*>EPA
Achieving Environmental Success through Partnerships:
Collaboration between the National Estuary Programs and
State and Territory Coastal Zone Management Programs
Piscataqua Region, New Hampshire
May 2021
EPA -842-R-21-003
-------
O r*PA
Acknowledgements
This document was developed by Bridget Cotti-Rausch with the U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans &
Watersheds and Eric Ruder and Daniel Kaufman of Industrial Economics. Thank you to the Directors and staff who
spoke with us from the AL Department of Environmental Management; Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, State of Delaware; EPA Region 2; Aquatic Preserve Program, Office of Resilience and
Coastal Protection, Florida; Florida Coastal Management Program, Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection;
Coastal States Organization Executive Committee; MA Coastal Zone Management Program; Massachusetts Bays
National Estuary Program; Association of National Estuary Programs; NH Department of Environmental Services;
Piscataqua Region Estuary Partnership; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Barnegat Bay
Partnership; San Juan Bay Estuary Program; and Washington State Department of Ecology.
Disclaimer
The findings reported herein are made available for informational purposes only and do not represent the
Environmental Protection Agency's position on the topics covered.
-------
Tabie of Contents
List of Tables and Figures ii
Abbreviations Key iii
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 1-1
IA. Overview 1-1
IB. Motivation 1-1
IC. Approach 1-2
ID. Roadmap 1-3
2. Inventory of State Programs and EPA Partnership Programs 2-1
2A. Geographic Overlaps 2-1
2B. Overview of the NEP-CZMP Landscape 2-6
2C. Priority Area Overlaps Identified in the Document Review 2-7
2D. Other State Agencies and their Focus Areas 2-13
3. What Can Be Learned from Past Examples of Successful Collaboration 3-1
3A. Examples of Successful Collaboration 3-1
3B. Perceived Added Value of Collaboration - What Each Party Brings to the Table 3-4
3C. Advantages of Greater Collaboration Between NEPs and States 3-6
3D. Potential Challenges to Greater Collaboration Between NEPs and States 3-7
4. Forward-Looking Opportunities for Enhanced Collaboration 4-1
4A. How the NEP Host Arrangement Can Shape Opportunities for Collaboration 4-1
4B. How the Organizational Placement of CZMPs within State Agencies Can Shape Opportunities
for Collaboration 4-4
4C. Future Opportunities for Coordination across the 28 NEPs and Overlapping States 4-6
4D. Opportunities for Coordination at the National Level 4-9
5. Synthesis and Opportunities 5-1
5A. Synthesis 5-1
5B. Multiple Benefits 5-2
5C. Opportunities to Promote Coordination at the Individual NEP-CZMP Level 5-2
5D. Opportunities to Promote Coordination at the National level 5-8
5E. Conclusion 5-11
6. References and Resources 6-1
Appendix A. Past Successes Summary Table A-l
Appendix B. Main Discussion Topics from NEP-CZM Conversations B-l
Appendix C. NEP-State Fact Sheets (separate document)
-------
List of Tables and Figures
Exhibit ES-1. Key Findings ES-1
Exhibit ES-2. Examples of Successful NEP-CZMP Collaboration ES-2
Exhibit 2-1. Geographic Overlaps of OWOW's Partnership Program Locations, CZMPs and NERRs in
Coastal States - East Coast 2-3
Exhibit 2-2. Geographic Overlaps of OWOW's Partnership Program Locations, CZMPs and NERRs in
Coastal States - Gulf of Mexico and Puerto Rico 2-4
Exhibit 2-3. Geographic Overlaps of OWOW's Partnership Program Locations, CZMPs and NERRs in
Coastal States - West Coast 2-5
Exhibit 2-4. Quick Facts about the NEP-CZMP Landscape 2-6
Exhibit 2-5. Nine Priority Areas for CZMA Section 309 Review 2-9
Exhibit 2-6. States Citing NEPs in CZMA Section 309 Review 2-10
Exhibit 2-7. States Citing NEPs as a Partner on a Proposed CZMA Section 309 Strategy 2-12
Exhibit 2-8. State agency sectors on NEP Management Conference (MC) summary table 2-16
Exhibit 3-1. Hallmarks of the NEP approach and summary of CZMP roles and responsibilities 3-6
Exhibit 4-1. NEP Hosting Arrangements and Opportunities for Collaboration 4-3
Exhibit 4-2. Coastal State CZMP Offices and Host Agencies in States Overlapping NEP Watersheds 4-4
Exhibit 4-3. Summary of Overlapping Priority Issues across NEPs and States 4-6
ii
-------
Abbreviations Key
National Estuary Program
NEP
Abbreviation
Overlapping
State(s)
State
Abbreviation
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership
APNEP
North Carolina
NC
Virginia
VA
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program
BTNEP
Louisiana
LA
Barnegat Bay Partnership
BBP
New Jersey
NJ
Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program
BBNEP
Massachusetts
MA
Rhode Island
Rl
Casco Bay Estuary Partnership
CBEP
Maine
ME
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program
CBBEP
Texas
TX
Coastal & Heartland National Estuary Partnership
CHNEP
Florida
FL
Delaware Center for the Inland Bays National Estuary
Program
CIB
Delaware
DE
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
GBEP
Texas
TX
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
IRL
Florida
FL
Long Island Sound Study
LISS
Connecticut
CT
New York
NY
Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership
LCEP
Oregon
OR
Washington
WA
Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program
MassBays NEP
Massachusetts
MA
Maryland Coastal Bays Program
MCB
Maryland
MD
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program
MobileBay
NEP
Alabama
AL
Morro Bay National Estuary Program
MBNEP
California
CA
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
NBEP
Massachusetts
MA
Rhode Island
Rl
New York-New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program
HEP
New Jersey
NJ
New York
NY
Partnership for the Delaware Estuary Program
PDE
Delaware
DE
New Jersey
NJ
Pennsylvania
PA
Peconic Estuary Partnership
PEP
New York
NY
Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership
PREP
Maine
ME
New Hampshire
NH
Puget Sound Partnership
PSP
Washington
WA
San Francisco Estuary Partnership
SFEP
California
CA
San Juan Bay Estuary Program
SJBEP
Puerto Rico
PR
Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program
SMBNEP
California
CA
Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
SBEP
Florida
FL
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
TBEP
Florida
FL
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
TEP
Oregon
OR
-------
Executive Summary
This report demonstrates the importance and effectiveness of partnerships - including the National
Estuary Programs (NEPs), Urban Waters and Trash Free Waters - in helping EPA's state partners deliver
solutions to the urgent and challenging issues threatening the ecological and economic well-being of
coastal and estuarine areas. This report lays out the case for strengthening relationships between EPA's
partnership programs and state or territory agencies, through the lens of the 28 NEPs and the 20
overlapping state Coastal Zone Management Programs (CZMPs). Through conversations with NEP and
CZMP staff and extensive research, this report explores the scope of these two programs to identify
areas of common focus that can serve as a basis for further collaboration. It also considers the
institutional structures of the NEPs and CZMPs and how these can shape opportunities for different
types of collaboration. These findings, illustrated in Exhibit ES-1 below, are meant to contribute to the
ongoing dialogue occurring between the two national programs.
Exhibit ES-1. Key Findings
he NEP Management Conference Approach
NEP Value-Added
Stakeholder engagement
Complementary expertise
Science & data sharing
Diverse funding
Advocacy
CZMP Value-Added
Regulatory authorities
Enact policies
Complementary expertise
Technical & financial
resources
13 Government agencies
(local, state, regional,
or federal)
10 Nonprofits/Foundations
5 Academic institutions
NEP Institutional
Placements
NEP-CZMP Partnership
Landscape
20 coastal states overlap with
an NEP watershed and
CZMPs are represented on
20 of the 28 IMEP
Management Conferences.
The NEP's unique governance structure provides a
platform for collaborative decision-making that includes
representation from more than 16 diverse sectors of state
government - such as Environmental Management and
Protection, State Parks, Transportation, Conservation,
Public Health, Agriculture, Ports Authorities, Education and
Fish and Wildlife agencies, among others.
Top Crossover Issues
Each NEP and overlapping
state CZMP partner have
collaborated in the past and
share many priorities.
These include:
Coastal hazards
Water quality
Shoreline management
Marine resources & ocean
planning
Floodplain management&
environmental justice
Economic impacts
Marine debris
Public access
Sustainability
Keys Elements of Successful NEP-CZMP Partnerships
The Management Conference for individual NEPs include all relevant state-level partners to help
achieve consensus-based decision-making.
Monitoring data and research products are readily shared between programs to help inform
conservation and management actions.
Consistent two-way communication of needs and priorities occurs to maximize efficiencies and
avoid duplicative actions
Creativity is employed to leverage diverse resources and increase the capacity of both programs.
ES-1
-------
Success Stories
Through conversations and research, this report identifies numerous examples of successful
collaboration between NEPs and CZMPs. Exhibit ES-2 highlights three of these examples related to
different priorities.
Exhibit ES-2. Examples of Successful NEP-CZMP Collaboration
^
Puget Sound
The NEP and CZMP worked with
partners to establish and maintain a
public-private partnership
dedicated to providing tailored
solutions for improving floodplain
health in the region.
Mass Bays and Buzzards Bay
To help protect the Bays' natural
and cultural resources from
pollutants in boat sewage, the NEPs
and CZMP coordinated to establish
a No Discharge Zone for all state
coastal waters.
San Juan Bay
In the wake of Hurricane Maria, the
NEP and CZMP are developing a
watershed-based mitigation plan
for eight municipalities in
coordination with FEMA to ensure
funding eligibility.
Opportunities to Promote Coordination at the Individual NEP-CZMP Level
1. Counterparts jointly participate in formal processes or serve on committees to institutionalize
working relationships and create efficiencies between programs.
2. NEPs and CZMPs coordinate monitoring activities and data sharing to promote data-driven
decision-making.
3. Local or regional science and management knowledge-exchange workshops and summits highlight
priority coastal and estuarine management issues and solutions.
4. The multiple benefits approach to decision-making facilitates strategic investments in restoration
and protection efforts for shared resources.
5. Upstream management activities are protective of downstream and coastal resources and
leverage the full extent of the NEP watershed study area.
6. NEP and CZMP plans align with programs and elements in State Hazard Mitigation Plans.
7. NEPs and CZMPs can leverage their mutual resources to meet goals of the National Flood
Insurance Program through a comprehensive approach to floodplain management.
8. NEPs provide scientific and technical reviews for regular state planning or grants processes.
Summary of Opportunities to Promote Coordination at the National level
The two nonprofit organizations - the Association of National Estuary Programs and Coastal States
Organization - can further coordinate on national priorities and use their national platforms to enhance
peer-to-peer knowledge exchange. Opportunities also exist for EPA to facilitate enhanced collaboration
by working with federal, state and nonprofit partners to coordinate on shared priorities and to
communicate environmental successes achieved through NEP-CZMP collaboration.
ES-2
-------
1. Introduction
IA. Overview
This report lays out the case for strengthening relationships between EPA's partnership programs and
state or territory agencies, through the lens of the National Estuary Programs (NEPs) and state Coastal
Zone Management Programs (CZMPs). It explores the scopes and priorities of the programs, looking for
areas of overlapping focus that can serve as a basis for partnering to achieve mutual objectives. This
paper also considers the institutional structures of the NEPs and CZMPs and how these structures shape
opportunities for different types of collaboration. The intention of this report is to show the unique
value that NEPs bring to the table for addressing water quality and habitat needs within the context of
coastal zone management challenges and opportunities for NEPs and state partners to fully leverage
each other's strengths to achieve mutual priorities.
This report represents one piece of a larger ongoing dialogue between EPA and their state partners. For
this project, partnerships were discussed with NEP and CZMP managers in a subset of coastal states that
have NEPs. There are NEPs and states that were not interviewed, although there are likely important
activities happening in those locations. The authors also acknowledge there are likely other activities
happening in the states they did communicate with, which may not have come up during the
discussions. This conversation existed before this report and will continue - looking at the map in the
next section, it is evident that this is just a small slice of what locations are doing. One goal for this
report is to continue and expand the conversation going forward.
IB. Motivation
The Clean Water Act (CWA) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), enacted in 1972, remain the
two most significant pieces of legislation for protecting and restoring the nation's coastal places. CWA
§320 established the NEP as a non-regulatory program that employs a unique management approach to
improve the waters and habitats of 28 estuaries of national significance. The CZMA provided coastal
state and territory governments the authority - including through regulatory means - to balance the
often competing and potentially conflicting demands of coastal resource use, development and
conservation. Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of 1990
established the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program, addressing nonpoint source pollution
problems in coastal waters (1). Section 6217 requires states and territories with approved Coastal Zone
Management Programs to develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs. This program is
administered jointly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Based on the unique and complementary way that the NEP and CZMP were established under their
respective legislation, this report explores how collaboration can yield multiple benefits. In water
resource management, the terms "multiple benefits" or "multi-benefit" represent the deep connection
between water and other environmental, economic and community systems so that the strategies to
address water challenges provide other benefits including building community resilience, providing
improved habitat and supporting local economies. Today the importance of achieving multiple benefits
through collaboration is vital, given the breadth and scope of the challenges threatening the ecological
and economic well-being of coastal and estuarine areas.
Recognizing these urgent and complex issues, the EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
(OWOW) seeks to demonstrate the effectiveness and positive impacts of their national programs, which
Sec. 1-1
-------
include NEPs, Urban Waters and Trash Free Waters, to help state partners deliver solutions that address
mutual priorities. The Agency's commitment to partners is reflected in the EPA Strategic Plan Goal 2:
More Effective Partnerships (2), which addresses the shared responsibility between states, tribes and
the federal government.
1C. Approach
In order to perform an analysis of state agency priorities, the state and territory CZMPs were used as an
entry point to explore the network of state agencies. CZMPs are cross-cutting programs that take the
lead in managing coastal resources and are therefore an appropriate entry into state agency activities
around coastal and estuary issues. This study was facilitated by EPA's relationship with the non-profit
Coastal States Organization (CSO), whose membership is composed of governor-appointed
representatives from the 34 CZMPs. NEPs and CZMPs work in partially overlapping geographic areas and
address shared threats including hurricanes and the impacts of climate change. These programs also
face similar programmatic challenges such as budgetary and staff constraints and often-shifting political
priorities. This report uses EPA's and CSO's national viewpoints to explore the distinct but
complementary nature of NEPs and CZMPs. The intention of this report is for NEPs and state partners to
use the study findings to strengthen partnerships and promote further on-the-ground results.
Document Review
To understand the national landscape and programmatic priorities of the 28 NEPs whose study areas fall
within 20 coastal states, the authors reviewed various materials. The document review covered all 20
states with an NEP and reflects priorities developed through multi-stakeholder, consensus-based
processes. This process was used to identify complementary priorities, management structures, and
topical overlaps and included reviews of:
NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (the most recent available)
CZMP Section 309 Enhancement Program reports (for 2015 - 2020)
NEP and CZMP website materials (e.g., programmatic focus areas, organizational placements,
meeting information, project descriptions)
Discussions
To gain additional insights into the nature of these relationships, discussions were held with NEP
Directors and CZMP Managers. Specific NEPs and CZMPs were chosen based on EPA staff and CSO
recommendations identifying Directors and Managers as able to provide good examples of collaboration
and/or insights for future collaboration. Conversations were also held with individuals holding
leadership roles in the Association of National Estuary Programs (ANEP) and CSO - to add a national
perspective. Given this targeted approach, the information gleaned from discussions is not fully
generalizable but provides illustrative information regarding NEP-CZMP relationships.
Locations: NEPs and CZMPs from eight states (AL, DE, FL, MA, MD, NH, NJ, WA) and the territory
of Puerto Rico.
Timing: Calls were conducted in February and March 2019.
Focus: Discussions focused on examples of current collaboration, how the collaborations
originated, the value-added, and opportunities for future work. See Appendix B for a general
guide to topics covered in conversations with NEP Directors and CZMP Managers.
Sec. 1-2
-------
Visual Tool
To help frame the conversation, a map was created depicting the NEP and CZMP programs, Urban
Waters and Trash Free Waters, and National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs) across the country
using geospatial data. In addition to describing overlapping priorities in the report, the map
demonstrates the physical overlap of these programs. This report combines findings from various
research methods to present the results and notes where the findings come from.
ID. Roadmap
This section lays out the basic structure and approach to this project and provides some background on
the programs included in the study. Section 2 constructs an inventory of state programs and the NEPs by
addressing the management structure of the NEPs and major overlapping priorities as identified through
the background research. Section 3 dives into specific examples of successful collaborations and lessons
learned that were discovered through conversations with representatives of a number of NEPs and
CZMPs. Section 4 explores the opportunities for enhanced collaboration as shown through a
combination of background research and further explored through the conversations with NEP and
CZMP staff and discuss how institutional factors can shape opportunities for collaboration. The main
body of the report concludes with Section 5 - that summarizes major findings from the analysis.
Important references are numbered in superscript throughout and the reference list, including links to
helpful resources, is available at the end of the report.
To complement this report, several appendices are also included. Appendix A provides table summaries
of past NEP and CZMP success stories as identified through research and calls. Appendix B provides an
overview of the main discussion topics from conversations with NEP and CZMP managers and staff.
Appendix C, presented in a separate document, provides a set of 28 individual NEP fact sheets that
demonstrate how each NEP is helping address specific state coastal and water quality priorities and
identifies some specific opportunities for future collaborative efforts.
Sec. 1-3
-------
2. Inventory of State Programs and EPA Partnership Programs
To a large extent, the NEPs and CZMPs work in the same geographic areas and manage shared
resources. Therefore, these distinct but complementary programs have overlapping focus areas,
priorities, and community stakeholders. They also face similar challenges including natural threats, such
as hurricanes, and programmatic restrictions, such as budgetary and staff constraints. As discussed in
Section 1, an overarching goal of this report is to help programs build stronger partnerships by
leveraging each other's strengths to achieve mutual objectives that benefit coastal resources and
communities. A first step in developing this report was to characterize NEP and CZMP overlaps
(geographic, institutional, and priority areas) based on extant information. This section of the report
provides an overview of the NEP and CZMP landscape and touches on overlaps with related and
complementary EPA and NOAA programs.
2A. Geographic Overlaps
Exhibits 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 show the locations of the NEPs and CZMPs, as well as the Urban Waters Federal
Partnership (UWFP), Trash Free Waters (TFW) projects, and NOAA's National Estuarine Research
Reserves (NERRs). The UWFP reconnects urban communities, particularly those that are overburdened
or economically distressed, with their waterways by improving coordination among federal agencies.
The UWFP also collaborates with community-led revitalization efforts to improve the nation's water
systems and promote their economic, environmental, and social benefits (1). The maps show the 12 UW
locations that are in coastal states and Puerto Rico (out of 20 designated UW locations nationwide).
TFW works to reduce and prevent trash from entering U.S. waters and the ocean. The TFW program
assists states, communities, businesses, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders to
work together to find and implement effective strategies to reduce the amount of litter and packaging
waste that enters the water. The program integrates trash prevention policies and programs into larger
sustainability agendas for water quality, habitat protection, materials management, and community
health and well-being (2). The maps show the locations of 73 TFW projects in coastal states and Puerto
Rico (out of 82 TFW project locations for the whole country) for 2017-2019.
The maps show significant geographic overlaps across OWOW's partnership programs (NEP, TFW, and
UWFP), and between these programs and the CZMPs. Notably, there are 15 states in which 20 NEPs
extend further inland than the CZMPs (AL, CA, CT, LA, MA, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OR, PA, PR, TX, VA); this
may provide opportunities for extending coordination to upstream areas that affect the coasts and
extending coordination of NEPs' activities with state agencies other than CZMPs that have jurisdictions
that reach further inland and also have overlapping priorities, such as water quality or resilience. There
were several examples of NEPs leveraging their full watershed to help protect coastal waters, which are
discussed in subsequent sections. Similarly, TFW projects address sources of trash upstream that end up
in coastal waters. The maps show TFW projects along 17 coastal states plus Puerto Rico. Similar to NEPs,
TFW projects frequently extend inland beyond the jurisdiction of CZMPs. In terms of the UWFP
locations, six partially overlap the CZMA boundaries, three are entirely within the CZMA boundaries, and
the rest are completely outside the CZMA boundaries.
Though not part of the original scope for this report, NOAA's NERRs were added to the maps, as they
were mentioned multiple times during the conversations with staff. NOAA's NERRs are a network of 29
coastal sites designated to protect and study estuarine systems. Established through the Coastal Zone
Sec. 2-1
-------
Management Act, the Reserves represent a partnership program between NOAA and the coastal states.
NOAA provides funding and national guidance, and each site is managed by a lead state agency or
university with input from local partners (3). During calls, the CZMP and NEP managers mentioned the
NERRs in the context of estuarine monitoring and other forms of collaboration. For example, the Great
Bay NERR has water quality monitoring stations within the area covered by the Piscataqua Region
Estuaries Partnership (PREP) and also collaborates with the CZMP on water quality monitoring activities.
In addition, PREP, CZMP, and NERR participate together on the Coastal Roundtable of Action Planning
and on philanthropic initiatives with the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. In Puerto Rico, the San
Juan Bay Estuary Program manager highlighted the value of exchanging research and scientific data with
the Jobos Bay NERR (and mentioned there used to be an annual summit where these exchanges
occurred). The New Jersey Coastal Program regularly works with the Jacques Cousteau NERR, and
recently the Barnegat Bay Partnership worked with the State Coastal Management Program and the
Jacques Cousteau NERR to develop a Getting to Resilience website.
The state agencies/divisions that host the CZMP sometimes host the NERRs as well. For example,
Florida's Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection houses the Florida Coastal Management Program
and the three NERRs in Florida (as well as other programs). Similarly, Delaware's Coastal Section
includes the state's Coastal Management Program as well as the Delaware NERR (and other programs).
These organizational arrangements may provide a point of entry for certain NEPs to engage with their
corresponding NERRs via the CZMP.
Sec. 2-2
-------
Exhibit 2-1. Geographic Overlaps of OWOW's Partnership Program Locations, CZMPs and NbRRs in Coastal States - East Coast
© Trash Free Waters Project Locations (2017-2019)
! CZMA State Boundary
Urban Waters Partnership Locations
] National Estuary Program Study Areas
I National Estuarine Research Reserves
Urban Waters Partnerships
A-Anacostia Watershed (DC, MD)
B - Patapsco Watershed/Baltimore Region (MD)
C - Delaware River Basin (PA, NJ, DE)
D - Passaic River/Newark (NJ)
E - Bronx and Harlem River Watersheds (NY)
F - Mystic River Watershed (MA)
National Estuary Program Study Areas
1 - Maryland Coastal Bays Program
2 - Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
3 - Partnership for the Delaware Estuary
4 - Barnegat Bay Partnership
5 - New York - New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program
6 - Long Island Sound Study
7 - Peconic Estuary Program
8 - Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
9 - Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program
10 - Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program
11 - Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership
12 - Casco Bay Estuary Partnership
National Estuarine Research Reserves
a - Chesapeake Bay, MD
b - Delaware
c - Jacques Cousteau, NJ
d - Hudson River, NY
e - Narragansett Bay, Rl
f-Waquoit Bay, MA
g - Great Bay, NH
h-Wells Bay, ME
KX
0 25 50 100 Miles
_J I I I
Sec. 2-3
-------
Exhibit 2-2. Geographic Overlaps of OWOW's Partnership Program Locations, CZMPs and NbRRs in Coastal States - Gulf of Mexico and
Puerto Rico
© Trash Free Waters Project Locations (2017-2019)
CZMA State Boundary
| Urban Waters Partnership Locations
National Estuary Program Study Areas
National Estuarine Research Reserves
Urban Waters Partnerships
A - San Antonio, Bexar County (TX)
B - Lake Pontchartrain Area/New Orleans (LA)
C - Proctor Creek Watershed/Atlanta (GA)
D - Martin Pefia Canal/San Juan (PR)
National Estuary Program Study Areas
1 - Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program
2 - Galveston Bay Estuary Program
3 - Barataria-Terrebonne NEP
4 - Mobile Bay NEP
5 - Tampa Bay Estuary Program
6 - Sarasota Bay Estuary Program
7 - Charlotte Harbor NEP
8 - Indian River Lagoon NEP
9 - Albemarle-Pamlico NEP
10 - San Juan Bay Estuary Partnership
National Estuarine Research Reserves
a - Mission-Aransas, TX
b - Grand Bay, MS
c - Weeks Bay, AL
d - Apalachicola, FL
e - Rookery Bay, FL
f- Guana Tolomato Matanzas, FL
g - Sapelo Island, GA
h - ACE Basin, SC
i - North Inlet - Winyah Bay, SC
j- North Carolina
k- Chesapeake Bay Virginia
I - Jobos Bay, PR
0 50 100 200 Miles
1 i I I I
Sec. 2-4
-------
Exhibit 2-3. Geographic Overlaps of OWOW's Partnership Program Locations, CZMPs and NbRRs in Coastal States - West Coast
ffi Trash Free Waters Project Locations (2017-2019)
| Urban Waters Partnership Locations
| CZMA State Boundary
| | National Estuary Program Study Areas
National Estuarine Research Reserves
Urban Waters Partnerships
A - Green-Duwamish River/Seattle (Washington)
B - Los Angeles River Watershed (California)
National Estuary Program Study Areas
1 - Puget Sound Partnership
2 - Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership
3 - Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
4 - San Francisco Estuary Partnership
5 - Morro Bay National Estuary Partnership
6 - Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation
National Estuarine Research Reserves
a - Padilla Bay, WA
b - South Slough, OR
c - San Francisco Bay, CA
d - Elkhorn Slough, CA
e - Tijuana River, CA
0 50 100 200 Miles
Sec. 2-5
-------
2B. Overview of the NEP-CZMP Landscape
As an early step in developing this report, EPA and CSO reviewed the NEP-CZMP landscape to gather
basic information about the institutional structures of the 28 NEPs and the 20 overlapping CZMPs that
contain part or all of the NEP watershed. Priority issues were also crosswalked across both programs,
based on a review of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs), CZMA §309
Assessments and Enhancement Plans, and other publicly available information. Exhibit 2-4 provides a
summary of "quick facts" about the NEP-CZMP landscape.
Exhibit 2-4, Quick Facts about the NEP-CZMP I andscape
CCMP/NEP Review
Number
1
Number of NEPs
28
2
Number of states that contain any part of the NEP watershed
20
3
Number of NEPs that extend upstream of the CZMP jurisdiction
20
4
Number of NEPs with a CZMP representative on their Management Conference (MC)
20
5
Number of NEPs with the CZMP director on their MC
9
CZMA 309 Review
6
Number of states that cite any NEP initiatives in their 309 Enhancement plans
13
7
Number of states that cite NEPs as a direct partner on a proposed Strategy in their 309
Enhancement plans
7
8
Number of states that list NEPs as stakeholders involved in 309 Assessment
9
Organizational Structure
9
Number of NEPs hosted by a state agency
6
10
Number of NEPs hosted by regional, local/city, or independent special district of the state
7
11
Number of NEPs hosted by a non-profit or foundation
10
12
Number of NEPs hosted by an academic institution
5
13
Number of overlapping CZMPs whose lead state agency includes crossover with CWA
programs
10
14
Number of overlapping CZMPs whose authorities are networked across multiple state
agencies
13
The membership of the MCs was used as a first-order indicator of the level of communication and
coordination that occurs between NEPs and CZMPs. A total of 20 NEPs in 14 states identified a CZMP
staff member on at least one of their MC committees. Additionally, nine NEPs have the state CZMP
director on their MC.* Due to the organizational structure of NEPs, participation by CZMP staff on the
MC suggests that CZMP priorities directly inform NEP planning and implementation.
The review of CZMP documents provides a supportive view from the state perspective. Of the nine
states that cite NEPs as stakeholders on their self-assessment, the 13 states that cite NEP initiatives in
their CZMA §309 Assessments, and the seven states that list the NEP partner on a CZMA §309 strategy -
only NJ and PA do not have CZMP staff representation on a MC committee. This suggests that close
institutional ties help to ensure that CZMPs leverage NEP resources to achieve mutual goals.
*
This number is based on information accessed from NEP websites. The actual number may differ, depending on how
frequently NEPs update their websites.
Sec. 2-6
-------
The institutional structure/hosting arrangements of the NEPs varies. Thirteen NEPs are hosted by a
government agency (including six hosted by a state agency, two hosted by an independent special
district of the state, three by a regional organization, and two by local/city organizations). Ten are
hosted by a non-profit or foundation. The remaining five NEPs are hosted by an academic institution.
The state CZMP institutional structure was also investigated and it was found that 13 CZMPs have
authorities networked across multiple state agencies and 10 lead CZMP agencies include a crossover
with Clean Water Act programs. Section 3 discusses the institutional structure of the programs in more
detail.
2C. Priority Area Overlaps Identified in the Document Review
The preliminary NEP-CZMP priority matching exercise began with a review of CZMA §309 and CCMP
documentation to identify priority area overlaps, which were subsequently explored further in
discussions with a select number of NEP and CZMP staff. Exhibit 2-5 summarizes the nine priority areas
for CZMA §309 review, the priority level assigned by a state (high, medium, or low), and the number of
states that have developed a strategy eligible for funding through the CZMA §309 Enhancement Grant
Program.
About half of the state CZMPs ranked Cumulative and Secondary Impacts as a "high" management
priority and the other half ranked it as "medium." This category encapsulates planning activities and
projects that address the impacts of coastal growth and development. Twelve states developed a
strategy to support this priority area, three of which cite NEPs as partners. A review of the CCMP Action
Plans showed that the majority align well with the CZMP priority area of Cumulative and Secondary
Impacts because of the NEPs' statutory authority under the CWA to address the complex factors that
contribute to degradation of estuaries. This indicates there are likely many ways to partner on activities
related to the impacts of coastal development and provide opportunities for CZMPs to aid in the
implementation of CCMPs.
The analysis also highlighted the strong focus of all CZMPs on "Coastal Hazards" - which includes natural
disasters and the impacts of climate change. In the preliminary review of CCMP Action Plans, relatively
few fell under the umbrella of "Coastal Hazards." However, many NEPs are in the process of updating or
revising their CCMPs, and the newer plans have many activities related to addressing both chronic
coastal hazards and catastrophic events. This focus was also reflected in NEP Work Plans and
information found on NEP websites. Coastal hazards is an area where NEP resources would be highly
valued by CZM programs. From the NEP perspective, this is also a bell-weather of where CZMPs are
targeting their financial resources. This also signals NOAA's focus on the issue as they work closely with
CZMPs to develop their CZMA §309 Enhancement plans. Finally, NOAA designates the priority area(s)
that will be eligible for additional assistance under the annual CZMA §309 grants program - termed the
CZM Projects of Special Merit Competition (4).
Exhibits 2-6 and 2-7 provide further information to identify how CZMPs leverage NEP resources. Exhibit
2-6 summarizes the 13 states that cite any NEP initiatives in their CZMA §309 Enhancement plans. NEPs
were cited with respect to a variety of issues, including aquaculture, wetlands, coastal hazards,
cumulative and secondary impacts, and ocean resources, among others. The type of NEP resource that
was cited took many forms, including research/reports, plans, policies, studies, mapping, working
groups, partnerships, projects, and advisory roles, among others. For example, Connecticut's CZMP
indicated that it used beach cleanup data in a Long Island Sound Study report to describe significant
Sec. 2-7
-------
changes to marine debris since the previous CZMA §309 assessment. As another example, Maine's
CZMP used the Casco Bay Estuary Program's 2010 State of the Bay Report to assess significant stressors
or threats from growth and development in the context of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts priority
area.
Exhibit 2-7 shows the seven states citing NEPs as a partner on a proposed CZMA §309 strategy. The
strategies relate to coastal hazards, wetlands, ocean resources, cumulative and secondary impacts,
aquaculture, and public access. As shown in the table, the NEPs were expected to play a variety of roles
in support of these strategies, including providing guidance, training and capacity building, data,
outreach materials, implementation assistance, and other types of support.
The conversations with staff provided an opportunity to explore the priority issues raised in the CCMPs
and CZMA §309s for select states. Based on the responses and an additional review of documents, this
report identifies a number of additional issues where collaboration has occurred and/or where there
appear to be opportunities for future collaboration between the NEPs and CZMPs. Section 3 provides
examples of current collaborations and Section 4 discusses opportunities to collaborate in these areas in
the future.
Sec. 2-8
-------
Exhibit 2-5. Nine Priority Areas for CZMA Section 309 Review
Aquaculture
Coastal
Hazards
Cumulative &
Secondary
Impacts
Energy &
Government
Facility Siting
Marine
Debris
Ocean &
Great Lakes
Resources
Public
Access
Special Area
Management
Planning
Wetlands
Alabama
Medium
High*
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Medium
California+
Medium
High*
High*
Medium
Medium
Medium
High*
High*
High*
Connecticut
Medium
High*
Medium
Medium
Low
High*
Medium
Low
Medium
Delaware
Low
High*
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
High*
Florida
Medium
High*
High*
Medium
High*
High*
High*
High*
Medium
Louisiana
Low
High*
High*
Medium*
Medium
Low
Low
Low
High*
Maine
Low*
High*
High*
Medium*
Low
High*
Medium*
High
High*
Maryland
Medium
High*
Medium*
Medium*
Medium
High*
Medium*
Low
Medium*
Massachusetts
Low
High*
Medium
Medium*
Low
High*
Low
High*
High*
New Hampshire
Medium
High*
Medium*
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High*
New Jersey
High*
High*
High*
Medium
Low
High*
Medium
Low
High*
New York
Medium
High*
High*
High
Medium
High*
Medium
High*
Medium
North Carolina
Low
High*
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Oregon
Low
High*
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
High*
High*
Pennsylvania
Low
High*
High*
Medium
Medium
Low-Medium
High*
Low
Medium
Puerto Rico
Low
High*
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
High*
Rhode Island
Low
High*
Medium
Low
Low
Medium
Medium
Low
High*
Texas
Low
High*
High*
Medium
Medium*
Medium
High*
n/a
High*
Virginia
Medium
High*
High*
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium*
Washington
High*
High*
High*
Medium
Low
High
Medium*
Medium
Medium*
High priority
Strategy Developed*
2/20
3/20
20/20
20/20
10/20
12/20
1/20
4/20
2/20
2/20
8/20
7/20
4/20
7/20
6/20
6/20
12/20
15/20
* An asterisk (*) in the exhibit means that the CZMP has developed a Strategy for this area.
+ The California Coastal Commission manages development along the California coast except for San Francisco Bay, where the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission oversees development and is the designated coastal management agency.
Sec. 2-9
-------
Exhibit 2-6. States Citing NEPs in CZMA Section 309 Reviews
State
NEP
Where in the §309 Assessment the NEP is cited*
Resource Type
Alabama'
MobileBay NEP
Phase 1 - Wetlands
Research/Report
Phase 1 - Coastal Hazards
Plan
Phase 1 - Cumulative §Secondary Impacts
Mapping/Report
Summary of recent §309 Achievements
Policy
California
SFEP
Summary of recent §309 Achievements - Cumulative &
Secondary Impacts
Research/Policy
Summary of recent §309 Achievements - Wetlands
CZM study
Connecticut
LISS
Phase 1 - Marine Debris
Report
Phase 1 - Ocean Resources
Reports
Phase II - Ocean Resources
Mapping Program
Delaware'
CIB
Phase 1 - Aquaculture
Analysis
PDE
Phase 1 - Wetlands
Report
Florida
TBEP
Phase 1 - Coastal Hazards
Working Group
Strategy
CHNEP/SBEP/TBEP
Phase 1-SAMP
Plan
CHNEP/SBEP/TBEP/IRL
Phase 1 - Ocean Resources
Grants
Massachusetts
BBNEP
Phase 1 - Coastal Hazards
Data analysis
Vulnerability analysis
MassBays NEP
Summary of Completed §309 Efforts
Inventory
Maryland'
MCB
Introduction
n/a
Phase 1 - Public Access
n/a
Phase 1 - Special Area Management Planning
Plan
Maine'
CBEP
Phase II - Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
Report
Guide
New
Hampshire'
PREP
Introduction
Advisory role
Summary of recent 309 Achievements - Ocean Resources
Funding
Phase 1 - Wetlands
Report
Report
Advisory role
Phase 1 - Coastal Hazards
Report
Report
Advisory role
Phase 1 - Public Access
Advisory role
Sec. 2-10
-------
State
NEP
Where in the §309 Assessment the NEP is cited*
Resource Type
Phase 1 - Marine Debris
Advisory role
Phase 1 - Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
Report
Advisory role
Report
Phase 1 - Special Area Management Planning
Report
Advisory role
Phase 1 - Ocean Resources
Advisory role
Phase 1 - Energy & Gov't Facility Siting
Advisory role
Phase 1 - Aquaculture
Advisory role
Report
Phase II - Wetlands
Report
Plan
Phase II - Coastal Hazards
Advisory role
Plan
Phase II - Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
Report
Research
Advisory role
BBP, PDE and HEP
Introduction
Plans
New Jersey'
BBP and PDE
Phase 1 - Wetlands
Partnership
PDE
Phase 1 - Special Area Management Planning
Plan
Phase 1 - Wetlands
Report
Phase 1 - Coastal Hazards
Report
Pennsylvania'
PDE
Phase II - Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
Report
Phase 1 - Ocean Resources
Plan
Phase 1 - Aquaculture
Project
Puerto Rico
SJBEP
Phase II - Wetlands
Monitoring program
Washington'
PSP
Phase 1 - Cumulative & Secondary Impacts
Plan
*Phase I = High level assessment; Phase II = In depth assessment of high priority area(s); Strategy = a program the CZMP plans to pursue during the 5-year
strategy period based on the management needs identified through the assessment of the high priority enhancement area.
' = states that list NEPs as stakeholders involved in the 309 Assessment and public comment process for the 2016-2020 CZMP's Section 309 Enhancement Grant
Program Assessment & Strategy review. This also applies to Texas (not shown in the exhibit).
Sec. 2-11
-------
Exhibit 2-7. States Citing NEPs as a Partner on a Proposed CZMA Section 309 Strategy
State
NEP
309 Category**
Strategy Title
NEP Role
Alabama
Mobile Bay National Estuary
Program
Coastal Hazards
Community Resiliency
Initiative: Planning for
Resilient Communities
Providing guidance through an
advisory committee role; assisting in a
needs assessment; providing
technical expertise
Delaware
CIB
PDE
Coastal Hazards &
Wetlands
Determining the Economic
Impacts of Coastal Resilience
Actions to Support Policy
Change
Training & capacity building
Florida
All four NEPs
Ocean
Resources/SAMPs/Cumulat
ive & Secondary Impacts
Statewide Ecosystem
Assessment Program of
Florida's Coastal Aquatic
Managed Areas
Data from the program will be used
to support implementation of the
CCMPs
New
Hampshire
PREP
Coastal Hazards, Wetlands
& Cumulative & Secondary
Impacts
Coastal Resilience Technical
Assistance Program
Develop & disseminate outreach
materials/help provide fiscal
needs/advisory partner
New Jersey
BBP& PDE
Aquaculture
Supporting growth of the
aquaculture industry while
protecting coastal resources
Supporting partner helping with
regulatory amendments & updating
guidance
Pennsylvania
PDE
Coastal
Hazards/Cumulative &
Secondary Impacts/Public
Access
Building Capacity to Facilitate
Climate Adaptation Planning
and Community Resiliency
Partner to help implement proposed
strategy
Puerto Rico
SJBEP
Coastal Hazards
Coastal Hazards Strategy
SJBEP Technical Advisory Committee -
supports management need for data
& information management/decision-
support
Sec. 2-12
-------
2D. Other State Agencies and their Focus Areas
As discussed in Section 1, the CZMPs provide a good point of entry for NEPs (and potentially Urban
Waters and Trash Free Waters) to access other state programs. This report looked at the priorities of
other state environmental agencies and the organizational connections between the state agency that
houses the CZMP and other state environmental agencies. The boxes below summarize information for
the states that the authors had conversations with. The findings show that there are multiple state
agencies addressing water quality and other priorities that overlap with NEPs and these present
opportunities for more coordination with the states. The findings also show the breadth of institutional
structures and overlapping priorities, suggesting there are multiple ways to coordinate and collaborate
ALABAMA The Coastal Program is administered by two separate agencies: Alabama's
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is the regulatory side, and the Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) houses the majority of the coastal
program activities. DCNR is recognized by NOAA as the lead agency. The DCNR and ADEM overlap
in certain areas, including the Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program. ADEM also works closely
with the NERRs, the NEP, the Corp of Engineers, and the Geological Society of Alabama. Among
other management measures, major priorities for ADEM include getting full approval of the Coastal
Nonpoint Source Program, dealing with septic tanks in urban areas, watershed protection, and
stream restoration. It appears that some if not all these areas overlap with NEP priorities and
provide opportunities for coordination.
DELAWARE Located within Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control (DNREC), the CZMP is housed within the Coastal Section of the Division of Climate, Coastal,
and Energy. The Coastal Section includes the Coastal Management Program, the NERRs, and
represents the state on the Regional Ocean Partnership (ROP). In the Mid-Atlantic, the ROP is the
Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO). The Coastal Section coordinates with one of
the two NEPs: Partnership for the Delaware Estuary (PDE). Their Department Secretary serves on
the MC steering committee for the PDE, and the Environmental Program Administrator serves on
the MC's Estuary Implementation Committee. For the Center for Inland Bays (CIB), the other NEP
in Delaware, the Division of Watershed Stewardship is the primary contact and plays a similar role
that the Coastal Section plays for the PDE. The Coastal Section's Senior Scientist serves on the MCs
for both NEPs. Coastal staff participate in various workgroups including the Resilient and
Sustainable Communities workgroup, which was created within DNREC and has steering
committees with leadership from multiple agencies, including PDE, Delaware Sea Grant, Delaware
Department of Transportation, and the Coastal Section. There is also a Living Shoreline committee
that was created by DNREC and is co-chaired by DNREC and the PDE. Priorities of the Coastal
Section include healthy coastal ecosystems and economy, resilient and sustainable communities
(this includes working with local governments), climate change research and adaptation (this
includes working with the National Climate Alliance Group), and sea level rise and coastal habitats.
Over the next year, they will be working to update their policies for Federal Consistency.
Sec. 2-13
-------
on shared priorities. The fact sheets in Appendix C provide detailed information about the overlaps
across state agencies.
FLORIDA Located within the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Office of
Resilience and Coastal Protection (ORCP) houses the CZMP, the state's three NERRs, the Aquatic
Preserve Program, the Coral Reef Conservation Program, the National Marine Sanctuary, the Clean
Boating Program, and various other programs. According to ORCP staff that were interviewed, the
CZMP is a "glue" program that brings many of the other programs together cohesively and
coordinates their various activities. Current priorities include submerged habitats, cumulative and
secondary impacts, water quality, harmful algal blooms, living shorelines, ocean reefs, and
resiliency. The ORCP works with multiple partners including the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, district offices (on regulatory permitting), the water management
district, and the Indian River Lagoon (IRL) Council, among others. As the "glue" program, the CZMP
helps to connect Florida's NEPs to other state agencies and programs including but not limited to
the Northeast Estuarine Restoration Team (NERT) and the Aquatic Preserve Program (see Section
3 for details).
MASSACHUSETTS The CZMP is housed within the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs, a secretariat within the Governor's office. The MA CZMP hosts two NEPs - MassBays and
Buzzards Bay - which are housed within the same institutional structure. The CZMP also hosts the
Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources. The CZMP is the lead policy and
planning agency for coastal initiatives in Massachusetts. The CZMP manages the Coastal Resilience
Grant Program and the Coastal Pollutant Remediation Grant Program. Within the context of
resilience, the MA CZMP partners with the USGS, UMass, and others to develop science to inform
policy and management related to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Another important
initiative that the MA CZMP supports is the Ocean Management Plan, which has informed the
basis for much of the work on the proposed offshore wind project. Other priorities include species
management, water quality, and municipal harbor planning. All coastal state programs conduct
Federal Consistency Review, and the CZMP interacts with the MA Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) on state-level permits. As part of the Federal Consistency Review process, the
CZMP requires state DEP permits be issued prior to the CZMP issuing a Federal Consistency
concurrence. The CZMP divides the coast into five regions, each of which has a Regional
Coordinator (RC). MassBays has a similar regional structure, and the CZMP's RCs collaborate with
the MassBays RCs on projects. The Buzzards Bay NEP and CZM RC also share an office.
NEW HAMPSHIRE The CZMP resides in the Department of Environmental Services (DES),
which is the state's Clean Water Act agency. The NEP serves as a monitoring arm for the state's
Clean Water Act responsibilities. They used to have a shared position, where the NEP paid for
half-time of a Coastal Scientist. Although that shared position no longer exists, the CZMP and
NEP continue to coordinate closely on water quality monitoring among many other efforts.
Sec. 2-14
-------
NEW JERSEY The NJ CZMP is located within the Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)
but they are a "networked" program and there are multiple other programs within the department
that are funded to participate with the CZMP. They also work with many other external partners
including Sea Grant, nonprofits, academic institutions, the NEPs, the Jacques Cousteau NERR,
Rutgers, Sustainable Jersey, Jersey Future, TNC, and the Urban Coast Institute, among others. A key
state priority is planning, preparing for, and mitigating the impacts of coastal hazards. Other CZMP
priorities include aquaculture, oyster and hard clams, ocean resources, coastal wetlands, and living
shorelines. The CZMP director serves as chair of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean
(MARCO), which will soon be having an ocean planning conference to set up a new coordinating
entity with the federal agencies involved in ocean planning. It appears that NJ CZMP's networked
program provides or could provide opportunities for the NEP to coordinate with a wide range of
networked stakeholders on shared priorities.
PUERTO RICO The CZMP is hosted in the Department of Natural Resources; and the chair of the
CZMP is also the chair of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Council for the San Juan Bay Estuary
Conference. The NEP works closely with the CZMP, which provides access to other parts of the island
as well as other government agencies. The NEP also works closely with the NERRs, described by the
NEP manager as the Island's "estuary program" in the southern coast. The NEP also works with the
US Forest Service, through the stewardship authority they were granted over all states and
territories, to work to fund watershed restoration and management in Puerto Rico. Currently, the
NEP and Forest Service are jointly managing an action plan to address illicit discharges. The NEP also
works with the municipalities of San Juan, and is currently engaging with the Planning Board, which
oversees development and planning across the Island.
WASHINGTON The State's CZMP is a networked program whose authorities largely reside within
the state's Department of Ecology. The networked structure of Washington State's CZMP results in
various state agencies being involved in implementing different coastal priorities. Major state
partners include the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Aquatic Division, the state's Fish and
Wildlife agency, and the Department of Commerce. Strategic priorities that the state agencies are
responsible for carrying out include habitat, shellfish, and stormwater. The Department of Ecology
primarily intersects with the habitat initiative, which is being coordinated by DNR and the state's
Fish and Wildlife agency. The Puget Sound Partnership works in all three of these priority areas
including developing the overall strategic action agenda.
In addition to the state agency summaries provided through discussions with staff, the document review
was also used to examine the state agency representation on all 28 NEP Management Conferences
(MCs). EPA and CSO developed a crosswalk of NEP Action Plans and state agency priorities to help
visualize the range of overlapping priority issues. Exhibit 2-8 summarizes these findings and details for
each NEP are found in Appendix C. This report found that every NEP has representation from state
environmental management or the natural resource sector - and 10 NEPs have representation by both
Sec. 2-15
-------
agencies. The majority of NEPs also include representation from the state fish and wildlife agency (16
NEPs). Other common agency sectors that were represented on the MC included agriculture (9 NEPs);
state parks (5 NEPs); human health (5 NEPs); water and soil resources (5 NEPs); forestry (4 NEPs) and
transportation (4 NEPs). Additional sectors that were represented on three or fewer MC's include: state
lands (3 NEPs), economic (3 NEPs), planning (2 NEPs), recreation/tourism (2 NEPs), education (1 NEP),
marine resources (1 NEP) and the port authority (1 NEP).
Exhibit 2-8. State agency sectors on NEP Management Conference (MC) summary table.
State Agency Sector
Represented on MC
Total
Overlapping Issues
Environmental
AL: MobileBay NEP
25
BMPs
Management,
CA: SMBNEP
Clean marinas
Protection, Quality or
CA: MBNEP
Dredging
Ecology
CT/NY: LISS
Environmental justice
RI/MA: NBEP
Erosion control
DE/NJ/PA: PDE
Estuary management
FL: CHNEP
Fish passage
FL: IRL
Groundwater
FL: SBEP
Harbor management
FL: TBEP
Harmful algal blooms
LA: BTNEP
Permitting
MA: MassBays NEP
Pesticides & toxics
MA: BBNEP
MD: MCB
Population growth
NC/VA: APNEP
Public health
ME: CBEP
Mitigation
ME/NH: PREP
Monitoring
NJ: BBP
Native plants
NJ/NY: HEP
Standards
OR/WA: LCEP
Sediment pollution
OR: TEP
Shellfish monitoring
PR: SJBEP
Shipping
TX:CBBEP
Shoreline management
TX: GBEP
Spill response
WA: PSP
Status & trends
Stormwater
TMDLs
Wastewater
Wetlands
Fish and Wildlife
CA: SMBNEP
CA:SFEP
CA: MBNEP
RI/MA: NBEP
FL: CHNEP
FL: IRL
FL: SBEP
FL: TBEP
16
Climate change
Conservation
Estuarine health
GIS and mapping
Habitat
Harmful algal blooms
Invasive species
Living shorelines
Sec. 2-16
-------
State Agency Sector
Represented on MC
Total
Overlapping Issues
LA: BTNEP
Marine Protected Areas
NC/VA: APNEP
Restoration
MA: MassBays
Species management
ME: CBEP
Spill response
ME/NH: PREP
Urban river revitalization
OR: TEP
Water quality
TX:CBBEP
Water rights and use
TX: GBEP
WA: PSP
Conservation and
AL: MobileBay NEP
14
Beaches
Natural Resources
CA: SMBNEP
Carbon sequestration
CA:SFEP
Climate adaptation
CA: MBNEP
Derelict vessels
CT/NY: LISS
Ecosystem services
DE: CIB
Fisheries
DE/NJ/PA: PDE
Habitat
LA: BTNEP
Land Management
MA: MassBays
Marine debris
MD: MCB
Monitoring
NC/VA: APNEP
Natural infrastructure
NJ/NY: HEP
NY: PEP
Pollution discharges
PR: SJBEP
Resiliency
WA: PSP
Sea level rise
Stewardship
Stream improvements
Voluntary watershed agreements
Working waterfronts
Agriculture
DE: CIB
9
Aquaculture
FL: CHNEP
BMPs
FL: IRL
Conservation
FL: TBEP
Forestry
LA: BTNEP
Green spaces and urban
MD: MCB
communities
NC/VA: APNEP
Harmful algal blooms
OR: TEP
Land and water use
TX: GBEP
Nutrient management
Pesticides
Protection
Watershed planning
State Parks
CA: SMBNEP
5
Public access
CA: MBNEP
Open space
CT/NY: LISS
Restoration
TX:CBBEP
Stream improvements
TX: GBEP
Sec. 2-17
-------
State Agency Sector
Represented on MC
Total
Overlapping Issues
Health and Human
Services
AL: MobileBay NEP
CA: MBNEP
FL: IRL
LA: BTNEP
TX: GBEP
5
Disaster response
Infrastructure
Monitoring
Nonpoint source pollution
Preparedness planning
Shellfish farming
Toxic substances
Water quality
Water and Soil
Resources
CA:SFEP
MA: MassBays
OR/WA: LCEP
OR: TEP
PR: SJBEP
TX: GBEP
5
Conservation
Flood management
Restoration
Storm sewer management
Streams
Water infrastructure
Water rights
Wetlands
Forestry
AL: MobileBay NEP
LA: BTNEP
NJ: BBP
OR: TEP
4
Species management
Watershed surveys and
monitoring
Emerging concerns
Restoration
Sustainability
Floodplain protection
Riparian areas
Risk reduction
Sediment management
Transportation
AL: MobileBay NEP
MA: MassBays
ME: CBEP
NJ: BBP
NY: PEP
4
Fish passage
Hydrologic alterations
Land acquisition
Nonpoint source pollution
Regulations
Road pollutants
Soil restoration
Stormwater
Water dependent uses
Water quality
Watershed management
State Lands
CA: SMBNEP
TX:CBBEP
TX: GBEP
3
Fisheries
Landscape planning
Sea level rise
Species management
Climate adaptation
Sediment quality and quantity
Sec. 2-18
-------
State Agency Sector
Represented on MC
Total
Overlapping Issues
Beaches
Erosion
Wetlands
Ecotourism
Waterfront revitalization
Public access
Economic
FL: IRL
LA: BTNEP
OR: TEP
3
Climate change
Fisheries
Preparedness planning
Resiliency
Wastewater
Planning
DE: CIB
MA: MassBays
MD: MCB
2
Healthy communities
Land use change
Land use planning
Septic permitting
Shoreline management
Recreation, Culture
and/or Tourism
LA: BTNEP
NC/VA: APNEP
2
Beneficial Use of Dredge Materials
Sediment management
Species protection
Education
LA: BTNEP
1
Harmful algal blooms
Marine Resources
MA: MassBays
ME: CBEP
1
Coastal science
Community planning
Marine debris
Monitoring
Permitting
Restoration
Scientific literacy
Water quality
Ports Authority
AL: MobileBay NEP
1
Clean vessels
Hydrologic alterations
Sec. 2-19
-------
3. What Can Be Learned from Past Examples of Successful
Collaboration
During calls with staff, the authors talked to NEP managers and state CZMP managers about examples of
successful collaboration in their locations. These examples illustrate some of the ways in which NEPs and
CZMPs have collaborated effectively and provide ideas that other NEPs/CZMPs may be able to adopt in
their own states. The examples also provide a framework for assessing the factors that facilitate or
hinder collaboration and the perceived added value of collaboration. Throughout this section, NEP
abbreviations are used to streamline the text and enhance readability. Please refer to the Abbreviations
Key for a list of NEP abbreviations.
3A. Examples of Successful Collaboration
Respondents in all eight states in which calls were conducted were able to provide examples of
successful collaboration. As discussed below, the most commonly mentioned types of collaboration
involve: stakeholder engagement; participation in working groups/meetings; joint coastal water
monitoring; collaboration on a specific project or project proposal; and issue identification and work
planning. The examples below provide a partial view of the types of collaboration that are occurring in
these states. It should be noted that the authors did not have conversations with NEP and CZMP
managers in every state, and staff may not have provided a comprehensive list of all collaborations.
Stakeholder engagement: One of the most frequently mentioned forms of collaboration
involves the NEPs convening and engaging local stakeholders. CZMP and NEP managers in
several states commented on the NEPs' role in convening stakeholders and obtaining input at
the grassroots level for efforts that are aligned with the coastal program's goals. For example, in
Alabama the MobileBay NEP has been conducting public meetings to solicit ideas for restoration
planning with Deepwater Horizon RESTORE funds. In New Hampshire, PREP conducts an annual
survey of policy and management actions in 52 communities across the region, which is paid for
in part by the CZMP's annual grant to the Regional Planning Commissions. In Delaware, the
CZMP and PDE work collaboratively on a community of practice that holds an annual summit as
well as other, more regular events throughout the state. In Florida, CHNEP, TBEP, and SBEP
convened meetings and brought stakeholders together to develop an oyster restoration plan led
by the CZMP and The Nature Conservancy (l).f
Issue identification/work planning: The CZMP managers and NEP directors that were called
identified examples of coordinating to identify issues, set priorities, and develop plans. In Puerto
Rico, the SJBEP and CZMP are working together to develop a watershed management plan,
which they intend to use as a model for other watersheds (outside the NEP's jurisdiction) on the
island. Their plan is for the CZMP, which is housed in the Department of Natural Resources, to
share the template that the NEP/CZMP develop together with other watershed groups so they
can apply a standard model that is proven to work in order to leverage additional FEMA funding
f"Construct multiple oyster restoration projects in Charlotte Harbor. A pilot project to test different oyster restoration methods
has been deployed and is being monitored. The best method(s) will be used to construct a multi-site, large-scale reef
restoration project (20+ acres) proposed for RESTORE funding and identified in the Southwest Florida Regional Ecosystem
Restoration Plan that was adopted by the Tampa, Sarasota and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Programs." (page 22)
Sec. 3-1
-------
for restoration efforts. In Alabama, the MobileBay NEP and CZMP have collaborated on
watershed protection in urban areas. The NEP conducts long-term planning to identify which
streams need to be restored and the CZMP utilizes the NEP's project implementation committee
to develop priorities and work with environmental resource managers to make science-based
decisions about watershed protection (e.g., planning about which streams need to be restored).
In Florida, several NEPs and the CZMP have partnered to identify restoration priorities following
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In New Hampshire, PREP and the CZMP coordinate on annual
workplans for joint water monitoring activities (see below).
Workgroup participation: Another commonly mentioned form of collaboration was joint
participation by NEPs and CZMPs in working groups that address shared goals. This supports
programmatic coordination and can also create efficiencies. For example, New Hampshire's
Department of Environmental Services (which houses the state's CZMP program) and PREP both
participate in a Coastal Adaptation Workgroup (CAW). The Department of Environmental
Services takes a leading role on climate vulnerability and readiness through the working group
and NEP staff complement State actions by supporting the working group's communications
activities (e.g., the "King Tide Photo Contest"). Balancing roles allows each entity to create
efficiencies by focusing their attention on core priority issues. In Massachusetts, the MassBays
NEP and the CZMP each have Regional Coordinators (RCs) who coordinate with one another,
including who will attend which meetings and provide input at different points in time. In
Washington, the CZMP has been participating in LCEP meetings over time to address sand
management issues on the coast. In other states, the NEP and CZMP lead together. The PDE and
Delaware's CZMP both serve in leadership roles on the Resilient and Sustainable Communities
workgroup and the Living Shoreline committee. In Florida, IRL participates in the Northeast
Estuarine Restoration Team (NERT) (2)* meetings and has been working with the Aquatic
Preserve Program§ to implement key actions in the Indian River Lagoon.
Water quality monitoring, assessment, and data sharing. During discussions, the NEP and
CZMP managers provided several examples of joint monitoring and data sharing activities. In
New Hampshire, the NEP serves as the "monitoring arm" for the state's Clean Water Act
responsibilities. The NEP and CZMP coordinate on developing annual workplans, including
determining what to monitor; the University of New Hampshire (the NEP's host organization)
conducts monitoring; and the CZMP provides technical support, GIS expertise, and analysis of
water quality data. There are also synergies between the data collection efforts for the NEP's
State of the Estuary Report (conducted every five years) and the CZMP's bi-annual Water Quality
Assessments. In Massachusetts, MassBays and the CZMP collaborate on the Marine Invasive
* NERT was created in 2010 to bring partners together to develop regional landscape-level habitat initiatives. It is focused on
the restoration and enhancement of estuarine habitats including coastal marsh, mangroves, oyster reefs, and seagrass. The
NERT is led by representatives from state and federal agencies and non-profits. The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (which houses the Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection, which in turn houses the Florida Coastal Management
Program) is a Steering Committee member.
§ The Aquatic Preserve Program is housed in the Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection. Florida has 41 aquatic preserves -
about 2.5 million acres. The aquatic preserves are outside of the NERRs and are mostly submerged habitat. A portion of funding
that comes through the Coastal Management Program supports the state's Aquatic Preserve Program. The Office of Resilience
and Coastal Protection manages the development of a management plan for the aquatic preserves.
Sec. 3-2
-------
Species Monitoring Program.** Washington's CZMP has been conducting watershed
characterization, mapping and analysis work with PSP funding or in collaboration with the NEP.
Collaboration on special projects: Several NEP and CZMP managers mentioned special projects
on which they successfully collaborated with each other. For example, MassBays NEP and the
Massachusetts CZMP jointly applied for and were awarded funding for a "project of special
merit" to conduct an inventory of tide gates. They drew on their respective networks and
resources to implement an extensive inventory in communities across the state. In New Jersey,
the BBP and PDE, the CZMP, and a multitude of other stakeholders worked together to
successfully implement a NFWF grant that they received after Hurricane Sandy (3). The project
included approximately 50 communities and resulted in guidance for how to assess green areas,
marsh, and shoreline environments as a resource for resilience and ecological resources. The
NEPs are leading the science portion for a decision support tool that will be hosted on the NEPs
and NJDEP's websites. In Alabama, the MobileBay NEP and CZMP worked together to address
sediment erosion in Joe's Branch (a portion of the northeastern part of Mobile Bay). The NEP
brought the issue to the CZMP's attention, the CZMP conducted sampling in the watershed, and
the NEP launched the process of developing a watershed management program. When
Deepwater Horizon funding came through, the NEP applied it to these projects.ft
Funding coordination: Conversations with NEP directors and CZMP managers raised numerous
examples of coordinating funds to accomplish shared goals. They shared examples of financial
resources flowing from CZMPs to NEPs, and from NEPs to CZMPs. In Delaware, the Coastal
Management Program is providing funding to PDE to manage the Resilient and Sustainable
Communities website. In New Hampshire, as noted above, the CZMP provides an annual grant
to the Regional Planning Commissions which helps to support PREP's data collection activities
for the Piscataqua Estuary Assessment. Examples of NEP funding going to support CZMP
activities include Florida, where CHNEP purchased monitoring equipment for the Aquatic
Preserve Program's voluntary monitoring network in Southwest Florida(4); and New Hampshire,
where the NEP provided funding for cleanups in Great Bay and Hampton-Seabrook, following
involvement from the Trash Free Waters program. In addition, NEPs and CZMPs have
coordinated on funding initiatives with other organizations. For example, New Hampshire's NEP,
CZMP, NERRs, and other organizations participate on a steering committee that works with the
New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. The Washington State Department of Ecology (which
hosts the CZMP) partners with other agencies on projects funded by the PSP.
Staffing coordination: NEPs and CZMPs have also coordinated on staffing positions. In New
Hampshire, PREP and the CZMP are teaming up to address non-point sources through the
Coastal Fellowship Program. PREP and the CZMP have applied for a NOAA Coastal Management
Fellow for 2019-2021 to work on stormwater and flood management. The NEP is a partner on
this project and will be involved in mentoring the fellow. PREP will be contributing financially as
a non-federal cash match for the first year of the fellowship. Previously, the NEP and CZMP
partnered on a Coastal Fellowship for a social indicators project. In Puerto Rico, the SJBEP
" The Casco Bay Estuary Partnership also provides funding for this initiative.
ft In Puerto Rico, the San Juan Bay NEP manager noted that EPA's Trash Free Waters program has been a key partner in
addressing aquatic debris through projects conducted in the estuary. The San Juan Bay NEP manager did not mention a link
between Trash Free Waters activities and the CZMP.
Sec. 3-3
-------
partnered with the Urban Waters program to hire two resilience coordinators. In Florida, IRL has
partnered with the Northeast Aquatic Preserve office, a component of the CZMP, to fund shared
staff positions. In a minimally staffed office, this is seen by the state as a major benefit to
partnering with the NEP.
Joint outreach and communication: NEPs and CZMPs have conducted coordinated outreach and
communications. As discussed above, in New Hampshire the NEP provides communications
expertise for the Coastal Adaptation Workgroup; NEP staff have offered to formulate and staff
the workgroup's King Tide Photo Contest. In Massachusetts, MassBays NEP and the CZMP
conducted joint outreach and communications around water quality and pollutant discharge.
In addition to the types of collaboration that were mentioned in multiple states, some conversations
included discussions of unique examples of collaboration. Although each of the following themes came
up only once during the call, these examples were still notable.
Policy development: MassBays NEP and the Massachusetts CZMP teamed up with towns and
marinas on water quality and pollutant discharges, as noted above, and MassBays NEP played
an important role in getting the No-Discharge Zone policy in place. No-Discharge Zones are EPA
and state-designated waterbodies where the discharge of all boat sewage, whether treated or
untreated, is prohibited. As of 2014, all of Massachusetts coastal waters are designated as "no
discharge" for vessel sewage (5).
Federal Consistency Review. Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act is commonly
known as the "federal consistency" provision. In general, federal consistency requires that
federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects on any coastal use or natural resource
of the coastal zone be consistent with the enforceable policies of a state's federally approved
coastal management program (6). These determinations are made through the federal
consistency review process. In Massachusetts, Regional Coordinators (RCs) from the CZMP
coordinate with RCs from the NEPs to provide input for consistency reviews. While this does not
happen in every project, the pathways for communication exist. For example, the CZMP engages
with Massachusetts Bays and Buzzards Bay NEPs when the CZMP knows that NEP staff are
knowledgeable about a particular topic.
NEP referenced in lieu of a SAMP. The Coastal Zone Management Act encourages states to
develop Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs), which are resource management plans and
implementation programs developed to better manage specific geographic areas, such as urban
waterfronts (7). The development of a SAMP requires involvement from all responsible federal
and state agencies and also has public participation requirements to obtain stakeholder input.
According to Florida's Section 309 plan, the three Gulf Coast NEPs developed a regional
management plan that was referenced in lieu of a SAMP.
3B. Perceived Added Value of Collaboration - What Each Party Brings to the Table
The examples above show that the NEPs and CZMPs bring complementary and/or reinforcing
knowledge, skills, and resources to their collaborations. During the discussions, NEP directors and CZMP
managers were asked what they view as the value added by each party. Their responses are summarized
below. For the most part, respondents spoke more about what the other party brings to the table - i.e.,
CZMP managers tended to comment on the added value of the NEPs, and vice versa. Because more
Sec. 3-4
-------
CZMP managers were called than NEP directors, opinions about the added value of the NEPs are
reflected more heavily in the summary below.
Commonly mentioned ways in which NEPs add value to CZMPs' work include the following:
Convening and stakeholder engagement: This was one of the most commonly mentioned ways
that NEPs add value. Stakeholder engagement and consensus building are fundamental to the
NEP model. When this process addresses issues of interest to the CZMPs, it can add value to the
work of both parties by engaging a diversity of local stakeholders and opinions. As one CZMP
manager stated, "Having NEPs (and other partners) involved in the process helps to make
management a more holistic approach, and by leveraging the multiple and diverse spheres of
influence we can work together to maximize the power and benefits of each program." A CZMP
manager in another state noted the NEP, as a non-regulatory program, was adept at engaging
stakeholders and facilitating discussions around topics "that might not be as easy for the CZMP
to do as a state regulatory agency."
Complementary knowledge and expertise: Another common observation that arose during the
conversations was that NEPs bring complementary knowledge and expertise to the CZMPs'
work. For example, in Massachusetts, the NEPs' Regional Coordinators include research
scientists who specialize in habitat restoration and spawning analysis, which complements the
CZMP's GIS specialists, coastal engineers, and geomorphologists. The NEPs also bring local input
and expertise from advocacy groups and local volunteer networks. In New Jersey, the BBP's
locally based staff scientists bring "on the ground" knowledge that complements the work of the
state CZMP, which is hosted at NJDEP. Since it is hosted by Ocean County College, the BBP also
draws on academics and external experts to play a review role and can serve as an information
clearinghouse.
Science and data sharing: The NEPs provide science and data to support the CZMPs' efforts in
some states, as illustrated in the examples in the previous section, such as monitoring water
quality in New Hampshire. A CZMP manager in New Hampshire also noted that the NEP is well-
respected for facilitating discussion among various stakeholders and bringing the best available
science to bear.
Flexibility to pursue diverse funding opportunities. NEPs can apply for funding opportunities
that the CZMP cannot apply for as a state agency, particularly if the NEP is hosted in a non-profit
or academic institution. NEPs can also provide matching funds for grants. For example, as
previously mentioned PREP will be contributing financially as a non-federal cash match for the
first year of a Coastal Fellow that is being shared by PREP and the New Hampshire CZMP.
Ability to play an advocacy role. As non-regulatory entities, NEPs can sometimes play more of
an advocacy role than CZMPs. For example, PDE has an advocacy group and interfaces with
Delaware's Clean Water Coalition, which pushes for legislation for clean water projects in
Delaware. The NEPs also can advocate for specific issues or focus more narrowly on special
topics connected to Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, whereas CZMPs may need to be more
careful in balancing a broader array of competing coastal priorities.
Sec. 3-5
-------
Ways in which the CZMPs add value to the NEPs' work include the following:
Regulatory authority: CZMPs have regulatory authority, including the Federal Consistency
provision, which ensures that federal actions with reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal
uses and resources are consistent with the enforceable policies of a state's coastal management
program.
Working with the state agency to enact policies: Housed within state government agencies, the
CZMPs work with the state agency and the state legislature to enact policies.
Complementary expertise and knowledge: The examples of complementary expertise listed
above were often reciprocal: The CZMPs bring complementary expertise, knowledge, and
connections that are beneficial to the NEPs' work. For example, the Massachusetts CZMP
brought mapping, science, and modeling expertise for the tide gate inventory project.
Technical and financial resources: The CZMPs provide technical tools, guidance, and assistance,
as well as financial resources for NEP projects and related activities.
Even though only a subset of NEPs/CZMPs was called, the responses are illustrative of the big picture, as
evidenced in Exhibit 3-1 below (8, 9).
Exhibit 3-1. Hallmarks of the NEP approach and summary of CZMP roles and responsibilities.
How CZMPs Work
1. Provide planning, financial, and
technical assistance
2. Protect natural resources
3. Manage development in high hazard
areas
4. Ensure coastal-dependent uses
receive development priority
5. Coordinate state and federal actions
to create permit and regulatory
efficiencies
3C. Advantages of Greater Collaboration Between NEPs and States
All of the managers expressed interest in continuing and enhancing collaboration between the NEPs and
CZMPs. The managers were asked what they perceive as the advantages of increased collaboration and
any potential challenges.
How NEPs Work
1.
Led by inclusive governance
structure
2.
Involve stakeholders
3.
Engage the public through decision-
making process
4.
Collaborate to identify problems
and solutions
5.
Implement Clean Water Act core
programs
6.
Set measurable goals and objectives
and monitor effectiveness
7.
Develop and implement a CCMP
Sec. 3-6
-------
Advantages of collaboration can be seen in many of the examples of successful collaboration and the
value that each party brings to the collaboration, as discussed earlier in this chapter. In addition, the
following additional benefits of collaboration were identified through the discussions:
Providing additional capacity for projects: NEP and CZMP managers in several states
commented on the benefits of combining their knowledge, expertise, and/or financial
resources. As managers in one state put it, they are being asked to "do more with less" funding
and staff, which makes it critical to collaborate and to leverage partners' resources. NEP and
CZMP managers in other states stated that collaboration expands each program's "bandwidth"
to carry out projects by providing additional staff capacity and complementary technical
expertise. CZMP managers also mentioned (as noted above) that the NEPs can pursue additional
funding sources and provide matching funds, which further supports the CZMPs' initiatives.
Maximizing efficiencies: A smaller number of managers talked about maximizing efficiencies by
coordinating on proposals, projects, and workgroups. Through collaboration, responsibilities can
be shared, and management efficiencies gained (e.g., non-duplicative management and
reporting structures). Key to maximizing efficiencies is clearly defining the operational niche of
each entity and communicating often to ensure effective collaboration.
Fostering dialogue: As noted above, CZMP managers highlighted that the NEPs' role as trusted
advisors lends them the ability to convene diverse groups of stakeholders and foster
constructive discussions, including around topics that would be more difficult for the CZMP to
lead as a regulatory agency.
Extending geographic reach: Two managers commented that collaboration extends their
geographic reach in the watershed. MassBays NEP's jurisdiction extends farther upstream than
the MA CZMP, allowing this NEP to work with volunteers monitoring the spring herring runs and
participate in dam removal projects and fish passageway projects. In Puerto Rico, the CZMP and
NERRs have a wider geographical reach than the NEP. By partnering with the NERRs and CZMP,
the NEP can extend its reach beyond its own watershed area to other parts of the island.
Connecting with other parts of EPA and NOAA. One CZMP manager commented that the NEP
can provide a point of entry to working with other parts of EPA. The authors note that the CZMP
can also provide points of entry for working with other NOAA programs and other parts of state
environmental agencies (e.g., those focusing on water quality, which is a top priority for NEPs).
3D. Potential Challenges to Greater Collaboration Between NEPs and States
All of the managers that were called expressed interest in continuing and enhancing collaboration
between the NEPs and CZMPs. The managers were asked what they perceive as any potential challenges
of increased collaboration.
Challenges to collaboration identified during the conversations include the following:
Changes in NEP structure/processes: Changes in an NEP's host organization can change the
types of projects that the NEP funds, which can be challenging for partners to adapt to
(however, based on the discussions held, this does not seem to occur frequently). Similarly,
changes in an NEP's committee structure and member representation can be difficult for the
CZMP to navigate in terms of bringing issues to the forefront.
Changes in government administrations: Similarly, changes in government administrations can
bring about a shift in priorities that can impact a CZMP's activities (both federal and state
Sec. 3-7
-------
administration changes) and an NEP's activities (federal, state and local administration changes).
Also, the level of support for activities undertaken by the CZMP and NEP can fluctuate across
administrations.
Bureaucracy: One NEP manager observed that the government agency housing the state's
CZMP is bureaucratic and can be difficult to navigate. A CZMP manager in a different state noted
the challenge of translating NEP actions that occur through a bureaucratic but academic-focused
pathway into CZMP actions that happen through regulatory changes and legislation. A CZMP
manager in another state, when asked about any barriers/challenges to working more with the
NEPs, noted they would not want to add "layers of bureaucracy" to partnership efforts.
NEP processes: While NEPs were generally characterized as flexible and nimble, it was noted
that some NEPs are perceived as being process-oriented and/or having committee processes
that can be difficult for CZMPs to navigate when attempting to collaborate with them.
Funding and staff capacity challenges: NEPs and CZMPs described challenges related to limited
funding and reductions in staff. Several managers observed that funding for the NEPs has stayed
relatively constant over time, and that the NEPs are mostly "staff-based organizations" that
frequently need to seek project funding from other sources. One manager noted that NEPs lack
staff time to conduct strategic planning and communication work beyond their day-to-day
activities (although this manager sees significant value in doing this type of work). Resource
constraints were also identified as a challenge for some CZMPs.
Other challenges that were mentioned occasionally include interpersonal challenges, such as personality
clashes, and in one instance a perception that one party was more interested in furthering its own work
agenda rather than working together to advance shared goals.
Sec. 3-8
-------
4. Forward-Looking Opportunities for Enhanced Collaboration
This section identifies and describes opportunities for enhanced collaboration. First, building on the
examples of successful collaboration in Section 3, this section identifies how institutional factors - the
NEP structure/host arrangement, and the organizational placement of CZMPs within state agencies -
can shape opportunities for collaboration. Next, it provide an overview of collaboration opportunities
for the 28 NEPs and the coastal states that host all or part of an NEP. Then, this section considers several
specific opportunities for NEPs to partner more closely with states on their top shared issues. Finally,
insights are shared from ANEP and CSO leadership on collaboration opportunities at the national level.
The information in Section 4 is based on a review of written information (including CCMPs, Section 309
Assessments and Strategies, and other publicly available information including the websites of each NEP
and CZMP), interviews with a subset of NEP and CZMP program managers, and interviews with the
current leadership of ANEP and CSO. The priority issues discussed here are distilled from these sources
and represent what specific states and interviewees reported they want to pursue, as well as where the
authors found natural alignment between programs based on the document review. This report
recognize that priority areas can and will differ across states.
4A. How the NEP Host Arrangement Can Shape Opportunities for Collaboration
The 28 NEPs have a variety of institutional arrangements and host structures. The program structure is
specific to individual NEPs and is driven by various factors including the availability of different
partnership opportunities. The most common host structures are government agencies, non-profit
organizations, and academic institutions. Other hosts include regional organizations, local/city
government agencies, and, in Florida, independent special districts of the state (e.g., Indian River
Lagoon).
Every NEP hosting arrangement has shown positive examples of collaboration. The examples of
successful collaboration discussed in Section 3 cover the full range of NEP institutional structures. The
interviews and other research underlying this report demonstrate that while opportunities for
collaboration might differ depending on the institutional structure of the NEP, these opportunities
between an NEP and a CZMP exist under each of the NEP hosting arrangements. This section shows the
types of collaboration opportunities that appear most promising for the different types of hosting
arrangements.
The text below and Exhibit 4-1 summarize the different types of NEP hosting arrangements, the number
of NEPs with each type of hosting arrangement, opportunities for collaboration with CZMPs, and
examples from the interviews.
Government host agency: Thirteen NEPs have a government host agency, including six state agencies,
three regional organizations, two local/city organizations, and two independent special districts of the
state. Opportunities for collaboration revolve around the integration that occurs when the CZMP and
NEPs are both housed within state government.
Institutionalized integration between the NEP and CZMP: The Massachusetts CZMP and both
NEPs are housed in the same state agency. MassBays has a network of Regional Coordinators
who collaborate on projects; this structure is institutionalized and lends itself to collaboration,
coordination, and efficiencies.
Sec. 4-1
-------
Management and administrative efficiencies: Being housed in the same agency provides
financial and administrative efficiencies, including shared office space, equipment,
administrative support, and some shared staff time.
Access to policymakers: The Massachusetts CZMP and NEPs are both housed in the Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, a state Cabinet-level office. This structure allows
closer integration between the NEPs, CZMP, and policymakers/the policy process.
Access to other parts of state government: The networked structure of Washington State's
CZMP results in various state agencies being involved in implementing different coastal
priorities. The Puget Sound Partnership - a state agency - selects (through a competitive
process) organizations to lead different initiatives within their watershed and the CZMP partners
with some of these agencies to carry out projects.
Non-profit/foundation: Ten NEPs are hosted in non-profits/foundations. Opportunities for collaboration
center on a non-profit's flexibility in being able to champion issues, fundraise, and advocate for
legislation and policies.
Greater flexibility, including flexibility to address EJ issues: NEPs that are hosted by non-profit
organizations have flexibilities that the CZMPs may not. One area of flexibility is being able to
address environmental justice (EJ) issues by engaging local communities and providing a venue
for diverse stakeholders to make their voices heard about a variety of issues. For example, the
non-profit status of the SJBEP in Puerto Rico helps insulate the NEP from politics and lets them
play a unifying role in developing collaborative plans to improve the watersheds and reconstruct
the island after Hurricane Maria.
Ability to fundraise and apply for different types of funding: Another area of flexibility for NEPs
hosted in non-profit organizations is the ability to fundraise and apply for different types of
funding. For example, the SJBEP's 501c(3) status helps the NEP to leverage funding and support
from government agencies and other parties, including industry.
Ability to advocate/lobby: Non-profit status also enables NEPs to engage in advocacy and
lobbying activities that are not allowed for government agencies. For example, PDE has an
advocacy group that interfaces with Delaware's Clean Water Coalition, which advocates for
legislation for clean water projects in the state. Also, Delaware's NEPs serve in an advisory
capacity on regulatory issues and advocate for certain issues through a committee that advises
on CZMP regulations.
Academia: Five NEPs are hosted in academic institutions. There is some overlap between opportunities
for collaboration with the previous category (non-profit/foundations) with respect to fundraising, as
well as opportunities associated with proximity to academic researchers and labs.
Access to research facilities/labs/academic experts: The MobileBay NEP is housed in the
Dauphin Island Sea Lab, which gives them strong academic credentials, and helps enhance some
of the NEP's research capacity because it has access to the lab. Similarly, the BBP engages
academics and external reviewers and provides a clearinghouse of science-based information.
Ability to fundraise and apply for different types of funding: As discussed above, New
Hampshire's NEP can access non-federal funds and provide non-federal match for grants, e.g.,
for NOAA's Coastal Management Fellowship Program.
Sec. 4-2
-------
Exhibit 4-1. NEP Hosting Arrangements and Op
oortunities for Collaboration
Type of hosting
arrangement
No. of
NEPs
Opportunities for
Collaboration
Examples from the Interviews
Government
13
Institutionalized
MA: NEP Regional Coordinators (RCs) and CZMP RCs work together on projects. The RC structure is
agency
integration between
institutionalized and lends itself to collaboration, coordination, and efficiency (not duplicating each
State
6
NEP and CZMP
other's efforts).
Regional
3
Management/admin.
MA: Financial and administrative benefits include shared space, equipment, administrative support,
Local/city
2
Efficiency
and staff time.
Independent
2
Access to
MA: CZMP and NEPs are housed in the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (state
special district
policymakers
Cabinet-level office)
of the state
Access to other parts
of state government
WA (Puget Sound): Various agencies are involved in carrying out different priorities, and the NEP
works with all of those agencies. NEP selects (through a competitive process) organizations to lead
different initiatives in their watershed; the CZMP partners with some of these agencies to carry out
projects.
Non-profit/
10
Greater flexibility,
PR: Non-profit status helps insulate the NEP from politics and lets them play a unifying role in
foundation
incl. to address EJ
developing collaborative plans to improve the watersheds and reconstruct the area
Non-profit
8
issues
Foundation
2
Able to fundraise
and apply for
different types of
funding
PR: 501c(3) structure helps the NEP to leverage funding and support from government agencies
and other parties
Able to
DE: PDE's board has an advocacy group that interfaces with Delaware's Clean Water Coalition,
advocate/lobby
which advocates for legislation for clean water projects in the state
DE: NEPs serve in an advisory capacity on regulatory issues and advocate for certain issues through
the committee that advises on CZMP regulations
Academic
5
Access to research
AL: NEP is housed in the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, which gives them strong academic credentials,
institution
facilities/labs/acade
and helps enhance some of the NEP's research because they have access to the lab.
mic credentials
NJ: NEP brings academics and outsiders in as expert reviewers and provides a clearinghouse of
science-based information.
Ability to fundraise
NH: NEP can access non-federal funds and provide non-federal match for grants, e.g. for NOAA's
and apply for
Coastal Management Fellowship Program.
different types of
funding
Sec. 4-3
-------
4B. How the Organizational Placement of CZMPs within State Agencies Can Shape
Opportunities for Collaboration
In addition to the organizational structure of the NEPs, this report also considers the organizational
placement of the CZMPs within state agencies and how this can shape opportunities for collaboration.
Exhibit 4-2 summarizes the organizational placement of the CZMPs for the 20 states that overlap with an
NEP watershed. For each state, the exhibit lists the CZM Program Office and the host agency(ies). It also
shows that CZMPs in 10 of the 20 states are housed within the same state agency that is responsible for
administering Clean Water Act programs ("CWA Crossover"). This overlap is significant because the
National Estuary Program is authorized under the Clean Water Act. The CZMP has a broader purview,
but when a CZMP is housed within a CWA agency it may facilitate more direct engagement between the
NEP and CZMP on water quality issues. This crossover can be advantageous for both the NEP and the
CZMP. These findings echo an earlier EPA report that discussed the benefits of institutional locations in
the context of NEPs investigating which alternative best suits the specific needs (1).
Exhibit 4-2 also shows that 13 states have a "networked" CZM Program, indicating that the functions
and authorities of the CZMP are networked across multiple offices (within a single agency) or across
various state agencies. Networked CZMPs may be able to provide resources and expertise in additional
areas beyond those typically addressed by the NEP, providing opportunities for NEP-CZMP collaboration
across state offices and/or agencies.
Exhibit 4-2. Coastal State CZMP Offices and Host Agencies in States Overlapping NEP Watersheds
State
CZMP Office
Lead State Agency(ies)*
CWA
Crossover"
Networked
Program"*
Alabama
Coastal Area Management
Program
Dept. of Conservation & Natural
Resources [CSO]
X
Dept. of Environmental
Management
X
California
Coastal Management
Program
CA Coastal Commission [CSO]
X
CA Coastal Conservancy
San Francisco Bay Conservation &
Development Commission [CSO]
Connecticut
Coastal Management
Program w/in Office of
Long Island Sound
Programs
Dept. of Energy & Environmental
Protection
X
Delaware
Coastal Management
Program w/in Division of
Soil & Water Conservation
Dept. of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control
X
X
Florida
Office of Resilience &
Coastal Protection
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
X
X
Louisiana
Interagency Affairs & Field
Services Division [CSO] and
Permits & Mitigation
Division w/in Office of
Coastal Management
Dept. of Natural Resources
X
Maine
Maine Coastal Program
Dept. of Marine Resources
X
Sec. 4-4
-------
State
CZMP Office
Lead State Agency(ies)*
CWA
Crossover"
Networked
Program"*
Maryland
Chesapeake & Coastal
Service
Dept. of Natural Resources
X
Massachusetts
Office of Coastal Zone
Management
Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs
X
New Hampshire
Coastal Program w/in
Watershed Management
Bureau of Water Division
Dept. of Environmental Services
X
New Jersey
Division of Coastal & Land
Use Planning
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
X
X
New York
State Coastal Management
Program w/in Office of
Planning & Development
Dept. of State
North Carolina
Division of Costal
Management
Dept. of Environmental Quality
X
Oregon
Coastal Management
Program w/in Ocean &
Coastal Services Division
Dept. of Land Conservation &
Development
X
Pennsylvania
Coastal Resources
Management Program
w/in Compacts &
Commissions Office in
Office of Water
Dept. of Environmental
Protection
X
X
Puerto Rico
Coastal Zone Division
Dept. of Natural & Environmental
Resources
Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management
Council
Texas
Coastal Management
Program
General Land Office
Virginia
Coastal Zone Management
Program
Dept. of Environmental Quality
X
X
Washington
Shoreline & Coastal
Management
Dept. of Ecology
X
X
Notes:
* For networked CZMPs that have more than a single office or agency listed, we designate with a [CSO] which
represents a CSO-delegate office.
** An "X" in this column denotes that the lead CZMPs State agency is also responsible for administering Clean
Water Act programs.
***An "X" in this column denotes a networked CZMPs, indicating that the functions and authorities of the CZMPs
are networked across multiple offices (within a single agency) or across various state agencies.
Our conversations with NEP and CZMP managers provide some examples of collaboration for the
organizational structures shown in Exhibit 4-2. For example, New Hampshire's CZMP is located within
the state's Department of Environmental Services, which is also responsible for administering New
Hampshire's Clean Water Act programs. The CZMP manager in New Hampshire noted that while the
CZMP and NEP would still collaborate even if the CZMP was not located in the CWA agency, the CWA
crossover strengthens and shapes their collaboration. For example, the Watershed Management Bureau
(where the CZMP is located) is responsible for all water quality monitoring in the state of New
Sec. 4-5
-------
Hampshire; as noted above, the CZMP and NEP collaborate extensively on water quality monitoring. This
is a natural way for the NEP and CZMP in New Hampshire to collaborate and is reinforced by the
organizational placement of the CZMP.
Similarly, Florida provides examples of collaboration for a "networked" CZMP. The Office of Resilience
and Coastal Protection houses the CZMP, the state's three NERRs, the Aquatic Preserve Program, the
Coral Reef Conservation Program, National Marine Sanctuary, the Clean Boating Program, and various
other programs. A staff member described the CZMP as a "glue program" that coordinates all these
activities in a cohesive way. By engaging with the CZMP, Florida's NEPs can engage with other programs
in the Office of Resilience and Coastal Protection. For example, as mentioned above, the Indian River
Lagoon NEP attends NERT meetings and has been working with the Aquatic Preserve Program to
implement key actions in the Indian River Lagoon.
4C. Future Opportunities for Coordination across the 28 NEPs and Overlapping
States
Next, the focus will be on forward-looking opportunities for enhanced collaboration across the NEPs and
states, beginning with a summary of the priority issues identified through documents and interviews.
Coastal hazards were by far the most frequent issue mentioned (19 NEPs), followed by water quality (10
NEPs), shoreline management (3 NEPs), marine resource and ocean planning (3 NEPs) and floodplain
management and environmental justice (3 NEPs). The rest of the issues were mentioned one time each:
economic impacts, marine debris, public access and sustainability. Note that these issues are
inextricably linked, and some categories overlap (Exhibit 4-3). Below summarizes the scope of the issues
identified through research and interviews and includes potential approaches NEPs could take to add
value, based on the authors' knowledge of NEP strengths. More detailed descriptions of the
opportunities in the NEP fact sheets can be found in Appendix C.
Exhibit 4-3. Summary of Overlapping Priority Issues across NEPs and States
The Issues
#OfNEPs
List of States and NEPs
Coastal Hazards
19
CA: Santa Monica NEP
Sub-categories:
CA: San Francisco Bay
- Sea level rise
DE: Center for Inland Bays *
- Flooding
DE/NJ/PA: Partnership for the DE Estuary*
- Erosion
FL: Coastal Heartlands*
- Coastal acidification
FL: Indian River Lagoon*
- Hurricanes
FL: Sarasota Bay*
FL: Tampa Bay*
MA: Massachusetts Bays NEP**
MD: Coastal Bays
ME: Casco Bay
NC/VA: Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
NJ: Barnegat Bay Partnership**
OR: Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
OR/WA: Lower Columbia
PR: San Juan Bay*
Sec. 4-6
-------
The Issues
#OfNEPs
List of States and NEPs
RI/MA: Narragansett Bay
TX: Coastal Bend Bays
TX: Galveston Bay
Water quality
10
AL: Mobile Bay*
Sub-categories:
DE: Center for Inland Bays *
- Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
DE/NJ/PA: Partnership for DE Estuary*
program
FL: Coastal and Heartlands*
- Nutrients management
FL: Indian River Lagoon*
- Wastewater
FL: Sarasota Bay*
FL: Tampa Bay*
MA: Buzzards Bay*
ME: Casco Bay
NH/ME: Piscataqua Region**
Shoreline management
3
WA: PugetSound*
CA: San Francisco
CA: Santa Monica Bay
Marine resources and ocean planning -
3
CT/NY: Long Island Sound Study
including aquaculture siting
MA/RI: Massachusetts Bays**
NY: Peconic Estuary
Floodplain management &
3
NJ: Barnegat Bay Partnership**
Environmental Justice
NY/NJ: NY-NJ Harbor*
CA: San Francisco
Economic impacts
1
DE: Center for Inland Bays*
Marine debris
1
NH/ME: Piscataqua Region* *
Public access
1
NY/NJ: NY-NJ Harbor*
Sustainability
1
DE/NJ/PA: Partnership for the DE Estuary*
indicates that the NEP managers were interviewed
t Indicates that state CZMP staff were interviewed
Coastal Hazards
The term coastal hazard is used to capture both chronic issues such as flooding, erosion and the long-
term impacts of climate change as well as catastrophic events such as hurricanes or tsunamis. This
report found that most opportunities to address coastal hazards centered around building resilience to
chronic issues including the effects of climate change, such as sea level rise (CHNEP, CIB, IRL, LCEP,
MassBays NEP, MCB, NBEP, PDE, SBEP, SFEP, SMBNEP, TBEP), the impacts of chronic flooding (BBP, TEP),
erosion (BTNEP, CBB, GBEP) and coastal acidification (CBEP). For two locations that have been recently
impacted by hurricanes (APNEP, SJBEP), there was a focus on building resilience to these potentially
catastrophic events. There were opportunities for NEPs to help build their partners' capacity by
providing access to data and scientific reports (CIB, CBEP, NBEP), developing adaptation plans and
vulnerability assessments (LCEP, TEP), developing tools and trainings to assist in decision-making (BBP,
SFEP, SMBNEP), and leading community outreach efforts (HEP, PDE, SBEP). also found opportunities for
NEPs to develop or enhance on-the-ground projects through promotion of natural and nature-based
infrastructure, including living shorelines (APNEP, BBP, CHNEP, IRL, LCEP, MassBays NEP, TBEP), habitat
Sec. 4-7
-------
protection and restoration efforts (CBB, CIB, GBEP), and facilitating the preservation of open space
through conservation efforts (BTNEP, MBNEP).
Water Quality
To address water quality, opportunities were identified for NEPs to add value to water quality
improvement efforts across a number of states. NEPs to be involved in the development and
implementation of the CZMA-led Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control programs (MobileBay NEP, PREP),
managing nutrient pollution and effects of harmful algal blooms (CHNEP, CBEP, IRL, SBEP, TBEP),
building monitoring programs (CIB, PDE) and assisting in wastewater management efforts (BBNEP,
MassBays NEP, PREP). States revise their Nonpoint Source Management Plan every 5 years, so that is a
recurring opportunity to leverage common objectives. NEP approaches that could add value to the state
include facilitating long-term planning and project prioritization initiatives through stakeholder
engagements (CBEP, MassBays NEP, MobileBay NEP), data sharing and research (CIB, PDE), promotion
and implementation of natural infrastructure projects (CHNEP, MassBays NEP, SBEP, TBEP) and through
the development of financing options for septic upgrades (BBNEP, MassBays NEP, PREP). As shown in
Section 2, many of these opportunities could be categorized under §309 priority area Cumulative and
Secondary Impacts that 10 overlapping CZMPs cite as a high priority and 10 as a medium priority area.
Shoreline Management
This research found examples of opportunities for NEPs to work more closely with states on shoreline
management including reducing shoreline armoring (PSP, SMBNEP) and evaluating changes in shoreline
and associated uplands (SFEP). These issues could be addressed through NEP coordination on permitting
and regulatory processes (PSP), involvement in shoreline mapping efforts (SFEP) and through
communication of guidance and training to local stakeholders (SMBNEP).
Marine Resource and Ocean Planning
Several NEPs showed overlapping interests with states with respect to long-term planning efforts
especially marine spatial planning that balances the differing uses of shared coastal and ocean resources
(LISS, MassBays NEP, PEP). NEP opportunities to contribute to this work includes aligning CCMP actions
with state-led marine spatial plan implementation (LISS) and using technical expertise and consensus-
based decision-making to assist in the siting of aquaculture in estuarine waters (MassBays NEP, PEP).
Floo ;al Justice
This research also found shared interests with respect to the consideration of environmental justice
communities in floodplain management activities that includes the need to improve the consideration of
vulnerable populations and promoting equity in the decision-making process (BBP, SFEP) and reducing
risks from flooding in urban communities (HEP). NEPs could enhance state efforts through developing
and funding support tools (BBP) and leveraging relationships with citizen networks (BBP, HEP) and using
mapping exercises to identify opportunities for urban greening that can lead to policy development
(SFEP).
Sec. 4-8
-------
Other
This research also found examples of additional, unique opportunities for states and NEPs to coordinate
further that included leveraging datasets to determine the economic impacts of coastal resilience
actions (CIB), addressing marine debris and aquatic trash by leading estuary cleanups (PREP), work to
provide additional public access opportunities for urban communities (HEP) and promote sustainability
by helping to incorporate science into decision-making (PDE).
4D. Opportunities for Coordination at the National Level
The authors had conversations with individuals who hold leadership roles in ANEP and CSO. The ANEP
and CSO Chairs are both open and eager to collaborate. A major takeaway from these conversations
included the need to clearly define each partner's priorities and roles as a first step toward building
synergies across the organizations. Opportunities for collaboration include coordinating at national
conferences, working on shared priorities, and co-branded messaging (the latter came up at the March
2019 ANEP and CSO meetings). The conversations focused on what work NEPs and CZMPs (and other
partners, such as the NERRs) are and can be doing together and showing the complementary role the
programs play in achieving a common purpose. ANEP and CSO leadership focused on their visions for
collaboration and thoughts on specific areas to collaborate. The actions listed below arose from these
conversations and again, are part of a broader, ongoing conversation.
The ANEP Chair highlighted living shorelines/natural infrastructure and coastal resiliency as areas of
overlap with the CZMPs, noting that the CZMPs need to balance multiple coastal uses whereas the NEPs
can focus on bringing habitat considerations to coastal resiliency projects. Water quality was another
overlapping area that the ANEP Chair highlighted, citing the No-Discharge Zone policy in her state of
Massachusetts as an example of where an NEP collaborated successfully with a CZMP (see Section 3).
These observations were strongly supported by subsequent conversations and research - demonstrated
in the preceding section. The ANEP Chair observed that while the 28 NEPs are all implementing Section
320 of the Clean Water Act, they have disparate priorities and goals, and ANEP does not currently have
top-level goals or an overarching strategy that applies across all NEPs. She noted that ANEP does not
have staff to coordinate strategic planning; similarly, individual NEPs are understaffed and do not
necessarily have opportunities to conduct joint planning with CZMP counterparts.
Similarly, the CSO Chair expressed openness to ideas on what collaboration between CSO and ANEP
might look like moving forward. Although he did not identify specific areas where CSO and ANEP might
engage with each other, he observed that partnerships have been a hallmark of CSO's work in previous
years, and that expanding these relationships is a "great and logical next step." The CSO Chair further
stated that he sees considerable value in thinking about ways to coordinate with ANEP on strategy and
messaging and is interested in continuing these conversations.
Section 5 describes opportunities for these NGOs to further promote coordination on national issues.
Sec. 4-9
-------
5. Synthesis and Opportunities
This section synthesizes the key information described in the four preceding sections, distills this
research into several big-picture takeaways, and describes opportunities for NEPs, CZMPs, and key
partners to further promote collaboration among NEPs and their state partners.
5A. Synthesis
This report found that NEP-CZMP relationships exist along a spectrum - some already work very closely
together while others are seeking opportunities to partner more meaningfully in the future. This report
considered examples of past collaboration between the two programs and identified the common
ingredients found in close NEP-CZMP partnerships. It also extracted the NEP value-added from these
examples to further illustrate the wide range of services the NEP approach delivers (summarized in
Appendix A). Four key messages distilled from the national NEP-CZMP landscape are highlighted below.
Keys Elements of NEP-CZMP Partnerships
The NEP Management Conference for individual NEPs includes all relevant state-level partners
to help achieve consensus-based decision-making.
Monitoring data and research products are readily shared between programs to help inform
conservation and management actions.
Consistent two-way communication of needs and priorities occurs to maximize efficiencies and
avoid duplicative actions.
Creativity is employed to leverage diverse resources and increase the capacity of both
programs.
tions
As discussed in Section 3, the 28 NEPs have a variety of institutional structures and hosting
arrangements, and each has shown positive examples of collaboration. While opportunities for
collaboration exist in all types of NEP hosting arrangements, the form that the collaboration takes may
be shaped or guided by the host arrangement. For example, government hosts may provide
opportunities for more extensive integration of the NEP and CZMP, resulting in management and
administrative efficiencies, access to policymakers, and access to other parts of state government. Non-
profit hosts may provide greater operational flexibility for the NEP, the ability to fundraise and apply for
more types of funding than a state agency, and the ability to advocate. NEPs hosted by academic
institutions have access to research facilities, labs and academic experts, and, similar to those hosted by
non-profits, may also be able to fundraise and apply for more types of funding than a state agency.
Identifying the ways in which different institutional structures present unique pathways or opportunities
for collaboration can help NEPs and CZMPs consider areas where they can work together. This may be
helpful for programs that are not currently working closely or are seeking additional ways to partner.
This report does not suggest that all NEPs with the same hosting arrangement should collaborate in the
same way, or that NEPs with a different hosting arrangement would be prevented from collaborating in
Sec. 5-1
-------
a particular way. When NEPs and CZMPs coordinate closely with each other, they can readily identify
and take advantage of a wide range of options for collaboration.
5B. Multiple Benefits
Partnerships are vital; successfully managing the challenges posed by the increasing pressures of climate
change and population growth on the coastal environment with the constraint of finite resources takes
everyone. Preceding sections of this document demonstrate the value that NEPs bring to the table for
addressing water quality and habitat needs within the context of coastal zone management challenges
and the wide range of specific topics that NEPs and CZMPs work on together - including tackling coastal
acidification, promoting community resilience and improving water quality. This report also found that
the ways programs partner can be equally diverse - including through data integration, coordination on
trainings, seeking joint grant applications and sharing staff, among others. These findings describe what
NEP-CZMP partnerships address and how collaboration succeeds.
Looking across this complex and nuanced partnership landscape, this report also demonstrated why
these programs could benefit from partnering more closely in the future. This research showed, through
real-world examples, the benefits of aligning the differing but complementary approaches of NEPs and
CZMPs. These examples illustrate a principal value of the NEP-CZMP partnership - to advance
management and conservation strategies that achieve multiple benefits for natural resources and
coastal communities. The multiple benefits approach (1) helps partners understand the costs and
benefits of a project or program in order to identify opportunities for cost sharing and optimization of
time, money and other resources. By advancing multiple benefits, NEPs and CZMPs leverage
complementary expertise and maximize investments by integrating management of shared resources.
The following subsections describe opportunities for the programs to further maximize their ability to
leverage each other's strengths in pursuit of a shared vision for the nation's coast.
5C. Opportunities to Promote Coordination at the Individual NEP-CZMP Level
For NEPs and CZMPs looking to build or strengthen partnerships to advance a multiple benefits
approach to water quality and coastal resource management, this report offers several opportunities to
promote greater coordination at the individual NEP-CZMP level. The opportunities (in bold) are intended
to help the programs achieve the four key elements to successful partnerships noted above. Below each
item in the call-out boxes is specific findings and examples of where this collaboration could occur.
Sec. 5-2
-------
1. Counterparts participate in formal processes or serve on committees to institutionalize working
relationships and create efficiencies between programs.
Findings:
14 CZMPs are represented on the Management Conferences of 20 NEPs.
Nine NEPs participated directly in the most recent CZMA §309 self-assessment in their
states and 13 CZMPs cited NEP data and reports in their assessment. And 11 of these states
have CZMP staff represented on at least one MC - demonstrating that formalized
relationships can help lead to further synergies between the programs.
An opportunity exists to invite representatives from state emergency management
agencies onto the Management Conference, as no NEP currently lists this sector on its
Management Conference. Additionally, only five NEPs include representatives from public
health services on their Management Conference.
One NEP involved the state emergency management agency in the review of its current
CCMP and seven included the public health sector in this process.
Highlights:
Maryland CZMP has realized efficiencies through the consideration of Maryland Coastal
Bays NEP as an analog to a CZMA-designated Special Area Management Plan (SAMP).
Rather than go through the extensive process to develop a SAMP for the region, the CZMP
leverages the NEP to protect shared natural resources.
In Florida, the CZMP invited the three NEPs on the Gulf Coast to develop a plan to advise
the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council on restoration needs. The NEPs leveraged
their technical and science advisors in reviewing, vetting, and ranking 280 restoration
project proposals from cities, counties, nonprofits, universities and others to inform the use
of the RESTORE Act funds (2).
Sec.
-------
2. NEPs and CZMPs coordinate monitoring activities and data sharing to promote data-driven
decision-making.
Finding:
11 CZMPs cited NEP reports, data analyses, monitoring results or other NEP research
products in the most recent CZMA §309 self-assessments.
Highlights:
In New Hampshire, PREP serves as a "monitoring arm" for the state and creates efficiencies
by coordinating with the state on all water quality monitoring programs.
In Washington, the CZMP and Puget Sound Partnership NEP leverage their respective
resources by creating synergies between data collection efforts for the NEP State of the
Estuary Report and the CZMP bi-annual water quality monitoring assessments.
In New Jersey, the NEPs helped lead the science portion of a Hurricane Sandy recovery
project that included developing an online decision support tool jointly hosted by the
CZMP.
In Delaware, the CZMP helps fund the Partnership for Delaware Estuary-managed Resilient
and Sustainable Communities website that provides science-based information to advance
the resilience and sustainability goals of the state.
3. Local or regional science and management knowledge-exchange workshops and summits highlight
priority coastal and estuarine management issues and solutions.
| Findings:
Five NEPs are hosted by academic institutions, lending them strong academic and scientific
I credentials.
Highlights:
In Florida, the CZMP invites the four NEPs to participate in its annual meetings.
In Puerto Rico, San Juan Bay NEP previously worked with the CZMP and NERR to host a
I well-attended research summit to showcase research and data trends and currently there is
interest in finding ways to reinvest in these events.
Sec. 5-4
-------
4. The multiple benefits approach to decision-making facilitates strategic investments in restoration
and protection efforts for shared resources.
Finding:
Seven CZMPs cite NEPs as a direct partner on a CZMA §309 Strategy. The NEPs were
identified as partners because they provide complementary skillsets - including scientific
expertise, facilitation skills and stakeholder education (Section 2).
Highlights:
In New Hampshire, the Piscataqua Region NEP provided matching funds to support a
shared NOAA Coastal Management Fellow with the state CZMP.
In Florida, Indian River Lagoon NEP partners with one of the CZMP Aquatic Preserves to
support shared science staff working together to improve water quality and address the
negative impacts of harmful algal blooms on ecosystems and economies.
The New Hampshire CZMP and the Piscataqua NEP have also partnered to work with a
charitable foundation. By working together to develop a strategic plan, the NH CZMP and
PREP prioritize projects that address the highest priority watershed-specific needs in their
coastal communities and estuaries in order to efficiently allocate limited funds.
Sec. 5-5
-------
5. Upstream management activities are protective of downstream resources and leverage the full
extent of the NEP watershed study area.
I Findings:
The CZMP jurisdiction varies by state, and in many cases comprises just the coastal counties
or tidal extent of the coastal watershed; there are 20 NEPs that extend further inland than
] the CZMA boundary in 15 states (maps found in Section 2). Actions within the CCMP are
I eligible for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (3) and §319 Nonpoint Source Grant
programs (4) and can be applied in the active NEP study area and the broader watershed.
I Additional EPA partnership programs are present in coastal states where there are NEP
I watersheds. Notably, 12 of the 19 Urban Waters locations and 73 of the 82 Trash Free
Waters projects are located in coastal states and Puerto Rico (see Section 2. Figures 2-1, 2-2
and 2-3). These programs, which focus on upstream pollution management, can be further
| leveraged to provide water quality benefits to coastal areas.
EPA resources that consider watershed-scale processes could be applied in NEP study areas
J to facilitate decision-making - such as the Recovery Potential Screening Tool (5) and
I Healthy Watersheds Assessments (6).
) Highlights:
I In Louisiana, Barataria-Terrebonne NEP and the state of Louisiana partnered with the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture to support pollution prevention practices and expand
the eligibility of low-interest loans for farmers in Minnesota (7) in an effort to curb pollution
i impacting the estuary and Gulf of Mexico.
Albemarle-Pamlico Sound NEP fostered bi-state coordination throughout the region,
through the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding between North Carolina and
I Virginia (8).
The Long Island Sound Study supports grants through the NFWF-administered LIS Futures
Fund (9)that can be used to support water quality projects in the upper portion of the
| watershed - including Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Integration of Coastal Hazards and Water Quality Issues
As demonstrated in Exhibit 2-5, addressing coastal hazards is identified by state CZMPs as the top
priority area to strengthen and improve the program, nationally. Therefore, this issue presents a
significant opportunity for CZMPs and NEPs to enhance the extent of their collaboration and achieve
multiple benefits on projects in the future. Outline below are several opportunities for NEPs and CZMPs
to address the overlapping priorities of coastal hazards and improving water quality.
Sec. 5-6
-------
6. NEP and CZMP plans align with programs and elements in State Hazard Mitigation Plans.
Finding:
Every coastal state is working to address the long-term impacts of climate change and all
coastal state HMPs explicitly consider the risks associated with sea level rise. Sea level rise
is a shared priority for many NEPs and CZMPs and this alignment with the HMP provides an
opportunity to address this chronic issue.
Highlights:
Funded by EPA Climate Ready Estuaries (10) program, nearly all NEPs have performed risk-
based vulnerability assessments for their study areas and applied the results to their CCMP
action plans to ensure the long-term viability of projects. This approach can be tailored to
other watersheds and used to inform HMP updates for broader application of results.
Puerto Rico serves as an example of how NEPs can be leaders in resiliency by partnering
with the CZMP to incorporate local plans into state-level processes. San Juan Bay NEP is
working with the Puerto Rico CZMP and other partners to use the CCMP as a model to
develop watershed-based mitigation plans for the eight municipalities within the NEP's
study area. These plans will conform with the territory's HMP and will enable municipalities
to work with FEMA to ensure projects are eligible for FEMA funding. San Juan Bay NEP is
also exploring opportunities to leverage Clean Water State Revolving Funds to serve as cost
share for the mitigation projects.
7. NEPs and CZMPs can leverage their mutual resources to meet goals of the National Flood Insurance
Program through a comprehensive approach to floodplain management.
Findings:
The NFIP serves as a tool in state HMPs to mitigate the impacts of flooding in vulnerable
areas. The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary incentive program for
communities participating in the NFIP that rewards local floodplain management actions
including through the preservation of open space where no significant development
encroaches on flood flows.
In 2019 alone, the NEPs and their partners preserved and protected nearly 41,000 acres
of coastal and estuarine habitat through land conservation actions including through
easements and land acquisition activities.
Highlight:
In Louisiana, the Barataria-Terrebonne NEP is cited in Louisiana's HMP as an entity
responsible for coordinating preservation activities under the CRS program.
Sec. 5-7
-------
8. NEPs provide scientific and technical reviews for regular state planning or grants processes.
Findings:
The five-year update cycle for state HMPs necessitates coordination among agencies and
interested groups. In addition to FEMA resources, many coastal states also provide direct
funding for resiliency projects. NEPs are seen by their partners as subject matter experts
and trusted information brokers able to build consensus on difficult issues and are well-
suited to play a role in these processes.
State emergency management agencies partner with academic institutions and local or
regional entities to facilitate the updates to the HMP and creates an opportunity for NEPs
with similar hosting arrangements to be involved in the process.
In addition to these findings, this report encourages NEPs and CZMPs to consider the 2018 report:
Preparing for Disaster: The National Estuary Program's Role in Pre-Disaster Planning, Post-Disaster
Recovery, and Hazard Mitigation (11) that outlines four NEP case studies around disasters and derives
helpful options to increase the NEPs' capacity to contribute to a range of disaster management
activities.
5D. Opportunities to Promote Coordination at the National level
ANEP and CSO Coordination
As previously discussed in Section 4, conversations with ANEP and CSO leadership revealed that there is
ample opportunity for these nonprofit organizations to coordinate on national strategies.
1. Connecting directly with leadership of NGO counterparts can facilitate collective action on
resiliency and water quality needs in coastal and estuarine areas.
Highlights:
In spring 2019, members of ANEP and CSO joined their counterpart from the National Estuarine
Research Reserve Association on a joint briefing to Senate staff on the value of partnering in
New Hampshire to deliver multiple benefits for coastal resources and communities.
The organizations also met in spring 2019 with five other NGO partners on an Estuary
Leadership panel to explore challenges and opportunities to strengthen organizational
partnerships.
Sec. 5-8
-------
2. Communication platforms that share successes and lessons learned from local efforts help generate
ideas for addressing shared priorities across the combined national network.
Finding:
Case studies, like those identified in this report, that demonstrate how NEPs and CZMPs
work together to address risks from coastal hazards and improve and protect water quality
can be shared via CSO Work Groups and other communication platforms.
3. ANEP and CSO leadership and program staff can coordinate interactions during the annual winter
meetings of both organizations held in Washington, DC.
Finding:
Interest expressed by ANEP and CSO leaders to better understand the relationship between
these programs and to facilitate greater dialogue resulted in the development of this
research and report. These findings are intended to help focus future dialogue.
Highlights:
In 2018, the CSO Executive Director was invited to speak at the EPA-ANEP winter meeting
to speak to the partnerships happening between NEPs and the states.
In winter 2019, the NEPs were invited to the Coastal Celebration on Capitol Hill co-hosted
by CSO and the EPA branch chief for partnership programs was invited to address the CSO
membership at the annual meeting.
4. Co-branded communications materials can be used by both ANEP and CSO, as well as individual
NEPs and CZMPs, when messaging the value of their work to decision-makers at the state and
national level.
Highlight:
To help initiate this effort, EPA and CSO developed individual NEP fact sheets, found in
Appendix C, that show overlapping priorities with CZMPs and other state agencies and can
serve as a template to begin building co-branded materials.
Opportunities for EPA
Through this research and ongoing conversations with ANEP and CSO, this report found that EPA can
help further increase the visibility of NEPs, both internally and in coordination with partners to facilitate
enhanced collaboration at the federal, state and local levels. Conversations with CZMP managers and
staff showed that CZMPs see the NEPs as an important gateway to other EPA programs. For example,
the Lower Columbia NEP participated in a bi-state effort to resolve sediment management issues, which
ultimately involved the EPA regional office in implementing a Regional Sediment Management Plan. In
Massachusetts, the NEPs were instrumental in establishing a No-Discharge Zone (NDZ) policy for state
waters, a joint effort with the CZMP. Because the NDZ is an EPA-led program that requires coordination
Sec. 5-9
-------
between regional and headquarters staff, the NEP's relationship with these offices and knowledge of
EPA programs helped to facilitate this effort. EPA can leverage these and other examples to increase the
visibility of NEPs as delivery mechanisms for core CWA programs.
1. A "menu" of ideas and case studies for the overlapping priorities of coastal resiliency, water quality
and habitat restoration, provides useful direction to NEPs and states and can help the two programs
generate project ideas and proposals to further achieve joint goals.
Highlights:
EPA creates a federal partnership to build nationwide resilience to natural disasters (12) -
and provides informational resources and case studies (13) that demonstrate how to align
program goals and activities to create a cooperative, coordinated water protection and
hazard mitigation approach.
EPA signs an MOU with FEMA to streamline coordination between FEMA and SRF programs
to help restore vital infrastructure more quickly in times of disaster.
2. Focused workgroups can tackle issues that are national in scope and develop policy
recommendations for EPA leadership.
Highlight:
As nutrient pollution is developing into a national crisis, interest was expressed at the 2018
ANEP Tech Transfer meeting to think collectively about actions NEPs could take to address
the problem. EPA leadership was then invited to attend the 2019 winter EPA-ANEP meeting
and expressed their interest in learning more about NEP non-regulatory, partnership-based
approaches to dealing with nutrient pollution. In response to this interest, ANEP has
established a Nutrient Management Workgroup in partnership with EPA. The mission of the
group is to empower collective action to address the nutrient problem. This group can serve
as a model for how to work with partners to drive collective action that encourages
individual NEPs to also think nationally.
3. Representatives from the state CZMP network and/or CSO can serve as expert reviewers on project
proposals that constitute federal investments in the coastal zone.
4. The NEPs can more fully integrate and leverage the work of the TFW program and the UWFP in
collaborative efforts to protect coastal resources.
Highlight:
EPA is exploring a partnership with the River Network to help coordinate between NEPs and
the other partnership programs through an integrated water resource management
approach for geographic systems.
Sec. 5-10
-------
5E. Conclusion
The findings of this report can help the 28 NEPs and 20 overlapping state CZMPs address the current and
emerging challenges facing the nation's coastal places. The insights gained through this research can be
applied to building stronger partnerships with states and the Urban Waters and Trash Free Waters
programs.
Highlight:
The NEP website and NEP Story Map (14) hosted by EPA currently displays Success Stories
achieved through the NEP Approach to address common environmental challenges. This
website is a potential platform to communicate the successes in this report that
demonstrate how NEPs achieve environmental outcomes by building strong partnerships
with states.
EPA is preparing to launch the newest version of the How's My Waterway application that
provides information about the conditions of local streams, lakes and other waters
anywhere in the US and intended for broad usership. EPA staff is coordinating to include
NEP restoration projects on this robust and nationally significant data portal.
In summary, leveraging the strengths of the two unique and complementary programs helps NEPs and
CZMPs advance projects and programs that achieve multiple benefits - such as improving water quality
and habitat, while also building more resilient communities. By working together with NEPs, CZMPs gain
insights into EPA programs and better access to the full suite of EPA resources. Strong and sustained
communication between NEPs and CZMPs helps to ensure that CCMP implementation is coordinated
with state plans to create efficiencies and avoid duplication of efforts. Importantly, collaboration helps
the two programs find opportunities to align funds in innovative ways and promote strategic
investments in coastal watersheds to address mutual objectives. Overall, this report found that
collaboration helps the two national programs realize on-the-ground successes they could not
necessarily achieve alone. Through the development of this report, the EPA demonstrates its continued
support for building and maintaining effective partnerships that empower states to share in the
protection of vital environmental resources.
Sec. 5-11
-------
6. References and Resources
Section 1.
(1) Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) Section 6217
https://www.epa.eov/nps/coastal-zone-act-reauthorization-amendments-czara-section-6217
(2) Working Together FY2018 - 2022 US EPA Strategic Plan, Created Feb 2018 and Updated Sep 2019
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/fv-2018-2Q22-epa-strategic-plan.pdf
Section 2.
(1) Urban Waters Federal Partnership https://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners
(2) Trash Free Waters program https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters
(3) National Estuarine Research Reserve System https://coast.noaa.gov/nerrs/
(4) CZM Projects of Special Merit Competition - FY2019 https://coast.noaa.gov/data/docs/funding/NOAA-NOS-
OCM-2019-2005819-posted-10.19.2018.pdf
Section, 3
(1) TNC Gulf Oyster Restoration
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/OvsterRestorationintheGulf.pdf
(2) NERT https://floridadep.gov/sites/default/files/NoelA-NERT.pdf
(3) Hurricane Sandy project https://www.ni.gov/dep/oclup/case-studies-proiects/ni-ecol-solution-proiects.html
(4) CHNEP Volunteer Monitoring https://floridadep.gov/rcp/aquatic-preserve/content/charlotte-harbor-estuaries-
volunteer-water-qualitv-monitoring-network
(5) MA No Discharge Zone https://www.mass.gov/service-details/reauirements-for-boaters-in-no-discharge-zones-ndzs:
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/designating-a-no-discharge-zone-ndz
(6) Federal Consistency https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/consistencv/media/federal-consistencv-overview.pdf
(7) Special Area Management Plan https://coastalsmartgrowth.noaa.gov/gettingstarted/samps.html.
https://coastalresilience.tamu.edu/home/wetland-protection/policv-framework/federal-framework/special-area-management-
plans/
(8) The NEP Approach https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/2009 12 23 estuaries pdf nep brochure timeless new.pdf
(9) National CZMP Fact Sheet http://www.coastalstates.org/csopublications/2018-czm-fact-sheet/
Section 4.
(1) Community-Based Watershed Management https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
10/documents/2007 04 09 estuaries nepprimeruments chapter5.pdf
Sec. 6-1
-------
Section 5.
(1) Moving Toward a Multi-Benefit Approach for Water Management https://pacinst.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/moving-toward-multi-benefit-approach.pdf -
(2)2013 Southwest Florida Regional Ecosystem Restoration Plan
https://www.tbeptech.org/38olf/9us0v ivgd/dgev7863.dol
(3) Clean Water SRF Funding Clean Water State Revolving Fund Projects Under Clean Water Act Section
320 Authority (National Estuary Program) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-
04/documents/cwsrf section 320 estuaries.pdf
(4) Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/319-guidelines-fvl4.pdf
(5) Recovery Potential Screening Tool https://www.epa.gov/rps
(6) Healthy Watersheds Assessments https://www.epa.gov/hwp/download-2017-preliminarv-healthv-watersheds-
assessments
(7) BTNEP and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Under Agreement https://btnep.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/December-2017-Newsletter.pdf
(8) NC VA Memorandum of Understanding https://apnep.nc.gov/our-work/outreach-and-engagement/interstate-
collaboration-shared-waterwavs
(9) LIS Futures Funds http://longislandsoundstudv.net/about/grants/lis-futures-fund/
(10) Climate Ready Estuaries Project summary table https://www.epa.gov/cre/climate-readv-estuaries-partner-
proiects
(11) Preparing for Disaster: The National Estuary Program's Role in Pre-Disaster Planning, Post-Disaster
Recovery, and Hazard Mitigation https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
11/documents/final preparing for disaster- the national estuary programs role in pre-disast. .pdf
(12) News Release from EPA regarding Federal Partnership for Nationwide Resilience -
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-federal-partnership-build-nationwide-resilience-natural-disasters
(13) Case studies on community approach to investments in mitigation and water resource management
https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/integrating-water-qualitv-and-natural-hazard-mitigation-planning
https://www.epa.gov/green-infrastructure/building-resilient-communities-green-infrastructure-and-hazard-mitigation
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/combined slide deck hazard mitigation 508.pdf
(14) NEP Map https://www.epa.gov/nep/nepmap-user-guide
Sec. 6-2
-------
Appendix A. Past Successes Summary Table
Exhibit A-l. Examples of past collaborations between individual NEPs and CZMPs as identified through conversations with managers
and staff and through this research. The NEP host designation is shown, and the primary issue addressed through the collaboration is
identified. NEP activities are grouped into the general action categories that demonstrate the NEP approach to watershed
management.**
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
Natural
Infrastructure
Leverage
Resources
MBNEP has contributed to many Alabama CZMP needs including conducting and
publishing aquatic habitat studies and developing Living Shorelines permitting
procedures. MBNEP also participates on the Coastal Management Program's 5-year
self-evaluation as part of their Enhancement review. ADCNR also partners with
MBNEP to publish Alabama Current Connection, a joint newsletter that highlights
projects, Management Conference activities, and other issues of interest. MBNEP's
Watershed Management Plans (Plans) inform coastal management decisions. A
demonstration of the benefits of coordinating multiple programs under these Plans
includes the achievement of National Flood Insurance Program discounts through the
Community Rating System for local communities. MBNEP has also been instrumental
in coordinating Deepwater Horizon RESTORE funds to ensure that these resources
are aligned with the existing Plans - a model Alabama plans to use in other
watersheds throughout the state
Mobile Bay*
Alabama
Nonprofit &
Involve
Stakeholders
Academic
Watershed
Management
Plans
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
Implement
CWA Programs
Resiliency
Collaborate on
Solutions
Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) are planning tools used by local governments to guide
coastal development and are created and implemented in partnership with the
Coastal Commission. Through this Action the SMBNEP is seeking to integrate
adaptation strategies and natural infrastructure into LCP Land Use Plans and
Implementation Plans. These Plans are evaluated by the Commission for consistency
with the Coastal Act, the State's authorizing legislation for the CZMP.
Santa Monica
California
Nonprofit
Natural
infrastructure
San Francisco
California
Local
Government
Flood
protection
Collaborate on
Solutions
SFEP partnered with BCDC and other regional entities to examine ways to improve
flood protection channels to better transport sediment. The goal of this effort was to
improve sediment transport to wetlands and other shoreline habitats. The legacy of
this project included efficient navigation of regulatory hurdles and improved
pathways for innovative projects in the future. The innovative Flood Control 2.0
program resulted from this close collaboration - including creation of SediMatch, a
match-up web tool that consists of a database and web interface to match available
sediment with opportunities for beneficial reuse.
Sediment
Transport
Involve
Stakeholders
** National Estuary Program Booklet https://www.epa.gov/nep/national-estuarv-program-booklet
App. A-l
-------
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
Morro Bay
California
Nonprofit
Resiliency - sea
level rise
Protect &
Restore
Habitat
MBNEP participates with public and non-profit partners in the purchase of land or
easements in strategic locations to help guide development toward existing and
strategically planned communities. MBNEP develops "greenbelts" around existing
developed areas to help control encroachment of the watershed. This effort supports
the California CZMP's work in developing a framework for the protection of public
trust lands for the future - by assessing impacts of sea level rise and hazard
mitigation responses while ensuring public access continues. The State is concerned
that as sea levels rise, access to public lands will be lost due to submergence. The
goal of the project is to develop new information for protecting public access to
public trust lands and resources, even as the climate changes.
Land
management
Long Island
Sound Study
Connecticut
Federal
Government
Spatial planning
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
The LISS CCMP outlines the need to manage LIS using sound science and cross-
jurisdictional governance that is inclusive, adaptive, innovative, and accountable. To
support this priority area, LISS develops and provides a compendium of
environmental indicators available online - including water quality, wildlife, climate
change, land use, and habitat. LISS also conducted a Benthic Mapping Program that
provided a variety of geologic, ecologic and physical data used by the state for spatial
planning efforts. CTDEEP used the results from the LISS compendium to address their
assessment of the ocean resources found in LIS. Connecticut plans for future
investments to leverage the historic data, provided in part by LISS, to address
changes and threats.
New York
Ocean
resources
Collaborate on
Solutions
Narragansett
Bay
Rhode Island
Nonprofit
Interstate
Commission
Resiliency-
climate change
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
NBEP serves as an important forum in the region - working with partners to foster
the synthesis, communication, and cooperation on environmental issues in the Bay.
In 2017, NBEP developed a report entitled State of Narragansett Bay and Its
Watershed and NBEP is actively working to build on the progress made in developing
the report to continue enhancing their role in watershed science. This report
included a focus on providing climate change information specific to the Bay for local
and bi-state decision-makers.
Massachusetts
Collaborate on
Solutions
Center for
Inland Bays*
Delaware
Nonprofit
Wetlands
Protect &
Restore
Habitat
CIB outlines 13 new or revised goals and objectives that will help CIB protect, restore,
and enhance living resources by improving water quality, controlling land use, and
reducing habitat. These include developing no net loss wetlands policies, attaining
maximum wetlands preservation, developing regulations to protect wetlands, and
strengthening enforcement of existing wetland protection regulations. CIB maintains
data regarding sediment elevations in wetlands and these contribute to a
consolidated dataset and network of resources that can be leveraged by all users.
The Delaware CZMP is implementing a complementary strategy to determine the
economic impacts of coastal resilience actions that will provide communities with
information regarding a cost-benefit analysis of wetlands and infrastructure
improvements. The goal is to improve community resilience to the impacts of storms
and flooding by providing data to inform local planning and ordinances.
Resiliency
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
App. A-2
-------
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
Partnership
DE Estuary*
Delaware
Nonprofit
Resiliency
Involve
Stakeholders
Delaware's CZMP has formed several workgroups in partnership with PDE that focus
on topic areas of mutual interest - including the Resilient and Sustainable
Communities League (RASCL) and the DE Living Shoreline Committee. PDE maintains
the RASCL website for the collaborative network of 14 entities, including PDE,
DNREC, and the Center for the Inland Bays NEP. RASCL serves as a forum that brings
communities to the table to build capacity and facilitate decision-making about land
use, emergency plans, and allocation of resources.
New Jersey
Natural
infrastructure
Collaborate on
Solutions
Pennsylvania
Coastal and
Heartlands*
Florida
Local
Government
Restoration
Leverage
Resources
Habitat restoration of coastal and estuarine areas is a priority for CHNEP and the
state, and the NEP has worked with local, state and nonprofit partners like The
Nature Conservancy to develop and coordinate restoration efforts in Southwest
Florida. An example of this effort is the Oyster Habitat Restoration Program - created
by the Southwest Florida Oyster Working Group in 2012 to address the nearly total
loss of historic oyster habitat in the region. Monitoring of several restoration projects
is ongoing, and a comprehensive oyster habitat mapping initiative will be completed
by 2020. This partnership coupled state resources with the NEP strengths of leading
strong partnership-driven meetings that bring all necessary stakeholders to the table
for a consensus-based approach to the issue. CHNEP joined the other southwest
Florida NEPs in developing a plan to advise the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Council and the state on restoration needs following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Monitoring
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
Protect &
Restore
Habitat
Indian River
Lagoon*
Florida
Regional-
State-Local
Partnership
Natural
Infrastructure
Involve
Stakeholders
IRL partners with state agencies to implement much of their CCMP. The Aquatic
Preserve of Northeast Florida, an extension of the CZMP, currently has staff funded
through IRL. This added staff capacity is seen as a major benefit to working with the
NEP but additionally they work together to pursue grant opportunities that meet
both state goals and implement the IRL CCMP. Successful examples of FLDEP and IRL
working together in the past are plentiful and include the installation of living
shorelines projects, collaborating on education and outreach efforts and providing
public access to beaches for people with limited mobility.
Public Access
Leverage
Resources
Sarasota Bay*
Florida
Regional-
State-Local
Partnership
Restoration
Leverage
Resources
Florida and the other Gulf States were presented a unique challenge and opportunity
following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill to administer funds from the Resources
and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies Act (or
RESTORE Act) in an impactful and strategic way. In Southwest Florida, SBEP joined
the other NEPs in developing a plan to advise the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Council and the state on restoration needs. The three NEPs leveraged their technical
and science advisors in reviewing, vetting, and ranking 280 proposals from cities,
counties, nonprofits, universities and others. The 2013 Southwest Florida Regional
Ecosystem Restoration Plan is the result of this work - the projects proposed expand
on work identified in the CCMPs and meet state restoration priorities.
App. A-3
-------
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
TBEP has worked closely with the Florida CZMP on a variety of issues since their
Nitrogen
management
Collaborate on
Solutions
creation in 1991. Notably, TBEP developed the Nitrogen Management Consortium
that has contributed significantly to addressing long-term nitrogen management in
the Bay - seen as a success story by CZMP. TBEP also convened with six other
Regional-
State-Local
Partnership
regional, state and local entities to develop the ONE BAY Resilient Communities
Tampa Bay*
Florida
Resiliency - sea
level rise
Involve
Stakeholders
Working Group that meets several times a year to sustain a dialogue about regional
resiliency. This collaboration works to help communities adapt to and prepare for the
impacts of sea level rise. To facilitate community decision-making, TBEP developed
the Sea Level Rise Visualization Tool that provides data and maps that illustrate the
Leverage
effects of sea level rise on Bay habitats. TBEP also joined the other two southwest
Florida NEPs in developing a plan to advise the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration
Resources
Council and the state on restoration needs following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Hydrologic modification is described as the "linchpin" problem for BTNEP, and
subsequent losses of habitat and changes in living resources through sediment
Beneficial use
Collaborate on
Solutions
reductions and eutrophication are consequences of the altered water flows. The
of dredged
BTNEP system has lost a total of 866 square miles since 1935 - and no other place on
material
earth is losing land more rapidly. This issue is widespread across coastal LA, and
statewide policies are working to address this challenge. BTNEP's habitat restoration
Barataria-
Louisiana
Academic
projects influenced the development of the Louisiana Comprehensive Master Plan -
Terrebonne
a protection and restoration strategy for the Louisiana coastline. The CZMP also
Resiliency
works to implement the objectives of the Master Plan - such as through a beneficial
Protect &
use policy that requires private applicants dredging more than 25,000 cubic yards of
Restore
sediment place the material in coastal restoration projects or pay to support
Habitat
restoration. Since this rule was instated in 2009 the CZMP has enforced the policy,
Restoration
resulting in greater than 7 million cubic yards of material being placed and nearly
2,000 acres of coastline created.
The state benefits from hosting BBNEP within the Massachusetts CZMP, as NEP staff
Floodplain
Leverage
is able to provide scientific information for management decisions and, because they
management
Resources
are non-regulatory, they can be somewhat more nimble in becoming involved in high
profile projects. BBNEP benefits from the state's financial and administrative support.
This arrangement ensures that the lines of communication among BBNEP and the
Buzzards Bay*
Massachusetts
State
Government
Sea level rise
state are strong. BBNEP and MassCZMP collaborated on a project to evaluate the
potential expansion of the existing FEMA 100-year floodplain based on increases in
Collaborate on
sea level. This effort identified vulnerable infrastructure which subsequently led to
Solutions
local action and state vulnerability grant funding to municipalities to protect
Coastal hazards
investments in coastal infrastructure. This is part of a larger effort by BBNEP to
evaluate impacts of sea level rise on coastal habitats and localities. Addressing the
impacts from coastal hazards is a high priority for MassCZMP
App. A-4
-------
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
Massachusetts
Bays*
Massachusetts
State
government
Regional
coordination
Collaborate on
Solutions
In the case of both MassBays and Massachusetts CZMP, their geographic areas are
broken into multiple regions and the regional staff have local knowledge of the
municipalities and resources within their jurisdiction. This arrangement ensures that
the lines of communication between MassBays and the state are strong both at the
state and regional level. By being housed within a state agency, MassBays benefits
from the state's financial and administrative support. The state benefits from hosting
MassBays because as a non-regulatory entity the NEP staff are able focus on science
and be more involved with local advocacy and nonprofit groups. Working closely and
coordinating often have allowed MassBays and the MassCZMP to carve out individual
niches that play to their expertise and find opportunities to leverage each other's
strengths through collaboration. These collaborations included a tide gate inventory
for a wetland's restoration project, a herring monitoring network, and a coordinated
approach to addressing water quality issues in Cape Cod. The tide gate inventory was
funded by a NOAA Project of Special Merit that resulted from the teamwork between
the programs.
Restoration
Leverage
Resources
Inventory
Resources
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
Maryland
Coastal Bays
Maryland
Nonprofit
Beneficial use
of dredged
material
Set Goals and
Measure
Progress
The Maryland CZMP is networked across several agencies and departments
encompassing coverage of the entire coast of MD. This decentralized approach has
led to the formation of many partnerships, including between the state and MCB.
Since MCB's formation and the passing of the first CCMP in 1999, MCB has operated
much like a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), a component of CZMA, and
serves in lieu of a SAMP for the state. Maryland has found that while a SAMP can be
an effective management tool, MCB accomplishes many of the same goals within a
focused geographic area, thus creating efficiencies between the two programs. CCS
tracks progress towards implementation of the MCB CCMP and works to support
actions that further the goals of the CCMP. Under the authority of the Clean Water
Act, MCB brings a habitat focus to projects they conduct with the state. This was an
important component of a beneficial use project for Skimmer Island that MCB
coordinated with MDNR. In this effort, MCB was responsible for monitoring and
managing the return of nesting birds to spoil islands created from the resources
generated by a dredge project conducted by the state and the Corps of Engineers.
Special Area
Management
Plan
Collaborate on
Solutions
Monitoring
Restoration
Projects
Albemarle-
Pamlico Sound
North Carolina
State
Government
Regional
coordination
Involve
stakeholders
Just as water flow does not follow political boundaries, APNEP serves as an important
linkage between NC and VA as the Albemarle Sound lies in NC but the APNEP
watershed extends into VA. In 2017, APNEP facilitated a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between NCDEQ, NCDNCR, and Virginia's Secretary of Natural
Resources. This was a renewal of a shared commitment to work together to address
shared environmental issues in the river basins that flow into the Albemarle Sound.
Expanding on an earlier MOU this renewal included new priorities including climate
change and sea level rise, nonpoint source pollution, and watershed protection and
stewardship.
Virginia
App. A-5
-------
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
Casco Bay
Maine
Academic
Water quality
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
CBEP has been working to address water quality in the Bay - especially the impacts of
nutrient pollution on dissolved oxygen and links to coastal acidification. Past State of
the Bay reports that characterize the conditions in the estuary have been used by the
state to inform management decisions regarding how to prioritize and address
coastal stressors. CBEP has also produced a stream barrier assessment entitled Casco
Bay Watershed Fish Barrier Priorities Atlas that helped guide and prioritize stream
restoration at the local level, in support of Maine CZMP priorities.
Habitat
restoration
Collaborate on
Solutions
Piscataqua
Region*
New
Hampshire
Academic
Water quality
monitoring
Implement
CWA Programs
Given the focused nature of the NH coastline, PREP and the New Hampshire CZMP
are close partners on a wide range of projects and programs. These include
coordinating to host a shared NOAA Coastal Management Fellow, flood forecasting in
Hampton-Seabrook estuary, King Tide Photo Contests, and estuarine water quality
monitoring. PREP provides feedback on the 5-year CZM Program Enhancement
stakeholder evaluation process and NHDES contributes to the development and
implementation of the PREP CCMP. Therefore, these programs are routinely working
to align priorities and finding opportunities to complement each other's strengths.
Maine
Photo contests
Involve
Stakeholders
Floodplain
management
Collaborate on
Solutions
Leverage
Resources
Barnegat Bay*
New Jersey
Academic
Water quality
Implement
CWA Programs
BBP has partnered with the state on a variety of projects and planning efforts in the
past. These include inclusion in the state's Water Quality Data Exchange System,
aquaculture initiatives, and tidal marsh restoration efforts. Most notably, following
Hurricane Sandy the state received a NFWF grant entitled "Building Ecological
Solutions to Coastal Community Hazards." BBP and 17 federal, state, and local
partners worked in roughly 50 communities and developed guidance how to look at
green areas as multi-benefits resource for resilience and ecological value. This team
also implemented projects on the ground with trainings and ongoing monitoring to
collaborate at the state level to set baseline for marsh monitoring and coordination.
The project was awarded the "Outstanding Community Engagement or Education
Award" from the American Planning Association.
Natural
Infrastructure
Involve
Stakeholders
Habitat
restoration
Protect &
Restore
Habitat
Coastal Hazards
- recovery
NY-NJ Harbor
New York
Nonprofit
Public access
Collaborate on
Solutions
HEP's watershed is located within the most densely developed metropolitan region
of the country. This means that many of HEP's communities are highly urbanized and
represent environmental justice communities with significant barriers to public
participation and access to coastal and estuarine resources. HEP has worked with the
states to create public access opportunities by working directly with municipalities to
developed locally-relevant public access plans, especially for tidal areas. Providing
public access for recreation is a key element of the CZMP.
New Jersey
App. A-6
-------
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
Peconic
Estuary
New York
Nonprofit
Nutrient
management
Implement
CWA Programs
Nitrogen pollution is a major issue impacting the water quality of the Peconic Estuary
- with pollution originating from both point and nonpoint sources. Since 2017, the
state has funded a Septic Improvement Program in partnership with Suffolk County,
within the PEP watershed. PEP has worked with local groups to promote septic
system best management practices to help reduce nitrogen pollution within the
estuary and beyond. Improving water quality through these and other practices is a
top priority in the development of the new PEP CCMP that representatives from the
CZMP are participating on through their role in the PEP Management Conference.
Involve
Stakeholders
Lower
Columbia
Estuary*
Oregon
Nonprofit
Sediment
management
Collaborate on
Solutions
In the early 2000's a bi-state effort was initiated to resolve challenges related to sand
management and dredging at the mouth of the Columbia River. Environmental
agencies from both states worked together to develop a Regional Sediment
Management Plan, an adaptive management approach to dredging and beneficial
use practices. This effort has involved EPA's Regional office and the LCEP in ongoing
implementation of the Plan. Notably, LCEP funded a feasibility study of proposed
upland disposal sites for dredge materials. Continuing to utilize dredge material as a
resource for habitat enhancement and restoration is an ongoing priority for LCEP.
Washington
Beneficial use
of dredged
material
Set Goals &
Measure
Progress
Tillamook
Oregon
Nonprofit
Estuary
management
Collaborate on
Solutions
Oregon's CZMP works to protect the long-term values, diversity and benefits of
estuaries and associated wetlands through the development of Estuary Plans for the
22 major estuaries in the state. Each estuary is broken into management units that is
defined by the characteristics and uses to ensure the appropriate protections are
instituted. In 2014, DLCD conducted an evaluation of their regulatory framework for
managing estuaries. TEP participated in an advisory reviewer role - evaluating the
policies and actions of the Oregon CZMP as they relate to estuary management. The
results will be used to begin modernization of the local plans that are driven by local
needs and priorities.
San Juan Bay*
Puerto Rico
Nonprofit
Water quality
monitoring
Implement
CWA Programs
The NEP partners closely with the Coastal Zone Division (CZMP) whose Director
serves as a Chairman on the SJBEP Management Conference. This close working
relationship helps to ensure that coastwide priority issues are incorporated into the
SJBEP workplan and CCMP. Additionally, this provides an opportunity for the
protocols developed by SJBEP to be transferred to other estuaries throughout the
island. Following Hurricane Maria, SJBEP worked to evaluate water quality
throughout the watershed to identify bacterial contamination - a major concern for
local communities. SJBEP was able to act rapidly following the storm because they
had previously developed a robust monitoring protocol.
Coastal Hazards
- response
Collaborate on
Solutions
Coastal Bend
Bays
Texas
Nonprofit
Erosion
Protect &
Restore
Habitat
Many of CCBEP's ongoing programs focus on conservation, stewardship, and habitat
protections. In 2016, CBBEP launched a project in partnership with Texas CZMP to
address habitat loss in Nueces Bay. This project built on earlier work by CBBEP to
App. A-7
-------
NEP
State(s)
Host Type
Issues
NEP Action
Categories
Success Stories
Habitat
restoration
protect Causeway Island from erosion by designing and engineering a more long-
term solution to wind and wave erosion and secure sediment. The island serves as
important nesting and roosting habitat for shorebirds. Texas CZMP funded 75% of
the project to enhance critical areas of the coastline.
Galveston Bay
Texas
State
government
Conservation
Protect &
Restore
Habitat
GBEP has been a recipient of funds from GLO's Coastal Impact and Assistance
Program that funds the conservation of coastal land. These funds are also used to
implement projects with multi-level benefits, including mitigating against coastal
hazards - a top priority for the Texas CZMP. GBEP is also an important stakeholder
providing feedback for the CZMP's 5-year Program Enhancement review process.
Coastal hazards
Collaborate on
Solutions
Puget Sound*
Washington
State
government
Floodplain
management
Involve
Stakeholders
Floodplain management and restoration is a priority for PSP, and their environmental
indicators shows progress on improving floodplain health in the region. This progress
can be credited in part to the Floodplains by Design initiative - a public-private
partnership led by PSP, the CZMP, and The Nature Conservancy. Floodplains by
Design is working to enable communities to consider the environment and develop
tailored solutions for floodplain management for different watersheds. Collaboration
is the hallmark of this program with each of the entities contributing financial and
personnel resources to promote healthy floodplains in the Puget Sound region.
Leverage
Resources
Collaborate on
Solutions
App. A-8
-------
Exhibit A-2. Summary of NEP value-added through collaboration with CZMP extracted from the table above.
How the NEP Works - A Collaborative, Effective, Efficient, and Adaptable Coastal Ecosystem-Based Program
Involve
Implement CWA
Leverage Resources
Protect & Restore
Set Goals &
Collaborate on Solutions
Stakeholders
Programs
Habitat
Measure Progress
Publish
Develop and
Coordinate use of
Acquire land (MBNEP,
Research habitat
Develop decision-making
communications
implement
Deepwater Horizon
GBEP)
trends and impacts
tools (SFEP, TBEP, PSP)
(MobileBay NEP,
Watershed
funds (MobileBay
(MobileBay NEP,
PREP)
Management Plans
NEP, CHNEP, SBEP,
Develop habitat
LCEP)
Integrate across state
(Mobile Bay NEP)
TBEP)
protective policies
programs (SMB, BTNEP,
Support multi-
(CIB)
Synthesize
MCB, SJBEP)
sta keholder
Coordinate
Hire shared staff
datasets (LISS)
workgroups (PDE,
implementation of
positions (IRL, LISS,
Coordinate
Develop reports for
TBEP)
CWA 319 projects
BBNEP, MassBays
restoration programs
Monitor
decision-makers (NBEP,
(Mobile Bay NEP)
NEP, PREP)
(BBP, CHNEP)
restoration
CBEP)
Facilitate bi-state
projects (CHNEP,
MOU (APNEP)
Develop and
Seek collaborative
Design and engineer
MCB)
Evaluate state or federal
implement nutrient
grant opportunities
habitat protection
programs and produce
Provide training and
management
(MassBays NEP,
projects (CBBEP,
Inventory and
recommendations (BBNEP,
sta keholder
strategies (TBEP,
BBP)
BTNEP)
assess resources
MassBays NEP, CBEP, PREP,
outreach (BBP, PEP)
USS, PEP)
(MassBays NEP,
GBEP, BTNEP, TEP)
Contribute financial
CBEP)
Coordinate public-
Support water
and personnel
Create and implement local
private partnership
quality monitoring
resources to a
plans or protocols (HEP,
(PSP)
programs (LISS,
SJBEP, PREP, BBP)
project (PSP)
LCEP, SJBEP)
App. A-9
-------
Appendix B. Main Discussion Topics from NEP--CZM Conversations
CZM and NEP Priorities and Current Direction
Considered organizational structure, including placement within a larger state agency and any
current governor, commissioner-led, or mayoral directives for the program
Discussed priorities the organization is currently working on and who major partners on these
issues may be (e.g., state and local agencies, non-profits)
For CZMPs considered whether the organization partners with other EPA programs (e.g., Urban
Waters, Trash Free Waters)
Opportunities for Collaboration
Looked at opportunities for enhanced collaboration between NEPs and CZMs
o Potential opportunities for increased/enhanced collaboration - top priorities
o Potential challenges for increased collaboration
Value Added
Considered main value added by collaboration between NEPs and CZM programs - broadly or in
terms of specific projects
Discussed whether the institutional structure of the NEP (e.g., hosting arrangement) shapes or
influences opportunities for collaboration and how
Awareness of any prior examples of successful NEP-CZM collaboration
Shared how the collaboration(s) came about and any results
Overlapping Areas of Interest
The authors identified three topic areas that may have potential for a deeper investigation:
resiliency/disaster preparedness/coastal hazards; coastal wetlands-related issues; and
environmental justice.
o Considered opportunities for NEP-CZM collaboration in any or all of these areas
o Shared awareness of examples of collaboration in these areas
o Discussed any other opportunities moving forward
Shared other topics or priority areas not considered above
Follow-up
Shared other individuals or locations with examples of successful or potential collaborations
App. B-l
------- |