Briefing for the Administrator
Options for the Convening of New
NEPs
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Office of Water
January 1992
-------
Pb.’pose of Briefing
To obtain the Administrator’s decision on:
1) whether to convene new NEP Management Conferences and, if so, how.
Options for consideration include:
• Provide public notice to all potential applicants that the
EPA will entertain new nominations
• Evaluate/Accept only Peconic nomination per Congressional
mandate without public notice; do not consider others
• Evaluate/Accept Peconic nomination as above; provide
public notice to other potential applicants for later
consideration
2) whether to “streamline” the CCMP development process
2
-------
Ti de Offs
Our coastal protection efforts, beyond nationally applicable point and
nonpoint source requirements, consist of:
• Support for development of CCMPs in 17 designated
estuaries ($15 million in FY92)
• Maintenance of the NEP institutional framework when
the CCMP is approved ($500K in FY92)
• A Near Coastal Waters Program of targeted pollution
control, prevention, and remediation outside the
designated estuaries
Absent in overall resource increase, growth in any one of these areas
would come at the expense of the other two.
3
-------
Tnreshold Question
Should we expand the NEP?
PRO U consistent with geographically-targeted ecological protection
approach
• builds good will for EPA
• may attract “new” resources for new and existing NEPs
• Congress may say “yes” if we say “no”
CON U 0MB emphasis that program is a limited demonstration effort
• expectation of $5 million/5 years
• environmental benefits not yet fully demonstrated (can and will
they really do more?)
• reduces funds available to support current NEPs, post-CCMP,
and/or Near Coastal Waters Program
4
-------
Recommendation
• Designate 1-4 new NEPs
• Maintain a Near Coastal Waters Program
• Limited support for current NEPs/post-CCMP
5
-------
Background The Nominees
• Three nominations have been received - Peconic Bay, NY, Morro
Bay, CA, and Mobile Bay, AL
• Peconic Bay was listed in 1988 Ocean Dumping Ban Act for
“priority consideration” under the NEP
• In August 1989, a memo was sent to EPA Regions with a “call for
nominations” establishing a deadline of November 1, 1989 for all
nominations
• The nomination for Peconic Bay was not received until June 1991.
No evaluation of the nomination has been undertaken
• Morro Bay, CA was nominated by Gov. Wilson in May 1991
• Mobile Bay, AL was nominated by Gov. Hunt in November 1991
6
-------
Background - The Nomination Process
Decisions Needed
• Administrator decision/Regional notice
• Develop streamlined” NEP guidelines
Public Noticed Nomination process
• Call for Nominations
• Deadline for Nominations
• Results from Preliminary Reviews
• Administrator Announces Decisions;
Awards start up funds
• Negotiate Conference Agreement
Nomination without Public Notice (Peconic Bay )
• Review nomination and review any needed
changes with Reg Il/State of New York
• Administrator Announces Decision:
Awards start up funds
• Negotiate Conference Agreement
Jan15
Feb15
Feb15
April 15
July15
Sept 15
April 15
March 1
June 1
Aug 15
7
-------
Options
Option I: Provide public notice to all potential applicants that
the EPA will entertain new nominations
PRO N Previous nominations have been handled this way; provides fair
opportunity to all areas
• Some potential nominees have been discouraged from applying
by EPA; will expect opportunity to resubmit
• Would give EPA the broadest set of choices for selecting
watersheds that will show success and add to the national
coverage of the NEP
CON N May uncover many new applicants and result in disappointed
applicants
• New York Congressional delegation expects “priority
consideration” for Peconic Bay
8
-------
Options
Option II: Review/Accept only Peconic Bay, without public notice
PRO U There is no requirement for the Administrator to
make a general call for nominations prior to
convening a management conference
• Peconic Bay is the only one of the estuaries listed
for “priority consideration” that has not had a
management conference convened
CON • Since Peconic Bay missed the deadline on Nov. 1,
1989 for Tier Ill estuaries, could conclude they have
been given their opportunity to receive priority
consideration and are now on level playing field
with other nominations received
• Other candidates will fail to see the “priority consideration”
distinction; raise the fairness issue
• It may be difficult to justify that Peconic is a Bay of
“national significance”
9
-------
OpüOflS
Option Ill: Review/Accept Peconic Bay nomination as above; provide
public notice to other potential applicants for later consideration
PRO • Addresses congressional mandate for consideration
of Peconic Bay
• Provides current and potential applicants with
opportunity for consideration
• Provides for completion of nominations currently
under development
• May appear Peconic review is not objective; selection
may foreclose a potentially “more significant” contender
for 1 of 4 prizes
10
-------
Should EPA “streamline” the CCMP development process ?
A Streamlined Process would involve:
• Selection of estuaries where problems are well
understood/Reliance on existing data
Reduced time frame for CCMP development
S
Reduced resource requirements for CCMP development
U
Implementation (and environmental benefit) achieved sooner
PRO
Much has been learned over the past 5 years; new nominees
can benefit
Decisions to act can be made before perfect knowledge is
obtained; assessment can continue after Initial CCMP is
adopted; CCMP priorities can be adjusted over time to fit
new data
U
Past NEP criticized for inaction/focus on research; this
encourages early successes
11
-------
Should EPA ‘streamline the CCMP development process?
(continued)
• Integrating implementation actions into State/local
infrastructure takes time; early CCMP allows for
“enforceable policies” implementable actions, e.g.,
legislative/appropriation development
CON • State/local consensus building takes time; may not
get needed buy in
Some issues cannot be addressed without new data;
may force inappropriate actions or support may not
be there due to lack of convincing evidence
12
------- |