessments to drive other program decisions. Needs a locus
and shared vision. Monitoring mission statement very important.
• Rapid bioassessment/biocriteria ofter promise -- need to expand to riparian
areas/ecoregions for NPS.
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM/NEAR COASTAL WATERS
• A continuing federal role in the NEP, post-CCMP, is very important to watershed
success. If OWOW walks away, will have trouble selling other targeted
approaches. NEP programs are opportunities -- at a minimum EPA should
continue the identity and coordinate activities.
• Need a rational process for selecting/targeting NEP and WPI areas.
• NCW lacks definition and an identity -- provides a good opportunity for
leveraging others, focusing resources.
• Coastal America process is very cumbersome -- too much scrutinizing of
projects after consensus has been built at the Regional level.
NONPOINT SOURCE
• Keep up the good work with Department of Agriculture -- needed for continued
progress in NPS. Need overall policy focused on pollution prevention (with
OPPE, OGWP, OPTS). Perception, based on attendance at workshops, that
Agriculture taking the program more seriously than EPA.
• NPS implementation -- need to work with States to focus attention. Continue to
work with NOAA on CZMA program guidance.
OCEANS
• Corps of Engineers site designation activities and acceptance of management
and monitoring plans -- revision of MOU.
WETLANDS
• Must get out of reactive mode. Be aggressive in championing fixes to real
problems.
• Wetlands delineation manual -- need to agree on message we’re trying to
communicate. Need to work closer with local governments -- need material.
22
-------
CROSS MEDIA
• CWA Reauthorization -- needs concerted effort, particularly provisions for
wetlands, ambient monitoring and status and trends, agriculture and mining,
other land use issues.
• Habitat issues -- should decision-map which agencies are making decisions on
living resources and habitats -- and move in.
• Beach nourishment issues relative to State Coastal Zone Management
requirements.
• Dredge material disposal, given new criteria.
• Endangered Species Act -- Fish and Wildlife pushing for formal consultation on
many EPA programs and influence over EPA resources.
• Lack of standards, i.e. sediment.
• OWOW should develop better understanding of the differences between east
and west (arid climates).
• Should capitalize on TQM and Pollution Prevention.
• Must understand and show sensitivity to the overall economic situation of
States.
• Look for better ways to achieve buy-ins of other programs -- NPDES,
standards, groundwater. Program integration of goals and agendas.
23
-------
REGIONAL/HO ROLES
• Roles in OWOW somewhat unclear at this point -- Office Director and Deputy
split of responsibilities, Division Director authorities.
• Some overlapping functions even within Divisions -- i.e. NEP responsibility in
two Branches.
• OWOW role in legislation unclear -- appears that OW is leading and OWOW
sometimes out of the loop.
• Need to sort out enforcement role.
• Avoid micro-management of Regions.
• OWOW could use thumbnail sketches of how other agencies have evolved --
COE, NOAA, FWS, USDA -- to help define EPA OWOW role; also look at
evolving State interests.
24
-------
REGIONAL COMMENTS -- D 1VISION PROGRAM AGENDAS
OCEAN AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
• NEP CCMP support and life after CCMP.
• NCW strategy -- what is it -- need better understanding of how re’ated to Coastal
America.
• Ocean dumping enforcement.
• COE acceptance of management and monitoring plans for ocean disposal sites.
• Sediments strategy -- dredged material disposal, given more stringent criteria.
• Funding new NEPs.
• Budget process improvements.
WETLANDS DIVISION
• Legislative strategy.
• Objectives for “no net loss”.
• Wetlands regulatory jurisdiction issues with the Corps of Engineers.
• Materials on wetlands value for the public. Providing a clearinghouse for
Regionally produced materials.
• 404 enforcement training. Mixed signals on judicial referrals with Justice
Department.
• Training on delineation.
• Outreach to farming community.
• Mitigation banking guidance.
• Budget process improvements.
ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION
• NPS mining and agriculture issues.
• Linkages between NPS and ORD -- both basic and applied research. Needs
for rapid bioassessment to assess problems and progress.
25
-------
• NPS national grants tracking system.
• NPS grants management and audit training -- must be prepared to deal with 1G.
• Continuing planning process requirements for NPS -- needs immediate
attention for resource implications.
• National strategy for integrating stormwater program with NPS.
• Requiring States to identify priority waterbodies for NPS to leverage USDA
resources and 319 resources.
• Continued work with CZMA on NPS guidance.
• NPS allocation formula.
• Monitoring mission statement -- very important.
• Work with OST and ORD on monitoring guidance.
• Requiring standard 305(b) formats for States.
• Training on STORET, waterbody tracking system, using assessment tools.
• USGS NAQWA related to 305(b) and EMAP.
• Dedicated State monitoring resources for bioassays, biomonitoring, intensive
surveys.
• TMDLs -- responsibilities between OWOW and OST.
26
-------
OFFICE OF WETLANDS, OCEANS AND WATERSHEDS
CUSTOMER SURVEY
Introduction
The Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) has the
opportunity to build an effective and efficient team, providing
quality and timely products and services to its primary client, EPA
Regional Offices. In developing this team, OWOW should build on
the successes and expertise of its programs. OWOW should also seek
observations and ideas from the Regions, as well as guidance from
the Regions on their needs. This survey is planned as one way to
solicit this Regional input.
I. Improving Services to the Regions:
1. Please rank from 5 (excellent) to 1 (poor) the
following OWOW services in each major program
areas: budget development and funding, legislative
strategies and Congressional liaison, national
tools, leveraging other programs, technology
transfer and outreach, administration, other?
The major program areas are wetlands, NEP/NCW,
oceans, NPS and data and assessment.
2. What other services are important to you?
3. Do you have any suggestions for improving OWOW
support in any of these areas?
4. Should any current OWOW activities be stopped or
reoriented?
5. In general, how can communications be improved
between OWOW and the Regions?
II. Developing a Common Vision:
6. What are appropriate short and long term goals?
7. Which programmatic functions can serve as
integrators across the Regional and/or Headquarters
offices? Which of these are most important to you?
8. What opportunities and/or barriers exist that
should be addressed?
-------
9. What are the most appropriate Regional/HQ roles to
meet the goals?
10. Which roles need to be changed and how?
III. OWOW Program Agenda
11. What specific issues, within each program area, are
affecting environmental progress in your Region?
12. Do you have any suggestions for resolving the
issue(s)?
13. What new activities, in each program area, should
be initiated in FY92?
14. What activities should be emphasized, stopped or
redirected?
-------
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON D.C. 20460
JUN 4 99f
OFFICE OF
WATER
ME MORAN DUM
SUBJECT: Draft Goal Statement and Process for the Watershed
Protection Initiative /
FROM: Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Off ice of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
TO: Office Directors, Office of Water
Regional Water Management Division Directors
Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Policy and Management, Region VII
During the February Water Management Division Directors’
meeting in Washington, we briefly introduced the Watershed
Protection Initiative (WPI). Since then, we have been working
with the Lead and Sub-lead Regions and other offices and have
held two meetings with Regional representatives to further define
this initiative. By now, you should have received the background
materials and summaries of those two meetings.
At its core, the watershed approach begins wi,t} a fo i -on
the condition of and threat to a watersh ,rather than on any
sources as the iE Yting point. A project
manager, or ‘ champion ” for the watershed would enlist the
participation o sta f across the water programs, as well as
other stakeholders, in developing an assessment of the watershed
and an actiqn plan to address impairments or threats. The
workgroup concluded that this approach would be an appropriate
and effective way to address threats to water quality, habitats,
and ecosystems in a holistic and integrated manner. While the
WPI is not a new program in itself, it provides an opportunity
for the Regions to work with States, local governments, citizen
groups, and other Federal agencies to develop watershed—specific
action plans that address both traditional and non-traditional
sources of pollution. Further, the action plans for watershed
projects will help focus available resources, and aid in the
development of technical and programmatic tools to successfully
carry out the projects.
R. cIs4Papv
-------
2
The workgroup concluded that action plans in some selected
watersheds are ready to be implemented at this time, and it will
be valuable to gain experience in demonstrating and evaluating
the value of this approach for FY91 and FY92. At the same time,
we agreed that development of Region-wide, risk-based assessments
of each Region’s watersheds would provide an appropriate basis
for future targeting. This assessment can be conducted by making
systematic use of available information on water quality and the
living resources dependent on waters and threats to these
resources.
Therefore, the workgroup recommended implementing the WPI in
two stages. First, for the short term, the Regions will propose,
by August 1991, Initial Regional Implementation Plans for
watershed protection activities. These initial plans should
include a list of watersheds selected for targeted activities,
and a description of an appropriate action plan for each of thesa
watersheds for implementation in FY91 and FY92. Regions
participating in the workgroup felt that 3-5 watersheds per
Region would be about the right pace of implementation for FY91
and FY92. For each watershed, the Region would designate a
“champion” who would work across water programs and enlist other
stakeholders to formulate an assessment of problems and an action
plan. Second, for the long term, the Regions will develop, by
October 1992, Comprehensive Regional Frameworks to guide their
long term activities for the WPI. Starting in FY93, the Regions
will use these framework documents to target high priority
watersheds. As part of the long term goals, EPA and the Regions
will work toward permanent institutional changes that will
empower States and other agencies to operate their programs in a
manner that will achieve the WPI goals.
The workgroup also recommended that Headquarters develop a
goal statement, a schedule and process for the short and long
term plans, and an outline for the initial and comprehensive
Regional framework documents. In accordance with these
recommendations, we have enclosed a draft goal statement,
schedule, process and outline for your use in developing the
initial implementation plan due August 1991. We welcome your
comments or suggestions and will revise this draft accordingly
for your use in developing the comprehensive Regional framework
documents.
-------
3
OWOW’s role in this process is to facilitate the development
and implementation of the Watershed Protection Initiative.
have asked Louise Wise to be responsible for policy and
management of this initiative. Bruce Newton, Chief of the
Watershed Branch, will be responsible for providing technical
support. Please provide your comments or suggestions, and the
contact person in your Region for this initiative to John Pai of
Louise’s staff at 475—8076.
We are enthusiastic about the WPI and feel that it will
significantly advance the water program by providing an
ecologically sound way for States to approach water quality
problems and to develop and implement holistic solutions. I hope
you will give this initiative your full support. Please let me
or Louise know how we can serve or assist you. We can be reached
at 382—7166.
Enclosures
cc:
Martha Prothro, OW
Bob Pavlick, OW
Martha Kirkpatrick, OW
Art Koines, OPPE
Norb Jaworski, ORD-NERL
Cynthia Dougherty, OWEC
Ed Kramer, OWEC
Jay Benforado, ORD
Fred Leutner, OST
Ramona Trovato, OGW/DW
Betsy LaRoe, DAO
Vivian Dai.th,OW/WPO
-------
-------
The Watershed Protection Initiative
Toward Holistic Resource Protection
Office of Water
U.S. EPA
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Targeted
Programs Currently In Operation or Planned
Components of Watershed Projects
Targeted Programs Currentiy In Operation or Planned
Components of Watershed Projects
[ ] NEP (Bay Program)
NonPo,nI Source §319
Stormwal.,. T ir 3
Ws hsad Prot.cton
CI.an Lakes
En orcsm.nt. Pirmél
Reissuance
§404 ADID
111111
S.v.ral or aS cur .ntty targeted
programs brought to bear in a high
priority watershed
2
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Activities Since the FY92 Budget Proposal
In the FY92 Watershed Protection Budget Initiative, we described a
two-prong geographic targeting approach to achieve the above goals.
LI Formed workgroup comprised of five Regions, OW offices, OPPE,
and ORD
LI Held two workgroup meetings (February and March)
LI Developed proposed list of short- and long-term actions
LI Drafted “Framework” to guide HO and regional activities
3
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INiTIATIVE
Recommended Goal and Objectives of the WPI
To re-orient EPA and state programs to address watershed protection in a
holistic, integrated manner
1. To promote a risk-based, geographically targeted approach so that
federal, state, local and private decisionmakers* can:
focus resources on highest priorities
S tailor efforts to the needs
S coordinate and engage other stakeholders
• address all problems, including non-chemical stressors and
habitat modifications
* Also involves other decisionmakers; e.g., federal and private landowners such as the Nature
Conservancy
4
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Recommended Goal and Objectives of the WPI (cont.)
To re-orient EPA and state programs to address watershed protection in a
holistic, integrated manner
2. To identify gaps in our national ecological protection “tools” and
promoting their development and transfer to local decisionmakers
3. To create a broad understanding at all levels of the watershed
protection approach
5
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INiTIATIVE
Workgroup Recommendations
Li We should take a “regional “approach to selecting targeted
watersheds
Li Regions should be allowed to tailor their approaches to the
needs of particular watersheds as long as their approaches
satisfy the WPI criteria of:
• making risk-based selections
• engaging the stakeholders
• addressing the watersheds in an integrated, holistic
manner
6
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Workgroup Recommendations
(cont.)
U Integration should begin at home (within the water programs)
U Regions should encourage and guide state and local
decisionmakers to routinely address watersheds”holistically”
7
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Two-Prong Action Plan
I. Short-Term Action Plan: Initiation of Regional Watershed Projects
The purpose of the initial regional projects will be to
practice the approach, develop credible case studies
and lead by example.
2. Long-Term Action Plan: Institutional Changes
Our longer-term action plan includes institutional changes
to promote the watershed protection approach, including
comprehensive regional planning and realigning existing
priorities and accountability measures as needed.
8
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
I. Short-Term Action Plan: Initiation of Regional Watershed
Projects
Headquarters Action Items:
U Develop framework and schedule (May 91)
Li Identify barriers and incentives (July 91)
Li Develop inventory of data bases and sources of other
information/assistance (July 91)
9
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATiVE
I. Short-Term Action Plan: Initiation of Regional Watershed
Projects
Regional Action Items:
U Develop initial framework for FY91/92 and list initial
projects (summer 1991) /
U Continue ongoing activities in previously targeted areas
U Build state/local/public support
10
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
II. Long-Term Action Plan: Institutional Changes
Headquarters Action Items:
LI Develop technical tools (e.g., inventory of data sources, models,
indicators, NPS-oriented criteria, monitoring methods, BMP
effectiveness data, etc.)
LI Harmonize priority setting and targeting criteria of currently
operating base programs
LI Provide flexibility to devote resources to watershed projects
LI Support outreach and tech transfer among regions
LI Promote holistic, integrated watershed management through a
public information campaign
11
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTiON INITIATIVE
II. Long-Term Action Plan: Institutional Changes
Regional Action Items:
U Synthesize existing information on highly valued, threatened
and degraded watersheds
Ii Develop region-wide comprehensive framework documents that
establish milestones and provide a plan for measuring progress
(September 1992)
U Develop and implement action plans -- including measurable
indicators of progress for selected watersheds based on
comprehensive framework (October 1992 and beyond)
U Report on measurable indicators of progress (annually)
12
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Region IV Watershed Protection Initiative Activities
Set a goal:
IJ Reduce ecological and human health risks in critical watersheds
Activities Completed:
Li Established criteria for targeting watersheds
Li Developed a process for developing and implementing action plans in
targeted watersheds
Li Established management structures for each watershed protection
project:
v A Region IV coordinator and an EPA team with members from
relevant base programs
An external coordinating committee with members from key
V federal, state, regional, and local agencies, industries and citizen
groups
13
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Region IV Watershed Protection Initiative Activities (cont’d)
Action underway:
• Identification of waterbodies at greatest risk using 303(d) lists, 305(b)
report, 304(l) list, state 319 assessment and management reports, NEP,
NCW and Region lV’s comparative risk analysis
Potential resources available for FY91/92:
• NCW, the Coastal America initiative, refocusing of state water quality
monitoring, NPS grants, Clean Lakes Program grants, Region IV
discretionary funds and funds from other non-EPA sources
14
-------
THE WA TERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Relationship of WPI to Existing Programs
Not a new program, but an effort to re-orient how existing
programs operate
D Will be implemented in FY92 by redirecting base
resources and applying portions of any FY92 increases
Will complement and build on other targeting programs
(Great Water Bodies Initiative, Coastal America, and NEP)
Will be promoted and managed by OWOW but, to be
successful, must be a water program-wide initiative (all
OW and regional water program functions)
15
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITiATiVE
Relationship of WPI to Existing Programs
(cont.)
Li Within OWOW, PCS will provide general policy and
program direction
Li AWPD/Watershed Branch will provide technical
support
Li Other OWOW Divisions will participate in context of
their program or functional responsibilities (as well
as other appropriate non-OWOW organizations)
16
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
INiTIATIVE
Relationship of the Watershed Protection Initiative
toO
Programs
a.)
0
0
-
a)
U
C l )
C ,,
a.)
U
0
I - .
a)
z
17
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Appendix
18
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Canaan Valley - A Region Ill Watershed Protection Project
Background:
U National Natural Landmark, fragile wetlands complex with unique
ecosystem, migration areas for American Woodcock, streams for
public water supplies and brown trout
Stressors:
U NPS, development, mining, offroad racing, water demand, septic tanks
and acid precipitation
Goals:
U Long term environmental preservation and sustainable economic
growth
19
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Canaan Valley - A Region Ill Watershed Protection Project (cont’d)
Process:
LI Formation of Canaan Valley Task Force - EPA, FWS, COE, State DNR,
county and local commissions, public, environmental and industrial
groups
LI Refine, prioritize, and pursue Reg Ill RA’s initial proposal
LI Develop and implement action plan
Accomplishments to date:
LI Suspended COE wetlands permits in the Valley. Permit applications
now must be subject to review and approval
20
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Canaan Valley - A Region Ill Watershed Protection Project (cont’d)
Actions Underway:
U Surveillance and enforcement program on wetlands, public outreach,
Advanced ID and trend analysis
U Proposing National Wildlife Refuge and Countywide master plan
In summary, the Canaan Valley Watershed Protection Project is:
v’ Geographically focused
V 4 Holistic and integrated approach
I, Building on federal state, local and private partnerships
21
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Savannah River - A Region IV Watershed Protection Project
Background:
Identified different stressors and impacts for each of the four segments
of the River
Li Hydropower plant releases in riverine segment upstream from
Augusta
Municipal and pulp and paper mill discharges in riverine segment
with tidal influence
Salinity intrusion, municipal and industrial discharges, COE Tide
gate in Savannah estuary
U Potential harbor dredging impacts in near coastal area
22
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION iNITIATIVE
Savannah River - A Region IV Watershed Protection Project (cont’d)
Goals:
U Develop action plan, with full federal, state, and local support, to
correct water quality standards violations and restore the designated
use
Ongoing Activities:
U Designated project coordinator, formed EPA coordinating committee,
identified information/data sources, and identified potential external
committee members
Li Developing DO based or toxicity based WLA/TMDL for segments of the
River with states of Georgia and South Carolina
U Studying salinity intrusion and wetlands evaluation with COE
U The key to success is concentrating existing resources and sharing
available resources from other programs.
23
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
Ten Reasons Why WPI is not §208
1. WPI provides for a comprehensive approach , including planning,
implementation and monitoring of results - not hampered by
planning limitation of §208
2. Emphasis of WPI is “action” - not “planning”
3. WPI focuses on ecological units - not political units
4. WPI uses existing institutional infrastructure - does not create new
one
5. WPI will reorient base resources; will not depend on separate,
independent grant source
6. WPI initial stages depend on strong regional leadership; will not rely
totally on state buy in
24
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION INiTIATIVE
Ten Reasons Why WPI is not §208 (cont’d)
7. WPI has 15 years of additional tools, information, and experience
to draw from (e.g., NEP, 319, 314, well-head programs, etc.) and
established regulatory and other pollution control programs to
build on (e.g., NPDES, 404, construction grants, water quality
standards, 305(b)
8. WPI is consistent with approaches now being taken by other
federal and state land management agencies
9. WPI does not have to compete with the initiation of massive new
water programs - 208 competed with initiation of the NPDES
permit program and the construction grants program 15 years ago
10. Major stakeholders (states, locals, other Federal agencies, private
constituencies, etc.) see the need and are ready to be engaged
25
-------
DRAYT
WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
1. THE WATERBHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE (WPI)
A. The water program has made great progress over the past two
decades in identifying and controlling water pollution.
B. While current efforts have been successful, they have
concentrated on point sources and the chemical integrity of
the Nation’s waters. The current program approach has:
i. created “gaps” which have failed to address overall
ecological and habitat health;
ii. in many cases, not considered the cumulative effects of
different types of pollution from different sources of
pollution; and
iii. not taken advantage of opportunities to involve local
decision-makers and other responsible parties in
cooperative efforts to improve the ecological health f
specific waterbodies.
C. Water protection programs evolve as our technical
understanding of the environment changes and as our social
values and political institutions change. The WPI is intended
to be a vehicle to promote incremental improvements in the way
we approach the task of protecting watersheds.
2. GOALS OP THE WPI
A. The aoaj. of the WPI is to reorient EPA and other Federal
agency. State. and local programs to address watershed
protection in a holistic manner . Specific goals are to
encourage State and local governments to target watersheds
based on ecological risk; to encourage the development of
site- peci ic watershed protection measures based on a
holistic, integrated approach to address both traditional and
non—traditional sources; to establish processes in which all
decision-makers at all levels of government, different
agencies, and other stakeholders work together to implement
solutions; and to establish effective programs to measure
success nd continuous improvements.
B. The WPI will be comprehensive in scope and seeks to change
incrementally the approach to watershed protection within all
levels of government.
—1—
-------
DRAPT
j. EPA has responsibilities to promote coordination within
the family of Federal agencies, develop technical tools,
serve as a point of coordination at the EPA Region
level, and, where necessary, provide examples of
integrated, holistic watershed protection.
ii. The States and Indian Tribes have responsibilities for
State— and reservation-wide planning and targeting,
managing water quality programs, integrating State
agencies, and supporting local levels of government.
The State-wide level is also a critical level for
integrating information and coordinating the activities
of many State, Federal, and other agencies.
iii. Local governments (e.g., counties, municipalities, area
planning agencies) and other organizations (e.g.,
Conservation Districts, Lake Associations, business-
related groups, public interest groups) in many cases
are the decision-makers responsible for actions that
affect the environmental quality of watersheds.
C. The WPI approach uses an integrated and holistic approach fot
watershed protection. As such, the WPI provides a framework
which:
i. empowers Federal, State, Indian Tribes, and local
agencies to implement watershed—specific clans that
prevent, reduce or abate environmental degradation and
risks to ecological systems and public health from
stressors and from all sources in the watershed;
ii. encourages consideration of the cumulative chemical,
physical. and biological effects throughout the
watershed;
iii. enhances coordination amona all interested parties ,
including State, local, Federal agencies, Indian Tribes,
‘and,—most importantly, the public; and
iv. enables States and EPA to assess progress and
successful]j develop and improve tools and programmatic
methodologies.
3 • RELATIONSHIP OF TEE WPI TO OTHER WATER PROGRAMS
Several current water programs incorporate geographic targeting to
some degree, including the Nonpoint Source Program, the National
Estuary Program, Coastal America, the Clean Lakes Program, and
Advanced Identification or Special Area Management Plans in the
Wetlands Program. Regions are also undertaking geographically
—2—
-------
DRAFT
targeted, multi-media enforcement initiatives. In the near term,
the Watershed Protection Initiative would not change the degree to
which existing programs are carried out or are targeted.
The WPI approach is not intended to replace existing targeting
programs, but rather to integrate and build on these targeting
efforts on a watershed basis. Under the Watershed Protection
Initiative, we would look to make several of these targeted efforts
coincide in the same watershed and thereby strengthen and broaden
our efforts. This approach will encourage stakeholders to view all
targeting efforts in a holistic fashion, in the context of the
specific watershed. A “champion” for the watershed would work to
tte the programs together. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship
of the WPI to other water programs.
Finally, there are important traditional tools (permitting,
standard setting, etc.) which are generally applied uniformly
nationwide and which are responsible for much of the progress
realized this far in preventing or controlling pollution.
Continued, or enhanced, use of these traditional tools is a vital
building block for better efforts - within targeted watersheds and
more broadly.
4 • IMPLEMENTATION OF TUE WPI
A. Implementation of the WPI will be through a two-pronged
approach:
Regional watershed projects (short term goal) - Projects
will be initiated by the Regions and managed by EPA.
Projects will be selected through risk-based targeting
and involve integrated, holistic watershed protection
solutions (see Appendices A and D for a definition of a
Watershed Protection Project and examples of Regional
watershed projects). The purpose of the Regional
projects is to develop methods and tools, develop
credible case studies, and lead by example. The key
.ingredient in these projects is the designation of a
“champion” for the selected watersheds who will actively
involve, with management support, the broad scope of
Water Management Division staff and programs in the
formation and execution of action plans to protect or
enhance the watershed.
ii. Institutional chanaes (long term goal) — EPA HQ and
Regions will undertake specific activities to encourage
States and other agencies to move toward integrated,
focused, holistic water quality programs. This is a
mid- to long-term proposition, and includes:
—3—
-------
Figure 1: RelationshIp of the WPI to Other Water Programs
Size & Coniplextty
Number of Areas
Addressed
Waterahed Prolection Project
-4-
-------
DRAFT
a. enhancing Statewide assessment and geographic targeting
programs;
b.bringing all relevant Federal and State agencies’ focus
-to bear on addressing targeted watersheds in an
integrated manner;
c. involving local governments and the public in developing
comprehensive watershed protection measures; and
d. involving Federal, State, Indian Tribal, and local
agencies and the public in developing appropriate
educational programs.
B. ScoDe of Watershed Protection Prolects - Appendix A provides
a definition of a watershed protection project (WPP). Figure
2 illustrates the scope of WPPs. All WPPs should be broad in
terms of the scope of the environmental issues examined.
Projects that may be appropriate to initiate under the WPI
include projects that focus on pollution prevention and
controlling pollution from dispersed, non-traditional sources
(e.g., urban and rural nonpoint source discharge of nutrienb
and toxics, stormwater, CSO dischargers, habitat destruction).
These non-traditional sources constitute, in aggregate, a
significant threat to the integrity of the ecosystems in our
watersheds.
The scope and complexity of WPPs will be determined by the
Regions and States on a case-by-case basis and should reflect
available resources, technical feasibility, and public
support. WPPS should focus on geographical areas where
existing resources and activities can be integrated and
brought together to demonstrate success within a reasonable
period of time. While WPPs will vary in size and scope, most
projects will not address the entire geographic reach of very
large watersheds or estuaries.
C. Results measurement - Each aspect of the WPI must have
measurable endpoints. Tracking results will be a priority in
implementing the WPI. Examples of measures that will be
tracked as part of WPI include measurable water quality
improvements, and measurable program institutional changes.
D. The WPI .will be implemented in FY91 by redirecting base
resources. For FY92, the WPI will be implemented by
redirecting base resources and by applying portions of any
FY92 increases.
E. EPA HQ will provide flexibility in certain existing programs
to support implementing the WPI (see Appendix E).
—5—
-------
I igure2: Scope of Watershed Proteclion Project I
Selection Level
National Regional State Local
Mulfi-Med Great Lakes Appal hk ola Maine Lakes Batterkiil, VT
Multlprogram Co t America National Esluarine W rsh cJ I 3 ari
Sanctuary, FL
Lackawanna
River, PA
Pacific Northwest Mgt Plan
Rivers Study
National Projected Areas Southern CA
____ Wildlife Plan
p p River, NH , ID. WA,
Pilgrim Creek
319 Program Watershed Mgt.
Plan, CA
Delaware State
CWia I1 Wetlands
Valley, WV Plan
Lake Champlain West Eugene,
Single-media Water Rainwater Ba iin Section 604(b ) OR Local Wetlands
Single-program Plan Advance Mgt Plan
Identification 106
-------
DRAPT
5 • EPA EQ AND REGIONAL COI4XITMENTS
A. Headquarters Commitments include:
i. Developing technical tools for geographic targeting and
watershed protection (e.g., models, NPS-oriented
criteria, monitoring methods, BMP effectiveness data,
geographic targeting methods);
ii. Harmonizing the priority setting and targeting criteria
of currently operating base programs;
iii. Providing flexibility to grant resources for watershed
protection projects;
iv. Supporting coordination and technical transfer pathways
between the Regions; and
v. Setting up necessary workshops, visiting project sites,
and evaluating progress.
B. Regional Commitments include:
i• Ultimate responsibility for the management of watershed
projects and other related activities (e.g., project
identification, staff dedication);
ii. Preparation of descriptions of planned activities and
resources devoted to projects; and
iii. Reporting on measurable indicators of progress.
6. SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
A. By August, 1991, Initial Framework and Projects would be
submitted to EPA HQ. These Initial Regional Plans would, at a
minimum, include: (See Appendix B for a more detailed
descrptio .)
i. A description of Regional watershed projects the Region
anticipates working on in FY 92 and FY 93.
ii. Initial thoughts on a Comprehensive Regional Framework.
B. By September, 1992, Regional offices would submit a
Comprehensive Regional Framework for Action . The
Comprehensive Regional Framework should explain how the
Regional offices will work to encourage Federal, state, and
local agencies to implement program changes to achieve the WPI
—7—
-------
goals. It should include: (See Appendix C for a more
detailed description.)
i. An update of ongoing watershed projects;
ii. —A description of the Region-wide watershed assessment
and geographic targeting capability that should be
completed by September, 1992;
iii. A strategy for institutional changes including
measurable results, milestones, and regular progress
reports; and
iv. A plan for transferring lessons learned from the
Regional watershed projects and program initiatives
within the Region.
C. In FY 1993 national workshops on integrated watershed
protection will be conducted.
D. In FY 1995 national progress to date will be assessed.
7. APPENDICES
A. Definition of a Watershed Protection Project
B. Detailed Description of August 1991 Initial Framework and
Projects
C. Detailed Description of September 1992 Comprehensive
Regional Watershed Framework
D Example Regional Approaches to Watershed Protection
E. Program Flexibility to Implement the WPI
—8—
-------
DRAPT
APPENDIX Ai Definition of a Watershed Protection Project
For the purposes of the Watershed Protection Initiative
(WPI), we can define a Watershed Protection Project (WPP) as a
discrete, integrated set of activities with the following
characteristics:
• identified as a discrete project through a planning
process by an EPA Region, a State, or other
authoritative organization(s) with environmental
management authorities/responsibilites;
• encompasses all or most of the landscape (normally a
watershed) or other identifiable ecological or
physiographic unit (e.g., an embayment, a mountain
valley, or an ecoregion);
• based on well-defined, risk-based environmental goals
for maintenance, improvement, and/or restoration of
environmental quality;
• involves an integrated multi-program approach to
achieving well—defined, risk-based environmental goals
and objectives for the watershed, including:
- chemical water quality
- physical water quality (temperature, flow,
circulation, fresh-salt water mixing, etc.)
- habitat quality (channel morphology, riparion
vegetation, substrate composition, wetlands,
mud/sand flats, SAy, and other community
composition and “health”)
- biodiversity;
• provi4es for broad-based participation of appropriate
Federal, State, tribal, county, municipal and other
government agencies, private landowners and other
interested parties, and the general public.
The purpose of this definition is not to be restrictive or
to force conformity to a single model. Rather, the general
criteria are designed to provide maximum flexibility within some
limits established to ensure some comparability across watersheds
for purposes of reporting, accountability, and resources
management.
A-i
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX B: August 1991. Initial Framework and Projects
1. LIST OF PROJECTS THE REGION ANTICIPATES WORK ING ON IN Fl 92
AND Fl 93 -
The list should include:
• a description of each watershed project based on
existing information and the targeting approach used in
initially selecting the project;
• the purpose of each project in terms of measurable
qualitative and quantitative results;
• a description of institutional and public support,
including the kinds of institutional changes expected
to result from the project, e.g., local zoning or
finance revisions, consistent watershed permit
expiration dates, establishment of formal watershed
workgroup or coordinator; and
• a description of integrated approaches (technical and
programmatic) to be used for each watershed project,
and a description of resource needs, potential sources
and the means to secure them.
2. INXTIhL EVJLUATION AND PRELIMINARY IDEAS FOR LONG-TERM
ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE NP ! -
• Evaluate current programs operated by State, Federal,
and to the extent practicable, local agencies or
organizations in terms of the following objectives of
the WPI:
— geographic targeting
— coordination among agencies
B- i
-------
— degree of involvement of local agencies and public
organizations
— degree that non-chemical stressors and non-
traditional sources are addressed
• Describe Regional plans for developing a Region-wide
risk-based targeting capability by September 1992.
• Describe initial Regional thoughts for promoting a
reorientation of Federal, state and local programs to
meet the objectives of the WPI. Describe initial
thoughts on how institutional changes will be measured
and reported.
• Describe intitial thoughts on how information will be
transfered within the Region.
B-2
-------
DRAFT
APPENDIX C: September 1992 Comprehensive Regional
Watershed Protection Framework for Action
The Comprehensive Regional Framework should be consistent with
the Regions’ strategic Planning and the overall goals of the
Watershed Protection Initiative. The Comprehensive Regional
Framework should include the following:
1. RN VPDATE OF ONGOING WATERSHED PROJECTS - The update should
include progress reports on ongoing watershed projects.
2. A DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION-WIDE WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND
GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING CAP7sBfl ,ITY EN RELATION TO TEE OVERALL GOALS OF
TEE WPI - This description should include:
An assessment of the conditions of watexsheds and
malor environmental concerns and causes - The focus
of this assessment is on existing information and
knowledge. The problems and causes should be
identified on the basis of risk.
Tar etin - The above descriptions and assessments of
watersheds should provide the Regions with the basis for
targeting methods. The Region will make a preliminary
identification of watersheds it considers high priority.
Preliminary targeting will help to focus the States on
specific watershed projects. The targeting process
involves two major criteria. One deals with physical
conditions and values of the watersheds. The other deals
with the opportunity for success. The opportunity for
ucce s depends on institutional and public support, and
the availability of technical and scientific tools.
3. A STRATEGY FOR PROMOTING INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN WATERBEED
PROTECTION — For the long-term, Regions should discuss approaches
and activities to support building State and local infrastructure
to ultimately empower States and local governments to target
watersheds and manage water quality with a holistic integrated
approach, and to do so routinely. This section should include
discussion of the following, including measurable results,
milestones, and regular progress reports for each element:
C-i
-------
DRAPT
• Assessment ot current Drograms
• Mditiona3, Regional watershed roiects
— purposes, objectives
— selection process
— operation (including resources, technical approach
and schedule)
• Geographic targeting — The Regions should:
— Take steps to encourage States to adopt State-wide
targeting programs;
— Take measures to ensure that all State agencies
commit resources and cooperate in developing
mitigation measures in targeted waters; and
— Make efforts to ensure that States seek to involve
the public in watershed management decisions.
• Proaram integration and cooperation (including the
public)
• Holistic protection
- Ensure that all stressors and risks are addressed.
• Measurable results — The Regions should select actions
and propose measurements to demonstrate the effectiveness
of the watershed approach. Measurable results, specific
milestones, and regular progress reports are necessary to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the integrated watershed
approach.
4. IDEN’rXPICATION OP TECENICAL AND PROGRAMMATIC LIMITATIONS - The
Regions should establish procedures for assessing and evaluating
watershed projects. Successes and failures of technical tools and
programmatic methodologies should be identified and shared.
S • A PLAN POR TRANSFERRING LESSONS LEARNED TO OTHER PROJECTS
WITHIN THE REGION - This section should include discussion on how
the Regions will facilitate coordination between the States for
sharing tools and information. In addition, the Regions should
address inter—Regional cooperation.
C-2
-------
DRAPT
APPENDIX D: Example Regional Approaches to
watershed Protection
o Canaan Valley, West Virginia
Region III
o Savannah River, Georgia
Region IV
D- 1
-------
DRAFT
CANAAN VALLEY: AN EARLY WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
canaa rVal1ey, located in Tucker County, West Virginia,
contains natural resources that are considered unique and
irreplaceable on a national basis. Designated as a National
Natural Landmark in 1975, the Valley encompasses an extremely
diverse but fragile wetlands complex containing a unique relict
northern boreal ecosystem. Some of the plant species, listed as
rare in the State, are at their southernmost known occurrence in
the Valley. Canaan Valley also contains the largest unprotected
migration concentration area for the American Woodcock in the
United States. Moreover, the Blackwater River, the headwaters of
which are formed by the wetlands at the Valley’s southern end, is
an important source of public water supply and is the largest
stream complex in the State containing a self-sustaining brown
trout population.
The Valley is subject to numerous threats, all of which are
capable of undermining the integrity of the Valley’s ecosystem.
These threats encompass, among others, nonpoint source pollution,.
development, mining, off—road vehicle use, and water demands,
which result in impacts to water quality of surface and ground
water, wetlands, wildlife habitat, and the unique vegetational
community.
Water quality is a key concern given the accelerating
development in the Valley. Such development, and consequently
potential sources of impact, include second home construction,
establishment of new businesses, and development of additional
golf courses and ski slopes. No central sewage treatment system
exists in the Valley; all septic systems are on site, which leads
to concern of waste loading in the Blackwater River. Water
quantity demands, particularly during snow-making events and peak
use at the Valley’s state park, are resulting in a dropping water
table. This reduction in water quantity will tend to exacerbate
any effecta of pollutants introduced into the system. Moreover,
the low buffering capacity of the Blackwater River makes the
Valley particularly vulnerable to adverse effects from acid
precipitation and mine drainage.
Recognizing that these mounting threats could irrevocably
harm the Valley’s natural resources complex, the Administrator of
Region III EPA moved to coalesce the various elements having
involvement in the Valley into a group capable of developing and
implementing a protection strategy that should ensure long term
environmental preservation, while permitting reasonable
sustainable economic growth. The group was organized as the
Canaan Valley Task Force and charged with developing and
D-2
-------
implementing a comprehensive Canaan Valley management strategy by
drawing upon its collective experiences, perspectives, resources,
authorities, and investigations. The task force is comprised of
representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S.
Fish and W 1dlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Tucker County
Commission, Tucker County Development Authority, Tucker County
Chamber of Commerce, landowner associations, environmental
interest groups, development interests, and the public at large.
Among the first tasks addressed by the task force were
refining, prioritizing, and pursuing the initiatives developed by
the Regional Administrator. The initiatives are broad based,
encompassing a trends analysis and advanced identification of
wetlands; suspension of Nationwide permits for surface mining,
minor road crossings, and headwater/isolated wetlands;
surveillance and enforcement; public outreach; a wastewater
assimilation study of the Blackwater River; a study of impacts
from off-road vehicles; a study of the economic impacts of the
proposed National Wildlife Refuge; and an assessment of the
headwater wetlands of the Valley. Congressman Mollohan,
representing the First District of West Virginia, secured a
Congressional appropriation of $250,000 to fund the initiatives.
One of the first accomplishments of the task force and
specifically the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is the suspension
of the Nationwide Permits in the Valley. These permits had
allowed filling of wetlands in headwaters or isolated situations
and fillings in conjunction with certain activities related to
road crossings and mining activities with little or no prior
notification and review. With the permit suspensions, proposals
for these activities must now undergo thorough review and
approval. In addition, work has begun on the surveillance and
enforcement (wetlands) program, public outreach, and Advanced ID
and trends analysis; funds are being disbursed for the remaining
initiatives.
In pu uing the initiatives, the task force is serving to
address several other issues. Two key ones are the proposed
National Wildlife Refuge and the Tucker County Commission’s
master plan. Both are controversial and sensitive issues
involving habitat protection, economic growth, and property
rights. Both, however, present opportunities as vehicles f or
implementing the management strategy for the Valley.
The activities of the Canaan Valley Task Force are
characteristic of what would be considered a watershed protection
project under the Watershed Protection Initiative. First, the
task force is geographically focused. Second, it is multi-
programmatic in that it seeks to solve water problems in several
D- 3
-------
DRAFT
arenas, including nonpoint sources, waste load allocations,
groundwater utilization, and wetland protection. Third, the
Canaan Valley effort is a working Federal, State, local and
private partnership that has caught the interest of the Congress
and the nafion. Finally, the efforts of the task force can be
implemented through existing Federal, state, and local vehicles.
In that regard, they represent a means to achieve sustainable
development in a highly sensitive and valuable ecosystem within a
familiar and effective regulatory framework.
D-4
-------
:C JN1Y:
Canaan Vallé
.. MI1 s
-------
DRAPT
REGION IV WATERSHED INITIATIVE PROCESS
The goal of the Watershed Initiative is to reduce ecological
and human health risks in critical watersheds. This will be
accomplished by:
1. Identification of watersheds by Region IV and States based
on known problems and use impairments;
2. Clear definition of the problems, causes, and sources in the
watershed;
3. Development of potential control strategies for pollutant
loads and sources including determination of total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs) where appropriate;
4. Aggressive implementation of point and nonpoint source
controls;
5. Development of scientifically valid, practical indicators to
identify and assess improvements made or ecological risks
that threaten the waters;
6. Development of ecological criteria that States can use in
adopting standards for ecology-based pollution prevention
and control.
The Regional Administrator or designee will consider the
following criteria in designating priority watersheds:
— human health and ecological risk;
- possibility of additional environmental degradation;
- likelihood of achieving demonstrable environmental
results;
- implementability;
- extent of alliances with other Federal agencies and
States to coordinate resources and actions;
- value of the watershed to the public;
- resource needs; and
— use of existing and/or development of new assessment
for at ion.
Significant work has already been done through a variety of
efforts to identify Region IV water bodies at greatest risk such
as State 303(d) lists, 305(b) reports, 304(1) lists, State 319
assessment and management reports, NEP assessments and action
plans and the Region IV Near Coastal Waters Program. The Region
IV comparative risk portion of the Strategic Plan describes the
primary stressors and impacts to Southeastern waters.
A watershed initiative will draw from a menu of activities
to support Region IV, State and local environmental protection
and restoration efforts. The selection of activities will vary
D-6
-------
RAPT
among the watershed projects, and may cross program offices.
Watershed initiatives will be structure for particular watershed
issues. They will vary in scope from Region IV teams assembled
specifically to implement provisions of a National Estuary
Program Co rehensive Conservation and Management Plans to
extensive external coordinating committees formed to address
areas without previous planning and with multiagency involvement.
The following is a sequence of activities to initiate and
conduct a Region IV watershed initiative. The listed activities
are based on recent Headquarters guidance concerning the
administration of watershed initiative. The activities also
include elements of the approaches used in ongoing Region IV
watershed projects such as the NEP projects and the Perdido Bay
Cooperative Management Project. This approach can be applied to
a variety of watershed initiatives but will need to be tailored
to meet the specific needs of a particular project. this
sequence of actions follows the selection of a watershed for an
initiative.
1. Designate a Region IV coordinator for each watershed
project.
2. Formulate a brief description of the watershed and include a
preliminary list of environmental problems based on
available information.
3. Clearly delineate the preliminary scope and goals of the
initiative.
4. Form an EPA watershed team. This is an extremely important
element of the initiative and should be made an official
part of an employee’s duties. The team should consist of
staff representatives of each Region IV program that has an
active role in environmental issues in the watershed. The
team will coordinate EPA base programs relevant to the
project.
5. Assemble and evaluate available information on the sources,
causes and extent of waterbody use impairment and the
ecological and/or human health risks.
6. Form an external watershed coordinating committee. The
process :of data assembly described above will indicate the
need for and potential membership of the committee. The
coordinating committee members could consist of technical
and management representatives of key state, regional and
local agencies, industries and citizen group
representatives. External committees would have different
compositions depending on the scope and goals identified in
D-7
-------
DRAPT
item 2. The coordinating committee will facilitate
communication among agencies and groups operating in the
watershed and participate in the implementation of basin
environmental protection actions.
7. Conduct regular meetings of the watershed team and
coordinating committee to maintain communication and to
build consensus on issues and obtain commitments for
solutions.
8. Identify all activities and key participants, both EPA and
those of other agencies, that have bearing on environmental
problems in the watershed. Also identify major milestones
for each agency’s program affecting the watershed.
9. Develop a watershed management strategy, the purpose of
which wil]. be to:
- Form consensus on which issues are the highest priorities,
- Develop ThDLs and water based control strategies,
- Describe specific plans of action to address problems,
- Identify those problems that need additional data,
- Identify opportunities for cooperative efforts,
— Leverage resources, and
- Set base program priorities.
10. As resources allow or are pooled from other sources, support
the further characterization of watershed problems or the
development of potential solutions.
11. Consistent with the watershed plan, implement action plans
to resolve environmental issues. Implementation should be
accompanied by development of environmental indicators that,
through monitoring, will be used to gauge the success of the
corrective actions.
A watershed initiative will need resources. Region IV will
provide re9ources.through the dedication of full or partial FTE5
to the watershed coordinator and team member positions. Other
agencies will provide support through active participation on the
coordinating committee. Support for watershed initiative actions
could come from the Region IV Near Coastal Water Program, the
Coastal America initiative, refocusing of State water quality
monitoring, nonpoint source grants, Clean Lakes Program grants,
Region IV discretionary funds, and funds from other Federal and
State agencies.
D- 8
-------
DRAPT
BAVMJNAE RIVER WATERSHED APPROACH
CLARK HILL DAN TO OCEAN
REGION IV 8AVANNM RIVER WATERSHED COORDINATOR:
DESCRIPTION 0? SAVANNAH RIVER WATERSHED AREAS OP CONCERN :
The Savannah River Watershed can be divided into four
segments or areas of concern:
• Clark Hi].]. Darn (CHD to City of AucTusta — a 50 mile
riverine segment influenced by hydropower releases from
CHD.
• City of Augusta to Highway 27 lust u streain of Savannah
— a 150 mile riverine segment with the last 20 miles
tidally affected, influenced by municipal and pulp and
paper mill wastewater dischargers.
• Savannah Estuary/Harbor - the tidal saline estuarine
portion influenced by Savannah WTP, pulp and paper
mills and a chemical wastewater facility, and the flow
is influenced and regulated by Army COE Tide Gate.
• Oceanic Portion — this segment may be influenced by
harbor dredging operations.
Existing or Potential Water Oualitv Violations or TJse
Xm ai rrnents
• CUD to Auausta seament :
- measured low summer and fall dissolved oxygen (DO)
a1ues downstream of dam caused by low DO water
being released from lower layer of CHD Reservoir.
DO levels are recovered when River reaches
Augusta.
— Possible NPS problems (siltation and sediment) due
to agriculture and construction runoff.
• ugusta to Savannah searnent :
- Dioxin and PCBs have been detected in fish.
Potential human health problem that needs to be
better defined.
0-9
-------
DRAPT
— Potential summer DO water quality standards
violations near Highway 431, 80-100 miles below
Augusta. DO violations caused by a combination of
Augusta’s municipal and industrial discharges, low
— flows from CHD and river temperature increase due
to Savannah River plant.
- Possible acute toxicity problems below wastewater
dischargers.
— Possible instream tritiuin problems due to Savannah
River plant.
Estuarine/HarbOr seqment :
— Dioxin and PCBs have been detected in fish.
Potential human health problem that needs to be
better defined.
— Summer DO water quality standards violations
influenced by wastewater discharges, upstream
wastewater discharges, Army COE Tide Gate
operation, COE dredging operations and possible
NPS contributions.
— Endangered species concern: the shortnose
sturgeon — by National Marine Fisheries because of
low DO levels.
- Loss of striped bass fishery due to increased
upstream salinity caused by Tide Gate operation
(U.S. Fish & Wildlife).
- Toxicity problems both below the chemical
discharge and in the tide gate sediment path.
- Possible lower DO levels, increased salinity and
nterference of aquatic life species migration due
to proposed COE Harbor dredging and deepening
project.
— Possible loss of freshwater supply due to greater
upstream movement of salt water as a result of the
tide gate operations and deepening projects.
• Ocean Portion
- Disposal of dredged materials some of which may be
toxic.
D- 10
-------
SCOPE p.jjp GOALS OF SAVANNAH INITIATIVE :
Development of an action plan, involving all appropriate
state . local and Federal agencies, that will reduce the
envir nniental and human health risks in the Savannah River
Watershed; correct the water quality standards violations;
and restore the designated uses. This action plan will pull
together all of the areas of concern, such as low DO levels,
salt water intrusion, lack of fisheries resources, etc.,
that are being presently dealt with on an individual basis.
REGION IV WATERSHED TEAM REPRESENTATIVES :
Water Management Division:
- Coastal Unit Rep.
— WQS/WLA Unit Rep.
- Wetlands Unit Rep.
- Planning & Monitoring Unit Rep.
- NPDES Permitting and/or Compliance Section Rep.
— Groundwater Branch Rep.
— Drinking Water Rep.
• OPM — Federal Activities Rep.
• NEPA - EIS Rep.
• Superfund Rep.
• Environmental Service Division Reps.
ONGOING SAVANNAH RIVER WATERSHED PROJECTS MID AVAILABLE
I NPORHATXON :
• EPA, Georgia, & South Carolina’s joint intensive river
survey and WLA/TMDL development for Augusta-Savannah
portion.
• EPA and Georgia Savannah Harbor DO water quality
standards and modeling activities.
• COE Savannah Harbor Environmental study examining the
effects of Tide Gate operations.
• COE Savannah Harbor EIS concerning the proposed
deepening project.
• Striped bass restocking program - U.S. Fish & Wildlife.
• Shortnose sturgeon restocking program — National Marine
Fisheries.
D- 11
-------
DRAPT
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife operation of Federal Wildlife
Sanctuary.
• entification of wetlands conversion from freshwater
to saltwater marshes - COE project with University of
Georgia.
POTENTIAL LOCALD STATE AND FEDERAL PARTICIPANTS :
• EPA
- Water Quality Management Branch, WQS/WLA, Coastal
Programs, and Wetlands
- EIS
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• National Marine Fisheries
• Georgia EPD, DNR, Water Resources, Fish &Wildlife, &
Ports Authority
• South Carolina DHEC, Water Resources Commission, Coastal
Council
• 5 local environmental groups
• Savannah Area Harbor Discharge Group
• City of Savannah or Chattam County representatives
ONGOING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND ACTIVITIES :
• Development of a DO—based WLA/TMDL for Upper, Middle &
Estuary/Harbor portions of the Savannah Watershed. The
upper, and middle segments WLA/TNDLs are being
developed through a joint EPA, Georgia DNR, and South
Carolina DHEC water quality data collection and
modeling study.
• Savannah Harbor Tide Gate and Deepening EIS/Study being
conducted by COE.
• Salinity intrusion calculation for Estuary/Harbor —
water quality modeling being conducted through a COE
contract.
• Toxicity WLA/TMDL for middle and Estuary/Harbor
portion.
• Wetlands evaluation being conducted by COE through
contract with University of Georgia.
D- 12
-------
APPENDIX B: Program Flexibility to Implement the
Watershed protection Initiative
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act authorizes up to $12
million per year (through FY92) for activities related to the
development of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMP) under the National Estuary Program (NEP). tip to 10
percent of these funds can be used by EPA Headquarters for
national program activities. A minimum of 90 percent of the
total authorization is transferred annually from EPA Headquarters
to the Regions, where the Regional Administrators have authority
to award funds to support CCNP development. Funding decisions by
the Regional Administrators are based on annual workplans
developed by the NEP Management Conferences. These workplans
specify the types of projects that will be supported to achieve
the purposes of a Management Conference and complete a CCMP.
Under the mandate of section 320, these funds are only authorized
for use in estuaries designated under the NE? (currently 17), and
only for CCMP development activities. As was noted, the use of
these funds is directed by the NE? Management Conferences.
Therefore, although activities under the NE? could generally be
discussed in terms of the Watershed Protection Initiative, there
is no flexibility for using any of the NE? funds for use either
(1) outside of the NEP estuaries or (2) within the NE? estuaries
without the direct consent of the NE? Management Conferences.
NEAR COASTAL WATERS PROGRAM
The Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Program was established as an
Agency initiative in 1986 to maintain and where possible enhance
the quality of near coastal waters. Regional NCW Strategies are
a critical aspect of the NCW Program. The purpose of these
strategies is to focus EPA Regional efforts on correcting
problems in coastal areas, as well as to integrate these
activities with programs being implemented at the Federal, State,
and local level. The strategies assess coastal problems, and
identify which of these problems will receive priority attention
by the Region. The strategies also identify geographic areas
that will be targeted, as well as priority actions that will be
taken in these areas by EPA in coordination with Federal, State
E-1
-------
and local agencies. Funds available under the NCW Program are
used for implementation of Regional strategies, and are directed
to projects at the discretion of the Region. This degree of
flexibility_makes these resources available for use under the
Watershed Protection Initiative, providing their use is also
consistent with meeting the goals and objectives of the Regional
NCW Strategy.
MONITORING PROGRMI
The State-wide assessment and geographic targeting
objectives of the WPI are consistent with monitoring program
guidance and guidance issued pursuant to sections 305(b) and
303(d). Monitoring activities may need to be reviewed and
redirected, however, in order to support specific watershed
projects. Regions and States should work to assure that
watershed projects have the assessment and data analysis support
necessary to determine needed prevention, reduction and abatement
activities and to measure and document the ongoing success of
watershed initiative projects. Beginning in FY92, Regions should
ensure that State workplans for sections 106 and 604(b) identify
the monitoring activities and resources to support individual
watershed initiative projects.
0 RANT 8
Bection i O6
Section 106 funds have very broad eligibilities and can be
used to support a wide array of water quality activities.
Beginning in FY92, Regions should ensure that State section 106
workplans tdentify which activities and resources are supporting
specific watershed projects.
ect on 314
Section 314 funds are used to provide financial assistance
to States and eligible Indian Tribes for lake monitoring, study,
restoration, and protection. Since lakes are a reflection of
their watershed, the Clean Lakes Program (Section 314) requires a
watershed approach for funding Phase I, Phase II, and to some
extent Phase III projects described below. Therefore, Section
314 funds are supportive of WPI projects in which the watershed
E-2
-------
DRAYT
includes a lake(s).
The Clean Lakes Program awards the following four types of
cooperative agreements:
(1) Lake Water Quality Assessment - to perform a statewide
assessment of lake water quality, provide a list of
threatened and impaired lakes, and enhance their 305(b)
reporting capabilities. These cooperative agreements
require a 50/50 Federal/non-Federal cost share and are
limited to no more than $30,000 per year in Federal funds
for any State or Tribe.
(2) Phase I Diagnostic/FeasibilitV Study - to perform a
comprehensive study of a specific lake to determine the
causes and extent of pollution, to evaluate possible
solutions, and recommend the most feasible and cost-
effective method for restoring and protecting water quality.
These cooperative agreements require a 70/30 Federal/non-
Federal cost share and are limited to not more than $ioo,ooo
in Federal funds per study.
(3) Phase II Restoration/Protection IinD1em entation - to
implement the recommendations of a Phase I-type study and
may include actual in-lake restoration work as well as
watershed management practices to reduce pollution and
protect the lake. These cooperative agreements require a
50/50 Federal/Nonfederal cost share with no limit on the
Federal funds per project.
(4) Phase III Post—Restoration ITnDlement tion Monitoring —
to determine the longevity and effectiveness of various
restoration and protection techniques. These projects
require a comprehensive knowledge of the lake system and its
watershed prior to and during implementation in order to
form a basis for comparing post-implementation data.
Projects in which implementation has been completed for at
least .5 year are given priority consideration for funding.
These cooperative agreements require a 70/30 Federal/non—
Federal cost share and are limited to $125,000 in Federal
funds per study.
Section 319
Section 319 funds are used to implement nonpoint source
management programs. When watershed projects are consistent with
319(b) management plans, section 319 funds can be used to support
specific watershed activities. It is EPA policy that 319 funds
should not be used for planning that is not closely associated
E-3
-------
DRAPT
with an implementation project. However, 319 funds can be used
to assess problems and develop load allocations and other
management measures when these activities are part of a project
that will also include implementation of controls within the
watershed. =Beginning in FY92, section 319 workplans should
identify activities and resources supporting individual watershed
initiative projects. If a state has shifted funds for nonpoint
source purposes under section 201(g) (1) (B) (the Governor’s one
percent discretionary authority), these funds are eligible to be
used for the same activities as section 319 funds.
section 604(b )
Section 604(b) funds are used to support water quality
management planning activities. These funds are a primary source
of support as States assess potential watershed projects and
develop plans for specific watersheds. Beginning in FY92,
Regions should ensure that State section 604(b) workplans
identify activities related to assessing potential projects and
supporting specific projects.
VARIOUS SETASIDE AUTHORITIES WITHIN STATE REVOLVING FUNDS (SRP )
The wastewater construction grants program has been
implemented through Title II of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The
1987 Amendments to the CWA established Title VI, State Revolving
Funds (SRPs), to replace construction grants. SRFs may provide
loans, refinance existing debt, and provide loan guarantees or
bond insurance; however, SRF5 may not make grants.
The 1981 Amendments added section 201(g) (1) which authorized
States to spend up to 20 percent of their section 207 allotments
on projects otherwise ineligible for funding from the
constructi gr nts program under section 212. Funding through
section 201(g) (1) is referred to as the Governor’s Discretionary
Fund. The 1987 Amendments included sub-section 201(g) (1) (B)
which allows for the use of funds for activities that are grant
eligible under sections 319 (NPS) and 320 (NEP program). States
may therefore use their SRFs for watershed projects, as long as
the projects .include activities appropriate to sections 319 or
320.
However, before a State can use its SRI to fund 319 or 320
activities, it must demonstrate that it has met the “first use”
requirement established by section 602(b) (5), or will meet the
requirement during the first year covered by its Intended Use
E-4
-------
DRA
Plan (IUP). A State can satisfy the “first use” requirement by
certifying that all National Municipal Plan (NM?) projects in the
State are: 1) in compliance, 2) on enforceable schedules, 3) have
enforcement actions filed, or 4) have funding commitments during
or prior to—the first year covered by the IUP.
PERMITS (NPDEB) PROGRAM
The Permits Program provides one of the most effective tools
for controlling pollution from point sources, stormwater runoff,
and, CSOS. The flexibility of the program exists in its
major/minor classification, permit backlog priority setting and
inspection priorities. In Region 5, both Michigan and Ohio are
targeting permits on a basinwide basis. Region 1 is using
criteria in setting priorities for permit reissuance that takes
environmental need into account. OWEC has recently expressed an
interest in other proposals that would allow for a basinwide or
watershed targeting approach. Region 2 has recently prepared an
issue paper on measures for tracking progress in reissuing
permits. The issue paper recommends the development of a state—
specific strategy to prioritize permit issuance and establishes
an expectation that 20% of the permit universe should be
addressed each year to ensure reissuance of all permits over a
five year cycle. And finally, OWEC in its FY92 Operating
Guidance will allow the Regions to inspect 80%, instead of 100%,
of the majors and focus the resources for the remaining 20% on
targeted areas.
GROUNDWATER PROGRAM - SECTION 106
Section 106 ground water grant funds are used to implement
comprehenst,Ye State Ground Water Protection Programs (SGWPP).
When watershed projects are consistent with SGWPP priorities,
section 106 ground water grants can be used by the States to
support specific watershed activities. These funds can be used
to assess problems and develop management measures when these
activities are part of SGWPP within the watershed. Beginning in
FY92, section 106 ground water grant workplans should identify
activities and resources supporting individual watershed
initiative projects.
E—5
-------
DRAFT
COASTAL AXERICA
A total of $23 million has been requested for the
President’s CoaStal America initiative in 1992. These funds are
divided up between four agencies as follows:
EPA $ 6 million
Corps of Engineers $ 7 million
NOAA $ 5 million
Department of Interior $ 5 million
$23 million
The four agencies have developed a process for distributing
the $23 million to regional action projects. Projects must be:
1) action—oriented; 2) involve three or more federal agencies;
3) focus on one of the three problem areas of habitat
degradation, nonpoint source pollution, and contaminated
sediments; and 4) must show a benefit to coastal living
resources. For purposes of the initiative, seven coastal regions
have been delineated: Northeast (Regions I and II), Southeast
(Regions III & IV), Gulf of Mexico (Regions IV & VI), Great Lakes,
(Regions II, III, & V), Southwest (Region IX), Northwest (Region
X), and Alaska (Region X). Within each of these coastal regions
priorities will be established jointly and specific projects
selected by Regional Implementation Teams (RIT) composed of
Federal agency representatives from the coastal regional and
field offices, and representatives from the coastal states.
Under the current plans, these regional teams are beginning their
nomination process now with the final list of projects to be
submitted to the Coastal America National Implementation Team
(NIT) in Washington by September 16, 1991. Any regions wishing
to receive funding from Coastal America must work through their
RIT to get proposals nominated.
WETLANDS PROTECTI9N PROGRAX
State/Local/Tribal Su ort Programs
• Stat. W.tlands Conservation Plans (SWCP): SWCP5 are a
concept put forward by the Wetlands Forum. SWCPs would
demonstrate how a State could achieve a goal of no net loss
of wetlands. EPA is supporting efforts by the Conservation
Foundation to further develop the Forum’s model and identify
States’ technical information needs to develop SWCPs. A
reference document is being developed to highlight
successful approaches and provide techniques which States
can use in developing such a plan. Every State has already
E-6
-------
DRAFT
(1987) prepared wetland planning documents as part of the
SCORP (Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan)
process. Many of these contain information of State
inventories, foundation and values, distribution and
acqui itiofl priority.
Btats Grant Program: The EPA grant program supports the
development of new State wetlands programs or enhancement of
existing programs. The reaction to the first year of the
grant program was encouraging (over 30 States applied).
Examples of State program development funded include State
wetland conservation plans, developing various aspects of
wetland water quality standards and wetland applications
under CWA section 401 certification, and program information
and GIS data systems.
Planning
Advance Identification (ADID): Under the CWA Section
404(b) (1) Guidelines, EPA and the Section 404 permitting
authority (either the Corps of Engineers or an approved
State agency), act jointly to identify wetlands and other
waters of the United States as possible future disposal
sites and areas generally unsuitable for disposal site
specification for all or certain types of discharges. ADID
allows EPA, the permitting authority, and/or the State to
collect information on the natural values of wetlands. The
results of ADID studies are published and made available to
the public and regulated community and should provide an
indication of whether a Section 404 permit will likely be
received. There is a significant demand from State and
local governments to conduct future ADID efforts.
E-7
-------
NORTH CAROLINA’S
WHOLE BASIN APPROACH TO
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT:
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Prepared for
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
and
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by
Clayton S. Creager
and
Joan P. Baker
Western Aquatics, Inc.
Durham, North Carolina
and
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Water Quality Section
Draft
for External Distribution and Comment
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
North Carolina’s Whole Basin Approach to Water Quality Management:
Program Description
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) Water Quality Section has
initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management. In the future, activities within the
NCDEM Water Quality Program, including permitting, monitoring, modeling, nonpoint source
assessments, and planning, will be coordinated and integrated by basin, for each of the 17 major
river basins within the state. Water quality and aquatic resources will be assessed simultaneously
throughout an entire river basin, leading to the development of basinwide water quality
management plans and strategies.
The benefits of whole basin planning and management fall into three major categories: (1)
improved efficiency, (2) increased effectiveness, and (3) consistency and equitability. By reducing
the area of the state covered each year, monitoring, modeling, and permitting efforts can be
focused; as a result, more can be achieved for a given level of funding and resource allocation.
The whole basin approach is consistent with basic ecological principles of watershed
management, leading to more effective water quality assessment and management. Linkages
between aquatic and terrestrial systems are addressed (e.g., contributions from nonpoint sources)
and all inputs to aquatic systems, and potential interactive effects, are considered. Whole basin
management will facilitate the incorporation of nonpoint source pollution assessment and controls,
since these diffuse pollutant sources extend to the watershed boundaries and accumulate from
a basin’s headwaters to its mouth. The whole basin plans will provide a focus for management
decisions. By clearly defining the program’s long-term goals and approaches, these plans will
encourage consistent decision-making. Consistency, togetherwith greater attention to long-range
planning, in turn will promote a more equitable distribution of assimilative capacity, explicitly
addressing the trade-offs among pollutant sources (point and nonpoint) and allowances for future
growth.
ii
-------
The long-term objectives of North Carolina’s Basinwide Water Quality Management Initiative are
as follows:
o Implement a fully integrated approach to water quality assessment and management, that
incorporates (1) chemical-specific monitoring and regulations, (2) biocriteria,
bioassessments, and biosurveys, (3) water quality modeling, and (4) whole effluent toxicity
testing.
o Coordinate Water Quality Section staff activities to make efficient use of available
resources and to improve program effectiveness and consistency in management
decision-making.
o Identify priority problem areas and sources (both point and nonpoint) that merit particular
pollutant control and enforcement efforts/resources.
o Determine the optimal water quality management strategy and distribution of assimilative
capacity for each of the 17 major river basins within the state.
o Produce comprehensive basinwide management plans that communicate to policy makers
and the general public NCD EM’s rationale, approaches, and long-term strategies for each
basin.
o Implement innovative management approaches that both protect North Carolina’s surface
water quality and allow for sound economic growth and planning, and also encourage the
equitable distribution of assimilative capacity.
o Increased assessment, through monitoring and modeling, of the interactions among
pollutants and pollutant sources from a basin’s headwaters to the river’s mouth.
o Address more explicitly contributions from nonpoint sources, interactions between point
and nonpoint sources, and options for nonpoint source pollutant reduction and controls.
o Establish basinwide total maximum daily loads, and avoid overallocation of the basin’s
assimilative capacity.
o Fulfill the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency regulations in the most efficient and effective manner, by consolidating survey and
reporting activities into an integrated whole basin management plan.
The implementation of whole basin planning and management will occur in phases. Permitting
activities and associated routine support activities (field sampling, modeling, wasteload allocation
calculations, etc.) have already been rescheduled by basin. All National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit renewals within a basin will occur simultaneously, and be
iii
-------
repeated at five year intervals. The NPDES permit renewal schedule drives the schedule for
developing and updating the whole basin management plans. The management plan for a given
basin must be available (and approved) preceding the scheduled date for permit renewals, to
serve as the basis for the permit renewal process and decisions. The earliest basin plans
prepared in the mid-1990s may not achieve all of the long-term objectives for whole basin
management outlined above. However, subsequent updates of the plans, every 5 years, will
incorporate additional data and new assessment tools (e.g., basiriwide water quality modeling)
and management strategies (e.g., for reducing nonpoint source contributions) as they become
available.
Each whole basin management plan will include eight major sections or components: (1) an
introduction, describing the purpose and format of the plan; (2) a general basin description; (3)
an assessment of the current status of water quality and biological communities in the basin; (4)
an overview of existing pollutant sources and loads; (5) identification of the major water quality
concerns and priority issues in the basin; (6) the long-range management goals and general
management strategy; (7) the recommended total maximum daily loads, wasteload allocations
(for point sources), load allocations (for nonpoint sources), and management actions: and (8)
implementation, enforcement, and monitoring plans. The primary target audience for these plans
includes policy makers, the general public, and the regulated community (e.g., local governments
and industries). Thus, the document will be written in a manner and level of detail that is easily
understood and appreciated by both technical and nontechnical audiences.
Fifteen major steps have been identified to develop, produce, and implement each whole basin
management plan. Although the basic structure and major responsibilities within the Water
Quality Section will remain unchanged, implementation of a whole basin approach to water quality
management will require increased information exchange and coordination, as well as more
complex water quality modeling, data interpretation, and data base management than are
currently employed. In particular, the ability to link water quality data and model projections for
the multiple stream reaches within a basin, and to overlay and analyze other relevant types of
information, such as land use, is a critical aspect and will be a primary benefit of whole basin
planning. Thus, as part of the transition to whole basin planning, the Water Quality Section will
initiate centralized data base management and more direct interactions and a closer working
iv
-------
relationship with the Center for Geographic Information Analysis, to take advantage of their
Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities.
North Carolina’s commitment to whole basin planning and management is consistent with the
goals and guidance of the federal Clean Water Act. Several sections of the Clean Water Act
require or provide general support for the whole basin approach, including sections 201(c), 208,
303(d), 303(e), and 319. North Carolina has interpreted these sections to mean that management
plans, addressing both point and nonpoint sources of pollution, should be developed and
promulgated for each of the 17 major river basins within the state. Although research and
resource needs remain, the NCDEM Water Quality Section is preceding, therefore, with the
development and implementation of basinwide management strategies and whole basin
management plans.
V
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Titte Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1 .1 Objectives of Whole Basin Management 2
1.2 Rationale for Whole Basin Management 3
1.3 Congressional Mandate for Whole Basin Planning 6
2. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF A WHOLE BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN 12
2.1 Introduction 17
2.2 General Basin Description 17
2.3 Current Status of Water Quality and Biological Communities 18
2.3.1 Sources of Water Quality Data 18
2.3.2 Methods to Interpret Water Quality Data 18
2.3.3 Results of Subbasin Water Quality Analyses 19
2.4 Existing Pollutant Sources and Loads 20
2.4.1 Major Categories and Types of Pollutants 20
2.4.2 Data Sources and Assessment Methods 20
2.4.3 Subbasin Summaries 21
2.4.4 Pollutant Loading Analysis 22
2.5 Major Water Quality Concerns and Priority Issues 22
2.6 Long-Range Management Goals and General Management Strategy ... 23
2.6.1 Projected Trends in Basin Development 23
2.6.2 Long-Term Management Goals and Objectives 23
2.6.3 General Management Strategy and Approach 25
2.7 Recommended Total Maximum Daily Loads and Management Actions . . - 25
2.8 Implementation, Enforcement, and Monitoring Plans 27
3. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING WHOLE BASIN PLANS 29
4. RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE WATER QUALITY SECTION 34
4.1 Existing Structure 34
4.2 Responsibilities for Whole Basin Planning 37
5. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 42
6. DATA MANAGEMENT 49
7. REMAINiNG ISSUES AND OUTSIDE RESOURCE/RESEARCH NEEDS 51
7.1 Remaining Administrative and Regulatory Issues 51
7.2 Technical Resource and Research Needs 52
8. REFERENCES 54
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Survey and reporting requirements of the federal Clean Water Act that can be
satisfied through whole basin management and basinwide management plans 5
2 Relationship between the sections of a whole basin management plan and
the specific reporting requirements of the federal Clean Water Act 16
3 Major steps and information transfers involved in the development of a whole
basin management plan 30
4 The organizational structure of the NCDEM Water Quality Section 35
5 Four phase conceptual model of implementation of the whole basin approach
to water quality management. indicating near-term and long-term program
objectives 43
6 Timetine for developing the first Tar-Pamlico whole basin management plan . . 47
v i’
-------
UST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Sections of the Federal Clean Water Act that Require or Encourage Whole
Basin Planning and the Development of Whole Basin Management Plans .... 7
2 Sections of the Federal Clean Water Act that Would Be More Completely and
EfficienUy Implemented Through Whole Basin Management and Planning . ... 10
3 General Outhne for a Basinwide Management Plan 13
4 NPDES Permitting Schedule for the 17 Major River Basins in North Carolina.. 45
5 Es mated Time Frame and Schedule for Preparing the First Whole Basin
Management Plan for the Tar-Pamlico Basin 46
V I I I
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
In 1990, the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) Water Quality
Section initiated plans for a whole basin approach to water quality management. Activities within
the North Carolina Water Quality Program, including permitting, modeling and wasteload
allocations, nonpoint source assessments, monitoring, special intensive studies, and planning, are
to be coordinated and integrated for each of the 17 major river basins in the state. Water quality
and aquatic resources will be assessed simultaneously throughout an entire river basin, leading
to the development of basinwide water quality management plans and strategies. The overall
goal is to develop consistent and effective long range management strategies that both protect
the quality and intended use of North Carolina’s surface waters and allow for sound economic
planning.
This report provides a description of the proposed whole basin approach to water quality
management in North Carolina. By documenting the program’s objectives, major components,
procedures, and schedule, it is intended to assist the NCDEM Water Quality Section with program
implementation and to communicate North Carolina’s rationale and approach to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), other states, and other interested parties.
Activities and changes have been ongoing for several years within the NCDEM, which are not
described in this document, to lay the foundation for whole basin planning and management. The
Water Quality Section staff has been strengthened in key areas to provide the appropriate
balance of skills and expertise needed to effectively implement whole basin management. Staff
responsibilities and duties also have been reorganized to be consistent with the planned
distribution of responsibilities for the whole basin planning initiative. Data base management and
computational capabilities within the Water Quality Section have been enhanced, by supplying
staff with personal computers or workstations, computer networking, improved software, and
increased utilization of the Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. The writing of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits has been automated, to
minimize the backlog during the transition period, when shorter-term permits may be required.
Finally, the advantages of a whole basin approach to water quality management have been
broadly discussed within the NCDEM and also with the regulated community, to influence
administrative philosophy and also generate support for the concept and program.
-------
The remainder of this section provides further detail on (1) the specific objectives of the North
Carolina Basinwide Water Quality Management Initiative, (2) the rationale for and benefits of
whole basin management, and (3) the congressional mandate for whole basin planning.
Subsequent sections describe the major components of a whole basin management plan (Section
2); the steps and tasks required to develop basinwide management plans (Section 3); the
organization of the NCDEM Water Quality Section and specific responsibilities for developing and
implementing whole basin plans (Section 4); schedules for program implementation (Section 5);
data management approaches and needs (Section 6); and a summary of the critical remaining
technical and policy issues and outside research and resource needs (Section 7).
1.1 OBJECTiVES OF WHOLE BASIN MANAGEMENT
The long-term objectives of North Carolina’s Basinwide Water Quality Management Initiative are
as follows:
o Implement a fully integrated approach to water quality assessment and management.
incorporating (1) chemical-specific monitoring and regulations, (2) biocriteria,
bioassessments, and biosurveys, (3) water quality modeling, (4) whole effluent toxicity
permitting and testing, and (5) compliance and enforcement activities.
o Coordinate Water Quality Section staff activities to make efficient use of available
resources and to improve program effectiveness and consistency in management
decision-making.
o Identity priority problem areas and sources (both point and nonpoint) that merit particular
pollutant control and enforcement efforts/resources, and regulation/statute modifications.
o Determine the optimal water quality management strategy and distribution of assimilative
capacity 1 for each of the 17 major river basins within the state.
o Produce comprehensive basiriwide management plans that communicate to policy makers
and the generai public NCDEM’s rationale, approaches, and long-term management
strategies for each basin.
Assimilative capacity is defined as the amount of pollutant(s) that a waterbody can receive
(assimilate), from both point and nonpoint sources, and still maintain the corresponding
water quality standards established to protect the best use of those waters.
2
-------
o Implement innovative management approaches that both protect North Carolina’s surface
water quality and allow for sound economic planning and growth, and also encourage the
equitable distribution of assimilative capacity.
o Increased assessment, through monitoring and modeling, of the interactions among
pollutants and pollutant sources from a basin’s headwaters to the river’s mouth.
o Address more explicitly contributions from nonpoint sources, interactions between point
and nonpoint sources, and options for nonpoint source pollutant reduction and controls.
o Establish basinwide total maximum daily loads 2 and avoid overallocation of assimilative
capacity.
o Fulfill the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and USEPA regulations in the most
efficient and effective manner, by consolidating survey and reporting activities into an
integrated whole basin management plan.
1.2 RATIONALE FOR WHOLE BASIN MANAGEMENT
The benefits of whole basin planning and management fall into three major categories: (1)
improved efficiency, (2) increased effectiveness, and (3) consistency and equitability.
EffIciency : The whole basin approach is administratively efficient; staff activities are focused on
a series of defined geographic areas in a scheduled manner. By focusing areas of the state
covered in a specific year, travel and field sampling efforts are concentrated within particular
basin(s), allowing for expanded station and parameter coverage and enhanced spatial and/or
temporal resolution. Public notices and public hearings can be aggregated within each basin,
increasing public awareness of and participation in the planning process. NPDES permit
reissuance will be balanced so that approximately the same number of permits are issued each
year; also wasteload allocation analyses can be conducted more efficiently if multiple dischargers
within a given river basin or reach are considered simultaneously. As a direct result of increased
2 Total maximum daily load (TMDL) is defined as the sum of the individual wasteload
allocations (i.e., that portion of a water’s loading capacity allocated to one of its existing
or future point sources of pollution) and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural
background. TMDLS can be expressed in terms of mass per time, toxicity, or other
appropriate measure that relates to a State’s water quality standard. Thus, the TMDL
process provides for nonpoint source control tradeoffs.
3
-------
efficiency, more may be achieved for a given level of funding and resource allocation, resulting
in greater monitoring coverage and/or more sophisticated water quality assessments. In addition,
as part of the transition to whole basin management, plans call for improved procedures for
information transfer and data base management (see Section 6), which also will contribute to
increased staff efficiency. Finally, the basinwide management plans that will result from these
efforts are expected to consolidate many of the redundant survey and reporting requirements
specified by the federal Clean Water Act (Figure 1).
Effectiveness : The whole basin approach is also more consistent with basic ecological principles
of watershed management. Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial systems are addressed
(e.g., contributions from nonpoint sources) and multiple inputs to aquatic systems, and potential
interactive effects, are considered. Whole basin management will facilitate the incorporation of
nonpoint source pollution assessment and controls, since these diffuse pollutant sources extend
to the watershed boundaries and accumulate from a basin’s headwaters. it also will encourage
the integration of existing program components (chemical-specific monitoring and regulations;
whole effluent toxicity testing and permitting; biocriteria, bioassessments, and biosurveys; water
quality modeling; and compliance and enforcement activities) into a comprehensive, balanced
water quality management program, taking full advantage of each type of information and
approach. Finally, the development of basinwide strategies will formalize the process of long-
range planning and add several new and innovative approaches to water quality assessment and
management, including the following:
o development and application of basinwide surface water quality models that explicitly
address the potential interactive effects of multiple pollutants and dischargers,
o evaluation of basinwide trends in water quality and biological indicators,
o periodic re-evaluation of use designations and correction of misclassifications,
o establishment of basinwide total maximum daily loads,
o development of basinwide management plans that jointly address point and nonpoint
pollutant sources, and
o implementation of innovative management strategies, such as “agency banking 0 of
assimilative capacity in anticipation of future growth, pollution trading, and industrial
recruitment mapping.
4
-------
A//////
of CWA Comments
201 (C)
•
208 (a-i)
•
•
•
•
•
•
208 is currently inactive, NPS controls generally
voluntary
209
•
•
•
,
209 focus is on national plan and large river basins.
most states did not participate
210
•
•
Annual survey to determine efficiency of operation
and maintenance of treatment works
302
•
•
alternative effluent control strategies to control
point sources for the restoration of water quaRty to
the desired level.
303 (d)
•
•
•
•
•
•
states are to establish TMDLS for a priority list of
nonattainment waters for each pollutant that the
Administrator ident ies as suitable
303 (e)
•
•
S
S
•
Explicitly calls for areawide planning process that
includes consideration of both point and nonpoint
source pollutants.
304
•
•
•
•
305
•
•
Water Quality Inventory Biennial reporting on the
use support, status of surface waters and the
achievements of the regulatory program and general
assessment guidelines
314
(a)
.
•
Clean Lakes Bienneal reporting on the nutrient
(eutrophication) status of lakes
319(a)
•
•
•
•
•
State Management Plans for identification, priority
setting of waters impacted by nonpoint source
pollution
319 (b)
•
This section also includes guidance on the
development and implementation of control
programs
Figure 1. Survey and reporting requirements of the federal Clean Water Act that can be
satisfied through whole basin management and basinwide management plans.
5
-------
Consistency and Equitability : The whole basin management plans will provide a focus for
management decisions. By clearly defining the programs long-term goals and approaches to
water quality protection, these plans will facilitate consistent decision-making, not only within a
given basin but also statewide. Consistency, together with greater attention to long-range
planning, in turn, will promote a more equitable distribution of assimilative capacity, explicitly
addressing potential trade-otis among pollutant sources (point and nonpoint) and allowances for
future growth. in addition, the availability of basin plans, presented in a consistent format, will
allow policy makers and the general public to more easily understand and evaluate the
background, methods, and rationale for management decisions, thereby creating a more stable
foundation for future planning.
1.3 CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE FOR WHOLE BASIN PLANNING
The whole basin approach to water quality management derives its congressional support from
several sections of the federal Clean Water Act (Table 1). The most explicit of these sections is
303(e), requiring each state to develop an areawide planning process for all navigable waters in
the state, to address a broad range of water quality issues. Two other sections implicitly require
or provide general support for the whole basin approach: Sections 303(d) and 319. Section
303(d) requires states to define total maximum daily loads, and associated wasteload allocations
for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources, to ensure the attainment of water
quality standards within all surface waters. Section 319 (Nonpoint Source Management Program),
like Section 303(e), directly calls for a watershed by watershed management program. North
Carolina has interpreted these sections of the Clean Water Act to mean that management plans,
addressing both point and nonpoint sources of pollution, should be developed and promulgated
for each major river basin in the state.
Other sections of the Clean Water Act provide less direct yet tangible support for the whole basin
planning approach. Section 201 includes general recommendations for conducting waste
treatment management on an areawide basis, and many such areawide planning programs were
started through Section 208. Since the earlier planning efforts for Section 208, the North Carolina
water quality program has developed many of the organizational structures, assessment methods,
6
-------
Table 1. Sections of the Federal Clean Water Act that Require or Encourage Whole Basin
Planning and the Development of Whole Basin Management Plans.
Section Congressional Mandate
201(c) To the extent practicable, waste treatment management shall be on an areawide basis and
provide control or treatment of all point and nonpoint sources of pollution including in place
or accumulated pollution sources
208 Several clauses of this section call for areawide planning, reporting, and control of point
and nonpoint sources The two clauses cited below are presented as examples only and
are not intended to represent the entire scope of this section.
208(a) Encourage and facilitate the development and implementation of areawide waste treatment
management plans.
208(b) Section 1 - Not later than one year after the date of designation, the organization shall
have in operation a continuing areawide waste treatment management planning process
consistent with section 201
303(d) Subsection IA - Each state shall sdent y those waters within its boundaries for which the
effluent limits required by 301(b)(1) A arid B are not stnngent enough to complement any
waler quality standards applicable to such waters. The state shall establish a priority
ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to
be made of such waters
303(d) Subsection 1C- For each water identified in paragraph 1A, the state shall establish the
total maximum daily load, tar each pollutant that the Administrator identifies as suitable for
such a calculation Such loads shall be established at a level necessary to implement the
applicable water quality standards with seasonal Variations and a margin of safety which
takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent
limits and water quality.
303(e) Subsection 3 A-H The administrator shall approve any continuing planning process....which
will result in plans for all navigable waters within such state, which include but are not
limited to
A - effluent limits and schedules of compliance at least as stringent as those
required by 301(b), 306, and 307:
B - the incoiporation of all elements of any applicable areawide waste
management plans under section 208 and applicable basin plans under section
209;
C - total maximum daily loads for pollutants per 303(d);
0 - procedures for revision;
(continued)
7
-------
Table 1. Sections of the Federal Clean Water Act that Require or Encourage Whole Basin
Planning and the Development of Whole Basin Management Plans. (Continued)
Section Congressional Mandate
303(e) cont. E - adequate authority for intergovernmental cooperation,
F - adequate implementation including schedules for compliance.
G - controls over the disposif ion of all residual waste; and
H - an inventory and ranking, in order of priority, of needs for construction of waste
treatment works
319(a) Nonpoint Source Management Program, State Assessment Reports - The Governor of
each state shall submit a report which (a) identifies waters which require control of
nonpoint sources to attain water quality standards, (b) identifies those categories of
nonpoint sources (or specific sources) which add significant pollution to each portion of
waters identified in a, (C) describes the process for identifying best management practices
and measures to control each category, and (d) identifies and describes state and local
programs for controlling nonpoint sources.
319(b) State Management Plans - The Governor of each state shall submit a management
program. Each management program shall include (a) identification of the best
management practices which will be undertaken, (b) identification of programs (both
regulatory and nonregulatory) to achieve implementation of best management practices
by categories, (C) a schedule of annual milestones for implementation, (d) a certificate from
the State Attorney General that the laws of the state provide adequate authority to enforce
b, or schedule to seek additional authority, and (e) sources of federal or other assistance
and funding.
319(b) Section 4 - A state shall, to the maximum extent practicable. develop and implement a
management program under the subsection on a watershed by watershed basis.
8
-------
modeling techniques, and regulations necessary to enable the effective implementation of
areawide planning and management.
North Carolina’s commitment to whole basin management and planning is consistent, therefore,
with the stated goals, objectives, and gwdance of the federai Clean Water Act. In addition, whole
basin management is expected to further the objectives of other sections of the Clean Water Act
(Table 2), which do not require, but would benefit from, the whole basin planning process and
approach as envisioned by the NCDEM Water Quality Section.
9
-------
Table 2. Sections of the Federal Clean Water Act that Would Be More Completely and
Efficiently Implemented Through Whole Basin Management and Planning.
Section Congressional Mandate
209(a) The President, acting through the Water Resources Council, shall as soon as practicable
prepare a Level B plan under the Water Resources Planning Act for all basins in the
United States Priority should be given to areas designated under 208(a) paragraphs 2,3,
and 4 as water quality problem areas This section was intended to establish a national
planning framework, different in scale and concept from state sponsored whole basin
planning. This section demonstrates that Congress recognizes the importance and utility
of the basin as a basic planning unit.
210 Annual Survey - The administrator shall annually make a survey to determine the efficiency
of operations and maintenance of treatment works conducted under this Act. The survey
of treatment plants is an important step in determining the true wasleload discharges in
a given basin, which may differ from the wasteload allocations because of noncompliance
This information is critical in determining the remaining assimilative capacity. This would
be a routine part of the live year basin plan updates.
214 Public Information - The Administrator shall develop arid operate within one year a
continuing program of public information and education on recycling and reuse of
wastewater. The public education sections of the planning document and the public
hearings held for each draft basin plan provide an excellent forum for public education and
irflorrnation concerning water quality issues, including recycling and reuse of wastewater
302 Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations - This section provides to the administrator or
delegated program the authority to develop water quality-based effluent limitations when
the technology-based effluent limits are not sufficient to maintain water quality. The section
also provides the authority for using a ernative effluent control strategies to restore water
quality to the desired level The allernative effluent control strategies could include such
basin management tools as assimilative capacity “banking.
304(l) Impaired Waters - This subsection has several requirements including the development of
lists of waters that fall into various categories of nonattainmerit and which need additional
pollution control (point source and nonpoint source), ident ication of offending point
sources; and development of a control strategy for each point source in order to achieve
the water quality standard as soon as possible. Whole basin planning would include a
comprehensive analysis of the inputs to each basin that may cause water quality
degradation This approach allows for more objective priority setting and determination of
management strategies.
305(b) Water Quality Inventory - Each state will submit biennially a report including the following
A - a description of the water quality of all navigable waters;
(continued)
10
-------
Table 2. Sections of the Federal Clean Water Act that Would Be More Completely and
E1ficientiy Implemented Through Whole Basin Management and Planning.
(Continued)
Section Congressional Mandate
305(b) cont. B an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters provide for the
protection arid propagation of a balanced population of shel ish, fish, and wildlife,
and allow recreational activities in and on the water,
C an analysis of the extent to which elimination of pollutant discharges and
desired levels of water quality have been or will be achieved and
recommendations for additional action,
D an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) economic and social costs
needed to achieve the objectives of the act, (in) the economic and social benet s
of such achievements, and (iv) estimated date of achievement, and
E - description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources, and recommended
programs.
3 14(a) Clean Lakes - Each state shall submit biennially the following:
A - an identification and classification according to eutrophic condition of all
publicly owned lakes,
B • a description of procedures, processes, and methods (including land use
requirements) to control sources of pollution of such lakes;
C - a description of methods to restore the quality of such lakes,
D - a description of methods to mitigate harmful eflects of high acidity and
removing toxic materials,
E - a list of publicly owned lakes for which uses are known to be irr aired; and
F - an assessment of the status and trends in lake water quality and the nature
and extent of pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources.
Sections 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act both consist primarily of reporting
requirements on the status of surface waters within the state. Each whole basin plan will
include a corr rehensive assessment of the current condition of waters in the basin,
atthough these plans will be updated on a five-year cycle rather than biennially Each
year, however, updated reports will be available for one or more basins (see Section 5).
11
-------
2. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF A WHOLE BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN
Each whole basin management plan will contain eight major sections or components: (1) an
introduction, describing the purpose and format of the plan, (2) a general basin description, (3)
an assessment of the current status of water quality and biological communities in the basin, (4)
an overview of existing pollutant sources, (5) a discussion of the major water quality concerns and
priority issues in the basin, (6) the long-range management goals and general management
strategy, (7) the recommended total maximum daily loads and management actions, and (8)
implementation, enforcement, and monitoring plans. A generahzed outline for a whole basin
management plan is presented in Table 3. Brief descrip ons of each component are provided
in the subsections that follow.
The primary target audience for basin plans includes policy makers, the generaJ public, and the
regulated community (e.g., local governments and industries). Thus, the document must be
written in a manner and level of detail that is easily understood and appreciated by both non-
technical and technical audiences. Ample use will be made of maps (using a Geographic
Information System; see Section 6) and other illustrations. Detailed technical material and
supporting documentation will be provided in appendices.
The whole basin management plans are also intended to satisfy many of the Clean Water Act and
USEPA reporting requirements (see Figure 1). The relationship between these reporting
requirements and the proposed basin plan format is illustrated in Figure 2. To facilitate the use
of these basin plans by USEPA personnel, a “crosswalk” table will be provided at the beginning
of each plan, identifying the section(s) and page numbers of the report that apply to sections of
the federal Clean Water Act.
All basin management plans will conform to the same basic format and outline, to streamline plan
preparation and facifitate among-basin comparisons. Specific procedures for document
preparation, including formats for figures and tables, are currently under development, in
conjunction with the development and refinement of procedures for data analysis and
management (see Section 6).
12
-------
Table 3. General Outline for A Basinwide Management Plan
Executive Summary
1. introductIon
1.1 Purpose of Plan
1 2 Guide to the Management Plan
2. General Basin Description
2 1 Physical and Geographical Features
o Map of boundaries within state
o General data surface area of drainage basin; stream miles; acres of lakes,
estuaries, and wetlands
o Ecoregions and subbasins (maps and descriptions)
2.2 Land and Water Uses and Overview of Pollutant Sources
o General land-use patterns, cities, population distribution, location and type of
industry and agnctiiture (irscluthng animal and silvacullure operations)
o Major uses of surface waters (classifications)
o Numbers of dischargers and major categories, number of nondistharge perm s
3. Current Status of Water Quality and Biological Communlties
3.1 Sources of Water Quality Data
o NCDEM chemical and biological data (benthos, weeds, algal, etc). numbers of
stations and special studies (map of sites by subbasin)
o NCDEM toxicity testing (map)
o Facility compliance data
o Data and reports from other agencies
3.2 Methods to Interpret Water Quality Data
3.2 1 Use Support Designations
o Water quality standards and designated uses
o Use support status definitions
o Interpretation of water quality data to determine use support status
3.2 2 Statistical Summary of Water Quality Data
o Description of statistical interpretation methods
3 3 Results of Subbasin Water Quality Data Analyses
3.3 1 Use Support
o For each subbasin, discussion of use support status and pollutants
impacting nonattainment in waterquality limited areas
o Map of use support and graphics
3.3.2 Statistical Summary
o Statistical summary of major parameters for appropilate stations and
discussion of areas of concern
(continued)
13
-------
Table 3. General Outline for A Basinwide Management Plan (Continued)
4. ExistIng Pollutant Sources and Loads
4.1 Major Categories and Types of Pollutants
4.1.1 Point Sources
4.2.2 Nonpoint Sources
4.2 Data Sources and Assessment Methods
o NPDES data
o Nonpoint Source Assessment Report
o Landuse/erosion analysis
o Remote sensing/aenal photography
o Pollutant loading analysis
4 3 Subbasin Summaries
o ldent y and discuss major sources of point source pollutants
o Identity and discuss major sources of nonpoint source pollutants
4.4 Pollutant Loading Analysis
4.4.1 Oxygen consuming waste (BOO)
4.4.2 Nutnent budgets
44.3 Toxics
5. Major Water QualIty Concerns and PrIority Issues
5 1 Parameters and Issues of Concern
o Highly valued water resources
o Sensitive or impaired biological resources
o Problem pollutants
5 2 Geographic Areas in Need of Targeting (maps)
6. Long-Range Management Goals and General Management Strategy
6.1 Projected Trends in Basin Development
6.2 Long-Term Management Goals and Objectives
6.3 General Management Strategy and Approach
7. Recommended Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL5) and Management Actions
7.1 North Carolina’s Approach to TMDLs
7.2 Oxygen Consuming Wastes
7.2.1 Assimilative Capacity
o Total
o Remaining
7.2.2 Control Strategies
7.2.2.1 Wasteload arid Load Allocations -- Quantitative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
7.2 2.2 Narrative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
(continued)
14
-------
Table 3. General Outline for A Basinwide Management Plan (Continued)
7.3 Nutnents
7.3.1 Assimilative Capacity
o Total
o Remaining
7 3 2 Control Strategies
7.3 2 1 Wasteload and Load Allocations -. Quantitative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
7 3.2.2 Narrative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
74 Toxics
7 4.1 Assimilative Capacity
o Total
o Remaining
7.4.2 Control Strategies
7 4.2.1 Wasteload and Load Allocations -- Quantitative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
74.2 2 Narrative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
7.5 Other Pollutants
7.5.1 Assimilative Capacity
o Total
o Remaining
7.5 2 Control Strategies
7.5.2.1 Wasteload and Load Allocations -- Quantitative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
7.5.2.2 Narrative TMDLs
o Point source
o Nonpoint source
8. ImplementatIon, Enforcement, and MonitorIng Plans
8.1 Implementation and Enforcement
8.1 1 Point Sources
8.1.2 Nonpoinl Sources
8.2 Monitoring
8.2.1 Effluent Monitoring
8.2.1.1 Water Chemistry
8.2.1.2 Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests
8 2.2 Ambient Monitoring
8 2 2.1 Water Chemistry
8 2.2.2 Toxicity Testing
8 2.2.3 Biological Communities and Fish Tissue Body Burden
8 2 2.4 Sediment Chemistry
15
-------
Clean Water Act Sections
Sections of Whole Basin Plan
303d
305b
314
319
1. Introduction
2 General Basin Oescnption
•
3 Current Status of Water Quahty and
Biological Communflies
•
•
4. Existing Pollutant Sources and Loads
o Point Sources
•
o Nonpoint Sources
•
S
5 Major Water Quality Concerns and
Prionty Issues
•
I
•
•
6. Long-Range Management Goals and
General Management Strategy
6 1 Projected Trends in Basin Development
I
I
6.2 Long-Term Mgmt. Goals & Objectives
I
6 3 General Mgmt Strategy & Approach
I
I
•
•
7. Recommended Total Maximum Daily Loads
and Management Actions
7.’ Pollutant Categories
7 ‘.1 Assimilative Capacity
I
7.’.2 Control Strategies
I
•
•
B %mplementation, Enforcement, and
Monitoring Plans
8.1 Implementation/Enforcement (PS & NPS)
8.2 Mon onng
8 2.1 Effkient Monwnng
8 2 2 Arrtnent Monftonng
Figure 2. Relationship between the sections of a whole basin management plan and the
specific reporting requirements of the federal Clean Water Act.
16
-------
2.1 INTRODUCTiON
The introductory section of the whole basin plan will provide a nontechnical description of the
water quality planning process, the whole basin concept, and the purpose of the plan. The
purpose of the whole basin plan is to report to citizens, policy makers, and the regulated
community on the current status of surface waters in the basin, identify major water quality
concerns and issues, summarize projected trends in development and water quality and the long-
range water quality goals for the basin, present recommended management options, and discuss
implementation plans. The plan will allow citizens and policy makers access to water quality
information and management plans for any of the 17 basins of interest to them. To facilitate the
use of the plan, this section also will include a guide to the document format, explaining where
and how to find various types of information.
2.2 GENERAL BASIN DESCRIPTION
The second section of the basin management plan will provide an overview of the general
physical and geographic characteristics of the basin, including the following:
o the location of the basin within the state, and the boundaries and size of the basin and
important subbasins;
o surface waters (lakes, reservoirs, streams, rivers, and estuaries) in the basin, their size
(length, area, volume, and flow rates) and designated use classifications;
o physiographic information, geology, and soil types;
o land and water use patterns and population densities;
o delineation of regions of ecological similarity (e.g., ecoregions, Omernik 1987), that is,
areas that are relatively homogeneous as defined by similarity of climate, landform, soil,
potential natural vegetation, hydrology, and other ecologically relevant variable(s); and
o the numbers and major categories of dischargers arid pollutant sources, in particular the
relative importance of point and nonpoint sources.
17
-------
2.3 CURRENT STATUS OF WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITiES
The available data on water quality and biological communities will be reviewed and interpreted
to assess current conditions and the status of surface waters within the basin. The section will
begin with a summary of data sources (see Section 2.3.1) and the methods for data analysis (see
Section 2.3.2). These subsections will be brief and nontechnical, providing general background
information. Detailed technical descriptions of the data and data analysis methods will be
included in appendices and other supporting documentation. The results and major conclusions
from these analyses will then be presented in the final subsection, describing the current water
quality status (see Section 2.3.3).
2.3.1 Sources of Water Quality Data
The amounts and types of data available are likely to vary among basins and water bodies, but
may include (1) NCDEM water quality monitoring data from the ambient water quality monitoring
network (chemistry and biology, e.g., surveys of benthic, algal, and fish communities); (2) ambient
water quality data collected by individual dischargers as part of the NPDES permit monitoring
requirements; (3) special studies on water quality and biological communities conducted by the
NCDEM; (4) sediment analyses for metals, organics, sediment oxygen demand, or other
parameters; (5) chemical analyses of contaminant concentrations in fish and other biota, (6)
ambient toxicity tests, and (7) additional information on water quality from other agencies and
researchers. Substantial data collection activities will precede the preparation of the basin plan,
as described in Section 3. These survey and monitoring efforts will focus on (1) priority areas
within the basin and (2) “gaps” in the data base, either specific locations with insufficient data or
data needs for particular parameters or types of information.
2.3.2 Methods to Interpret Water QualIty Data
Two major approaches to data analysis and interpretation will be used, relying on (1) use support
designations and (2) statistical data summaries. Each of the relevant use support status
designations will be defined, and the interpretation of water quality data to determine use support
status will be explained. Current water quality standards and biocriteria (both narrative and
18
-------
numerical) that apply to individual waters within the basin will be discussed, as well as the
rationale for any special regulations or criteria (e.g., Nutrient Sensitive Waters). The scientific
and legal basis for these standards and criteria will be briefly reviewed (citing supporting
documentation as needed).
Statistical methods used for data analysis and summaries also will be described. For example,
box and whisker plots may be used to evaluate differences between upstream and downstream
stations, or for temporal comparisons at the same station. Thus, a brief explanation on the
interpretation of box and whisker plots will be included.
2.3.3 Results of Subbasin Water QualIty Data Analyses
Analyses of the available data on ambient water quality, sediment chemistry, and biological
communities will be conducted to provide an integrated summary of current conditions in the
basin’s surface waters. Important results from these analyses will be presented in a reader-
friendly format, that clearly conveys key points without overwhelming the reader with excessive
detail.
The chemical and biological measurements at a given site will be compared with (1) established
water quality standards and biocriteria and (2) expected “norms” for the site. The use of site-
specific or regional reference sites, to define these expected “norms,” is particularly important for
assessing the condition of biological communities. Large river basins are likely to include multiple
ecoregions (or regions of ecological similarity; see Section 2.2), from headwater reaches in the
North Carolina Mountain ecoregion to estuarine waters in the North Carolina Coastal ecoregion.
To the degree possible, results from these analyses will be presented as summary indices
employed by the NCDEM as indicators of surface water chemical and biological integrity.
Whole basin management plans are a direct extension of current activities and analyses within
the Water Quality Section of the NCDEM. An important benefit to be derived, however, is the
integration of these various information sources into an overall, integrated assessment of
conditions in the basin’s surface waters. Therefore, substantial attention will be paid to comparing
and contrasting data on surface water chemistry, sediment chemistry, biological communities, and
19
-------
ambient toxicity tests. In addition, future efforts will focus on the development of improved
approaches for integrating the diversity of data collected into summary indices of surface water
quality.
Uncertainties regarding the assessment of conditions within the basin’s waters also will be
recognized and discussed. Uncertainties may arise from insufficiencies in the data base, which
may be resolved through additional data collection in future years, or uncertainties relating to data
interpretation and regulatory constraints. The effects of these uncertainties on management
decisions, such as the long-range management strategies or specific wasteload allocations, will
be noted.
2.4 EXISTiNG POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
The locations and characteristics of existing pollutant sources (both point and nonpoint) will be
described. The majority of the information will be presented via maps and summary tables, with
a minimum of text.
2.4.1 Major CategorIes and Types of Pollutants
This section will summarize relevant information regarding pollutant categories and specific types
of pollutants of concern in the basin, with subsections on point and nonpoint sources. The types
of environmental impacts associated with each major pollutant, general information on fate and
transport, and categories of potential sources will be reviewed.
2.4.2 Data Sources and Assessment Methods
Point sources are monitored directly and data on point source discharges are readily accessible
through NPDES permits and compliance monitoring. By contrast, nonpoint source pollutant
loadings must be estimated indirectly, based in large part on information obtained from other
agencies. The amount of information available will vary among basins, depending on access to
land use and other relevant data; however, in general. estimates of nonpoint source pollutant
loadings may be less precise and detailed than that provided for point sources. Information
20
-------
already compiled from other resource agencies is summarized in the TM Nonpoint Source
Assessment Report. The Water Quality Section also may use erosion analysis and remote
sensing/aerial photography to assess land uses and associated nonpoint source pollutant
loadings. Finally, the subsection will discuss methods for combining point and nonpoint loading
estimates to conduct an integrated total pollutant loading analysis for each subbasin.
2.4.3 Subbasln Summaries
The locations of major point sources as well as summary information on the magnitude and
composition of discharge waters will be presented in one or a series of maps for the basin. The
number of maps used will vary depending on the size and complexity of the basin. These maps
will be keyed to summary tables that present additional summary data on discharge
characteristics, including existing NPDES permit limits and a summary of the facility’s compliance
record (more detailed information will be provided in an appendix). Discussions in the text will
focus on (1) the general types, size, and importance of point source dischargers in the basin, (2)
the locations and types of major point sources, and (3) the record of compliance with existing
NPDES permits, in the basin overall and for specific major point sources. For urban sources,
problems and ongoing programs for handling stormwater outflows will be discussed.
For each major type of nonpoint source (e.g., agricultural lands, urban areas) and source unit
(i.e., specific land area) estimates will be provided on the magnitude and characteristics of
pollutants input to surface waters. As for point sources, the locations of nonpoint source units
will be delineated on maps coded by source type and/or magnitude, and keyed to summary tables
that present specifics on the estimated types and magnitude of pollutants contributed by each
source unit as well as the relative degree of certainty associated with these estimates. The text
will discuss (1) the importance of nonpoint sources in the basin, (2) methods and associated
uncertainties for estimating nonpoint source contributions, (3) major types of pollutants contributed
and where, and (4) existing programs and ongoing efforts to help reduce or minimize nonpoint
source pollutants and the success of these programs to date (in terms of, for example, extent of
landowner participation in voluntary programs, rather than the impact of the program on water
quality).
21
-------
2.4.4 Pollutant Loading Analysis
This section will present the results of the total pollutant load analysis, combining point and
nonpoint sources, for each major pollutant for which sufficient data are available. Pollutants will
be discussed by category: (1) oxygen consuming waste (e.g. , biological oxygen demand, BOO),
(2) nutrients, and (3) toxics. Uncertainties associated with the estimates also will be addressed.
This is not a traditional ecological input/output budget analysis; no output measurements or
estimates will be included in the calculation. Surface water assimilative capacities will be
discussed in a later section of the whole basin plan (see Section 2.7).
2.5 MAJOR WATER QUALITY CONCERNS AND PRIORITY ISSUES
Based on the information presented in Sections 2.3.3, 2.4.3, and 2.4.4, this section of the whole
basin management plan will identify and prioritize the major water quality concerns in the basin,
e.g., problem pollutants, sensitive or impaired biological resources, and highly valued water
resources. Waters with special use designations, such as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs),
High Quality Waters (1-lOWs), and Nutnent Sensitive Waters (NSWs), will be delineated and
prioritized consistent with current regulatory guidelines and established implementation plans.
The severity of water quality problems will be defined relative to (1) established water quality
standards and biocriteria, (2) the degree of impairment of the water s designated use, and (3) the
ecological significance of any adverse effects. To the degree possible, the major pollutant
sources (point and nonpoint) contributing to these water quality problems will be identified.
Spatial correlations between the occurrence of water quality problems and the locations of major
point and nonpoint sources may often be sufficient to establish causality. In other cases, more
detailed analyses (including special field studies) and/or water quality modeling may be needed
to determine the relative importance of and interactions among multiple pollutant sources. ln all
cases, it will be important to discuss the degree of certainty with which the causes of observed
water quality problems can be determined, and the influence of any uncertainties on management
decisions. These problem definition analyses will be used in developing prioritized management
strategies, in particular the relative importance of controls on point versus nonpoint sources of
pollutants.
22
-------
Based on these analyses and the existing special use designations, high priority geographic areas
and waters will be selected for targeting. These areas and waters will be the focus of the most
intense management efforts and highly ranked by the NCDEM to encourage tunding for
implementation of best management practices.
2.6 LONG-RANGE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND GENERAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The sixth major component of a whole basin management plan is the delineation of the long-
range management goals and general management strategy or approach. This section provides
a narrative discussion of (1) projected future growth trends and development in the basin; (2) the
specific long-temi water quality goals for waters within the basin (e.g., important water uses
and/or ecological features to be protected or restored); and (3) the general management
approach(es) and strategies to be employed to achieve these goals. Specific applications of
these management strategies, e.g., modeling analyses to estimate wasteload allocations for
individual point sources and proposed management actions, are described within the next major
component/section of the whole basin plan (see Section 2.7).
2.6.1 Projected Trends In Basin Development
Long-range plans for economic growth and development in the basin and changes in population
density will be summarized, as background information for defining the long-range goals and
management strategies for water quality. Factors that may influence the magnitude and types
of point and nonpoint pollution sources, and the potential impact of alternative water quality
management strategies on future patterns of economic growth and development, will be
discussed.
2.6.2 Long-Term Management Goals and Objectives
Long-term water quality goals will be defined for each management unit within the basin. For
each goal, specific technical objectives also will be presented, delineating specific targets and
metrics for tracking the progress toward achieving the overall water quality goal. For example,
for waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters, one long-term goal may be to protect and
23
-------
maintain the natural integrity of the biological communities inhabiting the waterbody. One metric
of biotic integrity for small streams is the EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Tricoptera) taxa
richness index for benthic macroinvertebrates, with values above 41 expected in natural,
unimpacted small streams in, for example, the North Carolina Mountain ecoregion (Lenat 1988).
Thus, for an Outstanding Resource Water in the North Carolina Mountain ecore9ion, for which
the long-term goal is to protect the natural biotic integrity, an appropriate associated technical
objective for this water would be to maintain values for the EPT taxa richness index above 41
(based on surveys of benthic macroinvertebrates as defined in Lenat 1988).
In some cases, the long-term water quality goals and objectives for a waterbody may be
adequately defined by the current water use classification and associated water quality standards.
Generally, however, it will be desirable to expand beyond these chemical-specific standards to
(1) account for site-specific factors that may justify higher or lower criteria values to protect
designated uses, (2) account for pollutant interactions, (3) encompass biological and ecological
indices of surface water quality, and (4) better integrate and utilize the full suite of monitoring data
collected, including ambient water chemistry, sediment chemistry, biological surveys, pollutant
loadings and bioaccumulation in aquatic biota, and ambient toxicity tests. In addition, the long-
term water quality goals and objectives may, on occasion, call for improved water quality
conditions that exceed the requirements of the current water use classification.
An underlying goal of each whole basin management plan is to promote the optimal distribution
of assimilative capacity, that is, the allocation of allowable pollutant loadings among individual
point sources and also categories of nonpoint sources that (1) achieves the highest possible level
of water quality for the lowest possible cost and with the minimum possible disruption of long-term
economic growth and development, (2) maintains water quality at or above that required to
achieve the long-term water quality goals and objectives defined above, and (3) represents, to
the degree possible, a fair and equitable distribution of assimilative capacity among potential
users. For example, a plan may require waste treatment facilities with outdated control
technologies to be upgraded first, while allowing newer facilities a longer time frame to achieve
higher levels of treatment, in order to spread out the economic burden in a reasonable manner.
24
-------
2.6.3 General Management Strategy and Approach
The most challenging aspect of the whole basin management plan is the development of a long.
term management strategy and approach. The management strategy will provide the basis for
all subsequent management decisions. Thus, it must clearly define the rationale, decision
analysis framework, methods, and criteria to be used for all decisions regarding the allocation of
assim ative capacity among point and nonpoint sources. Innovative approaches to be applied
to encourage water quality protection also will be described, including procedures for
o TM agency banking of assimilative capacity by the NCDEM, to provide for potential future
growth and development in the basin;
o pollution trading among permitted dischargers, or between point and nonpoint sources.
adding flexibility to the permitting system and also using the free market system as an aid
to identifying the most cost effective solution to water quality protection;
o industrial recruitment mapping, providing specific recommendations on the types of
industry and land development best suited to the basin’s long-term water quality goals and
also an individual basin’s ability to assimilate a particular type or quantity of discharge or
nonpoint source pollutants; and
o consolidation of wastewater discharges, which may result from economic considerations
and be easier to coordinate with permits in similar geographic areas being issued at
similar times.
Input from local authorities, regulated industries, landowners, and other interested parties will be
actively sought during development of these basinwide strategies (see Section 3). By
accommodating, to the degree possible, local needs and preferences, the probability of the plan’s
long-term success can be increased.
2.7 RECOMMENDED TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
This component of the whole basin plan presents the results from applying the management
strategy and procedures (described in the preceding section of the plan) to determine the optimal
distribution of assimilative capacity given current conditions, information, and constraints, and
specific recommended management actions. These results provide the technical basis for the
issuance/renewal of NPDES permits and for decisions regarding nonpoint source control or
25
-------
reduction programs. For each management unit, this will involve the following:
1. estimating the Total Maximum Daily Load (total assimilative capacity), in cases where
a numerical criterion can be established;
2. determining the remaining assimIlative capacity (if any) given current point and nonpoint
source pollutant loadings, or whether the water’s assimilative capacity has been exhausted
or exceeded;
3. recommending wasteload allocations, specialized treatment requirements, or minimum
technology requirements for individual point sources and load allocations or best
management practice approaches for nonpoint sources that will achieve the goals and
objectives of the whole basin management strategy; and
4. developing a narrative management action plan that describes the specific actions that
will be taken to restore degraded surface waters and to protect other waters.
Organization of the section within the whole basin plan will be by major pollutant category (e.g.,
oxygen consuming wastes, nutrients, toxics), with subsections on assimilative capacity (total and
remaining) and control strategies, including quantitative total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and
calculated wasteload and load allocations, where possible, as well as narrative actions plans (see
Table 3).
Estimates of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), the remaining assimilative capacity, wasteload
allocations (WLAs), and load allocations (LAs) will rely primarily on water quality modeling.
However, in developing and applying these models, the following must be addressed:
o Modeling analyses must be fully integrated and consistent with all other components of
the NCDEM Water Quality Program; the available chemical and biological monitoring data
will be extensively used for model calibration and verification.
o Models, and decisions regarding TMDLs, WLAs, and LAs, must account for interactions
among pollutants and pollutant sources (both point and nonpoint). Background ambient
data will be considered in defining downstream limits to promote longitudinal integration
in assessing and assigning assimilative capacity.
o Safety factors must be applied in calculating TMDLS, WLAs, and [ As to account for
modeling uncertainties. The influence of uncertainties on management decisions will be
explicitly discussed.
o Discussions of modeling results for point sources must address the discrepancies between
the predicted and observed assimilative capacity (10-year, 7-day [ 7010110w flow versus
26
-------
average flow), the magnitude of the difference between the 7010 and average flows, and
therefore the magnitude of the safety factor.N
o Nonpoint source contributions occur primarily during stormflow. Thus, modeling analyses
based on low (7Q10) flows are inappropriate. Given the differences in modeling
approaches for point sources (focusing on low flows) and nonpoint sources (focusing on
high flows), methods must be developed for integrating analyses of point and nonpoint
pollutant sources, and combining WLAs and LAs, to avoid overallocation of the basin’s
assimilative capacity in management plans.
o Calculations of the remaining assimilative capacity must also account for problems in
compliance with existing permits. Safety factors built into calculations of TMDLs, WLAs,
and LAs will consider anticipated compliance problems.
Portions of the whole basin management plan may require changes or additions to existing water
quality statutes, rules, regulations, or standards, in particular for nonpoint source management
and controls. These needed rule/regulation revisions will be clearly identified. As discussed in
Section 3, efforts to obtain these revisions will be initiated early on in the process of developing
the whole basin management plan.
2.8 IMPLEMENTATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND MONITORING PLANS
The final component of the whole basin management plan will outline plans for program
implementation and enforcement as well as ambient and effluent monitoring. Implementation and
enforcement activities will be described separately for point and nonpoint sources. For point
sources, specific procedures, and the associated rationale, will be defined for assessing
compliance with and for enforcement of NPDES permit limits. The influence of measurement and
test variability will be discussed as it relates to the cnteria used to identify disctiargers that are
out of compliance or in violation of established NPDES permit limits. Specific programs for
implementing nonpoint source management and controls also will be described, including
procedures for issuing nondischarge and stormwater permits.
Monitoring of the chemical and biological status of receiving waters provides important feedback
on the success of the basin management strategy. As discussed in Section 2.3.1, the monitoring
data collected will include information on (1) ambient water chemistry, (2) sediment chemistry, (3)
biological communities, (4) contaminant concentrations in fish and other biota, and (5) ambient
27
-------
toxicity. The specific parameters measured will relate directly to the long-term water quality goals
and objectives defined within the basinwide management strategy (see Section 2.6.2). The whole
basin plan, updated at five year intervals (see Section 5), will provide the opportunity to integrate
these data to reassess the condition of waters within the basin and, thus, the program’s success.
Monitoring data are collected both by the NCDEM Water Quality Section (and cooperating federal
agencies and researchers) and by individual point source dischargers. Thus, the whole basin
plan also will discuss the types of ambient and effluent monitoring requirements to be imposed
as part of NPDES permits, including a justification and rationale for these monitoring
requirements.
28
-------
3. PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING WHOLE BASIN PLANS
Two major tasks must be completed as part of the transition to a whole basin approach to water
quality management:
1. Prepare a detailed procedures manual, outlining the steps, tasks, analyses, and time
tables involved in developing a whole basin management plan and specitying data, table,
and figure formats to be used in the plan.
2. Describe the rationale for and procedures involved in any new management approaches
to be applied as part of basinwide management strategies (e.g., agency banking of
assimilative capacity, pollution trading, and industrial recruitment mapping).
The first of these documents will be used internally, to facilitate the preparation of each individual
whole basin management plan. The second is intended for wider distribution and review, to
stimulate early discussion and comments on novel approaches to water quality protection, in order
to (1) encourage input and ideas from policy makers, local governments, regulated industries, and
the general public and also (2) initiate necessary changes or additions to existing rules and
regulations. These two documents will jointly describe NCDEM’s methods and approach to whole
basin planning. The individual basin management plans then focus on the specific decisions and
solutions proposed for each of the state’s 17 major river basins.
The major steps and information transfers involved in developing a given whole basin
management plan are illustrated in Figure 3. Each of these steps is briefly described below.
Dischargers, local governments, landowners, and others that may be impacted by the results of
the whole basin planning process will be kept well informed throughout (e.g., information transfers
at Steps 1,4,7, and 12).
Step 1 : Compile all existing relevant Information on basin characteristics and water quality.
In addition to prior analyses and data available within the Water Quality Section, other state
agencies, local and federal agencies, and researchers will be canvassed for relevant background
information on economic growth and development in the basin, land use, soils, geology, water
needs, uses, and problems, etc.
Step 2 : DefIne the water qualIty goals and objectIves for waterbodies within the basin, that
29
-------
Canvas for Intormation I
12 Define Management Goals ________________
Identify Prob’ems and Critical Issues
Other ___________________________________________
Agencies
4 Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues
5 Define Management Units
Yes
__________________________________ ( Data > 17_Collect_ fiAnalyzfl
Evaluate And 1
/ Agencies \
9 Evaluate and Describe Management Options er argers
110 Select Management Approach I
1
ii
Prepare Draft Basin Plan
7
Review/Public Hearings
13
Adoption of Final Plan by EMC
.
Implement Approved Basin Plan
Contingent on available resources
Figure 3 Major steps and information transfers involved in The development of a whole
basin management plan
30
-------
reflect both the existing water use classihcations and projected future trends and long-term goals
and objectives for water quality in the basin. These goals and objectives are subject to revision
as additional data are gathered and analyzed, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Step 3 : identIty the critical Issues and current water quality problems within the basin and
major factors (point and nonpoint sources) that contribute or cause these problems or concerns.
Step 4 : In consultation with other government agencies and appropriate outside organizations
and groups, prioritize the basin’s water quality concerns and critical issues (e.g., water
supply protection). Any management constraints (e.g., limitations on nonpoint source control
options) also will be noted.
Steo 5 : DefIne the subbasin management units, considering basin hydrology, physiographic
(ecoregion) boundaries, problem areas, and critical issues. Different sets of management units
may be appropriate for different water quality parameters. Many of these management units may
reflect existing use classifications and regulations, such as Nutrient Sensitive Waters, Outstanding
Resource Waters, and High Quality Waters; others may be organized according to critical issues
or water quality problems (e.g., urban areas, water supply areas, or specific water quality problem
areas).
Step 6 : Evaluate additional data needs. Additional data and information, over and above that
already available, often may be needed to assess current conditions in the river basin and to
formulate the optimal water quality management strategy. The following questions will be
addressed:
o What are the major uncertainties that exist given the current information base, and how
will these uncertainties influence the effectiveness of management decisions and the basin
management plan?
o What resources are available for collecting additional data?
o What types of additional information are easily available (e.g., by taking advantage of
existing maps and data bases, or input from local or regional experts); what level of effort
and resources would be required to collect other types of data?
o How will the data be used once its collected; how, when, and where should the data be
31
-------
collected to fulfill these data needs?
o How will uncertainties be addressed if additional data cannot be collected; are there
standard operating procedures that can be invoked in the absence of site-specific data?
o Based on the above, what are the priority data needs?
Steo 7 : Collect the additional data, as appropriate based on the assessment of data needs in
Step 6. It is likely that phased data collections will be implemented, with each update of the basin
plan (updated at fIve year intervals) building on the data gathered during the preceding planning
period (see Step 15). Several different types of data may be obtained, requiring differing amounts
of time and resources to collect (see Section 5):
7A. physical data (e.g., hydrological flow rates),
7B. ambient thernistry data (both routine ambient monitoring and special studies),
7C. biological surveys and monitoring,
7D. sediment chemistry and oxygen demand, and
7E. data needs from outside the Water Quality Section, e.g., land use information from
the Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA).
Data will be collected by the staff of the Water Quality Section and by individual dischargers, as
required by NPDES permits. Requests for any additional monitoring data from NPDES
dischargers will be accompanied by a summary of the ongoing basin planning process and a
justification for the data request.
Step 8 : Analyze, Integrate, and Interpret the data collected. Results from the additional
survey and monitoring efforts (collected in Step 7), in conjunction with the existing data base
compiled in Step 1, will be used to (1) assess the current chemical and biological conditions in
the basin (see Section 2.3.3) and (2) estimate TMDLs, WL_As, LAs, and the remaining assimilative
capacity by applying water quality models (see Section 2.7).
Based on the results from these analyses and data interpretation, steps 2 through 5 will be
revisited, to reevaluate the water quality goals and objectives for the basin, the priority water
quality concerns and critical issues, and the subbasin management units.
32
-------
Step 9 : DetermIne and evaluate the management options for each management unit in the
basin. As part of this process, first drafts of sections 1-5 of the whole basin management plan
(see Table 3) will be prepared. In addition, preliminary drafts of Sections 6 and 7 (on the long-
range management goals, strategy, and proposed management actions and total maximum daily
loads) will be written outlining the full range of reasonable management options along with their
pros and cons.
Step 10 : Based on the analysis of management options prepared in Step 9, select the final
management approach for the basin and subbasins. Final decisions regarding management
approaches and specific management actions will be made by the Chief of the Water Quality
Section in consultation with the NCDEM Director and Environmental Management Commission.
Step 11 : Complete the draft whole basin management plan, in preparation for external review
and comment. Additional modeling analyses may be required to finalize the WLAs and LAs; final
drafts of all sections of the whole basin plan will be written, edited, and produced.
Step 12 : DIstribute the draft plan to appropriate agencies, the Environmental Management
Commission, and the general public for revIew and comment. One or more public hearings will
be held as part of the review process.
Step 13 : Revise the plan as needed in response to comments and in a form that is acceptable
to the Environmental Management Commission. Obtain formal approval of the final plan from the
Environmental Management Commission.
Step 14 : implement the management approaches, including the point and nonpoint source
control strategies defined in the plan.
Step 15 : MonItor the program’s success and update the plan every five years, incorporating
the new information and monitoring data collected during the intervening period (feedback loop
through Step 6 as well as Steps 1-5), to reassess the long-term management goals and strategy,
provide an updated assessment of conditions in the basin, and allow for more sophisticated water
quality modeling or additional model calibration and verification.
33
-------
4. RESPONSIBILITIES WITHIN THE WATER OUALITY SECTION
The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR) is an
umbrella agency responsible for most issues related to the environment. Issues of environmental
quality generally are the concern of the Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) within
the DEHNR. and water quality issues are the responsibility of the Water Quality Section within
the NCDEM. The Water Quality Section is composed of four branches and seven regional offices
(Figure 4). The branches are further subdivided into units, and the most basic specialized
component is the group. Each branch, unit, and group has discrete functional responsibilities
within the water quality program. The regional offices are responsible for implementing policies
and enforcing permits. In addition, the regional offices interact with all of the branches, as well
as individual dischargers and the nonpoint source management authorities, to resolve permit
issues and provide information on local conditions and constraints.
The structure of the Water Quality Section and the responsibilities of the individual branches will
remain largely unchanged for whole basin planning. There will, however, be increased emphasis
on the coordination of activities and the integration of information among the branches and
regional offices. This section briefly describes (1) the existing structure and roles of the Water
Quality Section branches and regional offices and (2) the proposed responsibilities of each branch
and the regional offices for developing and implementing whole basin management plans.
4.1 EXISTING STRUCTURE
The current responsibilities of each branch of the Water Quality Section and the regional offices
are identified below. These lists are intended to be general in nature; specific programmatic tasks
[ e.g., compile the 305(b) report] are not included.
Operations Branch
o Prepare and issue NPDES and nondischarga permits.
o Review design and authorize construction of treatment facilities.
o Monitor NPDES permit compliance and coordinate enforcement activities.
34
-------
RALEIGH WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE
WILMINGTON WINSTON-SALEM
REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE
ii
(0
C
CD
—1
CD
0
(0
N
p3
0
p 3
(I ,
C
C,
C
CD
0
C.) :r
01 CD
z
C .)
0
m
p3
—
CD
0
C
P3
(n
CD
a
0
I I
RAPID I
I COMPLEX II ASSESSMENT I
ISSUES GROUP J GROUP
ASHEVILLE FAYETTEVI IIE MOORESVILLE
REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE
-------
o Coordinate operator training and certification.
o Handle emergency response activities.
Regional Offices
o Conduct compliance inspections to determifle facility efficiency and compliance status.
o Initiate enforcement actions for permit and/or water quality violations.
o Assist permitees with permit application and implementation, and confer with central office
throughout the permitting process.
o Monitor construction progress to establish compliance with approved design plans and
construction schedules.
o Collect and provide information on local conditions, including identification of unpermitted
pollution sources and collection of ambient chemical data.
o Provide technical assistance to applicants and permitees.
o Respond to citizen complaints and conduct water quality investigations.
o Review and comment on 401 Certification Requests.
o Review and approve plans for stormwater controls.
EnvIronmental ScIences Branch
o Develop, revise, and ensure the operation of environmental monitoring networks (chemical
biological; water, sediment, and fish tissue).
o Design and implement special site specific studies (e.g., evaluating nonpoint source
pollutant impacts, time of travel, sediment oxygen demand, and the effectiveness of best
management practices).
o Conduct toxicity evaluations and analyses (whole effluent and chemical-Specific).
o Analyze chemical and biological data to assess current conditions, and identify potential
problems, in North Carolina’s surface waters.
o Operate the biological laboratory certification and quality assurance programs.
o Provide technical assistance to permit applicants, permittees, and various state and
federal agencies.
36
-------
Technical Support Branch
o Develop, apply, and interpret the results from descriptive and predictive water quality
models for streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries, to develop and assess water quality
management strategies.
o Determine wasteload allocations and special conditions for NPDES permits.
o Oversee publicly owned treatment works (POTW) pretreatment program development and
implementation.
o Provide technical assistance, including modeling, impact assessments, headwaters
evaluations, as needed, to municipallUes, other agencies (e.g., the Construction Grants
Office, Division of Water Resources, Division of Planning arid Assessment), and to the
other branches and regional staff within the section.
Planning Branch
o Develop water quality classifications and standards, and coordinate rules review
proceedings.
o Manage programs for nonpoint sources (Section 319 of the Clean Water Act).
o Conduct general water quality program planning (e.g., regulatory, administrative).
o Conduct special projects, as appropriate, including the development of basin plans and
technology reviews.
o Coordinate development of new regulatory programs (e.g., stormwater, wetlands)
o Coordinate Environmental Assessment./Environmental Impact Statement (EAIEIS) reviews
and 401 evaluations and approvals/disapprovals.
4.2 RESPONSIBILITiES FOR WHOLE BASIN PLANNING
Although the basic structure and major responsibilities within the Water Quality Section will remain
unchanged, imp’ementation of a whole basin approach to water quality management will require
some modification of and additions to the tasks outlined above for each branch and the regional
offices. The goal of whole basin planning is to increase the scope of management activities from
a stream reach to the entire basin. Accomplishing this goal will require more complex water
quality modeling, data interpretation, and data base management within the NCDEM Water
37
-------
Quality Program. For example, more sophisticated methods of quantitatively estimating nonpoint
source pollutant loads will need to be developed and applied. In addition, these quantitative
estimates of nonpoint source loads will have to be integrated with information on point sources
to determine the total loading to the system. Biomonitoring data will play a more prominent role
in determining the assimilative capacity of a basin, which may necessitate increased use of
biological effects models. Planning for future growth and incorporating “agency banking” into the
Water Quality Sections management objectives will require model projections of various potential
future scenarios to properly allocate the remaining assimilative capacity and fairly distribute
control requirements. Finally, to link the water quality data and model projections for the multiple
stream reaches within a basin, and to overlay other relevant types of information, such as land
use, will require the involvement of the Center for Geographic Information Analysis (CGIA).
These and other activities associated with whole basin planning will require increased information
exchange and the coordination of activities across agency staff (including CGIA). As a result,
current plans call for the creation of one or more whole basin planning coordinator positions. The
coordinator for a given whole basin management plan will be responsible for (1) arranging
meetings among basin team members, (2) communicating data and information needs, as well
as scheduling constraints, to the Branch Heads and Regional Offices, (3) tracking the progress
of data acquisition and tasks required to complete the whole basin plan, (4) encouraging and
assisting with the integration of data and results across branches, and (5) keeping the Chief of
the Water Quality Section apprised of progress, major results, and potential problems. The
Branch Heads and Regional Offices will be responsible for scheduling and coordinating activities
within their individual branches/offices, and for decisions regarding the best technical approach
for completing the required tasks to achieve the objectives of whole basin planning.
The lists that follow highlight significant new responsibilities or existing responsibilities that will
take on increased importance for each branch of the Water Quality Section; these lists are not
intended to be an exhaustive description of the activities planned or proposed.
Operations Branch and RegIonal Offices
The increased scope of planning activities under whole basin management will likely lead to
38
-------
increased public interest and participation in the planning process. The Operations Branch and
Regional Offices will be responsible for facilitating communication between the public and the
other branches of the Water Quality Section. Other important tasks and responsibilities include
the following:
o Inventory the efficiency of treatment works to assess compliance with NPDES limits, in
order to quantify actual wasteloads for all point sources, which in turn will be used (by the
Technical Support Branch) to estimate the remaining assimilative capacity.
o Through the regional offices, notify dischargers of the ongoing planning process and any
changes in permit schedules, and request any additional data required for basin planning.
o Oversee the permit application and approval process (e.g., Effluent Guidance Umits,
Authorizations to Construct, public hearings).
o Incorporate any new or alternative control strategies required by the whole basin
management plan into permits.
o Conduct Treatment Technology Assessments.
EnvIronmental ScIences Branch
The environmental assessment activities conducted by the Environmental Sciences Branch are
being restructured to meet the demands of whole basin management. Certain efforts and
resources will be focused, one (or a few) basin(s) at a time, while many aspects of the program
will require continued efforts on a statewide basis. The specific tasks and responsibilities of the
Environmental Sciences Branch include the following:
o Design and implement biological monitoring surveys that will provide a comprehensive
biological assessment of water quality in the basin.
o Design and implement special biological studies to provide information on areas of special
concern, such as problem areas or areas of exceptional water quality, or to fill in data
gaps.
o Monitor and assess phytoplankton communities and chlorophyll values in relation to
nutrient concentrations in the basin, to assess water quality and the need for special
designations, such as Nutrient Sensitive Waters.
o Synthesize all biological data into a basin report that will provide a complete evaluation
of biological communities and, whenever possible, aid in identifying major water quality
problems and provide guidance on management strategies.
39
-------
o Perform special physical/chemical studies as needed to fill in data gaps, including
basinwide hydraulic work (i.e., time to travel studies for each basin’s mainstem water body
as well as major tributaries), special studies for impaired lakes (e.g., Lake Wylie and High
Rock Lake), analyses of sediment oxygen demand (SOD), and long-term biological
oxygen demand (BOD) analyses of samples taken from selected ambient sites throughout
each basin.
o Continue to develop monitoring programs, data interpretation techniques, and reporting
approaches to better address the demands of the whole basin planning approach.
Technical Support Branch
The Technical Support Branch will be responsible for predicting the response of instream water
quality to basinwide management strategies, through modeling, where appropriate. In turn, this
information will be used to determine wasteload allocations for NPDES permits that are consistent
with the overall Total Maximum Daily Load strategy. This will require integrating the data
obtained from other branches and the regions into modeling frameworks that help define
assimilative capacity, and also developing distribution plans that promote consistency and
equitability, and avoid overallocation. Many of the existing methods and models will have to be
modified, and new methods developed to accommodate the expanded scope of the branch’s
responsibilities. Specific tasks include the following:
o Develop a data aggregation and integration plan to incorporate appropriate sources of
information into assessment and modeling frameworks, including establishing a linkage
with the COlA to incorporate appropriate Geographic Information System (GIS) information
into modeling analyses (e.g., land use, point source locations, sampling station locations,
U.S. Geological Survey gauging stations).
o Identify pollutants of concern that will be included in wasteload allocation analyses.
o Develop modeling frameworks, where required, to predict water quality or assist in
allocation determinations for identified pollutants in specific management units (including
whole basin models and analyses as appropriate).
o Merge nonpoint loading information with point source data to determine the current total
pollutant loading.
o Evaluate assimilative capacity and determine the existing overallocation (if any) for each
basin.
40
-------
o Evaluate interactions among dischargers for the identified pollutants of concern.
o Model various management scenarios, including those utilizing capacity banking scenarios
for future use.
o Establish wasteload allocations consistent with the overall Total Maximum Daily Load
strategies for the basin and subbasins.
PlannlnQ Branch
Currently the Planning Branch is involved in many different issues that relate to whole basin
planning (e.g.. stream classifications and associated management strategies, standards, nonpoint
sources, wetlands, EA’EIS review, stormwater control coordination, watershed management plan
development). Because this branch is involved in many of these issues at the program
development level, it also will assume the lead role in coordinating the development and
implementation of each whole basin management plan. Each branch, however, will be involved
in developing the management strategies and evaluating their impact. Specific responsibilities
of the Planning Branch include the following:
o Coordinate the development, approval, and implementation of the whole basin plans.
o Update nonpoint source loading coefficients for various land use activities and further
explore techniques for analyzing basinwide loads for pollutants of interest.
o Assist in the determination of appropriate nonpoint source Load Allocations.
o Develop control strategies for nonpoint source problem areas in each basin.
o Manage the stormwater program.
o Direct the wetland implementation program to meet priority concerns within subbasins.
o Work with the CGIA to develop effective ways to present planning information for technical
and public review.
o Coordinate regulatory and congressional initiatives to incorporate changes, where
necessary, to achieve water quality management objectives.
41
-------
5. IMPLEMENTATiON SCHEDULE
Because of time and resource constraints, the implementation of whole basin planning and
management is Likely to occur in phases. For the purposes of discussion, Figure 5 outiines a
four-phase conceptual model of program implementation, with near-term (less complex) objectives
and long-term objectives requiring additional methods development and policy initiatives. Initially,
efforts will focus on the rescheduling and reorganization of permitting and associated routine
support activities (field sampling, modeling, wasteload allocation calculations, etc.) by basin, to
allow for more efficient use of staff resources (Phase I). As time and resources allow, new
assessment and management tools (e.g., basinwide water quality modeling) will be developed
and applied, with advances occurring in some areas (such as for point source discharges of
conventional pollutants) at a faster rate than for others (e.g., management approaches for
reducing nonpoint source contributions) (Phase I I). Eventually, sufficient data and information will
be available to both assess the optimal distribution of assimilative capacity (including trade-oHs
between point and nonpoint sources) (Phase Ill) and support the development of comprehensive,
long-term basinwide management strategies (Phase IV).
The earliest basin plans prepared in the early-i 990s are unlikely, therefore, to achieve all of the
Long-term objectives for whole basin management defined in Section 1 .1. Subsequent updates
of these plans, scheduled for every 5 years, will include additional data, analyses, and detailed
management strategies as they become available. The time required to develop fully integrated.
comprehensive basin management plans, including long-range strategies, will vary among basins,
depending on (1) the existing amount of background information and analyses for the basin, (2)
the complexity of the basin processes and water quality problems, and (3) the relative importance
of point and nonpoint sources in the basin. Analyses of nonpoint sources are hindered by the
scarcity of information on specific sources, rates, and types of pollutants; in addition, the tools for
characterizing nonpoint source problems and assessing alternative solutions are not as fully
developed as for point sources. The development of management policies for nonpoint source
control also requires the involvement of many more agencies than for point sources. Therefore,
greater effort and longer times may be required to implement comprehensive basinwide
management plans f or basins that (1) have less existing information, (2) are more complex, and
(3) where nonpoint pollutant sources are relatively more important.
42
-------
Coordinate permitting and monitoring schedules by Near Term
Phase I basin, for more efficient use of staff resources Objectives
Expand and improve wasteload aUocation analyses and
evaluation of nonpoint sources (NPS)
• Determine remaining assimilative capacity
• Avoid overaUocation of assimilative capacity
Phase II • Account for pollutant and discharger interactions
• Account for NPS contributions, identify target areas
for control, and implement Best Professional
Judgment management strategies
Optimize distribution of assimilative capacity
• Evaluate trade-offs among sources, including
Phase lit point sources and NPS
• Implement TMDLs
Develop and implement basin-wide management strate-
gies and long-range planning
• Improve consistency in management decision
• Implement innovative management strategies, LOIQ Term
Phase IV Such as Objectives
o capacity banking
o industrial recruitment road-mapping
• Promote public review and participation in long-range
planning and development of statewide management
strategies
Figure 5. Four phase conceptual model of implementation of the whole basin approach to
water quality management, indicating near-term and long-term program objectives.
43
-------
Permitting activities within North Carolina have already been rescheduled by basin; all NPDES
permit renewals within a given basin will now occur simultaneously, and be repeated at five year
intervals (Table 4). Permit renewals in the Neuse River basin, for example, have been scheduled
for April 1993. Thus, the whole basin management plan for the Neuse River basin must be
available (and approved) at a sufficient time preceding this date to serve as the basis for the
permit renewal process and decisions. The NPDES permit renewai schedule, therefore, drives
the schedule for developing and reviewing the whole basin management plans.
As an example of the length of time required to complete a whole basin management plan, a
tentative schedule was developed at the NCDEM Water Quality Section workshop for the first Tar-
Pamlico basin plan, with NPDES permit renewals in the basin scheduled for January 1995.
Working backwards from that date, the estimated time needed to complete each of the 14 steps
defined in Section 3 (Figure 3) is summarized in Table 5 and presented graphically in Figure 6.
Some steps and tasks may overlap. For example, it is assumed that the permitting process (Step
14) can be initiated before the plan has fully completed the review, revision, and approval process
(Steps 12 and 13). Likewise some aspects of data analysis and interpretation (Step 8) can begin
before all data collection activities are completed in the field (Step 7) (see Figure 6).
Schedules similar to the one presented in Table 5 for the Tar-Pamlico basin will be prepared for
the 16 other major nver basins in North Carolina. These will be circulated as supplements to this
document at a later date. The time required for each step will vary somewhat among basins. For
example, basins for which relatively little data exist may require special studies (e.g., time of travel
hydraulic studies), which can be delayed if the proper conditions do not exist because of weather
patterns, thus requiring a longer period of time for Step 7. Complex basins for which
sophisticated and/or extensive water quality modeling must be conducted (e.g., the Catawba and
Cape Fear basins) will require more time at Step 8, compared to other basins where the modeling
activities may be more straightforward or where extensive modeling analyses already exist. For
some basins, the information required to estimate nonpoint source loadings is not readily
available, and may require additional time and effort to compile (e.g., at Stages 3 and 7). Other
basins, on the other hand, already have extensive data and analyses available on nonpoint
sources (e.g., nutrient budgets for the Albemarle-Pamlico basin). Finally, the overall schedule for
44
-------
Table 4. NPDES Permitting Sctiedule for the 17 Major River Basins in North Carolina.
Permit Renewal Date Basin
April 1993 Neuse
November 1994 Lumber
January 1995 Tar Pamlico
April 1995 Catawba
August 1995 French Broad
November 1995 New
January 1996 Cape Fear
January 1997 Roanoke
June 1997 White Oak
August 1997 Savannah
September 1997 Watauga
October 1997 LitUe Tennessee
December 1997 Hiwassee
January 1998 Chowan-Pasquotank
April 1998 Neuse
July 1998 Yadkin
November 1998 Broad
November 1999 Lumber
45
-------
Table 5. Estimated Time Frame and Schedule for Preparing the First Whole Basin
Management Plan for the Tar-Pamlico Basin.
Step
Task Duration (mo)
Start Date
Completion Date
14
Issue permits
7
6/94
1/95
12,13
Plan review and approval
12
1/94
1/95
11
Complete draft plan
3
10/93
1/94
10
Select management option
1
9/93
10/93
9
Evaluate management options
2-3
6/93
9/93
BB
Modeling analyses
12
6/92
6/93
8A
Current status assessment
6-7
6/92
1/93
7E
Obtain data from outside section
16
2/91
6/92
7D
Collect sediment chemistry data
24
6/90
6/92
7C
Collect biology data
4
6/92
10/92
7B
Collect water chemistry data
16
6/91
10/92
7A
Collect physical data
28
6/90
10/92
6
Determine data needs
35* *
6/88
5/91
5
Define management units
4 ”
1/91
5/91
4
Prioritize problems and issues
4’
1/91
5/91
3
Identify problems and issues
4”
1/91
5/91
2
Establish goals and objectives
4*m
1/91
5/91
I
Compile existing information
4’’
1/91
5/91
* Data can only be collected during summer period; one summer scheduled for collection
of biological data for Tar-Pamlico basin.
Data can only be collected during summer; two summers scheduled for water chemistry
data.
Data can only be collected during summer; as much time as possible must be allotted for
collecting physical data because sampling during low flow periods is critical and, because
of climatological variations, low flow periods may or may not occur during any given
summer period.
The schedule for these steps may not be representative of the time required for other
basins, because of the compressed schedule required to complete the first Tar-Pamlico
basin plan by January 1995. Assessments of existing data and data needs for the basin
were conducted in the summer of 1988, to establish schedules for future chemistry and
biology field sampling, but this planning was not done specifically within the context of
whole basin planning.
46
-------
m
1 Compile existing
information
a)
• 2 Establish goals and
objectives
.— 4 Identify problems
and issues
4 Prioritize problems
and issues
‘ 5 Define management
units
CD
6 Determine data
needs
7A Collect physical
data
7B Collect water
chemistry data
! 7C Collect biology
—I data
—.1 D)
70 Collect sediment
chemistry data
7E Obtain datafrom
8 outside section
8A Current status
assessment
CD 8B Modeling
analyses
C ’ )
5 9 Evaluate manage-
3 ment options
10 Select management
op ion
CD
3 11 Complete draft
CD plan
- 12, 13 Plan review and
approval
14 Issue permits
-------
some of the eariier baz n plans (scheduled for completion in 1993, 1994, or 1995) must be
compressed simply because of the insufficient lead time. Further refinement of these basin
schedules will occur over the next year.
48
-------
6. DATA MANAGEMENT
The data management needs for whole basin management are acute and central to the success
of the program. Staff members from alI branches of the Water Quality Section spend a great deal
of time moving, sorting, and analyzing data from a variety of sources and in a number of different
formats. This diversity of data types and formats presents the Water Quality Section staff with
several time consuming problems that could be solved by using a more sophisticated data
management system. Thus, as part of the implementation of whole basin planning, the Water
Quality Section has proposed (1) the development of standardized formats for data storage as
well as for tables and figures to be used in the whole basin management plan, (2) the initiation
of centralized data base management, and (3) more direct interactions and a closer working
relationship with the Center for Geographic Information Analysis (CGIA) to take advantage of their
Geographic Information System (G IS) capabilities.
A centralized data management system is needed that can retrieve and transmit data to several
remote data bases including, but not limited to the following:
o EPA stream reach files and the NCDEM classification system,
o the NPDES Permit and Wasteload Allocation Information data base,
o discharger compliance information,
o nondischarger files,
o the whole effluent toxicity (WET) data base,
o NCDEM biomonitoring and tissue data bases,
o computerized data bases on land use, etc. from other agencies,
o the CGIA data base,
o USEPA Storet files,
o the U.S. Geological Survey stream monitoring data base, and
o university research files.
Thus, the Water Quality Section data management system must be flexible, and designed to
handle a wide variety of input and output formats. In particular, the ability to display, ove ay, and
analyze monitoring data on spatial scales using the GIS at CGIA is a critical aspect and a primary
49
-------
benefit of whole basin planning. The system must also be able to interact with desktop
computers and workstations, because a significant portion of the data analyses in the Water
Quality Section are currently conducted and will continue to be conducted on these machines .
The proposed data management system also will be used to implement computerized tracking
for coordinating and recording decisions made during the whole basin planning process. By
tracking the results and decisions made at each phase, both the process of plan development as
well as plan updates in subsequent years will be more efficient.
The acquisition of a more powerful data management system and improved, standardized
procedures for data handling and analysis will increase staff efficiency, allowing the staff more
time to concentrate on developing new data analysis techniques and on the data interpretation
required to achieve the long-term objectives of whole basin planning. At present, however, the
existing support within the Water Quahty Section is inadequate to implement the proposed
expansion and improvements in data management outlined above. Additional funds and support
are needed to (1) purchase new equipment, in particular a mini-mainframe computer (estimated
cost approximately $250,000), (2) develop a data management system tailored to the needs of
the Water Quality Section (estimated costs $60,000 for task flow analysis and $80,000 for
software development), and (3) train Water Quality Section staff. This additional support required
to implement centralized data management represents a critical outside resource need (see
Section 7).
50
-------
7. REMAINING ISSUES AND OUTSIDE RESOURCE/RESEARCH NEEDS
Whole basin planning is expected to be both more efficient and more effective, resulting in better
management of North Carolina’s water quality for a given level of funding and resource allocation
(Section 1.2). However, in the short term, additional outside resources and research are needed
to facilitate the transibon to whole basin management. In addition, several remaining
administrative and technical issues must be resolved regarding program management and
implementation. These remaining issues and outside resource/research needs are summarized
below.
7.1 REMAINING ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGULATORY ISSUES
o CoordInatIon: The Division must create a new staff position(s) to be responsible for
coordinating the development of whole basin management plans (see Section 4.2).
o innovatIve Management Approaches: As part of whole basin management, several new
and innovative management strategies and approaches have been proposed, including
assimilative capacity “agency banking” by the Water Quality Section, pollution trading, and
industrial recruiLment mapping. As noted in Section 3, a written description and rationale
for these approaches is needed, early on in the process, to encourage review and
comment and to initiate any changes or additions needed to the existing rules and
regulations.
o StandardIzed Format for Basin Plans: To facilitate the development of whole basin
management plans and also inter-basin comparisons, a standardized format must be
developed specifying data, table, and figure formats to be used in each plan. A detailed
procedures manual is needed ouuining the steps, tasks, and analyses involved in
developing a whole basin management plan (see Section 3).
o Centralized Data Management: As noted in Section 6, additional outside funding is
needed to implement centralized data management within the Water Quality Section
(estimated total funding request $390,000).
o Additional Staff: To fully achieve the objectives of whole basin management, additional
staff or staff reassignment may be required within Ltte Water Quality Section.
o CrIteria for Prioritizing Problems and Critical Issues: The Water Quality Section staff
must develop objective and consistent criteria for identifying priority problems and critical
water quality issues to be addressed in the management plans for each basin. These
criteria must recognize the limitations on what the state can and cannot regulate as well
as fiscal constraints.
51
-------
o Criteila for Distributing Assimilative Capacity: Objective criteria must be developed
to guide the equitable distribution of assimilative capacity and control requirements, in
order for the Water Quality Section to fairly achieve the long-range goals and planning
objectives of whole basin management.
o SpecifIc Administrative/Regulatory Needs: Two specific needs were identified: (1) a
definition for High Quality Water (HQW) lakes and (2) approval to limit the maximum
concentration of toxic substances to the no-acute level (i.e., the Criteria Maximum
Concentration or 1/2 the Final Acute Value) in the effluent.
7.2 TECHNICAL RESOURCE AND RESEARCH NEEDS
o Total Maximum DaIly Loads (TMDLs): The TMDL concept needs to be defined more
completely arid precisely. The definition should include atmospheric inputs of pollutants,
pollutant interactions, the linkage between nonpoint source pollutants and point source
pollutants, and specific endpoints for assessing the impact of each TMDL, for each
pollutant. The definition needs to be relevant to aquatic systems and regulatory programs.
o TerrestrIal/Aquatic interactions: Whole basin planning will require additional information
on the relationship between land use/landscape ecology and water quality. In particular,
support is needed for the Center for Geographic Information Analysis / Geographic
Information System for staff training and to digitize hydrological, physiographic, and land
use data for North Carolina river basins.
o Expanded Water Quality Models: More sophisticated water quality models are needed
to address discharger and pollutant interactions (from both point and nonpoint sources)
and that operate on larger spatial scales (basinwide modeling and analyses, rather than
individual stream reaches). A pilot project is currently underway with the Center for
Geographic Information Analysis to develop a simple mass balance model for basinwide
assessments of toxic discharges and could prove to be a building block for additional
modeling efforts.
o improved Models for Estuaries: Several North Carolina basins include estuaries. The
estuary models currently being used by the Water Quality Section for the Neuse
Albemarle-Pamlico estuaries are inadequate for addressing many of the basin planning
issues critical to North Carolinas estuaries. Thus, the Water Quality Section needs
additional funding for further development of suitable estuarine model(s). NCDEM has
requested assistance from the Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens for additional
training and technical assistance in this regard. While USEPA appears supportive of the
idea, details of the actual assistance to be received remain to be worked out.
o improved Estimates of Pollutant Loads from Stormwater Runoff: Additional research
is needed to more accurately estimate pollutant loads resulting from stormwater runoff.
The effectiveness of stormwater treatment also needs to be evaluated.
52
-------
o Improved Estimates of Nonpoint Source Loading: Quantitative estimates of nonpoint
source loading, by source area, are needed and must be integrated with estimates for
point sources to determine the total pollutant loading to a system and, thus, the remaining
assimilative capacity. The existing methods for estimating and evaluating nonpoint source
loadings are not as advanced nor as well tested as are those for point sources. In
addition, methods for prioritizing implementation of nonpoint source control methods are
needed. Use of aerial photography to meet this need, as employed by the Tennessee
Valley Authority, should be more closely examined.
o Biostatistics: Additional input is needed from biostatisticians to aid in designing
monitoring programs, defining biocriteria, developing data analysis protocols, and defining
ecoregions.
o SpecIfic technIcal needs/Issues: Other specific technical and research needs identified
include the following:
- Research and information on the ability of North Carolina treatment plants to
achieve lower discharge limits (i.e., technology capabilities), and the added costs
associated with these limits.
- Protocol for dealing with pollutant concentrations (especially toxics) at or below the
analytical detection limit.
- Research to determine the effectiveness of management options for curbing septic
tank/bacteria problems in estuary/shellfish production areas.
- Assistance with establishing field procedures for reaeration studies.
- A national protocol for measuring long-term biological oxygen demand (BOD).
- Evaluation of parameter analysis techniques (low level) and also additional work
on analytical methods for measuring chlorine at low concentrations.
- Further development and refinement of procedures for assessing ambient and
sediment toxicity.
53
-------
8. REFERENCES
Lenat, D.R. 1988. Water quality assessment of streams using a qualitative collection method for
benthic macroinvertebrates. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 7(3):222•233.
Omemik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geog. 77(1):
118-125.
54
-------
-------
CLEAa latER At! ssaoJiaszAlIcs tsast
c)C-LA_ / NAL -YSL
QRAFt-J ne II, 1991 05A11
S3S9 States identify waters that
are not expected to meet water
q.satity atsidarch Scauce of
in-çoint source poltut ri; si tt
a segemsnt plan to EPA, receive
grants for approved p1 aria
S. 1081
$ut(ds on eupstino progr--directs EPA to pililish
not’l guidelines specifying miniaa eloments of
State UPS progra, including identification of
economicalty achievable management measures to
control pollution irçuta from categor Ies of UPS.
States to ipdate UPS plain to S consistent WI (PA
guidelines or deferral funds withheld.
Hidiwsy ftaids--raquires 001 to withhold highway
fiats from States S b rovS UPS progra
( ISCA Coordinetiois--atrengths coordination w I USDA
progrw
Federal Le e ds - -requires EPA to pr a . / 1 2 years
(sQ tinel regs 1 yr. later) regs concerning control
of UPS on at I federal taida; EPA report to C reas
w It 3 years
Coerciaf fertilizer--v /i 3 yra, no person may
sjfacture or sell sty caerciel fertilizer
product WIG taking adequate precautions for
protection of water quality as determined by EPA ;
EPA to issue reps to assure that carcial
fertilizers inS u/s critical watershed areas are
guided by site-specific soil tests aid other reqto
Rural Clean Water Progrom , provided tor in 4208(j)
5.5.
2029
N.E
735
ER.
12
5.
133
( Sttt)
(iiefley)
(wughes)
(CrSi)
Provides for extension of suthorizetton of
4319, without ,ttscnt , through Ft 1999
Requires EPA to identify pollution control
meesures, in ition to the management
meesures required tader the recent C ilIA
nts , suitable for redicing or
controlling introd.jction of pollutants
into coastpl waters from rwçoint sources;
to develop techniques for evaluating
effectiveness of the measures, ait to
develop end make available to States and
localIties technical guidance
Provides for extension of authorisat ion
thr .4i Ft 1999 without . nls for
fleA 4208(p)19).
Sewer
Overf
CSOs are flows from c tned
sewers, in excess of the sewers
capacity, that discharge into
receiving waters s b receiving
proper treatment. CSOs are point
sources simlect to all R20ES
permit requirements inclsaling
technology-based and water
cpielity-based reqairewients of the
tWA (SOs ore not siAiject to
aecoesfory treaiment regis
eppL cable to POISIs
Requires States to cwñrt inventory of CSOs w/i I
year iii.eiicspelities ub CSOs to develop and
iagileant CSO elimination progras no mare than 7
years after progra roval by EPA Control
progras sasS eliminate overflows resulting from a
one-year, ssa-bour store event Title VI anended to
make flO ci tminat ion progr eligible for fisding
under a State’s water cp.ial ity revolving loan fiat.
Storm Water
4402 (p) sets forth schedile by
ithich five categories of
asiicipal or irdsstrtol
dischargers are retp.iired to
obtain permits
— _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
eats Current
Eonpo tnt
Source
Pollution
-------
DeAlT Jonc Ii. 199l -DgAf1
CIIA 11301 ar 3O ib)- best
piaciicdete control technology
(BPI) for then eeisting”
•nt*jstrie l d,schsrger betl
corventional tichnotogy (BCI) 4or
existing diachargers of
conveciticsial pollutants; best
availsbts technology ,con icaIly
achievable (BAIl for existing
dischargers of toxic poLlutants:
guidelines si Osed to be
reviewed at Least irwijat ly
S.clteó.ite--EPA to revis, guidelines no less often
then every 7 years
-new and revised guidelines .Jst provide for
p 0 t tutarit redectione to attain BAT 4.tI.inates BCT
ar PT)
GuideLines acist re jIr, eLi.lr iat Ion of diackarge
and, the prohibition or li.it.tion of r.leaxe into
oth*r ewdia (incli.abrg gru waIst) diero
technological iy ar econosically .chlsvthle, arid
prohibit control waasurss or practtces idiich are
likely to hues sugitficant adverse t act on any
enwiro. ntal usd 1.; prohIbited fr r.vi.wing
(PAs inforustion req isStS to I ruck .lry In deveLoping
or i.vising guidelin
to be p. lieJted si. lt .neouely with BAt
£.--lrsI. lrial sources, both direct arid indirect
ar. to pay le,s to sIcçoJl EPAs .de,n,slrstiv.
costs in developIng guidelines, based on -votues arid
toxicity; waiver for i.mreslon .ble I inN iel
hardship; usney deposited in a spaciel fi, i in U.S.
Treasury
Advisory C I ti cc tCL (A 1515)- - estabLishes xi,
Effluent St erds arid Mater .iality Inforwetion
Advisory C i tIes to advise EPA in desstrçlrig
guidelines
S.
1081
NB.
2O
LB.
Th,
N.e.
12
S
73 3
Issue cosrant
(Baucus)
(St i )
(iiefiey)
(ikiohes)
(Groh i
Effluent
Guidelines
-------
LiRAFI- J.ne i i, 1991 t Ra il
Fish Const t ion Advisories--requires EPA to develop
w/t 2 years arid btereiially thereat ter• guidelines
for States to fallow in issuing contmeiriaied finfish
and shellfish conaiwiton advisories to protect
recreal . anal arid at I stence f i s her m an
List of Pollutents--i-equires EPA s/i we year arid
bietatially thereaf tar to a.tlish a list of
conventional • noncwtventionsL 1 and toaic pollutants;
includes hydradification fl thermal pollution as
ctnventional pollutants
lrlte ,i ,--aat assure protection of Isat health arid
acosyateme, Incluchno sad leente arid mat provIde
for a bslanced Iridigensin popilatfon
Criteria Scheójla--reqiirea EPA , s/i aria year arid
trieratially thereat tar to sa it to Congress a plan
for devet nt of criteria arid information; ihe
first plan ns include 20 new crtieria revision of
20 esistitig criteria, arid 20 sedi it criteria; at
tesst 60 criterIa docants mast be pi.tliahed s /I 4
years of enactment
Srheckile - -EPA req’d to issue or revise at
leasi S new criteria, arid revise at least
S eaisting criteria for pollutants diich
pose greatest risk 10 coastal eater
quality lirctiides Great Lakes) every two
years
Criteria--requires (PA to devetop arid
ptliali criteria for sediment quality and
infor.at ion on factors necessary to
restore Great takes arid coastal aquatic
ecosyst . The criteria would provide a
beats for, evaluating ceverity of
aedimant contmeinat ion, pros idietg
technical foieidation for developoent of
sadi.ent standart, devel i rig national
sediment r di at ion sta rda; arid
identifying and ranking locations of
contamInated sedisents for remediai ion
projects.
Guidance on tedimtnt Oual I t y Based
E#fluent Lisits--requires EPA, Sien
pSlishing such sediment criteria, to
issue guidance on devetaent and
iqaoailion by aqaraqiriate permitting
authority of sediment-based effluent
limits for the pottutas isidar 4302.
Foisting Criteria said Information-for
pollutants for ditch criteria arid
information are p.tlished aider 4304 (a),
requires EPA to revise aid reya.tl isti such
criteria aid information to si.ççort
developoent of sediment c iteria. far
pollutants for Such criteria arid
information have not been pi.tlished isider
304(a), Sets forth proceitare by iduich any
person may petition EPA to develop suck
criteria for sediaents
Requires EPA, s/I
tO months, to
issue water
quality criteria
for pathogens in
“coast at
recreation waters”
(Great Lakes arid
marine coastal
eaters cowenly
sned for swimoing,
etc.)
lass Ctrrent
430 ’
5. 1081 Nt. 2029 at us M-R. 1? S. 133
(Baucus) fsti.t) fltef l ) (fli4tes) (GrSia)
Mater ouality
Criteria aid
Guidelines
3-
-------
DRAF1 -J.a e 1t 1991 DRAft
s. 1081 M i 2029 li_I_ flS 12 s. ni
(B aueus l tSt i ) filet Icy) ( ik ies) (Gr tue)
Specifically shows d.velo it
of waler q. .ati ly criteria f2
tosic pollutants an bases other
Au*horites EPA to establish biological iitoring
and as .essnt thods for a pollutant, in a ition
to a pollutant C entr.tion limit provided that
EPA reqd wIt 2 yr.
criteria for coastal
to piblish biological
waters
To the estent that
EPA determines
that in control of
than pollutant-by-pollutant
i h ethod incli eI an objective w enforceable
tosicity it is
cr.ler,a inclisfing biological
anititoi ’iflg and assessecnt thode
limit .apresaed in rs. rical term
ilequires EPA, wit 2 years, to p.btlth a criteria
necessary to
inctide biological
anntioririg, etc
eiological
Criteria
doct it for abol. effluent tosiclty. Criteria
Ctnt ahall be in a itlcn to any pollutant-
specific criteria
Requires EPA, wit IA annths and biririlaily
thereafter, to pi-o. lgate eblological dl.ch.rge
criterle for determining degradetlon of i at.r.
covered eder V.05
as . cor ition of
a permit saurd to
a P01W, failure of
a single bole
effluent toxicity
teal shall not
result in a
I irdirig of
violation
-------
DRAFT- Jt,c 11, iQQi--DRAF1
Mater Quality
Stai rdo
Desiwiated Uses--Req.iires States, w/i 3 years, to
adopt use desienstiens for sit rivers, atrea,
lakes, estuarine regions, aid waters of the
contiguafl zone apolicabte to the waters arid the
aquatic sediments; in general, all waterbodiea not
ci.areettly designated “fishabte, swiebte° shalt be
so designated not later than the nan trieewiial
review of standards
State Standards - -requires each Stats to pt water
— sadi st quat ivy stadardo w/t 3 years of the
ptlicattcn of EPA criteria, and to review esisting
staidards at leait every 3 years; States to notify
border and tçstre States icon adoption of a
standard
Federal Oversight - -requires EPA to oversee
designation of ass aid adoption of ataidarda and
provides EPA with authority to disapprove State
starwSrds; requires EPA to pra.ilgata atar.lardo for
water bodies in Stats alters State fails to do so w ji
3 years
Waters of cent igimus gone--requires EPA to designate
waters of cent Igt,maa zona as fishable, swi le
aid, s/i 2 years, to pttish proposed l aS for such
waters (w/ final standards I yr. later)
Cent irsiing Plez-viina process - -emet C1M 4 3 03(e) ados
elements (uPS, sAP, river protection) to be inclidad
in State’s contits.iizig plazsiing process for water
pollut ton control
Iliaing Zones--aerds C Ite 4303(d) to pit o tiaits
on as of miatng zones
tiCis- -meends CM I 4303(d) ising proceo.zres for
developing total easiaa daily toads for pot tutants
in water bodies that have not attained water rid
sediment quality stardards IlSoS(bXZ)(B3 ispaired
water
Coastal Water Quatity Staislards--
Coastal Slates reqd to adopt coastal
water quality ttandgrds w/i 2 yrs for
pollutants for Such criteria have been
p.tlished Upon a failure of State to
adopt such standards, EPA-issued criteria
bsceme interim enforceable ICC
National Sediment Reisedipt ion 5;andards -
requires EPA to issue, s/i 2 years,
national aediment remedist ion stedards to
govern remediation projects in the Great
Lakes aid coastal water involving
containatad sediments
Stfndards for Cvnlmetnança in Water
-requires EPA to Issue, w/i 2
years, standards that wilt sstabtioh
t orsry mestna permissible
concentrations of pollutants or
continanta in the water cola cAwing a
remedial projects for sediment
conttnation
lists - Cierent CI a
4303
5.
1081
Nt.
2029
N.E.
735
u.s.
12
S
133
(Eaucus)
(Sttflt)
(ilettev)
(Ni-dies)
(GrSta3
Amends
t303(c)(2l(t) to
make ii clear
that, with respect
to POtlis, nothing
shall be construed
to authorize use
of effluent
limitations ditch
result in the
finding of a
violation solely
i.pon failure of a
Stole effluent
tosicity test
Stare RPA or the
State utilizes
permit co’dit ions
or limitations
based on or
involving
biological
meni (or ing
States, wIt 3 yrs
of pi.tzlicatton of
EPA criteria,
required to adopt
water quality
starsiards for
pethogens in
coastal recreation
waters
( PA Action on
Failure of State
to Adopt - reqaires
EPA to prnilgste
ICS for coastal
recreation waters
icon a failure of
a State to do so
s/i Ifs 3 years
Amerols cWA
4303(c) - EPA water
qiality criteria
isder CMI 43 04 (a)
to be used as the
apol icable
standard for that
pollutant i i State
has not adapts
relevant standard
or has adopted a
standard less
stringent than
criteria
Agends c nn
4106(d) - -EPA’s
ocean d..aping
requirements to be
used if State
standard is less
stringent
Current regulations require each
Ados a new sttsect ion to CIA 4303 requiring each
Slate to enforce a state wide
State to develop aid ipplement a statewide
Anti -
degradation
m it idegradat ion pot icy aimed at
emintaining aid protecting
irrolneem uses rid ewisting “high
quality wstersa
ant idegradat ion policy, EPA to approve or di s rove
ouch policy aid to pralgate policy, w/i 2 yeart
for States ditch do not have an approved policy
-5-
-------
DRAFT- Jisie II, lQQt--DtAFl
Water Quality
Monitoring
A cx er of sections of the
esiating statute target specific
waters- -H117 (Chesapeake Rayl 1
118 (Great takes), 303(d)
(priority rankingi, 304(l)
(I,diwi&ia( Control strategies
for tosic pollutants), and 314
tCtes takes)
S. lOOT
(Baurus)
r ;prity Water;--sids 1304 (11 to requtra that for
any water body for ditch trdivióisal control strategy
developed, aPOfi permit authority oust: inclide
conditions to assure sufficient lnfortion ia
available to eserciae (403 authorities; issue storm
water peraita; proftibit specification of area as a
1404(c) disposal site, exercise 4312 authority, give
pr Iority for SEP aid SEP-r ivera anagament
conferevEas; if no 4319 program, (PA mat prepare
UPS program.
( hitetending Natural 4esourc? Itora - -aTh a new
as .ct on to GM 4303 requiring aacft State s/i 24
mentha, to designate aid taplamant a program to
protect ciatatsding natural resource aatara
itcltdlng watera of national parka aid wildlife
rafsqes fl related areas of ecological iqtortae
to secure that qmlity of such waters Ia protected;
EPA, s/I 12 eitha, to piAsllah widsEe to asaiat
States In the designation
3 - -required In sty in water body that have not
attained water aid aediment quality staidarda
14305(b)(2fla) iapaired water bodies)
Sete prugr--requlres States to coidict a
c rehensive program to aunitor the quality of all
navigable waters within the State aid to sitait to
EPA by April 1, 1994 aid bierettatly thereafter a
report
water Quality Monitoring Coiaict(--establishea a
Water Quality Monitoring Coiaxtl, chaired by EPA
rep, 10 assure the effective coordination of federal
and State eneitoring progra
EPA responsibilities--requires SPA to issue
guidance not lesa often than aissial ty to States to
assure effective and coordinated iaptemeritation of
water quality aunitoring progre; st it to
Congress , w/i 2 years, a strategy for coordinate
saplementat ion of water quality ii toring progr ,
sitmit to Congrese Jan. 1, 1995 aid bieretially
thereafter a report on the findings of menitoring
Authoritrs--$3 million for eech of ftc ‘93- ‘98 for
the coiewit and EPA activities
Astient Monitoring - -ameeds 4308 to require
diachargera to coittt ient onnitoring
I I . 2029
(SttakM)
At a new sitiscctiist to Clffi 5304
I Inforat ion aid Guidelines) requiring
each coastal State, within 24 sinths of
enactment, to develop a Coastal Water
Quality Protection Program for restoring
aid protecting coastal water quality the
program, if approved by EPA, would apply
to coastal waters of the State in lieu of
the plaening and i s plementatton
requir nte otherwise applicable to
coastal waters toter 1303(d).
Requires that the progre take into
eccoizit ad incorporate the requirements
of GM 1304(l) lirdivióaal control
strategies for toxic pollutants) 1 319 (UPS
programi, and 320 (REP), ad the new UPS
provfaiats of the C i liA — , ,.ta
Puroose--Ealthl ishes a long-term water
quality assessment Nd iitoring program
for liigit’priority coastal waters
Coastal Water Oual ty Monitorirto Task
fg - -establishes the Coastal Water
QüiHty Monitoring task Force consisting
of representatives of ROSA (Sw is to be
the Chair), EPA, USFWS, Corps, aid others
Rational Coastal Water Quality Monitoring
Strategy - -requires the task force to
develop aid ipplement a national strategy
for contacting coastaL water quality
aunt br ing progr aid to report to
Congress within 2 years of enactment aid
triemialiy thereafter. Requires task
force, ang other things, to select hig h
priority coastal waters aid review,
approve, iapleeent coastal water quality
ii tor ing progr
Requires EPA, s/i
9 itha, to
ptlish regs
specifying methods
to be used by
Slates to aunt tor
coastal recreation
waters for
caipliance with
applicable S
lasts Csa’rent GM
t,,i geting
Schemes
LR.
735
SR.
12
5
7 1 3
(Relley)
(liugh ies)
bErth ’ s)
6-
-------
DRAFI--Jis.e 11 , 199i-DRAF1
S. 1001
(Baucus)
5. 5. 2029
(Sti )
5 5. 735
(itef lay)
5.5 12
(N. ies)
S. 733
(Grth )
)30 ( (I) (l,diwió..al
Control
Aer )307(a) to expand existing (PA outhority to
strategies for taxi
c pot Iutantsl
prohibit discharge of pollutants that are highly
sche aid 1307 (a)
Ii ting
tonic or bioacct .jIative, clarifies process for
listing toxic pollutants; re .jires (PA to issue rags
Toxic
prohibiting discharge of 6 nwaed tozics , and. N/i
Pollution
years, to issue rags prohibiting discharg, of
Control
polLutants with BCF greater than those ned toxics;
re .jires lust to be revised every 5 years; rep,tres
(PA, wju 3 years. to establish the bloacci.jiat ion
factor of each listed pollutant; tia aid
chlorire to list
Ii jitrisl facululiei that
discharge into POIWs t C IY
with pretrestatnt stai’dsrth fossid
in 1307(b). Staidards desu ied
to prevent int.rferer e with P01W
operation aid discharge of
pollutants (rue POTWs si/o
adequate tiestarn (
Ands 1307(b) to strengthen pr.treataent
r.qu1re nts
Reuiin ’ 2 redits--profilbits r val credits
tgt.goricgl sl&dards- ’r.qulres (PA si/i 3 years to
pruealgat. pretreatmant stai rds (or each cat.gory
of sources for duich an effluent guideline t no
pretreatnt stdrd has been prueJlgated; ajst’ C
reflect BAT, prevent psss ’thros u aid interference
and protect beneficial rssaie of sewage .lt e; (PA
to review staidasds s AJaet every 7 years
. oc.( I lauts - .req iiresuPO1Wm with ...-‘ .-t . Utm
pr.ge to establish local tails on discharges by
iidjstrial lources that ars not ai. j,ct to
categorical standards, considering s factors as
for categorical staidards
0 sTic Sewage (aciuston--eliminetas RCSA estic
sewage exclusion for hazardous wastes aised w/
d siic sewage aid discharged to P01W igiless
irdostrial user is covered by, or (PA has
pruejigated a sche le for establishing, a
categorical staidard or imleis tIle pollutant aid
source are aiAject to a local lieu iEiich is
0 BAT eider RCRA restrictions
Prohibits discharges of hazar
Aaierds 1 1 .02(b) B !TT rvf— ven—ye .ogrwa .qt.
ag4osl to recpiire: hol (sails, POlils
discharging enre than S million gallons of effluent
per day to have a pretreateent progree, and, that E
States issue a permit to any sigolfucaiut irxkr trist
user introihicing • pollutant to a P01W that hog not
eitsbl shed a pretreat nt progr Nh Z years
, . , C ((.; ‘v:z- P t3
CA & ’
¼L(4jf /-(,
p.I( s /v
hair Csa’rr it
Pre t re5tment
f -t i,
-------
DRAF1--Jtsie 11, 1991 DRAFt
Issie
S. 1081 N I. 2029 N.m. 735 N.R. 12 S 731
Current GM (Baucus) (Sti ) (itefles ) (Niflses) (Crahas
tooic
Reóxtion
Action
Progra
Requires each P01W serving a pop.ttat ton of greater
than fifty thoiaard persons to develop aid teplesient
a bait Rtth tion Action Progr a n wit 3 years, to
prevent the introthuction of raiird.atr,al tosic
pollutants into the treatment works, giving priority
to sairces that contrib.,te toaic pollutants
resulting in 1105 violations in local receiving
waters, EPA to issue guidance wii I year and
bieeviially_thereafter,_tPA to_ rove_progras
Wastewater
4ierator
training aid
Certification
CI I I 44109 aid 110 authorizes EPA
10 sake grants to colleges sad
ssivsreities for training of
st dents for occopat ion involving
design operatIon aid
saintenance of treatment works
Establishes progre for training operators of
.ssicipal aid i,Oatrial wastewater treatment works
aid other eater quality control facilities seal for
certifying proficiency of treatment plant operators;
EPA guidelines on miniaa standards for
certifIcation; 515 •tlllon for each of F aa ‘91 aid
‘92
Posting of
Sigr for
lfater Quality
St a idard
violations
Adds a new 4521 to the (115 requiring each
State that has navigable waters within its
bot.wdaries that do not meet applicable
water quality standards to post aid
saintain a clearly visible sign at each
sajor place of piAilic access to those
waters indicating that Ins Such the
waters fail to meet aid the principal
health aid enviromental effects that say
result
EPA regs on
coastal water
quality monitoring
to inc ISe req’ts
that States or
localities notify
the gstl ic aid
post signs for
violocioris of
applicable water
quality ttarslards
Certification
140 1
tequires, as part of the 4401 process,
that States certify that the proposed
activity will not caine or c&strttsjte to
failure to achieve 1105
Esterds (WA 4401
permit
certification to
contiginus oone
Amersis 4109 adding
a provision
requiring EPA to
enforce
certification
provisions
(kean
Discharge
Criteria
403tc)--requires tPA to establish
criteria for the discharge of
pollutants into the ocean
Adds 4304(1) eater bodies to the covered waters
iaider 4403.
Requires EPA, wit 18 months aid bietvuially
thereafter, to prnaulgate “biological discharge
criteria” for determining degradation of waters
covered inler 4403
t can deny a 4602 permit for the covered waters if
diocharge csn rcasonable be eapected to adversely
affect_balanced_indigenous_population
Azetds 4301 to sake it i.ettawful to
discharge pollutants in violation of 4403
(spands application of 4403 to SEP
estuaries, no waiver for discharges into
these estuaries; requires (PA w/i IS
months to revise 4 4 03(c) guidelines
-
Ai*ls a 60 day
review period for
ocean discharge
permits waler (WA
4403(c) by any
State Sisse waters
say be affected by
the discharge
-------
DRAFt- Jiate II, 1991 DRAFT
I sass
Ctsrnit
£_ 1081
Raucus)
NI. 2029
(Stt )
N I 715
(Re fey)
N.5. I ?
S. z:ss
C Ordia l
aesearch
01* 4504
Establishes National Water Quality Research
Cittee to advise EPA on agor E l lA research needs,
(Pa to coitt research on effects of poltution oc
flah, shellfish, wildlife, authorizes $80
•iIl ton/yr. for FVs 92--’99
Provides for eatension of authorization
through ft 5999, without rdsnto, for
E ISA Ill04lu)(1) aid lOA(ujl2)
Requires EPA to
coe ict an ongoing
stiojy to provide
a itional info
for use i ii
developing lietier
iidicators for
directly detecting
in coastal
recreaiion water
the pretense of
bat.teria aid
viruses ditch are
harafut to hi. n
health, aid to
si. it a report to
Congress w i 4
lechnology
D e s itrat ion
Progr
E llA 4105
Authorizes progra to d eatrate new or
significantly l ,roved water pollution control
technologIes; projects s al advance the control ol
point aid norçoint aourcn or potential sources of
pollution, sewage altsige wtagent aid pollution
preventIon, Iiereiisl report; $20 slIlion for each of
FT. 9l i99
years
Stale Grant
Assistance
EVA 4106
Establishes grants for c rdiensive State water
qsal ity .aiiagaent progra to siqiert, at a
•iniaa cont inliog planing flr 4 1 0 3 (e), 1105,
monitoring, NPS, clean lakes, aid •inent aed
sststsit tat threat; grants contingeni t t EPA
açpooval 01 a Slste’a aissoal plan aid report; State
program ant include grot,od waler quality progr,
255 reserved tot irnovative control aid prevention
activities, State allocations no less than 5991
levels, SO iSO non-federal cost share
-9
-------
05511 -itete 11. 1991 -DRAFt
lease
Current GM
5. 1081
I B aucus I
N -s. 21129
(Stt )
5.5. 135
(Nell ev a
LU. 12
(Ku ies)
5. (53
(GrSta)
Fees
Requires States to collect fees from •raksstrial arid
aesicipal point source dischargers to cover the cost
of issuing discharge permits. Slates to nd NPDES
progrom w i 2 years to inclide a progra to collect
permit tees. Fees asi recover 6O of the costs of
adeinistering State permit progra
Req..ires EPA, s/i 2 years , to issue
regulations Such establish a “National
Coastal Discharge Permit Fee System” titer
Such (PA would assess aid collect fees
from coastal dtschargers. Requires EPA to
provide for hardship waivers acid allows
for States to collect the fees if the
State shows that it can collect an
equivalent isit and if the fees
collected by the State are retained arid
teed solely to aiçport the State’s water
quality progra.
Sakes each irakjstrial seer of a POtU Such
discharges Into coastal waters liable for
fees titer this section.
Interstate
isputes
Fayettevtlle issue--will be
decided by the Siçreme Court;
U S. Court of A als decided
that doiantrea standards ly
to qntre discharges; (PA
argues that the GM gives
per.ittsng agencies the
discretion to she permit
açplicants satisfy a d istres
state’s S on a case-by-case
basis
Addresses problem of violatIon of dow trea Stste’s
lCS from t. trs source located in another Stats.
Clarifies proce&res for resolving interstate
disputes in permit issiste. Provides for IPA
decision on the record as to Siether pollution is
cateing a attatantial violation of a water q..al ity
requtrent of another State
Perait
Progra
Iltidificat ions
Need io disoharee--skes an apelicant for a permit
demonstrate this
peç jt reopener--if 3 years or more remoiising,
permit aist be reopened to incorporate new standards
within 15 months of their tasuaco
Repeat violet ions- -dischsrgera w/ 2 or more permits
in violation would be triable to obtain permits for
new discharges, aid plaesiing of new facilities arid
issuance ol a permit would be coordinated
!2aj - -makes any permit term, condition,
or re aireent take effect icon issuance
of the permit inlets the permittee makes
certein specified demonstrations.
Permit Corelitsons--Authorises EPA or the
delegated State, icon aporoval of a
coastal water quality wii tor ing progrem,
to ircorpcrate into ropriate discharge
permits the apolicable monitoring
req.airemorits
10 -
-------
DRAFt- Jone 11, 1991--DRAFt
Overrules Gs ,altney case to allow citizens to sue for
ii iolly pest violations; nds 54505 and 309 to
a( low court to order penal tieS be used for
beneficial projects or to restore d ged natural
resources; emeri 4505 to allow citizens to sue for
violations of pretreatment requirements; nds 4309
to make violations of pretr.at.tnt r.q irementa
federally enforceable; broadens 4504 emergency
power.; requir.s p. lic notification of sigoificant
,ionc l iw . by diechargera; authorizes EPA to
withhold s to 25* of 4106 fieds frem States that
fail to adopt •ini adoinistratlv, civil penalties
A.er s the CiJA to- make it clear that
civil penalties, adsiniatrative penalties,
and third party penalties ioposed on
violators by the court may include
beneficial •itugat lon projects consistent
with the pJrposes and goal, of the C1 A;
allow EPA 10 order a defendant to “take
any other rtpriate action” instead of
just ordering c Ii e and assessing
penalties; authorize citizen suit. for
idlolly past violations, stiffen penalties
to eliminat, any econemic benefit or
caving. that may have accrued as a result
of th. violation; i oee prohibitions on
federal procurement contracting with any
person idio has been foijid to have
citted repeated violations of 045
requirements; authorize EPA to c nce an
adeini strat iv . enforcement Oct ion against
any federal facility to enforce the
provisions of the 045, strengthen the
emargency powers of the A tnIstrator;
provide authority to withdraw pert of a
State progr, mak, any permit tens lake
effect i.çion issuance of the permit stiles.
the permittee makes certain apecifi.d
demanstrations; prohibit any federal
agency frem iae rtaking any activity that
may adversely affect the quality of the
navigable waters in any State idtich the
Adeinistrator firxfs has demanstrated a
pattern of contireling and chronic
violations of a water quality standard in
effect for coastal waters or ccnturs tng
arsi chronic failure to protect or maintain
a designated use.
Issue Currant O
S. 1081
(Baucus)
N1. 2029 s.a. 735 N.R. 12
! 4I! (Nefley)
Enforcement
S. 735
(Cridsem)
- Ii —
-------
DRAFT -Jilic 11, 1991- -DRAFT
Enviror.entat
MS. ting
Requires enviro.wntal aidits of facilities that
discharge to water aid are siMpect to III• to
dster.ine c liaiice with discharge perauts arsi
identify necessary steps aid scfueóuls for iepioving
c i lance EPA ruin to specify adit schethiles
aid priorities of tacil.tiaa au.tject to auditing
(PA to certify envirceniat auditors.
Reqnros each federal ageney udiich or
operates a facility that discharges
poltuiants into navigable waters that
would qualify it as a ajor discharger if
it were an iisk,strial facituty to devetop
and iapteant a progra to conSuct on an
ongoing basis envirnentat audits of its
qualifying facilities
Requires each inSistruat discharger arid
each pit! ucty oieued treataint works that
discharges pollutants unto navigable
waters arid That is fourS by EPA or 5 State
to have repeated violations of a discharge
perait or an roved consent decree to
cottt bisvssally an enviraisental audit
of the facilities subject to the per.ut or
caraent decree
Require. EPA, within 3 aonths of
enacteant, to iesue regulations
estabifahing sligibitity requireeente for
caritficatton of etivirotaeutal auditors
Provides variots operational .ae,ts to Title VI,
including that the isachase of necessary lards aid
eaeeeents shall be an elugibte use of the tVC
Allotwant of I teds uater the current fornuLa is
arose , .stloit ltit ln (the tlpee of
prolecta for utuich ftading is available
fra SIPs) 3 9 trEtu projects to fix
C . (May also include Great Lakes
PFiiection progr tader t WA deperding
contiesued through FT %, but EPA is authorized to
on Siather or nat there is a drafting
award intent ice ceo aIizat ion grants to State. that
aintain Stats atchingf.td coiWribuiiaris at FT ‘91
error on pg. 971
Stats
levels. Loan repayaenta of kG years (Instead of 20)
are atiosied in the case of itvuovative wastewater
(stetds thg get tud oI— ttç j for SRF
fuesis and the fornula peruod through 199
Revolving
Fuavt
treatant projects.
Makes the foraula for atloteent finds
to aing PEa 1995 ihroui 1999
contingent upon an expanded needs survey
(idiich includes stornuiter di tchirgesThfd
CSos) required to be suMautted to Congress
by EPA by July 1, 1992
Esterds authorizations et ggerggriations
for SAPs at %L1bilTThn ansuatty for Its
‘92 thros4i ‘99
Salt
Coa.ni ty
Pied i n g
t wa Current O S
S.
1081
UI.
21129
U.s.
735
M.R.
12
S.
133
(Rautus)
(StL )
(Mefley)
(IfuØies l
(Cr sua)
-------
PRP.Ft Jigie 11. 1991 -DRAFT
I ..t
Ciarent Q
S. 1081 N 1. 2029 P.R. 711 H.P. 12 1. 131
(Baucus) fSll ) (Hefley) (NLi ir 5) (Gr i_i)
l ’0
twa S51 aulborites EPA to (reSt
I, uen tribes as Stale. in order
10 delegate the EPORS and other
progr_i to the I i also
recp i red EPA to ease., their need
for sewage lreat.efll work. end to
ke pr_il. to tribe, to control
rcnpo lrit suites of poflutton
Increases fieds ovaitubte to tribes tar wSStewater
treat_itt work. construction aid noepoint source
pollution Authorizes finencuel
.s.,stw e fta,d . for Indian tr Ibe.
RepOrts 10
Congress
I _nd. (1t6(.) 10 recpjir.d Clean Water Report on
Jarsiery I of the yard following enact_nt end every
3 yrs lher.sf tar on oaaaiar,. taken to l l_int Cwa•
w r.c,v).t,ait.
A.e! 516(b) “Cost of Clean” report repLaced by an
“infrastructure need. report” iáilch lncl .. CEO.,
star. waler, Ill coats. Cv i. u/f four year., aid
every 5 years thereafter.
Repiii-ei thai c oa st . I States ineI . ft
description of their activities ucder the
Slat.. Casual Water Qu.iity Proleclion
Progr in their t305(b) b lerviial stale
water q.iattty report.
- 13
-------
DRAFT- -J sie Ii 1991--DeAn
I 1tB-BCB TF TEBS*0 WECIFIC FB ALS
Ciarent B. tORI II . 2029 S 14 S 31 S B29 S. 1069 N.I. M MI 622 B. C. 20.0
— (Sa %M) (Sti ) (S.r ee) (R cnhi) (61 evi) (Mu td.eI I) (B viel U (Paiel to) (Cmrdtn)
311? B1.
Pcogr-St.tes ,njt,tut lonal
.f scted by the tiructur. of
unteraiete Bay progr
.enage nt p(an put into place
dewl d ui r th. by the $7
Chee.yea a Bay May
Pr09r y receive
Brent f r
ti, lng tot
(PA
MIc 1 1w1 nvo%v nt
ri general
cotLectlen
monitoring; S
ch.aapeake bsetnei
Ray toJIlcS
r e Jct n
monitoring
pro Sr;
walarih.d l
us. d i i. boo.;
a .cnutorlng
de ntr.t Ian
ogr for
urbsn I
su6urben
ru,ioff; sod, a
c rehens 1 v .
coordinated
living
resoorcr s
ogr —
16
-------
DRAFT Jule 11, 1991- DRAFt
IIIB Groat Lois.
Prcg i-- Coneei ved
to carry ent US.
responsibilities
under the U S.-
Canada Water Quality
Agreisent. As
, .J d by the
Great Lakes
Critical Progr
Act of EPA to
pEiI,ih guidac e en.
— States to adopt.
Great Lakes at.r
quality itac rds;
GINPO to develop
RAPs in “Ar ... of
Coneern” (tozic hot
spots)
-provides for EPA
to c akict a survey of
sediment contisiriat ion in
coastal asters aid Crest
Lskas
Criteria aid
requires EPA to develop
aedienit q.ialsty criteria
arid staidarda to identify
contisinated ssdument.
establish discharge
11.11.. end define cl.ais.
objective.
GuIdllnes for Resleratioci
Project. - - requires EPA acid
Corps to develop
guidelines for
isplcite*iaii of
re .tar.tion projects for
cootmeinsted sedigents
Cleamie - -require. (PA arid
Corps to i it tt
continated sedint
clearW projects in
coastal and Great Lakes
waters
Purpose - to
establish a natl
progrme to
identify A
restore
carit lnated
sediments in the
Great Lakes acid in
coastal waters
Tayk fprce - -
establishes
Nat laital
Contuneted
Sediment Tssk
Force
( PA Activitie ,
require. EPA to:
survey
cotmeinetion in
Great Lakes acid
coastal waters;
carithxt rese.rch
an restorst tan of
cootmeinated
sediments; p. l tib
criteria for
cootmeinanti in
Great Lake mid
coastal sediment;
prcmeti gate
rsr i tel
standards for such
sediment quell t )r
pt l IsA guidelines
for restoration:
and choose the
d n strat ion
projects
Purpose - - to
pi_ t e
effective and
ef I ic ient
source
red.gt ian of
sedimentat ion
in federally
author Red
c rci.l
h.rbors.
charsail
intaiw e
project
aites aid
areas of
ens irai.antal
Concern ifl
the Great
Lakes besiri
Corps to meke
grants to
States for
projects to
re ..ce
erosion aid
runoff that
Leads to
seth arotat ion
or harbors;
grants to be
consistent W /
States NPS
control
progris aid
RAPs arid LAPs
current
s -
io i
a...
2029
S.
14
5.
Si
S. 829
5.
1( 9
N 5.
64
NP 622
N N.
850
(Vaixtai)
(Sti )
(Sar i as)
( ynIhai)
(Gl 1%)
(Mitchell)
Iserrarti)
IPai tt 5)
(Cardin)
Great Lakes
- 15 -
-------
DRAFT--Jis e 1. 19 I--DRArT
CLNF Sfl C S. I0 I •.R 2029 5. 16 5. II 5. e29 S. t c U.S. 64 MR 622 5. 5. 650
— (Ra. s ) (5t i ) (S.rb wa) ( oynibi) ( Gl vi) ( Mitchctt) - ( B s tt) ( P t Ia ) — (Cardin)
Would
establish a
NEP- I Ike
prcgr for
rivers; EPA to
select rtverB
5151 fl9
priority to
those w/
a ignhficNlt
M.tionil i S
Rivers violations;
Asse s, nI req .Iures the
and foIlowin
Protection river, to be
given priority
cons ideral ion;
MLabOn River;
Si ver
Del . ars
River; Rio
Grand Rivers
— the
CcI ia Rivet ________________________ _____________ ______
16 -
-------
DRAfl--J ..-.e 11 991--DRAfJ
S. 1i 1
(g -)
Us. 2U29
•3 a C I Lakas
Prcgt- State.
re jired .v.ry two
year . to si it to
(PA for rov.l a
report on lake water
c .jaL I ty
S. 14
S. ii S. 529 5. 1Q69 l.a. 64 I I I 6fl 11.5. 5 O
(Nognihan) (Ster n) (Mutd iel I) (8e,wietl} (P tta) (Coidin)
(she.
Purpose--to assess and
protect the quality of the
Nation’s lakes
pesignations - -States to
designate tse of each
p.LlicIy oee ed take
Criteria--EPA to pi. tiah
w i 2 yrs • criteria for
specified water quality
p.r tars
$tardards - -States. w/i 2
yr.. • to e.tablt ti for .ach
ticty-osvied take
ra.,ricsl stw ards; (PA
steps in for States to
•stabllsii st rds if
Stat, fails
51st. C(ern Lakes Pro r - -
States a it l.cation
to EPA for grant assistance
- - kes isgile eot.tion
of take protection progr
eu projects etigibl. rider
SAt
Nutrient Controt--re .iIres
(PA, oIl 2 yrs, to Islue
rego prohibiting
distr ta.ition for tate of
detergents and related
prolAicts containing
pflos 1 *iete
V )A Coordination--provides
links btw, lake proyrrn
aid. Agricultural
conservation progreu, 59
water quality incentives
progreu, envi roisontel
ease nt program,
coroervat ion reserve
plogr
- I -
-------
DR*FT--J.rie 1i 1991- -DRAFT
C h 1320- -ststes
fl lnat. estuaries
of national;
ai niticance that
are threatened; EPf.
eve lu te s
n in.tIons —
selects those i iich
.erit I n.t ’l
restrstim
p4ogr . iIge.ent
conferences are
convened for the
selected estuaries
to develop a
c rehena I v.
c ervat Ion and
iag nt plwi; EPA
grants to cover p
to 75$ 01 the coats
of the plan (not
l rntat ion)
tatensI - -sr $320 to
specifically provide for a
S-year eatension of the
nag nt conference.
( PA Responsibilities--a
(PA respcnsibilitie,,
including technical
assistance a, fi, ing,
for i stemenCina the plwis
deve’oped by the
nag nt conferences.
C is( stency - - re i ret,
t xs roveL of e
conservation
iage.ent plan, that .11
federal fii iaL
assist e progr
federal devet mnt
prol.cts be cwsk ted in a
v r idiich is consistent
eith the enforceable
requir nts of the plan.
jjev $20 aillion for
each of I V , ‘92 thr igh
‘99 for king
conservation and
managc nt plan
iwlwnIsl ion arents.
10 gIve
St. John’i
River, IL
priority
isider the
REP
To give
Morro
Bay, CA
priority
La er the
NE P
Cirrent
S.
lOBI
NI. 2029
O
(Bm ua)
(St i )
National
Estuary
Progr
5.5.
iSart i o n e ,) (No qiih ,) (Sleiss) I) (Beruielt (P ,etta) (Card.ri)
-------
DRAFr-- ,ks-ie 11, 1991”DRAFI
TLA*lS-lELAlED IS LS
liltaims IS S
csrant
S 1081
(Beucus)
H ft 251
(Devvieit)
MU. 40’.
NI. 1330
( f ta eg)
NI. 2400
N.I. 1010
(Paston)
S 887 S 1090
(Jetfords) (Sasten)
-
s_.w_iuI,
A V
0
Authority
140 4(c) provides
(PA with authority
to modify or veto
Corps- issued
permits
Retains the a basic
authoriEy
Repeals this EPA authority
Repeals this EPA authority
‘.. ,
,
O4b 1
I flea
Envirarmontal
criteria used in
evaluating
discharge permits
Retains the s basic
authority
EPA to nd in a rs er of
ways: ir orporat;on of no
overall net loss goal;
differential protection;
consIderation of property
os eisr ahip
Repeals this authority
Retains the authority,
aiAfs recp.irement that
EPA notify Carps and
the applicant w/i 50
days of receiving
application of
potential adverse
decision; a s
adeinistrative eal
Vetl ds
Classificatianj
Differential
Protection
No classification
scf i
Iecpisres EPA to emend
1404(b)(1) aidalines to
afford different levels of
protection to wetlae
based on acreage, flaiction,
Accords different levels
of protection to wetlands
depending icon thair
classification by Dot into
one of three different
process
Vetiai classified as
either “suitable” or
“i,iauitabl.” for
conversion i.v,der
m ed plaming
Mitigation
lanking
yalta (2 categories)
Corps In consultation with
EPA authorized to establish
and iepl nt demonstration
program for determining
feasibility of •itigation
banks
categories
Raip ires the Corps in
consultation with Dot to
establish a mitigation
bar*irig pragram in each
State
Corps, EPA, DO! to
Jointly issue rules
establishing a
wetlands mit igat ion
banking system
State tl
p r
rese Va i0fl
Euthorizes Corps grants
to States for State
Vetlanda Conservation
Plan si itted to the
Corps and approved by
Corps (in consultation
with EPA)
Authorizes States to si. it
to EPA for royal a State
wetlands conservation plan,
provides grants for
roved plans
Authorizes Stairs to
si. it to EPA for
ravsl a State
wetlands conservation
plan, provides grants
for approved plans
State
Asst t ion of
Permitting
Program
Allows for States
to assuse the 1404
program
Provides for the
delegation of the
permitting program to the
States icon apse-oval by
CPA of a State
Conservation Plan iich
contains a re Jeat for
the permitting program
Provides for the delegation
of the permitting program
to the States icon approval
by EPA of a State
Conservation Plan idiich
ContaIns a re Jest for all
or part of the permitting
Provides for the
delegation of the program
established by this bill
to States
Amends esisting
del.gation regime so
that States hase auch
sure autonasy in their
decision making in
delegated programs,
allows State program
- 19 -
-------
DRAF1--Ji.aie II , 1991- DRAFT
I&TLAIIIS 159f S
S. 1081
iarant (Raucus)
I 251
(Bevw.ett)
NI. 40F.
CNrsdandi)
5.1. 1330
N s. 2400
(Ih s)
5. 5. 1010
(Psaton!
S 887
(Jef fords)
S iOQCJ
(Kasten)
“Takings”
Denial of a per.iI
it not considered a
“taking ”, F 0.
12630 concerns
regulatory actions
interfering with
property rights
EP8 to end 1404(bI(13 to
accord greater deference to
pr rty rights, COrps wai
(PA st list efforts to
u I iit 1.0. 12630
Estebti ties procedsire for
providing c iGatioO to
landossiers s4ia oan lands
that have been classified
as “Type A Wellands”
getlwsh
Del Ina Ction
Mmsjal
An interagency
sial idiich
establishes a
consistent soproach
delineation; its
revision should be
c letsd 5
Corps to estabt isli, by
regulation, standards to
govern delineation of
.stl
Corps to e tabI i sti. by
regulation, .tsrslarcb to
govern delin, tion of
wetlands
Corps. LT30A• 001, and
EPA to Jointly corQjct
rul king seider APA
to revise delineation
menial
Specufi catty
prohibits
federel
agencies frem
i l nt ing
the Federal
k ial for
Identifying
--
Del irsest ing
Jurisdictional
Wet lands
We t tvfs
Preservation
trusts
ReqJires the Corps to
dealgost . • nmiprofit
organization to be a
Wetlands Preservation
Trust
Aepiires 018 to c xt .
study of incentivis u er
federal a.4 State law for
private entItie, to protect
m,d manage wetlands
Authorizes DOT to
enter into agreements
to transfer wetland
thros i sales,
eschsnges , donations
to Weti
Preservation Trusts or
to thee National
Refuge System
las lreaiment
of Donations of
Land f or
Wetlands
Preservsiion
Trusts
Sets forth special IRS
rules regarding
charitable contribetion
by an indivióaal Of
wetlands to a Wetlars
Preservation Trust
Provides for
special
valuation of
wetlands
ir4 ierited
with
enviroi ntal
preservation
easement (10
years) and
penalty (or
failure to
maintain
easement
Refi.id in
price rec ’d
for milk ml
considered
price
ssçport or
payment for
1 5u-poses of
wetland
Conservation
re .airement
20
-------
DRAFT- -JIs e Ii, 1991 -DRAFt
i&TtAi s iS S
S. 1081
(Baucus)
N N. 251
(Befetet I)
II. 404
(N eesdandt)
U.S. 1330
(N -
U.S. 24410
(Th s)
N 5. 1010
(Paxtefi)
S 887 S 1090
(Jeffords) ((asten)
wetIw
Preservation
Acc ait
tstablishrs in the
treasury an accolsit I ro.
penalties; fiI troa
iich: at I.a,t 60 of
th.ch sould used for
grant. f or wetlands
preservation in those
Slate, i,ch have
oved plan
Adved
ld entificati
of Wetlands
le aire, 001 inventory of
federslly-aan.d wetiwiM;
States iuch ss ,i
permitting progr
r.q jired to identify
wettande that warrant
priority consideration of
pi-otectlcn/ restoration
Directs EPA to cortir,a to
provide advanced wetland,
identification w ke,
provisions for local
participation; State
wetlm e C ns.rvetion PI
t Incli depicting
wetI in Stat. incliding
listing of hi valus
wet I ands
USFW to identify and
classify wetlar s
nationally; $0-year
project
Authorizes EPA--
jointly with States--
to conó.jct advanced
pla,viing by
identifying and
describing wetlands
abich are suitable or
sisuitable for
per.itted activities
910 Net Los,”
Goal
Th . Presidents
goal is net
explicItly stated
In the We
Explicitly state, goal
ard makos it a pert of
federal w State
progr
Explicitly states goal and
.akes it a part of federal
w State progr
Explicitly makes “r
net lox ,” goal a part
of the CSLA
- 21 -
-------
DRAFT- -J gie I I. 1991- ORAF’
o.im l lER A5 DRINKING TES
N_S. liD
Islir
S. Il I S. 35
(B tr ) ‘ — —‘
S. 36
(Nna iihan )
S. 931 S. 939
(Reid) “-
N... 255
(Bereuter)
U. S. 256
(Beieuter)
NB. 6 58
(Cal to)
HR. 774
(Viaclonk.,)
Groisid-Water
319(i) grants to
Rr iires EPA
Mends S A
EPA to
Federal assistance
Add ’l fLsxis for
States for
to estthliali
to establish
estabi ish
frox DO! for OW
High Plains GW
prot.cting
in Nevada
a groisid
stds & rags
resource projects,
Dewnstrat ion
grois -water
the Rational
water
to prevent OW
with et.sis on
Program
ality .aid.r the
Arid Clit.
protection
contamination
rural donastic arsi
noopoint ourc.
Grois st.r
pot icy
by
.riclpsl water
progr
Research
peat icidee;
si ly
Canter.
States to
Canter risi
prepare, and
by a Board
st it to EPA
ad fij ad at
for a roval
SI •illion
prevent ton
uve ally
progr
oriF*ing Water
tPA rags on
bottled water
To establish a
Dot pragram of
Restricts landfill
construction
Tax exclusion for
construction of
ec j.ct to
iitoring ar
within critical
water
p . lic water
health
devel tit to
prevent th.
aquifer protection
areas isilets
necessitated by
contaminated welt
etandarda
(SOUR)
introóuclion £
infestation of
i . ..riela
c refie n s lye
State t plan
(SOUR) (CWA 1Ol)
water
into the N.Y.
City water
ss ly eystan
ISUM TIDR, IS(IVAl t , ste i S LL*NKOUS
Senate S. 458 U.S. 48 U.S. 583 U.S. 584 S. 481 U. ,. N.R. 5
lexon Sill (Bradley) (Sarv tt) (Atbina) (Atbina) (S, i) ( itp,) (Boxer)
Seclt ion
ooi to st y
DO! to research
DO! si San Diego
Research
recl tion of
desalting of
to sti. y water
surface water,
water & water
recl tion and
wastewater I GIl
reuse
reuse
Water
Reconstruction of
Develops national
New EPA office to
lax credit for water
Conservation
lends affected by
water resources
projects (WUDA)
etds. f or pli.obing
pro jcta to
conserve water
develop progr
to beneficially
reójce water use
conservation systes.
purchase £ installation on
farmland
(Army)
resources
& loss
(Cerce)
22
-------
DRAFl--J .aie 11, 1991--DRArT
Olt NUt GAS LEAS1S; St*t UE II DS
Is
I. 1 1
S. 49
(Slev )
II
S. 734
(Srâi)
S. 735
(Gr )
S. 736
(Grth)
Oil and Gas
Leasing
Prohibits DOl fro.
preparing for or cot jcting
any activity a er the
OCSLA off the coast of
Florid., esception for
envi rorwnt.t or
oc.anogr. iic 5ttm i.s
Changes national
Interest to balance
envirorent with oil &
gas interest. in
approving or c elinp
teasing progrs
(OCSLA)
Beaches £
Coastal
Resources
C rc. ad.ini.t.rs Coastal
•es -c.s E,th nt i to
giv, block grants to states
based on of faber. lessee;
C rce ad.inist.rs Coastal
Zone I isct As.ist .ic. Fw to
give grant. basSd on energy
facilities located with each
st.t. ’I coastal sw . (CZMA;
OCSLA)
Aray to perfor. cost/benefit
& lo. -r.ng. pl vi,ng
analysis of restoring eroded
or eroding beaches bet ore
project cnces (i OA
9O4)
W A to analyze ceisting
and projected reqts of
federal, state & local
regulators for scient f Ic
data and info on coastal 4
asrine enviror nt; ROtA
to ‘I SO evaluate current
rose irch progr &
•:tivities
S. 737
(Croh)
- 23
-------
DRA FT--Jtaie Ii, 199 1--DRAFT
PROJECTS
N 1 76
(Mr Dtaican)
To direct the Rrmy Corps of Engineers to carry out a project for ste enk protection along 2 2 miles of the Terriessee River adjacent to Sequoyati Mills Park in Knoavitle, terriessee
N I, 454
(Mr Nefley)
To •oprovs the water qual Ity of water flowirc fra the Leadville Mire Orainsge Tirviel, Colorado, arid the t er Arkansas River Basin, arid the other purposes.
N I. 1029
(Mr. Traficant)
To direct the Secretary of the Army to cwflxt a study of the feasibility of constrixting a canal cornecting Lake Erie arid the ($iio River, Ohio art Perunylvariia, for the purpose of
navigation.
N I 1183
(Nr. Ce11)
To provide for the transfer of the Platoro Reservoir of the COnOJOa Water Conservny District of the State of Colorado aid the protection of fish and wildlife habitat of the Conejos
River.
N.R. 1565
(Mr. Merger)
to establIsh an t er Sacranto River fishery resources restoration progra
N I. 1629
(Mr. Stt s)
To protect, restore, end conserve loportant flak habitat
N.M. 1696
(Mr. LaFaisce)
to and the Federal water Pollution Controt Act to allow all recipients of grants for treatment works to in. dedicated ad valorem tases in order to act the rety uiracrit of the Act that
sixh recipients t ncr charges to pey for operation aid aintenance of treatment sacks.
N I . 1699
(Mr. LaFatace)
To arid the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to the constnslion and operation of certein treat.ent works Stich are sitiject to regulation i.sder international treaties
N.M. 1778
(Mr. Merger)
to establish en tper Sacranto River fishery resources restoration progra
N.M. 1729
(Mr e ins)
to arid the Water Resources Devalopetnt Act of 1986 to provide Federal cost afisrtng for water ai ly projects, aid for other purposes.
N.M. 2005
(Mr. McCrery)
To grant the consent of Congress to an to a c sct ratified by the States of Louiaim’ia aid toss arid relating to the waters of the Sabine River.
N R. 2052
(Mr. fazio)
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior, icon payment of a specified sin, to transfer title to certain water supply facilities of the Sotano Project to an organizat ion c osed of
the users of water fun the Solarn Project, to eethance Putafl Creek, to authorize inc of the proceeds of the sale to fiad selected envirorsitntal rrtiansant measures, aid for other
p.irposes
N I. 2055
(Mr Frank)
To authorize the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority to as a facility for the treatment of resióual waste located outside of the State of Massachusetts.
N R 2084
(Mr. tallon)
to establish a e mm a requirement for the water quality criteris for diozin ptlithed pursuant to section 304(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, to require each State to
adopt a water quality standard for diosin S uch is at least as stringent as that criteria, arid to direct the United States Fish arid Wildlife Service, in consultation with National
Oceanic arid AtonsØieric Atleinistretion , to coratict a study on the effects of diosin on wildlife, aquatic life, aid the entire aquatic envirorarnt
N.M. 2169
(Mr. Fatio)
To m nvide for the repayment of the costs of water p s purchased by the San Juan Sitirbari Water District by the Secretary of the Interior
N R. 2325
(Mr Jonti)
N R. 2368
(Mr Ce11)
lo protect the Salt Creek river corridor in Porter Coiatty, Imdiana, aid for other purposes.
To acid the Federal Wster Prolect Recreation Act aid to direct the Secretary of the Interior to prepare aid isplesant a resources Cu ’ ‘ emerit progra for the use aid protect ion of wster
end related lend resources of projects iader the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Red a ct ion, aid for other pu-poses
S. 484
(Mr Bradley )
to establish conditions for the sale aid delivery of water fries Central valley Project, CaLifornia, a Bureau of Redaction facility, aid for other purposes
24 -
-------
DRAFT- -Jt,ie 11 1991- DRAFT
S 102
(Mr Pressler)
To uthor,ze the pl&wiing _ construction of the Mid-Datota Rural Water System Projtct
S. 728
(Mr Se ur)
To sutabliali an t er 5acr nto River Fishery Rosource Restoration Progr .
S. 888
(Mr Moynihan)
To authorize fuidin for the carrying out of the fte t. of th. United States in caviection with th. Great Lakes Fishery C ission
S. 926
(Mr. Wurth)
To tr f.r the respa- ibility for operation and lntan.ic. of the Platoro Reservoir and D fr the Federal Goverrent to the Coneios Water Conservancy District in the State of
Colorado.
N.J. lea. 186
(Mr. Roybal)
Directing the President to canóict an Initial Fesilbility Stialy of an Alaska-California tAaler-Ocewi Fresh Water Pipeline.
N lea. 110
(Mr. Li itfont)
Relating to th, role of the Corps of Engineers In the ant of the Misaowl River Syate..
-------
-------
(1)
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1991
2:00-3:30 POST-CCMP ACTIVITIES UNDER THE NATIONAL ESTUARY
PROGRAM
ISSUE:
The issue under discussion concerns EPA’s role with respect to
implementation of National Estuary Program (NEP) Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP) once they have been
approved by the Administrator.
BACKGROUND:
The NEP represents a partnership across Federal, state, and local
levels. This partnership is focused within the management
conference, which is convened to reach consensus concerning
priority problems of the estuary, the causes of those problems,
and the actions that must be taken to correct those problems. The
management conference also serves as the mechanism for obtaining
commitments to take action. These commitments, reflected in the
CCNP, are the result of a five-year planning process that is
supported primarily by section 320 funds. From 1987 through 1991,
the year the first CCMPs are due to be completed, nearly $53
million in Federal funds will have been committed for the
development of CCNPs. These Federal funds will have been matched
with non-Federal funds totaling approximately $18 million, for a
total Federal/non-Federal investment of $71 million through 1991.
QUESTIONS:
o What does the statute provide?
o What funding authorities are available to enable EPA to
support CCMP implementation?
o Can section 320 be interpreted to authorize any other
financial support by EPA to an approved CCNP?
o Should Management Conferences be extended upon approval of the
CCMP?
o What steps can EPA take within the current statute to support
the implementation of CCMPs once they have been approved?
POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
o Review base programs and assure that approved CCMPs receive
clear priority for resources for implementation under base
program guidelines and regulations.
1
-------
o Take the lead in coordinating Federal agency implementation
of CcMP8.
o Work with other demonstration programs to develop “joint
venture” projects directed at high risk coastal areas.
o Develop protocols for the evaluation of approved CCMPs by
management conferences (or other agency designated to
implement the CCMPs), Regional officials, and Headquarters.
o Clarify to management conferences that formal extension by
EPA is not required for EPA to provide financial support for
either CCMP implementation or evaluation of CCMP
implementation.
o Establish the continued active involvement of EPA Regional
officials with the management conference (or implementing
agency) and their public support of implementation activities.
Include Regional FTE in workload model.
o Clearly establish the demonstration nature of section 320;
that communities and states are capable of protecting and
restoring their important natural resources without continued
oversight by the Federal Government; that EPA’s role is to
empower and build capacity at state and local levels.
2
-------
1
POST-CCMP ACTIVITIES UNDER TUB
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
ISSUE
The issue under discussion concerns EPA’s role with respect
to implementation of National Estuary Program (NEP) Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCNP) once they have been
approved by the Administrator. This issue includes whether,
through what statutory authorities, and for what purposes EPA
will contribute financially to the implementation of the CCMP,
and the necessity of extending the management conference beyond
the statutorily established five years.
BACKGROUND
The NEP identifies nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse, and promotes
the preparation and implementation of CCMPs to ensure their
ecological integrity. The Clean Water Act (CWA) amendments of
1987 authorized the Administrator to convene management
conferences for these nationally significant estuaries, and
provided Federal funds to assist the management conferences in
accomplishing the purposes of CWA section 320. As of May 1991,
17 management conferences have been convened under the NEP, with
the first CCMP approved by the Administrator for Puget Sound on
May 6, 1991. Subsequent CCMPs are due to be completed over the
next 5 years (through 1996).
The NEP represents a partnership across Federal, state, and
local levels. This partnership is focused within the management
conference, which is convened to reach consensus concerning
priority problems of the estuary, the causes of those problems,
-------
2
and the actions that must be taken to correct those problems.
The management conference also serves as the mechanism for
obtaining commitments to take action. These commitments,
reflected in the CCMP, are the result of a five-year planning
process that is supported primarily by section 320 funds. From
1987 through 1991, the year the first CCMPs are due to be
completed, nearly $53 million in Federal funds will have been
committed for the development of CCNPs. These Federal funds will
have been matched with non-Federal funds totaling approximately
$18 million, for a total Federal/non-Federal investment of $71
million through 1991.
WRAT DOES THE STATUTE PROVIDE?
Development of CCMPS - The CWA authorizes funds under subsection
320(g) for assisting research, surveys, studies, and modeling and
other technical work necessary for the development of a
conservation and management plan.
Establishment of Management Conferences - Subsection 320(a) of
the statute provides for the establishment of management
conferences, based on Governors nominations, by the
Administrator. Subsection 320(e) limits the period of a
management conference not to exceed 5 years, but authorizes the
Administrator to extend, or reconvene upon termination, the
management conference to meet the requirements of the section.
Implementation of CCMPS - Subsection 320(f) (2) states that upon
approval of a C MP such plan “shall be implemented.” Funds
authorized under titles II and VI of the CWA (construction grants
and SRF) and section 319 funds (nonpoint source grants) may be
used to assist states with CCNP implementation.
-------
3
Post-CCMP Duties Under the CWA - Of the seven purposes to be
accomplished by a management conference under Subsection 320(b)
of the CWA , two can not be fully accomplished prior to approval
and implementation of the CCMP. Purpose 6 requires the
Management Conference to “monitor the effectiveness of actions
taken pursuant to the plan”. Purpose 7 requires a review of all
Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development
projects to determine whether they are consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the CCMP.
Finally, subsection 320(j) requires EPA, in cooperation with
NOAA, to submit a biennial Report to Congress evaluating
pollution abatement activities and other measures taken during
the development and, presumably, during the implementation of
CCMPs.
WHAT HAS EPA SAID ABOUT POST-CCMP SUPPORT ?
EPA has provided testimony at Congressional hearings
concerning extensions of NEP management conferences, continued
support for management conferences beyond the initial five years,
and the role of EPA after approval of CCMPs. Tudor Davies,
testifying on April 5, 1990 on the Long Island Sound Conservancy
Act, indicated that extension of management conferences was being
“contemplated, perhaps at a lower level of funding for support of
the Conference, but we (EPA) would expect that the Conference
would continue beyond the end of the five year period.” Mr.
Davies indicated that the purpose of extensions and continuing
support would be for “administrative support, supporting the
citizen involvement program, and to oversee the implementation
(of the CcNP).”
William Matuszeski, testifying on June 6, 1991 on Title II
of HR 2029 (Operation Coastal Shield), highlighted the intent of
-------
4
management conferences to “promote and sustain long-term state
and local commitment to solving the problems of an estuary,” and
indicated that-the Administrator already has the authority to
extend management conferences, as necessary, to meet the
requirements of section 320. In his testimony, Mr. Matuszeski
stated the Agency’s position that creation of a source of funding
for CCMP implementation, separate from existing sources provided
under the CWA, would change the nature of EPA’s role in the NEP
from “catalyst for action” to “caretaker.”
DISCUSSION
Considerable interest has been expressed by Congress,
management conference representatives, as well as EPA officials
(Regional and Headquarters) in how EPA can help to ensure
implementation of CCMPs. A variety of ideas have been put forth
which would include funding under the current section 320
authorities, as well as an amended CWA. Proposals and their
rationale are included in this paper in order to reflect the
current debate.
What funding authorities are available to enable EPA to support
CCMP implementation? Does this include funds authorized under
section 320 ?
The major issue which has been raised is whether EPA can
support implementation of the CCMP under Section 320 as currently
written. It appears clear that Congress intended that section
320 would support the development of the CCMP and that other
titles and sections of the CWA would support impjementation .
Implementation funding advocates argue that a separate funding
source should be established (in addition to base program
support) in order to ensure a return, in terms of environmental
results, on the Agency’s large investment in CCMP development.
-------
5
Supporters of this position are concerned about state and local
ability to fully fund actions that are identified as being
necessary in CCMPs. A separate, dedicated source of
implen entation funds would require a statutory change, as
provided in bills now before Congress.
The Agency’s current position, as reflected in recent
testimony before Congress, is that Federal funds are already
available from titles II and VI (SRF), section 319 (NPS grants),
as well as section 106 grants, which helps to fund the NPDES
program and enforcement. These programs may target priority
actions in NEP estuaries and take a direct role in permitting and
enforcement in States that have not been delegated NPDES
authority. EPA Regions may also support NE? implementation with
their Near Coastal Waters funds. In addition, other Federal
agencies involved in the CCMP development process may contribute
from base resources. The rationale for this position is that the
NEP provides a Federal framework for addressing high priority
estuaries, and that long-term funding must come from state and
local constituents, including judicious use of existing Federal
programs. Creative development of new sources of revenues, such
as water use fees, livestock head taxes, special districts, and
trust funds can be achieved when local commitment is high.
Can section 320 be interpreted to authorize any other financial
support by EPA to an approved CCMP ?
Section 320 appears to confer duties on both the management
conference and EPA after the CCMP is approved. One duty is to
monitor and report to Congress on implementation of the CCMP.
Section 320(i) authorizes the Administrator to use funds for
monitoring the implementation of the CCNP. EPA does not have the
authority under section 320 to award grants for monitoring
implementation. However, it appears that EPA can enter into
-------
6
contracts and interagency agreements to oversee and evaluate
implementation.
Some supporters of implementation funding have held that
this authority might include funding of such activities as
“enhancing implementation “ of the plan, public outreach, and the
design, conduct, or modification of water quality and ecological
testing and monitoring. A more conservative reading of the
statute might support the analysis of water quality and
ecological test data, as well as the assessment and evaluation of
the extent to which activities in the CCMP have been carried out,
evaluation of their effectiveness in achieving the results
expected by the management conference, and recommended
redirection of implementation activities so that they are more
effective.
Should Management Conferences be extended upon approval of the
CCMP ?
There appear to be several reasons offered for the extension
of the management conference. One is a concern that the
management conferences will either dissolve or lose momentum
without this Federal designation. Presumably Congress, in
establishing this demonstration program, believed that the
community of interests represented within the management
conference would be capable of carrying the CCNP into its
implementation phase using the agreed upon actions outlined in
the plan as a roadmap. Unfortunately, this has rarely happened
in past programs (e.g., section 208), and concerns that the
management conferences may not be maintained without continuing
Federal support and presence are real.
another reason is the concern that a formally established
management conference is needed as the vehicle to transfer
-------
7
Section 320 funds to the state for support of CCMP related
activities. OGC has indicated that we may provide funds via
contracts or cooperative agreements, but not grants, under
s2ction 320 to the state for CCNP related activities without
extending the management conference.
What steps can EPA take within the current statute to support the
implementation of CCMPs once they have been a roved ?
o Review base programs and assure that approved CCNPs receive
clear priority for resources for implementation under base
program guidelines and regulations. Carry out an active
effort in both Headquarters and the Regions, including staff
training, to develop avenues for support through base
programs. For example:
- establish a proportion (e.g., 10%) of the 319 nonpoint
source grant funds directed to high risk coastal areas
(est. $5.5 M)
- establish a proportion (e.g., 20%) of the section 104
storinwater grants to be directed to high risk coastal
areas (est $3.2 M)
- revise criteria for use of construction grants and SRF
funds to give high priority to capital construction
projects identified in approved CcMPS and give priority
consideration to capital construction projects that are
identified as priorities in Regional Near Coastal
Waters Strategies
— establish that discharge permits and enforcement in
estuaries with approved CCNPs will receive high
priority in EPA/state permit review and issuance
-------
8
o Work with other demonstration programs to develop “joint
Venture” projects directed at high risk coastal areas.
Examples include the joint EPA/USDA sustainable agriculture
research and education grants program, which will distribute
$2 million in grants in FY91.
o Develop protocols for the evaluation of approved CCNPs by
management conferences (or other agency designated to
implement the CCMPs), Regional officials, and Headquarters.
Work with management conferences on the analysis of water
quality and ecological test data, as well as the assessment
and evaluation of the extent to which activities in the CCMP
have been carried out, evaluation of their effectiveness in
achieving the results expected by the management conference,
and recommended redirection of implementation activities so
that they are more effective, as provided in 320(f).
o Clarify to management conferences that formal extension by
EPA is not required for EPA to provide financial support for
either CCNP implementation or evaluation of CCMP
implementation.
o Establish the continued active involvement of EPA Regional
officials with the management conference (or implementing
agency) and their public support of implementation
activities. Include Regional FTE in workload model.
o Clearly establish the demonstration nature of section 320;
that communities and states are capable of protecting and
restoring their important natural resources without
continued oversight by the Federal Government; that EPA’S
role is to empower and build capacity at state and local
levels.
-------
MONITOIRTh4G THE PERFORMANCE OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM:
DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF PROCEDURES
nd
The Clean Water Act (CWA), amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) established
the nation’s National Estuary Program (NEP), The overall goal of the NEP is to ensure/improve
the ecological integncy of these estuaries by promoting basinwide planning to conuol pollution
and manage living resources. Four specific objectives provide the framework for accomplishing
the goal:
1. Establish working partnerships anxrng Federal, state, and local governments;
2. Transfer scientific and management experience and expertise to program recipients;
3. Increase public awareness of pollution problems and ensure public participation in
consensus building; and
4. Oversee development and implementation of pollution abatement and control
programs
Since 1987, after begiiinirtg with six original NEP projects, a total of 17 estuaries have been
recognized u nationally significant and have received funds from the Clean Water Act to
implement i objectives listed above. The principal organizing, planning and management, and
implementing mechanism for these estuaries includes two features, as outlined in section 320 of
the Clean Water Act a Management Conference and a Compivbensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). Both mechanisms were adopted as reasonable approaches for
—1—
-------
assuring that a truly collaborative process (the Management Conference) would itsult in a well-
designed set of recommendations and actions to provide a balanced strategy for protecting and
conserving the estuaries.
There are over 100 estuaries in the nation’s coastal areas. The 17 currently in the NE? servc
to a great extent as models, in both an administrative as well as scientific sense, for managing the
remaining estuaries. Nearly all estuaries share common problems, and it is expected that they will
be able to benefit greatly from common solutions that emanate from the experience of NEP
participants. It is, therefore, important that the experiences, processes, and progress of the NEP
participants be monitored carefully and as thoroughly as possible.
As has been the case in similar predecessor programs, such as the Coastal Zone Management
Program, the NEP is heavily reliant on intergovernmental collaborative approaches not usually
found in most other federally piowulgated programs. As such, the design and implementation of
the CCMP for an estuary involves a variety of cooperative as well as unilateral but complementary
actions by federal, state(s), and many local government entities, all having agreed on these roles
and activities through the Management Conference.
Seven purposes for the Management Conference were specified as rules for designing and
implementing the NEP (section 30 (b) of the CWA): 1
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.
1.”Financial Assistance for the National Estuary Program Interim Final Rule,” Federal Register
VoL54, No.190, October 3, 1989, p.40799.
-2.
-------
3. Evaluate relationships between pollutant loadings and env rcnmental effects.
4. Develop a CCMP.
5. Develop plans with states or other agencies to coordinate implementation of the
CCMP.
6. Monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the CCMP.
7. Review federal financial assistance programs and development projects for consistency
with the CCMP.
Planning phases were also outhned by EPA to structure the development of estuary
programs. “The first three phases of an estuary program (i.e., Planning Initiative, Characterization
and Problem Definition, and CCMP Development) are completed within five years.
Implementation may require as much as 20 years before all goals set in the CCMP can be
achieved.” 2 Preparation of annual work plans and individual project applications are some of the
specific activities to be conducted within the five-year development period.
ObIectlve5
The objective of this proposed work is to design and test procedures for regularly (e.g.
annually) monitoring the progreu being n’ de in protecting estuaries in the National Estuary
Program. The monitoring procedures will be designed to be useful for both:
o assisting estuary program managers to improve their programs (by identifying current
and emerging problem areas),
2 .Op. cit., p.40800.
.3-
-------
o providing accountability to elected officials and the public relating to the progress
towards estuary protection, and
o assessing the National Estuary Program as a whole.
Thus, the mon toting procedures will be designed to be useful to estuary officials and
managers and to EPA national personnel. (The procedures will be designed with considerable
participation of estuary personnel in order to make the product practical and useful.)
The monitoring procedures will be designed to track both progress in imDlcmentation of key
estuary protection steps and in improving estuary protcction outcomes (such as improved water
quality, protection of species, reduced pollutant discharges, etc.). They will be designed to be
useful during the various stages of individual estuary programs, including the initial five.year
planning phase and thereafter. The information generated should provide guidance to estuary
officials for m k ng mid-course corrections. The information provided by the resulting
performance monitoring procedures should also provide a sound basis for federal, state, and local
governments to assess the successfulness of the current NEP approach itself—the focus on the
Management Conference and CCMPs.
We recog!1i e that this project scope is very wide, but we believe that this is what is most
needed, and we believe it is achievable.
A ch
The performance monitoring system will be designed collaboratively with EPA national and
regional officials, other estuary officials, and representatives of the program user community. The
monitoring procedures will be explicitly intended for use by both top-level and mid-level agency
-4.
-------
and estuary program managers. Substantial time will be allocated for work sessions with program
staff at all levels to identify and define the performance indicators to be nicked and to participate
in the development of the data collection procedures. This will maximize the likelihood that the
monitoring procedures to be developed will be feasible and relevant.
We propose a four-phase effort. In the first phase, a set of procedures will be developed as a
national model. While these national procedures will contain elements common to all estuary
programs, many elements will need to be adapted to each estuary’s own circumstances. In the
second phase, the procedures will be adapted and piloted in three estuary programs . hi the third
phase, based on the findings front the pilot tests, the national procedures will be modified and
documented thoroughly for use as starting points for monitoring systems in the other estuaries.
Also in the third phase, we will provide niining sessions on the procedures to federal and non-
federal estuary program staffs. In the fourth phase, we would provide technical assistance to non-
pilot estuaries to assist them in implementing their adaptation of the national performance
monitoring procedures.
The following sections present steps to be undertake in each phase of work.
PHASE : PROCEDURE DESIGN
Sze 1: Establishing the PerfoTmance Monitorin& Framework
We first will develop an overall framework for monitoring the performance of NEP estuaries.
This will include an e minanon of relevant NEP materials in EPA headquarters for content and
scope (such as estuary proposals, conference agreements, and annual work plans) and interviews
.5-
-------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1991
2:00-3:30 NEW )tEP MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
ISSUE:
Tha icsue under discussion concerns the convening of new
management conferences under the National Estuary Program (NEP).
BACKGROUND:
The original premise of the NEP was that of a demonstration
program, where nationally significant estuaries would be targeted
for priority action. Under this concept, lessons and experience
gained in this selected set of estuaries would be transferred to
other coastal areas that were at risk, building regional and
state capacity to solve coastal problems without the formal NEP
designation. However, since the NEP was established under the
1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, the popularity of the
program has grown, particularly among the public and Congress.
This has resulted in the NEP growing from 12 estuaries in 1987 to
17 estuaries in 1991. The Agency has recently received
nominations to convene new management conferences for Peconic Bay
in New York State and Morro Bay in California, with other states
considering submitting nominations for their estuaries.
QUESTIONS:
o Do we continue to bring new estuaries into the NEP, or
maintain a hard—line concerning the “national demonstration
program” concept (i.e., close the door)?
o What are the resource implications of convening new
management conferences (i.e., is there money/FTE available)?
o Does the convening of new management conferences impact the
potential for success of the existing 17 management
conferences?
o Are there criteria beyond those already developed for the
evaluation of nominations that should be applied to new
estuaries?
o If new management conferences are convened, have we learned
enough to shorten the process and/or reduce the resource
requirements?
o If we decide to convene new management conferences, what are
the next steps (e.g., call for nominations, Federal Register
notice, evaluation period, etc.)
1
-------
POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
o Maintain the “national demonstration program” concept and do
not convene any new management conferences.
o Convene new management conferences, but do not commit to
providing resources.
o Convene new management conferences, but reduce the period of
time to develop a CCMP, and/or reduce the level of support
based on “lessons learned.”
o Convene new management conferences and maintain the same
level of support provided to the first 17 management
conferences.
2
-------
st o S14%
2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
____ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
/
0
OFFICE OF
MEMO R N DUN
SUBJECT: Follow Up to the Water Management Division Directors
Meeting in Des Moines, IA
FROM: Robert H. Wayland, III
Director, Office of Wetla ds, 0 ans
and Watersheds
TO: Water Management Division Directors
Regions, I, II, IV, VI, IX, and X
Environmental Services Division Director
Region III
As requested during our discussions in Des Moines concerning
future resource considerations under the National Estuary Program
(NEP), attached please find a series of draft options that are
being developed by the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
(OCPD). These options are intended to provide a framework for
discussing the availability of resources under the NEP once
comprehensive conservation and management plans (CCMP) are
approved and implementation begins. The four options outline
different scenarios for providing resources for “post-CCNP
activities,” including four years of “high” level funding upon
completion of a CCMP, four years of “low” level funding upon
completion of a CCMP, a four year phase-down in funding, and no
funding once the CCNP is completed.
This information is being prepared for consideration at the
OWOW National Program Meeting, scheduled for Charlottesville, VA
July 30-August 2. At that time, OCPD will be seeking Regional
input concerning several broad NEP issues, including post-CCMP
activities, EPA’s role in CCMP implementation, the possibility of
convening new management conferences, and support needs for the
17 existing management conferences. I encourage your Region’s
attendance at this meeting and participation in these
discussions.
prease call me at 382—7166 or Marian Mlay, Director of OCPD,
at 245-3952 if you have any questions concerning the attached
information, or have your staff call Mark Curran at 475-7102.
Attachments
-------
Options for Post-CCMP 8upport
1. Four years level funding - high option
Large — $300K per year (4 yr. total $l.2M per large estuary)
Small — $200K per year (4 yr. total $800K per small estuary)
2. Four years level funding - low option
Large — $150K per year (4 yr. total $600K per large estuary)
Small - $100K per year (4 yr. total $400K per small estuary)
3. Four year phase down of funding
Large — $300X, $200X, $lOOX, $0 (4 yr total $600K/large estuary)
Small — $200K, $lOOX, $ 50K, $0 (4 yr total $350K/small estuary)
4 • No funding for post-CCXP
-------
PROJECTED N EP FUNDING*
Option 1 - Post CC)IP funding underlined
(Dollars expressed in thousands)
YEAR
E TUARY 92 93 94 95 96
Tier I (convened 1985-l987L
PUGET SOUND IQ.Q QQ Q.Q 1Q -0-
BUZZARDS BAY ZQ.Q 2..Q.Q ZQQ .aQ& -0-
NARRAGANSET1 BAY 300 &.Q QQ
LONG ISLAND SOUND 300 IQ.Q. IQQ Q Q
APES 300 IQQ QQ IQQ IQQ
SAN FRANCISCO BAY 300 jQ Q.Q . Q.Q . QQ
Tier II (convened 1988) :
NEW YORK—NEW JERSEY 1000 700 300 300
HARBOR
DELAWARE INLAND BAYS 600 400 200 jQQ
SANTA MONICA BAY 1000 700 300 aQ.Q IQ&
SARASOTA BAY 600 400 200 2.Q.Q. 2i Q
GALVESTON BAY 1000 700 300 J .QQ Q.Q
DELAWARE BAY 1000 700 300 .IQ.Q
Tier III (convened 1990) :
CASCO BAY 600 600 600 400 200
MASSACHUSETI S BAYS 1000 1000 1000 700
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON 1000 1000 1000 700 300
TAMPA BAY 1000 1000 1000 700 300
BARATARIA—TERREBONNE 1000 1000 1000 700 300
BAYS
* Targets are revisited annually to factor in various
considerations, such as renegotiated conference agreements.
-------
PROJECTED )JEP FUNDINQ
Option 2 - Post CCMP iundinq underlined
(Dollar. expressed in thousands)
YEAR
ESTUARY 92 93 94 95 96
Tiar I (convened 15-].987) ;
PUGET SOUND IIQ 1 k .Q 1 .Q -0-
BUZZARDS BAY Q 1QQ 1QQ .1.Q.Q -0-
NARRAGANSETT BAY 300 Q ) Q ) Q Q
LONG ISLAND SOUND 300 Q j Q Q 150
APES 300 J Q 150 j Q j Q
SAN FRANCISCO BAY 300 j 150 Q 150
Tier II lcpnvened 1988) :
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY 1000 700 300 Q
HARBOR
DELAWARE INLAND BAYS 600 400 200 .ILQ .Q Q
SANTA MONICA BAY 1000 700 300 .U.Q i Q
SARASOTA BAY 600 400 200 • .QQ . QQ
GALVESTON BAY 1000 700 300 1 Q 1 Q
DELAWARE BAY 1000 700 300 1 2 i
Tier III (convened 1990) :
CASCO BAY 600 600 600 400 jQQ
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS 1000 1000 1000 700 i .Q
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON 1000 1000 1000 700 300
TAMPA BAY 1000 1000 1000 700 Q
BARATARIA—TERREB ONNE 1000 1000 1000 700 300
BAYS
* Targets are revisited annually to factor in various
considerations 1 such as renegotiated conference agreements.
-------
PROJECTED NEP PUNDING*
Option 3 - Post CCI4P funding underlined
(Dollars expressed in thousands)
YEAR
EST .1ARY 92 93 94 95 96
Tier I (convened 1985-198711
PUGET SOUND Z2 IQQ -0-
BUZZARDS BAY ZQ IQQ Q .Q -0-
NARRAGANSETT BAY 300 Q.Q 2..Q .1Q.2 Q
LONG ISLAND SOUND 300 IQQ 2.QQ &Q - 0 -
APES 300 1Q 2 1Q.Q - 0 -
SAN FRANCISCO BA? 300 Q.Q 2..Q.Q 12.2
Tier II (convened ]988) :
NEW YORX- EW JERSEY 1000 700 300 QQ p ..Q
MARBOR
DELAWARE INLAND BAYS 600 400 200 2.2.2 12.2
SANTA MONICA BAY 1000 700 300 200
SARASOTA BAY 600 400 200 222 12.2
GALVESTON BAY 1000 700 300 .QQ 12.2
DELAWARE BAY 1000 700 300 QQ 12.2
Tier III (convened 199Q :
CASCO BAY 600 600 600 400 .Q
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS 1000 1000 1000 700 QQ
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON 1000 1000 1000 700 300
TAMPA BAY 1000 1000 1000 700 300
BARATARIA—TERREBONNE 1000 1000 1000 700 300
BAYS
* Targets are revisited annually to factor in various
considerations, such as renegotiated conference agreements.
-------
PR JECTED N P FUNDING*
Option 4 - Post CCJ4P funding underlined
(Dollar9 expressed in thousands)
YEAR
93 94 95 96
1000 700
300 .Q. Q
ESTUARY 92
Tier I (convened l 985 - 19 8?)L
PUGET SOUND
-0-
BUZZ ARDS BAY Q.
.Q -0-
NARRAGANSETT BAY 300 ..Q
Q -0-
LONG ISLAND SOUND 300 zQ
Q
APES 300 -0- -0-
-0-
SAN FRANCISCO BAY 300 —0- -0-
-0- -0—
Tier II (convened 1988)
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY
HARBOR
DELAWARE INLAND BAYS
SANTA MONICA BAY
SARASOTA BAY
GALVESTON BAY
DELAWARE BAY
Tier III (convened 1990):
CASCO BAY
MASSACI [ USETTS BAYS
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
TAMPA BAY
BARAThRI A-TERRE BONNE
BAYS
* Targets are revisited annually to
considerations, such as renegotiated
factor in various
conference
600
1000
600
1000
boo
400
700
400
700
700
200
300
200
300
300
- 0 -
—0—
- 0 -
-0—
-0—
—0—
—0—
-0—
600
1000
1000
1000
1000
600
1000
1000
1000
1000
600
1000
1000
1000
1000
400
700
700
700
700
—0—
—0—
300
—0—
300
-------
NEP funding projections
(figures in thousands of $$)
) Assume:
$15180 K total funding level at FY92 Presidential Request
$ 1000 K annual Action Plan Demonstration funding
$ 1518 K annual 10% HQ Program Administration funding
15180 total funding
- 251 HQ Program Administration (10%) + APDP funding
$ 12662 available funding for 17 Management Conferences
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
B) Funds Potentially Available for New NEPs
- example calculation
Projected Funding for 17 NEPs under Option 1
FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96
Tier 1 1700 1700 1700 1700 1200
Tier 2 5200 3600 1600 1600 1600
Tier 3 4600 4 OO 4 0O 32 1400
Projected
funding 11,500 9900 7900 6500 4200
targets for
17 NEPs
FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96
Total funds $ 12662 12662 12662 12662 12662
Targets — 11500 9900 7900 6500 4200
Unclaimed 1162 2762 4762 6162 8462
Bold bottom line is funding (in thousand dollars) potentially
available for new NEPs.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
C) Applying these assumptions and calculations for all four
post-CC1’IP options produces the following table. Numbers in table
depict funding potentially available for new NEPs or other needs
(in thousand dollars) over the next five years, for each option.
Option FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96
1 1162 2762 4762 6162 8462
2 1412 3612 5612 7812 10262
3 1162 2962 5512 7462 10262
4 1662 4462 6462 9462 12062
-------
Example of typical funding cycle for a large estuary (Galveston
Bay) and a small estuary (Sarasota Bay) in Tier 2.
Fiscal Year — 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96
GALVESTON BAY 150 700 1000 1000 1000 700 300 300 300
SARASOTA BAY 150 400 600 600 600 400 200 200 200
88 (start-up year) and 89 (year 1) are Phase 1 in workload model
90, 91, & 92 (peak funding) are phase 2 in workload model
93 (CCMP development) is phase 3 in workload model
94 and beyond (post-CCMP) are phase 4 in workload model
Looking at funds available under option 1 (the most fiscally
constraining of the four options):
FY92 has enough money to provide convening/start-up money
($150K) to 7 programs.
FY93 can support first year funding for 4 large programs or
7 small programs (if we add $38K) or some combination such
as 2 large and 4 small programs or 1 large and 6 small.
FY94 can support 4 large and one small program or 7 small
programs (or 2 large/4 small or 1 large/6 small) that get
started in FY93.
In FY94 and beyond, options 2, 3, & 4 support those plus give
potential start-up funds for three more.
Conclusion
Funding projections for the next 5 years look flexible enough to
give us several options for convening new management conferences.
-------
NEP Workload Model
FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96
Estuary Size Phase FTE Phase FTE Phase FTE Phase FTE Phase FTE
Buzzards Bay S 4 1.0 4 1.0 4 1.0 4 1.0
Narragansett Bay L 3E 2.5 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
Long Island Sound L 3E 2.5 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
Albernarle/Pamlico L 3 3.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
San Francisco Bay L 3 3.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
PugetSound L 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
NY/NJHarbor L 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
Delaware Inland Bays S 2 1.7 3 1.5 4 1.0 4 1.0 4 1.0
SantaMonicaBay L 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
Sarasota Bay S 2 1.7 3 1.5 4 1.0 4 1.0 4 1.0
GalvestonBay L 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
Delaware Estuary L 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0 4 2.0 4 2.0
Massachusetts Bays L 2 3.5 2 3.5 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0
TainpaBay L 2 3.5 2 3.5 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0
Barataria/Terrebonne L 2 3.5 2 3.5 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0
Casco Bay S 2 1.7 2 1.7 2 1.7 3 1.5 4 1.0
Indian R. Lagoon L 2 3.5 2 3.5 2 3.5 3 3.0 4 2.0
47.1 41.7 36.7 34.5 27.0
We only have 44.0 FTE requested for 92 and will request sante level in future.
-------
Model Pricing Factors
Large estuaries Small estuaries FTE
Phase 1 3.0 Phase 1 1.0
Phase 2 3.5 Phase 2 1.7
Phase 3 3.0 Phase 3 1.5
Phase 3 Extension 2.5 Phase 3 Extension 1.3
Phase 4 Implementation 2.0 Phase 4 Implementation 1.0
FY92 model shows need for 47.1 FTE, but budgets only 44.0;
allocation has been adjusted across the Regions (see Wayland memo
dated June 3, 1991).
Using current workload model pricing, current expectations of
progress, and planned future requests for level resources yields
the following projection of FTE that could be made available for
new management conferences as the current NEPs in Tier 1 and 2
finish CCMP development and move into the implementation phase.
Year FTE potentially available for new NEPs
FY92 —0—
FY93 2.3
FY94 7.3
FY95 9.5
FY96 17.0
Conclusion
FTE projections are much tighter than funding projections.
These projections allow 2 new small NEP management
conferences to start in FY93. FY94 figures allow for one new
large and one new small program and the continuation of the two
small NEPs that could start in FY92. FY96 is the first year that
significant FTE will become available.
-------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1991
2:00-3:30 CURRENT NE? MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
TOPIC:
The topic for discussion concerns EPA’S continuing support of
existing National Estuary Program (NEP) management conferences
during the development of comprehensive conservation and
management plans.
BACKGROUND:
The NEP identifies nationally significant estuaries threatened by
pollution, development, or overuse, and promotes the preparation
and implementation of CCMPS to ensure their ecological integrity.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) amendments of 1987 authorized the
Administrator to convene management conferences for these
nationally significant estuaries, and provided Federal funds to
assist the management conferences in accomplishing the purposes
of CWA section 320. As of May 1991, 17 management conferences
have been convened under the NEP, with the first CCMP approved by
the Administrator for Puget Sound on May 6, 1991. Subsequent
CCMPs are due to be completed over the next 5 years (through
1996)
QUESTIONS:
o What general direction should EPA Headquarters take in FY92
in providing assistance to NEP management conferences?
o What specific technical/program assistance should be
developed in FY92?
o Is it possible to adjust the annual workplan process so that
NEP funds can be transferred to the Regions earlier in the
fiscal year? How?
POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
o Review and adjust the “ideal” NEP annual funding schedule so
that HQ, Regions, and management conferences have realistic
annual goals.
o Develop a strategy for “marketing” base programs to ensure
that CCMP implementation receives high priority.
o Improve national tech transfer capabilities to take
advantage of “lessons learned” and reduce redundancy among
management conferences.
1
-------
o Develop a list of on-site technical assistance needs that
should be provided by EPA Headc uarters.
o Identify priority Federal programs outside of EPA that
should be targeted for CCMP implementation at the national
level.
2
-------
Tuesday
October 3, 1989-
Part IV
Environ mental
Protection Agency
411 CFR Part 35
Financial Assistance for the National
Estuary Program; Interim Final Rule
I
-------
Planning Initiative CCMP Development
I Characterization I
Implementation
OM1 P foiled of budget
Estu iry targets set
Pliure I. Phase, of • T vp c.I Isluary ProJect
Draft Annual Wor i Plans due
Review of Annual Work Plans completed
Cooperaiiv Agreement Applications due
I 1 Oecisions on CooperaUve Agreements made
MJesfone vi weeAs arier OS4EP is
flolalied of buli2eI app opfia: . ns.
Waek
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
I1IIHII
IIIIHII
iili
iiIiiiIii
IIHIJI
1
H
ii
October 15
October I
January 7
December 24
December 10
February 4
O Ses o n esfon,, i.*.n
h.a’j of a f )3 0’1
Y(gu . CycI of Sub.I,.&o and Review of 1’nnuat Vork Piaii.
•nd Cooper.tIv AIa* st.4C 0 Applic.i oq
I— -Syoar ;--
1
upio O year;
L
0
I
i&USi C IIQ-I*-
-------
4IJSI.N recerat Repsler / Vol 54. No o / Tuesday. October 3. 989 f Rules and Regulations
Figure 3 Sample Table of Fund Sources j FUNDiNG TABLE Fi sj. YEAR 1989—
FUNDING T.s.ats. Frscat. ap 1989 Continued
Source of funG i *nwii Type c i staid so.’a ot rou i Type a 4 a —a rc
— t
EPA . .. 5.400 000 CWA SSC*. 320 Prvare Oonltaons 38000 Con mitsis
Stat. UatcIw g I 125.000 Stats T i Sin vie Bay
Fr ies I Apprognebon j ‘o,ecu
Stat. Services in I 62 M aMi tivig
Totiiun rq.. 625X.O 1
FUNDi .G TaBtt. Fi5ca4. Yt* 1989—
Continued
Source o Pia Ajnc rt Type o f award
EPA Sew. a 5400 000.’5625 000.64%
ec Sna’e.000.MOC.36%
Ftgtut 4 Sample Table of Protect Status
PROJECT STATUS TABLE FISCAL Yu.R 1939
t no&ads
P,o 1 eet nn conference
Management I Ott. & I R. C. I Petcens
at sIwe
purrosa pio 1 ,cted d&rtery (percent)
EPA - State Wits Qg5ty sAej.,.i
West. load aSocai jon ji.2 - - Sn me en - 10/1 193 5160000 -Th agemvtt I 25
ua
NPOES compr.ance report 2 art 3 - . Sumnwy at ccmpbarce 6 /30.89 10 000 Stats Appropnat.oa : Swe NPOES Prora.’n
I bynthperrntttet iaob- 2 1 5 2 1 1 0 ) • Office
T V I 30000EPA
t iP S stay ‘scrsnenda 2 3 arid 4 .. Recoirrended tiPS con. 10/1/93 1 State Appropriator ’ State Waler Resources 100
t u n e O tis. j 2 ?527 1o) 5oard
I
-i Menage’neit rierenca pt.vpose nu’nters rile to ci. seven pspcses c i s maraae’nem conte’enc. ael tote ci secioil 320 at U i . Clean Wile Act Ti
column p’ v4es an v.dcaion 0’ Ire purpOses (s) served by eact pra 1 ect
For the reasons set out tn the
preamble, title 40. Oapter 1. subchap;er
B. part 35 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, is amended as folloiss
PART 35— IAMENDEDI
1. Pail 35 is amended b 5 adding an
tihonty citation fr. subpart P to read
follows
Autbonry Sec 320 of the Clear Vi sin Act
as amended (33 U SC 1330
2. Subpart Pig added to part 35 to
read as follows.
Subpart P’—Financtal AsaJatanc. toe the
Nationa l Estuary Program
359000 Applrcabtliiy
35 901)5 Purpose.
339010 Definitione
359015 Summary of annual process
359020 Ptanning iargeta
359030 Work program.
359033 Budget perot
359040 Applic.atton for assistance.
359045 EPA ection on epplication.
359050 Assistance amounL
359055 E eluetton of recipient performance.
359000 Mas.irnuni Federel share.
359065 Limitations
359010 National program assistance
agnements
Subpart P—flnanclai Asatabnot for
the National Estuary Program
359000 Appticablttty.
This subpart codifies policies and
procedures for financial assistance
awarded by the EPA to state, interstate,
and regional water pollunon control
agencies and entities and other eligible
agencies. institutions. orgaruzaitons. and
thd.induals for pollution abatement and
control programs under the National
Estuary Program (NEPI These
prot-tstons s’.ipplement the EPA general
assistance regulatons in 40 CFR parts
30 and 31.
• 359005 Purposa.
Section 320(g) of the clean Water Act
[ CWAI authorizes assistance to eligible
stales, agencies. entities. tnstihations.
orgatuzations. and tndr.tduals for
developing a comprehensr e
conservation and management plan
(CCMP) for an esluary
35.9010 DefinItions..
Aggregate 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 Cornprehenss e
Conseriatson and Management Plan for
the estuary.
Annual Work Plan Tb e plan.
developed by the Management
Conference each year. sihich documents
projects to be undertaken during the
upcoming year The Annual Work Plan
is developed within budgetary targets
provided by EPA
five ’ Year Stole/EPA Conference
Agreement Agreement negotiated
among the States represented in a
Management Conference and the EPA
shortly after the Management
Con.ference is convened. The agreement
identifies milestones lobe achieted
during the term of the Management
Conference
AfcnG3emenf Conference A
Management Conference convened by
the Administrator under Section 320 of
the CWA For an estuary in the NEP.
Xoüoncfr Pragrorn Assistance
Agreements Assistance Agreements
approved by the EPA Assistant
Adn’unistrator for Water for work
undertaken to accomplish broad NEP
goals and objectives.
Work Progmrn The Scope of Work of
an assistance application, which
identifies how and when the appltcant
will use funds to produce specific
outputs.
• 3 5.9015 Summary at annual process.
(al EPA considers vanous factors to
allocate among the Management
Conferences the funds requested in the
President’s budget for the NE ?. Each
year. the Director of the Office of
Manne and Esluanne Protection issues
budgetary targets for the ?%IP for each
Management Conference. These targets
are based upon negotiated Five Year
StateIEPA Conference Agreements
jb) Using the budgetary targets
pros ided by EPA. each Management
Conference dci elops Annual Work
Plans describing the work to be
completed durtng the year and identifies
indtiidual projects to be funded for the
-------
redenl Retjster p Va?. 54. No. 190 / Tuest ay. October 3. 1989 1 Rules arid Regulations
4080b
completion of such wodi. Each eppflcant
having a scope of work epprovedby the
Management Conference compietei 5
standard EPA applies don. Includirigs’
proposed work program. After the
applicant submits an applcation. the
Regional Administrator reviews it and.
if it mePts a pplicable requirements.
approves the application and agrees to
make an award when binds are
available. The Regional Admtnistralor
awards assistance from funds
appropriated by Congress for that
purpose
(c) The recipient conducts a cvities
according to the approved application
and assistance award- The Regional
Adininistra’or et aluates recipient
performance to ensure compliance with
all conditions of the asststance award..
fd )The Regiona l Admintstzator may
use funds not awarded to an applicant
to supplement awards to other
recipients who submit a score of work
a proved by the management
conference for N funds.
(e) The EPA Assistant Administrator
frr Water may approve National
Pogram awards as pro’.:ded in
359070.
4 35.9020 Planning targets.
The EPA Assistant Adzi.nistrator for
Water de elops p aan i ng targets each
ear to help each Maragetent
Conference develop an Annual Work
Plan These targets are bread budgetary
goals for total expenditures by each
estuary program and are directly related
to the actitties &at are to be carried
out by each Management Conference in
that year as specified in the Five-Year
Stale/EPA Conference Agreement. The
pLsr.nirig targets also are based on the
Director’s evaluation of the ability of
each Management Conference to use
aopropnated funds effectiiely
4 35 9030 Work progra iTi.
The work program is part of the
aDp 1 .cat’on for financial assistance and
becoma pa.’t of the award document. It
i i part of the basis for an award
decision and the basis for management
and e’ aluat.on of performance under an
assistance award. The work program
crust specify the let el of effort and
amount and source of funding estimated
to be needed for each identified activity.
the ouiputs committed for each activity.
a —d the schedule for deli’. ery of outputs
ç 3 5 9035 Budget period.
An applicant may choose its budget
period in cor,su!tat,on with and subject
to the approtal of the Resional
Administrator
435.9040 Ap$adon for nststsncs.
Each applicant should submit a
complete application at feast 60 days
before the beginning of the budget
period. In addition to meeLng applicable
requirements contained in 40 CFR part
30 or 31. a complete application must
contain a discussion of performatce to
date under an existing award, the
proposed work program. and a list of all
ap;ltcable EPA-approved Slate
strategies and program plans, with a
statement ce.i:f utg that the proposed
work program is consistent with these
elements The annual workpla.nt
developed and appro’.ed by the
management conference each fiscaL year
ovust demonstrate that con.Federaf
sources provide at least 25 percent of
the aggregate costs of research. surveys.
studies, modeling, and other technical
work necessary for the deveiopmect of a
CCMP for the estuary Each application
must contain a cooy of the Ario,jal Work
Plan as specified in 35.9065 (c ) (2) and
(3) for the current Federal fiscal year.
The ftu dmg table En the workplan must
demonstrate that the 2$ percent match
requirements is being met, and the
workplan table of prolect status must
snow the sources of funds supporting
each project.
4 35.904 S EPA action on applIcation.
The Regional Administrator w:U
re’. iew each completed application and
should approve. conditionally appro e.
or disapprove the apolication within 60
dassof receipt When funds are
available, the Regional Administrator
will award assistance based on an
appro’. ed or cond:iionally approved
application. For a continuation at’. ard
rade after the beginning of the
approted budget period, EPA will
reimburse the applicant for allowable
costs incurred from the beginning of the
budget period. pro ’ . ided that such costs
are contaired in the approved
application and that the application was
submitted before he expiration of the
pr’or budget penod
(a) Approi c i. The Regioral
Administrator will appro’.e the
application only if it sat:sfies the
requirements of CWA section 320: the
terms. conditions. and limitations of th s
subpart. and the applicable provisions
of .30 CFR parts 30. 31. and other EPA
a 3sistance regulations The Regional
Administrator must also deierrntine that
the proposed outputs are cor,ststenit with
EPA gt.’dance or otherwise
demonstrated to be necessary and
appropr:ate. and that a chit’ emer.t of the
prcposed ouipuii is feasible, considering
he applicant s pasi perforrr ar-ce
program au.honty organi2aiion.
resources ard procedures
(b) Conditional oppro v o l. The
Regional Administrator may
conditionally approve the application
after consulting with the applicant if
only minor changes are required. The
award will include the conditions the
applicant must meet to secwe final
approval and the date by which those
conditions must be met.
(c) Disapproval. If the application
cannot be approved or condtborial}y
approved, the Regicr.a! A&ozstra tot
wtll negotiate with theapphcaotto
change the output commitments, reduce
the assistance amount, or make any
other changes necessary for appro’. al. If
negotiation fails, the Regional
Administrator will dis.approue the
application in wnting.
4 35.9354 AssIstance smounL
(a) Delenrnning the assistant amount.
In determining the amount of assstance
to an applicant, the Regional
Administrator will consider-the
Management Conference planning
target. the extent to which the
applicant’s Work Program is consistent
with EPA guidance, and the anticipated
cost of the applicant’s prog-am relative
to the proposed outputs.
(b) Reduction of assistance amount. If
the Regional Administrator determines
that the proposed outputs do not justify
the level of funding requested. he will
reduce the ass:stance amount If the
ecaluatton indicates that the propcsed
cutputs are net consistent with the
priorities co’iia’.ned in EPA guidar.ce
the Reg:onal Admsiustrator may reduce
the assistance amount.
4 35.9055 EvaluatIon ot recipient
on ance.
The Regional Administrator will
otersee each recipienrs performance
under an assistance agreement. In
consultation with the applicant. the
Regional Administrator will de’.elop a
process for evaluating the rec’pieni’s
performance. The Regional
AiJn,inistrator will include the schedule
fore’. aluation in the assistance
agreement and will evaluate recipient
perforTr.ance arid progress toward
completing the outputs in the appro ’ . ed
work program according to the schedule
The Regional Administrator will pro’. ide
the e’.eluation findings to the recipient
and will include these findings in the
official assistance file. If the e’.aluation
rcveals that the recipient is not
achieving one or more of the condittons
of the assistance agreement the
Regional Administrator will attempt to
resalce the situation through
negotiaiion If agreement is not reached.
iI’.e R. gional Administrator may impose
-------
sanctions under the applicable
pros isions 0140 CFR part 30 or 31.
35.9060 Maximum td.rtI shans.
The Regional Administrator may
ro ide up to 100 percent of the
approved work program costs for a
particular application provided that non-
Federal sources provide at least 25
percent of the aggregate costs of
research. surveys. studies, modeling.
arid other technical work necessary for
the de%elopment of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan for
the estuary as specified in the estuary
An.nual Work Plan for each fiscal year
35.9065 Umitatlons,
(a) Management conferences. The
Regional Administrator will not award
funds pursuant to CWA section 320(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
sork is proposed
(b) C’ons;stency with work plans The
Regional Administrator will not a sard
funds pursuant to section CWA 320(g) to
any applicant whose application is not
consistent with work plan elements in
an approi.ed Annual Work Plan and an
approved Five-Year State! EPA
Conference Agreement by the
Management Conference of the estuar)
for which the work is proposed
(c) Elements of annual work plans
Annual Work Plans to be prepared by
estuary Management Conferences must
be reviewed by the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection before final
ratification by the Management
Conference and must include the
following elements
(1) Introduction—A discussion of
achievements in the estuary. a suri mary
of activities undertaken in the past year
to further each of the seven purposes of
a Management Conference specified in
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 Iwid
sources for activities ui the new ‘ear.
including a description of the sources
and types (e g. in-kind contributions to
be performed by the applicant) of funds
comprising the contribution by
applicants or third parties. and the
source and type of any other non-
Federal funds or coritr butions.
(3) Projects—A description of each
project to be undertaken, a summary
table of project status listing all
activities, the responsible organization
or indi idual. the products expected
from each project approximate
schedules. budgets and the source and
type of the non-Federal 25 percent
minimum cost share of the aggregate
costs of research. surveys, studies.
modeling, and other technical work
necessary for the development of a
comprehensive conservation and
management plan for an estuary.
35.9070 Na onal program .ui,tanc.
agr..msnl*.
The Assistant Admirustrator for
Water may approve the award of NEP
funds for work that ha, broad
applicability to estuaries of national
sig iflcance. These awards shall be
deemed to be cons sterit with Annual
Work Plans and Five-Year State/EPA
Conference Agreements 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
pro’.ided from non-Federal sources.
(FR Doc. 89—3235 Filed tG-2-8 815 am)
siLuiso COCa *5aO- -d
-------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1991
COASTAL AMERICA
ISSUE:
This session will provide an update on the status of Coastal
America and a discussion of future actions and the possibility of
linking Coastal America more closely to ongoing programs (e.g.
NEP, NCW)
BACKGROUND:
o Presidential interagency budget requested $23 million.
House appropriation of $6M for EPA, zero for other agencies.
Senate appropriations all zero so far, Interior committee
yet to take action. Conference Committee action in
September.
o Regional project proposals (1—page drafts) under review now
by HQ National Implementation Team.
o Coastal America Principals (AAs and Assistant Secretaries)
meeting 7/31 to discuss alternatives/options for FY92
funding.
QUESTIONS:
o What will Coastal America look like in FY92 & 93 if there
are no Congressional appropriations?
o How can the NEP, NCW strategies, State 319 programs, and
State wetlands strategies, Gulf of Mexico Program, Great
Lakes Program, and Wtershed Protection Initiative be better
linked with Coastal America?
POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
o Build room in schedule for future years (assuming there are
future years) for NEP management committee input to Regional
project lists.
-------
July 25, 1991
Near Coastal Waters Issues Paper
OWOW Branch Chiefs Meeting
Background
o The Near Coastal Waters Program was established as an Agency
initiative in 1986 to maintain and where possible enhance
the quality of near coastal waters. The term “near coastal
waters” is defined as inland waters to the head of tide, the
territorial seas, and the contiguous zone, including areas
of greater distance where necessary to protect coastal
barrier islands and the mouths of certain estuaries. The
Great Lakes are also included.
o Near coastal waters were identified as a priority area for
strategic planning due to:
-limited understanding and focus on near coastal water
environmental problems,
-the value of near coastal waters was appreciated but the
susceptibility of systems was not understood,
-tactics were needed to solve near coastal water problems,
and
-builds upon success and momentum of Great Lakes, Chesapeake
Bay, and National Estuary Program
o The “Near Coastal Water Initiative,” February 1987, contains
a discussion on the problem defined in coastal areas around
the country.
o However, questions have been raised about how the concept of
the Near Coastal Waters Program has evolved. The concern is
that the Program is drifting and is danger ot becoming a
“slush” fund. Further, it is unclear how it relates to the
NEP Program and Watershed Initiative.
quest ions/Opt ions
o How do regions assess the progress and viability of the
program?
o What conceptual, procedural, and other problems do regions
cbs erve?
o Given the changes (WI, etc.) since its inception, what
adjustments/clarifications should be made to the program?
o How do Regional strategies support CCMP implementation?
-------
o How do we ensure implementation activities funded in Fl 92
have some unified focus and aren’t just a give away program
for “pet projects”?
o The guidance for F l 91 focused on EPA water qua) ity base
program enhancement. Can that be expanded to other
agencies? federal? local?
o Should regional strategies support other activities such as
outreach?
o How does the NCW Strategy development and implementation
process relate to the Watershed Initiative? Are these
programs duplicative? How can we ensure they are not?
Recommendations
o Undertake an intensive analysis of progress/future of NCW
program resulting FY92 guidance by mid—November (See
Attached)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
5 iO t
oFflcEcr
MEMORANDUM WATtR
SUBJECT: Guidance on the Development and Implementation of
Regional Near Coastal Water Strategies in FY91
FROM: _ .f..1’udor P. Davies, Director
Off ice of Marine and Estua me Protection
TO: David Fierra, Director
Water Management Division
EPA Region I
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance on the
development and implementation of Regional Near Coastal Waters
(NCW) Strategies in FY91, as well as information on the
allocation of FY91 NCW funds to the Regions. A planning target
of $600,000 has been developed for Region I to guide development
of a NCW workplan for FY91. This target includes $500,000 for
Regional NCW Strategy development and implementation, as well as
$100,000 for activities related to implementation of the Long
Island Sound Improvement Act.
Background
The NCW Program was established as an Agency initiative in
1986 to maintain and where possible enhance the quality of near
coastal waters. The NCW Program supports the goals and
objectives of the Agency’s National Coastal and Marine Policy,
focusing on environmental problems that threaten public health,
the health and survival of living resources, the coastal economy,
and the enjoyment of coastal areas and resources. The Program
targets coastal waters that require focused management attention,
encourages managers to more efficiently use their existing
regulatory authority and resources to solve problems in coastal
areas, and assists Federal, state, and local officials in
implementing new management techniques that will achieve
measurable environmental improvement.
To date, implementation of the NCW Program has occurred on
many fronts. Regions I and X have led the way in the development
of regional strategies that focus resources on priority coastal
problems, and the other coastal Regions are now developing their
own strategies. Regions II, III, IV, VI, IX, and X are
conducting NCW Pilot Projects to test innovative approaches for
solving coastal problems. Regions III and IV, supported by OMEP,
have held NCW Integrated Training Workshops that demonstrated the
potential for applying base programs in a coordinated fashion in
Pruitd Rerj cLed Papu
-------
—2—
coastal areas. Additional workshops are planned for Regions V
and IX in FY91. National assessments are being conducted in
cooperation with NOAA to evaluate the quality of the nation’s
coastal waters. Finally, communications tools such as COASTLINES
and COASTNET have been developed to exchange information on
effective and innovative NCW techniques between coastal managers.
Regional NCW strategies
Regional NCW Strategies have become a critical aspect of the
NCW Program. The purpose of these strategies is to focus
Regional efforts on correcting problems in coastal areas and
integrate these activities with programs being implemented at the
Federal, state, and local level. Actions outlined in the
Regional NCW Strategies must support the goals and objectives of
the Agency’s National Coastal and Marine Policy. The strategies
should assess coastal problems, and identify which of these
problems will receive priority attention by the Region. The
strategies should also identify geographic areas that will be
targeted, as well as priority actions that will be taken in these
areas by EPA in coordination with Federal, state, and local
agencies.
NCW Strategies for all coastal Regions should be completed
by the end of FY92. Because of the expanded resources available
for the NCW Program beginning in FY91, OMEP will be reviewing
Regional NCW Strategies to ensure consistency with national
program goals and objectives. Part of this process will be the
completion of specific guidance on the contents of Regional NCW
Strategies. We began developing this guidance in FY90 when an
OMEP staff workgroup generated a proposal on the overall
structure of the NCW Program (attached), including recommended
criteria for reviewing Regional NCW Strategies. This proposal
was the subject of a meeting with Regional NCW staff held in
Washington, DC in August 1990. At that time, we received
substantial comments on the proposed criteria from your staff.
The workgroup proposal was also distributed at the National
Coastal and Marine Branch Chiefs Meeting in December 1990, and
again we received many constructive comments. We will provide
final guidance on strategy contents by the end of FY91.
Successful completion of the guidance will require substantial
Regional involvement; a schedule for completion of the guidance
will be forwarded to all the Regions by mid-April.
FY92 NCW Workplan8
As noted above, NCW strategies for all coastal Regions
should be completed in FY92. Once approved, we expect that the
strategies will continue to evolve as Regional priorities are
revisited based on new information and experience. However,
while Regional NCW Strategies are being developed in FY91,
-------
—3—
This approach is consistent with the action orientation of the
NCW Program and will provide a transition in FYs9L/92 from
strategy development to full implementation.
The Agency’s budget for FY91 includes $6.8 million for
implementation of the NCW Program. Some of these funds will be
used by OMEP to support national NCW Program objectives.
Allocation of FY91 NCW funds to the Regions will be based on
workplans developed by each Region and submitted to OMEP for
review and approval. These workplans should detail activities
your Region proposes to conduct in FY91 in two major categories:
NCW Strategy development and implementation activities. The
following general criteria should be used in developing FY91. NCW
workplans:
1. The emphasis for NCW activities in FY91 should be on
implementation. Therefore, a minimum of 80 percent of
the total funds proposed in the workplan should be for
implementation activities.
2. Up to 20 percent of the total FY91 funds can be used
for activities required for the development or
refinement of a Regional NCW Strategy (e.g.,
segmentation, assessment, identification and targeting
of priority waters, identification of problems and
causes, etc.)
3. Implementation activities should focus on enhancement
of base programs. The FY91 workplans should stress
activities that can be implemented under existing EPA
or state authorities.
4. FY91 vorkplans should include commitments by the
Regional base programs to take action in geographic
areas that have been targeted by the Agency. These
areas should include National Estuary Programs (all
coastal Regions), Chesapeake Bay (Region III), the
Great Lakes (Regions II and V), the New York Bight
(Region II), the Gulf of Mexico (Regions IV and VI),
and the Florida Keys (Region IV).
5. Commitments for action in FY91 from other Regional
media programs in priority coastal areas should be
sought only after commitments have been demonstrated by
the Regional water programs.
6. Outreach to other Federal agencies, as well as outreach
to the public, should not receive major focus in FY91.
In addition, outreach to state programs in FY91 should
be limited to enhancing existing state programs or work
-------
—4—
be limited to enhancing existing state programs or work
that will, result in delegated state programs. Again,
the emphasis in FY91 is on action that EPA and the
states can take in priority coastal waters under
existing authorities.
7. NCW funds will be awarded under Clean Water Act section
104(b) (3), therefore a minimum 5 percent nonfederal
match will be required for all, funds awarded to
nonfederal recipients.
FY91 NCW workplans should be received by OMEP no later than
April 15, 1991. This will allow time for OMEP to review the
workplans, finalize Regional targets, and transfer funds to the
Regions by May 1, 1991. As always, my staff is available to
assist in the development of these workplans, as well as other
aspects of the NCW Program.
Discussions between OMEP and Regional staffs over the past
several months have resolved many issues concerning the NCW
Program and identified some that require further attention. I
look forward to continued cooperation in the future as we develop
and implement Regional NCW Strategies that meet the goals and
objectives of the NCW Program. Please contact me at FTS 382-
7166, or Michelle Hiller at FTS 475—7102, if you have any
questions.
Attachment
cc: Ron Manfredonia, EPA Region I
Gwen Ruta, EPA Region I
Ray Hall, EPA/OMEP
-------
Chiefs’ Meettnq
Total Program Funding — $6.8 million
Meadq arter5 Component S680K
I. OMEP will retain 10% of the total funding for Headquarters
initiatives. This funding may be applied to the following
projects.
A 3 Provide limited support to leverage Headquarters base
program initiatives of importance to coastal waters
(e.g. OWEP initiatives related to CSOs and marine
debris or enforcement of NPDES 403(c) and 301(h)
permits, ORD marine criteria development, pesticide
bioassay development, OSWER plastics and medical waste
initiatives, identification of OWRS pollutants of
concern, contaminated sediments, and the development of
biological criteria and indicators for marine and
estuarine waters).
B. Provide limited support to leverage other Federal
Agency programs of importance to coastal waters. (e.g..
NOAA - NE! assessment, compliance monitoring and
surveillance activities, Compass, Coastal and Ocean
Framework, match CZM 309 S Corps of Engineers dredged
material analysis and permit/enforcement activities,
USFWS — Nev coastal initiative, coastal habitat
protection, public outreach, USGS surveillance and
enforcement support activities, USGS - assessments in
NEPs and targeted HCWs, SCS WQI — matching funds for
demonstration projects in NEPs and NCWS).
C. Funding for other OMEP initiatives (e.g outreach for
EPA Near Coastal Waters and National Coastal and Marine
Policy activities, including such activities as marine
debris initiatives, marine and coastal compliance and
enforcement efforts, contaminated sediments monitoring,
and management assessments.
Component — S6.120 000
II. West Coast ship operations. Provide ship time for near
coastal waters assessment/research cruises needed by Regions
IX and X.
III. Development of Regional Wear Coastal Waters Strategies
A. Regions that have not yet developed Near Coastal
Waters Strategies will receive $50,000 each to
complete strategy development.
- Funding will support actions needed to complete
-------
segmentation, assessment, 1oeIo c
targeting of priority waters, identification ot
problems and causes, and the development of action
plans).
iv. Implementation of Regional Near Coastal Waters Strategies
A. Implementation. Regions with Near Coastal Waters
Strategies currently in place will receive
$500,000 each to begin implementing their
strategies. Zn order to receive this
implementation funding, the Region must have
completed a strategy that is consistent with
general guidelines and specific criteria developed
by the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
1. The Strategy must be based on the broad goals
and objectives outlined in the National
Coastal and Marine Policy.
2. The strategy must contain the following
elements:
- A segmentation scheme for the Region’s
near coastal waters. Although coastal
segments may change as additional data become
available, the strategy must propose an
initial segmentation schema.
9 Assessment and identification of priority
problems in Regional near coastal waters, and
linkage of those problems to causes.
9 Identification of waters to be targeted
for priority action in the Region.
Identification of priority actions to be
aken in order to address problems in
targeted waters.
-9 The strategy must describe actions to be
taken by a variety of EPA Programs as veil as
coordination with federal, state, and local
agencies.
7 The strategy must be linked to EPA’s
office-wide action plans for implementing the
Ilational Coastal and Marine Policy.
— The strategy must indicate how enhancement
of EPA’s base programs can address priority
coastal probie s.
-------
— L1i
develop a monitoring program for assessing
the effectiveness of management actions in
near coastal waters
V. implementation of National Estuary Program CCMP Action Plans
Regions would be eligible to submit proposals
funding COW implementation in estuaries for which
COWs have been completed.
Two Regions (10 and 1) would be eligible for these
funds in FY91 since the Buzzards Bay and Puget
Sound CCMPs would be complete by January, 1991.
VI. Near Coastal Waters Demonstration Projects
A. All Regions would be eligible to submit proposals
to OMEP for Near Coastal Waters Demonstration
Proj e•cts.
- Projects would be funded competitively on the
basis of: action orientation, likelihood of
success, innovation, state and local
commitment, 2-year time frame, public support
and involvement, and relationship to
identified priority themes.
— Regions would be eligible to receive funding
for near coastal waters demonstration
projects in NEP estuaries.
— Proposals should focus on one of the
following themes: nonpoint source control,
marine debris, living resource and habitat
protection and/or restoration, enforcement,
pollution prevention, point source control
(e.g 403(c), 301(h) or industries and
pollutants of concern), citizen monitoring,
and sustainable development.
-------
JOINT SESSION: OCPD - AWPD - REGIONS ROUNDT7 BLE
Objective of Session: Overview of each of the OCPD and AWPD
programs and opportunities for
integration and assistance.
Possible Topics:
o CZM-NEP-NCW-NPS interface issues
— Boundary modifications and relationships to
NEP/enforceable measures
— Joint position with NOAA on related issues NPS
management measures; status of document; next
steps re revisions and additions
o ODES during and after STORET modernization
o Environmental indicators
o Watershed Initiative and targetting priority water
bodies
0 Potential areas for integration/coordination
- TMDL Workshops
— NPS Coordinators Meeting
- NEP Coordinators Meeting
- Monitoring Coordinators Meeting
- Integrated OW Regional Training
- Local Governments Workshops
— Newsletters
-------
JOINT SESSION WETLANDS AND COASTAL DIVISIONS
ISSUE PAPER
OWOW Branch Chief Meeting
Time: August 1, 1991, 1:00 — 2:00 pm
ISSUE STATEMENT:
o Coordination and communication should be enhanced between
wetland and coastal activities. Improved coordination can
help identify and target areas of mutual interest and focus
the resources and expertise of each Division.
BACKGROUND:
o Wetland protection and habitat loss have been identified as
a priority problem in many coastal areas. As a result
coastal management activities often support wetland
protection. For example, many of the National Estuary
Programs (NEP) conduct special action projects, or Action
Plan Demonstration Projects involving wetlands and habitat
protection/enhancement. The NEP Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans (CCMPs) will likely contain wetland
components. Each CCMP should receive a thorough review by
the wetland program when submitted to Headquarters for
approval/review.
o The Near Coastal Waters (NCW) Program involves broad ranging
and long term wetland projects and planning, therefore
coastal wetland protection is an essential element of the
NCW Strategies developed by the Regions. For example, the
Region 9 NCW Strategy contains a Wetland Mitigation Banking
component as part of their California State Wetlands
Conservation Plan, along with a Pearl Harbor Wetlands
Restoration Project, and Wetlands Advanced Identification
(ADID) for Southern California. Coordination at both
Headquarters and Regions on such projects is imperative to
maximize the success of the projects.
o Another area of overlap in both Divisions is stormwater.
While coastal states are preparing to implement the new
stormwater regulations, many are exploring the viability of
using wetlands as part of the stormwater treatment train.
This will require teamwork to ensure technical adequacy of
proposed treatment techniques.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
o Identify key points of contact from Wetlands and OCPD.
o Identify appropriate process/mechanism to ensure effective
coordination.
o Identify cross program outreach to promote coastal wetland
protection.
-------
OCEAN DUMPING ISSUES PAPERS
NATIONAL BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
AUGUST 1, 1991
STATUS OF GREEN BOOK
OCEAN DUMPING SITE MANAGEMENT
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLANS
AND DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES
CZMA CONSISTENCY AND OCEAN DUMPING
SITE DESIGNATIONS
LONG-TERN MANAGEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: National Marine Sanctuary
Management Plans and Dredged
Material Disposal Sites
ISSUE:
Under the national marine sanctuary management plans
developed in the EIS process, NOAA proposes to exert
regulatory oversight of MPRSA permit programs (a Corps of
Engineers and EPA function under MPRSA) and those authorized
through other legislation, such as the Clean Water Act. The
process would require other agencies to adopt permit
conditions proposed by NOAA in order for that permit to be
“certified” for that sanctuary.
BACKGROUND:
Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
NOAA has responsibility for designating marine sanctuaries.
The designation process includes an EIS and publication of a
management plan for the sanctuary in the Federal Register.
For two of these sanctuaries, the Stellwagen Banks in Region
I and Monterey Bay in Region IX, NOAA believes that
additional oversight of permit activity in and near the
sanctuary will increase protection of sanctuary resources.
EPA does not agree and argues that NOAA should define clear
goals and defend its legal authority to impose permit
conditions. NOAA would like to develop individual MOU’s for
each sanctuary, involving all regulatory agencies’
activities and specifying NOAA’s “certification” rights for
each activity.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
When working with NOAA on marine sanctuary management plans,
EPA should insist that NOAA clearly define its legal
framework for the MOA, develop resource protection goals for
the sanctuary, list alternatives for complementary
regulatory programs, and hold an early meeting of all
potential interested agencies to discuss interagency
coordination.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS MEETING
OCPD SESSIONS
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 4:00 Topic: Marine Debris
ISSUE STATEMENT
Marine debris has environmental, aesthetic and economic
impacts. EPA needs to develop and implement a coordinated
program to control the release of debris to our nations
waterways.
BACKGROUND
In 1988 an inter-agency Task Force published a report
regarding the sources and effects of marine debris and
presented several recommendations that the US should follow
to control this type of pollution. Since then, OCPD, the
Regions and other Federal Agencies have een working on
programs to control, assess, and educate the public about
marine debris. OCPD is in the process of using the
recommendations in the 1988 report as the foundation of a
new document which will describe how the recommendations
have been implemented to date, and to set forth a national
strategy for implementing the recommendations in the future.
This national strategy will then be used by EPA to develop
action plans for future program activities.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
OCPD should develop a draft strategy for review by the
Regions and other Federal Agencies, and prepare a final
strategy based upon the comments received.
OCPD and the Regions should then conduct a marine debris
coordinators meeting and develop action plans.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: Ocean Dumping Site Management
ISSUE STATEMENT:
EPA is responsible for management of over 100 ocean dumping
sites located on all three coasts of the United States.
This task is complicated by the wide variety of ecosystems
involved, the expense of offshore field work, and the need
for cooperation and coordination with the Corps of Engineers
on most of these sites.
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to pull together all aspects of site management
into one document, OCPD is developing a site guidance
document for the Regions. In general, the document lays out
the framework and specific activities for site management.
It describes the regulatory as well as technical aspects of
site management and proposes a mechanism for coordination
between EPA and the CE.
Two drafts of this document have been circulated for review,
with the next version expected in the fourth quarter.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
What areas do the Regions need more specific guidance on
within the framework of ocean dumping site management?
What is the role of HQ in the management of dredged material
sites?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
OCPD needs to develop a stronger role in site management,
implementing a national strategy to monitor and manage
dredged material sites.
OCPD needs to hold a national meeting on site management
options for the Regions.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANC T I CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pin Topic: Long-Term Management of Dredged
Material
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The evaluation of dredged material disposal options for a
particular project must take into account all alternative
disposal options and, to make the process proceed more
smoothly, a longer time frame for implementing each option.
Options need to include ocean disposal, in-bay and estuary,
and upland disposal.
BACKGROUND:
In January 1991, the EPA and CE hosted a national conference
on how dredged material disposal options could be evaluated
on a geographically-defined basis and would also include
longer time frames for use of the selected options.
Beneficial uses of dredged material was a major topic.
Beginning a new project without reasonable assurance that
the project will be maintained is not in the best public
interest. An LTMS approach will include all foreseeable new
work, operations and maintenance dredging, and permit
activities. The LTMS should also cover the expected life of
the project and include all beneficiaries of the project as
well as Federal, State, local and environmental interests.
The LTNS will address both structural and non-structural
alternatives, as well as all options, including beneficial
uses. An LTMS will be timely, technically feasible, cost—
effective, and environmentally acceptable.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
Should pilot LTMS projects be initiated in selected Regions
to serve as national models?
Are more regional meetings such as the national conference
needed prior to initiation of pilot projects?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
The LTMS approach is a sound approach for regulatory
agencies involved with dredged material disposal in many
parts of the country. The LTNS approach should be nourished
and encouraged where it is attempted.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: Status of Green Book
ISSUE STATEMENT:
In 1991 the Ocean Dumping Testing Manual (Green Book) for
dredged ntateials was published. The ocean dumping regions
will phase in implementation of the new Green Book through
development of regional manuals.
BACKGROUND:
Since publication of the draft national guidance manual in
early 1990, many comments were received and incorporated
into the final document. In addition, five general training
sessions on the draft manual were held in the summer of
1990, which introduced States, other Federal agencies, and
contractors to the substantive changes in this new manual
over the 1978 version of the manual. Tiering the testing
regime and the requirement for amphipod tests on the dredged
material were the major changes from the old manual.
At the Monterey, CA, ocean dumping coordinators’ meeting in
February of 1991, agreement was reached among EPA and Corps
of Engineers program staff that the use of the new manual
would be phased in by the end of the fiscal year. The phase
in would be accomplished through development of regional
manuals.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
How are the Regions coming on development of these manuals
and where are the problem areas that need attention?
RECOMNENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
OCPD should develop help the regions as they develop these
regional manuals.
OCPD and the Regions should hold a national meeting on
implementation of the manuals early in the next fiscal year.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: CZMA Consistency and Ocean
Dumping Site Designations
ISSUES:
The States of Louisiana and Florida have recently indicated
objections to ocean dumping site designations under their
approved Coastal Zone Management Plans. They argue that
clean dredged material should be used for beach nourishment
or creation of wetlands and that by designating ocean
dumping sites, the cheaper ocean option facilitates
selection of ocean disposal over beneficial uses options.
BACKGROUND:
At present four ocean dumping site designation actions in
Louisiana and one in Florida are impacted by State
objections under CZMA. EPA argues that site designation in
itself does not pre-condition use of the site or authorize
disposal. Placement of dredged material for benefical uses
as opposed to ocean disposal often requires different
equipment and longer haul distances, resulting in increased
costs. The issue essentially revolves around who will pay
for the cost increase, an argument more appropriately
focused on the State and the Corps. The Water Resources
Development Act addresses the issue by calling for a 25 or
50% State or local share of the increased cost.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
What have been the experiences of other Regions with CZMA
consistency for MPRSA site designations?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
Because this issue involves wetlands, it will remain a high
visibility problem. Ocean dumping site designation EIS’s
will need to be more comprehensive in evaluation of
alternatives and concensus-building early in the process.
The application of an LTNS approach in controversial areas
should be investigated.
-------
ISSUE PAPER ( I! 1 I)
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: Long-Term Management of Dredged
Material (LTNS)
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The evaluation of dredged material disposal options for a
particular project must take into account all alternative
disposal options and, to make the process proceed more
smoothly, should provide for ealy involvement for all
interested parties. Options need to include ocean disposal,
in-bay and estuary, and upland disposal. For controversial
projects, the CE has developed an LTMS approach which
emphasizes consideration of the available options with a
view toward assuring long-term (up to 50 years) colutions to
disposal problems.
BACKGROUND:
In January 1991, the EPA and CE hosted a national conference
on how dredged material disposal options could be evaluated
on a geographically-defined basis with attention to
developing long-term disposal options. Beneficial uses of
dredged material was a major topic.
Beginning a new project without reasonable assurance that
the project will be maintained over the long term is not in
the best public interest. An LTMS approach includes all
foreseeable new work, operations and maintenance dredging,
and permit activities. The LTMS should cover the expected
life of the project and include all beneficiaries of the
project as well as Federal, State, local and environmental
interests. The LTMS addresses both structural and non-
structural alternatives, as well as all options, including
beneficial uses. The goal of an LTMS is to provide timely,
technically feasible, cost-effective, and environmentally
acceptable solutions for management of dredged material.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
Should pilot LTMS projects be initiated in selected Regions
to serve as national models? How could LTNS’s be addressed
through NEP’s or NCW’s?
Are more regional meetings such as the national conference
in LTMS helpful?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
The LTMS approach is a sound approach for regulatory
agencies involved with dredged material disposal in many
parts of the country. OCPD and the Regions should work
together to help identify projects which might benefit from
an LTMS approach.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: Status of Green Book
ISSUE STATEMENT:
In 1991 the Ocean Dumping Testing Manual (Green Book) for
dredged materials was published. The ocean dumping regions
will phase in implementation of the new Green Book through
development of regional manuals.
BACKGROUND:
Since publication of the draft national guidance manual in
early 1990, many comments were received and incorporated
into the final document. In addition, five general training
sessions on the draft manual were held in the summer of
1990, which introduced States, other Federal agencies, and
contractors to the substantive changes in this new manual
over the 1978 version of the manual. Tiering the testing
regime and the requirement for amphipod tests on the dredged
material were the major changes from the old manual.
At the Monterey, CA, ocean dumping coordinators’ meeting in
February of 1991, agreement was reached among EPA and Corps
of Engineers program staff that the use of the new manual
would be phased in by the end of the fiscal year. The phase
in would be accomplished through development of regional
manuals.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
How are the Regions coming on development of these manuals
and where are the problem areas that need attention?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
OCPD should help the regions as they develop these regional
manuals.
As part of the Pensacola training session (August 5-9), a
half day has been set aside to discuss regional manuals.
OCPD and the Regions should include discussion of the
manuals as part of the ocean dumping coordinators’ meeting
next year.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: CZMA Consistency and Ocean
Dumping Site Designations
ISSUES:
The States of Louisiana and Florida have recently indicated
objections to ocean dumping site designations under their
approved Coastal Zone Management Plans. They argue that
clean dredged material should be used for beach nourishment
or creation of wetlands and that by designating ocean
dumping sites, the cheaper ocean option facilitates
selection of ocean disposal over beneficial uses options.
BACKGROUND:
At present four ocean dumping site designation actions in
Louisiana and one in Florida are impacted by State
objections under CZMA. Site designation in itself is not a
pre-condition to CE permit issuance nor does it authorize
disposal. Placement of dredged material for beneficial uses
as opposed to ocean disposal often requires different
equipment and longer haul distances, resulting in increased
costs. The issue essentially revolves around who will pay
for the cost increase, an argument really between the State
and the Corps. The Water Resources Development Act
addresses the issue by calling for a 25 or 50% State or
local share of the increased cost.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
What have been the experiences of other Regions with CZMA
consistency for MPRSA site designations?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
Because this issue involves wetlands, it will remain a high
visibility problem. Ocean dumping site designation EIS’s
should seek consensus-building early in the process. The
application of an LTMS approach in controversial areas
should be investigated.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: National Marine Sanctuary
Management Plans and Dredged
Material Disposal Sites
ISSUE:
Under national marine sanctuary management plans developed
for some sanctuaries in the EIS process, NOAA has proposed
to exert regulatory oversight of MPRSA permit programs (a
Corps of Engineers and EPA function under MPRSA) and those
authorized through other legislation, such as the Clean
Water Act. The process would require other agencies to
adopt permit conditions proposed by NOAA in order for that
permit to be “certified” for that sanctuary.
BACKGROUND:
Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
NOAA has responsibility for designating marine sanctuaries.
The designation process includes an EIS and publication of a
management plan for the sanctuary in the Federal Register.
For two of these sanctuaries, the Steliwagen Banks in Region
I and Monterey Bay in Region IX, NOAA believes that
additional oversight of permit activity in and near the
sanctuary will increase protection of sanctuary resources.
EPA has argued that NOAA should define clear goals and
defend its legal authority to impose permit conditions.
NOA.A would like to develop individual MOU’s for each
sanctuary, involving all regulatory agencies’ activities and
specifying NOAA’s “certification” rights for each activity.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
How can EPA and NOAA work together to resolve those concerns
while still preserving the statutory roles assigned to each
agency?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
When working with NOAA on marine sanctuary management plans,
EPA should insist that NOAA clearly define its role in and
develop specific resource protection goals for the
sanctuary. A framework for achieving inter-agency
coordination on actions affecting the sites and the
sanctuaries should be developed, giving recognition to the
primary roles played by EPA and the CE regarding permitting
and site designation.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 3:00 pm Topic: Ocean Dumping Site Management
ISSUE STATEMENT:
EPA is responsible for management of over 100 ocean dumping
sites located on all three coasts of the United States.
This task is complicated by the wide variety of ecosystems
involved, the expense of otfshore field work, and the need
for cooperation and coordination with the Corps of Engineers
on most of these sites.
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to pull together all aspects of site management
into one document, OCPD is developing a site guidance
document for the Regions. In general, the document will lay
out the framework and specific activities for site
management. It describes the regulatory as well as
technical aspects of site management and proposes a
mechanism for coordination between EPA and the CE.
Two drafts of this document have been circulated for review,
with the next version expected in the fourth quarter.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
What areas do the Regions need more specific guidance on
within the framework of ocean dumping site management?
How can HQ assist the Regions in the management of dredged
material sites?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
The program needs to develop a stronger role in site
management, implementing a national strategy to monitor and
manage dredged material sites.
Discussion of site management issues should continue to be
on the agenda for the ocean dumping coordinators’ meetings.
OCPD should continue working with the CE to amend the
national MOU to better address site management.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS MEETING
OCPD SESSIONS
AUGUST 1, 1991
Time: 4:00 Topic: Marine Debris
ISSUE STATEMENT
Marine debris has environmental, aesthetic and economic
impacts. EPA needs to develop and implement a coordinated
program to control the release of debris to our nations
waterways.
BACKGROUND
In 1988 an inter-agency Task Force published a report
regarding the sources and effects of marine debris and
presented several recommendations that the US should follow
to control this type of pollution. since then, OCPD, the
Regions and other Federal Agencies have been working on
programs to control, assess, and educate the public about
marine debris. OCPD is in the process of using the
recommendations in the 1988 report as the foundation of a
new document which will describe how the recommendations
have been implemented to date, and to set forth a national
strategy for implementing the recommendations in the future.
This national strategy will then be used by EPA to develop
action plans for future program activities.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS
How can the marine debris program effectively work to
develop control measures for marine debris?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION
OCPD should develop a draft strategy for review by the
Regions and other Federal Agencies, and prepare a final
strategy based upon the comments received.
OCPD and the Regions should then conduct a marine debris
coordinators meeting and develop action plans.
-------
Issue Paper: Making the ANDERSON Count
Time 8:30 - 9:00, Friday
JL 2 J9I
Topic Making the ANDERSON Count
Issue How can the ANDERSON better support Regional decision-
making?
Background The Ocean Survey Vessel (OSV) Peter W. ANDERSON is
EPAs primary survey vessel for ocean monitoring and site
designation field studies. Surveys aboard the ANDERSON
are performed as part of EPA ’s overall strategy to determine
appropriate locations for disposal of ocean-dumped materials
and to monitor those materials once disposed into the ocean
environment. Although ANDERSON survey results have
had some impact on program decision-making, those impacts
have not been well publicized. The link from survey data to
decision-making has not been made very well in the past.
Overall awareness of the ANDERSON and its activities is
somewhat limited.
Questions • Should we broaden the use of the ANDERSON to
include other programs (e.g., NCW, NEP)?
- By instituting a 2-3 year survey schedule.
- Integrate ocean dumping activities with NCW activities.
• How can we make more efficient use of the ANDERSON?
• How can we set Agency priorities for using the
ANDERSON?
- Assuring Regional equity.
- Use based on risk.
• How can we increase public awareness of coastal and
marine issues?
By supporting public outreach activities sponsored by the
ANDERSON.
• How can we link ANDERSON survey results to program
decision-making?
By packaging Regional survey reports into an accomplishments
reports which links results to program objectives and decisions.
Recommended EPA Management should encourage ANDERSON users
Actions (including EPA Regions and laboratories) to take advantage
of the ship as a scientific, outreach, and decision-making tool.
This may include:
• Forwarding ANDERSON survey reports to Headquarters
and take advantage of revised protocols;
• Identifying long-term Regional needs for the
ANDERSON;
• Considering alternative uses for the ANDERSON;
-------
Issue Paper: Making the ANDERSON Count
• Exchanging appropriate scientific data, technical
information, and survey accomplishments as often as
possible;
• Using ANDERSON outreach efforts to educate the public
on marine and coastal issues;
• Participating in tech transfer discussions at the upcoming
National Ocean Survey Meeting; and/or
I Providing input on more effective ways of using the
ANDERSON.
-------
JU.. 25 t991
Time: August 2, 1991, 9:00 AN Topic: Public Outreach
Issue Statement: OCPD/OWOW is assessing its current outreach
ef forts and mechanisms and developing strategies to improve and
expand these activities. OCPD needs input from the Regions on our
past outreach performances and where and how we can improve on
these areas.
Background: Increased attention and effort is being directed
toward improving our methods of communicating and informing the
public and other government agencies of OWOW/OCPD programs and what
EPA is doing in the marine and coastal environment. In the past,
OCPD has implemented outreach efforts on an ad hoc basis with each
program designing its own needs and approach. Now, however, OCPD
wants to develop a more organized outreach process to more
effectively produce and disseminate our program information. In
order to do this, OCPD needs to get feedback on Regional outreach
needs and issues, including determining the role of outreach and
how to most effectively use our resources to support outreach
activities.
Questions/Opt ions
Are we addressing/reaching the correct audiences?
This is dependent on individual programs; however we need to
focus more attention on targeting the appropriate audience(s),
the needs of the audience(s), and the message we are trying to
convey.
Has our outreach been effective? Are we giving the
Regions/Congress/puMic what they need?
“Outreach” encompasses many actions. These include, explaining
programs, effecting a behavioral change, education of basic
principles, provide training. Outreach tools include videos,
publications, exhibits, conferences. We need to distinguish
between the two and encourage programs to develop strategic
planning strategies which will direct our efforts. The strategy
should tie outreach activities to mission, goals, and program
objectives and specify which tools will be used for each particular
action. The strategic plan should also include mechanisms for
feedback/evaluation to determine our effectiveness.
What are the impediments to outreach?
Insufficient time and resources. Ill defined protocols or changing
policies and procedures. Lack of strategic planning. Too long a
review and approval process. Poor distribution system.
Recommendations: Issues to be resolved are responsibility of
niultimanagement levels. On a divisional level: Do strategic
planning to prioritize activities and target resource needs. Ensure
funding for outreach activities -- specify outreach activities in
-------
yearly agenda. Coordinate outreach activities within
Office/Division as much as possible. Develop process or system for
production (graphics, editing, printing, etc) and distribution.
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Outreach Activities
Summer 1991
-------
Division What/How
Why
With Whom When
Wetlands
Division
Catalog of State Wetlands Protection
Grants
Thumbnail sketches of programs funded
by Federal assistance
Promote wetland protection
on an individual basis
--building to a watershed
basis
Increase awareness, provide
models, publicize grants
General public Ongoing
Landowners! Planners
Educators/Students
Community Groups
“Adopt a Wetland Program”
Publicize through brochure, buttons,
display
Carry out through cooperative agreements
Hotline
Toll-free phone, distribution,
and feedback system
Hotline Workbook
Provide answers
to questions
and access to information
Training and updates
General Public
Developers
Landowners
Government Officials
Educators/Students
Hotline operators
Ongoing
Under
development
American Wetlands Month
Flyer
Fact Sheets
Sample PSA
Events
Increase public awareness of
importance of wetlands and
interest in protection
General Public
Environmental Groups
Government (all levels)
Development Groups
Annually
Guide to wetland education programs,
training, and materials
Reading list K-12
Provide access to
existing information
Educators
Students
Summer
1991
Under
development
Wetlands Contact Book
Foster communication—provide
information on who does what
in wetland protection
Agencies (all levels)
Other Interested Parties
Update as
needed
Survey
Assess “customer’ needs and
our performance
Regions
Annually
State, Tribal and Local Annually
agencies
-------
Div What/How Why With Whom When
Assessmenl PublicationsfFraining Provide information on State and local government Ongoing
and Technical information related to Clean technical practices, legal Community leaders
Watershed Lakes and Nonpoint Source requirements, monitoring Educators
Protection Consultants
Division Congress
Clean Lakes Clearinghouse
Provide access to
Information on significant
publications, bibliographies
-- through disk or electronic
bulletin board
Individuals in need of
technical information on
lake restoration and
protection
Ongoing
Information Exchange
“News Notes”
Electronic bulletin board
Bibliographies
Provide access to technical and
non-technical information on
Nonpoint Source (Ni’S) issues,
programs, and opportunities
by mail, fax, phone
Individuals interested
in NI’S pollution
Ongoing
Exhibits/Publications
Provide information and
stimulate interest and
involvement in volunteer
monitoring (streams, rivers,
lakes)
Citizens
Environmental Groups
States
Periodically
Bulletin on Surface
Water Assessment
Provide technical and
programmatic information,
report study and monitoring
results
State and EPA Monitoring
and Assessment Staff
Monthly
Summaiy of Water Quality Data
Provide Information on
Water Quality/Status
State, Local Water Quality
Management staff, Decision
makers, Environmental
Groups
General Public and Industry
Biennial
Grants Support Regional and Regional and State Annually
State Nonpoint Source Agencies
pollution control
-------
Division What/How Why With Whom When
Ocean Reports/Guidances/Fact Sheets Provide information on State/local govi/NEPs As needed
and technical practices, legal Resource mgt. agencies or required
Coastal Technical information ocean dumping, requirements, monitoring Consultants
Protection marine debris, NEP, etc. results Trade Associations
Division Congress
“Coastlines”
Newsletter
Provide thematic overview
coastal/estuarine issues,
programs, and National
Estuary Program (NEP)
operation
NEPs
Resource mgt. agencies
Bimonthly
“Coastnet ”
Electronic bulletin board
Provide access to
information—update on
coastal/estuarine issues and
programs
NEPs
Resource mgt. agencies
Region/State staff
Ongoing
Non-technical Materials
Curricula/Activities
Brochures! Booklets/Fact sheets
Videos
Exhibits/Posters
Provide Information on
OCPD and related programs
Stimulate interest in OCPD
issues
General public
Teachers/students
As needed
Public Participation
Beach Cleanup/Anderson
Learn about coastal problems
through direct experience
Increase awareness of coastal
issues and EPA role
Press
General public
Teachers/students
Periodically
Media Events
Public appearances /Speeches Interviews
Increase awareness of coastal
issues and EPA role
Press/General public
Decision makers
As
Appropriate
Benchmarking Provide Information on OCPD General public Under
Identify non-EPA programs and materials, and related programs Teachers/students Development
Adopt as models and Distribute Stimulate interest in OCPD Local government
JAG w/FWS and Chesapeake Bay issues
-------
Division What/How
Why
With Whom When
Ocean
and
Coastal
Protection
Division
ODBA Bulletin
Provide information on ocean
dumping/marine debris issues
and programs
Resource mgt. agencies
Region/State staff
Periodically
Workshops
Technical and non-technical
e.g. orientation, consensus bldg.
Provide training and
information exchanges on
coastal issues and practices
Regions
NEP Committees
(Finance, Management,
Cidzen s Advisory)
Other targeted audiences
Periodically
Informal Network
Phone calls/Meetings
Connect people with common
needs and concerns providing
information on coastal issues,
programs, and opportunities
Federal, state, and
local govt. staff with
ripple effect to
managers
Informal, as
needed
Survey
Assess customeru needs and
our performance
Regions
Annually
-------
Coastal Pollution Workshops
Branch Chiefs Meeting, August 2, 1991
Issue Statement
The Regions have expressed the need for high visibility workshops
to promote coastal issues and understanding.
Background
In November 1990, a group of Regional Administrators expressed
interest in hosting public meetings/workshops with the
involvement of the Administrator. These workshops were intended
to give the Administrator the opportunity to meet with State and
local representatives with the possible inclusion of the public
to highlight or reinforce national coastal issues.
A request went to the Administrator from Region 2 for a workshop
on Long Island sound in September. The Administrator’s office
denied the request based on Reilly’s busy schedule in the late
summer/early fall.
Questions / Options
o Are regions still interested in hosting public workshops on
coastal issues?
o What are some other techniques to get broad visibility on
coastal issues?
o Do the Regions need support from Headquarters for this type of
outreach?
-------
OBV PETER W. ANDERSON
Branch Chief’s Meeting, August 2, 1991
Issue: Increase government and public awareness of the
importance of scientific activities of the OSV ANDERSON.
Background: The ANDERSON serves as the major sampling platform
for estuarine and ocean oceanographic activities. The data
collected on the ANDERSON assists in evaluating governmental
pollution control efforts. However, during a public outreach
effort it became evident that the ship’s mission and accinplishments
are not sufficiently known by the general public or other offices
within EPA.
A strategic planning process was used to develop a five year
operational program together with a public education effort for the
OSV ANDERSON. The plan defines the ANDERSON’s mission along with
the specific course of action designed to increase public and
governmental awareness and effectively use the scientific
information compiled by the ANDERSON. The following are examples
of some of the outreach activities accomplished under this
strategic plan:
o Public tours aboard the ANDERSON in various coastal
cities including Norfolk, VA; Philadelphia, PA; New York, NY.
o Demonstration surveys with the press and teachers groups
in Baltimore, MD and Norfolk, VA.
o Good Morning America news story.
o Display boards and pamphlets describing the ANDERSON.
o Educational materials in production including coloring
book and activity book.
o Videos on the ANDERSON and its accomplishments.
-------
Issue: National Beach Cleanup
Background :
Beach cleanups have been coordinated nationally since 1988,
as part of the annual Coastweeks celebration. For the past two
years, extensive marine debris education campaigns have been
conducted for beachgoers, boaters, fishermen, merchant shippers
and other marine user groups. Every year regional coordinators
in each beach area organize extensive public relations campaigns
to recruit volunteers and educate the public about the problems
caused by trash in the marine environment. The news about beach
cleanups has been so extensive that in 1990 four countries joined
in the effort, Canada, Guatemala, Japan and Mexico. The 1990
National Beach cleanup had more than 108,749 volunteers
participating in 23 U.S. coastal states, the District of
Columbia, three inland states, and U.S. territories, who removed
more than 260 million pounds of trash.
Purpose :
This year, the EPA headquarters (OW/OWOW/OCPD) is working in
conjunction with the Center for Marine Conservation and the U.S.
Coast Guard, to hold their annual beach cleanup at Bethany Beach
in Delaware. Participants will not only clean the beach, but use
data cards to classify the types of debris found, as well as
recycle a large portion of the trash collected. The date is set
for Saturday, September 21, 1991, with a bus leaving from the EPA
headquarters at 6:00 a.m.. Participants last year included
Administrator William Reilly and Assistant Administrator for
Water, LaJuaria Wilcher. For more information call FTS 8-245 -
3904.
-------
Coa taI Coqqectioq
The Coastal Connectioii is a newsletter produced by the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) to promote beach
cleanup events, “Citizen Pollution Patrols,” and other efforts to eliminate marine debris that injures wildlife, fouls our
bc chrs ar. threatens buster saftey.
America’s Beaches Still Awash with Trash
The release in May of the final
results of the 1989 National Beach
Cleanup, created a great deal of
press attention about trash on our
nation’s beaches. The report,
entitled Cleaning North America’s
Beach : 1989 Beach Cleanup
R ults, includes state-by-state
information about the types and
amounts of trash that was found.
And although the 1989 cleanups
took place nine months after
Annex V of MARPOL took effect
(Annex V bans the dumping of
plastic by ships at sea), the report
shows that the beach debris
problem has remained relatively
unchanged. Below are some
highlights of the report.
Volunteers in 25 coastal states
and parts of Canada and Mexico
removed and catalogued 3,000,000
items of trash that weighed 861
tons from 3,000 miles of beach.
‘Plastic is still the most prevalent
debris type, accounting for 63% of
the trash collected. In Mexico and
Canada 62% of the trash was
plastic, gnaling that the problem
is not limited to the United States
• The twelve most common items
reported - the Dirty n
of 1989 - remained relatively un-
changed from 1988 (a chart).
• The states with the largest
percentage of bottles and associ-
ated goods on their beaches
(Virgin Islands, NJ, GA, Puerto
Rico) do not have beverage
container deposit laws.
• The highest amounts of six-pack
rings were found in Texas and
Washington, two states that do
not have legislation that require
six-pack rings to be degradable.
• Volunteers are getting good at
identifying sources. Several
maritime industry groups were
namedas souces of specific trash
items.
• The most common debris items
related to fishing and boating
were pieces of plastic rope and
plastic fishing line. Both items can
kill marine animals by entangle-
ment or ingestion. Four hundred
and sixty-seven miles of fishing
line was collected off the Florida
coastline alone.
• Volunteers identified trash from
13 cruise lines with Florida
receiving the brunt of the damage.
Cruise ship trash is readily
identifiable because these items
are often embossed with the
company name.
• In relation to other types of
trash, there were few syringes and
other medical waste found.
• More than 2,000 foreign label
items were reported and at least
55 countries identified. Foreign
debris was found in 21 of the 25
states with the largest number of
foreign items in Texas.
• There were 65 reports of wildlife
entanglement, including 25 birds
caught in fishing line.
Realistically, a dramatic change
in the type of trash was not
expected just nine months after
Annex V took effect But, certain
trends are apparent, such as the
persistence of plastic and the
concentration of offshore gener-
ated wastes on beaches in the Gulf
of Mexico, the North Pacific, and
New England - if a decrease in
the amount of plastics does occur
because of Annex V, it will be
most evident in these areas.
Copies of the report are avail-
able for $10.00 from CMCs DC
office. All volunteers who partici-
pated in the 1989 cleanup may
obtaina copy foronly $3.00.
Tidal
The D Dozsn-4 ’
across the unW
c eanupby65,C
Summer 1990
Coastal Connection I
-------
Plastics recyding and new
equipment will be key the
US. Navy to comply with the
mandate to eliminate the dis-
charge of plastics from their
ships. A loophole in MARPOL
Annex V. the international treaty
that prohibits the dumping of
plastics from ships at sea, ex-
empts public vessels. But the law
that implements MARPOL in the
US. waters is tougher than the
international treaty and requires
that public vessels such as the
US. Navy and the Coast Guard
comply with all requirements of
Annex V by December 31, 1993.
The requirements for all private
vessels, from surfboards to oil
tankers, have been in place since
December31, 1988.
It is no small task for the Navy
to separate, store, and offload the
plastic trash generated by every
ship each day. A single aircraft
carrier with 5,000 men aboard
could produce 1,000 pounds of
plastic every 24 hours. To deal
with these enormous quantities of
trash, the Navy is educating its
crew, inventing equipment, and
developing new operating proce-
dures to keep plastic trash out of
the ocear
Since January 1989 the Navy has
been able to eliminate 70 percent
of all plastics it dumps into the
ocean simply by separating plastic
from all other trash. All shipboard
work spaces now have an addi-
tional green trash can marked
Plastics Only in red letters. All of
the plastic that is not associated
with food remains on board for at
least 20 days or longer, as space
allows. Plastic trash that has been
in contact with food s held for the
last three days at sea. After three
days the odor is both unpleasant
and a health hazard.
The shipping industry can
learn from the Navy’s
extensive work to keep
plastics out of the marine
environment.
A demonstration program cur-
rently in progress aboard the
LJ.S.S. Lexington is exploring ways
to recycle all plastic waste gener-
ated aboard the ship which cur-
rentlygoestoa landfill. All
plastic trash generated aboard the
Lethzgton will be brought to shore
and sent to two separate recycling
facilities. ‘The plastic will be used
to manufacture lumber for park
benches, marine pilings and
forklift pallets. The Navy will
display these products at selected
facilities to demonstrate the un-
portance of recycling efforts. A
report of the Lexington project will
be completed in November 1990.
The Navy is also testing the
effectiveness of several new pieces
of trash handling equipment
including compactors, pulpers,
and a plastic waste processor. The
plastic waste processor can reduce
the 1,000 pounds of plastic gener-
ated to several plastic disks the
size of a Frisbee.
It’s Expensive to Dump
In May the US. CoastGuard
assessed a $12,500 penalty
against the Handy Mariner for
illegal dumping of plywood
about four miles off Cape Ann,
Massachusetts. Fishermen re-
ported the violation after they
witnessed the dumping which
caused some damage to their
vessel. The crew admitted
dumping the plywood, but
claimed to have no prior
knowledge of thelaw. This
I inddentmarkstheflrstfine
and prosecution of the 1987
Marine Plastics Pollution
Research and Control Act (the
US. law that implements
MARPOL Annex V and
regulates the dumping of trash
from ships at sea).
The Navy believes that educa-
tion and training are key to the
success of their program. Several
incentive programs educate the
crew about the ship’s plastics
program. For example, the
winner of a shipboard poster
contest about the plastics problem
“Education is the key to the
whole operation. There is a
need to create a mindset
that keeping plastics out of
the water is the right thing
to do.”
Commander Rick Arlien,
SupØy Officer U.S.S. Lexington
will receive % hours of leave time.
In 1989 the Navy distributed 5,000
information packets about the
problems of that plastics can cause
to marine life. Ma result, the
sailors are willing to make an
extra effort to separate their trash.
Navy Says It’s the Right Thing to Do
Data Detectives
During the 1990 National
Cleanup volunteers will iden-
tify the ‘bad guys” that dump
trash into the ocean. Aimed
with a revised CMC data card,
deanup participants will pay
close attention to any inforrna-
tion about the source of trash
items (for example a cruise line
name or foreign wiiting). The
revised data card explains the
need to identify sources in order
to stop illegal or accidental
dumping. The Coast Guard will
use photos of trash items taken
by volunteers as evidence neces-
sary to prosecute violators.
2 Coastal Connection
Summer 1990
-------
1990
Natioqal Beach Cleaqup Caleqdar
State Cleanup Date
State Contact for Cleanup Locations
ALABAMA
September
of Ezn1 onment.1 Managerrant
22 .
O4 PNlmtar Road
MoblI.,AL 36615
—
(205) 479-2336
CALIFORNIA
Jack Usbstr
C ftorvO Cotal Comn safon
September
22
631 Howard Strait
San Frand.co, CA 94106
1400COAST4U or (415) 543-8555
For Irdorn tIon on dat. coflsctlon cal:
Maila Brown
Center for PSwmn. Conservation
312 Sutt.r Skeet, SuIt. 606
San Francisco, CA 94108
CONNECTiCUT
September
22
(415) 3914204
Peg Van Patt.n
Connecticut sea Grant Program
Of
Mum. ScI.nc. ln.tItut., Avery Pokit
Groton, CT 06340
DELAWARE
September
29
Nancy RoIU
DIIWE Department of Nattlal Resources and
Environmental Control
89 KIngs Highway P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 18901
( 736 506
-
FLORIDA
September
22
CInt.r f orMuIn.Con.. r va Ion
Heidi Lov.tt
1 Beach D l iv. SE, SuIte 304
St. P.t.rsburg, FL 33701
(813)895-2188
GEORGIA
September
22
Jay Calkins
Ca art n e er ionServIca
P.O. Box 13687 McWhorder Drive
Ur v.rsftyofG .o. Ia
Skldaw.y Island
Savannah, GA 31416
(912)356-2496
-____
HAWAII
%3,
October
20
Jolvi Yarnauchi
H all Stat. Litter Control Off%c
205 Koula Str..t
(808) 548-3400 or 548-6444
LOUISIANA
September
22
Barbara Colthrap
Louisiana Department of Cultirs, R.cr..tlon and Tourism
P.O. Box 94291
Baton Rouge, LA 708044291
(504) 342-8148
Summer 9O
Coastal Connecti ;n
-------
icco
Natioqal Beach Cleaqup Caleqdar
Cleanup Date State Contact for Cleanup Locations
MAINE
w Gri fnn
September
29
Nein. Co tzl Program
1
Augusta ME 04333
State House Station 38
2894261
MARYLAND
Judy Jotmson
616 PiccadI l ly Road
Toweon, MD 21204
September
(301)828-4520
8
I_ ionopic
Alliance for th. Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
6600 Yort Road, SuIts 100
Beldmor. MD 21212
(301) 377-6270
-1
Anne Stwclna
Program
100 Cw rIdg. S ’sst, 20th Floor
MASSACHUSETtS
September
29
Boston, MA 0fl
(617) 7214530
MISSISSIPPI
September
D laww Hunt
Ms.lssIppl Department f Wildilt., Ashen, and Parks
2620 Beach Blvd.
BIloxi, MS 39531
(601)385-5860
NEW HAMPSHIRE
September
J a Steed Mawson and Joanne Barret
odionw Point Visitors Center
do UNH Sea Grant
MEC A nInIsbatIon Building
Ur vsr&ty of New Hançshlrs
Dwhan NH 03824
(603)438-8043
NEW JERSEY
1#
September
22
clean ocean Action
Box 506
BuildIng 18 Hartshoms Dr.
HlghIan P4J 07732
1)$Th0111
I
I
NEW YORK
September
Roberta W.lsbrod and L rlon Roet
New Yo.t State D.pertment of Environmental Conservation
Hunters Point Plus
LongI&andClty,NY 11101
(718)482.4992
Don Riep.
American Uttorel Society
28 W.et 9th Road
Broad Channel, NY 11693
(718)634-6467
State
4 Coastal Connection
Summer 1L4
-------
1990
N tioqaI Beech CIe!Iqup Caleqdar
State Cleanup Date State Contact for Cleanup Locations
NORTH CAROLINA
September
Luridi. Spenc. or Kathy Hart
Ur v.ra1tyofNcrthCaroIIria
22
Ssm Grant College Progiam
Box 8605
Reieigh, NC 27695-8605
(919) 737-2454
OREGON
October
BIU Hasty
Or.gonD.partm.ntofAshandGams
13
P.O. Box 80
Portland,OR 97207
(503) 229-5406 ext 428
PENNSYLVANIA
Frances Stein
September
Dept. of Envlronn*ntal Resources
P R
P.O. Box 8510
Ens, PA 16506
(814)871-4251 or(814) 833-9162
j
PUERTO RICO
pber
29-30
Rtç.rtoChapsrro
UPR Ssa GraM Program
and
RUMUPR
October
6-7
P.O. Box 5000
Mayagu.z, PR 00709-5000
(809)832-8045
RHODE ISLAND
September
22
Eug.nla Marts
A ubon Society of Rhod. Island
12 Sandarson Road
Srlthfleld, RI 02917
(401)2314444
SOUTH CAROLINA
September
15
VhgIi a Beach
South Caroiria S .. Grant Cwthim
2s 7MngStrest
Ch .,lston, SC 28401
(803)727-2078
-
TEXAS
Linda Mar u
for tAan. Conssrvsdon
September
22
i201 west 24th Str.et
Atatln, TX 78705
(512)4774424
Angela Fart..
T.xea G.nsral Land Offics
1700 N. Congress Avereis
Attln, TX 78701
1-800-85BEACH or
(512)463.5100
Summer 1’ ’-k)
Coastal Connectir
-------
1990
Natioqal Beach Cleaqup Caleqdar
State Cleanup Date State Contact for Cleanup Locations
VIRGINIA
September
15
Ocean Beethes
Joseph SUvIo
Ai onNatwallstSoclety
9840 Jones t.U Road
Chevy Chase MD 20615
(301)652-5964
September
cr apeu. Bay
Comn sslon
22
Deborah Blanton Han ton City
22 Ur o1n SL Hw ton, VA 23669(804)7774394
or Robert Dsan 1204 Shawn Drive
Vk’glrü Beach, VA 23456(804)4774106
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Elba Mcintosh
COASTWEEKS
Dep.rtrn.nt of Natural R.acurces
45* Estate Nlaky, SuIte 231
Si. Thomas Vi 00802
(809) T74.3320x-131 or 132
‘ °
David Parent
WASHINGTON September
15
°“
1119 PacIfic Averais
Tacoma, WA 98402
(206)753-5759
Ocean B.athes
Arlene Brooks
Pacific Northwest 4-Wheel Drive Association
September
15-16
21520 SE 346
A m, WA 98002
(206)833-8747
Joan Hauser-Crowe
Washington Stat. Pasts
7150 CIeawat.r Lane
OlylTçla, WA 98504
I
(206) 753-5759
INTERNATIONAL AND
INLAND BEACH CLEANUPS
CANADA
New Brunswick
m Saunders
September
New Brunswick Muum
777 Douglas Ave.
St. John, P4 5w BrunswIck
Canada E2K 1 ES
(506)658-1842
COZUMEL MEXICO
Gennin
P.O. BOX 391
COASTWEEKS
Cozunwi, OiAr w Roo
Ilrndco T7600
01 1 -6a-872 -1 232
Tini Early
ro
ILLINOIS & IN DIANA
ember 22
I
P.O. Box 414
Dolton, IL 60419
I
Coastal Connection
Summer l - -
-------
New Rules for a Clean Ocean
The final regulations for imple-
menting MARI’OL Annex V in
US. waters went into effect on
iuiy31,i 9G. Aithoughthe
dun ping of plastics by ships at
sea has been prohibited by Annex
V since December 31, 1988, these
regulations clarify the intent of
Annex V and will help all of us
who cruise the seas to comply
with its mandate.
All vessels at sea, from surf-
boards to tankers, must comply
with these regulations. Each
violation may result in a civil
penalty of $25,000 or a criminal
penalty of $50,000 and up to five
years imprisonment. If you
witness a violation contact the
Center for Marine Conservation or
your local Coast Guard office.
In addition, the regulations
require all vesseLs over 26 feet to
display a durable placard describ-
ing the restrictions of Annex V.
These placards must be displayed
in prominent locations and in suf-
ficient number so that crew and
passengers know and understand
the regulations Captains not
meeting these requirements can be
fined up to $25,000.
Vessels over 40 feet also need to
have a waste management plan in
place. The plan must name who is
in charge of the vessel and de-
scribe how garbage is handled to
meet the requirements of Annex
V. The Coast Guard may prevent
a vessel from sailing unless each
person handling garbage follows
the ship’s plan.
Examples of waste management
plans, placards summarizing the
dumping restrictions of Annex V.
and Observer Marine Pollution
Sighting Reports are all available
from NOAA’s Marine Debris In-
formation Offices, operated by
CMCs Washington, DC and San
Francisco offices. Also, sailing as-
sociations or marine industry or-
ganizations may order the Annex
V placard imprinted with your
group’s name in large quantities
for distribution to members. Call
CMC for details or a copy of the
MARPOL sticker shown above.
Alaska
Because of severe weather in the
fall, Alaska holds its annual
cleanup in the Spring. Volunteers
in at least seven Alaska coastal
communities participated in the
1990 cleanup. Many local, state,
and federal groups organized the
cleanup. Governor Steve Cowper
declared May the “Marine Litter
Cleanup Month.” Volunteers from
all parts of the state responded,
collecting trash and recording the
information on CMC data cards.
Alaska’s information will be in-
cluded in the 1990 Cleaning Amer-
ica’s Beaches, the next report of the
National Cleanup.
6,000 volunteers participated In “Clean the Bay Day” In the Chesapeake on
Jun. 9,1990. As part of this cleanup, participants sorted trash for a plastics re-
cycling demonstration project Trtmax Pastic Lumber of Long Island, NY will
donat, past benches rnad from the recycled plastics to oath cleanup location.
Summer 1990
Coastal Conne ’n
-------
cMcs Clean C ean Campaign Isupported by the Environmental Protectbn Agency, National Oceank and Atmospheric Admini-
stration, the Coundi for Solid Wt.Sohthons (a dlv ion of the Society of the Plestics Induatiy), the Sodety of the PIa.tia Industry,
Dow Chemical Company, Kettering owidatlon NAPCOR, and Patagonla. C M1 Cmviemiion ie produced by the Center for Marine
Comervation as part of the n Ocean Campaign. Layout by Jill Townsend. Contributing auth,ra R. Blerce, P. Dobenhaxn,
K. OHara , K. Patterson, aed B. Sabin. The Popeye 0 famIly 01990 KIng Features Syndicate,World Rights Reserved.
Center for Marine Conservation
1725 DeSales St., NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 429-5609
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
TIME:8/2/91-- 9:30-10:00 SUBJECT: Research & Development:
Strategy and Needs
ISSUE STATEMENT: What are the areas of research and technology
development needed by the regions and how can these be
incorporated into a comprehensive OCPD research strategy?
DISCUSSION POINTS:
Question #1 - What are the short-term and long-term needs of the
oceans and coastal programs from both a regional
and national perspective?
Examples : Chronic bioassay development, marine DO
criteria, overlapping discharge effects
biocriteria, population dynamics effects criteria,
tropical, arctic bioassay and bioaccumulation
protocols, and MSD impact assessment technology
Question #2 - How do we facilitate teamwork in implementing
these needs?
- Develop long-term research strategy
- Based on research strategy develop 3-year
plan of research and technology needs;
- Meet and agree with OR&D/OST on short-and
long-term needs/projects and work more
closely within OW Research Committee process;
- Develop planning and reporting strategies to
monitor project development.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION:
o Coordinate with Regions and continue with OWOW
initiative to develop comprehensive 3-year research and
technology initiative.
o Coordinate with Regions, OST, OR&D to develop short-
term and long-term needs for oceans and coastal
programs.
-------
, ,‘ ‘:‘r•
10:00AM Section 403, ocean Discharge Program
Friday, August 2 Extension Inside the Baseline?
Issue Statement: The l02 Congress has various bills to extend
the application of section 403 to waters inside the baseline of
the territorial sea ( i.e. , estuarine and some fresh waters). The
Agency needs to respond to Congress with a reconutiendation.
Background: As the l02 Congress is currently considering 403
extension, the lOl Congress also considered 403 extension to
estuarine waters. on 2/8/89, Congress requested information from
the Administrator on discharges to estuarine waters. The
Administrator’s response stated that the Agency would report
back. This report is in draft (6/26/90) awaiting an Agency
consensus on a recommendation to Congress. The report has
identified approximately 18-20K clischargers that could
potentially be affected by 403 extension to all estuarine waters.
Approximately 350 discharges (seaward of the baseline) are
currently subject to 403. All Agency statements to Congress thus
far have asked that the Agency be given discretionary authority
to use section 403 requirements for discharges inside the
baseline and if given discretionary authority, EPA would publish
guidance for 403 application inside the baseline.
Questions/Options:
Do the 403 regulations give us authority to be more protective
than water quality-based permitting?
Section 403 can be used as a tool: scientific, legal,
political, administrative.
Should the Agency recommend that 403 be applied on a mandatory
basis to any portion of estuarine waters?
No, section 403 requirements are useful in some cases but
would be burdensome and very resource intensive if
niandatorily applied to a given set of discharges.
Should the Agency continue to push for discretionary authority?
Pro: Flexibility to implement 403 on those discharges that
require monitoring and permit conditions not easily
achievable under other regulatory authorities.
Con: Complete discretionary authority, when applied, could be
viewed as arbitrary and capricious.
Should the Agency not bother with a recommendation and let
Congress decide without our input?
Recommendation for Further Action: Reach an Agency consensus on
this issue and complete the report to Congress concerning section
403 application to discharges in estuarine waters.
-------
JU! 2 99L
TIME: 8/2/91—10:00—10:30 ¶IOPIC: 403 Program: Planned activities
I :
Hc ’1 can iinp1 nt the 403 program to maximize its use as a scientific,
legal, political, aixi administrative tool?
Previc, s iinplen ntation of the program has been highly variable ar
differs an r regions. Until r& ntly little national leadership in program
ii lemantation has been deronstrated. The current schedule is to issue an
NP1 in 191; a prc osed rule in ‘92; ar a final rule in ‘93.
DISa IC i I )flhIS:
o Develop n re specific regulations definin9 ODCE teni arx decisiorimaking
er points:
o Work nore closely with:
- Delegated States
- Permits ard W
- QR&D
— Irdustrial discharges
o Regional acc ntability through 1AS ar SThi
o Allocate FY’92 res rces based on:
- ODCE review’ of permits
- Ongoing nonitorirq data review through OUES
- Cccperative projects with State or local agency(s)
- Research needs
o Techrology transfer/guidance, training, ar bards-on assistance for
Regions ard States
- ODCE training
- !‘ nitoring plans ard data analysis
- ODES
EN fl P URII1ER M flC1 :
o Q nsult ard brief Water Division Directors.
o Begin to fully inpl 1Ent national program as described above.
-------
JUL 2 5 I99
§301(h) Regulations Update
8chedu le
Jan 24 301(h) regulations proposed in Federal Register
Apr 15 Public comment period closed
Jun 11 301(h)/403 National meeting discussed the regulations
issues with 301(h) regional coordinators and OGC
Jul 8 Conference call with coordinators, 0CC, OWEC and OST
Next Steps
Aug Convene work group--Issues discussion; draft rule
4QFY91 Draft final rule to Work Group
1QF 92 Red Border
2QF192 0MB review
2QF192 Administrator sign-off
Expected Changes to Proposed Rule
Primary Treatment
Proposed Rule requires at least 30% removal each of BOD and
of SS, using monthly averaging
Options currently under consideration
o No change to Proposed Rule
o Variance on 30% requirement, as in secondary treatment,
regulations to allow special consideration for weak
in fluent
Urban Area Pretreatment
For POTWs serving greater than 50,000 population, proposed
rule requires applicable pretreatment requirement for all
toxics introduced to POTW, or secondary removal equivalency
demonstrated through the use of pilot secondary plant to
determine the amount of toxics to be removed.
Options currently under consideration
o No change
- Clarify applicability to all toxics introduced to POTW;
— clarify no penalty incurred through use of pretreated
influent
- Provide additional guidance in preamble and TSD
0 Apply only to toxics of concern
1
-------
Water Quality Criteria
Proposed rule requires meeting 304(a) (1) water quality
criteria, or directly corresponding state water quality
standards, at and beyond the boundary of the Zone of Initial
Dilution (ZID)
Options currently under consideration
Risk:
o Specify i06 incremental cancer risk level and
reference rule on national overriding standards for
toxics
Compliance Boundary:
o Apply state mixing zone policies, if any, to State
Standards, 304(a) (1) water quality criteria
o Apply state mixing zones to State Standards; ZID to
water quality criteria
Summary of Coinmenters
10 applicants/permittees--AK, CA, HI, MA, PR
2 States——AK, HI
3 Environmental/Public Interest Groups--NRDC, Ani. Oceans
Campaign, Trustees for Alaska
2 Consultants
2
-------
JUL 25 t99 1
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEF’S MEETING
OCPD SESSIONS
Time: Aug. 1, 1991, 2:00 pm Topic: Information Management
Issue Statement:
How can we influence and apply coastal and marine information
management for informed management decisions?
Background:
A Regional data use survey was conducted this year. Minimal
accountability for marine monitoring data was observed.
Centralized data management was minimal. Contractors conduct a
majority of the data analyses. EPA staff often lack the training
and time to interpret data.
OW policy requires NEPs to submit data to ODES. Few NEPs are
meeting this requirement. Some are building their own systems.
POTW’s with 301(h) waivers are required to monitor and submit data
to ODES. In some cases, monitoring is not done. In other cases,
data are submitted, reviewed for QA/QC, and then loaded onto ODES
for a final review by the permittee. The permittee is often slow
to complete this review process. Also, available data are often
not analyzed on an on-going basis. Analyses of five year’s data at
one time does not allow mid-course correction to monitoring plans.
No clear, comprehensive monitoring and data management plan is in
place for the 403 Program.
Questions/options:
How can we increase Regional capabilities for analyzing monitoring
data?
How can we ensure that data get into ODES and are reviewed in a
timely manner?
Are we selecting appropriate environmental indicators and
monitoring studies?
What changes in the ODES system or procedures do Regions need?
What marine/coastal data management needs would we like to see met
in STORET modernization? EMAP?
Recommendations for Further Action:
Provide Region—specific training opportunities (eg., Region 4
analysis of sediment toxicity data and benthic analysis).
Enforce NEP policy for ODES.
Clarify monitoring and data management goals for the 403 program.
Follow-up on 30 1 (h) POW data set reviews.
Contact K. Klima for input to STORET modernization executive
committee.
-------
ISSUE PAPER
FOR THE BRANCH CHIEFS’ MEETING
OCPD SESSION
AUGUST 2, 1991
Time: 11:30 am Topic: Ocean Dumping Workload Model
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The existing ocean dumping workload model emphasizes EIS
production and designation of ocean dumping sites.
BACKGROUND:
Management and monitoring activities at dredged material
sites need emphasis. Unfortunately, the existing model does
not stress the importance of permit review, site management,
and site monitoring. At the Monterey, CA, ocean dumping
coordinators’ meeting in February of 1991, validity of the
ocean dumping model was a major issue and the coordinators
agreed changes were needed to improve the model.
The opportunity to change the model does not always arise,
and if it does, the window typically is in a 2-3 week period
in March or April. Given the rapid turn-around required on
model changes, we need to begin identifying the issues and
seeking consensus now.
QUESTIONS/OPTIONS:
What process should we use to improve the model?
- rerun with new input (recent data)
- change model or modify existing one.
What are the quantifiable measures we can use to evaluate
management and monitoring at ocean dumping sites?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTION:
OCPD and the Regions should work to identify and agree on
needed modifications of the existing workload model.
If the opportunity is provided to make changes to the model
later in 1992, OCPD should seek to make the agreed-on
changes.
-------
7
-------
8
-------
9
-------
tfrmflW STATE D4W ONMeaAL PROTECT iON A 1CY
F ON I
841 che@nu Ouflig
Pt aadeW , Pmyfrfl 19107
SUBJECT: Regional Po ion for Upcoming OWOW DA t 7 - 17-9 1
Meeting
FROM: Richard Pep no, chief
Environmental Assessment Branch (3ES40)
Louise Wise
Director of Of fice of Policy & Communication (WK-556F)
We are forwarding two papers recently prepared that present
the Regional views on topics likely to be discussed at the
July 30 Branch Chief’s Meeting. We have presented our interest
itt discussing these topics during the development of the agenda
for the meeting, as well as during my personal interview with
Ginger. Though I do not think these topics are unique to
Region 3, I wanted to send these papers since they present at
least one regional perspective on issues that I am quite sure are
still being debated in Headquarters.
Feel free to use them during the meeting if you feel they
may enhance this discussion. Please feel free to call me at
597—1181 if I can be of assistance prior to or during the
meeting.
Attachments
-------
B 7rCmL 1ThE OV DREDCED tTERIP L
ckg round
In keeping with Agency policy to promote pollution prevention
and to encourage the recycling of material once thought of as
spoil, EPA Region III is promoting the concept of beneficial use as
it pertains to dredged material (hereafter referred to as
beneficial use). Beneficial use may be described as the recycling
of material dredged from navigation channels by using it to improve
the environment or as an economic resource. Environmental benefits
include island and wetland creation, habitat creation, beach
replenishment or other shoreline controls and underwater capping of
contaminated sediments. Economic opportunities include recycling
the material for use as construction material and placing the
material on roads as traction material.
In Region III alone there are over 100 federal navigation
channels that must be maintained for shipping in the major Atlantic
coastal ports of Norfolk, Baltimore and Philadelphia. In addition
to these large dredging projects, millions of cubic yards of
material are generated annually by individual projects.
Accomplishing the necessary dredging of shipping channels and
the preserving environmental guality are often seen as conflicting
goals. Environmental concerns, such as the loss of aquatic
resources and the potential for contamination, have begun to play
a significant role in the selection of disposal alternatives. This
factor, in combination with loss of available upland space, has
created a dearth of disposal options. In heavily populated areas
such as Region III the result is that large amounts of dredged
material, both clean and contaminated, have no place to call home.
The Army Corps of Engineers, however, is exploring the
prospects of utilizing dredged material as a resource and where
possible using it for a beneficial purpose. Beneficial use is
currently being explored in Region III by the Baltimore, Norfolk
and Philadelphia Districts. Both port and channeling maintenance
necessitate the dredging and disposal of millions of cul,ic yards of
dredged material annually. Presently most of the material dredged
in Baltimore and Iorfolk harbors is placed in containment
facilities. Both facilities, however, are nearing capacity. As a
result L.ong Term Management Strategies (LTNS) ar. being initiated
to deal with future disposal options.
-------
ii
Because beneficial use options are usually n ore costly due to
engineering constraints and transportation costs we feel that
districts will be less likely to seriously consider them as real
alternatives. EPA Region I II would like to promote the
consideration of beneficial use options for federal navigation
projects. We feel this may be best accomplished by creating a
Regional policy with the goal of achieving beneficial use projects
as the options of first choice when considering dredged u aterial
disposal.
ctio
EPA Region III is initiating an intra-regional task force with
the goal of integrating several sections within the Environmental
Services Division (Wetlands, Oceans and Estuaries and IEPA) as well
as the Chesapeake Bay Progran Office. The objective of the task
fcrce is to review, develop and implement beneficial use projects.
The primary focus of the projects is to achieve the resource
recovery objectives defined by the various section programs. A
secondary goal is to encourage the Agency to prepare an M A with
the Corps of Engineers that allows environmental gains to be
factored into the cost/benefit analysis of future dredging
projects.
-------
REGION III COASTAL PRC.(RAMS INTEGRATION
ISSUES FOR ThE OF1U OF WATER
BR [ EF1NG FOR La JUANA W1LO
JUNE 24, 1991
Region 1(1 is approaching coastal and estuarine protection in a comprehensive and
holistic manner. Our implementation of the National Estuary Programs (NEPs) is an
example of this new approach. As the NEPs enter the crucial stage of developing the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans, we see potential for innovative
approaches to geographic initiatives.
This approach offers several important opportunities for comprehensive
environmental improvement including 1) existing organization structure, 2) consensus
participation, 3) programmatic integration, and 4) holistic solutions.
CCMP Implementation :
Region lirs Tier II Estuary Programs, the Lnland Bays Estuary Program and the
Delaware Estuary ‘rogram, have begun the process of CCMP development. The Inland
Bays Estuary Program. a single state program has identified the actions to be included in
the CCMP which win be completed by October 1993. The Delaware Estuary Program, a
multi-State, bi-regional program, will develop a Prelimninaxy Conservation Management
Plan (PCMP) in FY 92. The CCMP is due October 1994.
The early targets for the development of the CCMPS reflect the high level of
comxriiunent in both programs by the signatories of the Conference agreements. EPA
commitment to the Federal-States partnership is responsible for this high level of
involvement. Conference participants in both programs are cognizant that CC? iP
implementation may not be funded by federal monies and are actively pursuing
alternative nandng mechanisms. Concerns regarding the lack of federal involvement after
CCMP developments have recently been voiced in both programs. The stales have
indicated that federal oversight will be critical in the implementation phase to ensure
cooperation within and among the state(s) by maintaining the Federal/State Partnerships
through federal human resource allocations, at the minimum. Headquarters must sc n
resolve EPA’s role in CCMP implementation to avoid widermioing co e1 w at this
critical stage.
The NEPs can serve as the prototype for Agency’s focus on watersheds as the
handle to effectively address pollution abatement and environmental restoration. Indeed
Re on III has used a streamlined NEP approach to acbieve success in the Canaan Valley
initiative. The success of the NEPs and the Administrator’s geographic Initiative is
dependent on EPA’s continued leader5hip. Leadership means more than providing funds.
1
-------
Leadership means sërtin nationally consistent, scientific and programmatic goals,
providing a forum for dispute arbitration across state and local boundaries and between
organizations, and establishing a rational process for prioritizing projects and allocating
funds in a climate of limited resources.
çeegraphk Initiatives and Bas&Prrgraxn Intezration
The Administrator of EPA has identified geographic initiatives as a priznaty focus
in strategic planning for future years A critical element of geographic initiative is the
difficult, yet very important, integration and coordination of base programs mandated by
environmental legislation. An effective mechanism to target the integration of these base
programs is through the National Estuary Programs (NEP) and Near Coastal Water
Programs (NCW).
Region [ II has several geographic initiatives including its two NEPs, the Chesapeake
Bay Program, its NCW program and the Cannian Valley project. These programs have
established boundaries, environmental goals and organizational structures critical to the
effective integration of base programs.
The NEP organizational structure is invaluable. Each of the programs has an
established management conference including federal, state, and local government
agencies, scientist, citizens, and the regulated community. Management conference
menibers are learning to understand and respect the objective and concerns of other
member organizations. Efforts to coordinate are expanding, and organizations are
becoming more willing to work together. This attitude is essential to the success of any
geographic targeted initiative and takes time and effort to develop.
Integration of base programs into these geographic initiatives is crucial. Because
of organizational boundaries and established priorities, however, existing base programs
are reluctant to focus on a particular estuary or watershed and its specific goals and
needs. EPA enforcement activities, regulatory and grants programs should share common
environmental goals within geographic areas. Environmental quality objectives should be
used to set goals for issues such as wetlands, non-point source pollution, combined sewer
overflows, pretreatment programs, as well as other initiatives such as pollution
prevention, risk managemnent and terrestrial habitat. Watersheds are the logical focus for
the ünegration of these base programs.
The framework of the NEP, the decision-making bodies of involved and affected
agencies and constituencies, can become the model process for management of the
nation’s watersheds. Simplifying the mobilization of base programs is necessary to bring
the goals of these geographic initiatives to fruition. ifowever, goals can only be achieved
if CCMPs arc given weight and credibility within EPA itself. Multi-media, multi-program
integration mandates coordination and cooperation. Headquarters must rally EPA base
2
-------
pr p aix to implement the conchisioi1 d l the NEPs.
[ ntegratjr Initiatives and Funding
Efforts to bring about real environrncntal improvements have created a confu.cing
array of new initiatives arid funding programs. For example, the geographic approach
applied in the National Estuaries Program has been overlaid with Coastal America, the
Watershed Initiative, and the Near Coastal Waters Implementation Programs. Projects are
often generated to use the various separate funding source rather than to implement
planned objectives. Regions and states have become sidetracked preparing proposals for
each new initiative, instead of completing geographic planning and implementation.
Headquarters should establish order by creating a reliable integrated funding mechanism
to sure that the money available is used to meet existing needs. This can be
accomplished by providing funds to each region and allowing for an internal prioritir.ation
process, or by developing national ranking system to allocate funds. In either case, a
systematic means of allocating scarce resources is imperative to achieve real
environmental benefits.
3
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Charlottesville, Virginia
July 30 - August 2, 1991
AGENDA
Prelude
Monday EvenIng. July 29
5:30 - 9:00 pm Registration
Salon C
________________ Reception
Day One
Tuesday. July 30
8:00 - 8:30 am Registration
Salon C Continental Breakfast
Joint Session
Salon C
8:30 - 9:15 am Welcome Wayland/Davis
Introduction
Meeting Objectives
OWOW Organization and Functions
9:15 - 10:15 am Customer Survey and Regional Discussion Regions/Wise
10:15 - 10:30 am Break
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
Customer Survey and Regional Discussion
10:30 - 11:30 am
11:30 - 12:00 pm Budget Davis
12:00 - 1:30 pm Lunch The Hardware
Store Restaurant
Keynote Speaker: Trevor Clements 316 E. Main St
North Carolina Division of Environmental On the Historic
Management Downtown Mall
1:30 - 2:30 pm Long Term Vision and Wayland/Davis
Short and Long Term Goals
Reorganization Implications
Common Challenges/Opportunities
Discussion
2:30 - 2:45 pm Break
2:45 - 4:30 pm Watershed Protection
WPI Wise
Regional Examples Man fredonia
Barriers and Incentives McGhee/Regions
4:30 5:30 pm Crosscutting Issues
CWA Wise
Outreach Eugster/
Pawlukiewicz
SAB/Habitat Grubbs
Agricultural Pollution Prevention
Waler Conservation Davis
5:30pm Adjourn
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and
Watershed
National
Program
Meeting
6:30 - 7:30 pm Social Hour
Atrium Room
7:30 pm Group Buffet Dinner
Atrium Room
Keynote Speaker: Trudy Coxe
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Day Two
Wednesday. July 31
8:00 - 8:30 am Continental Breakfast
Salon C
Joint Session
Salon C
8:30 - 9:30 am NPS/CZMA Grubbs
9:30 - 10:30 am Delineation Manual Meagher
10:30 - 10:45 am Break
10:45 - 11:45 am Sediment Strategy Lishman
11:45 - 12:45 am Lunch
on your own
Breakout
Sessions
12:45 pm Refer to the Division Agenda Division
Directors
Meeting room You will find the Division Agendas following this
assignments will agenda in your notebook.
be posted .
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
Day Three
Thursday. August 1
8:00 - 8:30 am Continental Breakfast
Salon C
Breakout
Sessions
8:30 - 10:15 am Refer to the Division Agenda Division
Directors
Meeting room You will find the Division Agendas following this
assignments will agenda in your notebook.
be posted.
10:15 - 10:30 am Break
Joint Session
Salon C
Remaining Issues and Action Items Wise
10:30 - 11:30 am
11:30 - 12:00 pm Wrap-up Regions/
________________ Way land
Breakout
Sessions
12.00 pm Options for the Division Directors Division
Refer to the Division Agenda Directors
Meeting room
assignments will You will find the Division Agendas following this
be posted. agenda in your notebook.
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed
National Program Meeting
Day Four
FrIday. August 2 (Optional for Division Directors)
8:00 - 8:30 am Continental Breakfast
Salon C
Breakout
Sessions
8:30 am Options for the Division Directors Division
Refer to the Division Agenda Directors
Meeting room
assignments will You will find the Division Agendas following this
be posted. agenda in your notebook.
-------
OCEANS AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Draft Agenda July 17, 1991
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division! Regions
Wednesday. July 3lJoint Session Leads
8:30 9:30 Non-poInt Source/Coastal Zone Management Act Grubb
9:30 .10:30 DelIneation Manual Meagher
10:30-10:45 Break
10:45-11:45 Sediment Strategy Lishman
Southerla nd
11:45- 12:45Lunch
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division Session Begins
12:45- 2:00 Introductory Comments and Regional Issues and
Meeting Expectations MIay/ Ba rsarn ian
2:00 - 3:30 National Estuary Program Curran/
Post CCMP Activities Region X
o Role of EPA in Implementation, e.g. Multi-state
estuaries.
o 320 ‘oversight-evaluatIon”
o Other resources; 319 et.al.
o EvaluatIon protocollhow to proceed.
New NEPs Curran/Barsamian
o Funding availability for new NEPs
o “Ultrasllmfast ” approach to CCMP development
Current NEPs Curran/Manfredonia
o Support activities
o OversIght activities
:o Funds management
o EarlIer date for plans and funds release
Coastal America Curran
o Status Report
o RevIew of FY91 Pilot projects
o Coastal America support other coastal programs, e.g. NCW.
3:30 - 4:30 Near Coastal Waters Program’ Soscia/Monahan
o Status of NCW Guidance and next steps
o Region I and X experlences-->guidance document
o Base Programs support of NCW Strategy Implementation
o NCW vs. Watershed Initiative: Relationship
OWOW ‘ .ilioaal Pogr. ,1cdi. Di fl OCPU i.g. I
Ji. y 30• A.pst Z. 99I Ji ,I , I 1 1)1
-------
4:30 - 5:30 OCPD - AWPD - Regions Round Table Discussions VogtlPepino
o CZM - relationship to OCPD and AWPD
o NPS Control Measures
o CoordInation/cooperation
o Information Management
o MonitorIng
Thursday
8:30 - 10:30 FY92 Planning Mlay
o Regional Input to HQ Workplan
-Process
-Areas for consultation
o Information Transfer
Joint Session
10:30 -11:30Remaining Issues and Action Items Vise
11:30 -12:OOWrap-up Regions/Wayland
Noon - 1:00 pm Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 OCPD - Wetlands Division - Regions Soscia/Eugster/
Round Table Discussions Crum
o Habitat enhancement
o Mitigation Banking
o Wetlands and the NEP
o CoordinatIon/cooperation
2:00 - 3:00 FY91-93 OCPD Budget Issues Mlay.Vogt
o FY91 Budget: Remaining issues
o FY92 Budget (See Plan)
o FY93 Budget Process: Initiatives - outlook
3:00 - 4:00 Ocean Dumping Lishman/Muir
o LTMS for Dredged Material/Beneficial Uses
o Status of Green Book/Regional Manuals
o CZMA Consistency/OD DesignatLons
:o National Marine Sanctuaries/DM Sites
o Site management and monitoring.
4:00 - 4:30 Marine Debris Strate r/ActIon Plans Redford/
Region II
O%SOW .altonul Pr 1 riw M ti.; Dralt UCI’L)
July30. Au uuI 2, 1991 J.,I. I 1)11
2
-------
Friday
8:30 - 9:00 ANDERSON K]imaf
o NCW and NEP Monitoring Region III
o Schedullng 2.3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting strategies
9:00 - 9:30 Outreach KJimaI
o Coastal Pollution Workshops Region [ V
o Beach Cleanups
o ANDERSON PR
o MechanIsms for transferring information?
9:30- 10:00 Research & Development Strategy & Needs Vogt/l-Lood
o Determining needs
o Working with ORD to keep on track
o NCW and NEP Monitoring
o Schedul(ng 2-3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting Strategies
10:00 - 10:30 403 Program: Planned Actions Kilmaf
o Moving 403 Inside the Baseline Region X
o Resource allocation/STARS
o ANPRM Schedule/Scope
o TraIning
10:30 - 11:00 Infonnatlon Management Klima/
o Status of ODES Region Vi
o What are needs/gaps Information management
o Use of ODES in NEPs, OD and 403(c) Programs
o Interface with ODES now that It Is not in OCPD
o Environmental Indices
11:00 - 11:30 Issues closure, review of action items, next steps. Mlay
11:30- 12:30 Ocean Dumping (Workload Model) LishmanlVogt/
Barsimian
Region4l Leads to be decided after consultation with Lead Region
and potential Regional co-leads.
Note: A briefing book to be provided in advance of the meeting.
3
-------
OCEANS AND COASTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Final Agenda
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division/Regions
LEAD
12:45- 2:00 introductory Comments and Regional Issues and
Meeting Expectations Mlay/Barsamian
2:00 - 3:30 National Estuary Program Curran/Rylko
Post CCMP Activities
o Role of EPA in implementation, e.g. Multi-state
estuaries.
o 320 “oversight-evaluation”
o Other resources; 319 et.al.
o Evaluation protocol/how to proceed.
New NEPs Curran/Barsamian
o Funding availability for new NEPs
o “Ultraslimfast” approach to CCMP development
Current NEPs Curran/Manfredonia
o Support activities
o Oversight activities
o Funds management
o Earlier date for plans and funds release
Coastal America Soscia
o Status Report
o Review of FY91 Pilot projects
o Coastal America support other coastal programs, e.g. NCW.
3:30 - 4:30 Near Coastal Waters Program Soscia/Monahan
o Status of NCW Guidance and next steps
o Region I and X experiences-->guidance document
o Base Programs support of NCW Strategy Implementation
o NCW vs. Watershed Initiative: Relationship
4:30 - 5:30 OCPD - AWPD - Regions Round Table Discussions VogtlPepino
o CZM - relationship to OCPD and AWPD
o NPS Control Measures
o Coordination/cooperation
o Information Management
o Monitoring
OWOW ? at,onal Procjam Meeling OCPI) Agenda
July30 AugusI 2, 1991 July 2 , 1991
I
-------
Thursd y
8:30 - 10:30 FY92 Planning Mlay
o Regional input to HQ Workplan
-Process
-Areas for consultation
o Information Transfer
Joint Session
10:30 -11:30Remaining Issues and Action Items Wise
11:30 -12:OOWrap-up Regions/Wayland
Noon - 1:00 pm Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 OCPD - Wetlands Division - Regions Soscia/Eugster/
Round Table Discussions Barsimia n/Crum
o Habitat enhancement
o State Wetlands Conservation Plans
o Wetlands and the NEP
o Coordination/cooperation
2:00 - 3:00 FY91-93 OCPD Budget Issues MIay-Vogt
o FY91 Budget: Remaining issues
o FY92 Budget (See Plan)
o FY93 Budget Process: Initiatives - outlook
3:00 - 4:00 Ocean Dumping LishmanlApp
o LTMS for Dredged Material/Beneficial Uses
o Status of Green Book/Regional Manuals
o CZMA Consi stency/OD Designations
o National Marine Sanctuaries/DM Sites
o Site management and monitoring.
4:00 - 4:30 Marine Debris Strategy/Action Plans Redford/Del Vicario
OWOW National Program Mee4ing OCPfl Agendo
July 30 - Auguul 2, 1991 July 25, 1991
2
-------
Friday
8:30 - 9:00 ANDERSON KIima/App
o NCW and NEP Monitoring
o Scheduling: 2-3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting strategies
9:00 - 9:30 Outreach Kilma/Crum
o Coastal Pollution Workshops
o Beach Cleanups
o ANDERSON PR
o Mechanisms for transferring information?
9:30 - 10:00 Research & Development: Strategy & Needs VogtlHood/DelVicario
o Determining needs
o Working with ORD to keep on track
o NCW and NEP Monitoring
o Scheduling: 2-3 year plan
o Planning and Reporting Strategies
10:00 - 10:45 403 Program: Planned Actions KJimaIRice
o Moving 403 inside the Baseline
o Resource allocatioiilSTARS
o ANPRM Schedule/Scope
o Training
301(h): An Update
10:45 - 11:15 Information Management KIlma/Horvath
o Status of ODES
o What are needs/gaps information management
o Use of ODES in NEPs, OD and 403(c) Programs
o Interface with ODES now that it is not in OCPD
o Environmental Indices
11:15 - 11:30 Issues closure, review of action items, next steps. M Iay
11:30. 12:30 Ocean Dumping (Workload Model) LishmanlVogt
OWOW Notional ProVam OCPD Agenda
July 3O - Auguul 2, 1991 July 2..,
3
-------
Now that we’re here, what do we do
about it? (Regional strategic
initiatives)
WETLAND DIVISION
NATIONAL PROGRAM MEETING
Draft Agenda
Monday Evening. July 29 - Prelude
5:30 —
Day 1.
Registration/reception
Tuesday. July 30
— — — -
8:30 — 5:30
6:30 — 7:30
7:30 —
Day 2.
OWOW Joint Session
OWOW Social Hour
OWOW Group Buffet Dinner
Wn d v Jj ].v 31
8:30 - 11:45 OWOW Joint Session
11:45 — 12:45 Lunch
Breakout Session
12:45 — 1:30
1:30 - 2:15 Agency planning/budgets/effects
of reorganization/etc
in a nutshell
2:15 - 3:45 Regional roundtable
3:45 4:00
4:00 6:00
Welcome/introductory comments
Meagher/
Lead Region
Meagher
Region 9,
Moderator
Break
Where are we and how did we
get here? (status updates on
DPC/Congress, including CWA
reauthorization/Reilly and LaJuana’ s
positions on categorization/etc.,
and discussion) Schwartz
7:30 - Wetlands Division Dinner
Day 3. Thursday. August 1
Breakout Session
8:30 — 10:15
Eugste r/
Pompon io
-------
10:15 — 10:30 Break
OWOW Joint Session
10:30 — 12:00 Remaining issues, action items
and wrap-up
Breakout Session
12:00 — 1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 OCPD/WD Joint Session (habitat
enhancement, mitigation banking,
wetlands/NEP, coordination/ Crum/Eugster
cooperation) /Soscia
2:00 - 3:15 Where have we been told we will
be going? (categorization; mitigation
banking; Manual; created wetlands;
section 404 assumption; state Eugster/
wetland comprehensive plans) Peck
3:15 — 3:45 Break
3:35 - 4:45 Example of approach to field
testing the Manual Region 3
4:45 - 6:15 What can we do while we’re here?
(elevated cases; enforcement;
delineations; getting better, more
specific data; public outreach;
working with states/locals; working
with other programs) Peck/Eugster
/Vodehnal
8:00 - Open discussion on Manual and
any other issues raised/beer bash
Day 4 Friday. August 2
Breakout Session
8:30 - 10:00 Where do we want to go? (ORD
research plan; beyond the
strategic initiative) Group/ORD
10:00 - 11:30 Wrap—up (action items, etc.) Schwartz
11:30 - 12:00 Good—byes
-------
ASSESSMENT AND WATERSHED PROTECTION DIVISION
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JOINT MEETING
DaY 2, Wendesday. July 3j
12:45 - 1:15 OST/OWOW Coordination Hanlon/Grubbs
1:15 - 2:30 Monitoring and Assessment Jester/Regions
o Indicators/EMAP
o Inter-Agency Coordination
o Data Systems Modernization
2:30 — 2:45 Break
3:00 - 4:30 Nonpoint Source Program Weitman/Regions
o Grants: Buying better results
o National NPS monitoring projects
o Tracking/accountability
4:30 - 5:30 Joint Session with OCPD
Day 3, Thursday 1 Auq ust 1 ,
8:00 - 9:45 Water Quality Criteria Stasikowski
and Standards /Leutner
o criteria: Current program, future needs
o Toxics Rule
o Implementation Issues
9:45 - 11:00 Watershed Program Grubbs/Han lon
o TMDLs
o Targetting
o Regibnal WPIs
-------
PROPOSED
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
-------
PROPOSED
—3—
(a ,) Wetlands. Oceans, and Watersheds5ranch - Provides program
policy and technical direction of the Regional Dredge and Fill
Permits, Non-point Source Control, Water Quality Monitoring,
Watershed Protection Programs and the Coastal Protection Programs.
( ) Wetlands Re ulatorv Section - This Section consists
of the Wetlands North Regulatory Unit and the Wetlands South
Regulatory Unit. This Section is responsible for managing the
Region’s permitting and enforcement activities associated with the
Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands protection program. This
Section also provides review of projects associated with Section 10
of the Corps of Engineers’ Rivers and Harbors Act. This Section
interprets and implements regulations and guidelines governing permit
and enforcement actions pertaining to Clean Water Act Section 404.
(1) Wetlands South Re ulatory Unit - This Unit is
responsible for all Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting and.
enforcement i t t the states of Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. The
specific duties of the Unit include: review and preparation of
written/verbal comments on Section 404 permit applications, letters
of permission, and cease and desist orders distributed by the Corps
of Engineers in the states of Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Projects associated with Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
also receive review and corunent, if appropriate. Responsibilities
also include meeting with applicants to discuss projects; initiation
and follow—up of enforcement actions associated with illegal
discharge of fill material; surveillance to identify illegal fills,
and determination of the Section 404 jurisdiction.
(2) Wetlands North. Recul.atorv Unit — This Unit is
responsible for all Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting and
enforcement in the states of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Kentucky and Tennessee. The specific duties of the Unit include:
review and preparation of written/verbal comments on Section 404
permit applications, letters of permission, and cease and desist
orders distributd by the Corps of Engineers in the states of
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Tennessee. Projects
associated with Sectiozi 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act also receive
review and coent, if appropriate. Responsibilities also include
meeting with applicants to discuss projects; initiation and follow-up
of enforcement actions associated with illegal discharge of fill
material; surveillance to identify illegal tills, and determination
of the Section 404 jurisdiction.
(b) Coastal. Proarams Section - The Coastal Programs
Section serves as a focal point in Region IV to protect, restore, and
enhance the region’s coastal and marine environment. The Section
implements the National Estuary Program, the Near Coastal Waters
Program, the Ocean Disposal program and the Clean Water Act Section
403c program. The Section serves as the coordination point for EPA
Region IV programs and other agency activities to
and marine environment.
-------
PROPOSED
—4—
(1) Coastal Planning Unit - The Coastal Planning Unit
has responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act Section 320
National Estuary Study program and the Near Coastal Waters Program.
The Unit serves as the coordination point for EPA programs affecting
Region I v ’s coast and works closely with other federal, state and
local programs to focus and integrate planning activities and
management attention to achieve comprehensive geographically targeted
planning for protection of coastal. resources.
(2) Coastal Regulatory Unit - The Coastal Regulatory
Unit serves as a focal point for Regional regulatory activity in
Region Iv’s marine waters. The Unit implements the Clean Water Act
Section 403c program; the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries
Act ocean disposal program; the Marine Debris program and the coastal
contaminated sediments program. The Unit serves as the coordination
point for EPA programs affecting Region IV’s coast and works closely
with other federal, state and local programs to focus and integrate
regulatory activities and management attention to achieve a
comprehensive approach to protection of marina resources.
(C) Watershed Protection Section - The Section consists of
wetlands planning, wasteload allocation/T L, water quality
monitoring, non-point sources, clean lakes, and watershed initiative
programs.
(1.) Wetlands Planning Unit - Performs planning and
other non-regulatory activities that improve protection of important
wetland resources. Identifies geographic areas or developmental
pressures which historically or currently have resulted in a
significant loss of wetland resources. Develops and implements plans
and strategies to assure that future significant losses are
minimized, to restore damage wetland and aquatic systems, and to
create new wetland systems where wetland losses cannot be avoided.
Additional responsthilitias include: design and implement advance
planning studies, administer grant program to state. for wetlands
program develop .nt, provide policy and technical guidance to state
and local ag.nct.a on wetlands issues; identify wetlands unsuitable
for develorm,ut and initiate predesignation (404(c)) procedures, and
develop an outxsach and education program.
(2) Assessment and Allocation Unit - This
Unit manages Region I v ’s monitorinj and assessment, wasteload
allocation and load allocation (T WL) programs and provides technical
support to other Regional programs on water quality issues. The
Unit’s functions includes development of guidance on pollutant load
allocations; review/develop water quality based NPDES permit limits
for State/EPA issued permits; evaluation of State monitoring and
assessment programs; development of monitoring initiatives;
evaluation of 305 (b) reports; and, coordination of STORET data
input.
-------
—5—
Proposed
(3) Watershed Unit - Manages water quality in Region
IV states with special emphasis on geographic initiatives, nonpoint
source pollution, interagency cooperation and grants management.
This Unit’s functions include: management of Region IV geographic
and watershed initiatives, Nonpoint Source and Clean Lakes programs;
overview of State water quality management programs; grants
management for assigned programs; and provision for interagency
cooperation in water quality management programs.
The Associate Division Director for Groundwater and Facilities
reports to the Division Director and provides direct supervision to
the branch chiefs in Ground Water Protection Branch and Municipal
Facilities Branch.
(5) Ground-Water Protection Branch - Responsible for the
development, coordination, implementation and evaluation of several
of the Region’s ground-water related programs, including the
Underground Injection Control (U1C), Underground Storage Tanks (UST),
and Ground-Water Protection Programs.
(a) Underground Storage Tank Section - Responsible for the
development and implementation of policies and procedures that
regulate underground storage tanks. Functions include: award and
oversight of state regulatory grants; review and approval of state
programs; and responsibility for programs not accepted by states.
Technical expertise and assistance are provided to states to support
state efforts in regulating such tanks. Enforcement actions are
taken against violators of the UST Program. Responsible for the
administration of the UST Trust Fund.
(b) tiridercround Iniection Control Section - Responsible
for the regional coordination and implementation of the UIC Program
in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The
responsibilities include: permitting and compliance activities in
non-delegated states; oversight of such activities in delegated
states; and raviev of primacy applications from states seeking
programs. The Ssction negotiates work plans and grants with states
for UIC activities The UIC Section also manages contract assistance
provided to au nt resources and administers the Federal UIC
program.
(1) ComQiiance and Enforcement Unit - Responsible for
compliance and enforcement in delegated as well as non-delegated
states. initiates enforcement against violators.
(2) Permits Unit - Responsible for the permitting
function of the EPA-administered UIC Program in those states which do
not have an EPA-authorized UIC Program. Takes the lead in
overviewing delegated programs, and coordinating such activities with
the compliance and enforcement unit.
-------
REGION IV WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
GOAL
It is the goal of the Region IV Watershed Protection
Initiative to reduce ecological and human health risks in
critical watersheds through a holistic watershed management
approach.
-------
REGION IV WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
OBJECTIVES
1. Identify Watersheds and Use Impairments
2. Define Problems, Causes and Sources
3. Develop Control Strategies (i.e TMDLs)
4. Implement Point and Nonpoint Source Controls
5. Develop Indicators of Success
6. Develop Ecological Criteria
-------
REGION IV WATERSHED PROTECTION INITiATIVE
WATERSHED SELECTION CRITERIA
1. Human Health and Ecological Risk
2. Possibility of Additional Degradation
3. Value of the Watershed
4. Likelihood of Success
5. Coordination with Other Agencies
6. Resource Needs (Cost)
7. Data Needs (New vs Existing)
8. Implementability
-------
REGION IV WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIAITVE
IDENTIFiCATION OF PRIORITY WATERSHEDS
• 303(d) Lists
O 305(b) Reports
• 304(l) Lists
• 319 Assessment and Management Reports
• NEP Assessments and Action Plans
• Region IV Near Coastal Waters Strategy
-------
REGION IV WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIAITVE
SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES
1. Designate a Coordinator
2. Describe Watershed Problems
3. Delinoate Scope and Goals
4. Form Region IV Watershed Team
5. Assemble and Evaluate Information
6. Form External Coordinating Committee
7. Maintain Communication
-------
REGION IV WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIAITVE
SEQUENCE OF ACTIVITIES
8. Identify Activities and Milestones
9. Develop a Watershed Management Strategy
- Form consensus on issues
- Develop TMDLs
- Develop action plans
- Identity data gaps
- Initiate cooperative efforts
- Leverage resources
- Set base program priorities
10. Conduct Further Characterization
11. Implement Action Plans
-------
REGION IV WATERSHED PROTECTION INITIATIVE
RESOU RGES
• Near Coastal Waters Program
• 319 Nonpoint Source Grants
• Clean Lakes Program
• Water Quality Monitoring Grants
• Wetland Advanced Identifications
• Coastal America
• Regional Discretionary Funds
• Other Federal and State Agencies
-------
The
Merrimack River
Initiative
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
New England lidersiateWater ñllution Control Comnission
Matsachs& etts Department of Environmental Protection
New Hampshire I)epartment of Environmental Services
-------
‘l’he Resource
The Memniack River is formed by the confluence of the
Pemigewasset and Winnipesaukee Rivers. It flows 118
miles through cities, towns, suburbs, and rural communities
i from the White Mountains in northern New Hampshire to
the Atlantic Ocean at Newburyport in northeastern Massa-
N chusetts. The river provides drinking water forover 300,000
people, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, fisheries,
hydropower and waste assimilation. The Merrimack River
watershed encompasses 5,010 square miles and includes all
or part of 200 towns in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
76% of the watershed falls in New Hampshire and 24% falls
in Massachusetts.
The Challenge
The Merrimack River watershed faces a variety of threats including:
• occasional discharges of inadequately treated sewage
• industrial and toxic pollution
• urban storm water runoff
• land development resulting in
- increased demand for water
- increased density of septic systems
- increased use of lawn chemicals
- loss of wetlands and wildlife habitat
• differing state standards and regulations
Much of the federal government’s role has been to regulate pollution
sources and provide financial assistance for wastewater treatment plants.
This has accomplished much in the past 20 years. In the 1960’s the
Merrimack Riverwas considered among the lOdirtiest rivers in America.
Today, over two decades and one half a biHion dollars in Federal and
State expenditures later, the river is much cleaner. But the job isn’t over.
Now, the role of local it is critical. Local land use decisions,
localbylaws,andloeal decision-making form the
web of protection for the river and its watershed..
To ensure that the Merrimack River is pro-
tected and properly managed, all levels of gov-
ernment (federal, state, local), regional agen-
cies,privateinterest groups, environmental
groups, and the general public must work
tegether.
-------
The Overall Goal of the Initiative:
To restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of the River and its watershed to meet existing and
future mulliple uses.
Specific goals include:
I) Protect water supplies and improve water quality
- manage existing pollution sources (compliance, enforcement)
- prevent future pollution (pretreatment, source reduction)
- protect natural habitats
2) ate data management and geographic information systems
3) improve coordination
- formal agreements
- work groups and committees
- outreach and education
- an annual work plan
4) Plan for the future of the watershed
- emergency response planning
- water supply planning
- examining minimum instrearn flow issues, and
- managing potentially conflicting uses of the river.
The Solution: A Joint Effort
The Merrimack River Initiative began in 1988 with an agreement between
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New Hampshire, Massachu-
setts and the NewEngland Interstate WaterPollutionControl Commission.
The initiative serves as a catalyst and a fbcal point for bringing agencies
together on critic$ i ues teçJ çç . yaj r qu4ity and water supply in the
Merrimack R iveiBa .sñ. This initiative allows us to step badc and êxami ñê
the Merrimad R v r 4 tMhedt M t a a &41ection’ofdischarge peñnits
or uctioh gran fs bu t t as a’thngiè tcolcfgichl .sy tem.
Th ative also is an opportunity to integrate
ext_. 0 programs. A work group, made up of
representativei fmfiüfedeml statet aftd local 1 goiv
ernments, ahdftgioiial4 and citizen igmups, :w s
formed to help guide the initiative.
-------
The initiative is broad and multi lacetteti An annual work plan is prepared
to locus the initiative bydelining specific objectives to meet the goals. To
help coordinate efforts among various agencies and levels of government
the Menimack River Watershed Council prepared a diiectory of activi-
ties in the watershed. EPA will work with the Council to update the
directory continually and use it as a vehicle for coordination.
How jypgcan get involved:
There is much be done and your help is needed.
Does your community have water supply protection bylaws 1 setbacks
along river corridors, household hazardous waste collection?
[ )o you practice water conservation?
Is there a sense of natural resowvc ste wardship in your community?
Do you voice support for water resowees n nagcntnt at the statt
legislature?
Are you involved in the river watcher netwtxt?
There are tinny possible projects that tie into the initiative - ewything
Itoin a wout troop project to clean up the river bank to t e S S citizens
doing a land use inventory for aquifer protection.
\/
For information or referral to Mate, regional or local
agencies contact
Merrimack Initiative Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protedion Agency
Region l , Water Management Division
IF. Kennedy Building, Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3MM ) or 565-3563
• - - - -t — - —
— . - — — - - • ta-.s-. - :t_r z —a--.
- a 1 2 _ r =T
-------
Merrimack River Initiative
Projects Underway at EPA FY 91
March 1991
Tracking discharge data for the 62 major wastewater dlschargers
Discharge monitoring reports are reviewed monthly to identify instances of
significant non-compliance. A llst of violators is produced to identify candidates
for enforcement actions. Strategies are developed to return violators into
compliance.
Issue Administrative Orders
Based on the list of violators identified above appropriate cases are chosen to
issue administrative orders to with compliance schedules.
Tracking the Federal Consent Agreement for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Control In Lowell
The City of Lowell and EPA are negotiating a schedule for completion of the
CSO facilities plan, and the design and construction of CSO facilities.
Toxicity Testing on Non Contact Cooling Water Discharges
The non-contact cooling water discharge from twenty facilities that discharge to
the Merrimack River will be tested to evaluate toxicity. As of March, six facilities
have been tested. This will assist in prioritizing reissuance of discharge permits
and assessing the situation.
Pretreatment
EPA is pursuing approval of industrial pretreatment programs, developing
technical base local pretreatment limits, increasing Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure inspections and holding pretreatment workshops in the
Merrimack watershed.
IndustrIal Pollution Prevention Initiative
EPA has received a pollution prevention grant to demonstrate pollution prevention
at industrial facilities, specifically at high tech metal finishers on the Merrimack
River. The project will demonstrate methods and incentives for preventing
pollution through process change and product substitution.
-------
Community Stormwater Management Project
Based on potential pollutant loading, four communities in the Mernmack
Watershed (Lawrence, Methuen, North Andover, and Newburyport) have been
selected in which stormwater management plans will be prepared as protoptypes.
Assess Merrimack River Organics Load to Massachusetts Bay
The Massachusetts Bays Program will be funding a project to collect water
samples throughout the year (beginning in the summer of 91) and analyze for
selected organics, such as PAH or PCB, to estimate loading of organics to
Massachusetts Bay. A Request for Proposals was issued in February 1991.
Communication Network for an Emergency Response Plan
EPA will be assisting MA and NH in the preparation of a communication network
for an emergency response plan. As a first step MA and NH will be prepanng
a joint proposal for EPA funding to assist with the project.
Wetlands Mapping In New Hampshire
Identity important wetlands in the 1000 square mile of so. central NH. that was
mapped last year using GIS. Work with local conservation commissions in this
area to protect important wetlands.
GIS and Data Management
Work with MA, NH and other federal agencies to get land use/land cover
mapping for the Merrimack watershed. Continue to explore various G 1S
applications.
Watershed Management
Develop a watershed management proposal for Merr rnack River watershed for
FY 92 that includes a new structure for the initiative and directions for watershed
management.
- -
For additional information on these projects call Tnsh Garngan, Merrimack River
qpp ina tpç, J.S. Enyironmental Protection Agency (617) 565-3563.
-------
(O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RE G1ON I
J F KENNEDy FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON, H*SSAC)IUSETTS 02203-221 1
“ ‘ua’
MERRIMACK RIVER INITIATIVE
Background
The Merrimack River basin is the fourth largest river basin in New England. It drains
an area of 5,010 square miles, 76% of it is in New Hampshire and 24% is in
Massachusetts. The Merrimack River flows 1 18 miles from the White Mountains of
New Hampshire to the Atlantic Ocean at Newburyport, Massachusetts. It is the dnnking
water source for over one quarter at a million people. In 1988, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and the New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission signed an agreement to participate in the
Merrimack Initiative. The goal of the initiative was to develop an action plan focused
on irrproving and protecting water quality of the Merrimack River System and to
implement the recommendations proposed by the action plan. All participants agreed
that their collective focused efforts on the Merrimack River would likely result in better
identification and implementation of water quality control activities.
A Merrimack River workgroup comprised of representatives from the numerous
agencies and organizations with responsibilities and interest in the restoration,
protection and preservation of the Merrimack River was established. This work group
provides a forum to exchange information and coordinate initiative activities.
With very limited resources, the Merrimack River workgroup has influenced
accomplishment of numerous environmentally Important activities. Such as:
• New Hampshire passed the Rivers Management and Protection Act and
designated several Merrimack nver segments under the act for protection and
study
o Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection completed a report
entitled “A Massachuset Mernmac River Water Supply Protection Initiative”
The document is a compilation ol existing data and information used to assess
the relative impacts of various pollutant sources to the river.
• The Merrimack River Watershed Council completed a video and a draft of the
Merrimack River Directory. This directory includes descriptions of over 130
projects going on in the watershed.
o EPA focused water and wetland enforcement efforts in the Merrimack Basin and
completed toxicity testing of each major discharge to the Merrimack River
• Nine major municipal and industrial pei mits werejssued, many —cofttainrng1 xiC
limits, and toxicity testing requirements
EPA completed a geographic information ..system ground i ater büices
mapping effort in the Nashua Regional Planning Area
-------
The Initiative
During the 1 990’s there will be a increasing constraints on the Mernmack River System
with each new dnnking water withdrawal, with dam drawdown, with increasing need for
waste assimilation and increases in recreational use of the river. Water quality is no
longer the only issue to be addressed. The challenge that faces initiative participants
is to look beyond the river to the entire watershed, to consider water supply and water
use issues, to explore non-regulatory controls as well as regulatory, and to work closely
with local and regional governments.
The overall goal of the initiative is.
To restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
the watershed and river system to meet existing and future multiple uses
(drinking water supply, waste assimilation, hydropower, recreation, wildlife
habitat and flood control).
Specific goals are developed on a continuing basis to address threats or fulfill needs
to meet the overall goal For 1990 - 1992 the following goals have been identified
1 Protect water supplies and improve water quality of the Merrimack River through
managing existing pollution sources (compliance, enforcement, pretreatment) and
preventing future sources of pollution.
2 Focus efforts on integrating a data management system and geographic
information system. Setting up a mechanism to ensure information transfer
3 Improve coordination among federal, state, regional and local agencies by
developing formal agreements, establishing additional work groups; doing
outreach, and preparing the annual action plan
4 Plan for the future of the watershed. This will include: emergency response
planning, water supply planning, examining minimum instream flow issues, and
examining potentially conflicting uses.
Specific objectives to meet these goals will he listed in the action plan which is
currently under preparation.
The initiative serves as a catalyst- ‘ ‘foc 1 pôii t fpr ringip tl e,
Massachusetts ‘and New Hampshire as well ,as federal,: regional
together on critical issues related to water qüa ity and t r supply.Jn,.tf e 1 kr a c
River Basin
For more information on the Merririiack Initiative, please ’call . .Bob Mendo a.(617)
565-3600 or Trish Garrigan (617) 565 356a at the U.S Environmental Proteotion,
Agency in Region 1, Boston, MA.
-------
OWOW National Program Meeting
Region I Region Vi ! Joe Hall
Bill Butler Larry Ferguson James Hanlon (OST)
David Fierra Kerry Herndon Elizabeth Jester
Bart Hague Diane Hershberger Karen Klima
Ron Manfredonia John Lyon (OE)
Rosemary Monahan Region VIII Menchu Martinez
Don Porteous Dale Vodehnal John Meagher
Douglas Thompson Jeanne Melanson
Region IX Marian Mlay
Region 11 Loretta Barsamian Steve Neugeboren (OGC)
Daniel Montella Catherine Kuhlman John Pai
Mario Del Vicario Philip Oshida Greg Peck
Robert Vaughn Tom Young Cliff Rader
Amy Zimpfer Suzanne Schwartz
Region III Mary Lou Soscia
Charles App Region X Betsy Southerland (OST)
Victoria Binetti Ron Lee Craig Vogt
Barbara D’Angelo Michael Rylko Robert Wayland
John Forren Richard Sumner Dov Weitman
Richard Pepino Tom Wilson Lori Williams
Randy Pomponio Catherine Wimer (OGC)
Headquarters Louise Wise
Region IV Tom Armitage
Wesley Crum Don Brady NOAA
Doug Upka Rick Brandes (OWEC) Trudy Coxe
Mike McGhee William Brartdes
Tom Welborn Trevor Clements (North Carolina)
Mark Curran
Region V Joseph Davia
Thomas Davenport Tudor Davies (OST)
Doug Ehorn David Davis
Ken Fenner Steve Dressing
Glenn Eugster
Region VI Rod Frederick
Russell Bowen Mike Britz
Beverly Ethridge Will Ga’rvey
Richard Hoppers John Goodin
George, Horvath Geoffrey Grubbs
-------
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
National Program Meeting
AGENDA
QUICK REFERENCE
Prelude, Monday EvenIng. July 29
5:30 - 9:00 pm Registration/Reception
Salon C
Day One, Tuesday, July 30
8:30 - 12:00 pm OWOW Joint Session
Salon C
12:00 - 1:30 pm Lunch with
Keynote Speaker Trevor Clements
The Hardware Store
Restaurant
1:30 - 5:30 pm OWOW Joint Session
Salon C
6:30 pm Social Hour & Group Buffet Dinner
Atrium Room
Keynote Speaker: Trudy Coxe
Day Two, Wednesday. JUly 31
8:30 - 11:45 pm OWOW Joint Session
Salon C
11:45 - 12:45 am Lunch, on your own
12:45 - 5:30 pm Breakout Sessions
AWPD/OST Joint Session from 12:45-5:30 pm
Meeting room
assign ,nents will be
posted.
OCPD/AWPD/OST Joint Session from 4:30-5:30
Day Three, Thursday. Auaust 1
8:30 - 10:30 pm Breakout Sessions
AWPD/OST Joint Session from 8:00 - 11:00 am
Meeting room
assignments will be
posted.
10:30 - 12:00 pm OWOW Joint Session - Wrap-up
Salon C
12. 0O - pm Breakout Sessions
OCPD/WD Joint Session from 1:00 - 2. 00 pm
Meeting room
assignments will be
posted.
Day Four, Friday. Auaust 2
8:30 - 1230 am Breakout Sessions
OCPD and WD only
Meeting room
assignments will be
posted.
-------
RICHARD 0. HOPPERS, P.E.
CHIEF, WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BRANCH
REc ION 6
While in high school, I worked for a consulting engineer and
decided to pursue a care.r in civil engineering. In pursuit of
this goal, I graduated from Texas A&M.
After graduation I was commissioned into the U.S. Army Artillery,
where I spent time a forward observer, fire direction officer
and Battery executive officer. This was where I really learned
to appreciate the comforts of civilization without wild animals
trying to share my food and sleeping bag.
After the celebration of being released from active duty, I went
back to the consulting engineering business (racket). While
there, I worked with cities in planning, designing and
constructing, water and wastewater treatment facilities.
While working as a consultant, I decided I wanted to get more
Involved In the environmental area and also move to the federal
sector. So, In 1966, I went with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration in Dallas, working in the Construction
Grants Program.
In 1969, I left the federal service to join Electronic Data
Systems (EDS) owned by Ross Perot. While working for EDS I did
some engineering work, had a very large exposure to the computer
industry and did not see much of my family. I gained about four
years experience In the two years I was then, working in
Minneapolis, New York and Dallas.
In 1971, I returned to EPA RegIon 6 to the construction grants
program. This program was then gearing up big time and was very
exciting, working with cities, consultants, Contractors,
equipment suppliers and the public to build wastewater treatment
facilities. I was involved In the transition of the program from
an EPA grant program to a delegated state grant program, to the
state revolving fund loan prograni. It was during this time that
I received an M.B.A. from Southern Methodist University.
In August of 1990, I moved to the Water Quality Management Branch
In Region 6. Programs in this branch Include water quality
standards, water quality management activities, nonpoint source,
the marine & estuarine programs, and I am enjoying It.
My wife Suzann.(lst grade teacher) and I have two boys, & college
senior and high school junior who are both in all sorts of
activ tios (all l•gal). Our family activities include Church,
sailing, backpacking, camping and paying bills.
TOTAL P.02
-------
07/29/1991 07:24 FROM EPA ESD TO 92453960 P.03
BEVERLY £THRIDGE
Chief, Technical Assistance SectIon, Region 6
Educational Background: ES Biology University southern
Mississippi (USM)
MS Environmental Planning (USM)
Related Graduate Work - Mississippi
State Univ; CA State Univ.
Work Background: Served as the Environmental Coordinator for the
Stennis Space Center, Bay St. Louis, until 1978; involved with
broad array of environmental issues — from mosquitoes to wetlands
for waste processing.
Joined EPA in 1980 in its Wetlands Program, Region IV office.
Spent 1987 through first of 1991 in the world of Nonpoint Source,
including a detail to Washington where I co-authored national
guidance linking UPS/Wetlands program activities. Served on a
number of Task Forces, Workgroups, etc., including, most recently,
co-chairing subgroup to prepare CZMA-NPS management measures.
In May, 1991, moved to Region 6 as Chief of its Wetlands program.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JJL 29 i99j
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Proposed OWOW Regional Program Review .7
FROM: Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Off ice of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds —‘
TO: Regional Water Management Division Directors
Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Policy and Management, Region VII
As you may know, we recently conducted a survey of your staff
on how we can improve our services to you. Their responses were
candid, thoughtful and constructive. One of the recommendations
your staff made in responding to the survey was that we should
reinitiate the Regional program review process. We agree and, for
this reason, would like to share with you our thoughts on a
proposed process.
We propose that OWOW managers visit every Region over the next
18 months in teams that would be comprised of representatives from
each of OWOW’s Divisions. The primary purpose of these visits
would be to provide an opportunity for early consultation on how to
improve services, identify successes to export to other Regions,
and to evaluate overall strengths and weaknesses. Each team would
be led by a Division Director who would oversee arrangements with
the Region and the preparation of a report following the visit.
Dave Davis or I would personally accompany the team for several of
these visits (particularly visits to the lead and sublead Regions).
In large part, we would rely on OWAS as a guide in conducting
discussions during these visits, but would also take the
opportunity to review issues of concern not reflected in OWAS when
appropriate.
Attached is a more detailed outline of the process I am
proposing. Please review and let me know if you have conunents or
concerns by August 20. We would like to begin the process in
September 1991.
Attachment
Prii’ .ted i Recycled Paper
-------
Proposed OWOW Regional Program Review Plan for F191/92
1. The purpose of the review will be to provide an opportunity
for early consultation and an exchange of ideas and
perspectives on how to improve services, identify successes to
export to other Regions, evaluate overall strengths and
address weaknesses.
2. It is our intention to visit each Region once every 18 months
and to examine all OWOW programs at each visit.
3. The Regional Review Team will be led by a Division Director
with members from the other two Divisions and the Immediate
Office as appropriate. For example, OCPD may not want to
visit Regions 7 and 8.
4. The Team leader will have the following responsibilities:
o Set up the schedule and agenda with the host Region and
the Team members. The agenda should be based in large
part on OWAS.
o Hold pre-visit meeting with OD/DOD and Team members on
the specifics of the visit.
o Conduct the visit with Team members and synthesize
information from program reviews.
o Brief the OWOW managers in staff meeting on results of
the visit.
o Coordinate with the DDs in responding to OWOW issues
raised by the host Regions.
o Prepare review report, including OWOW responses to issues
raised by the host Region, and success and opportunities
for improvements in OWOW and the host Region.
o Distribute the report to OD/DOD, DDs and the host Region
within 2 weeks after the visit for comments. The final
report will also be provided to OW for use by AA/DAA.
5. The Team members will have the following responsibilities:
o Support the Team leader as requested or necessary.
o Work with their respective DD and Regional counterparts
to identify potential issues for agenda items.
o Conduct program review, take notes and exchange
information.
o Brief their respective DD upon return from the visit.
-------
o Assist the Team leader in the preparation of the review
report.
6. OD/DOD will visit 3-5 Regions with the DDs in the next 6
months beginning in September 1991.
7. OD/DOD will not participate in the program review sessions,
but will engage with the Regions in discussing broad
OWOW/Regional issues and will meet with the DD and Team at the
end of the visit to review conclusions.
8. To maintain some consistency for reporting improvements within
OWOW and across the Regions over time, we need to define
measurements and use this year to establish the baseline.
The suggested categories for measurements are:
o For OWOW measurements - services to the Regions
Use the customer survey results.
o For Regional measurements — reducing risks in watersheds
Use program measurements in OWAS/SPMS/STARS and other
environmental measures (We will need to know the extent
to which these measurements reflect actual risk reduction
and the extent to which new or different measures should
be used).
9. It is the intent of OWOW to keep this process as streamlined
and time-efficient as possible. Unnecessary paperwork,
meetings and briefings should be avoided.
-------
The Hardware Store
Restaurant and Soda Fountain
Lunch Selections
$7.95 (plus tax, gratuity)
You will be expected to pay for
lunch at the restaurant.
Spinach Salad
Mushrooms, Bacon, Onion, Hard Boiled Egg
Deli Bistro Plate
Pota toe Salad, Cole Slaw and choice of one:
Smoked Turkey
Roast Beef
Tuna Salad
Shrimp Salad
Served with dinner -- rolls, coffee,
and iced tea. Desserts will also be
served.
-------
OWOW National Program Meeting -- Participants List
Charles App
U.S. EPA
Region Ill
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Loretta Barsamian, Chief
Wetlands, Oceans & Estuaries
Water Management Division (W-7)
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Russefi Bowen
U.S EPA
Region V I
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas. TX 75202-2733
Rick Brandes
U.S. EPA
O EC
4O1 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Tom Arm itage
US EPA
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Victoria Binetti, Chief
Water Program Support Branch
Water Management Division (3WMI 0)
U S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Don Brady
U S EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
William Brarides
U.S. EPA
EN-336
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Bill Butler
U.S. EPA
Region I
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Wesley Crum
U.S. EPA
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Trevor Clements
US EPA
North Carolina Program
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mark Curran, Chief
Estuarine Management Branch
Oceans & Coastal Protection Div. (WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
OWOW National Program Meeting -- Participants List
Barbara D’Angelo
U.S. EPA
Region Ill
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Joseph Davia
U.S. EPA
A-104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Tudor 1. Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
(WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Steve Dressing
U.S. EPA
WH-553
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Beverly Ethridge
U.S. EPA
Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Ken Fenner, Chief
Water Quality Branch
Water Division (WOB TUB ..8).
U.S. EPA, Region 5
230 S. Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
Thomas Davenport
U S. EPA
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
David G. Davies, Deputy Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
(WH-556F)
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mario Del Vicario, Chief
Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch
Water Management Division (MWPB-WMD)
U S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Doug Ehorn
US EPA
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Glenn Eugster, Chief
Wetlands Strategies & State Prog. Branch
Wetlands Division (A-104F)
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D C 20460
Larry Ferguson,Chief
Water Compliance Br nct
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
-------
OWOW National Program Meeting -- Participants List
David Fierra, Director
Water Management Division
(WAA)
U.S. EPA, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Rm 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Rob Frederick
U.S. EPA
WH-553
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
William Garvey
U.S. EPA
A-104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Geoffrey Grubbs, Director
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
(WH-553)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Joseph Hall
U.S. EPA
WH.556F
401 M Street, SW
Washington. DC 20460
Karen Helm
American Management Systemsy lqc. :
1777 North Kent Street
7th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
John Forren
U.S. EPA
Region Ill
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Mike Fritz
U S. EPA
A.104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
John Goodin
US EPA
A-104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Bart Hague
U.S EPA
Region I
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
James Hanlon
US EPA
051, WH.547
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Kerry Herndon, Chief
Environmental Review Branch
Ass’t RA for Policy & Manag ment
U.S EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
-------
OWOW National Program Meeting -- Participants List
Diane Hershberger
U.S. EPA
Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
George Horvath
U.S. EPA
Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Jim Keating
American Management Systems, Inc.
1777 North Kent Street
7th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Cat Kuhlman, Chief
Water Quality Branch
Water Management Division (W-7)
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne St
San Francisco, CA 94105
Doug Lipka, Director
Gulf of Mexico Pro ram
Bldg. 1103, Room 202
John C Stennis Space Center
Stennis Space Center, MS 39529
Ron Manfredonia, Chief
Water Quality Branch
Water Management Division (WOB)
U.S. EPA, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Rrn 22
Boston, MA 02203
Richard Hoppers, Chief
Water Quality Mgmt Branch
Waler Management Division (OWQ)
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Ste 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
Elizabeth Jester, Chief
Monitoring Branch
Assess. & Wirshed Protection Div. (WH-553)
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, 0 C. 20460
Karen Klinia, Chief
Marine Ecological Assessment Branch
Oceans & Coastal Protection Div. (WH-556F)
U S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, 0 C. 20460
Ron Lee, Chief
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Water Division (WD-136)
U S. EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
John Lyon
US EPA
OE, LE-134W
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Menchu Martinez
U.S. EPA
A-104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
OWOW National Program Meeting -- Participants List
Mike McGhee, Chief
Water Quality Mgmt. Branch
Water Management DivL$ orj 3r d Floorr
U.S. EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Jeanne Melanson
US. EPA
A-104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Rosemary Monahan
U S. EPA
Region
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Sieve Neugeboren
U.S. EPA
0CC, LE-132W
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
John Meagher, Director
Wetlands Division
(A-i 04F)
U S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C 20460
Marian MIay, Director
Oceans & Coastal Protection Division
Off of Wetinds, Ocns, & Wtershds (WH-556F)
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Daniel Montella
US EPA
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Philip Oshida
US EPA
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
John Pai
0fl ce of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
(WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Richard Pepino, Chief
Environmental Assessment Branch
Environmental Services Division (3ES40)
U.S. EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Greg Peck, Chief
Wetlands & Aquatic Resources Reg Branch
Wetlands Division (A-104F)
U S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, 0 C 20460
Randy Pomponio
U.S. EPA
Region Ill -
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, BA:; 191.07
-------
OWOW Natipn i1 Program. Me tjng r Lis t,
Don Porteous
U.S. EPA
Region I
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Mary Beth Rossomando
Amencan Management Systems, Inc.
1777 North Kent Street
7th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Suzanne Schwartz, Deputy Director
Wetlands Division
(A-i 04F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Betsy Southerland
U.S. EPA
OST, WH-553.
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Cliff Rader
U S. EPA
A•104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Michael Rylko
US EPA
Region X
1200 Sixth avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Mary Lou Soscia, Chief
Coastal Protection Branch
Oceans & Coastal Protection Div. (WH-556F)
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Richard Sumner
U S EPA
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Norm Thomas, Chief
Federal Activities Branch
Environmental Services Division (6EF)
U.S. EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
Robert Vaughn, Chief
Water Standards & Planning Branch
Water Management Division (WSCB-WMD)
U.S. EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Douglas Thompson
U S. EPA
Region I
JFK Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Dale Vodehrtal, Chief
State Program Mgmt. Branch
Water Management Division (8WM.WQ)
U.S. EPA, Region 8
999 18th St. Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
-------
OWOW Nationai ’rogram-’Meeting - I’articipants Li
Craig Vogt, Deputy Director
Oceans & Coastal Protection Division
(WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington. D.C. 20460
Dov Weitman, Chief
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Asses. & Watrshed Protection Div.
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Lori Williams
U.S. EPA
A-104F
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Catherine Wimer
U.S. EPA
OGC, LE-1 32W
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Robert H. Wayland, Director
Offtce of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
(WH-556F)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
Torn Welborn
U.S EPA
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Tom Wilson, Chief
Water Planning
Water D vision (WD-136)
U.S EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Louise Wise, Director
Policy & Communications Staff
Off of Wetinds, Ocns. & Wtershds (WH-556 y
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, D C 20460
Tom Young
U.S. EPA
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Amy Zimpfer
U S. EPA
Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
-------
25-Jul-91
FY 1992 OWOW RESOURCES
TOTAL REGIONS
WQ MONITORING & ANALYSIS: REG
WQ MANAGEMENT: REG
NFS IMPLEMENTATION: REG
ODBA
GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS: REG
COASTAL ENVIR. MNGMT: REG
WETLANDS PROTECTION: REG
FY
91FTE
^^-^
f549.1
^v^l. — •
127.9
88.2
0.0
6.0
45.4
12.0
33.9
105.9
129.8
TOTAL HEADQUARTERS J^TT
k --
WQ MONITORING & ANALYSIS: HQ
WQ MANAGEMENT: HQ
NPS IMPLEMENTATION: HQ
ODBA
OCEAN DISPOSAL PERMITS: HQ
COASTAL ENVIR. MNGMT: HQ
WETLANDS PROTECTION: HQ
TOTAL GRANTS
CLEAN LAKES GRANTS
NPS GRANTS
WETLANDS GRANTS
28.6
25.0
0.0
4.0
16.4
38.7
31.1
0.0
0.0
1991
91$
>,
7,
13,
14,
2,
19,
4,
}25,
5,
2,
2,
4,
8,
1,
59,
7,
47,
5,
EXT
655.8
260.0
060.0
0.0
223.7
748.8
887.6
453.7
022.0
871.6
894.1
197.0
550.0
519.3
795.2
916.0
283.0
083.0
2QO.O
000.0
FY 1992
FTE
...
594
127
101
0
6
47
12
33
119
145
148
28
25
0
4
16
41
33
0
0
.6
.9
.7
.0
.0
.4
.0
.9
.9
.8
.8
.6
.0
.0
.0
.4
.7
.1
.0
.0
CURRENT
$ EXT
. . -
45
9
14
2
18
41
6
4
3
22
5
32
23
8
,374
0
0
0
,523
,748
,387
,174
540
,854
,115
,322
0
,069
,474
,873
,250
,750
,500
.1
.0
.0
.0
.7
.8
.6
.0
.0
.3
.1
.0
.0
.3
.9
.0
.0
.0
.0
FY
FTE
45.5
0.0
13.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
16.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
91 -
$
(16
(7
(3
(1
(3
15
2
(2
(1
13
3
(27
(7
(23
3
92
EXT
,281.7)
(260.0)
,060.0)
0.0
0.0
,700.0)
0.0
(500.0)
,279.7)
,482.0)
,982.7
221.0
,125.0
,550.0)
0.0
,450.0)
,679.7
,957.0
,033.0)
,083.0)
,450.0)
,500.0
GRAND TOTAL OWOW
^ « nf, -n
^M2Tpl46,810.4 (^743.4 \19.478.4
FY 1991 Oolum reflects transfer of resources fro* Headquarter^ to the
Regions as of third quarter FY 1991.
** (Y 1992 Column reflect redirections from the President'a Budget Request.
-------
Highlights of FY 1992 House and Senate Appropriation Action
House Bill
Report Language
o Committee is aware of inadequate staffing for the Non-Point
Source program and has directed the agency to reprogram 10 FTE
and $550,000 (S&E) to implement this program. This
reprogramming shall be taken from elsewhere within the Office
of Water at the Administrator's discretion.
o Although funds were requested for implementation of Non-Point
Source program in the AC&C account, no FTE were requested.
The Committee believes that funds in the AC&C account should
be used for grants to states rather than administrative
expense purposes. The level the Committee has made available
is barely sufficient and providing scarce funding for S&E
activities only serves to exacerbate the problem.
o The Committee believes that EPA should request the appropriate
resources needed for this program from within the S&E account.
Until this year, no request has been made to use funds for S&E
under the Non-Point Source program. The Committe sees no need
to begin this practice now as this can only compromise the
integrity of the account structure.
Congressional Add-ons
o +$27 million for non-point source grants.
o +$8 million for the clean lakes program.
o +1 million for controlling erosion and sedimentation in the
Great Lakes Basin.
o +$3 million for the San Francisco estuary project.
o +$300,000 for environmental efforts at the Canaan Valley,
West Virginia wetlands complex.
o +$900,000 for cleanup of contaminated sediments in the Buffalo
River.
o +$1 million for the cleanup and protection of the Saginaw
River Basin and Bay.
o +$500,000 for the development of a water quality protection
plan for the Florida Key's National Marine Sanctuary.
o +$100,000 for the development of a national model of Eugene,
Oregon wetlands comprehensive plan.
Senate Action
Report Language - Salaries and Expenses
o The Committee reduced the budget for salaries and expenses by
$61 million. (The Committee provided increases for
implementation of the Clean Air Act, locality pay and the 1992
-------
pay raise. All other activities are frozen at the 1991
levels) .
The Committee directs the Agency to provide such sums as are
necessary to establish and staff the Long Island Sound Program
Office.
The Committee is interested in EPA's efforts to explore the
concept of sustainable development. In particular, the
Committee is interested in how environmental concerns can best
be incorporated in national, State, and local development and
economic planning and decision making processes. The
Committee directs EPA to provide a report by July 15th r IQQ^
which describes in detail how EPA has incorporated, or plans
to incorporate, the concept of sustainable development into
g operations.
Report Language - Abatement. Control and Compliance
o The Committee is concerned with recent reports that the Agency
has not taken a more proactive approach to the Chesapeake Bay
cleanup effort, and has not proposed more initiatives. The
Committee urges the Agency to make the Bay cleanup effort a
higher priority. The Committee directs EPA to provide not
less than the full budget requested for the Chesapeake Bay
program.
Congressional Add-ons
o +$28 million_£gr nonpoint source pollution control grants, for
a total ofL$5l7750.00(O
o -(-$1 million for the continuation of a storm water management
demonstration project on the Patuxent River.
o +$500,000 to initiate two major enhancements to the three
dimensional time-variable water quality model of the
Chesapeake Bay to include an oil spill and a sediment
transport component.
o +$750,000 to initiate pollution reduction strategies in
the Tar Pamlico River basin.
o +$1,450,000 to continue the nonpoint source pollution project
at the University of Kansas, Iowa State University, and the
University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
o +$750,000 for the Illinois River basin nonpoint source
program.
o +$2 million for dredge spoil assessment and decontamination,
to develop techniques t'o clean sediments from dredging prior
__ to disposal,.. __ _____ __
Q_Hr+51 i T^nTootPfor the Lake Champlain management conference7">
o +$750,000 for the cleanup of Lakes Allatoona and Lanier, GA.
o +$700,000 for lake water quality activities by the State
of New Jersey, including such activities as Cranberry
Lake, Lake Waywayanda, Lake Marcia, Sylvan Lake, or other
lakes the State deems appropriate.
o +$1,750,000 for the Lake Onondaga management conference.
-------
o +$500,000 for the development of a water quality recovery
plan for Lake Roosevelt.
o +$1,250,000 for Long Island Sound Program Office, to establish
the office and to continue the public education and outreach
efforts of the Long Island Sound Study; and for grants to
the States of Connecticut and New York for completion of the
Long Island Sound water quality and water circulation
computer model.
o +$2 million for the cleanup of the San Francisco Estuary.
o +$750,000 for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
o +$100,000 to document and package the Eugene, OR,
wetlands study and make it available to other jurisdictions.
o +$150,000, to be divided between the environmental
agencies of the States of Vermont and New Hampshire, to work
in cooperation with EPA to accelerate water quality work on
the Connecticut River.
o -$6 million from coastal America...The Committee supports the
administration's proposal to initiate an interagency coastal
program to maximize the benefits of the various ongoing
Federal coastal programs. However, the Committee has not
provided $6,000,000 for the coastal America initiative in
EPA's budget due to severe budget constraints. Furthermore,
the Committee believes the agencies with a coastal protection
mandate currently have the resources required to undertake
the type of activities envisioned by the coastal America
initiative. The Committee directs EPA to coordinate
those coastal programs funded in this bill with these
other Federal agencies to ensure that coastal living
resource protection and management projects move forward
in a coordinated, cost-efficient, and comprehensive
fashion.
o The Committee has deleted the following items added by the
House: $8,000,000 for clean lakes; $1,000,000 for
controlling erosion and sedimentation in the Great Lakes
basin; $300,000 for the Canaan Valley wetlands complex;
$1,000,000 for the Saginaw River and basin; and $25,000 for
a water quality testing program of the Lackawanna River
Corridor Association.
-------
1993 BUDGET PROCESS
o A workgroup was formed to develop a process that would:
- to increase participation in budget development.
- emphasize cross Agency initiatives.
- make resource decisions earlier.
o At the end of April, the four media programs met with the
Administrator to discuss their vision of Fl 1993.
o In the beginning of May, the Regional Administrators and
Assistant Administrators met with the Administrator to discuss
cross Agency priorities.
o These meetings resulted in:
- 43 cross Agency initiatives.
- a request for Regional geographic initiatives.
- target numbers were provided to NPMS. Leads were given for
cross Agency initiatives.
o The Office of Water was lead for nine of the 43 initiatives:
- Geographic Initiatives - Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and
Gulf of Mexico.
- Programmatic Initiatives - Wetlands, Nonpoint Source, and
Coastal Resource Protection (Estuary Program).
- Grant and Regulatory Initiatives — Groundwater Cluster,
Pulp and Paper Cluster.
- Legislative Initiative - Clean Water Act Reauthorization.
o The Office of Water participated in a myriad of other
initiatives:
- Caribbean, Pollution Prevention, Indian Programs, and Data
Management.
------- |