INTERIM FINAL
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM GUIDANCE:
FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW
REQUIRED BY
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 320(b)(7)
July 1993
11
m
Printed or Recycled Paper
-------
47
TABLE OF CONTENTS
£aos
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Background - Oaan Water Act Section 320 and Purpose 7 t
Purpose and Organization of this Document 3
2. IMPLEMENTING PURPOSE 7 6
Identifying Federal Programs and Projects for Review 7
Executive Order 12372 8
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 9
Using These Tools to Compile an Inventory of Federal Programs 10
Completing a Consistency Report 12
identifying Inconsistent Programs and Projects 13
Resolving Inconsistencies 13
Developing a Strategy for Continuing Consistency Reviews 15
Coordinating with Existing Reviews 17
3. EXISTING REVIEW PROCESSES 20
State-Federal Consistency Reviews 20
Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review 22
Nonpoint Source Review 25
Federal Reviews 28
National Environmental Policy Act 28
A-106 Process 29
Other Review Authorities 30
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 31
Management Conferences 31
Before Completion of the CCMP 31
After Approval of the CCMP 33
State Agencies 33
Federal Agencies 33
5. CONCLUSION 34
FIGURE 1. SAMPLE REVIEW STRATEGY FLOW CHART 19
TABLE 1. SELECTED POTENTIAL MECHANISMS FOR PURPOSE 7 REVIEWS 21
-------
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. SECTION 320 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
APPENDIX B. TEXT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372: -INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS*
APPENDIX C. CHARACTERISTICS OF COASTAL STATE EO REVIEW PROCESSES
APPENDIX D. COASTAL STATE SINGLE POINTS OF CONTACT
APPENDIX E. COASTAL STATE NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATORS
APPENDIX F. STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONTACTS
APPENDIX G. SELECTED FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
APPENDIX H. AGREEMENT BETWEEN NOAA AND EPA TO COORDINATE C2M AND NEP ACTIVITIES
APPENDIX I. TEXT OF OMB CIRCULAR A-106
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Estuaries and their adjacent shores and drainage basins have iong been choice sites for
recreational, commercial, agricultural and industrial activities, the majority of which affect the quality of
the coastal marine environment in one way or another. Many of these activities are supported, directly
or indirectly, by federal and state governments. Because
government-sponsored activities have a wide variety of
objectives, some of these activities may be inconsistent with
coastal resource protection.
One way of addressing potential inconsistencies among
such activities is through the consistency review authority given
to National Estuary Program (NEP) Management Conferences
under Section 320(b)(7) of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of
this document is to provide a detailed explanation of the
requirements of Section 320(b)(7) and guidance to the NEP
Management Conferences for meeting those requirements.
Background - Clean Water Act Section 320 and Purpose 7
The National Estuary Program was established in 1987
under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to identify
nationally significant estuaries, protect and improve their water
quality, and enhance their living resources (see Appendix A for
the text of Section ¦320). Under this provision, the governor of
any coastal state may nominate an estuary for inclusion in the
NEP and request that the EPA Administrator convene a
Management Conference for the development of a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for
the estuary. Management Conferences consists of
representatives from federal, state, interstate, county, and municipal governments, as well as interested
academic and scientific institutions, industries, and citizen groups. Through a consensus-building
approach, the group establishes program goals and objectives for the estuary, Identifies and selects the
SELECTED FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
THAT MAY AFFECT COASTAL
WATER QUALITY:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Timber Activates
Sofl Conservation Service
Agricultural Conservation
Program
U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Grazing Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Irrigation Development
Fish and Wddlife Service
Refuge Management
U.S. Department of Defense
Corps of Engineers
Dredging Operations
Erosion Control Structures
U.S. Department of Transportalion
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Construction
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Fisheries Management Plans
General Services Administration
Acquts&on/Sibng of Federal
Property or BuMings
1
-------
problems to be addressed tn the CCMP, and then designs pollution control and resource management
strategies to meet each objective.
Section 320(b) of the CWA describes the purposes to be served by Management Conferences,
the seventh of which is to review federal financial assistance programs and development projects to
determine whether they are consistent with and further the purposes of CCMP objectives. By including
this provision (referred to throughout this document as Purpose 7), Congress recognized the need for
coordination among government programs and program goals that could affect the success of the
CCMP. Management Conferences were envisioned as unique forums for participants to identify
proposed federal activities that could be used to help implement the CCMP if those actMties are
consistent with its goals, or to derive mutually agreeable modifications to activities that are inconsistent
with its goals.
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 320(b)(7)
The purpose a Management Conference shaii be to:...
...review all federal financial assistance programs and
federal development projects in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on
September 17,5983, to determine whether such assistance
program or project would be consistent with and further
the purposes and objectives of the CCMP.
...such programs and projects shall not be limited to the
assistance programs and development projects subject to
Executive Order 12372, but may include any programs
listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance which may have an effect on the purposes and
objectives of the [CCMP].
The requirements of Purpose 7 are complex, both in their reference to the programs, projects,
and requirements of Executive Order (EO) 12372 and their inclusion of programs listed in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance. For example, Purpose 7 requires the review of ait federal financial
assistance programs and development projects in accordance with the requirements of the EO, which
describe a continuing process for reviewing proposed activities under specified programs and projects.
This implies a continuing review for Purpose 7, rather than a one-time review, of newly proposed
activities that fail within the purview of identified financial assistance programs and development projects.
2
-------
Another complication is that some coastal states have discontinued the EO 12372 review
process; consequently, Management Conferences in those states do not have the option of conducting
Purpose 7 review through the detailed EO requirements that are more favorable for accommodating
state concerns.1 However, It is also apparent that Purpose 7 envisions supplementing, or using an
alternative to, the EO process: according to Section 320(b), consistency review may go beyond review
of programs that are subject to the EO to include programs listed In the most recent Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance. As explained in this document, while the Catalog includes all programs subject to
the EO, it also includes far more programs that are not eligible for EO review2 and therefore require
Purpose 7 consistency review via some mechanism other than the EO process. No further direction is
provided in the legislation on how to conduct a Purpose 7 review.
Purpose and Organization of this Document
This document provides guidance to NEP Management Conferences on fulfilling the
requirements of Purpose 7 to conduct a consistency review of federal programs. It is important to recall
that Purpose 7 review is intended as a means of negotiating and achieving cooperation among
Management Conference participants, and not as an addition to an already complex system of state
review processes. There exist a number of other consultation and review processes (e.g., under the
Coastal Zone Management Act, nonpoint source consistency review under the CWA, and other state or
federal review processes) in most coastal states that can be used to supplement the EO review process
or serve as the standing Purpose 7 review mechanism if determined appropriate by Management
Conferences. Using this guidance document as a reference tool, each Conference must look first to its
state EO process, then to other existing consistency review mechanisms in that state, and avail itself of
any existing process or combination of processes that can contribute to the achievement of Purpose 7
review.
1ln cases where a state does not have an approved EO 12372 review process, federal agencies still
must provide opportunities for state and local consultation, but do not have to accommodate state
concerns or explain why such concerns can not be accommodated.
'The federal regulations for EO 12372 set out the list of federal programs that may be reviewed
under the EO. From this list, states that elect to use the EO review process choose programs to be
reviewed, and may change their choices at any time. For the purposes of this report, programs are
termed "eligible for EO review" and "subject to the EO' if they are on the federal EO list (they are not
"subject to EO review"): they are "eligible for" and "subject to EO review" if one or more states list them
for review.
3
-------
. Purpose 7 is also discussed in this document in the context of two specific products that are
required in the state/EPA agreements negotiated for each NEP site. Although specific commitments
negotiated in individual agreements vary, among their requirements, all Management Conferences must
prepare (1) an inventory of federal programs that may affect the estuary3 and (2) a federal consistency
report that accomplishes two objectives. First, in a one-time assessment, the consistency report must
identify inconsistencies between federal programs and projects and CCMP objectives, and describe how
these inconsistencies will be resolved. Second, the report must define a consistency review strategy
that includes a process for continuing consistency review and seeking resolution for activities under
federal programs and development projects proposed in the future. Any documentation of this review
and resolution strategy (e.g., written interagency agreements to resolve inconsistencies) should be
included as appendices to the consistency report. The report and the inventory must be either
incorporated into or referenced in the CCMP, and must be available to the public on request.
THROUGH STATE/EPA AGREEMENTS, MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT PURPOSE 7 BY
PREPARING:
1. An Inventory of federal programs/development
projects that may affect the objectives of the CCMP.
2. A consistency report that:
• In a one-time assessment, Identifies inconsistencies
between these federal programs/development projects and
the objectives of the CCMP, and describes how these
specific inconsistencies will be resolved; and
• defines a strategy for continuing review of:
activities proposed in the future under the auspices
of programs and projects included In the Inventory
new federal programs and projects that are
established in the future, but do not exist at the time
the one-time inventory is compiled.
The following chapter describes the requirements of Section 320(b)(7), outlines steps for
preparing an inventory of federal programs and completing a consistency report (including guidance on
3Note that the base program analysis for the NEP requires an institutional inventory of programs (not
limited to federal programs) likely to influence conditions in the estuary. As discussed in Chapter 2,
Conferences should look to the federal programs listed in the base program analysis inventory as a
source of programs to include in the Purpose 7 inventory.
4
-------
developing a review and resolution strategy), and describes the EO review process as it relates to
Purpose 7. Chapter 3 describes existing consistency review mechanisms other than the EO process
and discusses how Management Conferences can integrate the Purpose 7 review with those
mechanisms as appropriate from state to state. Chapter A describes the roles and responsibilities of
Management Conferences, states, and federal agencies In consistency review, and Chapter 5 concludes
with summary advice for successful implementation of Purpose 7.
5
-------
2. IMPLEMENTING PURPOSE 7
Section 320(b)(7) of the CWA contains two basic directives for Management Conferences:
• In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 12372 (see Appendix B for
text), conduct a review of federal assistance programs and development projects to
determine whether they are consistent with and further the purposes and objectives of the
CCMP.
• In addition to programs and projects subject to EO 12372, programs and projects listed in
the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance that may have an effect on the
purposes and objectives of the CCMP may also be reviewed.
While Purpose 7 mandates a consistency review "in accordance wtth the requirements of EO
12372," many programs and projects listed in the Catalog are not eligible for EO review; there are also
some coastal states that have discontinued the EO 12372 review process that provides an opportunity
for accommodation of state concerns by federal agencies.4 Clearly, some other review process was
envisioned to determine whether federal programs and projects are consistent with the CCMP, in
addition to the EO review process. At the same time, the Purpose 7 review was not Intended to add to
an already complex set of existing consistency review processes, and therefore does not require a
separate, newly-created process for identifying and resolving inconsistencies between federal programs
and CCMP objectives.
Rather, Management Conferences should identify and coordinate with existing review processes
(including EO review, coastal zone management consistency review, nonpoint source program
consistency review, and others) to achieve the Purpose 7 review, to the extent that they provide an
appropriate mechanism for identifying proposed federal activities that may affect the CCMP and
colnmunicating concerns to federal agencies related to the consistency of their activities with the CCMP.
It is also important to recall that resolving problems of inconsistency within the Management Conference
framework is essentially a voluntary process for which the Conference itself is the primary forum. For
this reason, while always diligently pursuing cooperative working relationships with federal Management
Conference participants to achieve mutually agreeable resolution of inconsistencies in proposed
4 As of 1992, coastal states without EO review processes include Alaska, Louisiana, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
6
-------
activities. Conferences should also pay particular attention to the ability of candidate review mechanisms
to contribute to satisfactory (i.e., binding or otherwise acceptable) resolution.
Existing consistency review processes meet these needs in varying degrees. It is the
responsibility of the Management Conferences to become familiar with the specific characteristics of
review processes available in the state, and the advantages and disadvantages of using one or a
combination of them to achieve a consistency review that meets the requirements of Purpose 7. More
detail on possible review processes to use for Purpose 7 consistency review follows in Chapter 3. The
remainder of this chapter discusses basic steps for structuring a Purpose 7 review process -- from
compiling an inventory of federal programs and projects and identifying those that are Inconsistent with
CCMP goals, to developing a strategy for resolving inconsistencies and continuing review of federally-
proposed activities and programs in the future. Discussion of the EO review process as it relates to
Purpose 7 is also included.
Identifying Federal Programs and Projects for Review
To undertake a consistency review, Management Conferences must first identify federal
programs and projects that may affect the objectives of the CCMP. Compiling an inventory of federal
Programs for consistency review is also an explicit requirement of Management Conferences in
state/EPA NEP agreements. There are two major sources from which federal programs and projects
may be identified for consistency review: (1) those that are currently subject to review under EO
123725, and (2) programs and projects listed in the most recent Catalog, which encompasses a broader
range of federal activities than the EO.6 (EO 12372 review is not available for many federal projects or
activities, because the EO does not address activities such as non-financial assistance, direct payments
to individuals, research that is national in scope, non-discretionary funding activities, assistance to
federally recognized Indian tribes, and certain other activities.) A brief summary of the basic
characteristics of each of these sources follows.
Semiannual updates of the Catalog provide the most current listing of federal programs subject to
the EO. The 1991 Update to the Catalog lists 367 federal assistance programs eligible for review under
EO 12372.
*The 1991 Catalog lists 1,226 assistance programs, including those eligible for EO review.
7
-------
Executive Order 12372
In 1983, federal agencies implemented Executive Order (EO) 12372 pursuant to a
govemment-wide regulation developed by an interagency task force chaired by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).7 EO 12372 and its implementing regulations afford state and local
governments the opportunity to design their own processes to coordinate reviews of proposed federal
grants and cooperative agreements, and to some extent direct federal development activities within their
jurisdictions. This coordinated review process, that differs from state to state, generally acts as a
clearinghouse through which state, local, regional, and area-wide governmental entities can
communicate concerns about proposed funded activities to the appropriate federal agency before that
agency makes final funding decisions.
IMPORTANT EO 12372 REQUIREMENTS
• Federal agencies must have regulations providing
opportunfties for comment by state and local officials that are
directly affected by proposed federal financial assistance or
development projects.
• To the extent that the state has a process for conducting this
review, federal agencies must use it.
• federal agencies must make efforts to accommodate the
state's recommendation on a proposed activity or explain
why state concerns cannot be accommodated in a timely
fashion.
• Where states do not have an approved EO review process,
federal agencies are still bound to provide affected States
and local governments with an opportunity for consultation
about their concerns, but they need not accommodate or
explain why concerns cannot be accommodated.
• Federal agencies must seek coordination among states when
proposed assistance or development has an impact on more
than one state.
States may elect whether or not to establish an official EO review process; if they opt to
participate, the review process that each state designs must be approved by OMB. Once the process is
approved, a state (in consultation with local governments) selects programs and development projects
7EPA's implementing regulation for the EO is published in 40 CFR Part 29, "Intergovernmental Review
of EPA Programs and Activities."
-------
to review from among those federal financial assistance programs and direct federal development
activities that are currently eligible for EO review. States must then notify federal agencies of their
choices. After notification, federal agencies must abide by the approved state process as soon as
feasible. Implementing regulations provide that states may change their processes and their selection of
reviewable federal activities at any time. In cases where a state does not have an approved EO review
process, or does not submit comments through its official EO review process, federal agencies still must
provide affected states and local governments with an opportunity for consultation about their concerns,
but they need not accommodate concerns or explain wt\y they cannot be accommodated.
Most states have opted to establish an official EO review process, and while they differ with
respect to how they accomplish review and arrive at an official state response, most have designated a
Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to coordinate EO review of federal financial assistance programs and
development activities (see Appendix C for a description of the general characteristics of existing state
EO review processes and Appendix 0 for a current list of coastal SPOCs}. The SPOC is responsible for
submitting a state process recommendation (SPR) to the appropriate federal agency, representing the
state's official comments, concerns, and recommendations related to proposed federal activities. The
targeted federal agency must either (1) accept the recommendations contained in the SPR. (2) negotiate
acceptable solutions, or (3) explain in writing why the state's concerns cannot be accommodated. If the
federal agency chooses the third option, It must provide a 15-day waiting period before taking final
action on funding decisions. When proposed federal financial assistance or direct development has an
impact on more than one state, federal agencies must seek coordination among affected states.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
The Catalog pi Federal Domestic Assistance is an annual publication of federal programs,
projects, services, and activities tha'i provide assistance or benefits to the public.8 (Biannual updates of
the publication are also available.) The 1991 Catalog describes and provides contact points for 1,226
assistance programs administered by 50 federal agencies. Programs included in the Catalog provide
either technical or financial assistance or benefits to states, territories, counties, municipalities, other
political entities, profit and nonprofit organizations, and individuals. Such assistance includes, but is not
'The Catalog is available through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington. D.C. 20402. Reference: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. Library of Congress No.
73-60018.
9
-------
limited to, grants, loans, loan guarantees, scholarships, insurance, counseling and other expertise,
cooperative agreements, and property.
Using These Tools to Compile an Inventory of Federal Programs
As the leading focus of Section 320(b)(7), the EO process and the list of programs eligible for
EO review provides a starting point for beginning an inventory of federal programs for Purpose 7 review.
In states that have an approved EO process, Management Conferences should contact the state SPOC
to obtain the list of programs that are currently subject to the state's EO review process. Conferences
should then identify from that list federal programs that may affect the goals of the CCMP, to be
included in the inventory. Adding to the inventory, Conferences should then identify any further
programs eligible for EO review (but that are not currently reviewed by the state's EO process) that may
affect the purposes and objectives of the CCMP.
Conferences should consider the following, when identifying programs to include in the
inventory:
• priority environmental problems and their causes in the particular estuary's watershed
• activities identified in the base program analysis as causes or sources of priority problems
• nonpoint source issues identified in the state's nonpoint source assessment and
management plan
• specific action plans/recommendations of the CCMP, including those related to:
protection of specific geographic areas (such as critical habitat, sensitive or pristine
areas, specific areas where impacts on living resources are known, or areas with
high economic value due to recreational or commercial activities) targeted in the
CCMP, the NEP study area, or the entire watershed of the NEP
commitments by federal agencies to undertake, revise, or refrain from certain
activities
10
-------
typical "red flag" activities or projects (such as those related to hazardous materials
or destruction of habitat) in the NEP study area or watershed of the NEP.
The inventory should include not only activities that directly affect CCMP objectives, but also activities
with indirect effects, cumulative impacts, and activities that mav have pi effect on the CCMP.
After examining the list of programs eligible for EO review, Management Conferences should
look to the most recent publication of the Catalog for further programs and projects to include in the
inventory. As a guide for developing a list of potential programs for the inventory, Conferences should
draw from and build upon the institutional inventory developed in the NEP base program analysis to
identify programs likely to influence conditions in the estuary. (Note that the base program analysis
inventory is not restricted to federal programs, and will also include state and local programs. The
Purpose 7 inventory, on the other hand, pertains only to federal programs and projects.)
Information about other potential programs for the inventory may be available from the nonpoint
source (NPS) coordinators listed in Appendix E, the state coastal zone management (CZM) contacts
listed in Appendix F, and other Management Conference members. In addition, reports prepared by
states under Sections 304(1) - Review of Effluent Guidelines, 305(b) - Water Quality Inventory, and 319
-• Nonpoint Source Management of the Clean Water Act may be useful as references for programs to be
included in the inventory. A compendium of federal financial assistance programs (entitled Federal
Financial Assistance Programs: Targeting Programs Applicable to Coastal Management) is also
available from EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division (OCPD) to help Management Conferences
target those programs found in the Catalog that are applicable to coastal environmental management.
Appendix G provides specific examples of the types of development projects that Management
Conferences may wish to consider.
For reference purposes, the inventory should clearly designate the programs and projects
chosen for review as either (1) eligible for and subject to review under EO 12372 or (2) listed in the most
recent Catalog and not eligible for review under the EO. This distinction becomes important when
making decisions about the actual process for reviewing programs (i.e., identifying the EO review
process as appropriate for programs that are eligible for EO review). Management Conferences may
find it beneficial to develop a matrix with the list of programs and projects selected on one axis and the
types of reviews to which each is subject on the other, to aid in selection of the best strategy for
reviewing particular programs.
11
-------
WHAT FEDERAL PROGRAMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED M THE INVENTORY FOR
PURPOSE 7 REVIEW?
• The Conference must review federal programs and projects ebgble for EO
review, and may also mdude other federal programs and projects that are listed
in the Catalog.
• Hefcful sources of possfeie programs to incfejde are:
the institutional inventory conducted as a part of the base program
analysis
nonpoint source program contacts
coastal zone management program contacts
Management Conference members
state 304(1), 305(b), and 319 reports
Federal Financial Assistance Programs: Targeting Programs Applicable
to Coastal Management
Finally, bearing in mind that Purpose 7 consistency review is intended as a means of identifying
opportunities for cooperation among a wide variety of federal participants, it is important that
Conferences inventory not only projects with the potential to be inconsistent with the purposes and
objectives of the CCMP, but also those that are consistent, as possible avenues of cooperative action
among federal programs through the CCMP.
Completing a Consistency Report
Once an inventory of federal programs has been compiled, the next step is to review those
programs for consistency with CCMP purposes and objectives. To establish a process for
accomplishing this step and continuing review of new federal activities, programs and projects proposed
in the future, state/EPA Conference agreements require Management Conferences to prepare a federal
consistency report that describes a review and resolution strategy. The report must first Identify federal
programs and projects from the inventory that are inconsistent with CCMP objectives in a one-time
assessment, and describe how these inconsistencies will be resolved. Second, the report must define a
12
-------
consistency review strategy that includes a process for continuing consistency review and seeking
resolution for activities, programs arid development projects proposed In the future. Any documentation
of this review and resolution strategy (e.g.. written interagency agreements to resolve inconsistencies)
should be included as appendices to the consistency report.
The following sections provide guidance on developing each of these segments of the
consistency report.
Identifying Inconsistent Programs and Projects
Using criteria that it develops based on the contents and goals of the CCMP, Management
Conferences should review the inventory to identify federal programs that are Inconsistent with CCMP
purposes and objectives. While criteria for determining consistency of proposed federal activities and
programs likely will differ among estuaries, all Conferences should rely on the same considerations for
identifying programs to Include in the inventory:
• priority environmental problems and causes, especially those Identified in the base
program analysis
• nonpoint source issues identified in the state's nonpoint source assessment and
management plan
• specific action pians/recommendations of the CCMP.
Ail Conferences must outline their criteria for determining consistency as clearly as possible in their
consistency reports.
Although the consistency report must be. included (or referenced) in the final CCMP, a summary
of the guidelines and criteria to be used in consistency review, along with a summary of major CCMP
goals, policies, programs, requirements, and targeted areas would serve as a useful handbook for
federal agencies seeking to accommodate Management Conference concerns.
Resolving Inconsistencies
13
-------
Section 320(b)(7) requires that consistency review be conducted "in accordance with the
requirements of EO 12372," which, as described earlier, outlines a consultation process between states
and federal agencies. Even though the accommodation of state concerns is not mandatory under the
EO, its requirement that federal agencies "accommodate or explain" can be the most effective part of a
consistency review, if the EO process is used to achieve Purpose 7. The role of the SPOC in the EO
review process includes not only the function of representing official state concerns to federal agencies,
but also that of serving as a possible conduit for negotiating mutually acceptable outcomes with the
federal agencies. For this reason, Management Conferences should coordinate with the SPOCs and
established EO processes wherever possible to obtain the most benefit from the EO "accommodate or
explain" requirements.
Because a federal agency still has the option to explain that It cannot accommodate state
concerns, however, Management Conferences should seek out other opportunities to resolve
inconsistencies. This is especially critical for states without an approved EO process or designated
SPOC, or for reviewing federal financial assistance applications and proposed development projects that
are not eligible for review under the EO. In these cases, Management Conferences should obtain
project information from the targeted federal agency, disseminate the information to Conference
participants, and relay Conference recommendations directly to the appropriate federal agency for
resolution, if necessary. Several other existing consultation and review mechanisms may assist with this
process even though the "accommodate or explain" requirements of the EO may not apply. These
mechanisms are mentioned in the following section on developing a strategy for continuing consistency
reviews, and discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
If the federal agency in question is represented on the Management Conference, the concerns
should be conveyed through that representative. Comments transmitted directly to the federal agency
outside of an established state process must be considered by the federal agency in accordance with
Section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act9 or other comparable statutes. It should be
noted that without the EO "accommodate or explain' requirement, outside of their respective statutory
mandates, federal agencies are under no binding obligation to accommodate Management Conference
concerns; thus, the resolution of issues related to inconsistencies is essentially a voluntary process for
which Conferences serve as the primary forum.
9See reference on page 30.
14
-------
Management Conferences may also wish to work through EPA regional offices, which may be
able to identify alternative means ot relaying concerns. And finally, if Management Conferences want to
use formal conflict resolution mechanisms, they may resort to mechanisms established In their bylaws, if
such procedures exist, or other conflict resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration or mediation.
Any documentation related to the resolution of inconsistencies (i.e., written interagency
agreements to resolve specific inconsistencies, or anticipated schedules for resolving specific
consistency issues) should be included as an appendix to the consistency report.
Developing a Strategy for Continuing Consistency Reviews
For continuing consistency reviews of activities and programs proposed in the future, as well as
for the one-time assessment tor the consistency report, Management Conferences must develop a
review strategy. This strategy should define a process for reviewing activities and programs and
establish a mechanism for seeking resolution of inconsistencies. It should include, at a minimum, the
following elements:
• criteria for determining consistency of programs and projects with the CCMP. (See earlier
discussion on identifying inconsistent federal programs and projects.)
• rules for resolving Conference disagreements, or providing comments in the absence of
consensus.10
• a time line for review (e.g., not to exceed 60 days for new projects and 30 days for
continuations and amendments).
• procedures for obtaining proposals of direct development projects or federal assistance
programs from federal agencies, depending on the process chosen for conducting the
review. For instance, if coastal zone management (CZM) consistency review is used to
determine and ensure consistency with CCMP goals, then Conferences should coordinate
with the appropriate CZM contact (see Appendix F) to receive notice of proposals
,0During deliberations by Management Conferences or their designees, internal conflicts should be
resolved through practices developed by the Conference to obtain consensus. If conflicts cannot be so
resolved, dissenting views may be attached to the official Management Conference recommendations for
informational purposes.
15
-------
reviewed and the review results. As another example, If Conferences choose to work
directly with the federal agency through its representative, then arrangements must be
made with that representative to obtain proposals for review.
• procedures for addressing and resolving multi-state issues or coordinating a multi-state
consistency review, for NEP estuaries or watersheds that cross state boundaries.11
• designation of individual or group to conduct reviews, and rules for eligibility to participate
in reviews (e.g., federal agencies will abstain from reviewing their own proposals).
Management Conferences may wish to delegate review responsibility to a smaller group
of members (e.g., a subcommittee), or to a single entity (e.g., a state agency). In such
cases, the delegated entity must still review proposals or projects specifically for
consistency with the purposes and objectives of the CCMP and in accordance with
criteria defined by the Conference. If Management Conferences delegate review authority
to a SPOC or other state representative that performs a consistency review under EO
12732, the SPOC must formally agree to represent the Conference accordingly in the
state process recommendation (SPR). If possible, this agreement should also define how
potential differences between the state's SPR and Conference recommendations will be
resolved. To ensure compliance with Purpose 7, Management Conferences should
oversee and approve the delegated authority's determination.
• designation of a Management Conference Point of Contact (MCPOC) responsible for
coordinating and managing the review. The MCPOC should be responsible for receiving
the appropriate federal financial assistance applications and notifications of proposed
federal development projects, routing materials to appropriate Management Conference
members, synthesizing comments, and transmitting the official Management Conference
view to the state SPOC (or the targeted federal agency if the state EO process is not
used).
Review results should identify major issues and conclusions and specify explicit findings, which
may range from project endorsement to nonconcurrence, recommendation that the application or
project not be funded by the federal agency, or recommendation that the project be funded only as a
low priority. Other possibilities for consistency review results include:
11Additional guidance on addressing multi-state issues will be published as a separate addendum.
16
-------
• advice to the applicant or the agency on how the proposal can be improved or
strengthened, with no explicit objection to the proposal if advice is not taken
• identification, negotiation, and resolution of issues
• 'conditional' approval
• recommendation to the state SPOC that the SPR contain a priority listing of proposals
that should be funded before others.
Coordinating with Existing Reviews
Because Purpose 7 requires that the consistency review of programs subject to EO review be
conducted 'in accordance with the requirements of" the EO, Management Conferences should
coordinate the review with the EO review and state process recommendation submittal by the SPOC in
any case where It is available. In cases where programs and projects not subject to EO review have
been identified from the Catalog, or in states without an EO review process, however, it is the
responsibility of the Conferences to determine the best Purpose 7 review mechanism from among the
existing review processes in that state.
For review through the EO process, Management Conferences should submit to the state SPOC
a list of all eligible programs that they wish reviewed for consistency with the CCMP; in some cases, this
may mean adding certain federal programs to the state's list, since a state may not have chosen to
review all programs listed as eligible for EO review by OMB. As explained earlier, a federal agency's
obligation to 'accommodate or explain* applies only to the state process recommendation transmitted
by the SPOC. Also, the manner of coordinating state agency responses and arriving at an official SPR
differs from state to state, and may not guarantee representation of Conference views because of the
variety of agencies involved in the review. The Conference should develop a cooperative relationship
with the state SPOC to ensure that the SPOC routes proposed applications for those programs and
projects to Management Conferences and that Conference recommendations are adequately
represented in the SPR.
For those programs and projects that are not eligible for EO review, and in states without an EO
review process, Management Conferences should work directly with the appropriate federal agencies
and their representatives on the Conferences. When possible, Conferences should work to coordinate a
17
-------
review of programs through existing review processes. For example, for activities that may have
nonpoint source impacts, Management Conferences should coordinate with state nonpoint source
coordinators (see Appendix E for a current list). The nonpoint source federal consistency review
mandated in Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, expands the state's authority to review
federal financial assistance programs and development projects that are not subject to the EO review
and obtain accommodation of state concerns through the EO. In addition, Management Conferences
should also consider coordinating with a state's CZM agency, which is likely to be reviewing similar
programs (Appendix F). Chapter 3 contains more detailed information on these and other reviews.
Figure 1 illustrates an example review strategy that focuses on the state EO 12372 review
process as the central Purpose 7 review mechanism.
18
-------
Proposed Federal
Financial Assistance
or Development
Project
Found
in
Catalog
Eligible
for E.O.
Review
' On State
Clearinghouse
s. List >
No
Yes
,Yes
Yes
No
MCPOC Receives
Proposal for
Review
Found
on 319
List
Work with
SPOCto
Amend List
Work
Directly
with Federal
Agency
Distribute, Review,
Reach Consensus
No
Yes
Send Comments
to SPOC
(0
Consensus
on MC/State
, Comments ^
Conflict
Resolution
Yes
Yes
Preferred Path
To Federal
Agencies
Decision
Procedure
MaKe
Appropriate
Changes
Accommodate
Comments ,
No
Explain
Yes
Figure 1. Sample Review Strategy Flow Chart
-------
3. EXISTING REVIEW PROCESSES
This chapter provides background information on two similar state-federal consistency review
processes and two federal review processes and offers suggestions on how they could be used under
Purpose 7 to review programs that are not eligible for EO review and in states without an approved EO
process. (See Table 1 for summary descriptions of these potential mechanisms for Purpose 7 review.)
Management Conferences should become familiar with the scope and process involved In any of these
mechanisms, and use whichever singly or in combination provide appropriate means of identifying
proposed federal activities, communicating concerns, and resolving inconsistencies. The options
described below are not exclusive; there may be other mechanisms not discussed herein that
Management Conferences should explore, such as state Wellhead Protection Programs and Sole Source
Aquifer designation requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act.17
State-Federal Consistency Reviews
State-federal consistency review processes already exist for two programs closely related to the
NEP: state coastaf zone management (CZM) programs under Section 307 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) and state nonpoint source (NPS) management programs under Section 319 of
the CWA. Since the NEP study area may lie within a state's 'coastal zone* for the purposes of Its CZM
program, many federal activities that may affect a state's coastal zone and require CZM consistency
would also pertain to the estuary's CCMP. Management Conferences, therefore, should coordinate with
the CZM agency as much as possible for the review of federal activities within the coastal zone.
Depending on the state, however, some federal activities that affect the goals and purposes of the CCMP
may be within the NEP study area, but far enough inland to be outside of the state's designated "coastal
zone," and thus will not be reviewed for consistency by that state's CZM agency. In addition, where
NPS pollution is a major problem, Management Conferences should coordinate with the state's lead
NPS agency to use the NPS consistency review process in conducting Purpose 7 reviews.
1JThe Wellhead Protection Program (Section 1428) requires all federal agencies to comply with state
programs that protect surface and subsurface areas surrounding and water well supplying a public water
system through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach the well. Under
Section 1424(e), the Sole Source Aquifer Program, EPA must review any proposed federal activity
planned for an aquifer area that has been designated as a sole or principal source of drinking water for
an area, to determine the project's potential for contaminating the aquifer. The Agency may approve,
disapprove, or recommend modifications to the projects.
20
-------
Table 1. Selected Potential Mechanisms for Purpose 7 Reviews
SELECTED POTENTIAL
REVIEW MECHANISMS
CHARACTERISTICS
EO Clearinghouse Review (Not available In
Alaska, Louisiana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, or
Virginia.)
• Programs must be eligible for EO review.
• In states with an approved EO process, federal
agencies must accommodate state concerns or
explain why they cannot.
• SPOC submits SPR.
• Manner of coordinating state agency responses to
produce an official state comment differs from state
to state, and may not guarantee representation of
Management Conference views.
CZM consistency review (Not available in
Georgia or Texas.)
• Reviews federal actMties, licenses and permits,
development projects and financial assistance
programs that directly affect the "coastal zone*.
These rrjust be found by the state to be consistent
with Its CZM program.
• 'Coastal zone' definitions vary, and do not always
encompass as large a watershed area as an NEP.
(In some cases, It's broader than the NEP study
area.)
• Joint review and comment is dependent upon CZM
cooperation. Regular Information on CZM reviews
and results could help the conference focus on
taking appropriate action where CZM review has
unsatisfactory results.
NPS consistency review
• Same scooe as Puroose 7. only it allows Cataloo
programs to be reviewed through the EO process.
• Joint review and comment is dependent upon NPS
cooperation. Regular information on NPS reviews
and results could help the conference focus on
taking appropriate action where NPS review has
unsatisfactory results.
NEPA review
• Conference can review and comment on draft EIS's
for federal activities.
A-106
• EPA can circulate fedaral A-106 Reports on non-
compliance to Conferences to review and comment
on federal facility plans.
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act and Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act
• Regional and local development and planning
agencies may comment on applications for federal
funding for infrastructure development and
construction. Development must be consistent with
state and local planning activities.
21
-------
Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review
Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972 to encourage individual
states to voluntarily develop and implement, with federal funding assistance, coastal zone management
(CZM) programs promoting the rational use and conservation of their coastal resources. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce is charged with
national oversight and approval of state CZM programs. This responsibility involves developing
regulatory criteria and program development guidelines for the contents of a federally approved state
CZM program. Central to these criteria is the ability of the states to affect land and water use decisions
impacting their coastal zones through enforceable laws and regulations, for example through guiding
and controlling private and public coastal development, protecting and preserving coastal resources,
and restricting building in coastal hazard areas, such as barrier islands.
All coastal states, except Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas,13 have federally
approved CZM programs. To obtain federal approval, the state's CZM program must contain
enforceable coastal policies based on specific state laws or formal state interagency agreements that
give the state authority over major coastal land and water uses. Failure to implement or enforce the
CZM program's enforceable policies or changing a CZM program such that the policies are no longer
enforceable (e.g., revoking or weakening a state statute) can result in federal sanctions and de-
certification of the state CZM program. The state CZM programs may also contain advisory policies,
such as non-enforceable goal statements dealing with a range of coastal issues, which federal agencies
must consider when making decisions affecting the coastal zone.
Section 307 of the CZMA describes three types of reviews available to states with approved CZM
programs: federal activities and development projects; federal licenses and permits, including Outer
Continental Shelf exploration; and federal financial assistance to state and local agencies.
• Federal Activities and Development Projects
Sections 307(c)(1) and (2) of the CZMA require all federal activities and development projects,
whether inside or outside of the coastal zone, that affect any water use or natural resource of the coastal
zone to be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with federally approved state CZM programs.
,3Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas have received funding under Section 305(b) of CZMA to
develop CZM programs.
22
-------
The phrase "to the maximum extent practicable' is defined in NOAA regulations (15 CFR 930.32) to
mean fully consistent with the state coastal management plan unless prohibited by laws and regulations
that govern a federal agency's activities.
The federal agency carrying out an activity that affects the coastal zone must provide a
consistency determination to the state CZM agency at least 90 days before final approval of the activity,
unless the federal and state agencies agree to a different schedule. The state then has 45 days, and can
request an additional 15 days, to review and concur wtth the federal activity. After such time, in the
absence of a state response, the state waives Its rights and concurrence is presumed. If a consistency
dispute develops over a federal activity as described in Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA, either party to
the dispute (the state or federal agency) can request the Secretary of Commerce to mediate the
disagreement. This mediation procedure, which includes a public hearing in the local area concerned, is
voluntary; either party may terminate the mediation at any time.
• Federal Licenses and Permits
The CZMA provides for state CZM consistency review of federal licenses and permits, an area
not covered by the EO or by Purpose 7 review. Section 307(c)(3) of the CZMA provides that no federal
license or permit shall be granted by a federal agency to an applicant for an actMty, Inside or outside of
the coastal zone, affecting any land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone until the
coastal state concurs (or concurrence is conclusively presumed) that the activity is consistent with the
federally approved state CZM program.
The applicant may appeal and state its objection to a consistency certification to the Secretary
of Commerce, who may override a state's consistency objection to the issuance of a permit or license if
the Secretary finds the activity to be consistent with the goals of the CZMA or necessary in the interest
of national security. The applicant for the federal license or permit is responsible for preparing the
consistency certification. For these reviews, the state has up to six months following the
commencement of the state review before concurrence is presumed.
• Federal Financial Assistance to State and Local Agencies
Section 307(d) ol the CZMA requires that federal assistance to state and local governments for
projects affecting the coastal zone be awarded only if those projects are consistent with the state coastal
management plan. In most states,. EO 12372 is the primary vehicle for CZM consistency review of
23
-------
federal activities; the time line and mediation procedures for Section 307(d) review are dictated by the
EO and its corresponding regulations.
• Linkages with Purpose 7 Consistency Reviews
There are many advantages to coordinating the Purpose 7 and CZMA federal consistency
reviews, since CZM review allows state authority to review and obtain a certification of consistency for
federal agencies whose proposed activities may effect the coastal zone. On the other hand, a state's
defined "coastal zone" may or may not encompass an entire NEP watershed.
The options for coordinating a Purpose 7 review with CZM consistency review include arranging
with the state CZM agency to receive regular information on all activities being reviewed for CZM
consistency and the outcome of all reviews, so that Conferences can isolate what is considered
unsatisfactory review outcomes about which to approach individual federal agencies for better
resolution. Conferences may also wish to arrange with the CZM agency to contribute to joint
CCMP/CZM comments on federal financial assistance programs and development projects already
being reviewed for CZM consistency. A third option is the actual incorporation of relevant sections of
the CCMP into a state's CZM program. The Purpose 7 consistency review would be enhanced for those
sections of the CCMP that become part of the coastal zone plan, because they would thereby become
eligible for the stronger federal consistency review under the CZMA. Most significant, federal permits
and licenses potentially conflicting with the CCMP could be reviewed under the CZMA; these activities
are not covered under Purpose 7 review. Also, federal agencies must respond under CZMA federal
consistency requirements, whereas they are not necessarily obligated to do so under Section 320.
Anticipating that coordination between the NEP and the CZM program would strengthen the
implementation of both programs, NOAA and EPA signed a coordination agreement in 1988 (see
Appendix H for text). This agreement paves the way for incorporating relevant parts of a CCMP into a
C^M program. As stated earlier, federal activities must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable
with the enforceable provisions of a state CZM program. Management Conferences can take full
advantage of CZM consistency by ensuring that enforceable CCMP provisions14 are incorporated into
the CZM program. To incorporate a CCMP into a federally-approved CZM program, the program
14CCMPs are enforceable to the extent that their policies, goals, and action plans are based on
existing state or local laws or by formal agreements between Conferences and appropriate federal, state,
and local agencies.
24
-------
change must be approved by both the state and NOAA. The CZM program amendment process, found
in 15 CFR Part 923, Subpart I, has been widely used by states to modify their CZM programs over time.
The agreement between NOAA and EPA also states that "CCMPs developed under the NEP will
voluntarily, as a matter of policy, be submitted for review under the federal consistency provisions of
Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.' After a finding of
consistency with the CZM program, incorporation of relevant parts of the CCMP into the CZM program
should be approved with greater ease. The agreement also requires that CZM representatives
participate on Management Conferences. Close coordination between the two programs should ensure
that federal coastal zone funding will support projects that are consistent with the goals and objectives
of a CCMP.
In summary, to make full use of the CZM consistency review, Management Conferences should:
• include a state CZM representative among the Conference participants.
• identify portions of the CCMP that should be incorporated Into the CZM program.
• work with the CZM agency to coordinate comments on consistency review, or to receive
current and regular information on CZM reviews so that Conferences may take action
where necessary to resolve unsatisfactory outcomes through other channels.
Nonpoint Source Review
In response to growing concern about nonpoint sources of pollution, the Water Quality Act of
1987 amended the CWA to add Section 319, which requires states to develop a nonpoint source (NPS)
management program. Among other things, this program must identify:
• potential practices and measures to reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings (i.e., best
management practices)
• programs to implement best management practices
25
-------
• sources of federal assistance and funding that could be available to support
implementation of best management practices.
Section 319 also requires that states identify in their NPS management plans federal programs
and projects for which the state will review proposed activities to determine their consistency with the
plan, through Executive Order 12372 review procedures. Like the Purpose 7 requirements, the programs
and projects for NPS review must be selected from the state's list of programs eligible for review under
EO 12372 or from the Catalog. EPA then provides this list to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and affected federal agencies, so that the federal agencies can modify their regulations to allow
for state review of these specffic programs and protects through the EO process.
To assist states In meeting this requirement, EPA has issued final draft guidance, entitled Federal
Consistency Guidance: Federal Consistency with State Nonpoint Source Management Programs (August
1989).15 According to this guidance, the lead state NPS agency is responsible for conducting
consistency reviews within the EO 12372 process. Review criteria must be based directly on the goals,
policies, programs, plans, activities, and requirements of the federally approved state NPS Program.
Reviews should co'nskler direct effects of the activity as well as indirect effects and cumulative impacts.
• Nonpoint Source Review Process
Upon receiving information on a proposed federal project, the state's SPOC forwards the
information to the lead NPS agency, which acts as the coordinator for the official state comments
among all cooperating state agencies and local entities with NPS responsibilities and interests. If the
lead NPS agency chooses to delegate this responsibility to another agency, the lead agency must retain
oversight responsibility and act as the contact for the state SPOC.
If a state does not have an established EO 12372 review process, the state's lead NPS agency
should coordinate the review of relevant federal proposals. However, the state's lead agency should
recognize that, because there is no approved EO 12372 review process, the federal agencies are not
required to accommodate state concerns or explain the basis for their decisions.
,5This guidance document is currently under review at OMB.
26
-------
Each entity submits comments to the lead NPS agency for compilation and consensus into a
federal consistency recommendation. If consensus cannot be reached, a federal consistency
recommendation is submitted to the federal agency, along with copies of all dissenting comments. Any
conflicts of opinions between the federal agencies and states are handled through existing conflict
resolution mechanisms built into the NPS program. If an issue cannot be resolved, the lead state
agency should contact the appropriate EPA Region to further negotiate a mutually acceptable solution.
When the EPA Region is unable to resolve such a conflict, the issue may be referred to the appropriate
Headquarters office and elevated as necessary.
• Linkages with Purpose 7 Consistency Review
Both NPS and Purpose 7 consistency reviews authorize a broad review of proposed federal
assistance and development projects. Under both Section 319 (for NPS) and 320 (for Purpose 7), a
review can extend beyond those programs and projects covered by EO 12372 to all programs and
projects listed in the Catalog. However, the review described in Section 319 goes beyond the Section
320 review by requiring federal agencies to modify their regulations to allow the expanded state review
to take place within the established state EO review process. In other words, all federal financial
assistance programs and development projects listed on the state's Section 319 list can be reviewed by
the state through the state EO clearinghouse process; furthermore, the affected feberand those
programs and projects covered by EO 12372 to all programs and projects listed in the Catalog.
However, the review described in Section 319 go required to modify their regulations. Because the
federal activities that can be reviewed by either program are the same, and because there are likely to
be common concerns about federal activities between state NPS management programs and NEP
Management Conferences, it is beneficial to combine and coordinate these review processes to the
extent feasible.
As with CZM consistency review, the options range from obtaining current and regular
information about programs that are reviewed and the review results to coordinating with the NPS
program to provide joint review comments through the SPOC. Although it is unlikely that the two review
processes can be fully combined, at a minimum, communications with the NPS coordinator should
ensure consistent definitions of 'consistency* and review criteria. To assist Management Conferences In
focusing its Purpose 7 consistency review, a state's Section 319 review list should be shared with
Management Conferences. Management Conferences should then choose whether to conduct further
review of those projects or programs impacting coastal waters beyond the review provided through
Section 319. In addition, if during consistency review either a Management Conference or the lead state
27
-------
NPS agency suspects that a proposed federal program or project is or may be inconsistent with the
other, notice should be provided to the other program.
Federal Reviews
Federal review and consultation processes that might be helpful to Management Conferences in
conducting a Purpose 7 review include the National Environmental Policy Act Environmental impact
Statement review and the A-106 process for identifying federal facilities that are not in Compliance with
pollution abatement standards.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 is the nation's basic charter for assuring
protection of the environment, establishing policy, setting goals, and providing mechanisms for carrying
out the policy. The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act included Section 309, which forged the link
between EPA and NEPA. Section 309 made EPA a central clearinghouse for ensuring an on-the-record
review of proposed actions by other federal agencies that might adversely affect the environment.
Specifically, this provision requires EPA review and comment in writing on federal actions that have
potential for significant environmental impacts.
EPA's review and comment focus on the acceptability of the impacts associated with the
proposed federal action, and the adequacy of the impact analysis prepared for the federal action.
Specifically, the Agency comments on potential violations of, or inconsistencies with, national
environmental standards, and determines whether adequate information has been provided to assess the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. EPA also comments on issues and concerns
related to the Agency's duties, mandates, and expertise, which include all environmental media - water,
air, and land - and regulatory responsibilities, such as air and water quality and solid waste treatment
and disposal. In general, the degree to which EPA becomes involved in attempting to modify an
agency's proposed project depends on the magnitude of the potential environmental impacts and the
level of responsibility exercised over those impacts.
Section 1502.16 (c) of NEPA also requires Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) to include a
discussion on 'possible conflicts between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional,
state, and local (and in the case of a reservation, Indian tribe) land use plans, policies and controls for
the area concerned.'
28
-------
• Linkages with Purpose 7 Consistency Review
At several stages during the planning process for federal activities and projects, the federal
agency must prepare NEPA documentation and request comments from other appropriate federal, state,
and local agencies, Indian tribes, interested organizations and the public. At this point, the EPA
representative to the Management Conference could notify the Conference that the NEPA documentation
has been prepared and released for public comment. Management Conferences can then review the
project for consistency with the CCMP under the NEPA review process. The more direct route under
the NEPA process, however, is for Conference comments on these federal activities to be transmitted by
an official NEPA contact. Conferences can submit comments as a group, as well as ask individual
agency Conference members to reflect their agency's concerns.
When reviewing NEPA documentation, Management Conferences should use the same criteria
and guidelines developed for the Purpose 7 consistency review. Conferences should evaluate the draft
for completeness of options and identify any impacts that have not been discussed. The review should
also note any options that are inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of the CCMP and indicate
the Management Conference's preferred altemative(s). Finally, the review should suggest any mitigating
steps that would be necessary to reduce adverse impacts.
A-106 Process
The A-106 process requires federal agencies to identify federal facilities that are not in
compliance with federal, state, and local pollution abatement standards and to develop semi-annual
plans with annual cost estimates to bring the facilities into compliance (see Appendix I for text of OMB
Circular A-106). Through this process, federal plans must demonstrate compliance with current
standards and meet any new regulatory requirements. The plans must correct any violations reported
by EPA or the state. The A-106 plans are updated by federal agencies semi-annually, and budget
priorities are given to those projects that are already or will soon be out of compliance. The plans are
sent to EPA to review and recommend to OMB any necessary changes.
• Linkages with Purpose 7 Consistency Review
As active participants on all Management Conferences, EPA representatives should work with
their Conferences to identify any inconsistencies in the proposed federal facilities plans or in the semi-
29
-------
annua! updates with the goals and objectives of the CCMP. Again, the same criteria developed for the
Purpose 7 review should be used for this review.
Other Review Authorities
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act contains a state certification process regarding proposed
activities that may result in any discharge to navigable waters. Applicants for federal licenses or permits
must obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates that the discharge will comply
with effluent limitation provisions and applicable standards under the Act (Sections 301, 302, 306 and
307).
Two other federal statutes require applicants to provide regional and/or area-wide metropolitan
planning agencies with 60 days to comment on certain types of applications proposed for federal
funding, and to include those agencies' comments as part of the application submitted for federal
funding. These requirements are contained in Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act of 1966 and Section 401 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
Section 204 requires applicants for federally funded projects in metropolitan areas to give area-
wide agencies 60 days to review and comment on a proposed application. The type of proposals
subject to this requirement include, among other things, the construction of highways, wastewater
treatment facilities, sewage facilities, airports, jails, mass transit projects, open-space land projects, water
development projects, and land conservation projects. Section 401 relates to applications for
development purposes, requiring that, to the maximum extent possible, proposed activities be consistent
with planning activities and decisions at state, regional, and local levels.
• Linkages with Purpose 7 Consistency Review
Management Conferences should work closely with the state and local development and
planning representatives on the Conference to seek opportunities through these provisions to review and
comment upon such proposals for federal funding. As described above. Purpose 7 criteria for review
should also be used in reviewing applications for these development projects. These sections provide
equally powerful opportunities to identify inconsistent proposed activity before it is funded, and to
suggest alternatives that would be consistent with the CCMP goals.
30
-------
4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Management Conferences
The Management Conference framework provides an important forum for addressing potential
inconsistencies among federal programs that relate to the goals of the CCMP. Therefore, it is important
to begin planning for federal consistency well before the CCMP is completed by the Conference. The
agencies, industries, and other participants that are represented on the Management Conference should
include programs and interests with the most potential to affect, positively or adversely, the estuary's
watershed.
Before Completion of the CCMP
Even before the CCMP is complete. Management Conferences should begin working to ensure
consistency with other programs, ideally, the inventory of federal programs should be completed early
and Conferences can begin working to resolve potential conflicts and to ensure that new programs and
projects strengthen the goals of the CCMP. if this is not the case, the Institutional Inventory completed
for the base program analysis should identify at an early stage many of the federal programs and
projects of interest to Management Conferences for Purpose 7. Vehicles for resolving potential conflicts
include written agreements between affected parties, workshops and meetings to educate federal, state,
and local agencies on the purposes and objectives of Management Conferences and CCMPs, and
meetings with NPS program and state CZM contacts to discuss possible linkages with their consistency
reviews.
• Written Agreements
As potential inconsistencies are identified in both federal financial assistance programs and
future development projects, appropriate federal and/or state agencies should be contacted to discuss
resolution of the inconsistencies and to encourage commitments to participate in the implementation of
the CCMP. Where feasible, resolutions and commitments can be followed up with a written agreement
such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOD). MOUs should, in turn, be included in the
Management Conferences' federal consistency reports, along with descriptions of other mechanisms for
resolving inconsistencies with federal agencies.
31
-------
MOUs should, where possible, Include contingencies for future federal financial assistance
proposals and direct federal development projects, as well as ensure coordination between federal
agencies and related programs. These agreements should also be used to ensure commitments by
Management Conference members.
Where a significant number of federal facilities affect an estuary's watershed, estuary programs
should develop specific agreements with those facilities. The Puget Sound Estuary Program, for
instance, involves several federal military facilities that contribute to some of the problems in the Sound.
The Management Conference Policy Committee (the Regional Administrator of EPA, the Chair of the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, and the Director of the Washington Department of Ecology) sent
letters to the base commanders of these facilities to initiate negotiations and discussions related to
specific issues of concern to the Sound (i.e.. storm water, municipal and industrial discharges, ground
water, spill prevention and response, and shellfish contamination and protection).
Written agreements should encourage affected or potentially affected federal agencies to
develop coordinated work plans. These work plans should address the agencies' mandates and discuss
how they relate to the estuary program, suggest a time line for work to be completed, develop
procedures for setting priorities for projects and programs, Include an agreement for continued
participation on Conference committees, specify the level of commitment to and participation in CCMP
implementation, outline the budget and manpower needs for the estuary program efforts, specify
methods of reporting progress, and include commitments to detailing staff to the program office.
• Education
To ensure federal consistency with the CCMP, it is important to educate agencies both on the
goals and objectives of the CCMP and on the consistency review required under Purpose 7. Education
will ensure that state SPOCs understand the importance of reflecting Management Conference views In
their official state recommendation and that federal agencies take the opportunity to ensure that
programs and projects are first proposed in a manner that is consistent with or furthers the purposes
and objectives of the CCMP. Management Conference representatives from the different agencies
should be responsible for educating other offices within their agency, and state representatives on
Management Conferences should be responsible for educating the SPOC. Education workshops should
be held throughout the development of the CCMP.
32
-------
After Approval of the CCMP
At the time of CCMP-approval. Management Conferences may delegate the authority to lead the
review to a state agency or Implementation Committee. II the authority is delegated, then Management
Conferences must oversee and approve the delegated authority's determination to ensure compliance
with the Act. If a Management Conference or some subgroup of the Conference retains review authority,
the Conference should ensure that adequate staff support is available to serve as the designated
MCPOC.
State Agencies
For consistency reviews, the principal roles of state agencies on Management Conferences are
(1) lo facilitate the process of Including Conference comments in the state process recommendation and
(2) play a cooperative role in submitting agency comments to the SPOC for inclusion in the SPR, to
minimize or eliminate conflicts between state and Conference comments. If Management Conferences
delegate review authority to state representatives, those representative will be responsible for including
Conference views in the SPR. If Management Conferences choose to work with other federal
consistency reviews, such as the CZM review or the Section 319 review, the state agency representative
should act as the Management Conference liaison in setting up the linkages.
Federal Agencies
The main role of federal agency representatives on Management Conferences is to work towards
commitments that will ensure the consistency of their program activities with the purposes and
objectives of the CCMP. The federal agencies should develop written agreements and should work with
the other offices within their own agency to ensure consistency with the CCMP. The federal agency
representatives should also commit to accommodating Management Conference concerns where
feasible, even if the concerns are not part of the official SPR.
EPA is responsible for working with Management Conferences to ensure these commitments.
When necessary, EPA will help Management Conferences resolve conflicts with other federal agencies,
develop written agreements, support educational activities, and provide other assistance, as needed.
33
-------
5. CONCLUSION
Like many other facets of the CCMP, the strength in the consistency authority given to
Management Conferences is achieved through cooperation, rather than through the law itseH. Section
320(b)(7) of the CWA provides Management Conferences with the authority to review federal financial
assistance programs and development projects for consistency with the purposes and objectives of the
CCMP. Each Management Conference should consider how it plans to implement the federal
consistency review authority as early as possible in its planning process. Two products required of each
Conference will assist in developing the Purpose 7 review authority: (1) an inventory of federal
programs/projects that may affect the estuary and (2) a federal consistency report that identifies existing
inconsistencies between the CCMP purposes and objectives and specific federal activities and defines a
plan for resolving them. The federal consistency report should also contain a strategy for a continuing
consistency review process for proposed federal activities, programs and projects in the future.
This guidance presents a number of possible strategies to help Management Conferences
accomplish the review required under Purpose 7. Conferences may choose to work through other
established consistency review processes, such as those under the CZM or NPS programs, that give
Management Conferences stronger and broader authority and give Conference comments more weight.
Recognizing that each Management Conference has a different set of participants and institutional
arrangements, EPA recommends that Management Conferences select a strategy that (1) builds on
Conference strengths, whether it be a strong state coastal zone management program, involvement of
the state SPOC, or other factors, (2) creates the most effective forum for cooperation, and (3) maximizes
satisfactory resolution of inconsistencies. Ultimately, the success of the Purpose 7 consistency review
process will depend on the ability of states and federal agencies to work together and communicate
openly and cooperatively. Through early notification, effective communication, and negotiations,
Management Conferences and federal agencies can make the consistency review process an effective
tool for achieving sound environmental goals.
34
-------
APPENDIX A
SECTION 320 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
If
-------
Clean Water Act §320
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
(4) develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan that recommends priority
corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollution
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the estuary,
including restoration and maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the
designated uses of the estuary are protected;
(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the plan by the states as well as federal
and local agencies participating in the conference;
(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the plan; and
(7) review all Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development projects in
accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17,1983,
to determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent with and further
the purposes or objectives of the plan prepared under this section.
For purposes of paragraph (7), such programs and projects shall not be limited to the assistance
programs and development projects subject to Executive Order 12372, but may include any programs
listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an effect on the
purposes and objectives of the plan developed under this section.
(c) MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE. — The membeis of a management conference convened under this
section shall indude, at a minimum, the Administrator and representatives of —
(1) each State and foreign nation located in whole or in part in the estuarine zone of the es*
for which the conference is convened;
(2) international, interstate, or regional agencies or entities having jurisdiction over all or k
significant part of the estuary;
(3) each interested Federal agency, as determined appropriate by the Administrator;
(4) local governments having jurisdiction over any land or water within the estuarine zone, as
determined appropriate by the Administrator; and
(5) affected industries, public and private educational institutions, and the general public, as
determined appropriate by the Administrator.
(d) UTILIZATION OF EXISTING DATA. — In developing a conservation and management plan
under this section, the management conference shall survey and utilize existing reports, data, and
studies relating to the estuary that have been developed by or made available to Federal,
interstate, State, and local agencies.
(e) PERIOD OF CONFERENCE. — A management conference convened under this section shall be
convened for a period not to exceed 5 years. Such conference may be extended by the
Administrator, and if terminated after the initial period, may be reconvened by the
Administrator at any time thereafter, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of this
section.
(f) APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.—
(1) APPROVAL — Not later than 120 days after the completion of a conservation and
management plan and after providing for public review and comment, the Administrator
shall approve such plan if the plan meets the requirements of this section and the affected
Governor or Governors concur.
A-2
-------
(2) tMPLEMENTATION. — Upon approval of a conservation and management plait under this
section, such plan shall be implemented. Funds authorized to be appropriated under titles D
and VI and section 319 of this Act may be used in accordance with the applicable requirements
of this Act to assist stateswith the implementation of such plan.
(g> GRANTS —
(1) RECIPIENTS. — The Administrator is authorized to make grants to State, interstate, and
regional water pollution control agencies and entities, State coastal zone management
agencies, interstate agencies, and other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals.
(2) PURPOSES. — Grants under this subsection shall be made to pay for assisting research,
surveys, studies, and modeling and other technical work necessary for the development of a
conservation and management plan under this section.
(3) FEDERAL SHARE. — The amount of grants to any person (including a State, interstate, or
regional agency or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year shall not exceed 75 percent of
the aosts of such research, survey, studies, and work and shall be made oi\ condition the non-
Federal share of such costs are provided from non-Federal sources.
(h) GRANT REPORTING. — Any person (including a State; interstate, or regional agency or entity)
that receives a giant under subsection (g) shall report to the Administrator not later than 18
months after receipt of such grant and biennially thereafter cm the progress being made under this
section.
li) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. — There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator not to exceed $12,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal yeans 1987,1988,1989,
1990, and 1991 for—
(1) expenses related to the administration of management conferences under this section, not to
exceed 10 percent of the amount appropriated under this subsection;
(2) making grants under subsection (g); and
(3) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and management plan by the management
conference or by the Administrator, in any case in which the conference has been terminated.
The Administrator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year of the sums authorized to be
appropriated under this subsection to the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
'Administration to carry out subsection (p.
(j) RESEARCH.—
(1) PROGRAMS. — In order to determine the need to convene a management conference under this
section or at the request of such a management conference, the Administrator shall coordinate
and implement, through the National Marine Pollution Program Office and the National
Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as
appropriate, for one or more estuarine zones —
(A) a long-term program of trend assessment monitoring measuring variations in pollutant
concentrations, marine ecology, and other physical or biological environmental
parameters which may affect estuarine zones, to provide the Administrator the
capacity to determine the potential and actual effects of alternative management
strategies and measures;
A-3
-------
(B) a program of ecosystem assessment assisting in the development of (i) baseline studi
which determine the state of estuarine zones and the effects of natural and
anthropogenic changes, and (ii) predictive models capable of translating information
on specific discharges or general pollutant loadings within estuarine zones into a set of
probable effects on such zones;
(C) a comprehensive water quality sampling program for the continuous monitoring of
nutrients, chlorine, acid precipitation dissolved oxygen, and potentially toxic
pollutants (including organic chemicals and metals) in estuarine zones, after
consultation with interested State, local, interstate, or international agencies and
review and analysis of all environmental sampling data presently collected from
estuarine zones; and
(D) a program of research to identify the movements of nutrients, sediments and pollutants
through estuarine zones and the impact of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants on water
quality, the ecosystem, and designated or potential uses of the estuarine zones.
(2) REPORTS. — The Administrator, in cooperation with the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall submit to the Congress no less often than
biennially a comprehensive report on the activities authorized under this subsection
including —
(A) a listing of priority monitoring and research needs;
(B) an assessment of the state and health of the Nation's estuarine zones, to the extent
evaluated under this subsection;
(C) a discussion of pollution problems and trends in pollutant concentrations with a direct w.
indirect effect on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or potential uses of each
estuarine zone; to the extent evaluated under this subsection; and
(D) an evaluation of pollution abatement activities and management measures so far
implemented to determine the degree of improvement toward the objectives expressed
in subsection (b)(4) of this section.
DEFINITIONS. — For purposes of this section, the terms "estuary" and "estuarine zone" have
the meanings such terms have in section 104(n)(4) of this Act except that the term "estuarine
zone" shall also include associated aquatic ecosystems and those portions of tributaries draining
into the estuary up to the historic height of migration of anadromous fish or the historic head of
tidal influence, whichever is higher.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
TEXT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372:
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS
-------
TEXT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372:
¦INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS-
FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 47. NO. 137
JULY 16, 1982
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America,
including Section 401(a) of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4231(a)) and
Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and in order to foster an intergovernmental partnership
and a strengthened federalism by relying on State and local processes for the State and local
government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal
development. It is hereby ordered as follows:
• Section 1. Federal agencies shall provide opportunities for consultation by elected officials
of those State and local governments that would provide the non-Federal funds for, or that
woiild be directly affected by, proposed Federal financial assistance or direct Federal
development.
• Section 2. To the extent the States. In consultation with local general purpose governments,
and local special purpose governments they consider appropriate, develop their own
processes or refine existing processes for State and local elected officials to review and
coordinate proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development, the Federal
agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law:
(a) Utilize the State process to determine official views of State and local elected officials.
(b) Communicate with State and local elected officials as early in the program planning
cycle as is reasonably feasible to explain specific plans and actions.
(c) Make efforts to accommodate State and local elected officials' concerns with proposed
Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development that are communicated
through the designated State process. For those cases where the concerns cannot be
accommodated, Federal officials shall explain the bases for their decision in a timely
manner.
(d) Allow the States to simplify and consolidate existing Federally required State plan
submissions. Where State planning and budgeting systems are sufficient and where
permitted by law, the substitution of State plans for Federally required State plans shall
be encouraged by the agencies.
(e) Seek the coordination of views of affected State and local elected officials in one State
with those of another State when proposed Federal financial assistance or direct
Federal development has an impact on interstate metropolitan urban centers or their
interstate areas. Existing interstate mechanisms that are redesigned as part of the
State process may be used for this purpose.
(f) Support State and local governments by discouraging the reauthorization or creation of
any planning organization which is Federally-funded, which has a Federally-prescribed
membership, which is established for a limited purpose, and which is not adequately
representative of. or accountable to, State or local elected officials.
B-1
-------
• Section 3.
(a) The State process referred to in Section 2 shall include those where States delegate, in
specific instances, to local elected officials the review, coordination, and
communication with Federal agencies.
(b) At the discretion of the State and local elected officials, the State process may exclude
certain Federal programs from review and comment.
• Section 4. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall maintain a list of official State
entities designated by the States to review and coordinate proposed Federal financial
assistance and direct Federal development. The Office of Management and Budget shall
disseminate such lists to the Federal agencies.
• Section 5.
(a) Agencies shall propose rules and regulations governing the formulation, evaluation, and
review of proposed Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development
pursuant to this Order, to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
approval.
(b) The rules and regulations which result from the process indicated in Section 5(a) above
shall replace any current rules and regulations and become effective April 30, 1983.
• Section 6. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is authorized to prescribe
such rules and regulations, if any, as he deems appropriate for the effective implementation
and administration of this Order and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968. The
Director is also authorized to exercise the authority vested in the President by Section 401 (a)
of that Act (42 U.S.C. 4231(a)), in a manner consistent with this Order.
• Section 7. The Memorandum of November 8, 1968, is terminated (33 Fed. Reg. 16487,
November 13, 1968). The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall revoke
OMB Circular A-95, which was issued pursuant to that Memorandum. However, Federal
agencies shall continue to comply with the rules and regulations issued pursuant to that
Memorandum, including those issued by the Office of Management and Budget, until new
rules and regulations have been issued in accord with this Order.
• Section 8. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall report to the
President within two years of Federal agency compliance with this Order. The views of State
and local elected officials on their experiences with these policies, along with any suggestions
for improvement, will be included in the Director's report.
The White House (Signed by
July 14, 1982 Ronald Reagan)
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C
CHARACTERISTICS OF COASTAL STATE EO
REVIEW PROCESSES
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE EO REVIEW PROCESSES1
STATE
IMPLEMENTING
MECHANISM
!U)C^ONX)Fm«rE
SINGUE
NUMBER'S*
!$3Gmp:PR0GRAM$
SELSCTEOBY
STATES
ALABAMA
EXECUTIVE ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
MOST
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.2
ALASKA
NONE
CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MOST
The review system is highly
decentralized. Areawide
clearinghouses coordinate local
reviews and may delegate this
responsibility to local governments.
CONNECTICUT
EXECUTIVE ORDER
OFFICE OF POLICY AND
MANAGEMENT
ALL
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
1. Reference: Office of Management and Budget, 1985. Implementation of Executive Order 12372: the First Year. OMB noted the following sources:
(a) Governors' letters to OMB announcing establishment of an official state process in response to E.O. 12372.
(b) Promise of Partnership. Council of State Planning Agencies, January 1984.
2. Under OMB Circular A-95, the coordination of reviews of applications for federal assistance and of direct federal development proposals by state agencies
was carried out through a state clearinghouse. Review by local governments was coordinated through areawide clearinghouses.
C-1
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE EO REVIEW PROCESSES (cont.)
STATE
IMPLEMENTING
MECHANISM
LOCATION OP STftTi
SINGLE
POINT OF CONTACT
NUMBER OF
ELKySlEPROGRAMS
selected by
STATES
SIGNIFICANT FEATURES
DELAWARE
LEGISLATION AND
EXECUTIVE ORDER
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
ALL
The Delaware State Clearinghouse
committee, composed of legislative
and state agency personnel, reviews
and approves or disapproves all
proposals from state agencies for
federal funding.
FLORIDA
EXECUTIVE ORDER
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR
ALL
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
GEORGIA
GOVERNOR'S
LETTER
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FEW
The Atlanta Regional Commission has
been delegated authority for review of
many of the eligible federal programs.
HAWAI'
GOVERNORS
LETTER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MOST
The state clearinghouse processes all
statewide and island applications. The
E.O. 12372 process Is used to
Implement Hawaii's state plan.
LOUISIANA
NONE
MAINE
EXECUTIVE ORDER
STATE PLANNING OFFICE
ALL
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
C-2
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE EO REVIEW PROCESSES (com.)
STATE
IMPUSIWewriNG
MECHANISM
POINT OF
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE EO REVIEW PROCESSES (cont.)
STATE
IMPLEMENTING
mechanism:
LOCATION OP STATE
single:
POINT OF CONTACT
eacaaftr programs
STATES "
NEW JERSEY
RULES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS
ALL
The applicant - not the state E.O.
administering office - sends materials
to the appropriate state or local
reviewing agencies as identified in the
state's review manual.
NEW YORK
EXECUTIVE ORDER
DIVISION OF THE BUDGET
50%
Comments intended to assist
applicants in implementing their
proposed projects are sent to the
prospective applicants directly by state
or substate reviewers, rather than by
the SPOC.
NORTH CAROLINA
EXECUTIVE ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
MOST
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system. As a
paperwork reduction measure, projects
are classified as "major" and 'non-
major*. 'Major" actions are submitted
to state agencies for 20-day review. A
weekly listing of "non-major" actions is
circulated to all state agencies.
OREGON
NONE
PENNSYLVANIA
NONE
C-4
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE EO REVIEW PROCESSES (cont.)
STATE
IMPLEMENTING
MECHANISM
iornmmmm,
SINGLE
POINT OF CONTACT
mJMBEROF;
wtmzmymto®
SELECTEDBY
STATES
RHODE ISLAND
EXECUTIVE ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
50%
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
SOUTH CAROLINA
LEGISLATION
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MOST
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
TEXAS
RULES
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MOST
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system. The Texas
process is highly decentralized. State
and areawide clearinghouses are linked
through a telecommunications and
computer message system.
VIRGINIA
NONE
WASHINGTON
EXECUTIVE ORDER
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
ALL
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
PUERTO RICO
EXECUTIVE ORDER
PUERTO RICO PLANNING BOARD
MOST
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
C-5
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE EO REVIEW PROCESSES (cont.)
STATE
IMPLEMENTING
MECHANISM
logationofstate
SINGLE
POINT OP CONTACT
MeirPKOGaAMsi :
STATES
SIQNU^CANTmfijnii
VIRGIN ISLANDS
EXECUTIVE ORDER
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
MOST
State and local officials chose to
structure their E.O. 12372 review
procedures to closely resemble the
former A-95 review system.
GUAM
UNKNOWN
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
UNKNOWN
NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS
UNKNOWN
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
UNKNOWN
C-6
-------
APPENDIX D
COASTAL STATE SINGLE POINTS OF CONTACT
-------
COASTAL STATE SINGLE POINTS OF CONTACT
(as of 9/92)
ALABAMA
Moncell Thornell, State SPOC
Department of Economic and Community
Affairs
401 Adams Avenue
Post Office Box 5690
Montgomery, Alabama 36103-5690
Telephone (205) 242-5491
ALASKA - No review
CAUFORNIA
Glenn Stober, Grants Coordinator
Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone (916) 323-7480
CONNECTICUT
Under Secretary
Attn: Intergovernmental Review Coordinator
Comprehensive Planning Division
Office of Policy and Management
80 Washington Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06105-4459
Telephone (203) 566-3410
DELAWARE
Francine Booth, State SPOC
Executive Department
Thomas Collins Building
Dover, Delaware 19903
Telephone (302) 736-3326
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Lovetta Davis, State SPOC
Executive Office of the Mayor
Office of Intergovernmental Relations
Room 416, District Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone (202) 727-9111
FLORIDA
Karen McFarland, Director
State Clearinghouse
Executive Office of the Governor
Office of Planning and Budgeting
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Telephone (904) 488-8114
GEORGIA
Charles H. Badger, Administrator
State Clearinghouse
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta. Georgia 30334
Telephone (404) 556-3855
GUAM
Michael J. Reidy, Director
Bureau of Budget and Management Research
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 2950
Agana, Guam 96910
Telephone (671) 472-2285
HAWAII
Harold S. Masumoto, Acting Director
Office of State Planning
Department of Planning and Economic
Development
Office of the Governor
State Capitol • Room 406
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone (808) 548-5893
LOUISIANA - No review
MAINE
State Single Point of Contact
Attn: Joyce Benson
State Planning Office
State House Station #38
Augusta, Maine 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3261
D-1
-------
MARYLAND
NEW YORK
Mary Abrams, Chief
State Clearinghouse
Department of State Planning
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore. Maryland 21201-2365
Telephone (301) 225-4490
MASSACHUSETTS
State Single Point of Contact
Attn: Beverly Boyle
Executive Office of Communities and
Development
100 Cambridge Street, Room 1803
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
Telephone (617) 727-7001
MISSISSIPPI
Cathy Malletta, Clearinghouse Officer
Department of Finance and Administration
Office of Federal Grant Management and
Reporting
301 West Pearl Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39203
Telephone (601) 949-2174
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jeffery H. Taylor, Director
Office of State Planning
Attn: Intergovernmental Review Process/James
E. Bieber
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Telephone (603) 271-2155
NEW JERSEY
Richard J. Porth, Director
Intergovernmental Review Unit
Division of Community Resources
Department of Community Affairs
CN 814 (Room 609)
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Telephone (609) 292-9025
FAX (609) 984-0386
State Clearinghouse
Division of the Budget
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Telephone (518) 474-1605
NORTH CAROLINA
Chrys Baggett, Director
•Intergovernmental Relations
Department of Administration
116 W. Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone (919) 733-0499
NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
State Single Point of Contact
Planning and Budget Office
Office of the Governor
Saipan, CM
Northern Mariana Islands 96950
OREGON - No review
PENNSYLVANIA - No review
PUERTO RICO
Patria Custodic/lsrael Soto Marrero
Chairman/Director
Planning Board
Minillas Government Center
P. O. Box 41119
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00940-9985
Telephone (809) 727-4444
RHODE ISLAND
Daniel W. Varin, Associate Director
Statewide Planning Program
Department of Administration
Division of Planning
265 Melrose Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02907
Telephone (401) 277-2656
Please direct correspondence and questions to:
Review Coordinator
Office of Strategic Planning
D-2
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
State Single Point of Contact
Grant Services
Office of the Governor
1205 Pendleton Street, Room 477
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Telephone (603) 734-0493
TEXAS
Tom Adams
Governor's Office of Budget and Planning
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711
Telephone (512) 463-1778
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Jose L George, Director
Office of Management and Budget
NO. 32 & 33 Kongens Gade
Charlotte Amalie, V.I. 00602
Telephone (809) 774-0750
VIRGINIA - No review
WASHINGTON
Marilyn Dawson
Washington Intergovernmental Review Process
Department of Community Development
9th and Columbia Building
Mail Stop GH-51
Olympia, Washington 98504-4151
Telephone (206) 753-4978
D-3
-------
APPENDIX E
COASTAL STATE NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATORS
-------
COASTAL STATE NONPOINT SOURCE COORDINATORS
ALABAMA
Timothy S. Forester
Department of Environmental Management
1751 Cong. W. I. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Telephone (205) 271-7786
ALASKA
Andrew Grant
Department of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box O
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone (907) 465-2653
CALIFORNIA
Stan Martinson
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water
901 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone (916) 322-6567
CONNECTICUT
Fred Banach
Department of Environmental Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Telephone (203) 566-7049
DEL-AWARE
John A. Hughes
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway, Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
Telephone (302) 739-4411
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Sheila A. Besse
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
5010 Overlook Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20032
Telephone (202) 404-1120
FLORIDA
Eric Livingston
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Telephone (904) 488-0782
GEORGIA
James Chandler
Water Quality Management Program
7 Martin Luther King Drive, Suite 643
Atlanta. Georgia 30334
Telephone (404) 656-4988
GUAM
Fred M. Castro
Guam EPA
IT&E Harmon Plaza. Unit D-107
130 Rojas Street
Haron, Guam 96911
HAWAII
Mary Rose Teves
Environmental Planning
5 Waterfront Plaza. Suite 25D
500 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801-9984
Telephone (808) 543-8337
LOUISIANA
Jan Boydstun
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82215
7290 Bluebonnet
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2215
Telephone (504) 342-6363
MAINE
Ronald Dyer
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House #17
Augusta, Maine 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3901
E-1
-------
MARYLAND
NORTH CAROLINA
Ron Gardner
Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway, Building 30
Baltimore, Maryland 21224
Telephone (301) 631-3552
MASSACHUSETTS
Eben Chesebrough
DEP/DWPC, Technical
1 Winter Street
Boston. Massachusetts 02108
Telephone (617) 727-0437
MISSISSIPPI
Robert Seyfarth
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 10385
2380 Highway 80 W
Jackson, Mississippi 39289-0385
Telephone (601) 961-5171
NEW HAMPSHIRE
E. Ann Poole
Department of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95, 6 Hazen Drive
Concord. New Hampshire 03301
Telephone (603) 271-3503
NEW JERSEY
Brain McLendon
Bureau of Water Quality Planning
401 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Telephone (609) 633-7021
NEW YORK
Allan C. Tedrow
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 310
Albany, New York 12233-3501
Telephone (518) 457-7463
Beth McGee
DEHNR/Division of Environmental Management •
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Telephone (919) 733-5083
OREGON
Roger Wood
¦ Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Telephone (503) 229-6893
PENNSYLVANIA
Daniel Drawbaugh
Water Quality Management
Department of Environmental Resources
P. O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Telephone (717) 787-2666
PUERTO RICO
Tomas Rivera
Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 11488
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
Telephone (809) 725-0717
RHODE ISLAND
Elizabeth Scott
Department of Environmental Management
83 Park Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Telephone (401) 277-3961
SOUTH CAROLINA
Doug Fabel
Department of Health and Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Telephone (803) 734-5228
E-2
-------
TEXAS
James M. Moore
Soil and Water Conservation Board
P.O. Box 658
Temple, Texas 76503
Telephone (817) 773-2°50
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Leonard Reed
Division of Environmental Protection
45A Estate Nisky
St. Thomas, Virgin Island 00802
Telephone (809) 774-3320
VIRGINIA
Stuart Wilson
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
203 Governor Street
Richmond. Virginia 23219
Telephone (804) 786-4382
WASHINGTON
Richard Wallace
Department of Ecology
PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
Telephone (206) 438-7069
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONTACTS
-------
STATE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT CONTACTS
(as Of 9/92)
ALABAMA
Gene Anderson, Director
Department of Economic and Community
Affairs
P.O. Box 5690
401 Adams Avenue
Montgomery, Alabama 36203-5690
Telephone (205) 242-8672
ALASKA
Dr. Paul Rusanowski, Director
Division of Governmental Coordination
Office of Management and Budget
P.O. Box 110030
431 North Franklin
Juneau, Alaska 99811 -0030
Telephone (907) 465-3562
AMERICAN SAMOA
Dr. Meki Solomona, Director
Development Planning Office
Government of American Samoa
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Overseas Operator
Telephone (684) 633-5155
CALIFORNIA
Peter M. Douglas. Executive Director
California Coastal Commission
45 Fremont Street
Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94105-2219
Telephone (415) 904-5200
Alan Pendleton, Executive Director
Bay Conservation and San Francisco
Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011
San Francisco,California 94102
Telephone (415) 557-3686
CONNECTICUT
Timothy R.E. Keoney, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
165 Capitol Avenue, Room 115
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Telephone (203) 566-2110
DELAWARE
Edwin H. Clark, Secretary
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
Telephone (302) 739-4403
FLORIDA
Unda Shelly, Secretary
Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Telephone (904) 488-4808
GUAM
Peter P. Leon Guerrero, Director
Bureau of Planning
Government of Guam
P.O. Box 2950
Agana, Guam 96910
Telephone (671) 472-4201
HAWAII
Harold S. Masumoto, Director
Office of State Planning
State Capitol. Room 410
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone (808) 548-5893
F-1
-------
LOUISIANA
NEW JERSEY
John F. Ales, Secretary
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44124
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
Telephone (504) 342-4500
MAINE
Richard Silkman, Director
State Planning Office
State House Station #38
Augusta, Maine 04333
Telephone (207) 289-3261
MARYLAND
Dr. Torrey Brown, Secretary
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Telephone (410) 974-3041
MASSACHUSETTS*
Susan Tierney, Secretary
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Maine 02202
Telephone (617) 727-9800
MISSISSIPPI
Hayes Dent, Interim Executive Director
Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries
and Parks
P.O. Box 451
Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0451
Telephone (601) 362-9212
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Jeffrey Taylor, Director
Office of State Planning
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Telephone (603) 271-2155
Scott A. Wiener, Commissioner
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
CN 402
Trenton, NJ 08625
Telephone (609) 292-2885
NEW YORK
•Gail Shaffer, Secretary of State
162 Washington Street
Albany, New York 12231
Telephone (518) 474-4750
NORTH CAROLINA
William Cobey, Secretary
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone (919) 733-4984
NORTHERN MARIANAS
Joaquin P. Villagomez, Administrator
Coastal Resources Management Office
Nauru Building
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
Overseas Operator for Saipan
Telephone (670) 234-6623
OREGON
Richard Benner, Director
Department of Land Conservation and
Development
1175 Court Street, N.E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
Telephone (503) 378-4928
PENNSYLVANIA
Arthur A. Davis, Secretary
Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-2063
Telephone (717) 787-2814
F-2
-------
PUERTO RICO
Santos Rohena Betancourt, Secretary
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 5887
Puerta de Tierra, Puerto Rico 00906
Telephone (809) 723-3090
RHODE ISLAND
Joseph Persia, Program Coordinator
Governor's Office of Housing, Energy
and Intergovernmental Relations
275 Westminister Mall
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Telephone (401) 277-2850
SOUTH CAROLINA
Wes Jones, Chairman
South Carolina Coastal Council
AT&T Capitol Center
1201 Main Street, Suite 1520
Columbia. South Carolina 29201
Telephone (803) 737-0880
VIRGIN ISLANDS
Roy Adams, Commissioner
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Nisky Center. Suite 231
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802
Telephone (809) 774-3320
VIRGINIA
Elizabeth Haskell, Secretary of Natural
Resources
Ninth Street Office Building
Room 524
Riphmond. Virginia 23219
Telephone (804) 786-0044
WASHINGTON
Chuck Clarke. Director
Department of Ecology
State of Washington
Mail Stop PV-11
Barron Hall
Olympia, Washington 98504-8711
Telephone (206) 459-6168 or 459-6284
F-3
-------
APPENDIX G
SELECTED FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
-------
SELECTED FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The following is a list of types of plans and development projects that are initiated and managed
by federal agencies. Not all of the activities listed below will be eligible for Purpose 7 consistency
reviews under the procedures of EO 12372. States should consult the EO 12372 implementing
regulations of the federal agencies, the state SPOC, and/or the EPA Regional Office to determine which
development projects are subject to which review processes.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Forest Plans
Resource Area Analyses
Integrated Resource Management Plans
Timber Activities/Sales
Range Activities
Chemicals/Pesticides
Area Analysis/cumulative impacts analysis
Recreation Development
Transportation Plans
Soil and Water Management
Water Uses and Development
Soil and Water Improvement Projects
Public Water Supply Watershed Management
Hydrologic Modification
Wetlands Protection
Rise to the Future/Fisheries Program
Riparian Management Programs
Minerals Exploration & Development
Fuels Management
Applications for Permits to Drill
Oil & Gas Leasing/reclamation plans
Hydropower licensing activity in coordination with FERC/Special Use Permitting
ORV Activities/off-road vehicles
D-J/W-B Activities (Dingall-Johnson & Wallop-Breaux - fish and game)
Fire Protection
Soil and Water Monitoring Program
Challenge Grant Program (fisheries)
Allotment Management Planning and Administration
Road Construction and Maintenance
Watershed Condition Program
Municipal Watershed Management Program
Floodplain Modifications
Soil Conservation Service/Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
ACP (Agricultural Conservation Program)
GPCP (Great Plains Conservation Program)
PL-566 (Small Watershed Program)
RCWP (Rural Clean Water Program)
Colorado River Salinity
G-1
-------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Marine Fisheries Service
Fisheries Management Plans
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defense Installations
Land Management Plans
Waste Management Plans
Re-vegetation Plans
Location, design and acquisition of new or expanded defense installations
Plans, procedures and facilities for handling or storage use zones
Establishment of impact, compatibility or restricted use zones
Corps of Engineers
dredging
channel improvement
breakwaters
other navigational works
erosion control structures
beach replenishment
dams or flood control works
ice management practices
land acquisition for spoil disposal or other purposes
selection of open water disposal sites
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Watershed Projects
Mineral Exploration & Development
Coal, Oil and Gas Leasing
Coal Reclamation
ORV Activities
Timber Activities
Grazing Allotment/Grazing Management
Chemicals/Pesticides
Area Analysis/Cumulative Impacts
Public Watershed Management
Wetlands Protection
Riparian Management Plans
Hydrologic Modification
Transportation Plans
Watershed Activity Plans
ACEC Plans
G-2
-------
Bureau of Reclamation
Irrigation Development
Fish and Wildlife Service
Management of National Wildlife refuges and proposed acquisitions
National Park Service
National Park and Seashore management and proposed acquisitions
Office of Surface Mining/Reclamation and Enforcement
Regulation of coal mining and reclamation of abandoned mine lands
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Highway Construction/Reconstruction
Federal Aviation Administration
Location/design, construction, maintenance, and demolition of Federal aids to air navigation
Coast Guard
Location/design, construction or enlargement of Coast Guard Stations, bases and lighthouses
Location, placement or removal of navigation devices which are not part of the routine
operations under the Aids to Navigation Program
Expansion, abandonment, designation of anchorages, lighting areas or shipping lanes and ice
management practices and activities
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Acquisition, location and design of proposed Federal government property or buildings, whether
leased or owned by the Federal government
Disposition of Federal surplus lands and structures
G-3
-------
APPENDIX H
AGREEMENT BETWEEN NOAA AND EPA TO COORDINATE
CZM AND NEP ACTIVITIES
-------
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
In order to avoid duplication of effort, unnecessary expenditures
of Federal funds, and the development of conflicting regulatory
mechanisms, involving the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP)
and the National Estuary Program (NEP), the enclosed coordination
paper, which we endorse, has been prepared to address NOAA and
EPA responsibilities.
This paper serves as guidance to NOAA and EPA program managers in
carrying out their respective responsibilities under these two
programs. Steps will be undertaken to begin implementation of
the specific actions called for under Section V, including the
establishment of a mechanism at the national level for
coordination and oversight of individual estuary programs under
the NEP and to ensure continued integration of the NEP and CZMP.
Coordination of NOAA and EPA activities related to this agreement
will be handled by John J. Carey, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
NOAA, National Ocean Service and Tudor T. Davies, Director,
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, EPA.
Enclosure
(signed bv William E. Evans)
William E. Evans
Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere
Department of Commerce
DATE (signed Sept. 12# 1988)
(signed bv Lee M. Thomas)
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
Environmental Protection
Agency
DATE (signed Aug. 18, 1988)
H-1
-------
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
I. GOALS OF THE TWO PROGRAMS
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted by
Congress to create a comprehensive management umbrella for the
beneficial use, protection, and development of the resources of
the nation's coastal zone. Coastal management was conceived as a
voluntary program that States would undertake in partnership with
the Federal government. To achieve,comprehensive management of
coastal resources, States wishing to participate were required to
develop programs that addressed protection of coastal development
in coastal areas to avoid loss of life and property, priority
consideration of water dependent uses, improved access to and
enjoyment of the coastal zone, conservation and management of
living marine resources, and increased coordination of
governmental activities. Wetlands and water quality in estuaries
are important elements of State coastal management programs.
States are required to weigh the concerns of different
levels of government, various interest groups, and the general
public in both the development and implementation of coastal
management programs. There are 29 approved State CZM programs.
Coastal zone programs encompass, through the application of
program policies, interagency and Federal coordination and a wide
range of management issues throughout the state's entire coastal
zone.
The National Estuarv Program (NEP) was established in the
Water Quality Act of 1987 to develop and implement plans to
protect the integrity of nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. In some
estuaries/ the water pollution control requirements have been
shown to be inadequate to protect the environment from
degradation.. The main direction of the NEP is to strengthen
these requirements.
Some nationally significant estuaries will be selected for
inclusion in the program. In the estuaries selected, the
participants of a Management Conference are responsible for
defining the environmental problems, investigating ant1,
determining the causes of system-wide problems, and developing
and implementing plans of action to address the problems.
Sources of point and non-point pollution are the focus, although
the management of living resources, water, resources, and land use
in the watershed may also be identified causes of some
environmental problems.
The conference membership consists of representatives of
EPA, each affected State and foreign nation, international,
interstate, or regional agencies, each interested Federal agency,
local governments, affected industries, public and private
educational institutions, and the general public.
H-2
-------
II. A MUTUAL GOAL
Although the CZMA is broader in scope, both the NEP and CZMA
are focused on the protection of coastal resources and share a
common environmental goal: to maintain and enhance or protect the
health of the nation's coastal resources. In achieving this goal
both EPA's an NOAA's programs seek to ensure that population
growth and corresponding development occur in an environmentally
sound manner.
III. POINTS OF INTERSECT OF: NEP AND CZM
Both NEP and CZM are dependent on the political will
and institutions of State and local government to take
action. These Federal programs depend on the
establishment and implementation of effective programs
through State and local government.
Both NEP and CZM have a strong orientation for public
education, awareness, and involvement.
Both NEP and CZM programs require the development of
comprehensive plans but also have a strong action
orientation.
Both NEP and CZM are designed to comprehensively
address pollution abatement, living resources, and land
and water resource management.
IV. TOOLS
There are several distinct tools available within the two
programs to integrate these programs and work toward the same
environmental goal:
- A NEP Management Conference is convened under Section
320 of the Clean I'ater Act to provide a forum for
consensus building and problem solving.
A NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) is developed by the Management Conference. The
plan specifies goals and objectives for restoring and
maintaining the estuary, and identifies actions,
schedules, and resources to meet the goals.
A Special Area Management Plan is developed by CZM
States which create a comprehensive program providing
special protection for a designated geographic area.
A CZM Section 312 evaluation is a biennial review of a
CZM program which recommends future actions.
Section 307 (cWl) of the CZMA requires Federal agencies
conducting or supporting activities directly affecting
the coastal zone to do so in a manner which is
H-3
-------
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with
Federally approved State coastal zone management
programs.
A CZM implementation grant is made to States with
approved CZMPs requiring "significant improvements"
ensured in part by section 312 evaluations.
A CZM Section 309 grant is a competitive grant to
States to integrate coastal programs and solve problems
in Coastal Zones affecting more than one State.
V. EPA/NOAA CONCEPTS TO INTEGRATION OF NEPs AND CZMPs
NQAA
To the extent permitted by law, States will be required to
submit CCMPs developed under the NEP for incorporation into
approved State CZM programs after approval by the
Governor(s) and the EPA Administrator. CZMA Section 312
biennial evaluations will be used to ensure compliance.
- CZMA Section 312 biennial evaluations will stress activities
identified by Management Conferences convened under the NEP/
including activities outlined in a CCMP, or activities to
support the overall objectives of the national demonstration
program as defined under the NEP. As appropriate, an EPA
representative would be invited to participate on the
evaluations.
CZM guidance governing the allocation of Section 309 grants
for interstate coastal waters will give priority
consideration to interstate estuaries and seek opportunities
to coordinate activities where Management Conferences have
been convened under the NEP.
NOAA will provide scientific support and technical
assistance to EPA for the development of national guidance
on the management of pollution abatement and control
programs to better address the survival and health of living
estuarine and marine resources.
££A
CCMPs developed under the NEP will voluntarily, as a matter
of policy, be submitted for review under the Federal
consistency provisions of Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
NEP guidance and/or regulations will provide that CCMPs
should be incorporated into approved CZMPs and will stress
the use of existing CZMA tools, including the designation of
areas of special concern and public participation and
education programs, for implementation activities identified
by the Management Conference.
H-4
-------
Decision criteria for the selection of new estuaries for the
National Estuary Program will include the existence of
Federally approved CZMPs.
In order to facilitate the development of CCMPs such that
they are consistent, to the maximum extent practicable with
the state CZMPs, NEP guidance and/or regulations will
require a state coastal zone management liaison to
participate on the management committee of the conferences
convened pursuant to the NEP and in the development of the
CCMP.
EPA/NOAA Joint Activities
NOAA and EPA will jointly sponsor a national workshop for
estuary and coastal zone management program staff,
headquarters, regional, and state participants, to further
explore avenues and mechanisms for coordination between and
integration of these programs at the national, regional, and
state level.
NOAA and EPA will conduct, where appropriate, joint reviews
of state programs to facilitate the coordination of the
Management Conference with state CZM programs, sharing of
information sources, and the use of existing CZM programs,
sharing of information sources, and the use of existing CZM
tools to solve problems.
EPA/OMEP and NOAA/OCRM will establish a mechanism at the
national level for coordination and oversight of individual
estuary programs under the NEP and to ensure continued
integration of the NEP and CZMP.
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The National Estuary Program and Coastal Zone
Management Program are being coordinated between NOAA
and EPA.
2. The CZMA provides the broad umbrella for state
management actions in the entire coastal zone; the NEP
focuses on estuaries and supports the overall
achievement of CZMA goals.
3. NEP is a demonstration program to show how
Federal/State/local agencies can develop effective
programs for dealing with environmental problems.
4. CZM/NEP program.efforts are aimed at encouraging state
initiative and implementation through guidance and
cooperative planning—not unilateral Federal regulation
or direction.
H-6
-------
5% Mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that
Management Conferences convened under the NEP will be
coordinated with applicable State CZM planning
processes and administration of CZM plans. Similarly,
CZM program reviews and grant decisions will seek
opportunities to coordinate activities where Management
Conferences have been convened, or where objective* of
the national- demonstration program have been defined,
under the NEP.
H*
-------
}6. - * >.'¦ >. >w • K»si'. .«v &&£&&
'j'j &u<&
APPENDIX I
TEXT OF OMB CIRCULAR A-106
Cyl^Xi'<£*£ V*™iJ?"'
.vK.v.*i5.- wixitf:'
-------
TEXT OF OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-106
December 31, 1974
TO THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS
SUBJECT: Reporting Requirements in Connection With the Prevention, Control, and Abatement of
Environmental Pollution at Existing Federal Facilities
1. Purpose. This Circular provides procedures to be followed by Federal agencies in carrying out the
provision of Section 3(a)(3) of Executive Order No. 11752 of December 17, 1973, pertaining to the
control of environmental pollution from existing Federal facilities.
2. Rescission. This Circular supersedes and rescinds Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars
No. A-78 and A-81 dated May 18. 1970.
3. Definitions.
a. The term "Federal agencies" means the departments, agencies, establishments, and instrumentalities
of the executive branch.
b. The term "facilities" means the buildings, installations, structures, land, public works, equipment,
aircraft, vessels, and other vehicles and property owned by, or constructed or manufactured for the purpose
of leasing to, the Federal government.
c. The term "project" means an action to achieve needed corrective measures relative to identified
environmental pollution sources within a Federal facility.
d. The term "cost" means the amount of funds required for putting in place the necessary environmental
. protection measures. These costs include the capital costs of structure and equipment, irrespective of the
appropriation chargeable, but not the annual maintenance and operating costs.
e. The term "lease-construction" means construction of a facility by a private entrepreneur to meet
requirements of a Federal agency in consideration of a commitment by the agency to lease the facility at
a specified price for a specified time period.
f. The term "Director" means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
g. The tern "Administiator* means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
4. Standards. All facilities are to conform to the requirements specified in Section 4 of the Order. Those
requirements are as follows:
a. Federal, State, interstate, and local air quality standards and emission limitations adopted in
accordance with or effective under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended.
b. Federal, State, interstate, and local water quality standards and effluent limitations respecting the
discharge or runoff of pollutants adopted in accordance with or effective under the provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
1-1
-------
c. Federal regulations and guidelines respecting dumping of material into ocean waters adopted in
accordance with the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
d. Guidelines for solid waste recovery, collection, storage, separation, and disposal systems issued by
the Administrator pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.
e. Federal noise emission standards for products adopted in accordance with the provisions of the
Noise Control Act of 1972 and State, interstate, and local standards for control and abatement of
environmental noise.
f. Federal guidance on radiation and generally applicable environmental radiation standards
promulgated or recommended by the Administrator and adopted in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011), and rules, regulations, requirements, and guidelines on discharges of
radioactivity as prescribed by the Atomic Energy Commission.
g. Federal regulations and guidelines respecting manufacture, transportation, purchase, use. storage,
and disposal of pesticides promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act, as amended by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972.
5. Agency Responsibilities. Pursuant to their responsibilities under the Order, Federal agencies:
a. Should cooperate with State, interstate, and local pollution control agencies and with other Federal
agencies in the evaluation of their pollution control needs.
b. May seek the assistance of the Administrator to determine the standards and the appropriate
implementation schedules applicable to particular facilities.
6. Pollution Control Plans.
a. Federal agencies must develop plans to assure that their facilities meet the standards listed in
paragraph 4 of this Circular.
b. Such plans are to cover existing facilities as defined in paragraph 3b of this Circular. "Lease-
construction" is an example of a type of facility covered under this provision, but facilities used under
ordinary leases are not covered. Remedial measures required for buildings and equipment owned by non-
Federal lessees on'Federal land are not to be reported under this Circular unless the responsible Federal
agency attests that they are constructed and operated for a Federal purpose. In cases where lease
agreements with non-Federal lessees obligate the Federal Government to provide pollution control measures,
remedial measures are to be reported under this Circular.
c. The agency plan should include all projects involving "costs," as defined in paragraph 3d of this
Circular, which are necessary to bring existing facilities into compliance with applicable standards. Funds
required for studies, management and monitoring associated with the definition and development of
corrective measures and necessary equipment to assure compliance with standards should also be included
in the plan.
d. In determining the most cost-effective remedial measures necessary for a particular facility to meet
the standards, agencies should take into account such factors as: the future use of the facility; the best
practicable technology available: the need for control system reserve capacity; the various alternative
methods of control including process change; and the use of joint or regional pollution control facilities.
I-2
-------
e. Agency plans should include the milestones for the design, construction, and completion of projects
which, when submitted to the Director, will represent an agency commitment to comply with applicable
standards considering the Federal budgetary process and assuming that the requested funds will be
appropriated by the Congress and allocated to the agency as planned.
f. Facilities may be exempted from applicable standards in the interest of national security or in
extraordinary cases in which It is in the paramount interest of the United States. Such exemptions must be
made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Order.
7. Report;.
a. Agency plans are to be reported in accordance Mh procedures prescribed by the Administrator.
Such procedures will provide for submission of pertinent details of each individual project and a summary
status report of the overall plan.
b. The reports will be submitted semiannually on December 31 and June 30 to the Director through the
Administrator. After review of the reports, the Administrator will forward the agency's reports to the Director.
c. By September 30 ol each year the Administrator will also forward to the Director an evaluation of
each agency's report.
8. Communications with the Administrator. Communications with the Administrator should be directed to
the Environmental Protection Agency, attention: Office of Federal Activities, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20460, phone 755-0790 (code 138).
9. Communications with the Director. Questions regarding the implementation of this Circular should be
addressed to the Office of Management and Budget, Washington. D C. 20503, phone 395-6827 (code 103).
ROY L. ASH
DIRECTOR
I-3
------- |