National Estuary Program: A Collaborative Approach to Protecting Coastal Water Quality

Congressional research reportJan 12, 2001

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

97-644 ENR

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

National Estuary Program:

A Collaborative Approach to

Protecting Coastal Water Quality

Updated January 12, 2001

(name redacted)

Environmental Information Analyst

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

National Estuary Program: A Collaborative

Approach to Protecting Coastal Water Quality

Summary

Estuaries are coastal bays or rivers and their freshwater tributaries. These

waterways provide resources for diverse uses including commerce, public

infrastructure, and recreation. The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 (P.L. 1004) established the National Estuary Program to identify nationally significant estuaries

that are threatened by pollution, land development, or overuse, and to award grants

that support the development of comprehensive management plans to restore and

protect them. State governors can nominate estuaries within their states to be

admitted into the National Estuary Program, and a total of 28 estuaries have been

admitted thus far. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaborates with

other federal agencies, state and local governments, non-profit institutions, industry,

and citizens to address an estuary’s environmental problems.

Appropriations for the National Estuary Program have ranged from an initial

funding level of $11.1 million in FY1987 to a high of $17.9 million in FY1992. The

current funding level for FY2001 is $13.8 million, the same amount as enacted for

FY2000. The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 originally authorized funding

for the National Estuary Program through FY1991, but Congress continued to fund

it through FY2000 without enacting reauthorizing legislation. The 106th Congress

enacted the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-457), which

reauthorized the program at $35 million annually from FY2001 to FY2005. The law

also amended the Clean Water Act to allow funding to be used for implementing as

well as developing estuary management plans.

Apart from the National Estuary Program, P.L. 106-457 also authorized a total

of $275 million in matching funds from FY2001 to FY2005 for a new estuary habitat

restoration program to be carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers. The goal of

the program is to restore 1 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010. It would be a

new potential source of funding for implementing approved management plans under

the National Estuary Program. However, the total funding level of $275 million is an

authorized amount, which still must be appropriated by Congress before it would

become available.

While geographic and demographic factors differ among estuaries in the National

Estuary Program, many of them share the following environmental problems:

eutrophication, contamination from toxic substances and pathogens, habitat loss,

altered freshwater inflows, and endangered and non-native species. Common sources

of these problems include industrial pollution, wastewater overflows, stormwater and

agricultural runoff, waste from boaters and swimmers, land development, and

freshwater diversion. EPA has approved the management plans for 22 estuaries in the

National Estuary Program, and many interests are working together to address the

above environmental problems. While the program’s collaborative nature offers

flexibility, achieving results can require significantly more time than instituting

conventional regulatory measures. Its long-term success will depend on the continued

participation, commitment, and resources of the stakeholders in each locality.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Why Should We Protect Estuaries? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

How Does the National Estuary Program Function? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

What Are the Common Environmental Problems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Eutrophication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Toxic Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Habitat Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Altered Freshwater Inflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Non-Native Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

What Has the National Estuary Program Accomplished? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Puget Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Reducing Pollution from Stormwater Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Restoring Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Monitoring Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Involving and Educating the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

San Francisco Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Restoring Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Managing Water Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Disposing of Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Monitoring Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Albemarle-Pamlico Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Setting Daily Limits on Discharges of Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Controlling Agricultural Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Managing Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Restoring Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Long Island Sound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Lowering Inputs of Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Reducing Pathogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Managing Toxic Substances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Cleaning Up Floating Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

List of Figures

Figure 1. National Estuary Program Grant Funding: FY1987 to FY2001 . . . . . 6

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of the National Estuary Program as of January 2001 . . . . . . . . . 4

National Estuary Program: A Collaborative

Approach to Protecting Coastal Water Quality

Introduction

The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 (P.L. 100-4) established the National

Estuary Program to identify nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by

pollution, land development, or overuse, and to award grants that support the

development of comprehensive management plans to restore and protect them.1 The

Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-457) reauthorized the program

through FY2005 and amended the Clean Water Act to allow funding to be used for

implementing such plans in addition to developing them. The Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) works with federal agencies, state and local governments,

non-profit institutions, industry, and citizens to address an estuary’s environmental

problems. Experience from past federal efforts were instrumental in the creation of

the National Estuary Program. The Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes programs have

been studying water quality since the 1970s, and EPA and the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) jointly studied water quality in six estuaries

from 1985 to 1987 that are now part of the National Estuary Program. 2

The land draining into an estuary is its watershed, and the activities that occur

within it can affect water quality. The National Estuary Program is a watershed

approach in which all affected interests participate in creating solutions that balance

environmental objectives with competing issues. A watershed approach strives to

manage the water resources of a specific geographic area as opposed to federally

regulating certain sources of pollution uniformly. While this approach offers the

flexibility to design solutions within the context of local needs, stakeholders must

participate in the process and commit their time and resources for it to succeed.

This report is based on 11 of the 28 estuaries that are currently in the National

Estuary Program which represent common environmental problems along the nation’s

coastline: on the Pacific Coast, the Columbia River, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay,

and Santa Monica Bay; on the Atlantic Coast, Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, Long Island

Estuaries are coastal bays or rivers and their freshwater tributaries. Because the

concentration of environmental problems is different in each locality, the extent of the

waterways and size of the land area that define each estuary in the National Estuary Program

vary. Consequently, the boundaries of some estuaries in the program are broader and further

inland than others.

EPA administers separate programs under sections 117 and 118 of the Clean Water Act to

address environmental problems in Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes.

CRS-2

Sound, Narragansett Bay, and Maryland’s coastal bays (excluding Chesapeake Bay);

and on the Gulf of Mexico, Charlotte Harbor, Corpus Christi Bay, and Sarasota Bay.3

Why Should We Protect Estuaries?

Estuaries provide resources for diverse uses that many sectors of the public

value. However, overuse and improper management can degrade water quality and

limit an estuary’s productive capacity. In Section 320 of the Clean Water Act,

Congress stated that long-term planning and management are necessary to sustain the

productivity of estuaries and maximize their utility to the nation.

Estuaries support many commercial activities. The shipping industry is a large

source of employment and is an integral part of the national economy. For example,

the states of Oregon and Washington report that ports in the Columbia River employ

2.6 million people and that more than 30% of the wheat exported from the United

States is shipped from these ports.4 According to the management conference for

Corpus Christi Bay, the tourism industry has grown substantially in recent years, and

from 1989 to 1993, tourism expenditures in the bay area increased 41% and related

jobs by 26%.5 Additionally, land development in response to the needs of rapidly

growing populations has expanded the local economies of many estuaries in the

National Estuary Program.

Coastal populations depend on water drawn from an estuary’s freshwater

tributaries to support public infrastructure such as drinking water and water supplies

for industrial facilities, wastewater treatment plants, and irrigation. For example, the

San Francisco Estuary Project, a state agency, estimates that San Francisco Bay’s

freshwater tributaries supply 55% of California’s managed water supply and 40% of

its drinking water for residents of San Francisco, East Bay cities, Stockton,

Sacramento, and southern California.6 Diverted freshwater also has helped to turn the

semi-arid land of central California into a productive agricultural area.

Estuaries provide recreation for coastal residents and visitors, and the state of

Connecticut reports that recreation alone exceeds all others uses in Long Island

Sound.7 Beaches attract swimmers, surfers, and sunbathers, and the management

conference for Santa Monica Bay estimates that 45 million people visit the bay’s 22

CRS contacted the program director of each estuary in the National Estuary Program to

compile data on the status of the program, and selected 11 estuaries for inclusion in this report

to provide a balanced geographic representation of the nation’s coastline.

Office of the Governor. States of Oregon and Washington. The Nomination of the Lower

Columbia River to the National Estuary Program. January 1995. p. 2-16.

Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program. Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries: The

Changing Face of a Landscape. September 1996. p. 18.

San Francisco Estuary Project. Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. September 1995. p. 2.

University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System and Connecticut Sea Grant College

Program. Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program. Sound Values Fact Sheet.

CRS-3

public beaches each year.8 Many estuaries in the National Estuary program provide

habitat for migratory birds, offering unique opportunities for birdwatchers. In

addition, sport fishing and boating are popular activities at every estuary.

How Does the National Estuary Program Function?

Congress established the National Estuary Program in Section 320 of the Clean

Water Act. This section of the law discusses the scope and administration of the

program, criteria for admitting an estuary, federal programs to gather coastal water

quality data, and grants for developing and implementing comprehensive management

plans to restore and protect water quality. State governors can nominate any estuary

lying entirely or partially within their states to be included in the National Estuary

Program. The nomination must describe why EPA should admit the estuary into the

program, propose a management conference to develop a plan for restoring and

protecting water quality, indicate the likelihood of the plan’s success (including

possible sources of funding), and explain the estuary’s national significance. Factors

that determine whether an estuary is nationally significant include its geographic

scope, the economic and social value of its uses to the nation, and whether its

environmental problems are of national concern. EPA can accept the nomination if

existing pollution control measures are insufficient to achieve or maintain water

quality necessary for protecting fishery populations and sustaining public uses.9

To date, EPA has admitted a total of 28 estuaries that state governors have

nominated for inclusion in the National Estuary Program. Congress granted priority

consideration to 16 of these estuaries, and EPA has included 12 others that also meet

the necessary criteria discussed above. The Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000

(P.L. 106-457) amended Section 320 of the Clean Water Act to award priority

consideration to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin in Louisiana and Mississippi. While

this estuary has not been formally admitted into the National Estuary Program to date,

it will likely be included in the future since EPA has admitted each estuary to which

Congress has granted priority consideration.

Once an estuary is admitted into the program, a management conference

characterizes the environmental problems and develops a Comprehensive

Conservation and Management Plan to restore and protect water quality. These plans

are subject to EPA’s approval prior to implementation. Management conferences

represent diverse interests including: EPA and other federal agencies, state and local

governments, non-profit institutions, industry, and citizens. Management conferences

use water quality data from federal, state, and local agencies to develop their

management plans. Each conference forms a Science and Technical Advisory

Committee to recommend new research if existing data is insufficient to characterize

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. Summary of the Bay Restoration Plan. December

1994. p. 12.

While water quality is poor enough to warrant corrective actions in nearly every estuary in

the National Estuary Program, Charlotte Harbor on the Gulf of Mexico is relatively free of

pollution. EPA admitted it primarily for the purpose of preservation to develop measures that

would prevent environmental problems before they occur.

CRS-4

environmental problems. The Clean Water Act requires management conferences to

complete their plans within 5 years, but EPA can extend this deadline if the

environmental problems warrant it.

A state agency usually coordinates

implementation.

The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to award grants that match up to 75% of

the costs to develop an estuary’s management plan, and the remaining 25% must

come from non-federal sources. Grants were not originally authorized for

implementation projects since the initial focus of the program was on providing

federal assistance to state and local governments so that they could design their own

plans to restore water quality and develop tailored solutions, rather than rely on

federal regulation for corrective action. However, in response to concerns expressed

by various stakeholders that full implementation of each estuary’s management plan

would not be possible without additional federal assistance, Congress amended

Section 320 of the Clean Water Act under P.L. 106-457 to allow the use of grants for

implementation. While grants for developing an estuary’s management plan may

cover up to 75% of a project’s cost, grants for implementation projects must not

exceed 50% of the cost, and the other 50% must come from non-federal sources.

Apart from National Estuary Program grants, there are three potential sources

of federal funding that are available for implementation. First, capitalization grants

under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act may be used for controlling nonpoint

source pollution in navigable waters where existing measures are insufficient to

achieve or maintain federal water quality standards. Second, states receive federal

funds to develop Water Pollution Control State Revolving Funds, which may be used

to implement applicable measures under an estuary’s management plan. However,

these funds are loans that the recipient must repay to the state. Third, P.L. 106-457

authorized a total of $275 million from FY2001 to FY2005 in matching funds for a

new estuary habitat restoration program to be carried out by the Army Corps of

Engineers, which has the goal of restoring 1 million acres of estuary habitat by 2010.

However, the funding levels for this new program are authorized amounts, which still

must be appropriated by Congress before they would become available. Despite the

availability of these potential sources, federal funding for implementation is limited.

Consequently, the long-term success of each estuary’s management plan will depend

on the commitment and financial resources of the stakeholders. Table 1, below, lists

each estuary in the National Estuary Program and indicates the status of its

comprehensive management plan.

Table 1. Status of the National Estuary Program as of January 2001

Estuary

State

Entry

Plan Status

Puget Sound a, b

Washington

1987

Implementation

Buzzards Bay a, b

Massachusetts

1987

Implementation

Narragansett Bay a, b

Rhode Island

1987

Implementation

Long Island Sound a, b

Connecticut, New York

1987

Implementation

Albemarle-Pamlico Sound a, b

North Carolina

1987

Implementation

San Francisco Bay a, b

California

1987

Implementation

CRS-5

Estuary

State

Entry

Plan Status

New York-New Jersey Harbor a

New York, New Jersey

1988

Implementation

Delaware Inland Bays a

Delaware

1988

Implementation

Santa Monica Bay a

California

1988

Implementation

Sarasota Bay a

Florida

1988

Implementation

Galveston Bay a

Texas

1988

Implementation

Delaware Estuary a

Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey

1988

Implementation

Casco Bay

Maine

1990

Implementation

Massachusetts Bays a

Massachusetts

1990

Implementation

Indian River Lagoon a

Florida

1990

Implementation

Tampa Bay

Florida

1990

Implementation

Barataria-Terrebonne Complex a

Louisiana

1990

Implementation

Corpus Christi Bay

Texas

1993

Implementation

Peconic Bay a

New York

1993

Development

San Juan Bay

Puerto Rico

1993

Implementation

Tillamook Bay

Oregon

1993

Implementation

New Hampshire Estuaries

New Hampshire

1995

Development

Barnegat Bay

New Jersey

1995

Pending

Maryland Coastal Bays c

Maryland

1995

Implementation

Charlotte Harbor

Florida

1995

Pending

Mobile Bay

Alabama

1995

Development

Morro Bay

California

1995

Pending

Lower Columbia River

Oregon, Washington

1995

Implementation

a Congress awarded priority consideration to these estuaries under section 320 of the Clean Water Act.

b EPA and NOAA studied water quality in these estuaries from 1985 to 1987.

c The Maryland Coastal Bays program does not include the Chesapeake Bay. Under section 117 of the Clean Water

Act, EPA administers a separate federal program to address its environmental problems.

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Appropriations

Under the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, Congress originally

authorized appropriations of $12 million annually from FY1987 to FY1991 to

administer the National Estuary Program, award grants to develop estuary

management plans, monitor their implementation, and support estuarine research.

P.L. 106-457 reauthorized the National Estuary Program at $35 million annually from

FY2001 to FY2005, and as discussed earlier on page 4, authorized the use of grants

for implementing estuary management plans in addition to developing them.

However, this annual funding level of $35 million is only an authorized amount, and

still must be appropriated by Congress before it would become available. As indicated

in Figure 1 on the following page, Congress has appropriated a total of $217 million

for National Estuary Program grants from FY1987 to FY2001. Annual

appropriations have ranged from an initial level of $11.1 million in FY1987 to $17.9

million in FY1992. The current funding level for FY2001 is $13.8 million, the same

amount as enacted for FY2000.

CRS-6

Figure 1. National Estuary Program Grant Funding: FY1987 to FY2001

Total Enacted Appropriations: FY1987 to FY2001 = $217 million

Millions of Dollars

17.9

20.0

15.2

15.0

12.7

13.3

15.7

16.3

15.7

14.4

13.4

13.0

13.8

11.1

10.0

5.0

0.0

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Amounts indicate extramural funding for National Estuary Program grants and do not include agency

intramural funding for personnel and administrative costs.

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the Environmental Protection Agency.

What Are the Common Environmental Problems?

While geographic and demographic factors differ among estuaries in the National

Estuary Program, many of them share the following environmental problems:

eutrophication, contamination from toxic substances and pathogens, habitat loss,

altered freshwater inflows, and endangered and non-native species. Common sources

of these problems include releases of pollutants from industrial facilities and

wastewater treatment plants, runoff from stormwater and agricultural land, and

discharges of waste from boaters and swimmers. Developing land and diverting

freshwater also can alter habitats and potentially threaten fishery and wildlife

populations.

Eutrophication

Eutrophication is a process in which excessive plant growth on the water’s

surface lowers oxygen levels and prevents sunlight from penetrating the water, which

can threaten fishery populations and their habitat. Fertilizers and inadequately treated

sewage often contain phosphorous and nitrogen that can act as nutrients to stimulate

excessive plant growth. Runoff from the land and overflows from wastewater

treatment plants can release nutrients into waterways. Eutrophication threatens water

quality in many estuaries. For example, the management conference for Maryland’s

coastal bays reports that eutrophication is the most pervasive environmental problem

facing the estuary and that it is most severe in areas where discharges of nutrients

from agricultural runoff and malfunctioning septic systems are extensive.10

Maryland Coastal Bays Program. Management Conference Agreement. June 1996. p. 4.

CRS-7

Toxic Substances

Toxic substances can cause disease in wildlife and damage their habitat, and

consuming contaminated water or fish can pose a risk to public health. While

industrial facilities are a potential source of toxic substances, other sources are less

direct and more difficult to control, including runoff from stormwater and agricultural

land and overflows from wastewater treatment plants. Toxic substances have been

a persistent problem in Puget Sound, and many areas within its watershed are listed

in the federal Superfund program to clean up hazardous waste sites.11 Rainwater also

is a potential source of toxic substances, as it can deposit air pollution directly into

bays, rivers, and streams. For example, the management conference for Santa Monica

Bay claims that air pollution from the Los Angeles area contributes to the level of

contaminants in the bay and that restoring water quality may depend on continuing

efforts to reduce air pollution.12 Even if current releases of toxic substances were

eliminated, sediments contaminated from historic discharges could continue to

threaten water quality in many estuaries. According to the management conference

for Narragansett Bay, toxic substances released from manufacturing industries 20

years ago continue to degrade the estuary’s water quality today. 13

Pathogens

Pathogens are bacteria, viruses, and parasites that can cause numerous human

illnesses. Discharges of inadequately treated sewage from wastewater treatment

plants and septic systems, agricultural runoff from land with farm animals, and

releases of human waste from boaters and swimmers are potential sources of

pathogens. To protect public health, states have periodically prohibited commercial

fishing and closed beaches due to contaminated water at many of the estuaries in the

National Estuary Program. During recent years, the state of Maryland has closed

many areas of its coastal bays to commercial shell fishing due to detecting unsafe

levels of fecal bacteria.14

Habitat Loss

Pollution, land development, and dredging operations to construct and maintain

navigable waterways can deplete or significantly alter habitats, and depletion of

wetlands is a common habitat problem facing many estuaries in the National Estuary

Program. Loss of wetlands can restrict water circulation and lead to higher

concentrations of pathogens, nutrients, toxic substances, and other pollutants.

According to the management conference for Sarasota Bay, land development has

altered 78% of the bay’s native shoreline over the past 40 years, and sediments

Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1994 Puget Sound Water Quality Management

Plan. May 1994. p. 2-4.

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. Summary of the Bay Restoration Plan. December

1994. p. 30.

Narragansett Bay Project. 1995 Biennial Report. p. 4.

Maryland Coastal Bays Program. Management Conference Agreement. June 1996. p. 5.

CRS-8

deposited from dredging operations during the 1950s and 1960s continue to cause

habitat problems today. 15

Altered Freshwater Inflows

Diverting freshwater from an estuary to provide public drinking water and

maintain water supplies for irrigation, wastewater treatment plants, and industrial

facilities can alter the water’s salinity. If salinity rises above certain levels, aquatic

populations that once thrived may no longer be able to survive in the saltier water.

The management conference for Corpus Christi Bay reports that rapid population

growth has increased the demand on public water supplies that depend on the bay’s

freshwater tributaries.16 Recent droughts in Texas have prompted debate over the

increased need for diverting freshwater for human uses while attempting to preserve

water quality.

Endangered Species

Many estuaries in the National Estuary Program provide necessary habitat for

endangered species of animals and plants, and the management conferences consider

measures to protect them when developing their plans. The states of Oregon and

Washington report that the Columbia River historically has had the largest spawning

runs of many salmon species in the world.17 However, these runs have greatly

declined during the past 40 years, and spring and summer runs of chinook salmon in

portions of the river are listed as endangered. The management conference for the

Columbia River is in the process of developing its management plan and intends to

include measures that would restore these fish runs.

Non-Native Species

Species of fish, other wildlife, and plants that are not native to an estuary can

threaten native species by competing with them for habitat and elements in the food

chain. Non-native species can enter an estuary when ships arriving from other

geographic areas discharge ballast water from their hulls. For example, the San

Francisco Estuary Project reports that an Asian clam in San Francisco Bay has

multiplied from a few specimens found in 1986 to populations of 30,000 per square

meter. The project estimates that this one species may have consumed enough of the

bay’s plankton to alter the balance of the food chain and potentially threaten native

species that depend on the same resources.18

Sarasota Bay Project. State of the Bay Report. January 1990. p. 18-23.

Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program. Priority Problems List: Fact Sheet.

Office of the Governor. States of Oregon and Washington. The Nomination of the Lower

Columbia River to the National Estuary Program. January 1995. p. 2-12 - 2-15.

San Francisco Estuary Project. San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary. December 1993. p. 4.

CRS-9

What Has the National Estuary Program Accomplished?

As indicated in Table 1 on page 4, EPA has approved the management plans for

22 of the 28 estuaries in the National Estuary Program. The management

conferences for these estuaries have taken numerous actions to address the

environmental problems discussed above and are following the watershed approach

of managing water resources according to local needs. While this approach offers

greater flexibility, achieving results can require significantly more time than instituting

conventional regulatory measures. For example, public education is an integral part

of most management plans, but convincing individuals to alter behavior that threatens

water quality is an extensive and ongoing process. Since the National Estuary

Program is a collaborative effort, its long-term success depends on the continued

participation, commitment, and resources of each stakeholder. The following sections

of this report provide examples of priority problems and corrective actions to restore

and protect water quality in four estuaries that have been part of the National Estuary

Program since its beginning in 1988: Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, AlbemarlePamlico Sound, and Long Island Sound.

Puget Sound

In 1991, Puget Sound became the first estuary in the National Estuary Program

to have an approved management plan. The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team,

a state agency under the Office of the Governor of Washington, is coordinating its

implementation, and the Administrator of EPA’s Region 10 serves on the team as a

non-voting member.19 Examples of priority problems and corrective actions include:

reducing pollution from stormwater runoff, restoring habitats, monitoring water

quality, and involving and educating the public.

Reducing Pollution from Stormwater Runoff. The state of Washington

provides technical assistance to local governments for developing stormwater

management programs.20 Some municipalities have developed methods to treat

stormwater runoff more effectively, and many businesses have implemented a variety

of best management practices to treat and decrease runoff from their properties.

Runoff from highways is difficult to control, and the Puget Sound Water Quality

Action Team is coordinating a program to manage this potential source of pollutants,

including oil, grease, and petroleum-based fuels.

Restoring Habitats. The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team reports that

land development around the estuary has altered critical habitats for many species of

spawning fish and that improperly designed or maintained road crossings block

roughly 3,000 miles of spawning habitats.21 The Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife is addressing this problem by providing technical assistance to local

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Puget Sound Water Quality Work Plan: 19971999. January 1997. p. 1-5.

Ibid., p. 94.

Ibid., p. 42.

CRS-10

governments for identifying road crossings that block fish from swimming upstream,

restoring fish passages, and training volunteers.

Monitoring Water Quality. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the

Washington Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Health, and Natural

Resources operate the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. 22 These agencies

are responsible for monitoring different sets of water quality data so that they do not

duplicate their efforts. The monitoring program provides a comprehensive view of

environmental problems across the entire estuary.

Involving and Educating the Public. The state of Washington’s Public

Involvement and Education Fund supports efforts that inform citizens and industry

about the environmental problems in Puget Sound and foster uses that do not threaten

water quality.23 The fund has awarded more than $4 million in grants for 280 projects

that involved nearly 3 million people. For example, the Bainbridge Island School

District has received a grant from the fund to operate a program in which students and

teachers would be trained to monitor water quality in Bainbridge Island’s streams and

watersheds.24

San Francisco Bay

EPA approved the management plan for San Francisco Bay in 1993. The San

Francisco Estuary Project, a state agency under the California Water Resources

Control Board, is coordinating its implementation. Examples of priority problems and

corrective actions include: restoring wetlands, managing water supplies, disposing of

sediments, and monitoring water quality. 25

Restoring Wetlands. Some of the actions recommended in the management

plan to restore and protect wetlands are complete. The Bay Area Wetlands

Ecosystem Goals Project is conducting a scientific study that would determine the

types and quantities of wetlands necessary to sustain the estuary’s health, and the San

Francisco Estuary Project reports that it has supported the restoration or enhancement

of over 8,000 acres of wetlands. In addition, the state of California has adopted a nonet-loss policy for land development affecting wetlands, and the state’s San Francisco

Bay Conservation and Development Commission has hired additional staff to monitor

illegal activities that fill in wetlands.

Managing Water Supplies. In 1995, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and 15

local water agencies in the San Francisco Bay area collaborated to conduct the

Central California Water Recycling Project, which studied opportunities for water

recycling on a regional basis. The study estimated that 650,000 acre feet of water

could be recycled each year by 2020. Many municipalities have begun to operate

Ibid., p. 55.

Ibid., p. 61.

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team home page [http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound]

San Francisco Estuary Project. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for

the Bay-Delta: Implementation Progress 1993-1996. October 1996. p. 1-5.

CRS-11

water recycling programs and are currently recycling 90,000 acre feet of water

annually. Also, the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau

of Reclamation are jointly funding a project to research irrigation practices that would

promote greater efficiency in agricultural uses of water supplies.

Disposing of Sediments. The Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) for

disposing of dredged materials, a private/public cooperative effort, has released a draft

report that proposes options for disposing of sediments over the next 50 years. This

report fulfills an element of the management plan that recommends the development

of such options to address problems with accumulated sediments in San Francisco

Bay. The LTMS has assessed future dredging needs, developed ways to reduce

unnecessary dredging, examined federal and state policies for consistency, and

identified 17 sites where sediments could be reused. Since the LTMS is a

public/private endeavor, the pursuit of these disposal options will depend on the

commitment and resources of the strategy’s developers. In addition, state regulatory

measures have helped to increase the reuse of dredged material for wetlands

restoration, landfill cover, beach enhancement, and road construction.

Monitoring Water Quality. The San Francisco Estuary Institute, a state

agency under the California Water Resources Control Board, administers the Regional

Monitoring Program (RMP) to collect data on pollutants, water quality, human uses,

and aquatic populations. The RMP has tracked trace substances in San Francisco Bay

and its tributaries for the past 4 years to help scientists accurately identify continuing

pollution problems. At the federal level, NOAA is monitoring the effect of diverting

freshwater on salinity levels.

Albemarle-Pamlico Sound

EPA approved the management plan for Albemarle-Pamlico Sound in November

1994. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in North Carolina’s Department of

Environment, Health, and Natural Resources is coordinating its implementation.26

Examples of priority problems and corrective actions include: setting daily limits on

discharges of pollutants, controlling agricultural runoff, managing wastewater, and

restoring habitats.

Setting Daily Limits on Discharges of Pollutants. The DWQ has established

total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) that specify the amount of pollution that can

enter Albemarle-Pamlico Sound without threatening water quality. 27 The DWQ

completes a TMDL for each industrial facility and wastewater treatment plant before

granting a water discharge permit. As of August 1996, the DWQ had completed

approximately 2,000 TMDLs in the process of awarding these permits. The DWQ

also has developed a water quality management plan that establishes TMDLs for each

river basin draining into the estuary.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Division of

Water Quality. Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan:

Summary Report. August 1996. p. i.

Ibid., p. 2-3.

CRS-12

Controlling Agricultural Runoff. The North Carolina General Assembly has

expanded the state’s Agriculture Cost Share Program to offer greater economic

incentives to farmers for controlling pollution from agricultural runoff.28 The

Assembly has increased funding for the Neuse River basin by $1,750,000 and

provided an additional $5,750,000 for the remaining river basins. The state also has

hired additional personnel to provide farmers with technical assistance in developing

measures to reduce pollution in runoff from their lands.

Managing Wastewater. The DWQ has increased its coordination with the

state’s Office of Waste Reduction (OWR) to lower pollution discharged from

industrial facilities and municipal wastewater treatment plants.29 The OWR’s

Prevention Program provides technical assistance to industry, and the Pretreatment

Program assists municipalities in controlling their wastewater more effectively. Both

programs are voluntary and seek to encourage prevention and pretreatment at

facilities and plants that are experiencing difficulty in complying with state water

quality standards. All of North Carolina’s major municipal wastewater treatment

plants are currently participating in the Pretreatment Program.

Restoring Habitats. Federal and state agencies are collaborating to restore

habitats necessary for protecting fishery and other wildlife populations in AlbemarlePamlico Sound. The DWQ is coordinating a project funded by a federal grant from

NOAA’s Coastal America program to remove two dams on the Neuse River in

Wayne County, North Carolina.30 The state claims that these dams have interrupted

the free-flowing character of the river and prevented anadromous fish from migrating

upstream during their spawning season. Removing the dams would reopen spawning

habitats on 140 miles of upriver streams.

Long Island Sound

EPA approved the management plan for Long Island Sound in September 1994,

and the Long Island Sound Study is coordinating its implementation. The study is a

joint effort between the states of Connecticut and New York and EPA’s Regions 1

and 2. Examples of priority problems and corrective actions include: lowering inputs

of nitrogen, reducing pathogens, managing toxic substances, and cleaning up floating

debris.31

Lowering Inputs of Nitrogen. The management plan for Long Island Sound

identified eutrophication due to excessive levels of nitrogen as one of the estuary’s

most threatening water quality problems and recommended freezing inputs of nitrogen

at 1990 levels to prevent further water quality degradation. Improvements in treating

wastewater and preventing overflows at many plants have reduced daily nitrogen

loads by 5,000 pounds below what they were in 1990. All of the sewage treatment

plants in Connecticut and Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties in New York

Ibid., p. 8.

Ibid., p. 17.

Ibid., p. 30-31.

Long Island Sound Study. Putting the Plan in Motion. 4 p.

CRS-13

have achieved “no net increases” in nitrogen levels, and other plants are in the process

of making improvements. At the state level, Connecticut and New York have

increased funding for projects that lower releases of nitrogen into the sound.

Reducing Pathogens. The states of Connecticut and New York have prohibited

commercial shellfishing in some areas of Long Island Sound and closed many of the

beaches due to public health risks from pathogen contamination. In Connecticut, the

cities of Bridgeport, New Haven, Middletown, and Hartford have begun long-term

projects to prevent releases of pathogens from combined sewer overflows, and New

York City’s comprehensive sewer abatement program is scheduled for completion in

2006. The states of Connecticut and New York are developing programs to educate

boaters and swimmers about the health risks associated with discharging human waste

into waterways, and numerous marinas are planning to construct new or renovate

existing pump out facilities for boaters to dispose of wastes safely.

Managing Toxic Substances. The state of Connecticut has funded research to

assess the level of toxic substances in Long Island Sound and recommend restorative

actions to reduce their impacts on water quality. The state also has completed

pollution prevention site assessments at 33 industrial facilities and recommended

measures to reduce discharges of toxic substances. One program to pre-treat

industrial wastewater before it is discharged has helped to reduce the amount of

metals released into Long Island Sound by 1,000 pounds per day. In addition, a

toxicity survey of 20 harbors and bays is complete and will be used to develop

effective ways to manage sediments contaminated with toxic substances.

Cleaning Up Floating Debris. According to the Long Island Sound Study,

discharges from combined sewer overflows and stormwater drains are responsible for

a large portion of floating trash and other debris across the estuary. To raise public

awareness about pathways through which trash can enter local waterways, over

16,000 storm drains are painted with an environmental warning, Don’t

Dump—Drains into Long Island Sound, and in New York alone, over 3,000 storm

drains are painted with a bilingual environmental warning in English and Spanish,

Clean Streets—Clean Beaches. In 1995, nearly 900 volunteers removed over 7,000

pounds of trash from 30 miles of shoreline in New York, and over 700 volunteers

removed over 4,000 pounds of trash from 23 miles of shoreline in Connecticut.

Conclusion

The majority of federal programs to protect water quality rely on conventional

regulatory measures that control specific sources of pollution uniformly on a national

level. However, the National Estuary Program departs from this traditional strategy

to control pollution through incorporating a watershed approach in which all affected

interests participate in tailoring solutions to environmental problems for a specific

geographic area. This approach can offer greater opportunities for state and local

governments, industry, and citizens to participate in addressing the environmental

problems that directly affect their communities and can provide increased flexibility

in deciding which measures are better suited for their localities. However, developing

solutions collaboratively can require significantly more time than instituting

CRS-14

conventional regulatory measures, and the financial resources to implement

collaborative solutions depend on the availability of funds from a multitude of public

and private sources.

To date, EPA has approved the management plans for 22 of the 28 estuaries in

the National Estuary Program. While they have taken numerous actions to address

the priority problems identified in their management plans, some of the most common

sources of pollution are indirect and difficult to control, including runoff from

agricultural land and urban streets, overflows from wastewater treatment plants, air

pollution deposited into waterways by rainfall, and releases of waste from boaters and

swimmers. Under the National Estuary Program’s collaborative approach, reducing

pollution from these diffuse sources depends in part on whether coastal populations

are committed to altering established patterns of land use, management of water

supplies, and individual behavior to solve environmental problems in their

communities. So far, the National Estuary Program has made progress in educating

the public about environmental problems, fostering better management of water

resources, reducing pollution, and restoring habitats at certain estuaries. However,

the long-term success of the program depends on the continued commitment,

participation, and resources of the stakeholders in each locality.

Selected References

Clean Water Act Reauthorization. by (name redacted). CRS Issue Brief IB10001.

Updated regularly.

Environmental Protection Agency. National Estuary Program Home Page.

[http://www.epa.gov/nep].

Wetland Issues. by (name redacted) and (name redacted). CRS Issue Brief IB97014.

Updated regularly.

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.