Dredging Coastal Ports An Assessment of the Issues (1985) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7. The Institutional Decision Making System
7. The Institutional Decision Making System
Pages 77-94
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 77... ...
The second, closely related reason is the frustratingly long time that now elapses in the decision making process for approval of traditionally local projects, and for bringing proposed federal projects to congressional consideration. This chapter highlights constraints in the decision making process that pose problems for dredging projects.
|
From page 78... ...
The important role and responsibilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in all port dredging projects -- whether federally or locally funded -- makes the federal government the focus of concern of those who advocate fast tracking.
|
From page 79... ...
The second major decision maker with regard to federal dredging projects is the Corps of Engineers. It is critical to understand that the Corps' responsibilities are divided between management and regulation.
|
From page 80... ...
FAST TRACKING The growing demand for shortening the time required to approve dredging projects and bring predictability and stability to the process applies to both federal and local projects. In the case of federal projects, there are three categories of decisions where the goal of fast tracking might be achieved.
|
From page 81... ...
The committee has chosen to do this by looking at some of the organizational and procedural consequences for particular agencies of historical (but still active) and recent legislation: the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act, the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
|
From page 82... ...
. The initiation of local projects is signaled to the Corps by a permit application: the district engineer may initiate either an Environmental Assessment (EA)
|
From page 83... ...
The role of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in reviewing Corps permit applications or proposed federal dredging projects results from its responsibility under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act*
|
From page 84... ...
EPA's role in the Corps' permit process and in federal dredging projects stems in part from the Clean Water Act. This law designates EPA as the administrator of the act and states the objective of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
|
From page 85... ...
Certification of compliance with these standards is required under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and such certification must be obtained by federal or local projects. State Coastal Commissions/Coastal Zone Management Agencies Almost all coastal states have established agencies to administer their coastal zone management plans in accordance with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
|
From page 86... ...
This commitment to cooperation and concurrence is so central to the Corps' operating procedures that its regulations emphasize the point. For example, these regulations state that the Corps will "...give full consideration..." to the comments of the regional directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service" (33 C.F.R.
|
From page 87... ...
Local projects await reaction from the review and comment period, usually, in contrast to the active process followed by the Corps for federal projects. One of the most debilitating elements of the multiple agency involvement in dredging projects comes in the form of proposed mitigation actions.
|
From page 88... ...
Particularly in the case of local projects, permits are not acted on until the proposers of the project and the objectors have worked out an agreement. The normal pattern is for proposals and counterproposals to ensue with delays in the negotiating process resulting from a lack of structure and management in the negotiating process (Comptroller General of the United States, 1980~.
|
From page 89... ...
Any fast tracking system, then, needs to assure flexibility to allow consideration of the uniqueness of each port, and to allow efficient integration of new needs and understanding into the decision making process. SUMMARY The general pattern of decision making that characterizes the regulatory system governing port dredging is that decisions occur only when consensus is achieved.
|
From page 90... ...
It is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which Congress would free the Corps from the requirements of such legislation as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Endangered Species Act. Each of these pieces of legislation was passed with broad public support; each has a strong base of supporters in Congress; and each has a broad public constituency.
|
From page 91... ...
For example, the need for a "no-jeopardy" biological opinion from the Fish and Wildlife Service is derived directly from the Endangered Species Act. In the face of that legislative mandate, no amount of regulatory change or organizational modification can overcome the requirement for Fish and Wildlife concurrence.
|
From page 92... ...
Simply stated, from the point of initial funding through every step in the process, ports in the United States are organized such that the major incentive and the major motive for action must come from the individual port.
|
From page 93... ...
Rather, fast-tracking requires creating conditions on a port-by-port basis in which the major organizational and interest group participants find themselves in sufficient agreement with proposed port developments so that they will not organize and mobilize to block or slow down developments. Some years ago, a committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers recommended that the permit process for offshore and coastal development had to be rescued from the adversary process that the committee said immobilized it.
|
From page 94... ...
, "Regulatory Review of Sec. 404 of the Clean Water Act and The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, n Recommendations to Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, Washington, D.C.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.