United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(WH-556)
EPA 503/8-90-005
September 1990
Saving Bays And Estuaries
A Primer For Establishing
And Managing Estuary Programs
Appendices G, H, And I
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Appendix G
The Economics of Improved
Estuarine Water Quality:
An NEP Manual for
Measuring Benefits
This appendix of Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Primer for
Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects presents a summary of
The Economics of Improved Estuarine Water Quality: An NEP
Manual for Measuring Benefits. The Primer, which describes the
National Estuary Program's origin, statutary provisions, and
approach, is designed for EPA's program and Regional offices,
coastal States, and other interested parties. For more information,
contact an EPA Regional office.
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act provides for the development of
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for
estuaries of National significance. To ensure the greatest return on
resources spent, it is often necessary to document the economic
benefits associated with alternative management strategies.
The Economics of Improved Estuarine Water Quality: An NEP
Manual for Measuring Benefits is designed to assist estuary
program managers and staff in evaluating the economic benefits of
various water pollution abatement options. The manual defines
economic benefit as the dollar value associated with incremental
improvements in the use, or potential use, of an estuary. The
concepts used to measure these benefits are derived from
economic theory, according to which individuals acquire
satisfaction (or utility) by consuming goods and services. The
manual explains the concept of economic benefit, describes how
pollution abatement projects generate such benefits, and how such
benefits can be measured.
The economic benefits of water pollution controls are produced in
stages. These stages, as shown in Figure 1, are interrelated, each
affecting the other. Reducing the quantity of effluents discharged
Introduction to The
Manual
Generating Economic
Benefits
G1
-------
Water Pollution Controls
1
itRedi
I
itylmi
1
Aquat
I
isesof
I
Effluent Reductions
Water Quality Improvements
Change in Aquatic Habitat
Behavioral Responses of Economic Agents
Value of Changes in Uses and Services of the Water Body
Recreational Uses
Commercial Fishing Uses
Industrial Uses
Irrigation Uses
Municipal Water Supply Uses
Navigational Uses
Human Health Uses
Aesthetic Uses
Option Value Uses
Existence Value Uses
Figure 1. Causal Relationships and Economic Benefits
into a water body improves water quality, which in turn can lead to
changes in the aquatic habitat. Once the economic agents directly
affected by the water body (e.g., recreationists, commercial
fishermen, and homeowners) perceive these changes, they may
alter the way in which they use the body of water. The measured
value associated with changes in use or potential use represents
the economic benefits of the project.
The economic benefits created by water quality improvements can
be grouped into two broad categories: user benefits and intrinsic
benefits. User benefits are those benefits associated with the use
of the resource and that affect industry, agriculture, the municipal
water supply, commercial fishing, navigation, recreation, health,
habitat, and aesthetics. These benefits can be measured by using
commonly available market prices or can be inferred from the
market prices. , ,
Intrinsic benefits are benefits associated with a resource that are
not directly related to the use of that resource. Intrinsic benefits
express an individual's subjective perception of improved well-
being and can be personal or intergenerational, short term or Jong
term. The sources of benefits created by water quality
improvements are categorized in Figure 2.
G2
-------
tndurtry
Uur
Benefits'
Figure 2. Sources of Benefits of Water Pollution
Control
The incremental economic benefits generated by a proposed
pollution abatement project are evaluated by comparing the
situation with the project to the situation without it. The annual
value of the uses or potential uses of the water body with the
project, minus the annual value without the project, represents the
incremental annual economic benefits created by pollution controls.
To evaluate pollution abatement projects, a distinction must be
made between primary and secondary benefits. Primary benefits
are the direct impacts of, or the increases in well-being resulting
from, the proposed project. Secondary benefits are those benefits
indirectly created by the project, either through the stimulative
effect of additional activities generated by the project or through the
demand-inducing effects of the expenditures required by the
project.
A major difficulty in estimating benefits is that benefit categories
and estimation methods are sometimes related in awkward and
overlapping ways. One technique may measure the joint benefits
of more than one category, or it may not capture all the benefits
Evaluating Benefits
G3
-------
Recreational
Benefits
accruing to that category. This introduces the possibility of double-
counting some of the benefits of water pollution control and not
fully counting others.
One way to avoid or reduce the possibility of double-counting is by
gathering anecdotal data, for example about boating use. Marina
operators have a good sense of who their customers are and what
recreational habits they have. Talking with marina staff will yield
anecdotal information on the split between boating and fishing, for
example. These data can then be used to estimate various benefits
more accurately.
Further, each situation that requires benefit estimation is unique:
different types of data and different assumptions will be required for
each. Moreover, each situation and selected methodology has its
own level of uncertainty. If extreme uncertainty exists, no single
method will yield reliable results. Instead, more than one model
should be used and the information obtained should be correlated.
Another fundamental problem in water quality economics is that
water is a common property resource (air, water, or another
resource that is essentially free or available to many users). Such
resources tend to be overused relative to some optimal level. To
understand this phenomenon, it is necessary to understand the
basic concepts of consumer surplus (demand curves or willingness
to pay) and producer surplus (supply curves).
The difference between what individuals actually pay and the
amount that they are willing to pay is the consumer surplus-the
conventional dollar measure of the satisfaction that individuals
derive from consuming a good or service, exclusive of what they
pay for it. Producer surplus is the measure of a change in the well-
being of any economically productive entity. The changes in
consumer and producer surplus provide the conceptual basis for
measuring economic benefits. The potential for numerous benefits
resulting from improvements in water quality is addressed in the
manual, and several examples are discussed. The document
closely examines two major benefit categories: recreational
benefits and commercial fishing benefits.
The recreational benefits of pollution abatement projects include
swimming, health, fishing, boating, and intrinsic benefits. The
manual provides detailed methods to evaluate these benefits. The
travel cost method, the contingent valuation survey method, or the
participation/unit-day valuation method can be used to calculate
swimming benefits. In the travel cost method, the key to
calculating individual consumer surplus is to estimate the
G4
-------
demand for beach recreation. Ordinary demand curves are
estimated by using price and quantity-demanded data. However,
since there is no charge for using most public beaches, travel costs
provide surrogate prices to estimate demand.
The essence of the travel cost method is that the combination of
the number of day trips to a site and the round-trip travel cost for
each recreationist permits an empirical estimate of the demand for
a recreation site. More distant consumers bear heavier travel and
related costs and usually will visit the site less frequently than those
who live closer, all else being equal. Since the travel cost method
is based on actual recreational visits, it is one of the most valuable
techniques for estimating consumer surplus.
An alternative method for determining the willingness to pay for
water pollution controls is the contingent valuation survey method.
This method differs from the travel cost method in that it attempts
to gather information directly about an individual's valuation of
nonmarket goods, such as changes in water quality, by creating a
hypothetical market through a survey questionnaire. An advantage
of this approach is that it can be designed to elicit intrinsic values.
However, considerable skill is required to design the survey.
The participation/unit-day valuation method relies on previously
estimated values of individual consumer surplus (or willingness to
pay) for an average day's recreation. By applying these values to
the estimated daily use of a beach, the dollar value for an increase
in the supply of recreational beach days can be approximated. The
advantages of this method are its simplicity and minimal data re-
quirements. The disadvantage is that it cannot be used to estimate
the aggregate, annual consumer surplus for the increased
attractiveness and safety of the beach.
Numerous potential health benefits are associated with water
pollution abatement projects. Only swimming-related health effects
associated with pathogens are discussed in the manual because
this is an area where adequate data and dose/response information
often exist. The method proposed in the manual to estimate
swimming-related health effects (1) defines the population at risk,
(2) applies a dose/response relationship to determine the likely
incidence of gastroenteritis under current water quality conditions
(without the pollution abatement project) and under the improved
conditions (with the pollution abatement project), and (3) values the
reduction in swimming-related illnesses.
To analyze the demand for various fishing activities, the manual
recommends treating the recreationist's decision as a sequence of
three choices. First, the person chooses whether to go fishing.
Second, the person selects the types of fishing (surf, beach, small
boat, pier, etc.) in which to participate. Third, the person chooses
G5
-------
Commercial Fishing
Benefits
the preferred level of participation. Each stage of this decision
process may be influenced by a variety of economic and
environmental factors.
To determine the economic benefit of a proposed action affecting
recreational fishing, it is necessary to follow a four-step process:
(1) define the affected fishing habitat, (2) determine how physical
conditions affect recreational quality and quantity, (3) estimate the
baseline recreational activity and value of recreational fishing, and
(4) estimate changes in recreational activity and economic value.
Occasionally, gross fishing expenditures are used as a measure of
the economic value of recreational fishing. While expenditures are
prima facie evidence that recreationists place value on fishing, the
expenditures on such recreational trips are not a useful estimate of
that value. Gross expenditures represent a cost that detracts from
the net economic value of the recreational experience. Many of the
gross expenditures are not directly related to fishing. Further,
striped bass fishermen, for example, might spend less per fishing
trip in 1986 than in 1981 because of falling fuel prices. This,
however, is not evidence that striped bass fishing has fallen in
value.
Changes in recreational boating most likely will result from the
increased use of a body of water by boat owners. The manual
describes a two-step procedure to predict recreational boating
benefits: (1) estimating the change in recreational boating
participation and (2) determining the value of that change.
A contingent valuation approach is recommended to measure the
intrinsic benefits of water quality improvements. Intrinsic benefits
are all the benefits associated with a resource that are not directly
related to the current use of that resource. Intrinsic benefits can be
categorized as the sum of option (bequest) value and existence
value. Option value is the amount of money that individuals are
wiling to pay to ensure access to a resource (or a level of
environmental quality) in the future, regardless of whether the
individual is a current user. Existence value is an individual's
willingness to pay for knowing that the resource exists, independent
of any anticipated use.
Estuaries provide spawning and nursery habitats for commercially
valuable fish. Water quality improvements can increase these
commercial fish stocks, resulting in expansion of the fishing
industry. The economic benefits associated with this expansion
can be determined by comparing the commercial fishing market
under current water quality conditions with the market that could
G6
-------
develop if pollutant stresses were reduced or eliminated. The
manual focuses on evaluating the benefit of pollution abatement
programs on shellfishing.
Shellfishing may be totally restricted by states in areas where
pollution levels exceed health standards. This can result in major
revenue losses for the State's shellfishing industry. In areas that
border the closed beds, firms may be required to keep the
harvested shellfish in decontamination tanks for several days after
harvesting, which increases production costs.
Water pollution controls have resulted in the reopening of shellfish
beds in a number of states. In some cases, pollution controls may
not reverse shellfish contamination sufficiently to reopen the beds.
Consequently, any empirical estimate of these benefits must
include adequate justification that the proposed controls would, in
fact, lead to the reopening of the shellfish beds. The manual
defines the economic benefits of reopening the beds for four
different scenarios.
Because there are numerous and subtle factors to consider when
estimating the benefits of pollution abatement, the manual
describes types of analyses that can be made rather than dictating
specific methodologies. To assist further in planning the best
approach to measuring benefits, a list of technical publications that
address industrial point-source effluent guidelines, limitations, and
standards is provided.
Conclusion
G7
-------
-------
Appendix H
Living Resources
Appendices
A prime measure of the health of an estuary is the condition of its
living resources. A decline in or impairment of living resources
usually points to an underlying problem. The cause might be loss
of habitat, poor water quality, overharvesting, or disease. The
decline might also be the result of natural variability. The cause
notwithstanding, it is essential that an estuary's Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) include, as integral
components, living-resources management and habitat-prutection
elements.
These appendices provide useful information to be used in
incorporating living-resources management strategies and
techniques into CCMPs.
Appendix H1 includes case studies of three successful
management programs for living resources. The
management programs chosen address selected aspects
of shellfish management, waterfowl management, and
finfish management.
Appendix H2 is a catalog of many Federal authorities
and programs related to estuary living-resources
management. It is a useful key in the support of living-
resources management and habitat-protection goals and
objectives of the National Estuary Program conferences.
Together, the two appendices provide an overview of some
techniques and mechanisms available to estuary managers for the
management of estuarine living resources.
-------
-------
Case Study 1
Interstate Fishery
Management
Estuaries serve as nurseries and spawning routes for important
species of marine and anadromous fish whose commercial and
recreational value reaches hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Many of these species, such as salmon, must be managed to
ensure viability. Local management is difficult because salmon
species and populations cross many jurisdictions. To provide an
institutional framework for dealing with fisheries issues, Congress
has established eight regional councils whose membership includes
appropriate Federal and State officials, representatives of relevant
Indian Nations, and fishery-conservation groups. These councils
are responsible for developing, monitoring, and revising
management plans for ocean fisheries operating from 3 to 200 nmi
offshore.
This case study presents a fishery management plan for
commercial and recreational salmon fishing off the coasts of
California, Oregon, and Washington. The plan shows how a
geographically wide-ranging species can be managed cooperatively
among different jurisdictions while still addressing local fishery
concerns.
Framework
Amendment of the
Salmon Fishery
Management Plan
for the Coasts of
Washington, Oregon,
and California
H1-1
-------
Management Strategies
II
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) recognized
shortly after its establishment in 1976 that the steady decline in
salmon stocks was due to conflicting and inconsistent management
decisions among the States of California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington. In response, the PFMC has developed an amendment
to the current fishery management plan (FMP) structured to
respond quickly to changing harvest and habitat conditions in the
salmon fishery.
Issues addressed by the plan include
Determining harvest rates that are consistent with the needs
of population replacement, treaty obligations, and
maintenance of commercial and recreational fisheries, yet still
achieve conservation goals
Minimizing salmon mortality due to catch/release sportfishing
and habitat degradation
Coordinating agencies and interests representing member
States, countries, Indian Nations, according to provisions in
the United States/Canada Salmon Treaty to ensure fair,
consistent management decisions
Restoring or replacing natural habitat, including achieving
water quality and quantity suitable for salmon, and
maintaining access for migration, spawning, and rearing.
To resolve these issues, the PFMC depends on up-to-date
biological data and advice from its advisory committees. (See
Figure H1-1.)
Actual management is based on boundary zones determined by
where along the coasts the spawning stock will return, although the
specifics of the zones may change as new data on salmon stocks
become available. Each boundary zone is managed to meet the
1 Under original requirements of the PFMC authorizing legislation,
any changes to fishery management plans were subject to lengthy
and complex amendment procedures. These could add as many
as 9 months to implementation of the plan revisions. In 1984,
PFMC developed a comprehensive amendment to cover future plan
adjustments quickly and with flexibility. This is the Framework
Amendment of the Salmon Fishery Management Plan for the
Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California.
H1-2
-------
SCIENTIFIC AND
STATISTICAL COMMITTEE
ADVISORY SUBPANEL
TECHNICAL TEAMS
PACIFIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Federal Representatives
State Representatives
Private Citizen Representatives
ENFORCEMENT
NMFS
USCG
State Personnel
The PFMC consists of 13 voting members: the Regional Director of
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), four chief fishery
officials, one each from Washington, Oregon, California, and
Idaho, and eight private citizens who are familiar with fishery
conservation, management, and harvest in the PFMC area. These
citizens are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce from lists
submitted by each member State governor. Nonvoting members
include representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the
U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Decisions are enforced
by the NMFS, the USCG, and the appropriate State enforcement
personnel. These agencies also consult with the PFMC on
regulatory changes and enforcement practices. The State
enforcement personnel are crossdeputized and have the authority
to enforce regulations from 0 to 200 nmi offshore.
Figure H1-1. Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC)
Administrative Organization
H1-3
-------
Results
goals of the overall management plan, but may also be managed
to achieve local goals developed to satisfy regulatory needs or
other special circumstances, such as treaties with specific Indian
Nations or the United States/Canada Salmon Treaty. Each
boundary zone has a harvest quota, based on a number of factors,
including
Age of uncaught fish (year-class escapement levels)
Catch levels of previous years
Assessment of two-year- and three-year-old fish populations
Age distribution from prior years
Environmental conditions
Hatchery production levels.
The Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF)/National Bureau of
Standards Regulation Analysis Model (Figure H1-2) has been
developed to apply these factors to track the fishery population
throughout the entire salmon life cycle. It and similar models
provide a means to rapidly adjust fishing efforts, based on the most
recent information, including seasonal and long-term data.
Regulatory adjustments can be based on daily telephone
interviews, surveys of boat landing areas, aerial surveys, analysis of
commercial sales transactions, analysis of fish scales, and
recovered fish tags. Long-term and annual data are also collected
from sources such as commercial fishing log books submitted to
the State; punch cards completed by recreational fishermen to
identify the species, size, location, and catch date of salmon; and
the records of salmon processors, and public and private
hatcheries.
Other methods for controlling the fishery are licensing, setting daily
catch and size limits for recreational fisherman, limiting commercial
and recreational fishing seasons, and restricting fishing gear.
The FMPs and the Framework Amendment developed by the PFMC
have promoted proactive management of salmon stocks. Some of
the key steps in improving fisheries administration have included
Basing management on geographic stock areas rather than
on political boundaries
Adjusting seasonal fishing efforts, based on the most recent
short- and long-term data available
H1-4
-------
HISTORICAL BASE-PffilOD DATA INPUT
Stock catch by time and area
Maturity proportions
Population growth and fishery length/weightj
Natural lortality I
Fishery characteristics, e.g., seasons, i
size Units, etc.
Database on biology and
populationof salnon
MODEL CALIBRATION PHASE
3 Backcatculate initial stock population size
at recruitment
I Coipute (saturation, fishing, and induced
ortal ity rates
1
Independent preseason abundance forecasts for
individual stocks based upon jack/adult
relationships, average juvenile/adult hatchery
survival, etc., collected by VDF
Adjust Uodel Stock Sizes to Preseason Abundance Forecasts
1 'Coipute BodeI recruit scale factors
Historical catch and effort analysis by
tine/area/f ishery to deternine anticipated
effort (used to adjust «odel fishing rates)
ADULT EQUIVALENT SIMULATION RUN
Estimate adult terainal run sizes in absence of prior
interceptions by fisheries subject to treaty-sharing
obligations, given anticipated regulations for
noncounting fisheries
Refines database
inforaation with
ore recent data
Predicts juvenile/
adult ratios
Reflects regulatory
and exploitation
rates of Canada
and other States
EstiBates of saleon
population sizes,
excluding treaty
caught fish
COMPUTE TREATY AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS ,
I Subtract spawning escapement goals froa adult
equivalent run sizes and divide by 2
Determines treaty
and nontreaty
allocations
REGULATION SIMULATION ANALYSIS
1 Test various regulatory options
t t
|Ueet stock escapement goals?
HO , Vesj
1
STOCK ESCAPEMENT OBJECTIVES
(run size leaving ocean fisheries)
I Spawning escapeient goals
I Treaty allocation requirements
i Inside non-Indian fishing opportunity
Viable regulatory
options
Figure H1-2. Washington Department of Fisheries/ National
Bureau of Standards Regulation Analysis Model
Considering important local needs, such as treaties with
Indian Nations, in developing harvest quotas
Provisions to allow rapid in-season adjustments to
fishing effort
Including affected parties in the decision-making
process.
H1-5
-------
Summary
The FMP has provided an extremely helpful vehicle for responding
to fluctuating salmon populations. For example, salmon landings
north of Cape Falcon, Oregon, have remained at approximately
85% of the annual quotas since 1984. This stability was accom-
plished because of the FMP's ability to incorporate the most recent
harvest and distribution data; in any given year, therefore, quotas
may have ranged from as little as 9% to as much as 68% of the
previous year's quota.
These results confirm the need for timely, high-quality data in
making effective management decisions. Resource agencies must
be able to estimate conditions such as stock size, reproductive
capability, and juvenile escapement levels. The PFMC is specifi-
cally working to improve abilities to assess natural production of
salmon species as well as artificial propagation techniques.
Many aspects of Framework Amendment are applicable to National
Estuary Program (NEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plans (CCMP). Management by stock areas instead of by
political boundaries more accurately addresses the biological distri-
bution of species, and can be especially important for anadromous
and migratory species that inhabit several regulatory and jurisdic-
tional areas. The flexibility to adjust goals and objectives is another
positive component of PFMC planning that could be valuable to
NEPs, as is the use of both short- and long-term data. The Frame-
work Amendment has greatly reduced administrative costs, effort,
and wasteful associated paperwork. The Framework Amendment
permits changes in management strategies without issuing Sup-
plemental Environmental Impact Statements, the Regulatory Flexi-
bility Act (RFA), and Regulatory Impact Reviews (required by RFA
and Executive Order 12291). However, these requirements must be
met whenever major changes to the FMP Framework Amendment
are needed. Finally, the PFMC has also learned how to consider
the needs of user groups and resource managers in developing
FMPs. Other fishery management plans have been implemented
throughout the United States for species, including Atlantic mack-
erel, surf clams and quahogs, gulf shrimp, and groundfish.
For Additional Information
Pacific Fishery Management Council
Metro Center, #420
200 S.W. First Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
(503) 326-6352
H1-6
-------
Case Study 2
Cooperative
Resource Management
Geoduck, clams, the largest burrowing clam in the world, range
from California to Alaska, with the largest populations being found
in Puget Sound. Originally a recreational fishery, the geoduck
fishery has become an important estuarine resource to the State of
Washington, providing revenue opportunities and serving as an
accurate indicator of water and habitat quality. This case study
.presents a multiagency approach to shellfish management that
incorporates State regulatory, technical, and financial incentives to
ensure sustainable harvests. ,
Since the 1960s, geoduck clams have been a valuable commercial
fishery in Puget Sound. Because harvested populations may take
as many as 60 years to regenerate naturally, the State of
Washington has carefully managed the geoduck fishery to sustain
the resource and avoid population depletion.
The Puget Sound Geoduck Clam Fishery Management Plan is
comanaged by the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) and
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), with input from the
Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). The objectives
of the plan are to
Protect the geoduck resource, associated organisms,
and the nearby marine environment
Provide a stable fishery based on optimum sustainable
yield
Puget Sound
Geoduck Clam
Fishery Management
Plan
Management
Strategies
H1-7
-------
Minimize social conflicts resulting from biological changes in
the clam industry.
To encourage interagency cooperation and long-term commitment,
WDF and DNR share'in the revenue derived from clam bed leases,
as well as in the responsibility for implementing and enforcing the
plan. , .........
In very general terms, WDF carries out licensing, regulatory, and
monitoring activities, whereas DNR values the resource and man-
ages the leasing of clam beds. Both agencies are involved in
designating and marking geoduck harvest areas (tracts) and
enforcing policy. (See Table H1-1.) -
The WDF maintains a list of all geoduck clam beds suitable for
commercial harvesting, based on estimates of optimum and-maxi-
mum sustainable yields for given beds. Each site must meet spe-
cific legal, biological, and physical* criteria "for ' harvesting.
Harvesting is controlled by limiting the number of commercial
licenses and restricting types of harvesting gear. (See Table H1-2.)
Additionally, all harvesting must meet criteria stipulated under the
State Environmental Policy Act, including number of divers, hours
of operation, noise levels, and lease periods. WDF also enforces
regulations established under the geoduck plan; conducts studies
on geoduck biology, ecology, and population dynamics; and oper-
ates a geoduck hatchery. .
The DNR is responsible for protecting the State's interest in State-
owned aquatic lands and for marking "tracts with posts, buoys, and
electronic equipment. The deepwater boundary is delineated at 60
ft for the safety of divers and to protect deeper clam stocks. Other
responsibilities of the DNR include appraising the resource value
and managing the auction and lease of appropriate.tracts. '
Site designation and leasing is an open public.process.. All appro-
priate governmental officials and relevant Indian Nations are
involved in the review of potential lease sites, which are physically
surveyed by divers for their suitability. No tracts are advertised for
lease auction until all concerns or environmental conflicts have
been satisfied at public hearings. In addition, the State strictly
enforces regulations covering permissible harvesting technologies
and other operating procedures. The unique aspect of this pro-
gram is that the lead State agencies receive a portion of the reve-
nue generated by the leases for programs such as hatcheries and
enforcement. The remainder of the collected funds are returned to
the State General Fund.
H1-8
-------
Table H1-1, State Agency Responsibilities
Washington Department of Fisheries
Perform site surveys
Assess sustainable yield
Assess level of effort
Set seasons and gear
Monitor
License
Operate hatchery
Department of Natural Resources
Value resources
Auction/lease harvest tracts
Washington Department of Fisheries and
Department of Natural Resources ,
Designate tracts
Mark areas
Enforce policy
Department of Health and Social Services
Enforce shellfish sanitation standards
Lower potential pollution risks
Local Governments
Enforce Shoreline Management Act
H1-9
-------
Table H1-2. Harvest Criteria for Tract Designation, Maintenance,
and Harvest
The tract must be more than 200 yd from shore and between
18 and 60ft deep.
The abundance and quality of the clams must be enough to
support a commercial harvest.
The substrate must be capable of permitting the use of water-
jet harvest equipment without causing significant environmen-
tal damage.
The tract must be free from pollution and be certified by DSHS.
All spatial or environmental conflicts pertaining to the tract
must be resolved prior to any harvest period.
There may be no long-term or adverse impacts on the sur-
rounding environment or other important habitats by the fish-
ing operation.
The harvest areas within the tract must be rotated and, if pos-
sible, clustered in a single discrete area to lessen the environ-
mental impact on any one area and to make enforcement
easier. '
The harvest areas should have a variety of qualities and types
of geoducks available for harvest to meet current market
needs.
All landing areas for the tract must be located where inter-
ference with public use facilities will be minimal, and
convenient for enforcement.
The tract must be surveyed at the end of the harvest season to
assess the effect of the harvest, compliance with regulations,
and the suitability for reharvest.
Once a tract has been harvested, it cannot be rescheduled for
harvest for at least 30-50 years.
H1-10
-------
II
A preliminary study by WDF has concluded that, through natural
repopulation, a properly harvested area may be successfully
reharvested as soon as 10 years after the first harvest. In addition,
WDF's enhanced hatchery techniques produce 30 million seed
clams, of which 10% can be expected to reach harvestable size
within 4 to 10 years. Overall, the WDF estimates the maximum
sustainable yield at 2% of the harvestable stock.
Nevertheless, more information is needed. Geoduck clams have a
very slow recruitment rate, and natural repopulation to preharvest
levels may take as few as 10 and as many as 60 years. The State
wants to improve this time frame. In addition, geoducks are filter
feeders that can accumulate pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and
other toxics. As a precautionary measure, the DSHS has closed
large portions of Puget Sound to harvesting. The WDF and DNR
are currently studying the biology, population dynamics, and new
management techniques to protect the stock. They are also
studying methods to reduce the input of toxics that pose a risk to
the geoduck fishery and the Puget Sound as a whole.
The success of the geoduck management plan has depended on a
steady supply of high- quality data on the fishery and on the
cooperation of involved agencies. Together, the WDF and DNR
collect data, determine harvests, enforce regulations, and maintain
communication among all affected parties. The WDF and DNR are
also taking the initiative for the ensuring a stable clam fishery by
conducting basic research and developing a hatchery/spawning
program.
This approach is adaptable to other shellfisheries, and several
States with NEP sites have undertaken shellfish-tract management
programs. The geoduck model of interagency cooperation is also
helpful for managing interstate estuaries where different policies
and regulations can lead to conflict.
Management techniques that are kept uncomplicated and easy to
assess appear to have the highest likelihood of success. The
geoduck management plan, for example, has stressed
Constant data collection, surveying, and analysis
Comprehensive site selection process
Rotation of leased harvest areas
Results
Summary
H1-11
-------
Limited entry licensing
Strict enforcement of regulations.
Its overall success can be attributed to efficient management,
cooperation among different agencies and user groups, and the
prospect of a steady revenue source for the regulatory participants.
For Additional Information
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Aquatic Lands
Research and Development Center, EX-12
Oiympia, WA 98504
(206) 586-0208
Department of Fisheries
115 General Administration Building
Oiympia, WA 98504
(206)545-6756
H1-12
-------
Case Study 3
Geographic Targeting
For Conservation
Waterfowl are excellent indicators of the environmental health of
wetlands ecosystems. Changes in waterfowl population and diver-
sity represent changes in the quality of their habitat. Over the past
200 years, 50% of the wetlands available to waterfowl in North
America have been lost due to the impact of human activities such
as dredging, filling, agriculture, and development. Toxic contamina-
tion, disease, and natural and introduced predators are also con-
tributing to the decline of waterfowl in North America.
The United States and Canada have been managing migratory
species for most of this century. More recently, treaties with
Mexico and other countries have strengthened the foundation of
international cooperation. Despite these tools, however, habitat
alterations by agriculture, urbanization, and industrial activities have
continued to reduce the distribution and abundance of many migra-
tory species. This case study presents a wetlands restoration plan
enacted by the United States and Canada in 1986 to slow and
reverse the decline of native waterfowl species.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) is
administered through six Joint Ventures, which organizationally may
cross international, Province, State, or local jurisdictional boun-
daries. Each Joint Venture brings together the appropriate govern-
mental, private, and environmental interests to pool resources and
information. The goal of the NAWMP is to restore waterfowl popul-
ations to levels that were common throughout the 1970s. This goal
Gulf Coast Joint
Venture Plan of the
North American
Waterfowl Manage-
ment Plan
Management Strategies
H1-13
-------
Mobile Bay
Initiative Area
is to be obtained through protection, enhancement, restoration, and
development of wetland habitat by coordinating management
activities on a wide scale.
The Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) encompasses the coastal
zones of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and the coa-
stal plains of Texas and Louisiana. The GCJV is administered
through the Office of the Coordinator (Figure H1-3), which is respo-
nsible for disseminating information, coordinating activities, and
facilitating project implementation. To allow site-specific manage-
ment based on local wetlands characteristics and land uses, the
GCJV includes six geographic Initiative Areas: Mobile Bay, Coastal
Mississippi Wetlands, Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands, Chenier
Plain, Texas Mid-Coast, and Laguna Madre. Included in these
wetlands habitats are coastal wetlands, barrier islands, estuarine
bays, sounds, lakes and ponds, and wetlands in adjacent agricul-
tural or rangeland areas.
Key management actions have focused on habitat acquisition,
conservation, and restoration. Some of the actions undertaken
include
Introduction of silviculture programs on private lands
Use of dredged material to prevent coastal erosion and protect
saltmarsh areas
Cooperation among private organizations, businesses, and
landowners to restore, maintain, and create waterfowl habitats
Leverage of other Federal programs to induce landowners to
restore, maintain, and create waterfowl habitats.
The management focus of the Mobile Bay Initiative Area is a com-
bination of wildlife, silviculture, and water-resource development
programs. A private-lands silviculture program has been developed
to minimize damage to waterfowl nesting and wintering habitat on
270,000 acres of swamp and bottomland hardwoods. The program
includes
Retaining buffer strips adjacent to streams that provide food
sources for waterfowl and brood habitat for wood ducks
Managing for habitat diversity through staggered cutting areas
and spread-out cuts
H1-14
-------
Implementation
Development
te Sector
MONITORING, EVALUATION & RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS
INITIATIVE AREAS
J_
[Laguna Hadrel
_L
Texas Mid-Coast
Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands
_L
Chenier Plain
J_
Mobile Bay
Coastal Mississippi Wetlands
INITIATIVE TEAMS
Figure H1-3. Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV) Administrative
Organization
Retaining dead snag trees in areas slated for cutting
Using aerial operations to remove cut trees and reduce
ground disturbances
Operating a wood duck nesting box program with the cooper-
ation of State/Federal governments, private organizations, and
landowners.
An agreement with a large paper manufacturing and processing
corporation has enabled the advancement of this program as has a
land-acquisition action used to increase the amount of waterfowl
habitat. Through a provision in the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, the Secretary of the Army was authorized to acquire
88,000 acres of wildlife habitat in Mississippi and Alabama to com-
pensate for the loss of habitat resulting from the construction of the
Tennessee - Tombigee Waterway.
H1-15
-------
Coastal Mississippi
Wetlands Initiative Area
II
Mississippi River
Coastal Wetlands
Initiative Area
Chenier Plain
Initiative Area
Habitat protection, acquisition, enhancement, restoration, and
development are the primary focus of this Initiative Area. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) plans to use dredged material to
prevent both coastal erosion and the further loss, and degradation
of waterfowl habitat on the Grand Batture Island Chain. This COE
project .will use material dredged from the widening of Pascagoula
Harbor to reconstruct the eroded Grand Batture Island Chain., This
reconstruction will help to protect the saltmarsh behind the island
from wave erosion. In addition, the Mississippi Department of
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, and the USFWS will conduct rotation-
al burning, create, potholeSj and introduce freshwater to create and
maintain waterfowl habitat. A silviculture management plan ,on
using private timber company lands has also been developed to
improve waterfowl habitat.
This Initiative Area stresses the use of waterfowl habitat conserva-
tion measures and land- -acquisition mechanisms. A private-lands
restoration program is in place with an accelerated technical assis-
tance program aimed at preserving, restoring, and/or enhancing the
waterfowl habitat. Included is the restoration of 35,000 acres of
drained wetlands that are currently being used for grazing and crop
production. Through the use of existing levees and pumps, these
farm areas may be restored to productive waterfowl brood areas by
flooding them on a 'seasonal basis. Annual payments and cost-
sharing incentives are provided by the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), administered by the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture. Under 10-year contracts, trie'CRP pays eligible landowners to
take highly erodible lands and farmed wetlands out of production,
establish vegetative cover, and install water control structures that
can restore shallow flooding.- Ducks Unlimited, Inc., a private or-
ganization, is also helping to acquire about 4000 private acres and
enhance waterfowl habitat on 25,000 acres of public land. A num-
ber of public works projects will also reduce the loss of waterfowl
habitats and restore wetlands." ':.' : : v -
Land acquisition and habitat restoration and enhancement are the
primary measures of waterfowl management in this Initiative Area.
The goal is to eventually acquire 109,000 acres of high-value water-
fowl habitat and to restore drained wetland areas. Landowners are
H1-16
-------
eligible for payments to restore drained wetlands through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Water Bank Program and possibly by
the implementation of a wetland-restoration easement program.
Other projects and programs in this Initiative Area include funding
through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the USFWS to
help landowners to flood drained Wetlands during the winter to
create waterfowl feeding areas/Public works projects by the
COE, State, and local governments, to help to reduce saltwater
intrusion are to be expanded and accelerated. Ducks Unlimited,
Inc., Will also help to increase the value of 100,000 acres of water-
fowl habitat through the Matching Aid to Restore States' Habitat
(MARSH) Program. This program contributes funds, on a 50/50
matching basis, to State wildlife agencies, for acquisition and
development of waterfowl habitat projects. ,
The greatest potential for improved waterfowl management in this
Initiative Area is on privately owned wetlands and agricultural lands.
A planned private-wetlands restoration project includes
Supplying technical assistance to landowners
, .Supporting legislation to provide tax incentives to landowners
Coordinating acquisition, development, and enhancement of
wetlands through conservation organizations
Expediting permitting procedures for wetland enhancement
projects ,, . .
Assisting private landowners to secure more equitable water
rights for wildlife uses
Ensuring that programs under .the Department of Agriculture
Federal Farm Program are beneficial to wildlife.
Also under way is a research project that integrates winter water-
fowl management and ranching and farming practices on a demon-
stration area of the Texas A&M University farm. Other programs
within this Initiative Area include land acquisition, working with
regulatory agencies to solve saltwater intrusion problems, and
accelerating waterfowl habitat development on National wildlife
refuges,and State wildlife management areas.
Texas Mid-Coast
Initiative Area
Hi-ir
-------
Laguna Madre
Initiative Area
II
Summary
The protection of approximately 130,000 acres of wintering water-
fowl habitat has been identified as the priority of this Initiative Area.
Another goal is to increase waterfowl habitat on publicly owned
wetlands. Key management actions in this area include public-
works projects to control water on Laguna Atascosa National Wild-
life Refuge and the enhancement and, restoration of the seagrass
beds in Laguna Madre. Other measures being taken to enhance
wintering waterfowl habitat include coordination with the Depart-
ment of Agriculture to
Ensure that farm programs .benefit waterfowl
Provide increased technical assistance for wetland restoration
and enhancement
Encourage tax incentives for wetland restoration
Expedite permitting and water-rights processes
Develop a landowner demonstration project.
The restoration of former wetlands may be funded through the
Water Bank Program and habitat easement programs.
The goal of the NAWMP is to protect, restore, and enhance water-
fowl habitats. Many of the areas targeted for management action
within the NAWMP are also sites included in the NEP and they
therefore complement NEP objectives. Along with the importance
of estuaries to waterfowl, estuaries are important nursery areas for
marine and freshwater fish and provide a major economic contribu-
tion to the finfish and shellfish industries. Local communities also
depend on healthy estuaries for recreational and economic resour-
ces. The management strategies used for the NAWMP can be
adapted and refined for use with the NEP sites.
Cooperation among the agencies involved in habitat management
is essential to the success of the program. The NAWMP has dealt
with State or local jurisdictional conflicts on management strat-
egies, regulations, and other issues. Involvement by the State
personnel, local authorities, the business community, and con-
cerned citizens in the decision-making process promotes under-
standing, helps to lessen conflicts, and promotes management
solutions.
H1-18
-------
Interaction among Federal agencies also has proven to be of sub-
stantial help. Targeted incentive programs from the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture and its Water Bank Program, the CRP, and
other habitat easement programs have resulted in larger areas of
land suitable for waterfowl. The use of public works projects, such
as the Grand Batture Island Restoration Project conducted by the
COE, can be incorporated into the CCMPs of the NEP sites at
minimal cost.
Community involvement in the NAWMP has contributed to the
success of the plan. Each Initiative Area has a public outreach
program to keep the local community informed of new programs
and incentives. Private programs, such as the Ducks Unlimited,
Inc., MARSH program, can also provide assistance to the NEP
sites. Community involvement and private organizations increase
public involvement and awareness of living resources problems and
provide support toward achieving solutions.
For Additional information
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
819 Taylor Street, Rm 9A33
Fort Worth, TX 76102
(817)334-2961
H1-19
-------
-------
Appendix H2
Catalog of Federal
Living Resources
Management Programs
Appendix H2 is a catalog of Federal authorities and programs that
could support living- resources management and habitat-protection
goals and objectives of National Estuary Program (NEP)
management conferences. Key elements are outlined and the
relevant lead agency is identified.
It is important to recognize that this catalog has limitations,
however. The catalog does not cover State or local authorities and
programs, which in some cases could be highly significant. Nor
does it include all potentially relevant Federal authorities and
programs. To be totally comprehensive, it would be necessary to
list every Federal pollution control statute and program; every
Government or Federal agency-specific pronouncement of resource
conservation or environmental policy; every natural resource and
environmental research and monitoring program; and every habitat
and resource management, protection, and acquisition authority
and activity.
Instead, what has been done, is to identify the
1. Roles of the key Federal agencies, including some of
the major living-resources management and habitat-
protection programs that they administer
2. Major resource-specific programs for managing and
protecting key categories of living resources (i.e., finfish,
shellfish, mammals, and waterfowl and other birds) and
coastal habitat (i.e., wetlands, estuaries, barrier islands,
and marine sanctuaries)
3. Most relevant broader regulatory and resource
management statutes and programs (e.g., Clean Water
Act; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act;
Coastal Zone Management Act; Submerged Lands Act;
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; Endangered Species
Act; Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; and Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).
H2-1
-------
Federal Agency
Roles and
Programs
II
Resource-Specific
Programs
Broad Regulatory
and Resource
Management
Programs
Table H2-1 (Key Federal Agency Roles) identifies the major
living-resources management and habitat-protection programs that
are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (within the
Department of Commerce), the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (within the Department of the Interior), the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (within the Department of the Army), the
Food and Drug Administration (within the Department of Health
and Human Services), the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Transportation, and the Council on Environmental
Quality (within the Executive Office of the President). The table
indicates the nature and scope of the major relevant programs
administered by these agencies, along with the legislative
authorities under which they are carried out.
Table H2-2 (Resource-Specific Programs) lists the major legislative,,
programs that are geared specifically to particular living-marine
resource and habitat-protection objectives. The accompanying
matrix indicates each program's major thrust: regulatory, funding;
acquisition, research and monitoring, or management, or a
combination of these. Also specified, is the lead agency (or
agencies) concerned with program administration.
The programs included in this table range from broad, national
programs (e.g., the Marine Mammal Protection Act) to
geographically limited programs (e.g., Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act). Although the listing is not exhaustive, most
major programs have been identified.
Table H2-3 (Broad Regulatory and Resource Management
Programs) identifies the miscellaneous national programs (eig., the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Submerged Lands Act)
that do not necessarily fit neatly into one of the other two
categories of programs (see Tables H2-1 and H2-2). Information is
provided on the lead agency and program scope.
H2-2
-------
Conclusion
Appendix H2 is an overview of the more significant Federal
living-resource management or coastal habitat-protection programs
that have potential relevance to the development of management
plans for NEP estuaries. Tables H2-1 through H2-3 provide users
access to the information that they need in at least three different
ways: by affected resource, by lead agency, and by statutory
authority.
The CCMP must address living-resources management and habitat
protection as integral elements. Knowledge of the applicable
Federal statutory and regulatory framework is, clearly, essential to
accomplishing this objective. Appendix H2 was designed to provide
users with a "road map" for identifying and acquiring the detailed
knowledge that they will need.
H2-3
-------
Table H2-1. Key Federal Agency Roles
FEDERAL AGENCY
Environmental
PntecUDi Agency
(H>«
Department af
Tniispntatioa
(DOT)
tCOPEOFUVHG-
KSOURCE MANAGEMENT/
HABITAT-
fBOTICTKS RESf OSSraUTY
Protect, maintain, restore, and
enhance water quality
Avoid unreasonable degradation
or endangerment of the marine
environment or public health
Regulate the introduction inio
commerce of new hazardous
chemical substances and
mixtures; avoidance of
unreasonable risk of injury to
health or environment
Regulate pesticide chemicals
Protect coastal waters from litter
and pollution
Conserve marine lite
Protect coastal water from litter
and pollution
Enforcement of fisheries laws
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
Clean Water Act (Pi. 92-500), ,
33U.S.C.1251elseq.
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (P.L 92-532), 33
U.S.C. 1401 el set)., as amended
by the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of
1988(P.L100-688)
Toxic Substances Control A&
(P.L 94-469), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
RodentWde Act (P.L. 92-516),
7US.C.136etseq.
Shore Protection Act of 1988
(P.L 100-688), 33 U.S.C. 1401 et
seq.
Reels for Marine Life Conservation
(P.L 92-402). National Fishing .
Enhancement Ad of 1984 (P.L
96-623), 16 U5.C.1220-1220d.
Marine Plastic Pollution Research
and Control Act of 1987 (P.L
100-220). 33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.
(Magnuson) Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (PI.
94-265), 16U.S.C.1801 el seq.
MAJOR PROGRAMS
1. National Estuary Program (§320)
2. Discharge permits (NPDES) program (§402)
3. Oil and hazardous substance spills (§ 31 1)
4. Toxic (priority) pollulantand prelreatment
program (§307)
5. Ocean discharge program [§§ 301 (h), 403)
6. Nonpoint source control program (§ 31 9)
7. Chesapeake flay Programs 117)
8. Combined sewer overflows in estuaries (§ 205)
9. Individual control strategies lor toxic pollutants
(§304)
10. ln-placepollutants(§115)
1 1 . Disposal of dredge and fill materials (§ 404)
1 . Permits for ocean dumping of municipal and industrial
wastes (§102)
2. Site designation of ocean dumpsiles for wastes and
dredged material [§102(c)l
3. Veto of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permits
lor dredged material ocean dumping (§ 103)
4. Ban on ocean dumping of sewage sludge or industrial
waste alter 1991 (§1046)
1. Regulation of hazardous chemlcal'substances and
mixtures (§6)
2. Health end environmental data on toxic substances
(§10)
3. Regulation of PCBs[§6(e)l
1 . Denial or cancellation of registrations of pesticides
whose use would/does cause lish contamination
2. Collect data on pesticides that may be causing fish
contamination
3. Selling of action levels or tolerances lor unavoidable
pesticide contaminants In fish and shellfish (Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act § 408)
1 . Permitting of vessels that transport municipal or
commercial waste in coastal waters (§ 4102)
2. Regulation of waste-handling practices by waste
sources, vessels and receiving facilities lo minimize
deposition of waste into coastal waster (§4103)
Use of obsolete ships as artificial reefs for the
conservation of marine life
Implements MARPOL Annex V
Prohibits overboard disposal of garbage in coastal
waters in violation of MARPOL restrictions
Requires port reception facilities for shipboard
garbage
Enforcement of restrictions on commercial fishing
within the fishery conservation zone (Exclusive
Economic Zone) (§311)
H2-4
-------
Table H2-1. Key Federal Agency Roles (continued)
score OF UVHS-
RESOURCEWUOlSEKtKT/
HUmiT-
rasiM.«B!CY ftraTECTOHR£src3Knjs.rTY
National Dannie Natural resource trustee for: marine
anl fltonespharic fishery resources and supporting
MmlckbaHon ecosystems; anadromous fish;
(I9AA) certain endangered species and
marine mammals; National Marine
Sanctuaries; and Estuarine
Research Reserves
Marine mammals
Anadromousfish
Threatened and endangered
species and their critical habitats
Marine fisheries-
Marine sanctuaries
, . .Protection of coastal natural
resources, including wetlands,
floodplains, estuaries, beaches,
dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs
and fish and wildlife and Iticir
hdbitst
lEESUTNEAinHOfinr
CERCIA (P.L 96-510), 42 U.S.C.
9607(0.9601(16)
Clean Water Act (P.L 92-500), 33
U.S.C. 1321 (0(5)
Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (P.L 92-522), 16 U.S.C. 1361
etseq.
Fur Seal Act of 1 966 (P.L 89-702),
16U5.C.1151 etseq.
Whale Conservation and Protection
Study Act (Pi. 94-532)
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act
of 1965 (P.L 89-304), 16 U.S.C.
757a-757g
Salmon & Steethead Conservation
and Enhancement Act of 1980 (Pi.
96-561), 16 U.S.C. 3301-3345
Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Pi. 93-205), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.)
Magnuson Fishery Conservation
And Management Act of 1976 (P.L
94-265) 16 U.S.C. 1801 etseq.
Inlerjurisdictional Fisheries Act (P.L
99-659). 16 U.S.C. 4101-4107
North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954
(P.L 85-114). 16 U.S.C. 1021-1032
North Pacific Halibut Act oM982,
16U.S.C,772-773k
Marine, Protection. Research and
Sanctuaries Act (Title III) (P.L
92-532), 16 U.S.C. 1431-1439
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1 972 (Pi. 92-583); 16 U.S.C. 1451
etseq. ,
MAJOR PROGRAMS
1. Natural Resources Damage Assessment ,
Program [CERCIA, §107(0; CWA, § 311(0)
2. RemedialAc!ionPrograrn(CERClA,§104) " *
Prohibition or strict regulation of the direct or indirect
taking or importation of marine mammals
Prohibition of the taking of fur seals on lands or
waters under U.S. jurisdiction
Comprehensive studies of whales in waters subject
. to U.S. jurisdiction
Conservation, development and enhancement of
anadromous fishery resources
Management and enhancement of salmon and
Sleelhead stocks
Insurance that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by any Federal agency is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or result in he
destruction oradvefse modification of habitat
critical to such species (§ 7) (covers marine species)
Conservation of fish slocks throughout a 200-mile
U.S. Fishery Conservation Zone through the
development Fishery Management Plans by eight
regional Fishery Management Councils
Promote and encourage management of
inlerjurisdUonal fishery resources throughout their
range
Enforcement of the International Convention for the
High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean
Enforcement of the Convention between tie U.S.
and Canada for the Preservation of tie Halibut .
Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
National Marine Sanctuaries Program
1 . Coastal zone management program grants (§ 305)
2. CZMP administrative grants (§306)
3. Review and approval of State CZMPs(§ 306)
4. Resource Management Improvement Grants (§ 306A)
5. Federal Consistency Determination (§307)
6. Coastal Energy Impact Program (§308)
7. Interstate grants (§309)
8. Review of Stale performance (§ 312)
9. Natural Estuarine Reserve Proqram(§ 315)
H2-5
-------
Table H2-1. Key Federal Agency Roles (continued)
FSBUlMBCr
U.S.Fbku<
WlUtlfo Settles
(BSFWSJaaJ
DtpntMltlf
ttslitetlir
SCOKOFUVMG-
lEJOURCEMUUffiHEW
IUMMT-
PROIECraNRESPMSBUTY
Natural resource trustee lor:
migratory birds; certain anadromous
fish, endangered species, and
marine mammals; and certain
Federally managed water resources
Land and water conservation
Coastal barrier Islands
Threatened and endangered
species and their critical habitat
Estuarine areas
Fish and wildlife conservation
Migratory birds
Wetlands conservation
lEGBUTIVIMITMMin
CERCLA (P.L 96-510), 42 U.S.C.
9607(0,9601(16)
Clean Water Act (P.L 92-500), 33
U.S.C.1321(fX5)
Land and Water Conservation
FundAct(PI.68-578),16U.S.C.
460H-460H1
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of
1882 (Pi. 97-348), 16 US.C.
3501-3510
Endangered Species Act of 1973
(P.L 93-205), 16 U.S.C. 1531-1543
Esluarine Areas Act (P.L.
90-454),16 U.S.C. 1221 el seq.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
of1958(P.LB5-624).16U.S.C.
661-666C
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act
of 1980 (P.L 96-366), 16 U.S.C.
2901etseq.
Fish Restoration and Management
Projects Act (P.L 91-503) 16 U.S.C.
777-777I
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act (P.L 91-135), 16
U.S.C.668dd
Migratory Birds Hunting Stamp Act
(PI. 85-585), 16 U.S.C. 718-71 8h
Migratory Bird Conservation Act
(P.L 87-812), 16 U.S.C.715-715S
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (PI.
66-732) 16 U.S.C. 701-711
North American Wetlands
Conservation Act (P.L 1 01-233)
MUORKOGIUMS
1 . Natural Resources Damage Assessment Program
[CERCLA,§107(f),CWA.'§311(f)J
2. Remedial Action Program (CERCLA, § 104)
Establishment of fund to acquire land, waters,
or Interests In land or waters to promote
outdoor recreation opportunities
1. Establishment of coastal barrier resources system
2. Coverage of undeveloped coastal barriers, including
associated aquatic habitats
3. Restriction of Federally subsidized development of
underdeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts
Insurance that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by any Federal Agency is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence ol any endangered
or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of habitat critical to such species
(§7) (covers nonmarine species)
Conservation of estuarine areas
Consultation when Federal agency or Federal
permittee proposes to modify a body of water
Conservation and promotion of nongame fish
and wildlife and their habitats, including grants
to Stales
Funding of State programs for the restoration
and management of fishery resources
Resource management programs for fish and
wildllile habitat
Use of hunting stramp funds for acquisition of
bird refuges and waterfowl production areas
Acquisition ol areas for the management and
protection ol migratory birds
Prohibitions against the taking ol migratory
birds protected under treaties with Great
Britain, Mexico, and Japan
1. Funding for purchase ol critical wetlands in the U.S.,
Canada and Mexico
2. Matching funds forwetlands conservation projects
In North America
H2-6
-------
Table H2-1. Key Federal Agency Roles (continued)
FEDERAL AGEBCr
Otter Depirtnent
if tho Interior
(DOI)
Council en
Emlremnerial
Quality (CEO)
SCOPE OF UVHS-
RESOURCEIUUUGCMQIT/
HUBITAT-
P80TECT1W SSPONSBIUTY
Development of outer continental
shell, subject to environmental
safeguards
Rights ol States ovar submerged
land and natural resources
beneath navigable waters within
State boundaries
Major Federal actions significantly
affecting environmental quality
LEGBUTtVI/UITHOnrrY
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
(P.L 93-627). 43 U.S.C.1331et
seq.
Submerged Lands Act (P.L
99-272), 43 U.S.C. 1301 el seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
(P.L 91-190). 42 U.S.C. 4321 el
seq.
MAJOR FROGRAMS
1 . Environmental studies lor assessment and
management of DCS oil development impacts (§ 20)
2. Consideration of available relevant environmental .
information in making decisions (§20)
3. Preparation of environmental impact statements on .
major development and production plans (§ 25)
U.S. rights and interests in lands and national
resources within the 3-Mile limit transferred to
(tie States
1. Review environmental impact statements
2. Promulgate regulations
3. Mediate interagency disputes
H2-7
-------
Table H2-1. Key Federal Agency Roles (continued)
. FBBULAGSBr
U.S.Aimy Clips
afEiflnems
(OK)
Fsotf and Drug
AtoltiitnUi.
(FDA) and
DefartfflraUf
HnlUjwHinin
Senins
(DHKS)
Department if
Airinitne
(U$BA)
KOI>EOFUVWG-
KSOWCE MUUGEMBIT/
MBITAT-
PttOTHrnoHRESPMISIBnJTY
Wetlands protection
Wetlands creation
Beach nourishment
Avoiding obstructions to navigation
Regulation ol dredged material
ocean dumping
Fish and wildlife mitigation
HeaitMulness o! fish and shellfish
marketed in interstate commerce
Control of pollution of surface
waters owing to agricultural runotT
Wetlands protection
UGlSUTIVtMITXItniTr
Clean Water Act (§404)
(PL 92-500), 33 U.S.C.1 251 et
seq.
Water Resources Development Act
of 1976 (§ 150) (P.L 94-587),
42U.S.C.1962d-5e
Water Resources Development Act
0(1976 (§150) (P.L 94-567),
42U.S.C.1962d-5l
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation
Act 0(1899, 33 U.S.C. 401
Marine Protection Research and
Sanctuaries Act (§103) (P.L
92-532), 33 U.S.C. 1401 el seq.
Water Resources Development Act
0(1986 (§905) (P.L 99-622), 33
U.S.C.2201.2283
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1958 (P.L 85-624), 16 U.S.C.
661-6660
Federal Fond, Drug and Cosmetic
Act,21U.S.C.301-392
Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.
201 etseq.
P.L. 89-304,1 6 US.C. 7571
Department of Agriculture Organic
Aclo(16U.S.C.500etseq.
Water Bank Acl(P.L 91-559), 16
U.S.C. 1301-1311, 1501, 1503
Food Security Act 011985 (P.L
99-198), 16U.S.C.3801 etseq.
MUORKOGiWtS
Dredge and lill permits
Authority to establish wetland areas as part ol an
authorized water resources development project
Authority to utilize suitable dredged material for
beach nourishment
Regulation of construction activities in and
adjoining navigable waters which alter the
course, condition, location, or capacity ol such
waters
1. Issuance ol ocean dumping permits (§103)
2. Ocean dumpsite selection (§ 1 03)
Mitigation of fish and wildlife losses associated
witti authorized water resources projects,
including the acquisition of lands or Interests in
lands
Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Setting standards ol quality lor foods, including
seafood (§401)
2. Setting action levels and tolerances lor
unavoidable contaminants in foods, including
seafood (§406)
1. Federal assistance la States in preventing the
interstate transmission of disease (§361)
2. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Program
Enforcement action to eliminate or reduce
polluting substances detrimental to fish and
- wildlife in interstate or navigable waters
1. Nonpoint Source Contaminants Research
2: Habitat Modification Program
(Mitigation ol adverse effects ol land
management activities)
3. Point source contaminants program
(investigation of chemicals in bottom sediments)
Preserve, restore, and Improve wetlands;
conservation easements
Wetlands conservation program
(§§3821-3823)
H2-8
-------
Table H2-2. Resource-Specific Programs
RemccW
Kncac* Ugitlittntagnm UatUsmej tegtiatofr Funding AKjnWtM Monitoring Mwapmit
Fish Ansdromous fish
Conservation Act
Salmon & Steelhead
Conservation & Enhancement
Act
North Pacific Fisheries Act of
1954
North Pacific Halibut Act of
1962
Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and
Management Act
National Fishing Enhancement
Act of 1984
Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act
Fish Restoration and
Management Project Act
Atlantic Salmon Conservation
Act ot 1982 (P.L 97-389), 16
U.S.C. 3601-3608
Atlantic Sirred Bass
Conservation Act (P.L
89-304), 16 U.S.C. 7578
Atlantic Tunas Conservation
Actof1975,16U.S.C971-
9711
Tuna Conventions Act of 1 950,
16U.S.C.951-961
Central, Western, and Sotifh
Pacific Fisheries Development
Act16U.S.C.758e-758e-5
Commercial Fisheries Research
and Development Act 011964,
16U.S.C.742c,779-779l
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation Establishment Act,
16 U.S.C. 3701 -3709
Pacific Salmon Treatv Act of
1985, 16 U.S.C. 3631-3644
NOAA
USFWS
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
DOT
NOAA
USFWS
NOAA
USFWS
Dept of Stale,
NOAA
Dept of State.
NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
USFWS
DepL of State,
NOAA
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
tt
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H2-9
-------
Table H2-2. Resource-Specific Programs (continued)
IUWMLW UQuSiuvt Tityttn
SfcellliJh National Shellfish Sanitation
Program
Manwals Marine Mammal Protection
Act
Fur Seal Act
Whale Conservation and
Protection Study Act
Waterfowl art Migratory Bird Conservation
Otter Birds Act
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp
Act
Wetlands North American Wetlands
Conservation Act
Water Resources
Development Act (Wetlands
Creation)
Water Bank Act
Food Security Actof 1985
S^1"8 CfeanWaterAct
(National Estuary Program)
Coastal Zone Management
Act (National Estuarlne
Reserve Program)
Esojarire Areas Act
Barrier blaads Coaslal Barriers' Resources
3Sa Act, 16 U.S.C. 3501-3510
Marine Marine Protection, Research,
Sanctuaries and Sanctuaries Act
RnsarcW
t»ad»9«ncr Rggulitorf Funtloj AcquMtlon HoiltalDj Mmgmit
FDA
NOAA
NOAA
NOM
USFWS
USFWS
USFWS
USFWS
COE
USDA
USDA
EPA
NOAA
USFWS
USFWS
NOM
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H2-10
-------
Table H2-3. Broad Regulatory and Resource
Management Programs
BOMKh/
Rssotnt legtelatrre Program Uad Agency Bojiilatorf funding Acajiteltion
Surlaca waters,
traflands, and Clean Water Act
Ocean waters Marine project^ Research,
Sola aml Sanctuaries Act(ntle 1)
r^Hint, Coastal Zone Management
Act
toSSff Submerged UndsAct
tarrtlllcbiata
JBMTCK ol Outer Continental Shell
tin outer UndsAct
continental shell
Endangered species
and ttelr critical Endangered Species
Habitat Act
FfenaBdwIldnie .. ...
habitat CoordinatlonAct
satatfol Food, Drug & Cosmetic
coRnnaricBUy Act
and snclltM products TSCA.FIFRA
EPA
COEtS-lM)
EPA
COE
NOAA
Minerals
Management
Service
Minerals
Management
Service
USFWS,
NOAA
USFWS
FDA
X
X
X
X '
X
X
X
X
X
Monitoring
X
X
X
X
Mgnagensnt
X
X
X
X
x
X
H2-11
-------
-------
Appendix 1
Tools to Manage Land
and Water Resources
This appendix of A Primer for Establishing and Managing
Estuary Projects introduces some of the more common
management tools used to protect land and water resources.
The Primer, which describes the National Estuary Program's
origins, statutory provisions, and approach, is designed for
EPA's program and regional offices, coastal states, and other
interested parties. For more information, contact an EPA
regional office.
In light of increasing pressure from population growth and
development, improved management of land and water
resources is critical to the health of estuarine ecosystems.
By the year 2000, it is expected that nearly 75 percent of the
nation's population will live within 50 miles of a coast.
Florida's coast, for example, is being settled at the rate of
3,000 to 4,000 people per week. Rapid population growth
and accompanying development place increasing and
substantial stress on land and water resources. The
influence of these forces on the health of estuarine
ecosystems is now widely recognized. For instance, a recent
report to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, "Population
Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
to the Year 2020,' emphasizes that efforts to address growth
and development in the Chesapeake Bay region are currently
inadequate to curb the harmful effects of pollution and
congestion on the estuary.
To effectively address problems associated with growth and
development, estuary conferences must become familiar with
the range of management tools used to confront and combat
threats to land and water resources. This Appendix provides
an overview of methods that may be employed to manage
the use of land and water in an estuarine watershed. The
particular tools or combinations of tools selected will vary
greatly from estuary to estuary. This Appendix does not
cover all tools and combinations. Rather, it is intended to
equip Estuary Conferences with a checklist of actions and
factors to consider when formulating Action Plans; Experts
and additional guidance documents should be consulted for
further information and advice on appropriate tools for a
particular estuary.
An Overview
n
-------
Tools to Control
Nonpoint Source
Pollutant Loadings
to Estuaries
The discussion is organized into three major sections: (1) Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to combat nonpoint source
problems, (2) land use tools and conservation measures to
manage, reduce, and prevent harmful impacts of population
growth and development, and (3) regulatory programs and other
mechanisms to address point source pollutant loadings to
estuaries. These distinctions should be interpreted loosely,
however, since a particular tool may sometimes be used
effectively to address more than one type of problem. Where
available, examples are cited to illustrate a tool's application.
Some sources for further information are also listed.
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution occurs when runoff following
rainfall or snowmelt transports sediment and other pollutants to
a river, lake, or estuary. For many estuaries, NFS pollution poses
the fastest-growing and most pervasive threat to water quality
and the overall health of the ecosystem. Although background
sources contribute part of the problem, nonpoint pollution results
primarily from a variety of human activities. Major sources of
nonpoint pollution include:
o Agricultural areas, including both cropland and
animal waste, feeding, and grazing areas;
o Urban areas;
o Construction sites;
o Mining sites; and
o Silviculture or forestry areas.
Although pollutants transported in runoff vary with both the
source and the terrain over which runoff travels, sediment
(comprised of sand, silt, clay and organic material) is the largest
constituent by volume. Other common nonpoint source
pollutants include:
o Nutrients, primarily phosphorus and nitrogen, from
septic systems and from fertilized lawns, parks, and
golf courses;
o Bacteria, primarily from animal waste, sewage, and
septic systems;
o Oil and grease from parking lots, roads, and service
stations; and
o Trace metals, such as lead, copper, cadmium,
chromium, zinc, arsenic, iron, and mercury, from
worn pipes, roofing materials, paints, and numerous
other sources.
The impacts of nonpoint source pollution are particularly severe
in slower-flushing lakes, streams, and estuaries. Pollutants
delivered to estuaries may build-up in bottom sediment and
remain for long periods of time. Excess nutrients cause algae
12
-------
Wooms and accelerate eutrophication; oil, grease, and trace
metals can be poisonous to aquatic life and may
contaminate drinking water supplies; and chemicals in
fertilizers, pesticides, and household products pose threats
to human and aquatic health.
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act recognized
that the control of NPS pollution requires flexible, site-
specific, and source-specific measures. For this reason, it
mandates a framework for action rather than a set of
required activities or standards. Under Section 319 of the
Act, this framework requires each state to assess and report
on the extent of its NPS problems and to develop an NPS
management program. The assessment reports must
identify:
o Navigable waters needing NPS control to attain
or maintain water quality standards or goals;
o Categories and subcategories of NPS pollutants
affecting these waters;
o Processes for identifying necessary NPS controls
and for reducing NPS pollution; and
o State and local programs for implementing NPS
controls.
Based on these assessments, the states must then develop
NPS management programs that:
o Identify appropriate BMPs for nonpoint sources
characterized in the assessment;
o Develop programs to implement BMPs, including
schedules and milestones; and
o Identify existing authorities to implement the
program(s), as well as federal, state, and local
funding sources for program implementation.
These requirements under Section 319 can be valuable in
helping NEP Management Conferences build on existing
state NPS activities.
NPS control activities generally include:
o Targeting controls to priority areas in the
watershed that actively contribute to water quality
problems. Targeting pollution control to critical
areas within the watershed ensures greater
efficiency in abating pollution.
Implementation
13
-------
Offering cost-sharing to defray part of the investment
and/or operating costs of implementing BMPs. This
is a critical component in most agricultural nonpoint
source control efforts. Cost-sharing provides added
incentive for farmers to install pollution control
equipment, particularly when controls benefit the
environment but are costly to the farmer.
Providing technical assistance and training to ensure
the proper use and maintenance of BMPs.
Educating the public about nonpoint source
problems, and about the impact of certain activities
or land uses on water quality.
Supporting NPS efforts with regulatory and
enforcement backup. Although most NPS programs
are voluntary, some government entities, particularly
at the local level, have implemented regulatory
programs. Activities at construction sites, for
example, are often regulated by local ordinances that
require BMP implementation and site planning.
Mining and forestry activities that can lead to NPS
pollution may also be regulated by laws or
ordinances. The effectiveness of regulatory
programs, however, is influenced by how vigorously
the laws and ordinances are enforced. Weak
enforcement, due to staff or resource problems, can
reduce considerably the benefits of regulatory efforts.
States also may choose to use their generafpermtt
authority through the NPDES program to control
certain similar nonpoint sources. Some states rjave
incorporated nonpoint source permits into the existing
State regulatory structure. "Florida, for example,
regulates surface water storage and attendant runoff
problems fn the South Florida. Water Management
District. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental
Resources regulates earth disturbances involving
greater than 26 acres, and the State of Maryland has
introduced erosion and "'sediment controls as
requirements for a variety of operating permits.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Coastal Water Programs Handbook praft).
Washington, D.C.: February, 1990.
Sponsoring demonstration projects to show the
benefits and operation of particular BMPs. The most
effective demonstration projects concentrate on
showing clear results, rather than simply showing
14
-------
how to implement a particular BMP.
Demonstration projects may also evaluate
existing management practices to determine the
conditions under which each practice is most
effective.
Numerous projects to demonstrate new and
innovative management practices have been
Implemented around the country, including the
following;
o Indian Town Farm, along the Chester
River fn Maryland, was the location of
a project to demonstrate the effect of
agricultural BMPs on water quality.
-The project: educated locaf farm
communities about the costs of '
installing BMPs and their effects on
farm Income, and about the effects of
BMPs on water quality,
o Also m Maryland, urban
demonstration projects have included
several projects to demonstrate the
effectiveness of shallow marshes to
improve infiltration and the control of
stormwater pollutants. In Queen
Anne's County, state officials
constructed an artificial marsh at a
local high school. Students and
teachers learned about NPS pollution,
and the natural cleaning ability of
wetlands, white doing part of the
actual planting,
o In Virginia, demonstration projects for
urban NPS, control have Included
monitoring the effects of porous
asphalt pavement and infiltration
trenches on water quality; the use of
porous pavement on parking lots; and
a stream stabilization project using
willow trees and other woody plants
to bind soil and improve drainage.
Monitoring during and after the implementation of
BMPs to ensure they are properly installed and
adequately maintained, as well as to provide
feedback about the effect of BMPs on water
quality.
15
-------
Management
Practices
There are literally hundreds of BMPs and combinations of BMPs
used to address NPS problems. What follows is a brief overview
of more common BMPs to address the most pervasive sources:
runoff from agricultural, urban, and construction areas.
Additional sources include runoff from abandoned mining areas
and from silviculture or forestry activities. Although nonpoint
pollution from these sources is generally not as pervasive as
agricultural and urban sources, it nonetheless may cause serious
water quality problems.
Urban NPS
Pollution
Sources of urban runoff include rooftops, lawns, streets,
industrial sites, parking lots, and other pervious and impervious
surfaces. These contribute such pollutants as sediment from
construction sites; fertilizers and pesticides from lawns, gardens,
parks, and golf courses; salt and sand from winter de-icing
programs; and oils and heavy metals, primarily from automobiles.
In addition to degrading water quality, the sediment and debris
carried in urban runoff can clog sewers, stormwater control
systems, and waterways, increasing the chance of flooding.
The problems associated with urban NPS pollution can be
particularly acute in heavily populated, extensively developed
areas, where the high percentage of impervious surfaces
increases runoff volume. Managing runoff in heavily developed
areas, however, is often difficult and expensive. As a result, the
greatest progress is often made in newly developing or
undeveloped areas, where early planning and oversight can
control or avoid harmful impacts.
Management practices for urban nonpoint sources can include
both structural and nonstructural controls. Structural controls
generally require construction or installation of devices to capture
runoff, such as stormwater basins, porous pavement, and certain
sediment controls on construction sites. Nonstructural controls
typically emphasize good housekeeping practices and better
management of infrastructure and development, including rooftop
runoff controls and natural drainage systems.
Stormwater Basins
A variety of basins or ponds may be used to capture and hold
stormwater for varying lengths of time, thereby reducing or mini-
mizing runoff during heavy rainfall. These ponds or basins may
be retrofitted in established urban areas, but often space limit-
ations and the cost of siting and installation prohibit such efforts.
Installation of stormwater basins, therefore, is most feasible in
newly developing areas. Three types of basins commonly used
to manage stormwater runoff are described below.
-------
Detention basins are "dry" ponds designed to attenuate peak
runoff flow and reduce downstream flooding and erosion by
holding stormwater runoff until peak rainfall has subsided.
Detent/on Basins
Extended detention basins are designed to retain a
predetermined amount of stormwater for longer periods than
conventional detention ponds, and can be adjusted to allow
the slow release of water over a given time. Extended
detention ponds also allow sediment to settle, and may be
installed with aquatic vegetation to help filter pollutants from
runoff; however, detention ponds are not generally effective
in removal of soluble pollutants. Conventional detention
ponds can be converted to extended detention ponds at a
relatively small cost.
Extended Detention
Basins
The Dillon Reservoir provides more than half of
Denver's municipal water supply. Population
growth, particularly during the summer vacation
season, and the accompanying intensified land
uses led to excess nutrient levels and related
algae blooms. Phosphorus was identified as the
primary source of nutrient enrichment In the
reservoir. The Dillon Nonpoint Source Control
Demonstration Project compared nonpolnt source
controls with point source controls and
determined that holding ponds and an infiltration
ptt would reduce phosphorus loadings much
more cost-effectively than point source controls.
Source: industrial Economics, Incorporated,
"Dillon Reservoir Case Study/ September, 1983.
Wet ponds are designed to maintain a permanent pool of
water through controlled releases. If the basin is large
enough to allow the release of only a small amount of
overflow, these ponds can be extremely effective in
controlling sediment and other pollutants. Most contain
rooted vegetation, and the resulting biological processes are
very effective in the removal of dissolved nutrients.
Wet Ponds/
Retention Ponds
17
-------
The amount of maintenance required increases with the
sophistication of the basin. All require at least some
maintenance to remove sediments and other pollutants, and to
preserve the natural surroundings of the site. If runoff contains
harmful substances, infiltration may also lead to contamination of
soil and groundwater.
The success of all stormwater basins hinges on proper operation
and adequate maintenance. At a minimum, maintenance should
include:
o Periodic inspections;
o Removal of sediment and debris from basins and
channels;
o Maintenance of pipes and pumps;
o Mosquito control; and
o Control of vegetation, if used.
Porous Pavement
Porous pavement is designed to increase infiltration of runoff
water into the soil, thereby decreasing the volume and rate of
runoff in addition to removing some pollutants. Water infiltrates
the pores of a special permeable asphalt layer and enters a
system of underground reservoirs. The reservoirs filter some
pollutants from the runoff as it passes through to the underlying
soil or to perforated drainage pipes. To ensure proper operation,
it is important to maintain the pavement and filtering devices
against build-up of oil, grease, dirt, and other pollutants.
A study by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
found that porous pavement may remove as much or more
suspended sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, and bacteria from
runoff as detention and retention basins.
Managing Rooftop
Runoff
Directing runoff from gutters and rooftop downspouts away from
streets to grassy areas is a relatively simple yet effective tool in
controlling urban runoff. Directing runoff to grassy areas has two
important benefits: (1) runoff is diverted away from impervious
surfaces where it could transport pollutants; and (2) diversion to
natural drainage areas reduces the volume of runoff flow, and
allows paniculate pollutants to settle in the soil.
18
-------
Marshes, grasses, and other vegetation allow infiltration and
settling of sediments and potential pollutants. Installing
vegetative mounds along roadsides instead of curbs can
significantly impede the velocity and impact of stormwater
runoff, as can grass swales. Wetland areas can also serve
as natural detention ponds.
Construction activities can result in substantial amounts of
sediment that can clog storm sewer and infiltration systems,
and cause numerous water quality and flood problems.
Examples of BMPs at construction sites include:
(1) Protective vegetation to cover disturbed soil
during and after construction, reducing exposure
to the erosive forces of water and wind;
(2) Filter fences or straw bales placed around the
perimeter or in other critical areas of the site to
contain runoff; and
(3) Settling basins to catch and detain runoff long
enough for sediment to settle.
Because these BMPs can be expensive to builders or
developers, they rarely are voluntarily implemented. As a
result, many areas have amended state and local zoning and
building ordinances to include performance standards and
BMP requirements at construction sites.
Even where sediment and erosion control laws are in place,
sediment from public construction projects can present
serious problems. Highways are the single largest source of
construction erosion. Although highway construction
projects typically mandate the application of BMPs,
implementation varies from state to state and depends
largely on state enforcement mechanisms.
There are numerous ways that public and private actions can
reduce NPS pollution from stormwater runoff. Municipalities
can:
o Limit or reduce the amount of salt applied to
roads;
o Increase and improve street cleaning;
o Enforce litter controls;
o Coordinate leaf removal; and
o Promote public awareness of NPS problems.
Natural Drainage
Systems
Measures to Control
Soil Erosion on
Construction Sites
Good Housekeeping
Practices
19
-------
Madison, Wisconsin has introduced a comprehensive
set of programs to reduce pollutants in stormwater
runoff. The initiative includes a street-sweeping and
leaf pickup program, an ordinance prohibiting rubbish
in city streets, and a street-salt reduction program.
Madison has reduced the amount of salt used for de-
icing city streets by 50 percent since the mio>1970s.
As a result, chlorine tevels in the city's lakes are no
longer rising.
Private households can:
o Resod or seed bare patches of lawn to limit soil erosion;
o Plant shrubs or trees to increase infiltration;
o Use wood decks, interlocking stones, or bricks
instead of cement for walkways and patios;
o Reduce the use of pesticides and herbicides;
o Ensure that pesticides and fertilizers are used
properly and disposed of appropriately;
o- Use phosphate-free detergents;
o Properly manage and dispose of garden, yard, and
animal wastes; and
o Properly handle and dispose of oil and other toxic
substances.
Households can be encouraged to implement these practices
through the use of educational pamphlets and advertisements
that highlight the effects of poor housekeeping practices on
water quality. In addition, households may need guidance on
how to implement alternative yard and waste management
practices. NEP Management Conferences may coordinate with
state and local nonpoint source programs to raise public
awareness of nonpoint source problems and solutions.
110
-------
The Citizens Program for the Chesapeake Bay's
Bavbook: A <3uide to Reducing Water Pollution at
Home js an excellent guide that shows
homeowners how they can improve urban
housekeeping practices to improve the quality of
urban runoff* Copies of this publication are
available from the Citizens Program for the
Chesapeake Bay, Inc., 6600 York, Road,
Baltimore, Maryland 21212.
Agricultural
NFS Pollution
Agricultural runoff carries sediment, nutrients, toxics, and
other pollutants to streams, rivers, lakes, and estuaries.
Major sources include: (1) eroding cropland, (2) animal
barnyards and grazing, feeding, or waste areas, and (3)
chemical and nutrient applications. The specific volume and
type of pollutants carried in runoff from agricultural areas
depends on a number of variables, including:
o Local soil and hydrogeologic conditions;
o The type of crop planted;
o The method of planting used;
o The type, quantity, and frequency of nutrient or
pesticide applications; and
o The location and intensity of livestock activity.
Programs to address agricultural NPS problems have
generally been voluntary, emphasizing technical assistance,
training, and cost-sharing to promote the use of BMPs.
Agricultural BMPs vary widely in cost, relative effectiveness,
and degree of benefit to farmers. The success of a particular
BMP is not only measured by its absolute effectiveness in
controlling a particular pollutant, but also by its cost, its ease
of use, and its long-term impact on both crop yields and
water quality. The following factors are typically considered
when evaluating the effectiveness and appropriateness of
agricultural BMPs:
o What is the likely impact of the BMP on both
surface water and groundwater?
o How will the BMP affect sediment and nutrient
travel and loss?
o What is the crop history: type, yield, pattern?
What effect will the BMP have on future crop
yields?
o Is the BMP technically feasible?
o Is it economically viable?
Ill
-------
Below are some of the more common management practices
used to control pollutants from cropland and livestock areas.
The Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Extension Service, or
other entities that help farmers implement BMPs can provide
detailed information that reflects local conditions on the cost,
effectiveness, and overall feasibility of agricultural BMPs.
Successful BMPs to control agricultural runoff
address:
o The availability of pollutants. Large volumes of
pollutants on the soil surface can be more
easily detached and'carried in runoff. Better
nutrient and pesticide, management are
common BMPs to reduce the availability of
pollutants*
o The detachability of pollutants. If the soil
surface Is exposed, heavy rainfall can detach
soil particles and other pollutants bound to the
soil BMPs to reduce detachability generally
involve covering the soil surface with crop
residue or plants.,
o The solubility of pollutants. Water soluble
pollutants are easily transported in runoff,
BMPs that address pollutant solubility
encourage the use of fertilizers with a less
soluble or "slow release* form, which release ,,
nitrogen or phosphorus over an extended
period of time.
o The transportability of pollutants. The volume , ,
and type of pollutants that actually reach a
waterbody can be reduced by installing
devices to capture or slow pollutants as they
travel across the land. - -
Source: Adapted from U.S. - EPA; Region 3,
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, "Chesapeake Bay
Nonpolnt Source Programs,* January 1988, p,76,
Livestock Areas
Controlling pollution from barnyards, feedlots, grazing areas, and
waste storage areas can be as simple as covering the waste with
a tarp or storing it until needed. Other strategies include
diverting runoff away from concentrated waste areas or limiting
the access of livestock to critical areas.
112
-------
Streambank Fencing
Livestock grazing along streambanks can compact the soil,
destroy surface vegetation, increase the exposure of
streambanks to runoff, and introduce waste directly into the
stream. Constructing fences to prevent animals from grazing
along streambanks can reduce or eliminate problems.
To protect the streambanks of Wisconsin's Sugar
River watershed, the Dane County Conservation
League has focused heavily on slreambank
fencing. As a result, Mt. Vernon Creek and other
streams Sh the watershed have been restored
from marginal to Class I trout streams." To
provide public access, the League buys 20-year
easements from landowners for $1.00. tn return;
the League guarantees the landowner that It will
maintain fences and the streambank area for the
easement period.
Source: Anne Wetnberg and Jim Arts. LocaT
Government Options for Controlling Monpotnt
Source Pollution. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, 1981.
Diversion Methods
More complex animal waste management methods divert
rainwater runoff away from concentrated waste areas,
commonly by channelling rainwater around barnyard areas
to ponds or lagoons where it can infiltrate the soil or be
applied to other land areas. The most common diversion
practice is known as the "environmental eye" and utilizes a
two-part diversion system: (1) water is prevented from
crossing through the waste area through the construction of
channels upstream from the barnyard, and (2) channels or
ditches are constructed downstream from the barnyard to
divert runoff away from the stream or receiving waterbody.
113
-------
Dairy livestock wastes In the Ttllamook Bay, Oregon
drainage basin were creating severe bacterial
pollution, threatening to force closure of shellfish
beds. The cleanup plan organized for the bay relied
on two principles: (1) preventing rainwater and clean
surface water from coming into contact with manure,
and (2) preventing contaminated surface water from
reaching the streams or the bay. BMPs applied by
farmers included installing solid and liquid manure
storage facilities, roofing animal manure accumulation
areas, erecting streambank fencing, and managing
roofwater runoff. USDA's Rural Glean Water Program
provided over $4 million to the focal Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service to help dairy
owners implement these BMPs, Farmers from the
118 dairy farms themselves contributed over $3
million to support this effort. By 1985, sampling in
streams feeding Tillamook Bay showed that fecal
bacteria levels were down 15 to 30 percent
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Estuary
Program. *A Comprehensive Source Control Program
for Protecting Shellfish Waters; Citizen Action
Preserves Shellfish Resources," In Saving Bays and
Estuaries: A Handbook of Tactics. Washington, DC:
June 1988,
For more information, contact the Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, (503) 229-6035.
Cropland or
Farmland Erosion
Management
BMPs to control erosion from cropland depend on the type of
soil, type of crops, and the hydrogeologic conditions surrounding
the eroding area. There are four general categories of
agricultural BMPs:
o Conservation tillage practices;
o Modified cropping patterns;
o Structural erosion control measures; and
o Conversion of cropland to less intensive uses.
Selection of the most appropriate and successful management
practice(s) will generally require local expertise. The optimal mix
may vary considerably from area to area.
114
-------
Conservation Tillage
Erosion and sediment loss are closely associated with the
amount of exposed surface soil. Conventional tillage
practices invert the top layer of soil prior to planting, turning
the vegetated cover and exposing the soil. Conservation
tillage helps reduce erosion by leaving at least 30 percent of
the previous year's crop residue unfilled (uninvetted),
promoting increased infiltration and thereby decreasing
runoff. Types of conservation tillage include:
o No Till. The soil is undisturbed prior to planting, which
is done in a narrow seedbed approximately 1-3 inches
wide. Weeds are controlled primarily with herbicides.
o Ridge Till. Approximately one-third of previously
undisturbed soil surface is tilled at planting with
sweeps or a row cleaner. Seeds are then planted on
ridges that are usually 4-6 inches higher than the row
middles. A combination of herbicides and cultivation
is used to control weeds. Cultivation is used to rebuild
the ridges.
o Strip Till. Approximately one-third of previously
undisturbed soil surface is tilled at planting time.
Rows or strips are then tilled using a rototiller, in-row
chisel, or similar tool. A combination of herbicides and
cultivation is used to control weeds.
o Mulch Till. The soil surface is broken by tilling prior to
planting, but the top cover is not turned over. Tillage
tools such as chisels, field cultivators, discs, sweeps,
or blades are used. Weeds are controlled with a
combination of herbicides and cultivation.
o Reduced Till. Any tillage and planting system that
leaves at least 30 percent of existing plant residue
uninverted.
Source: Adapted from U.S. EPA, Region 3,
"Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs,"
January 1988, pp. 80-81.
Conservation tillage practices, particularly no-till, may require
increased pesticide or herbicide applications to control
weeds and insects, which may lead to surface water and
groundwater pollution. No-till, however, clearly provides the
greatest amount of protection against sediment erosion. In
light of these concerns, local USDA or soil and water
conservation experts can provide advice on the most
appropriate conservation tillage practice for any given area.
115
-------
the EPA and' USDA are studying the effects of
conservation tillage practices on groundwater and
surface water. The goal of this effort is to identify the
mix of management practices that best promotes
agricultural conservation without contributing to
nonpoint source pollution problems. The mix of
practices ~ conservation and nonpoint source - may
involve modifications to existing pollution or erosion
control practices.
Modified Cropping
Patterns
Structural Erosion
Control Measures
In addition to changing tillage practices, farmers can modify
cropping patterns to reduce NFS pollution. Effective alternative
cropping procedures include:
o Contour Farming. Tillage practices that follow the contour
of the field, perpendicular to the slope of the land, are
effective in reducing soil loss from stormwater runoff.
Tilling along the contour of the land increases infiltration
and decreases runoff velocity. Its effectiveness decreases
as the steepness of the slope increases; for longer slopes,
other methods such as diversion channels or terraces may
be needed. Crop yields will also vary depending on the
amount of rainfall and the period of time between rainfalls.
o Contour Strip Cropping. Row crops typically leave a large
portion of the land uncovered and allow water to flow
easily down the rows and off the field. For fields normally
planted with row crops, alternative strips can be planted
with close-grown crops such as grasses or legumes. This
practice promotes greater filtration and reduces the overall
velocity of runoff across the tilled area. Close-grown crops
may also improve the organic content of the soil,
improving the soil's ability to absorb water.
o Cover Cropping. For seasonal harvests, close-growing
crops can be planted during the off-season to provide soil
protection, reduce erosion, and increase infiltration.
Farmers can also implement structural controls to reduce
nonpoint source pollution. Such controls include:
o Diversion and Terrace Systems. Runoff can be diverted
over long slopes in channels or a system of earthen ridges
or terraces. Terrace systems are most suited to areas with
a relatively even topography and a moderate slope angle.
116
-------
o Grass Filter Strips. Filter strips are permanent strips of
grass or other vegetation planted along a stream or
around a pollution source to filter pollutants from
runoff. These strips may also protect the streambank
from structural damage. Filter strips are generally
more effective in controlling paniculate pollutants than
soluble pollutants. In general, their effectiveness
depends on the width of the filter, its slope, the type of
vegetation, the size of the sediment, the flow rate, the
initial concentration of pollutants, and the pattern of
flow across the filter.
o Tree Planting and Forest Buffer Strips. Tree planting
can increase infiltration, improve soil conditions, and
protect against erosion, typically on marginal cropland
with a high rate of erosion. Forest buffer strips are
generally placed along streambanks to provide
additional protection against the movement of
groundwater contaminants to a surface waterbody, but
also help reduce streambank erosion and provide
some filtration of overland water.
An alternative to changed cropping practices or structural
BMPs is to remove cropland from active cultivation,
particularly in areas where erosion damage is severe or the
potential for such damage is high and a body of water is
near. Generally, this practice involves seeding, sodding, or
mulching land removed from active agricultural production.
Conversion of Cropland
to Less Intensive Uses
Several programs created by the Food Security Act of 1985
(The Farm Bill) and administered by USDA aim to protect
areas vulnerable to erosion damage. USDA's Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) removes highly erodible cropland
from cultivation. Farmers enter into an agreement with USDA
to install vegetative cover over the eroding soil, and
participants receive 50 percent cost-sharing for the
installation. Enrolled cropland cannot be planted for 10
years. As of 1988, approximately 45 million acres of highly
erodible land were enrolled in CRP.
Conservation
Program
Reserve
117
-------
Conservation
Compliance Program
Improved Management
of Agricultural
Chemicals
.. < ,;, . .-.'
Virginia is now using a computer-based information
system to identifyfarmland "with''a nigh erosion
potential. VJRGIS , «< the Virginia Geographic
Information System -Ts used as a screening tool to
identify potential problem areas, the system
integrates topographic, spit, watershed, and elevation
information with factors for''rainfall, vegetative cover,
and land use practices. Tn the long term, staff expect
to use the system to assist with setting priorities and
with determining critical areas for programs such as
the Conservation Reserva
v .4 . , » . .v ,y%
\ C-vV,-'* f*"f ff
For more information, contact the Virginia Division of
Soil and Water Conservation, (804) 786-S17&
.... », , ,; "? ' '" ' , '
As part of its overall effort to protect highly erodible lands (HEL),
USDA also administers the Conservation Compliance Program .
There are an estimated 140 million acres of HEL in the U.S. The
program requires farmers who produce on highly erodible fields
but wish to remain eligible for most USDA farm support benefits
to prepare and have approved a plan to reduce or prevent
erosion. Plans must be fully implemented by 1995.
In addition to programs that address previously
cultivated cropland, USDA also administers the
"Sodbuster* program to discourage bringing highly
erodible lands into production. Like Conservation
Compliance, Sodbuster penalizes farmers who bring
new HEL into production by making them ineligible
for federal farm benefits.
USDA can help to identify highly erodible lands in the estuary's
watershed, and to encourage participation in the various erosion
control programs.
Over-use or improper application of fertilizers and pesticides can
lead to significant amounts of phosphorus, nitrogen, and
agricultural chemicals in surface runoff. Improved nutrient and
pesticide management involves controlling the rate, timing, and
method of application to reduce the potential for applied
nutrients and chemicals to be carried in runoff and infiltrated to
groundwater. Properly using and storing animal waste, applying
pesticides and nutrients based on specific crop requirements,
and testing soils for existing nutrient levels are effective BMPs.
118
-------
.............. " :' "" "Sotireses'of More Irtforniatfeh oh
Nonpoint Source Control
U.S, EPA Regional Offices
Water Management Division
State Soil and Water
Conservation Divisions
U.S. EPA Headquarters
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Nonpoint Source Control Branch;
^40f M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7104
Citizens Programmer the Chesapeake Bay* Bavbook: A
Guide to Reducing; Water Pollution at Home.
Baltimore, Maryland.
Hansen, Nancy R., et at Controlling Nonpoint-Source
Water Pollution: A Citizen's Handbook. The
Conservation Foundation and National Audubon
Society: 1988.
Metrotpolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for
Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. by Thomas R.
Schueter, Department of Environmental Programs,
Washington, DC: July 1987. For copies of report
write tor The Metropolitan Information Center,
MWCOG, 777 North Capitol St. NE, Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20002, or call (202) 962-3256,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs.
Annapolis, MD; January, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine
and Esluarine Protection. Saving Bays and
Estuaries: A Handbook of Tactics. Washington,
DC; June, 1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Creating
Successful Nonpoint Source Programs: The
, Innovative Touch. Washington, DC: September,
1988.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Results of the
Mationwide Urban Runoff Program. Final Report.
Water Planning Division, Washington, DC: 1984.
119
-------
Sources of More Information on
5 * Nonpoint Source Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Creating Successful
Nonpoint Source "Programs: The Innovative Touch,
Washington, DC: September/198&
U.S. Environmenfar'Protectfon" Agency, Resuits of ihe
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Final Report. Water
Planning Division. Washington, DC: 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection ^Agency, Office of Water
, Regulations and Standards, Nonpoint Source Control
Branch, Guide tor Community Planners. Washington,
DC: 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection'Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Nonpoint Source Control
, Branch, Guide to Nonpoint Source Control. Washington,
DC: 1987. '" ' ' "
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wate'r'and
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Share the
Costs -- Share the Benefits:" Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Cost Share Programs. Washington, DC; March,
1990. ^ ' " ' .,- ",
Weinberg, Anne affd Jim Arts. Local Government Options
for Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution. Wisconsin
, Department of Natural Resources: 1981.
Land Use Tools
and Conservation
Measures
The measures discussed earlier can address or mitigate existing
pollution problems, but there are also many activities designed
to prevent problems from happening. Prevention alone will not
solve the problems facing degraded estuaries, but it can
compliment traditional remediation strategies to control or reduce
the magnitude of future point and nonpoint water pollution.
Unplanned or unguided growth and development in an estuarine
basin area can lead to numerous water quality and ecosystem
problems: sensitive areas and habitats destroyed or damaged;
floodplains altered (affecting both water quality and wetland
habitats); wetlands lost or polluted; fish and shellfish populations
reduced or impaired; and recreational activities curtailed.
120
-------
Unmanaged growth and development may also create
sewage treatment problems, waste storage and treatment
shortages, increased nonpoint source runoff, and other
potential threats to estuarine ecosystems. In most areas, the
solution to these problems will involve striking compromises
between competing land use claims, directing development
away from pristine areas and toward existing infrastructure,
and encouraging or requiring certain management practices
to be used with new development.
The following discussion focuses on management activities
used primarily by state and local governments to prohibit,
direct, or otherwise control land use practices. The tools
vary in the degree of control exercised, with their use guided
by cost, permanence, and the nature and extent of the
current or potential problem.
Zoning ordinances, the basic tool by which communities
regulate and direct land use, designate zones or districts in
which various land uses are generally permitted, conditionally
permitted, or prohibited. Such ordinances may apply to
large tracts of land, and generally cost relatively little to
develop. They can be readily employed to manage future
growth so that development does not threaten estuarine
ecosystems. Their effectiveness depends on the quality of
their design and the rigor with which they are implemented
and enforced.
This section discusses three types of zoning ordinances:
those that restrict development; those that direct
development to certain areas; and those that modify the
structure of existing zoning ordinances.
Local Zoning
Ordinances
Restricting Development
to Protect Sensitive
Habitats
Habitats critical to the health of an estuarine ecosystem can
be protected directly by imposing strict zoning regulations on
the sensitive areas themselves. A sensitive area zoning
ordinance creates a special district within which potentially
damaging land-use practices are prohibited or special land-
use management practices are required. For example, local
governments can develop sensitive area ordinances for areas
such as wetlands and all upland areas within 1,000 feet of an
estuary's shore. A sensitive area ordinance may be
incorporated into a community's comprehensive zoning
regulations, or may stand alone. Regardless of its context,
a sensitive area ordinance should, at minimum:
Sensitive Area
Ordinances
121
-------
o State its purpose (e.g., estuarine protection);
o Map the area in which development will be regulated;
o Establish the types of use that will be prohibited and
permitted in the critical area; and
o Set penalties for violating the terms of the ordinance.
For example, a sensitive area ordinance might limit permitted
uses within the protected area to outdoor recreation and
silviculture. It might conditionally permit other, more intensive
activities, such as the building of roads or bridges, provided such
activities are conducted in compliance with performance
standards designed to minimize any adverse effects. Finally, the
ordinance might prohibit harmful land uses, such as landfilling,
dumping, or excavation; residential, commercial, or industrial
construction; or discharge of lawn fertilizers or hazardous
chemicals.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest'estuarine system in
North America, with 425,000 acres of marshland adjoining
the Bay itself, The watershed, stretching 64,000 square
miles from New York to West Virginia, is subject to intense
development pressure that has severely degraded the
quality of the Bay ecosystem. To control the growth
pressure, Maryland adopted the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Areas Act in 1984, governing land use and development on
the land within 1,000 feet of mean high tide of the Bay or
the landward side of neighboring wetlands.
The Act requires tocal jurisdictions to enact zoning
ordinances to protect sensitive environments critical to
estuarine water quality. Each town maps critical areas
within its boundaries and classifies them as Intense
Development, Limited Development, or Resource
Conservation areas, according to current housing density
- and use. All new development must occur in previously
developed areas, and regulations encourage conservation
techniques such as clustered development and limited
impervious surfaces. In Resource Conservation Areas, new
marinas are prohibited and only very low density
development ts permitted.
Localities must also employ stringent forest management
techniques, control livestock feeding and watering at the
water's edge, and set up 100-foot buffer zones around tidal
waters. These strategies, developed by local governments,
must be approved by the state Critical Areas Commission;
if not accepted, the Commission may design a plan for the
'town. - ' '
Source; Environmental Law Institute, National Wetlands
Newsletter, various issues, 1986-1988.
122
-------
Communities can also regulate development in and around
the estuarine ecosystem less directly by establishing
conservation districts to exclude certain potentially harmful
land uses. For example,
o Floodplain districts protect estuaries by restricting
filling, dredging, drainage, and construction
activities in areas nearest the water;
o Open space and conservation districts restrict
activity in relatively undeveloped areas; and
o Buffer zone regulations restrict certain types of
land use in a particular area of an estuarine
watershed. The buffer zone criteria can apply to
either a static, specified buffer, referred to as a
"standard buffer,' or to a "variable buffer," the
width of which changes depending on the slope
of the terrain, the vegetation, soil type, or other
environmental variables. Buffer zones are
sometimes used to ensure safe distances between
septic systems, for example, and wetlands,
surface waters, or other sensitive areas.
tn Rhode Island, an ecologically important salt
pond region was threatened by population growth
and rapid development due to tourism. Under
the auspices of Rhode Island's Coastal Zone
Management and Sea Grant programs, the
Coastal Resources Center at the University of
Rhode tstand convened an advisory panel to
develop a comprehensive Special Area
Management Plan for the ponds.
Land-use controls developed under the plan
include:
o limits on new public water/sewer
service in undeveloped areas;
, o buffer strips;
o restrictions on navigational dredging
and disposal;
o fisheries management measures* and
o storm damage controls.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National
Estuary Program. 'Special Area Management
Plan for Salt Pond Protection,* in Saving Bays and
Estuaries: A Handbook of Tactics. Washington,
DC: June 1988.
Conservation
Districts
123
-------
Directing Development
Away From Estuarine
Environments
Set Asides
Large Lot Zoning
Cluster Zoning
The interests of developers and preservationists may sometimes
be accommodated with zoning techniques that shift development
activity to certain zones while keeping others pristine.
Set asides establish a formula to calculate the distribution of
developed and undeveloped land in a given area (e.g., an
estuarine coastal area) based on characteristics of the critical
area.
Large lot zoning limits the intensity of development by setting a
minimum lot size, such as five acres, that exceeds normal lot
requirements. It can be particularly effective in preserving open
space or reducing septic system leachate to an estuary.
Cluster zoning and density requirements permit lots in one part
of a site to be smaller and more densely spaced in exchange for
less development and more open space in another part of the
site. These techniques can be used to preserve areas that serve
important functions in supporting the estuarine ecosystem, and
also reduce the degree to which infrastructure (such as roads
and utility lines) must be extended for new developments.
Planned Unit
Development
A planned unit development (PUD) is a carefully planned
development scheme for an entire site - generally a large,
undeveloped tract of land. By employing clustering, open space
provisions, or other approaches, a PUD can allow for
preservation of ecologically vital areas from the outset of the
development process.
Subdivision
Controls
Subdivision controls, like PUDs, can protect previously
undeveloped areas by imposing restrictive covenants on
development projects. Subdivision controls can be a method of
implementing other zoning techniques in specific areas; for
example, they may require open space set asides or prohibitions
on construction in areas with no sewer hook-ups. Subdivision
controls can easily be structured to accommodate and protect
sensitive areas, provided that they are designed with attention to
the potential negative impacts of subdivision development on the
estuary.
124
-------
Transfers of Development
Rights (TDRs)
TDRs are detailed, carefully planned programs designed to
shift development from critical areas to targeted growth
areas. A TDR program provides an incentive to owners of
sensitive lands to sell their development rights, leaving the
land in a pristine state. Others with less ecologically valuable
land can then buy these rights if they wish to develop
beyond the ordinary limits of the local zoning ordinance.
The city of Hollywood, Florida Initiated a
mandatory Transfer of Development Rights (TOR)
for North Beach Park, a 1400-acre undisturbed
dune^shorelfne area The development company
that owned the area sued the city of Hollywood
on grounds that the TDR constituted the taking*
of private property by the city. The state Superior
Courf» however, uphefdtheTDR as constitutional,
stating that the city's police powers allowed it to
establish certain natural preserve areas, The
court added that the TDB did not constitute a
"taking* because no development had taken
place.
Source: "Protecting the Coastal Zone Through
Growth Management: The Experience of Five
Coastal States." Karl Dolan and Heidi Bly
Hendrickson, Prepared for the National Network -
for Environmental Management Studies, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.-
Existing zoning ordinances often serve purposes other than
environmental protection - many towns, for example, zone
residential areas separately from commercial areas. Local
governments can modify these current zoning regulations to
better protect the estuarine ecosystem. This section
describes a number of modifications that may reduce threats
to coastal environments.
Modifying Existing
Zones
125
-------
Overlay Zones
Overlay zones add an extra layer of requirements to existing
zoning; they are especially effective in amending existing zoning
ordinances to impose environmentally protective measures.
Overlay zones can be applied to any existing zoning regulation.
Any proposed development must meet both zoning ordinances.
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina's Coastal Protection
Overlay Zone transfers density away from the
shoreline, severely restricting land use activities within
the 50-year erosion line.
Downzoning
Bonus and Incentive
Zoning
Performance Standards
Downzoning tightens the restrictions of existing zoning
regulations by specifying less intensive uses than designated.
It can be a valuable tool in communities where growth pressures
have intensified and is used primarily in areas previously zoned
but not yet intensively developed.
Bonus and incentive zoning award developers supplemental
development rights, including greater density or building height,
in exchange for public benefits, such as preservation of open
space in a critical area.
Performance standards may take the form of detailed criteria or
general guidelines, and may address such development issues
as:
o The placement of fill or the incline of slopes;
o The location and design of septic systems;
o Possible disturbance of vegetation and wildlife;
o Construction activities that may release sediments; or
o The quantity and quality of wastewater released into
the estuary.
Such standards typically are embodied in building and sanitary
codes, or site plan and design review. They may include, for
example:
o Requirements that septic systems be designed with
sufficient capacity and be sited to minimize potential
adverse effects on estuary water quality;
126
-------
o Regulations establishing minimum building set-
backs from the boundaries of sensitive areas;
o Prohibitions on package sewage treatment
plants;
o Requirements that developers employ best
management practices to minimize sediment
runoff during construction; or
o Limits on the proportion of a development site
that may be surfaced with impervious materials.
Interim development controls can serve to temporarily slow
or halt development activity, protecting critical areas until
they can be covered by permanent controls. They can give
a community in transition time to reassess estuary protection
needs and goals and complete its planning process.
Examples of interim development controls include temporary
ordinances pending revision of the current plan, building
permit moratoria, and water and sewer moratoria.
The designation of protected areas by state or federal
organizations can be instrumental in preserving an estuarine
ecosystem. Under this approach, the estuary itself or certain
sensitive environments critical to its water quality may be
designated as protected areas. Depending on the
administering body, the degree of control over a protected
area is likely to fall somewhere between that found with
zoning ordinances and that found with acquisition of the
property. Protective designations may prove easier and
cheaper to implement than acquisition; they may also prove
more permanent than locally-administered zoning since state
or federal agencies are likely to remain removed from local
development pressures.
There are numerous programs that designate areas as
protected, depending on the resources offered by the area.
At the federal level, these programs include:
o The National Estuarine Research Reserves
Program (formerly known as the National
Estuarine Sanctuary Program), which is
administered by the Office of Coastal Resources
Management. The program provides federal and
state funds for land acquisition, research, and
Interim Development
Controls
State or Federal
Designation of
Protected Areas
127
-------
education, typically, Advisory Councils are set up to
coordinate among local interests, state environmental
agencies, and the federal government.
o The Wild and Scenic Rivers Program, which protects
natural free-flowing rivers possessing remarkable
values from damming and other forms of development.
The National Park Service manages all designated
river segments, except those managed by states, the
Forest Service, or the Bureau of Land Management.
o The provisions of the Endangered Species Act, which
can protect estuarine ecosystems that are habitat for
endangered species. Among other provisions, the Act
requires federal agencies to ensure that any actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize
the continued existence of any listed species, or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of its
designated critical habitat.
State programs offer similar forms of designation for critical
resources, though the specific statutes and procedures vary from
state to state. Several states have programs that go beyond
federal efforts to protect Wild and Scenic Rivers, historic areas,
endangered species, and other resources.
States may designate ecologically unique or
significant waters as Outstanding National Resource
Waters (ONRWJ. This designation protects important,
unique, or sensitive waters »* such as those within
State or National Parks, certain swamps, or hot
springs * by adopting criteria that protect the
essential characteristics of the waterbody.
Acquisition
Acquisition of estuarine environments and/or adjacent critical
areas offers maximum control over resource management in
these areas. While local ordinances can change with a change
in administration or economic or political pressures, acquisition
is permanent. Acquisition can benefit a community both
financially and aesthetically, and often gains broad public
support. Because the land value of shorelines and coastal
wetlands is generally high, however, acquisition can be
expensive.
Several factors should be considered before committing time,
money, and energy to acquiring a parcel of land. These include
deciding whether:
128
-------
o The land is critical to the ecological health of the
estuaiy;
o The acquisition can later be extended to other
holdings, to preserve the ecological relationship of
the acquired area with its surroundings;
o Responsibility for the protection and maintenance
of the acquired area will later be transferred to
another entity or organization; and
o There are sufficient financial and staff resources to
monitor and protect the acquisition, both now and
in the future.
Once the acquisition of a critical area is deemed necessary
and viable, there are several techniques that the acquiring
authority can employ. These include full acquisition and
various methods of partial acquisition, discussed below.
The Appafachicola estuaiy, located on Florida's
Quit Coast, is a shallow fagoon and barrier island
system covering approximately 210 square miles.
fa the early 1970s, the estuarine ecosystem faced
threats from numerous sources: discharges from
a sewage treatment plant; proposed dam
construction that would substantially modify the
Appafachicola River's hydrodynamics; proposed
forest clear-cutting; and other development.
Protection of the estuary focused on three types
of actions»« acquisition, protective designations,
and basin management. Public land acquisition
provided the cornerstone of the effort,' over
100,000-acres of land along the river floodplaln,
fower portion of the river, and nearby Islands
were purchased for a variety of purposes. Two
state acquisition programs orchestrated the
purchases: the State Conservation and
Recreation Lands Program (CARL) and the Save
our Rivers Program.
Most of the Florida portion of the estuary's
drainage basin has been designated an
Outstanding Florida Water, This designation
prevents a permanent point source discharge
from degrading the receiving water, imposes
reduced allowances for waste disposal and
assimilation, and restricts new long-term pollutant
discharges (such as sewage, industrial effluent,
dredging, and filling).
129
-------
The lowe.r Appalachicola River and Bay is also a National
Estuarine Research Reserve. Under this program* which is
administered by the Office of Coastaf Resources
Management, basin-wide planning was required as a
condition for receiving funds. At 193,758 acres, the
Appalachicola Reserve is the largest In the country (twice
the stee of the other 17 reserves combined), ft includes
lloodplain, fresh and saltwater marshes, open water, and
barrier islands.
The estuary itself has been designated both an Area of
Critical State Concern and a state Aquatic Preserve; these
designations require the state to develop a management
plan to ensure the long-term protection of the aquatic
resource.
Source: U.S. environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, National Estuary Program; "Strategies for the
Preservation of an Estuarine Watershed: Preserving
Watersheds through Land Purchases and Protective
Designations," in Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Handbook
of Tactics. Washington, DC: June 1988.
Full Acquisition
Full acquisition refers to outright purchase of a critical area and
assures complete control of and responsibility for the acquired
land. The process involves:
o Determining those areas in the estuary watershed not
sufficiently protected by regulations. These areas are
candidates for acquisition.
o Evaluating the area being considered for acquisition
to assess the threat of development or degradation,
the habitat value and the value it holds for the estuary,
and the amount that should be acquired to provide
adequate protection.
o Negotiating with landowners to begin the acquisition
process and appraise the value of the site.
o Preparing environmental impact statements, which
discuss the environmental effect of development, any
practical alternatives, and any required mitigation. If
federal resources will fund part or all of the acquisition
or if state law requires, a determination must be made
as to whether an EIS is necessary.
130
-------
o Beginning the final negotiations with the
landowner.
o Closing the deal, including legal steps such as
drawing and executing the deed, approving any
exemptions to the title policy, and certifying the
survey.
To protect water quality and preserve open
space, ihe city of Sheboygan, Wisconsin created
the Pigeon River Environmental Corridor, an area
that provides a buffer between development and
the rtver. By gradually acquiring property along
ihe river over the last 25 years, the city has
assembled a publicly-owned corridor of several
hundred acres. Land has been acquired through
direct city purchase and contributions received
from private land owners and developers. One
such donation; led to the creation of a 135-acre
environmental park.
Partial Acquisition
Because of the financial and administrative obstacles to full
acquisition, partial acquisition of a critical area near an
estuary can also be a viable option, especially if land prices
are high or funding is limited. While not an absolute
guarantee of protection in perpetuity, partial acquisition may
adequately preserve the critical area from development and
degradation. Three techniques - conservation easements,
deed restrictions, and post-acquisition disposal - are briefly
outlined below.
Greenways are linear parks and open spaces,
often along rivers and shores, that preserve
environmentally critical areas for flood
management, open and recreational space, water
quality protection, and wildlife habitat. By limiting
development along rivers and shores, greenways
may reduce nonpoint source pollution and
preserve valuable wetfands, thereby enhancing
estuarine ecosystems.
131
-------
Conservation Easements
A conservation easement is a legal agreement by a property
owner of a critical area to restrict the type and amount of
development that takes place on the property. The owner retains
basic ownership and use rights, but sells the development rights
- the right to develop or alter the land - to a public agency, land
trust, or historic organization. The easement can apply for a
specified amount of time or for perpetuity, and is recorded at the
town or county records office to inform any future owners of the
land of the easement restrictions. Easements usually cost less
than full acquisition, yet may accomplish the same purpose.
They also may be attractive to land owners, since the sale or
granting of an easement may make the property owner eligible
for a tax deduction.
Deed Restrictions
Post Acquisition
Disposal
Financing Acquisition
Efforts
Much like conservation easements, deed restrictions are clauses
in a property deed that restrict development or uses by a new
owner that would damage, destroy, or alter a critical area. Again,
they may protect these areas as effectively as full acquisition,
and offer tax advantages to the donor.
Post-acquisition disposal involves the outright purchase of a tract
of land by a community or other organization, which then
disposes of some or all of the property rights by either leasing or
reselling the property. The lease or resale can be selective,
accompanied by restrictions that limit future development. This
allows the acquiring community to retain title to the land, while
leasing it to other entities under conditions that mesh with the
community's land management objectives. The community can
recoup some of its initial cost, but still must monitor the area to
ensure that the conditions of the disposal are met.
Acquisition can be expensive. Several potential sources of funds
include:
o General funds from state or local property or sales
tax revenues.
o Private funds from organizations such as the
Nature Conservancy or the Trust for Public Lands,
which are also expert at facilitating the acquisition
process.
o Donations of funds or property from individuals or
corporations, which may qualify the donors for tax
breaks. Even when the property is donated,
however, funds are required for management and
upkeep.
132
-------
Federal funds, such as matching grants or
revenue-sharing from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, which are available for wildlife
area acquisition and management expenses.
Some state programs offer funds for
environmentally sensitive lands or lands that
can be used for public recreation. Examples
of such programs are Florida's Conservation
and Recreational Lands program and
California's Coastal Conservancy. Many
states also have State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Programs (SCORPs),
through which they purchase recreation lands
with funds provided by the National Park
Service.
While local governments traditionally have jurisdiction over
land use policy, they often lack the means to use the
techniques of acquisition described above. To bridge this
gap, non-profit conservation and environmental organizations
often work with landowners, government, and the general
public to acquire, manage, and protect critical ecosystems.
Many such groups provide legal advice, technical expertise,
and/or financial support. In some cases, communities
organize or work directly with a non-profit land trust to
purchase critical areas. In others, local governments
themselves may choose to organize land banks to finance
acquisitions. Both approaches are described briefly below.
A land trust is a non-profit, private organization formed solely
to acquire ecologically valuable lands. There are 775 local
land trusts in the United States, and national conservation
organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for
Public Land, and the Izaak Walton League often contribute
funds and advice to their efforts. Trusts are also funded by
start-up grants and contributions from the public.
Cooperative Acquisition
Programs
Land Trusts
A land bank operates similarly to a land trust, acquiring
critical areas to minimize or prevent development and
preserve them in their natural state. A land bank, however,
is a public agency, typically requiring approval by the state
legislature and receiving state or local funding.
Land Banks
133
-------
r
Land exchanges^ provide a way' for public and'private
organizations to combine efforts in acquisition, If a
critical area'is privately owned, it is exchanged for
economically productive land'with little conservation^
value that is owned% By the state or federal
government. Exchanges work particularly well in
areas where the government ofons much of the land,
Resource Conservation
Despite the best efforts of land use planners, population growth
and development will continue to increase stress on land and
water resources. Population growth will generally increase the
demand for waste management services, sewage, roads, water,
and infrastructure. This increased demand can both directly and
indirectly affect the health of an estuarine ecosystem. Some of
this stress can be minimized, however, by encouraging resource
conservation efforts. Doing so generally requires finding ways to
motivate businesses, households and individual consumers to
change behavior patterns. This is often a difficult challenge,
requiring leadership, education, and in some cases the use of
economic incentives. More than any of the approaches
discussed thus far, resource conservation requires innovative
and flexible solutions or tools.
Addressing the behavior of individuals and households is critical
to the long-term survival of many estuarine ecosystems. In its
report to the Chesapeake Executive Council, the Year 2020 Panel
includes resource conservation efforts as one of six major
recommendations for the Chesapeake Bay area. As the council
states:
A great many decisions by individuals over decades
created incremental changes, imperceptible in their effects
as isolated actions, but devastating in sum. The solution
to the [Chesapeake] Bay's problems, and to other regional
environmental problems, will come about in the same way,
as the aggregate of thousands of daily decisions.
Source: Report of the Year 2020 Panel to the Chesapeake
Executive Council. Population Growth and Development in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020.
December 1988.
134
-------
Tax policy can play a role in both the preservation and
destruction of sensitive areas by encouraging activities
and/or land uses with the lowest tax liability. Preservation of
sensitive areas can be encouraged through the use of
preferential tax policies that reward environmentally
advantageous land uses. There are a number of drawbacks,
however, to preferential tax policies. State and local
governments may be reluctant to use subsidies to encourage
preservation and conservation because they often translate
into lower tax revenues for the community. Assessment and
bookkeeping costs can also be high, as can administrative
costs. Moreover, if the benefits of selling the land for
development exceed the benefits from tax reductions or
deferrals, landowners may decide to sell despite favorable
tax policies. When development pressures are high, it is
unlikely that tax incentives alone will preserve conservation
uses.
As an alternative to tax incentives, impact fees, which impose
some of the cost of environmental degradation on the
developer or land-user, can be used to discourage
destructive land-use practices. Designing, implementing,
and enforcing fee systems, however, can be complicated
and cumbersome. An important concern is the extent to
which fees serve as an incentive to change behavior, versus
simply as a source of revenue. Designing fee, subsidy, or
tax systems to change behavior generally requires a clear
understanding of both the factors affecting land use
decisions and the changes required to promote
environmental benefits. In addition, effective systems
generally require a mechanism to adjust the fee imposed as
economic and/or environmental factors change.
Tax Incentives,
Subsidies and Fees
to Encourage
Environmentally
Sound Development
Water Consumption
The inefficient use of water resources can lead to a number
of environmental problems, including:
o The destruction of wetlands due to the
installment of new water supply projects;
o Reductions in the capacity of rivers and streams
to assimilate pollutants;
o Reductions in the flow of groundwater to surface
water, due to increased withdrawals from
aquifers; and
o Excessive demands on wastewater treatment
facilities.
135
-------
Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management
In coastal areas, excessive withdrawals from groundwater
aquifers can also lead to the intrusion of saltwater into the aquifer
and decreased water levels in the estuary. Conservation efforts
may involve educating consumers about the many ways that
water use can be reduced or curtailed. Lawn watering and car-
washing, for example, can be performed using less water or
banned during dry spells. Consumers can be educated to install
conservation faucets and showerheads that reduce the volume
of waterflow, and to practice more conservative everyday water-
use patterns.
Water usage in Nassau County in Long Island, New
York is regulate'd by withdrawal caps that prevent
overpumpjng and protect water supplies from
saltwater intrusion. The county has also passed a
Water Conservation Ordinance, and individual water
suppliers have instituted restrictions on residential
and commercial users. These restrictions include
periodic bans on car washing, the filling of swimming
pools, and lawn watering. Several towns in the
county are developing ordinances to begin using
individual water meters to regulate water use based
on household size.
Source; U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Wellhead
Protection Programs: Tools for Local Governments.
Washington, D.C.; April, 1989. ',' '
On a larger scale, municipal pricing systems for water can be
adjusted to more accurately reflect the full cost of its
consumption. Water pricing frequently does not reflect the full
operating, capital, and replacement costs of providing water
services. Billing practices that accurately reflect peak loads and
that increase with increased consumption would encourage more
efficient use of the resource, thereby reducing the environmental
degradation that accompanies expanding water demand.
Numerous potential water quality problems are associated
directly or indirectly with the disposal of solid and hazardous
waste, including:
o The accidental or intentional dumping of waste
materials directly into surface waters;
136
-------
o Contamination of surface waters by landfill
leachate; and
o Disruption of sensitive areas by waste
management facilities.
The nature of these problems and some means of
addressing them are described below.
A primary source of debris in oceans and estuaries is
believed to be the illegal dumping of waste from shore or at
sea. The problem was recognized formally in 1978 by Annex
V of the Protocol Relating to the International Convention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which bans dumping from
ships for signatory nations. Recent beach clean-ups across
the nation, however, have revealed staggering volumes of
washed-up debris in many coastal areas. A total of over 861
tons was collected during a week-long cleanup in the spring
of 1989. Plastics were far and away the most prevalent
items, due primarily to both their widespread availability and
persistence. Plastic rings, fishing nets, and plastic pellets
are particularly hazardous to many fish and wildlife species.
Fish and birds can become entangled in nets and plastic
beverage rings, leading to suffocation and injury. Plastic
pellets are often mistaken for food, and ingestion can
potentially lead to starvation. Debris washed ashore can also
damage property values and affect tourism.
To address the problem of plastic debris, Congress enacted
two pieces of legislation: the Marine Plastic Pollution
Research and Control Act of 1987 (MPPRCA), and The
Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier Act of 1988. The latter
directs EPA to require through regulation that plastic ring
carriers be made of naturally degradable material, unless
byproducts from degradable rings are shown through current
studies to pose a greater threat to the environment.
MPPRCA requires EPA's Office of Solid Waste to conduct a
study to determine methods to reduce plastic pollution. The
study is to include:
o A list of improper disposal practices;
o A list of materials that may injure fish and wildlife
or degrade the economic value of coastal areas;
o A description of EPA activities aimed at reducing
plastic in marine environments;
o An evaluation of potential substitutes for plastic
materials; and
o Recommendations for recycling incentives.
Marine Debris
137
-------
Medical Wastes
Solid Waste
Management
In addition to plastic debris, the presence of medical wastes in
marine waters - including syringes, bandages and dressings,
blood vials, and diseased body parts - has generated serious
public concern. Based on public reaction to the medical waste
found in New York, Boston, North Carolina, and the Great Lakes,
Congress passed the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988,
restricting the release of medical waste to the environment. Its
provisions require a 24-month demonstration program for the
tracking of medical wastes in New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, and the Great Lakes states. In addition, EPA efforts
are currently underway to address the role of Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs) as a source of medical waste in the marine
environment.
Many of the problems associated with marine debris would be
alleviated by steps to decrease the quantity of solid and
hazardous waste generated, and to improve the management of
such wastes on land. According to EPA estimates, roughly 83
percent of municipal solid waste is currently landfilled, 6 percent
is incinerated, and 11 percent is recycled through material
recovery or energy programs. In contrast to current solid waste
management practices, EPA has established the following
preferred hierarchy:
(1) Source Reduction activities that reduce the toxicity
and volume of materials used in products that are
ultimately disposed. Improved design and packaging
can prevent the need to manage some wastes.
(2) Reuse of packaging and other disposable goods,
which can reduce demand for and consumption of
virgin materials.
(3) Recycling and Composting, which can reduce the
amount of waste sent to landfills and incinerators.
(4) Incineration or Landfilling, which as management
practices are preferred only after source reduction,
reuse, and recycling have been fully utilized.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Regulatory Innovations Staff. Promoting
Source Reduction and Recvclabilitv in the
Marketplace: A Study of Consumer and Industry
Response to Promotion of Source Reduced. Recycled.
and Recyclable Products and Packaging.
Washington, DC: September 1989.
138
-------
Many believe that the volume of municipal waste generated
could be reduced substantially by correcting the pricing
mechanism used for waste disposal and management
services. Current pricing practices for municipal waste
disposal often do not reflect the full cost of disposal. Many
communities currently charge a flat rate for disposal services.
As a result, consumers see no price difference between
decisions that generate more or less waste. Where tax
revenues fully or partially support collection and disposal
services, both the total and the marginal cost of these
services are invisible or highly discounted from the
perspective of individual residents. By correcting price
structures to more accurately reflect the full cost of disposal,
consumers may react to reduce the amount of waste
generated.
Economic incentives, such as subsidies, rebates, and credits
for manufacturing or purchasing products and packaging
may also promote source reduction and reduce
environmental degradation. Combined with consumer
education programs to improve awareness of the solid waste
problem and the environmental consequences of certain
purchase decisions, even modest economic incentives may
effectively influence consumers.
Numerous waste products can also be reused or recycled.
By establishing recycling programs to collect and process
these products, communities may reduce considerably tha
volume of waste disposed. If combined with more accurate
pricing structures for waste disposal, recycling programs may
provide communities with an effective mechanism to
influence individual decisions. Recycling, however, is often
more complex than the simple collection of recyclable
materials. There must also be demand for the recycled
product if the recycling effort is to be more than just an
alternative waste management system. Communities need
to investigate markets for recycled material to ensure that
demand exists for the recycled products. It may be that
factors such as packaging or labeling can influence demand
for recycled products. If so, marketing and advertising
professionals may need to be involved if the recycling effort
is to be successful.
Disposal of household hazardous waste is also a problem in
many areas. Illegal disposal in drains, sewers, and backyard
areas can lead to contaminated groundwater and surface
water, among other problems. Some areas have instituted
hazardous waste removal programs, either curbside or at a
central location. For some, education efforts may be enough
to motivate better management and disposal of hazardous
products.
139
-------
Regulatory Programs
to Control Point
Source Pollutant
Loadings To Estuaries
Establishing Water
Quality Standards
Under the Clean
Water Act
Section 303
State Designated
Uses for Waterbodies
Water pollution control efforts historically have focused on point
source discharges. These discharges, named for their localized
and direct "point" of release to receiving waters, are amenable to
regulatory controls to a much greater extent than the more
dispersed and overlapping nonpoint source discharges.
Numerous provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the
Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 govern discharges to inland
and coastal waters. These statutes establish treatment
guidelines and water quality standards, and outline rigorous
monitoring and reporting requirements.
Collectively, provisions of the CWA and WQA provide a
comprehensive set of tools to protect against and to mitigate
effluent pollutants. NEP Management Conferences at a minimum
should ensure that these standards and controls are utilized,
coordinated, and enforced. Point source controls cannot solve
all an estuary's problems, but they do provide a vital baseline
upon which added progress can be made. Furthermore, point
source programs may also help to supplement or enhance non-
regulatory strategies by providing information necessary to
formulate and target effective control methods.
Water quality standards are rules or laws adopted by states to
protect public health and welfare, to enhance ambient water
quality, to protect aquatic ecosystems, and to advance the goals
of the Clean Water Act. In general, standards describe the
maximum allowable ambient pollutant levels in a particular
waterbody. Two major components of a water quality standard
are (1) the designated use(s) assigned to the waterbody, and (2)
water quality criteria that describe the quality of water that will
support a particular use.
States are required to designate uses for all inter- and intrastate
bodies of water within state borders. Each state develops its
own use classification system, based on the generic uses cited
in the Clean Water Act. These uses - agriculture, industry,
navigation, drinking water, fish and wildlife management,
swimming, or boating ~ are then protected and preserved by
appropriate standards. At minimum, states must provide for,
wherever attainable, the propagation of shellfish, finfish, wildlife
140
-------
and recreation in and on the water. If a waterbody cannot
be designated to include these uses, it must be reevaluated
by the state every three years. If at this time one of the
above uses has been attained, water quality standards must
then be revised to ensure protection and preservation of this
use. Existing uses - those achieved on or after EPA
promulgated its original water quality regulations (November
28, 1975) - cannot be modified or changed unless the
revised use requires more stringent criteria.
Unlike existing uses, designated uses can be modified or
changed if one or more of the following prevents attainment
of the designated use:
(1) Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations;
(2) Natural, intermittent, or low-flow water levels;
(3) Man-made conditions or pollution sources that
cannot be corrected or would, if corrected, result
in greater environmental degradation;
(4) Dams, diversions, or other hydrologic
modifications;
(5) Physical conditions associated with natural
features of the waterbody, unrelated to quality; or
(6) Required controls that would result in substantial
and widespread social and economic impact.
Water quality criteria are specific numeric or narrative
pollutant limits used by EPA and states to establish legally
binding water quality standards. Section 304(a) of the CWA
directs EPA to develop and publish water quality criteria
based on the latest scientific information available on the
effect of a pollutant on human health and aquatic life.
Section 304(a) criteria provide guidance for EPA Regions
and the states in the development of state water quality
standards. Information contained in EPA's section 304(a)
guidance documents generally includes:
o Scientific data on the effects of pollutants on
human health, aquatic life, and recreation; and
o Quantitative (e.g., micrograms per liter) or
qualitative (e.g., "free from" toxics in toxic
amounts) guidance on the general conditions
required to ensure a level of water quality
adequate to support a particular water use.
Criteria and
Standards
141
-------
When incorporated into state water quality standards, criteria
provide a basis for enforcing the standard; otherwise, 304(a)
criteria hold no force of law. States may choose to do one of the
following when establishing standards to protect designated uses
for state waters:
(1) Adopt EPA's Section 304(a) criteria;
(2) Modify the 304(a) criteria to reflect site-specific
factors; or
(3) Use other scientifically defensible methods to develop
the criteria.
Site-specific factors that may necessitate modified
criteria involve, for example, the presence of certain
more sensitive species or habitats, or water chemistry
(e.g., pH, hardness, temperature, suspended solids,
etc.) that differs significantly from the conditions used
in developing 304(a) criteria. EPA has developed a
guidance document for states to use in deriving site*
specific criteria. The document, Water Quality
Standards Handbook, was published by EPA*s Office
of Water Regulations and Standards fn December,
1983. States considering developing site-specific
water quality criteria are urged to consult first with
their EPA Regional office.
Source; U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Introduction to'Water Quality Standards.
Washington, DC: September 1988.
States are required to adopt as standards all EPA water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants identified in Section 307(a) of the Act,
provided the discharge or presence of the pollutant could
reasonably be expected to hinder attainment of a waterbody's
designated use. The Section 307(a) list of toxic pollutants
contains 65 compounds and families of compounds, which the
Agency has interpreted to include 126 "priority" toxic pollutants.
As of 1988, EPA had published criteria for six of these pollutants.
142
-------
Under Section 304 of the CWA, states were required to
report to EPA a list of all state waters that are impaired by
any pollutant due to either point or nonpoint sources. This
list was to have been accompanied by a shorter list of all
waters that do not meet the numeric or water quality
standards for the 126 priority toxic pollutants due to point
source pollution. The lists were submitted to EPA by June,
1989.
In addition to the lists of impaired waters, Section 305(b)
requires that states report on the ambient status of all their
waterbodies. This report provides information on all river
segments, lakes, and estuaries not meeting water quality
standards, including information on the pollutants of concern
and the causes or sources of any degradation. NEP
programs may want to consult these reports to identify not
only direct sources of estuary pollutants, but also problem
waters that may feed into and contaminate the estuary.
Furthermore, NEP Management Conferences may find that
these reports support efforts to prohibit or restrict certain
activities in and around problem waterbodies.
The NPDES point source discharge system requires permits
for all direct discharges to the nation's waters. It is the heart
of the Clean Water Act and its primary control mechanism.
Permits are issued by EPA or by states whose programs
have been approved by EPA. As of 1990, EPA had
delegated NPDES authority to 39 of the states.
NPDES permits, good for five years, are written to protect
designated uses by setting either chemical-specific and/or
whole-effluent limits, and must include the more stringent of
either technology-based or water-quality based control
requirements. The chemical-specific approach sets numeric
limits on the toxicity, concentration, or mass of each
conventional or toxic pollutant that may be discharged. In
cases where the effluent cannot be fully characterized or the
interaction of constituents assessed, limitations may be
placed on the effluent as a whole.
Discharges excluded from NPDES requirements,
covered under alternative authorities, include:
most
o Discharges from ships or vessels;
o Discharges to POTWs that have a NPDES permit;
o Discharges from certain diffuse sources;
Reporting
Requirements
Controlling Point
Source Discharges
Section 402 National
Point Source Discharge
Elimination System
(NPDES)
143
-------
Effluent Limitations
for Direct Dischargers
o Irrigation return flows; and
o Discharges authorized by a government authority in
connection with the cleanup of oil or other hazardous
waste under Superfund or Section 311 of the Clean
Water Act.
NPDES permit applicants are required to test their effluent for a
variety of toxics and other constituents and report any positive
findings in the application. Although specific permit conditions
will vary across outfalls and receiving waters, several basic
requirements are imposed on all permittees:
o Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) that record the
pollutant content of effluent and provide proof both of
compliance and of violations. Reports are sent to the
permitting authority and entered into EPA's Permit
Compliance System (PCS) where they provide
valuable information for both the enforcement of
discharge requirements and the assessment of
pollutants in receiving waters.
o Upsets and Bypasses provisions that govern failures
of a wastewater treatment facility (upsets) and the
intentional directing of wastewater around the
treatment system during maintenance (bypasses).
The permittee is required to prove that such a
discharge was necessary.
o Antibacksliding Regulations under Section 402 of the
Clean Water Act that generally prohibit EPA from
reissuing an NPDES permit containing effluent
limitations, conditions, or standards that are less
stringent than those contained in the previous permit
except in certain specific circumstances. The
requirement reinforces the antidegradation philosophy
intended to prevent water quality from falling below
existing levels.
The most important regulatory tools for regulating point source
discharges are effluent limitations developed by EPA and
incorporated into NPDES permits for individual direct discharges.
These limitations include: (1) technology-based controls and (2)
water-quality based controls.
144
-------
At minimum, NPDES permit limits for discharges to
waterways must meet EPA's technology-based standards.
These standards reflect EPA's detailed assessment of the
reliability, performance, cost, and other characteristics of
existing pollution control technologies. The 1977
amendments to the Clean Water Act established technology-
based treatment requirements based on the following
considerations:
(1) The class of pollutants involved: conventional,
nonconventional, or toxics; and
(2) Whether the source for the discharge is a new or
existing facility..
The minjmum control standard for all facilities was set initially
at the Best Practicable Control Technology currently available
(BPT), with the following legislative guidance:
o Effluent limitations must be uniform among
similar industries;
o The degree of effluent reduction must be set
independent of water quality; and
o The cost of applying a given technology in
relation to its effluent reduction benefits must be
considered.
Conventional pollutants - biological oxygen demand, fecal
coliform, suspended solids, and pH - from existing sources
are subject to the Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT). This standard essentially considers the
best available technology, moderated by a test of economic
reasonableness. Nonconventional and toxic pollutants from
existing sources are subject to the Best Available Control
Technology (BAT). Finally, all new sources ~ facilities on
which construction commences after New Source
Performance Standards are proposed - are generally subject
to BAT.
When technology-based discharge limits would fail to protect
adequately the quality of ambient waters, NPDES permits
may impose water-quality based limits. Unlike technology-
based controls, water-quality based limits are derived by
determining the degree of effluent control needed to meet
ambient water quality standards. Water-quality based
controls are not uniformly placed on all direct discharges;
rather, they are used to provide an additional, more stringent
limitation when needed to protect water quality.
145
-------
"Prom I94b to the 1970s, population growth In the Upper
: - Potomac estuary basin continually outstripped the capacity
':. of sewage treatment plants. As a result, raw or potentially
untreated sewage was regularly discharged Into the
Potomac. In 1965, the jurisdictions of the Washington
metropolitan area agreed to adopt a 1ishabte*swimmabt0
, standard for the upper estuary, Maryland, Virginia, and the
District' of Columbia imposed stringent controls on point
source discharges, based on the assimilative capacity of
-the upper estuary and the capabilities of current
'wastewater treatment technology. These actions reduced
BOD and phosphorous discharges to the upper estuary by
05 percent The current effluent phosphorous limit for
discharges to the upper estuary is 0x18 milligrams per liter,
met by upgrading secondary treatment plants to advanced
waste treatment facilities that use added filtration, nutrient
removal processes, and chlorfnation.
Source: ,,U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Estuary
Program. "Point Source Controls: The Potomac River
Cleanup.* In Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Handbook of
Tactics. Washington, DC: Junet 1988.
Section 303(d)
Total Maximum
Daily Load
Some waterbodies may not meet state water quality-standards
given currently available treatment technologies. For these
waterbodies, states are directed to develop a quantitative
estimate of the waterbodies' assimilative capacity and to account
for all pollution sources and background inputs. Using this
information, states estimate the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), or the maximum pollutant load the waterbody is capable
of assimilating. Based on this assessment, states are then
required to allocate the waterbodies' pollutant assimilation
capacity across permitted point sources (NPDES) and nonpoint
sources, allowing an added margin of safety. This allocation, a
Waste Load Allocation (WLA) for point sources and a Load
Allocation (LA) for nonpoint sources, should result in the
waterbody attaining its designated use status.
146
-------
To combat phosphorus problems in the Great takes,
water-quality based point source controls *» particularly
on municipal wastewater treatment plants - were
essential. A treatment level of 1 milligram per liter of
effluent phosphorus was set for all treatment plants
handling more thari 1 million gallons per day. In
addition, the 1986 US. phosphorus Management Plan
states that ff the nonpoml source controls pfanned for
the Great Lakes: do riot result In the necessary
phosphorus reductions, municipal treatment plants will
be required to meet even more stringent phosphorus
requirements. -
Following the issuance of new or updated NPDES
permits* EPA tracked performance with a compliance
monitoring system, flagging frequent or large violations.
Combined with dedicated federal and state
enforcement efforts, as well as coordinated and
concerted efforts by the Canadian Government, the
Great Lakes Program successfully reduced phosphorus
levels from point source discharges. Most municipal
wastewater point sources handling over 1 million
gallons per day have now met or reduced phosphorus
discharges to below the 1 milligram per liter effluent
phosphorus limit.
Source: US. EPA, Office of Water, National Estuary
Program. "A Phosphorus Strategy for the Great Lakes:
Improving Water duality through Intergovernmental
Agreements." In Saving Bays and Estuarlesr A
Handbook of Tactics, Washington, DC; June, 1988,
Section 304 of the CWA requires states to:
o Identify toxic hotspots," waters where existing
technology-based and water-quality based
controls are not adequate to meet water quality
standards due to the presence of toxic
constituents;
o Identify the specific point sources believed to be
preventing the attainment of water quality
standards; and
o Specify a toxic control strategy that will be used
to bring about attainment as soon as possible or
no later than three years after the control
strategy is introduced.
Section 304
Toxic Controls
147
-------
Toxicity Reduction
Evaluations (TREs)
EPA is required to develop a toxic control strategy that meets
state requirements if the state fails to develop a strategy in a
timely manner.
In the 1980s Elliott .Bay on'the eastern shore of
central Puget Sound, was receiving major discharges
of toxic substances, primarily from Industrial facilities,
The Elliott Bay Toxic Action Program integrated
federal, state, and local activities involved with toxics;
control to devise solutions* to tHe^growirig toxics
problem. The core of this program was the Elliott Bay
Action Team (EBAT)",. which carried out inspections of
the Bay to identify contaminated sediments, analyzed
these sediments to identify likely pollutant ^sources,
and revised discharge permits to reduce or eliminate
the entry of toxic pollutants into the Bay,
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Estuary
Program. "An Action Plan for Containing and
Reducing Pollutants: Controlling Toxic Contamination
in an Urban Bay through Special Enforcement Teams
and Interagency Coordination^ In Saving Bays and
Estuaries: A Handbook of Tactics, Washington, DC:
June, 1988. - - ,
When toxicity testing of a particular effluent indicates
unacceptable levels of toxic pollutants, permittees are required
to reduce effluent toxicity to levels acceptable for applicable
water quality criteria and standards. One method used to help
dischargers identify the specific sources of toxic pollutants, and
to assess the level of reduction associated with a change in
process or outfall, is the Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE).
The TRE process generally uses toxicity tests, and physical and
chemical analysis of the effluent, to determine: , , , ,.
o The toxic substances of concern;
o Any manufacturing processes that produce toxics of
concern;
o Specific control options; and
o Monitoring practices that will verify and demonstrate
the effectiveness of chosen control options.
The evaluation is considered complete when the permittee
attains compliance with the effluent toxicity limitations specified
in the NPDES permit.
148
-------
To summarize the NPDES review and permitting
process, permit writers:
(1) Consider the water quality standards
and criteria that apply to the
applicable receiving water;
(2) Determine if the appropriate
teetinology^based limit will be
adequate to protect and maintain the
water quality standard and, if so,
apply technology-based limits; or
(3) If a water-quality based limit is
needed, establish the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TR/iDL); then
(4) Translate this TMDL Into specific
numeric limits (the Waste Load
Allocation) and write these limits into
the NPDES permit
Discharges to
Marine Waters
Section
Waivers
Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the CWA requires all Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) to implement effluent limitations
that meet secondary treatment standards. This requirement,
however, may be waived for certain POTWs through
provisions of Section 301 (h). Specifically, POTWs that
discharge to marine waters, including estuaries, may be
issued a modified NPDES permit that waives secondary
treatment requirements if the following conditions are met:
o The discharge of pollutants, alone or in
combination with pollutants from other sources,
will not interfere with attainment of water quality
sufficient to (1) protect public water supplies, (2)
protect the propagation of a balanced,
indigenous population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife, and (3) allow recreational activities in and
on the water;
o A monitoring system is implemented to determine
the effect of the discharge on aquatic
ecosystems;
149
-------
Section 403(c)
Criteria
The effluent discharge will not necessitate more
stringent requirements for any other point or nonpoint
discharge;
The discharge meets at least the equivalent of
primary treatment standards (removal of at least 30
percent of BOD material and suspended solids, and
disinfection where appropriate), and the effluent
meets criteria established under 304(a) after initial
mixing in the waters adjacent to the point of
discharge.
Source: Section 301 (h) of the Clean Water Act.
The deadline for waiver applications has passed. Currently, 48
POTWs have been granted waivers, 15 decisions are pending,
and 145 applications have been denied. EPA's Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) oversees the 301 (h) program
and maintains the database that holds 301 (h) monitoring
information - the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES). This
information can be valuable to help NEP Management
Conferences consider the impacts of POTWs with 301 (h) waivers
on their estuary.
Section 403(c) of the CWA establishes additional criteria for point
source discharges outside the baseline of the territorial sea. It is
intended to ensure that discharges to marine waters do not
cause "unreasonable degradation" to the marine environment.
As part of its Ocean Discharge Criteria regulations (45 FR
65457), EPA has published a list of 10 factors or guidelines to be
used in 403(c) evaluations. The regulations require decisions be
made regarding the effects of the discharge on the marine
environment. First, based on an evaluation of the 10 factors, a
determination is made as to whether the discharge will lead to
"unreasonable degradation" of the marine environment. If
information available is insufficient to make this determination,
then a decision is made as to whether the discharge will cause
"irreparable harm." If the discharge will cause irreparable harm,
the permit to discharge is denied. If irreparable harm is not
shown, the permit will be granted with monitoring requirements.
150
-------
Section 403(c) of the CWA requires EPA to consider
the following factorswhen determining the likelihood of
unreasonable degradation:
o The effect of disposal of pollutants on
human health or welfare, including but not
fimrtedf to plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
shorelines, and beaches;
o The effect of disposal of pollutants on
marine life, including the transfer,
concentration, and dispersal of pollutants or
, their byproducts; changes in marine
ecosystem diversity, productivity, and
stability; and species and community
population changes;
o The effect of disposal of pollutants on
aesthetic, recreation, and economic values;
o The persistence and permanence of the
effects of disposal;
o The effect of disposal at varying rates, and
of particular pollutant volumes and
concentrations;
o Other possible locations and methods of
disposal or recycling of pollutants, including
land based alternatives; and
o The effect of disposal on alternate uses of
the oceans, such as mineral exploitation and
scientific study.
Source: Section 403(c>, Clean Water Act.
The 403(c) process utilizes a fundamentally different
approach to evaluate the impact of discharges on the
environment. In essence, 403(c) regulations require
consideration of virtually all major criteria -- with an emphasis
on biologic criteria - in determining the potential impact of
the discharge; technology- or cost-based factors are not
formally considered in the evaluation. Although currently the
criteria apply only to discharges to the territorial sea, waters
of the contiguous zone, and the ocean, Congress is
considering whether or not to extend these requirements to
estuarine waters.
151
-------
To assist Congress, EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection has completed a Draft Supplemental Report that will
identify the number, types, and potential environmental effects of
estuarine discharges by state and by waterbody. The Final
Report to Congress is expected to be completed in December,
1990.
For more information on either the 301 (h) or the
403(c) programs, consult your Regional EPA office or
the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, EPA
Headquarters. -' L " -
Pretreatment for
Indirect Discharges
Municipal sewage treatment systems, also known as publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs), are designed primarily to
manage and treat domestic waste. If pollutants from commercial,
industrial, and other non-domestic sources (indirect discharges)
enter the treatment plant, they may cause such problems as:
(1) Interference with POTW operations. Non-domestic
wastes may alter or inhibit the actual treatment
process. Toxic pollutants, for example, may destroy
or reduce the efficiency of the bacteria used in
activated sludge systems or digesters, causing the
discharge of untreated wastes into receiving waters.
(2) Pass-through of pollutants. Toxic and certain
conventional pollutants may pass through the POTW
system without being removed because the treatment
system is not designed to remove them. Thus, even
if an industrial source is prohibited from discharging
these pollutants directly, pass-through can result in
their release to receiving waters.
(3) Sludge contamination. Successful removal of certain
non-domestic pollutants may result in contamination
of sewage sludge by these pollutants. The
contaminated sludge must then be handled and
disposed of with more stringent and costly
management practices than the POTW would
otherwise incur.
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits. Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment
Development. Washington, DC: October, 1983.
152
-------
EPA's National Pretreatment Program aims to protect both
POTWs and the environment from the effects of these
problems. Through the General Pretreatment Regulations for
New and Existing Sources (40 FR 403), POTWs with a
design flow greater than 5 million gallons per day (mgd) are
required to establish a pretreatment program. In addition,
other POTWs may be required to establish a pretreatment
program if they are found to discharge nondomestic waste
that causes upsets, sludge contamination, or violations of
NPDES permit conditions. The regulations (1) prohibit the
discharge of certain hazardous pollutants, regardless of the
source, and (2) outline categorical pretreatment standards to
control pollutant discharges to POTWs from specific
categories of industrial and commercial sources determined
to be the most significant sources of toxic pollutants. These
standards, published as separate regulations for each
industrial category, provide minimum control requirements for
all discharges within these categories. Each categorical
industry must comply with technology-based effluent
limitations and monitor discharges to achieve and maintain
compliance with the standards.
Although specific features of local pretreatment programs
may vary, each is required to complete an Industrial Waste
Survey of all non-domestic discharges to the treatment
system. This survey can provide valuable information to NEP
Management Conferences, as it includes:
o A master list of all potential industrial and
commercial users located in the POTW service
area; and
o An assessment of each source, to determine the
types, quantities, and concentrations of
pollutants discharged in wastewater.
Where POTWs are required to implement pretreatment
programs, the Industrial Waste Survey should provide
Estuary Management Conferences with comprehensive and
detailed information on potential pollutant sources.
Storm sewers and other urban stormwater discharges have
historically been regulated as nonpoint source discharges.
The Water Quality Act of 1987, however, brought many
stormwater discharges under the authority of NPDES.
Section 405 of the Act establishes permit requirements and
deadlines for stormwater point sources. The amendment
states that no permit will be required prior to October 1,1992
except in the following cases: '..."'
Stormwater
Controls
153
-------
Combined Sewer
Overflows
(1) The discharge is already subject to permit
requirements;
(2) The discharge is the result of industrial activity;
(3) The discharge is from a municipal separate sewer
system serving a population of greater than 100,000
but less than 250,000;
(4) The discharge is from a municipal separate sewer
system serving a population of greater than 250,000;
or
(5) The discharge contributes to a violation of a water
quality standard or is a significant contributor of
pollutants to U.S. waters.
For groups two and four, EPA or the state must require permits
by February, 1990. For group three, EPA must begin a control
program by February, 1991. After October 1,1992, all remaining
unpermitted stormwater point sources will be required to obtain
permits under the NPDES program.
Permits are required for all stormwater point source discharges
except where stormwater is diverted around mining operations or
oil and gas operations, and does not come into contact with
overburden, raw material, product, or process waters.
Agricultural stormwater discharges are also excluded from point
source control under the NPDES program.
EPA is currently developing the rule for industrial and large
municipal stormwater discharges, along with guidance
documents for permit writers, and a guidance manual to help
municipalities prepare stormwater permit applications. Both
documents are expected to be finished by the end of 1990.
The primary objective of storm sewer systems is to mitigate the
impact of stormwater volume and flow by diverting it to a
waterbody with a minimum of erosion and pollutant runoff. Many
older urban areas operate storm sewer systems that carry urban
wastewater to a sewage treatment plant during dry weather and
carry stormwater mixed with wastewater when it rains. During
heavy rains, excess sewage-storm water bypasses the sewage
treatment plant and enters the receiving waters directly. This
"combined sewer overflow" (CSO) may introduce bacteria and
other pathogens, toxics, medical waste, and other debris to
receiving waters.
EPA recently developed a national strategy for controlling
combined sewer overflows. The strategy aims to:
154
-------
o Ensure that all CSO discharges occur as a result
of wet weather;
o Ensure that all wet weather discharge points are
in compliance with technology-based
requirements of the Clean Water Act and
applicable state water quality standards; and
o Minimize the impacts to water quality, aquatic
biota, and human health from wet weather
overflows that do occur.
A guidance document to implement this strategy is currently
being developed. NEP Management Conferences may want
to investigate local strategies to address CSO problems, to
ensure that the objectives above are being met and to
influence decisions regarding long-term storm sewer
management plans.
Section 404 of the CWA requires a permit from the Corps of
Engineers prior to the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the U.S. Applicable waters include:
o All waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
o The territorial sea;
o Interstate waters and wetlands;
o Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands
whose use, degradation, or destruction could
affect interstate or foreign commerce;
o Tributaries of waters or wetlands identified above;
and
o Wetlands adjacent to waters identified above.
Permits generally specify the type and amount of dredged or
fill material approved for discharge. EPA's responsibilities in
this program include developing environmental guidelines by
which permit applications are evaluated, reviewing proposed
permits, and prohibiting discharges with unacceptable
adverse impacts on specific aquatic resources. In general,
the Corps will not issue a permit if a practicable alternative
with less adverse impact on the aquatic environment exists.
Section 404
Regulatory Program
155
-------
Mitigating Impacts
to Wetlands Under
Section 404
An important provision of Section 404 allows for the issuance of
"nationwide" general permits for activities that will have only
minimal impacts on the environment. These general permits
often specify that activities planned under the permit follow
certain "Best Management Practices," but permittees are not
generally required to notify the Corps of their activities, nor are
they required to obtain a site-specific permit. Natipnwide Permit
26, in particular, authorizes most discharges of dredged or fill
material in isolated wetlands that affect fewer than 10 acres,
unless the Corps determines that the discharge would result in
more than minimal adverse environmental effects on the aquatic
environment. .
Because the process for permit review and analysis of
alternatives can be quite time consuming, there are provisions
that allow for early review of wetland areas. Advanced
identification (ADID) is used to designate areas generally suitable
and unsuitable for the discharge of dredged and fill material.
This ADID process can help NEP management conferences to
protect critical or sensitive wetland areas.
In the implementation of Section 404, EPA's Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines call for projects to avoid and minimize potential
impacts on wetlands, according to the following set of priorities:
o First, impacts should be avoided to the maximum
extent practicable;
o Second, all unavoidable impacts should be minimized
to the maximum extext practicable; and
o Third, appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation for impacts that cannot be avoided should
be provided.
Compensatory mitigation typically involves the creation or
restoration of other areas to replicate the functions of the lost
area. Under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, compensatory
mitigation should only be used for unavoidable impacts - if there
are practicable alternatives to degrading the sensitive
environment (such as developing a less sensitive site), permits
for the development can be refused. Guidance on the type and
level of mitigation required under the Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines is summarized in a recent Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA and the Department of the Army concerning
mitigation in the Section 404 regulatory program.
156
-------
By participating in wetlands protection efforts, NEP
Management Conferences can ensure that these efforts take
into account broader impacts on the estuarine ecosystem.
For example, Management Conferences might provide
comments to the Corps of Engineers as part of the Section
404 permit review process for development projects that
would have deleterious effects on the estuary, ensuring that
estuarine water quality is included as a consideration when
potential impacts are determined. Second, Management
Conferences could encourage the use of compensatory
mitigation to enhance or create wetlands that will improve the
overall condition of the estuary. For example, as
compensatory mitigation for development projects, a
Management Conference might encourage the creation of a
wetland that could filter pollutants or toxins that would
otherwise degrade the estuary.
Washington state's Puget Sound drains over 10 million
acres, supporting fisheries valued in 1984 at an
estimated $74 million. The sound's estuarine wetlands,
which provide habitat for several important species,
occupy areas under severe pressure for development
because of increasing population. To relieve this
stress, several mitigation projects have taken place,
chiefly around the cities of Seattle and Tacoma. They
have included plans to use four different techniques:
o Substrate modification, through the
placement of boulders, cobble, gravel, or
tine sand;
o Shoreline creation, through excavation of
upland areas or by filling areas of deeper
water;
o Creation of eelgrass meadows through
transplantation: and
o Creation of marsh habitat by planting
emergent aquatic vegetation or excavating
channels into upland areas.
Parties involved in the Puget Sound projects caution
that compensatory mitigation Is not a panacea. Strict
one-to-one replacement of lost habitat is extremely
difficult to achieve, and most mitigation plans seek
simply to maintain fish and wildlife habitat, rather than
to replace the full spectrum of wetlands values.
157
-------
Section 401
Certification
Section 401 of the CWA provides each state with a
comprehensive mechanism to review and approve, modify,
or deny any permit or license granted by a federal agency or
authority governing discharges to inter- or intrastate waters
originating in that state. Applicants for a federal license or
permit that will result in such discharge must provide the
licensing or permitting authority with a certification from the
state in which the discharge originates (or will originate) that
the discharge will comply with all relevant state water quality
provisions. This tool provides states an opportunity to
oversee and influence federal permitting and licensing
programs. In particular, states can influence a facility's
location and operation by carefully exercising their Section
401 certification authority.
This Appendix has introduced a number of approaches to
address threats to land and water resources. NEP
Management Conferences must individually evaluate these
tools to determine what will likely work, what the public and
political climate will bear, and what can be implemented
within reasonable time and resource constraints. The
process of selecting and evaluating management practices
will be challenging, and it will require that Conference
members have a shared understanding of the types of
actions available, in addition to the factors to consider in
evaluating these actions. This Appendix was designed to
provide a baseline of information for Conference Members to
build on, a checklist of actions and factors to consider. The
next step is to consult experts and additional sources for
detailed information on the particular actions that seem most
promising in addressing the estuary's most significant
problems.
In Conclusion
158
-------
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
(WH-556F)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |