The National Estuary
Program After Four Years
A Report to Congress
-------
-------
Foreword
Part I Meeting a Need: The National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program
A Geographical Approach to Ecosystem Management . . .
Estuary Projects in the NEP
Establishment of Management Conferences
Characterization of the Estuary
Development of a CCMP
Implementation of Plans
An Evolutionary Process
2
2
3
4
5
5
6
6
Part II Understanding Estuaries: The Key to Better Management
Supporting Estuarine Study
Learning About Estuarine Problems
. 8
10
Part III Managing Estuaries: The Best Methods
Assessing Base Programs
Taking Early Action
17
18
PartIV Assessing the NEP: What Has Been Learned
Two Successful Management Conferences
Resolving Watershed-Wide Conflicts
Coordinating and Integrating Scientific and Management Efforts
Monitoring Estuaries
Educating and Involving the Public
Financing CCMP Implementation
Applying NEP Lessons
Demonstrating Science Advisory Board Recommendations . .
25
28
28
29
29
31
32
32
PartV Looking to the Future: Trends and Needs
Closer Integration with EPA Programs . . .
Future Research Needs
A Scientific/Managemenl/Public Partnership
Priority Concerns
Steps in the Right Direction
35
35
36
36
38
Part VI Moving Ahead: The NEP Projects
The Seventeen NEP Projects
Tier!
39
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
Buzzards Bay
Long Island Sound . . . .
42
46
49
-------
NarragansettBay 52
PugetSound 56
San Francisco Estuary 6°
Tier 2
Delaware Estuary 64
Delaware Inland Bays • 68
Galveston Bay 71
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary 74
Santa Monica Bay 77
SarasotaBay 80
TierS .
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex 84
CascoBay 87
Indian River Lagoon 89
Massachusetts Bays • • 92
Tampa Bay 95
List of Tables .
1. Estuarine Features 9
2. National Estuary Program Problems/Causes Matrix 12
3. Comparison of PugetSound and Buzzards Bay CCMPs 27
List of Figures
1. Population Density 1
2. NEP Phases 2
3. NEP Estuaries . .• 3
4. Management Conference Committees . . . 5
5. Characterization Information Puzzle . . 7
6. Estimated Percentage of Harvest-Limited Shellfish-Growing Acres ... 14
7. Pollutant Sources 15
8. Members of an NEP Management Conference 18
9. Regulatory and Nonregulatory Tools • • • • ^9
10. Financing CCMP Implementation 32
11. Three Future NEP Targets 37
-------
Contents
List of Photographs
Sewage treatment plants are being upgraded 11
Agricultural runoff pollutes waterways 20
This stormwater outfall is a source of pollution to the Indian River Lagoon . . 20
Bacterial pollution leads to closed shellfish beds 21
Debris can kill wildlife 22
Marinas also contribute to pollution 28
Learning about estuarine resources 31
The NEP aims to protect living resources 38
Lloyd's Neck Lighthouse 38
Learning from generation to generation 43
Television programs help the public protect the sounds 44
Buzzards Bay at sunset 46
Coastsweep Cleanup 47
LISS is trying to protect the oystering industry 50
Sandfiddler 51
The Narragansett Bay Project aims to protect quahogs 53
Learning about Narragansett Bay 54
A view of Mount Rainier from Filuce Bay 57
Wetland restoration planting ,59
Striped bass with lesions—Striped bass population is down two-thirds . . . .61
Marsh waterfowl—88 percent of wetlands are lost 62
Off-loading tanker in Delaware Bay 65
Black-crowned night heron 66
View of the bays looking east toward the Atlantic Ocean 69
Students examining a seine net during Inland Bays Appreciation Day ... .70
Galveston Bay is home to the largest petrochemical complex in the world . . 72
GBNEP aims to reverse trends toward declining living resources 73
Fishing in the shadows of New York City 75
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project is protecting the California
leasttern 78
The Project is improving tidal circulation and limiting public access
to the Ballona Lagoon Marine Preserve 79
Students planting marsh grass 81
LUMCON research boat, Timbalier Island 85
Cypress swamp, Jefferson Parish 86
Healthyworm 88
Worm with oil-like globules on feet 88
The West Indian manatee is an endangered species 90
Children are learning to appreciate the lagoon 91
A view of Boston Harbor 93
Schoolchildren and adults help keep the harbor clean 94
A marina on Tampa Bay 96
Framework for Characterization Workshop 97
-------
-------
The National Estuary
Program After Four Years:
A Report to Congress
The National Estuary Program After
Four Years: A Report to Congress is a
status report on the National Estuary
Program (NEP) and the seventeen
Management Conferences that are part
of the NEP.
The NEP was established in 1987
as part of the Clean Water Act
amendments. The program, starting
with six estuaries, has grown to include
seventeen Management Conferences
along the East, West, and Gulf of
Mexico coastlines. Two of the original
estuaries have completed their
missions of producing Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) and are carrying out their
plans with the support of state and
local government and private citizens.
The experiences gained by these two
Management Conferences during the
development of their CCMPs have
provided valuable lessons; their work
will continue to serve as a model for
others. Just as the early NEP built
upon lessons learned in the Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay Programs,
the NEP will continue to evolve as new
information and technology are
developed.
This Report is divided into
six parts:
Part I Meeting a Need: The National
Estuary Program outlines the NEP
approach to managing estuarine
ecosystems.
Part II Understanding Estuaries: The
Key to Better Management describes
how estuaries are characterized and
tells what is being learned through
cooperative efforts.
Part III Managing Estuaries: The Best
Methods presents some of the
management actions being developed
to address problems defined through
characterization; these actions are the
coreoftheCCMP.
Part IV Assessing the NEP: What Has
Been Learned describes how the NEP
process and philosophy have advanced
our knowledge of estuaries and
estuarine management.
PartV Looking to the Future: Trends
and Needs addresses areas where new
efforts are being directed in light of our
increasing understanding of estuarine
management.
Part VI Moving Ahead: The NEP
Projects summarizes the progress
being made in each of the seventeen
NEP projects.
The NEP is a relatively new
program in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Office of
Water. It is administered by the Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
in partnership with EPA Regional
Offices.
The NEP addresses a major
challenge—restoring and protecting
estuaries of national significance.
Although it will probably take decades
to meet this challenge, the NEP has
already taken important steps forward
and is on the way toward meeting its
goals.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM i
-------
-------
Meeting a Need: The National
Estuary Program
Along our nation's coasts are special
bodies of water—estuaries. In these
unique bodies of water, fresh water
draining from the land mixes with salt
water from the sea. These critical
coastal habitats serve as spawning
grounds, nurseries, shelters, and food
sources, sustaining the health and
productivity of finfish, shellfish, birds,
and other wildlife. Estuarine marshes
and vegetation serve as filters for
sediments and pollutants, barriers
against floods, and nurseries for the
oceans. Estuarine waters and the
living resources they help support form
unique ecosystems.
The natural beauty and bounty of
these ecosystems are among the
reasons estuaries are threatened.
People appreciate then: unique qualities
and are drawn to their shores and the
shores of their tributaries. According
to National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration figures, almost half of
the United States population now lives
hi coastal areas. Total coastal
population growth between 1960 and
2010 is expected to increase by almost
60 percent; Florida's population alone
is expected to increase by 226 percent
during those years. With people come
housing, business and industry,
recreational fishing and water sports,
commercial fishing, cars, and roads.
Uncontrolled and controlled
development and exploitation of
estuarine resources are threatening the
existence of these important
ecosystems.
Congress recognized that estuaries
are unique and endangered ecosystems
and that traditional water pollution
control programs alone are insufficient
to address the more complex issues
relating to estuaries. These issues
include protecting living resources and
their habitats, controlling discharges
into waterways of diffuse sources of
pollutants, and managing estuaries as
watershed ecosystems. Responding to
the unmet needs of estuarine
ecosystems, Congress established the
National Estuary Program in 1987
under Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act.
2000
2010
Coastal
Counties
Coastal
States
United
States
Note: Does not include Alaska
Source: A Special Earth Week Report: SO Years of Population Change Along the
Nation's Coasts - 1960-2010, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service
Figure 1. Population Density
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 1
-------
The National Estuary Program
The mission of the National Estuary
Program (NEP) is to identify nationally
significant estuaries and to establish
and oversee a process for improving
and protecting their water quality and
enhancing their living resources.
Under the Clean Water Act, a state
governor nominates an estuary in the
governor's state for participation in the
National Estuary Program. If the
estuary meets the program guidelines,
the Administrator of EPA convenes a
Management Conference in the
selected estuary to develop a
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) for
managing the estuarine watershed. A
CCMP addresses three general
resource areas:
D water and sediment quality,
focusing on pollution abatement
and control.
a living resources, including
restoration as well as protection of
special habitat areas.
Q land use and water resources, using
regulatory and nonregulatory
means to conserve land and water.
The NEP process for developing
the CCMP is unique. It consists of
four phases:
D Planning - Building a management
and decision-making framework,
involving all appropriate federal,
state, and local government
agencies, state and local elected
officials, academic
institutions, interest groups,
and the public.
D Characterization -
Identifying and
characterizing the
estuary's environmental
problems and their
probable causes.
D CCMP Development - Developing
both conventional and innovative
management approaches and
specific actions for solving the
problems.
D CCMP Implementation -
Implementing management
solutions with the support of state
and local officials and private
citizens, using all available and
applicable regulatory, institutional,
-, and financial means.
; Though EPA provides technical
and management assistance, oversight,
and funding for CCMP development,
the responsibility for creating and
implementing the CCMP is in the
hands of members of the Management
Conference. The final CCMP,
however, must be approved by the
PROTECTED
AND
RESTORED
ESTUARIES
'X)
IMPLEMENTATION
CCMP DEVELOPMENT
CHARACTERIZATION
PLANNING
Figure 2. NEP Phases
EPA Administrator, with the
concurrence of the governor of each
affected state.
A Geographic Approach to
Ecosystem Management
From the beginning, the NEP has
focused on selected estuarine
watersheds and the living resources
associated with those estuaries. The
NEP targets nationally significant
estuaries, using a geographic
approach—a focus on selected
locations where a collective
concentration of the best public and
private efforts are brought to bear on
solving an estuary's problems.
The geographic approach permits
comprehensive identification,
assessment, and action on a variety of
environmental problems within a
single watershed. The traditional
approach to environmental protection
has been to consider specific program
issues with little consideration of the
effectiveness of such actions on
maintaining or improving the condition
of the ecosystem as a whole. These
"end-of-pipe" solutions failed to
recognize the protection or
improvement of the resource as their
goal. Priority issues have often been
defined in the past more by the
availability of programs focusing on a
specific problem than by need in the
context of the whole watershed.
Although the geographic approach
may be complex, the rewards
achieved by gaining healthy
environments and robust
resources are much more
satisfactory. In applying the
geographic approach,
Management Conferences
use traditional water quality
control measures as well as
innovative and
2 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Parti
nontraditional methods, both
regulatory and nonregulatory, that are
available through all levels of
government and the private sector.
Because of the variety and
complexity of stresses on an estuary,
Management Conferences rely on
laws, management tactics, and funding
available from numerous public and
private sources. For example, local
leadership can provide for the
development of protective land use and
growth management practices. These
practices can augment Clean Water
Act base programs such as the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES), through which
dischargers are regulated by permit,
and other federal and state programs.
Estuarine management requires the
formulation of a complex web of
federal, state, and local mechanisms
that together promote recovery and
prevent degradation of estuarine
systems. By coordinating and
integrating all the authorities,
expertise, and available funding,
Management Conferences implement
the most effective combination of
regulatory and management tools to
protect estuaries.
Estuary Projects in the NEP
Each estuary selected for the NEP is
voluntarily nominated by a state
governor or, for multi-state estuaries,
state governors who document the
estuary's national significance and
request participation in the NEP. To
show that an estuary is nationally
significant, each governor must
demonstrate that the problems of the
estuary are of major national concern
and that the commitment and financial
capability exist to develop and
implement a comprehensive
management plan to fulfill stated goals
and objectives for the restoration or
protection of the estuary. Many of the
estuaries selected for the NEP had been
identified by Congress for priority
consideration prior to governors'
nominations.
The NEP currently includes 17
estuary projects: Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds in North Carolina; Buzzards
Bay in Massachusetts; Long Island
Sound in Connecticut and New York;
Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island;
Puget Sound in Washington State; San
Francisco Estuary and Santa Monica
Bay in California; Delaware Estuary in
Puget
Sound
Massachusetts
?anln
rancisco \!
Estuary /
Delaware Estuary
Delaware
;"3' .uTVIIniand Bays
Albemarle-
Pamlico
Sounds
Santa Monica
Bay
Indian River
Lagoon
Figures. NEP Estuaries
Barataria-
Terrebonne
Estuarine
Complex
iBay
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 3
-------
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
Delaware; Delaware Inland Bays in
Delaware; Galveston Bay in Texas;
New York-New Jersey Harbor in New
York and New Jersey; Sarasota Bay in
Florida; Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex in Louisiana; Casco Bay in
Maine; Indian River Lagoon in Florida;
Massachusetts Bays in Massachusetts;
and Tampa Bay in Florida.
Establishment of Management
Conferences
The Management Conference is the
decision-making framework for
carrying out the NEP process.
Through Management Conferences, all
interested parties work together to
develop a plan—the CCMP—that will
be supported and carried out under
state and local auspices. The members
of the Conference identify major
problems in their estuaries, decide
where to focus corrective actions, and
agree to specific political, financial,
and institutional commitments.
Management Conferences include
representatives of citizen and user
groups and of scientific and technical
institutions, and they include all
relevant government agencies and
resource managers at the federal, state,
and local levels. Representatives of
these groups serve on committees that
comprise the formal Management
Conference and oversee development
of the CCMP.
A major responsibility of
Management Conferences is to build
and sustain the strong public support
and political cooperation needed to
carry out the seven major tasks with
which they are charged (see box). This
public commitment is particularly
important because it will take a long
time to restore these estuaries and even
longer to develop lasting protective
measures to sustain them for future
generations. Congress gave each
Conference up to five years to build
the initial framework for action, to
begin some priority cleanup activities,
and to develop the CCMP for
long-term problem solving.
The first task of each Management
Conference is to adapt a standard
committee design to meet its own
needs. Most of the 17 estuary projects
now part of the NEP use a formal
committee organization, which
includes a policy-level committee, a
management-level committee, a
representative citizens committee, and
a committee of science and technical
advisors. (The scientific and technical
advisory committee is described in Part
II.) Other committees and task groups
are established to address concerns
including local government needs,
financial planning, and monitoring. In
addition, each estuary project has staff
who report to a management or policy
committee. Staff is responsible for
day-to-day operations.
Through its committee structure
and public outreach efforts, the
Management Conference serves as a
forum for collaborative decision
making and consensus building around
often conflicting issues. It encourages
open discussion and compromise that
result in support for the actions needed
to restore and protect the estuary. A
policy committee, comprised of
high-level EPA and state
representatives, is responsible for
overseeing the decision-making
process.
The policy committee directs all
Management Conference activities.
Committee members are key officials,
or their designees, who help to provide
the resources needed to support the
Management Conference. Usually
appointed by the EPA Administrator or
a state governor, they are responsible
for making decisions after considering
the needs of the estuary ecosystem, the
costs and benefits of restoration and
protection strategies, and the value the
community places on the estuary's
resources.
From the beginning, the
Management Conference builds its
support base in part from the key
federal, state, and local government
-/
^Accprj3ing^to Section 320 of the
I Clean Water Act, Management s
» Conferences are cnarged with ''
carrying out seven major tasks:
"*^b assess trends in the estuary's1 ^ '
*" **- Vater quality, natural resources,
^ - andjuses;
~ D identify causes of environmental
_ - problems by collecting and
,IT« fnalyzing data; ' " /
""* qlisse^s pollutant loadings in the
,**.» -£gt|jgry an(j rejate them to
j. ...jjbsgryed changes in water
^ quality, natural resources, and
^n^ecommendjnd schedule ,^ ''
"^ priority actions to restore and ]
identify the means io carry out t \
*th*ese actions—the CCMP";
•*-D develop plans for the ,
; «i cloordinated implementation of /
'; « priority actions among federal, "#
jtyfyft state, and local agencies
*s* ? invoTved*in Sie'Co'nfe'rerice;^
**™fi monitor the effectiveness of
*S? ,*actipns take under the CCMP;
* ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ >
^u review federal assistance and
"^ *" ^ "*• *
CT"development programs to
~W determine whether they are *
S-t &"*• s$&, si ^ ™ ^>, ™ jJS-k s j &!£,
_ consistent with the goals' of the
." CCMP.
4 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Parti
agencies responsible for
estuary-related activities. These
activities include agricultural
management, land-use planning
and zoning, fish and wildlife
management, and sewage
treatment. Federal, state, and
local managers, who have
potential implementation
responsibilities, are included
early in the CCMP development
process. Agency managers
usually serve on the management
committee.
The citizen advisory
committee includes representatives of
the major businesses, industries and
their associations; environmental and
civic groups; farmer and fishing
groups; and educators and other
affected and interested citizens. This
group helps the Management
Conference understand the concerns of
the people living in the watershed. The
citizen advisors inform their colleagues
and friends about the Management
Conference activities and help win
their support. The committee also
oversees the public participation
program sponsored by the
Management Conference.
Because public involvement is a
vital function of every Conference,
another early Management Conference
activity is to develop a public
participation strategy. This strategy
usually contains specific activities to
inform the public, including
developing a mailing list and preparing
newsletters, fact sheets, and a slide
show that describe the estuary's
problems and invite participation in
solving them. The strategy also
includes meetings and workshops
planned around significant points in
developing the CCMP. Another
strategy component targets school
children for special programs to make
Policy
Committee
Citizen
Advisory
Committee
^^H
T
Management
Committee;
Science/
Technical
Advisory
Committee
Figure 4. Management Conference Committees
them aware of the need to protect the
estuary. These steps not only help
ensure that the CCMP will have strong
public support, but that the public will
be willing to help take care of the
estuary in the future.
To support the citizen involvement
efforts of estuary projects, EPA
sponsors workshops and an
inter-estuary newsletter, which
promotes citizen participation. In 1991
more than 70 representatives from
NEP Management Conferences took
part hi a four-day workshop that
focused on the role of citizens in
CCMP development. EPA also
conducts activities that encourage
citizen monitoring programs.
Volunteer monitoring programs have
been found to provide both learning
experiences for citizens and
information useful to estuary projects.
Characterization of the Estuary
The first substantive work of the
Management Conference is to identify
the chief estuary problems and to begin
characterizing, or describing the status
of, the estuary. Relying primarily on
existing scientific information, with
some additional work performed to fill
in the most important information
gaps, the estuary is characterized.
Characterizations focus on known
facts about the current status of
estuary health, estuary problems
and their likely causes and sources,
and any trends that are apparent. A
characterization report may
recommend immediate actions to
address a problem, additional work
to fill in information gaps, or a
long-term approach to address a
more difficult problem. The
characterization report leads to the
development of optional strategies
and to specific action steps from
which a CCMP is developed.
Part II of this Report to Congress
further describes the NEP
characterization process and some of
the efforts in which estuary projects are
engaged.
Development of a CCMP
The CCMP is a blueprint for restoring
and protecting an estuary. After
selecting the most pressing problems,
the CCMP states goals and objectives
aimed at solving those problems. It
also prescribes activities directed to
meet the Management Conference
goals and objectives. To help ensure
its success, a CCMP also requires
detailed plans for its implementation.
Essential elements of a CCMP include
a funding program, monitoring
strategy, and ongoing public
participation component.
Although the CCMP is directed
toward solving long-term problems,
the NEP encourages estuary projects to
take action on a problem as soon as
action is feasible. Most Management
Conferences have identified obvious
problems early in their development
process. Following NEP guidelines,
they develop and implement early
action plans targeted to address these
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 5
-------
problems. In this way, the
Management Conference can
demonstrate an action prior to
completing the full estuary
characterization and CCMP phases. If
an early action is successful, it will
become a key part of the completed
CCMP. EPA encourages early action
projects as part of the CCMP
development process.
The NEP four-phased process is
generally followed; however, each
estuary project is different and may
take a slightly different approach.
EPA allows flexibility, as long as the
Management Conference works toward
an acceptable and implementable
CCMP within a five-year time frame.
Implementation of Plans
A CCMP must be implemented
effectively. To ensure successful
implementation, the plan must be
endorsed by and must receive
continuing commitment from the
scientific community, the public,
elected officials, and the government
agencies responsible for its
implementation. Such commitments
require that the plan outline practical
strategies for addressing the estuary's
problems. Section 319 (nonpoint
source program) and Titles n and VI
(State Revolving Fund) of the Clean
Water Act, as well as other EPA
programs, are sources of funding for
implementation. Management
Conferences are responsible for
obtaining these and other federal, state,
and local resources essential for
implementation.
A financial plan describing the
commitment of resources is a key
component of the CCMP. Some of the
early NEP projects have made
substantial progress toward developing
CCMP financial plans. The experience
of these projects has prompted other
projects to get an early start in
considering financing issues. As a
result, several NEP projects have
established financial planning
committees as part of their
Management Conferences.
Implementation is generally to be
carried out through existing or
redirected state and local programs;
however, it might also involve the
passage of new laws, formation of new
institutions, and development of new
programs. Though these needs are
often identified through the CCMP
development process, it is up to state
and local government and the public to
carry them out. Public information,
education, and participation efforts
help to bring such needs to light and
:lay the groundwork for long-term
stewardship of the estuary. A
Management Conference with a solid
institutional and public support base
built in the early phase of the process
stands to be more successful in finding
state and local commitments for
implementing its CCMP.
An Evolutionary Process
The NEP expanded upon lessons
'learned in the Chesapeake Bay and
Great Lakes Programs. Since its start
in 1987, it has continued to evolve,
based on the experiences of each NEP
project; reshaping the process to take
advantage of new experiences is part
of the NEP's evolutionary
development. In addition, each estuary
program experience serves as a lesson
:for others; the NEP fosters an
exchange of information, technology,
and experience among the estuary
projects.
Restoring and protecting estuaries
is a relatively new goal; the NEP offers
a new approach to achieving this goal.
We are just beginning to understand
these unique bodies of water. It will
take time—decades—and a
cooperative effort among all interested
parties to more fully understand,
restore, protect, and maintain estuarine
ecosystems in the future.
6 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Understanding Estuaries:
The Key to Better
Management
Once a Management Conference is
convened, each estuary project begins
to characterize the estuary. A
characterization is the description of
the quality of the estuary, defining its
problems and linking problems to
causes. Characterization provides the
objective basis for developing and
testing action strategies for the CCMP.
Using the institutional framework
built by each Management Conference,
all appropriate parties are brought
together to examine all the information
known about the estuary that can lead
to sound management decisions for
restoring and protecting the estuary.
Through this examination,
the Management Conference
begins to understand the
estuary.
Estuary characterization
relies primarily on existing
scientific information.
Through
characterization, all
estuary-related
information is put
together like a jigsaw
puzzle, identifying
pieces that fit, as well
as missing pieces.
Using this process, the
Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program
conducted workshops to
develop its framework for
characterization. The
workshops addressed all
sources of information that
define Tampa Bay's physical,
chemical, and biological status;
identified data gaps needed to be filled
for characterizing Tampa Bay; and
developed a structure for the
characterization process. Once the
estuary's key problems and then-
probable causes are determined,
remedial actions can be prescribed.
The characterization process sheds
light on the most important needs for
new data. Often new information is
needed to establish links between
causes and effects. The NEP allows
for limited applied research and
strongly encourages estuary projects to
work closely with local universities
and government research entities that
perform scientific studies. In addition,
the NEP, through scientific symposia,
facilitates interactions and scientific
exchange among research institutions '
and estuary projects. Exchanges such
as these also help to focus research
efforts on estuarine problems.
Figure 5.
Characterization
Information Puzzle
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 7
-------
The NEP provides a process to
integrate science and decision making
for the protection, restoration, and
maintenance of estuaries.
Management Conferences are
investigating their estuary's physical
characteristics and stresses, and they
are developing and implementing
actions aimed at improving estuarine
watur quality and living resources.
1>i results of this effort provide a
basis for implementing critical actions
beyond the five years designated for
the Management Conference under the
Clean Water Act.
Supporting Estuarine Study
Through the characterization process,
scientists from federal, state, and local
government agencies, at academic
institutions, and in the private sector
are conducting studies to determine an
estuary's problems and their causes
and are working with estuary managers
to suggest remedies. Because the NEP
is not a research program, it relies
heavily on the past and current
research of other agencies and
institutions to support its work.
The Science and Technical Advisory
Committee
Each Management Conference has
a Scientific/Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC) charged with
directing and evaluating the scientific
work of the Management Conference.
This committee is responsible for
ensuring that management decisions
are based on sound scientific and
technical information. The STAC
oversees the assembly and analysis of
both historical and new data and
determines the need for new studies to
fill information gaps. Using this
information, the STAC helps to
characterize the estuary. The
committee also guides the
Management Conference's monitoring,
assessment, and data management
activities. STAC members conduct
peer reviews of studies, report on the
status of the estuary, and alert the
Conference to emerging problems. To
ensure scientific quality, members of
the STAC review requests for
scientific proposals and evaluate the
proposals submitted.
Members of the STAC represent
government agencies and public and
private institutions conducting
scientific studies in the estuarine
system. Most STACs include
members with expertise in aspects of
water quality, transport and fate of
pollutants, ecological and human
health, and biological resources.
In addition to their efforts to
support estuary characterization and
the development of the CCMP, STAC
members help determine where data
gaps exist and recommend research
activities to fill these gaps. Moreover,
once management actions are taken, a
long-term monitoring program is
needed to measure results of these
actions. Monitoring helps assess
whether the estuary water quality and
living resources are responding to
management actions and whether other
natural or human-induced effects are
coming into play. The STAC is vital
hi making these assessments and
recommending further actions or
adjustments.
EPA Research
Research programs of EPA's
Office of Research and Development
(ORD) help provide information about
how estuarine ecosystems work. For
instance, ORD has been part of a major
research effort in the Great Lakes, the
results of which will contribute to
scientific knowledge about large
watershed systems. This effort is a
multi-media approach that will
culminate in a five-year strategy for
restoring the quality of the Great
Lakes. The study will address goals of
restoring and maintaining the
ecosystem by reducing toxic
substances pollution, controlling
habitat degradation, and restoring
damaged habitats to support plant and
animal communities. This major
research effort is required to develop
the base for such a management
strategy.
The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP), another
ORD program, has been monitoring
estuaries along the mid-Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico coasts as part of an
effort to find out if conditions in the
estuaries are getting better or worse.
This long-term monitoring program is
interacting with NEP estuary projects
to allow both EMAP and the estuary
projects to enlarge their information
bases. The NEP will be able to
incorporate new findings from these
efforts to advance work in individual
estuaries and will benefit from
methodologies being developed under
these programs.
NOAA'sRole
The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the nation's chief marine sciences
agency, supports the NEP
characterization efforts. Two of its
programs are the National Marine
Fisheries Service, which assesses
fishery stocks, reviews fishing permits,
and performs research in coastal
habitats; and the National Ocean
Service, which is responsible for the
National Status and Trends Program
and the National Estuarine Inventory.
8 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 2
NOAA's National Status and
Trends (NS&T) Program is attempting
to assess current coastal conditions and
determine whether these conditions are
improving or deteriorating. Since
1984, the NS&T Program has been
collecting information on the presence
of chemical contaminants in mussels,
oysters, fish, and sediments at almost
300 sites along the nation's coastlines.
NS&T data are supplemented with
selected high-quality historical data
and data from other special studies.
NOAA has also been characterizing
estuaries and contributing to the
interpretation of monitoring results in
coastal areas. Further, NOAA and
EMAP are conducting monitoring and
assessment programs in coastal waters
and sharing information.
The NS&T Program is also
conducting surveys of bioeffects to
assess the magnitude and extent of
ecological degradation in NEP project
areas. Studies have been conducted in
San Francisco Bay and Long Island
Sound and are currently under way hi
Boston Harbor, Tampa Bay, and New
York-New Jersey Harbor. Sea Grant
Programs, also sponsored by NOAA,
are also active in Management
Conferences, working with citizen
monitoring teams. Representatives
from other NOAA programs, such as
the National Marine Fisheries Service,
also participate in individual
Management Conferences, serving on
management and scientific committees.
As part of NOAA's monitoring and
research efforts, a statistical
information base on 102 of the nation's
estuaries, including the 17 selected for
the National Estuary Program, has
been publi shed. This National
Estuarine Inventory lists estuary
characteristics that include physical
and hydrologic features; natural
resources, including fish, shellfish,
habitat, and wildlife; and human uses.
The index also includes information
about an estuary's susceptibility to
pollution—that is, its ability to flush
out and to dilute pollutants. The index
is being evaluated as part of a national
survey of nutrient enrichment in
estuaries, sponsored jointly by EPA
and NOAA (see Table 1).
NOAA also supports a network of
25 coastal and marine research
facilities, 17 estuarine reserves in the
Table 1.
Estuarine
Features
PHYSICAL and HYDROLOGIC FEATURES
NATURAL
RESOURCES
ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES
§>
CO """i*
p
Q in
e.
1.
,
s
I
«!
If
Classified
Shellfish
Waters (sq.mi.)
I
S s
D 0-
c ?s3;.
U 91
'."ww:
Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds
i^i
'- 103-
Indian River Lagoon
327
-•,.30,
Sarasota Bay
>-28;
:::«;
Tampa Bay
j-,.,13.
U476JS:
Barataria-Terrebonne Bays
1326.'-.
MCu
'r-782!:
270,!,
i -30,
Galveston Bay
245|;
J540-
•152;
^374*.
^547;
Santa Monica Bay
••I844i;
San Francisco Bay
863,!
4,421
1321 f
Puget Sound
.3292
'-842'':'
?708J-
308
733 2223 11621 1391 2974 16267 7112
5491 7802 19860 468 497 2705 1565
Abbreviations: sq.mi., square miles; ft., feet; avg., average; cfs, cubic feet per second; cu.ft,
wastewater treatment plant; H, high; M, medium; L, low; N/D, no data.
Source: NOAA, "Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base.'
cubic feet; EDA, estuarine drainage area; MWTP, municipal
A Special 20th Anniversary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, October 1990.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 9
-------
National Estuarine Reserve System,
and 29 universities and colleges in the
National Sea Grant Program. An
agency under the U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA contributes
considerable amounts of the scientific
information that is now being used to
advance an understanding of how
estuaries work and how estuarine
systems are being stressed. This
information is used extensively by
NEP Management Conferences in then-
estuary characterization work.
The development and production
of the National Shellfish Register of
Classified Estuarine Waters is a
NOAA information activity performed
in conjunction with the Food and Drug
Administration. In addition, NOAA's
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge
Inventory is a data base which
significantly contributes to the body of
knowledge used by Management
Conferences.
NOAA and EPA are currently
partners in designing a questionnaire to
help determine how estuaries are used.
The questionnaire will be used to
produce the 1992 National Survey on
Recreation and the Environment,
which involves a broad coalition of
public agencies and private
organizations.
Other Federal Agencies
In addition to EPA and NOAA
research programs, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is responsible
for assuring the safety offish and
shellfish in interstate commerce. As
part of its responsibility, FDA
establishes safe levels for poisonous or
deleterious substances, such as lead,
mercury, and polychlorinated
hydrocarbons (PCBs). These safe
levels can be used as guidelines by
states in issuing advisories on local fish
consumption. FDA also works with
NOAA to classify estuarine waters and
make determinations about their safety
for shellfish harvesting. Working
closely with these two agencies, EPA
issued risk assessment guidelines for
assessing human health risks for
chemicals in seafood. EPA is also
responsible for controlling pesticides
that cause fish contamination. EPA,
NOAA, FDA, U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), Department of Agriculture
(DOA), and other federal government
agencies support the work of
individual estuary programs;
representatives of these agencies often
serve on Management Conference
committees.
Learning About Estuarine
Problems
Each of the 17 estuaries in the NEP is
unique, yet the estuaries have
similarities (see Table 2). Each is
under stress from pollutants and from
ever-increasing human activities that
take place near its shores. Many of the
nation's estuarine ecosystems confront
a number of other problems.
Particularly along the East Coast and
the eastern Gulf of Mexico Coast,
problems of low oxygen levels and of
eutrophication (excessive plant
growth) are prevalent. Toxic
substances, as well as toxic "hot
spots," are also pervasive in certain
areas in many estuaries. Furthermore,
when toxicants isolated in bottom
sediments are disturbed by dredging or
natural processes, the toxicants can be
released into the water. Human
pathogens from poorly treated or
untreated sewage lead to shellfish bed
closures. In many places, fish and
shellfish are overharvested. Habitats
for living creatures, vital parts of
estuarine ecosystems, are being
disturbed by land development and
dredging. Fresh water is being
diverted from estuaries, depriving them
of a vital component of their natural
systems. In the parts of estuarine
systems that are relatively pristine,
Management Conferences are
attempting to prevent degradation. But
information pertaining to key problem
areas is still being sought. While much
has been learned, many uncertainties
still exist. The problems of greatest
concern that are being investigated by
the Management Conferences are
grouped as follows: eutrophication,
toxic substances and metals,
pathogens, and changes in living
resources and their habitats.
Eutrophication
Eutrophication is the process
through which overabundant plant life
chokes a body of water. Excessive
nutrients, such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, nurture this plant life,
exacerbating the problem. While
bottom-rooted plant life provides food
and shelter for fish and shellfish,
surface plants like algae prevent
sunlight from penetrating the water and
use large amounts of the dissolved
oxygen as they die and decompose.
Thus fish and shellfish are deprived of
oxygen and underwater grasses are
deprived of light.
Nutrients enter waterways through
sewage treatment plant discharges,
stormwater runoff from lawns and
agricultural lands, faulty septic
systems, and even ground-water
discharges. The Delaware Inland
Bays, for example, are believed to be
seriously affected by nitrates leaching
into ground water and discharging to
the bays.
10 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 2
JL
Sewage treatment plants are being upgraded.
The Delaware Inland Bays Estuary
Program selected eutrophication for
further study. Proceeding under the
guidance of the STAC, the
Management Conference identified
critical information gaps and is now
beginning to focus research projects to
address them. Of particular concern is
the capacity of the Inland Bays to
assimilate nutrient loading. Research
projects are targeting four areas:
definition of ground-water
contributions of nutrients; development
of a mass balance model for nutrient
cycling in ground water and the Inland
Bays; definition of nutrient transport
processes; and development of a
strategy for using living resources as
indicators of water quality. The Inland
Bays project is cooperating and
coordinating with federal, state,
academic, and private scientists and the
public as it moves toward estuary
characterization and the development
ofaCCMP.
Together, through the Management
Conference, the Long Island Sound
Study (LISS), NOAA, the States of
Connecticut and New York,
Connecticut and New York counties,
and New York City, are focusing on
hypoxia—low levels of dissolved
oxygen. LISS identified nitrogen as
the chief nutrient linked to the causes
of hypoxia in the sound. They have
learned that discharges from sewage
treatment plants and runoff from land
are the primary controllable sources of
increased nitrogen loadings to the
water. During recent summers,
hypoxia has been a serious problem,
exacerbated by poor water circulation
in parts of the sound. The LISS is
using this knowledge to address the
low dissolved oxygen problem.
Improvements in sewage treatment
have greatly reduced the biological
oxygen demand and increased the
levels of dissolved oxygen in the
receiving waters of the Delaware
Estuary. Very high nutrient loadings
and concentrations of nitrate and
phosphate exist in the upper urbanized
estuary, but do not translate into algal
blooms in this area. Nutrient
enrichment has probably resulted in an
overall increase in primary production
in the lower estuary. Conventional
nutrient management, therefore, may
not be warranted. However, the
processes controlling nutrient cycling
and algal production are not fully
understood and need further study.
The Delaware Estuary Program has
also found that it is important to
continue to monitor the long-term
responses in the estuary to past and
future changes in effluent inputs.
Toxics and Metals
Toxic substances and metals have
been linked to fish diseases and
malformations. These materials not
only enter waterways from industrial
discharges and runoff from urban
streets and farmland, but are also
frequently sequestered in bottom
sediments, where they can persist for
years. Pesticides from lawns and
farms, emissions from automobiles,
and hazardous waste poured into storm
drains are sources of pollution with
less understood impacts on waterways.
A USGS program in Massachusetts
and Cape Cod bays is designed to
describe critical processes influencing
the transport and accumulation of
fine-grained sediments and their
associated contaminants. It is
important to understand these
processes because of their contribution
to the pollution in Boston Harbor and
because of plans to construct a major
treated-sewage outfall in western
Massachusetts Bay. The program
includes a map of the sea floor
identifying fine-grained sediment areas
where pollutants are likely to
accumulate; continuous measurements
of currents and sediment transport near
the proposed ocean outfall;
measurements of sediment mixing and
accumulation rates, and inventories of
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 11
-------
Table 2. National Estuary Program
Problems/Causes Matrix
POINT SOURCES
CAUSES"*
PROBLEMS
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eutrophication
Habitat Loss/
Modification
Changes In
Living Resources
Other
Industrial
Sources-
Direct
AP.C.D.
G.LIS.M,
N.NY.PS,
SF.SMB
"' , '• . ,::,
AP(1),T
AP(1),G,
M.SF.T
AP.C.D,
LIS.M.N,
NY.PS,
SF.T
Industrial
Sources-
Indirect
BT.C.D,
G.LIS.M,
N.NY.PS,
SF.SMB
T
G.SF.T
D,LIS,M
N.NY,
PS.SF,
T
Sewage
Treatment
Plants
G,M,N,
PS.SF
B,D,G,
US.M.N,
NY.PS,
SMB
AP.BT.C,
G,I,LIS,
M,NY,PS,
S.SMB
AP.G.I,
M.SF
AP,D,G,I,
US,M,N,
NY.SMG
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
B.D.LIS,
N,NY,
PS.SF '
AP,C,D,
LIS.M.N,
NY,PS,S
LIS.M.N,
NY.S
AP.M,
SF
D.LIS,
M.N.NY,
PS.SF
NY(2)
Storm
Water
C,D,G,
N.PS,
SF.SMB .
: AP.B,C,
D.SIB.I,
LIS.M.N,
PS.SMB .
BT.DIB.i,-
T
AP.G.I,
SF.T
D.DIB.G,
I.M.PS,
S,SF,
•' J
Animal
Feedlots
AP'
f ? !
AP.DIB,
- Q.PS ,\
DIB
DIB ,
(1) Phosphate
(2) Floatables
(3) Oil and Gas Drilling
(4) Peel Mining
(5) Access
(6) Platforms
(7) Ocean Dump Site
(8) 301 (h)
(9) HydrologicModification/Channelization
(10) Exotic Species, Mangrove Loss
(11) Impingement/Entrainment
AP: Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
B: Buzzards Bay
BT: Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex
C: Casco Bay
D: Delaware Estuary
DIB: Delaware Inland Bays
G: Galveston Bay
I: Indian River Lagoon
LIS: Long Island Sound
M: Massachusetts Bays
N: NarragansettBay
NY: New York-New Jersey Harbor
PS: Puget Sound
S: SarasotaBay
SF: San Francisco Estuary
SMB: Santa Monica Bay
T: Tampa Bay
! NONPOINTSOURCES ! • /
CAUSES-*
PROBLEMS
Toxicants
Pathogens
EutrophlcaUon
HabttatLoss/Modiflcation
Changes In
Living Resources
Other
Agri-
culture
AP,B,BT,
C.G.PS,
SF,T
BT.DIB,
G.PS
AP,B,BT,C,
PIB.G.I,
LIS,PS,
AP.G.PS,
SF.T
AP.DIB.G,
SF.T
r.
Suburban
and
Urban
BT.D.G,
LIS,M,N,
NY.PS.SF,
SMB.T
BT.D.I,
LIS,M,N,
NY,S,
SMB
BT.I,
LIS.N,
S,T
6,I,S,T
D.M.NY,
S.SF.T
NY(2)
Mining
BT(3)
AP(1),
T(1)
AP(4)
BT(3),
T(1)
Silvi-
culture
PS
PS
Construc-
tion
DIB
DIB.G.S
AP.P.QIB,
G,I,M,
PS.S
D.DIB.M,
S
Septic
AP,B,BT,
C,DIB,G,I,
M,N,PS,
S,T
B.C.DiB,
G,I,M,
,N,T.
B.DIB.I
PS
Landfills
XAP,N,NY,
LIS
t ' *•
BT.G
NY(2)
In-place
Sediments
AP,B,C,D,
G,LIS,M,N,'
NY.PS.Sfi
SMB.T ',
M'
^
f
?
',B,D,Ut
N.NYPS,
SF.SMB'
>
Atmos-
phere
- AP.G.M,0
/ PS - *
^
, s /
'
/ 1
, * '
'G,M,N, ,
SMB ,
, , -
- '"/ ''/
-•
, ''
i
i
' ' "\
Ground
Water
; C.G-,
> ,
, ,
' , i /* "'
"> ' -
' -
<
'' ' / f
DIB,fJ
'/''
>'
','
, <• '
, Dl|
/•/ ^^
' - / '
12 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 2
contaminants; and modeling of tidal
exchanges of water and particulates
between Boston Harbor and
Massachusetts Bay.
Metals in Massachusetts Bay
illustrate the impact from sewage,
atmospheric deposition, and polluted
tributaries. High metal concentrations
in the Merrimack River have a
significant impact on the bay. As these
data are evaluated, the findings are
expected to play an important role in
the development of the CCMP.
In Narragansett Bay, recent
sediment core samples were taken and
analyzed to discover the long-term
variation in metal inputs and the spatial
distribution of metals and to determine
whether conditions are getting worse
or better. The studies found that most
pollutant metal concentrations began to
increase during the middle to late
1800s. Concentrations reached their
peak in the 1950s. Since the 1950s,
there has been a continuous decline in
the concentration of most metals, with
an average decline of 60 percent.
These declines are attributed to
CAUSES-
PROBLEMS
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eulrophication
Habitat Loss/Modification
Changes in
Living Resources
Other
Shipping/
Marinas
tOpB',6'-.
*ii">f ?'! f
•S VJ"j'. r1
't '.:>-. .**•
"mm.:-
improvements in sewage treatment.
Concentrations in the upper bay are
still an average of nine times greater
than those in the lower bay. This
finding suggests that controlling
pollution at the upper bay will lead to
baywide improvements.
Toxic materials such as heavy
metals, chlorine, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,
dioxin, and other organic compounds
have been found in Casco Bay. Heavy
metal concentrations in Casco Bay
sediments, in fact, are relatively high
compared to those in other NEP
estuaries. NOAA's flounder liver
survey found heavy concentrations of
lead, copper, zinc, and silver, as well
as PCBs. An early characterization
effort by the Casco Bay Estuary
Project is focusing on the extent of
toxic contaminants in the sediments of
the bay.
Pathogens
Pathogens are microorganisms that
can cause disease in other organisms or
Dredging
AP.CvDB^
Shoreline
Development
Freshwater
Inflow
V. ;53F,f^
Sealevel
Rise
;j,-»vi-|-i
f ?<"a*'-
Other
in humans, animals, and plants.
Pathogens may be bacteria, viruses, or
parasites transported in sewage or in
runoff from animal farms or areas
populated with domestic or wild
animals, and carried to waters used for
swimming, drinking, and fishing and
shellfishing. Fish and shellfish
contaminated by pathogens and the
contaminated water itself can cause
serious illnesses. Because of the risks
to swimmers and to consumers of
seafood, estuary projects are directing
attention to pathogen contamination.
Elevated bacterial indicator levels
were discovered in two Santa Monica
Bay storm drains, raising concern
about the safety of swimming near
storm drain outfalls. Additional surf
zone and drain runoff samples were
taken and analyzed for bacterial
indicators. Elevated indicator levels
were found in both areas (conclusively
in one storm drain); however, data
were inadequate for calculating health
risk. Based on this study,
recommendations were made to
investigate the potential sources of
human fecal input to the storm drain
system where it was conclusively
found; conduct sampling at an
expanded number of storm drains
entering Santa Monica Bay; assess the
dispersion of runoff along the shore;
and assess the number of people who
are exposed to storm drain runoff
because they swim near outfalls.
In Indian River Lagoon, there is a
growing network of shellfish farms.
This network is serving as a
monitoring system that alerts scientists
and managers to water quality
problems, including the presence of
pathogens, around the lagoon. It
provides an early warning system
throughout the region.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 13
-------
San Francisco Bay -100%
Hudson River/
Raritan Bay-100%*
Sarasota Bay -100%
Indian River - 86% **
Massachusetts
Bays - 66% ***
Galveston
Bay - 64%
Delaware Inland Bays - 35%
Source: Department of
Commerce, NOAA, National
Ocean Son/tec. TTio National
ShetKstt Rogisterof Classified
Estuarifio Waters.
Note NOAA boundaries do not
necessarily coincide with
thosoofNEP.
* Hudson River/Raritan Bay Is
a portion o) New York-New
Joney Harbor.
** Indian Rhw Is a portion of
the Indian Rivor Lagoon
Estuary.
*** Massachusetts Bays
figure is on average of
Boston Bay (100%),
Massachusetts Bay (80%),
and Cape Cod Bay (16%).
Delaware Bay - 26%
Albemarle-
Pamlico Sounds - 20%
Long Island Sound -17% I
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex -17% I
Figure 6. Estimated Percentage of Harvest-Limited Shellfish-Growing Acres
Living Resources and Their Habitat
Living resources are also affected
by problems other than pollutants, like
nutrients, toxics, and pathogens.
Overharvesting and the loss and
modification of habitat have led to a
decline in valuable species, an increase
in less desirable species, and a
decrease in the diversity of living
resources. Land development in
upland areas increases sedimentation
in waterways; building in wetlands
destroys this valuable pollution filter
and habitat; bulkheading interferes
with natural plant and animal shoreline
interaction; and dredge and fill
operations create turbid waters, destroy
habitat, and interfere with natural
circulation patterns. In Florida, estuary
projects are studying the effects of
habitat changes on living resources, as
well as impacts from rapid growth and
development and the expansion of
sewage treatment plants.
Tampa Bay cooperative studies of
fish/habitat relationships are being
conducted by the Florida Marine
Research Institute. Funded by NOAA
through the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, the studies
involve fish community structure along
the salinity gradient, fish density in
seagrass beds and unvegetated habitats,
and the use of micro-habitats by
economically valuable fish. The result
of this work will be a data base
valuable for predicting the effects of
future habitat modifications to either
the structural or physical and chemical
environment.
In Sarasota Bay, water quality
trends indicate that nutrient and
salinity levels and relative alkalinity to
acidity concentrations have decreased
over time. This decrease reflects a
change in land use from agrarian to
urban. Studies have not shown
whether heavy metal concentrations
are increasing with this change in
land use.
On the eastern shore of Sarasota
Bay, there has been a significant loss
of submerged aquatic vegetation. The
area most affected is within transport
range of a discharge outlet from a
sewage treatment plant. Although the
total concentration of suspended solids
is elevated, no linkage can be found to
increased biomass or decreased light
resulting from sewage treatment plant
discharges. Further studies are
investigating another possible cause of
decreased vegetation: the natural
formation of insoluble calcium
carbonate from the soluble
biocarbonate present in the wastewater
discharge.
Extensive monitoring has been
conducted by the Bay Study Group of
the City of Tampa. Monitoring of
water quality and of various biological
indicators in Hillsborough Bay and
14 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 2
middle Tampa Bay has been done
since 1978. Monitoring started as a
comprehensive study of phytoplankton
(tiny plants) productivity, evaluating
the effects of wastewater pollution
abatement in Hillsborough Bay as the
City of Tampa converted from primary
to advanced wastewater treatment.
Results of the study indicate that
several water quality parameters have
improved in Hillsborough Bay. There
is less nitrogen in the bay because of
upgraded wastewater treatment
methods that were implemented in
1979. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations and water transparency
have increased, and chlorophyll and
blue-green algae levels have decreased.
Coincidental with this improved
water quality, sea grasses have
colonized shallow areas around
Hillsborough Bay, which had been
Air Deposition
barren of attached vegetation for
several decades. The Bay Study Group
began studying sea grass in 1986 to
document the progress of sea grass
recolonization. The study shows a
fourfold increase in the amount of sea
grasses since 1986.
Although both historical
information and new investigations
into estuarine problems have
contributed answers to estuary
problems, scientific studies conducted
by cooperating agencies will need to
continue for a long time. The answers
that have been found, however, are
beginning to provide substantial
information and are leading to a greater
understanding of estuaries. In
addition, this understanding has led to
the development of management
activities that are addressing estuarine
problems.
Urban
Runoff
Trash
and
Debris
Industrial Facilities
Agricultural Runoff
Sewage
Treatment Plants
Waste
Facilities
Ground Water
Figure 7. Pollutant Sources
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 15
-------
-------
Managing Estuaries:
The Best Methods
Through the characterization effort,
each Management Conference
discovers the condition of the estuary
and defines its most critical problems.
This effort leads to the development of
actions that are tailored to the specific
location, its physical, chemical, and
biological problems, and its human
needs and uses. In developing these
actions, which are the centerpiece of
the CCMP, Management Conferences
focus on determining the specific
problems to address, setting clear goals
and objectives aimed at solving the
problems, and selecting the best
regulatory and nonregulatory methods
for meeting the goals.
Because there are limited resources
available for solving complex
problems, considerable deliberation
takes place among all Management
Conference parties to determine the
most important problems and to select
the most efficient and economically,
politically, and socially acceptable
methods to address them. This
deliberation involves substantial
cooperation among the estuary users,
stewards, and decision makers who
comprise the Management Conference.
As part of CCMP development, the
Management Conference evaluates
existing programs affecting the estuary
and determines which existing and new
management mechanisms will best
address the estuary's problems.
Assessing Base Programs
Because the CCMP depends upon a
base of existing federal, state, and local
management programs, an early step in
producing a CCMP involves
examining these base programs. Each
Conference identifies all management
programs that affect the estuary;
determines conflicts, overlaps, gaps,
and needs for redirection; and attempts
to refocus these programs toward
meeting the goals of the estuary
project. Representatives who
administer many of these programs
serve on the Management Conference
and can help with the analysis and
support needed redirection.
Important participants in
Management Conferences typically
include representatives from EPA,
NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Army
Corps of Engineers, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of
Transportation, U.S. Coast Guard, and
Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service. Statutes and
programs administered by these
agencies or delegated to state or local
agencies are vital components of
CCMP development and
implementation.
The Department of Transportation,
for example, has some responsibility
for conserving marine life, protecting
coastal water from litter and pollution,
and enforcing fishery laws. The Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the
trustee for migratory birds and certain
anadromous fish, endangered species,
and marine mammals. Also under the
authority of FWS are critical marine
habitats, barrier islands, and wetlands
conservation. The U.S. Geological
Survey is working with NEP projects
as part of its National Water Quality
Assessment Program.
In 1988 NOAA and EPA
developed an agreement that outlined
actions for cooperation among state
coastal zone management programs
and NEP estuary projects. In addition
to the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA), NOAA also administers
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 17
-------
Regional,
Interstate or
IntemaUonal
Affected
Interests,
Industry,
Academia,
General Public
Figures. Members of an NEP
Management Conference
marine sanctuaries under the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act; some marine sanctuaries are
included in the NEP.
The Army Corps of Engineers,
responsible in part for wetlands
protection, beach nourishment,
dredging, ocean dumping, and
mitigation offish and wildlife losses, is
also involved with Management
Conferences. The Department of
Agriculture provides technical
assistance to control pollution of
surface waters from agricultural runoff.
The Department's Soil Conservation
Service and local conservation districts
play active roles in NEP Management
Conferences.
To enhance their ability to control
pollution and manage estuarine
environments, Management
Conferences also use authorities of
other EPA programs: Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(Hazardous Waste), Comprehensive
Emergency Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (Superfund); Toxic
Substances Control Act; Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (Pesticides);
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act; Clean Air Act;
\ and Safe Drinking Water Act.
\ EPA's Toxics Release
j
Inventory and other data
bases have served
Management Conferences
as well. As more
evidence surfaces
implicating solid and
hazardous waste, air deposition,
pesticides, and ground water as
serious pollution sources,
Management Conferences are
beginning to assess and integrate
control activities under these laws.
Every NEP project depends
substantially on Clean Water Act base
programs. Wastewater discharge
permits under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) are critical for limiting
industrial and municipal effluents to
waterways. NPDES permitting has
substantially controlled point
(end-of-pipe) sources of pollution. In
addition, new EPA stormwater control
regulations will require urban and
suburban runoff to be controlled under
NPDES permits, further tightening
controls on pollution sources.
Management Conferences have
worked to promote stringent
enforcement of permit requirements.
Addressing nonpoint (diffuse)
sources, Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act requires each state to identify and
assess the impact of nonpoint source
pollution on surface waters and to
develop a control program. Recent
amendments to the Coastal Zone
Management Act charge EPA and
NOAA with preventing and controlling
nonpoint source pollution in coastal
areas. These new programs will enhance
existing efforts to control runoff.
In addition to federal actions, state
and local regulatory activities like
stormwater management, zoning
ordinances, construction setbacks, and
fishing bans are also assessed. Many
nonregulatory approaches to problem
solving, such as education, have been
integrated with estuary project
activities.
Taking Early Action
In the five years during which
Management Conferences develop a
CCMP, they lay the groundwork for
long-term problem solving. Part of
this process includes taking early
actions to address known problems and
to test actions to see if they work
before including them as full-scale
CCMP activities. The early
development of a CCMP also allows
coordination with state and local
ordinances and programs. Funding
processes to ensure long-term
commitments can then be developed
before the final CCMP is completed.
Since 1988, the National Estuary
Program has sponsored over 40
demonstration projects. The purpose
of this effort is to focus on problems
needing immediate attention and to
promote field-testing of innovative
corrective measures. The
demonstration projects also accelerate
the development of overall CCMPs
because they help determine the time
and resources needed for a particular
activity. This information can then be
used by others in the same or related
projects. Though aimed at specific
local priorities, the projects also help
define generic concerns like
stormwater/urban runoff, agricultural
pollution, habitat modification/
preservation, and municipal and
industrial pollution. Most of these
projects are still under way; yet some
18 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Parts
have already begun to yield results.
The lessons learned in these action
programs will be communicated to all
NEP projects.
To help focus Management
Conferences on CCMP development
and implementation of early actions,
the Delaware Inland Bays Estuary
Program, Massachusetts Bay Project,
and Delaware Estuary Program are
among the estuary projects developing
an early draft CCMP. The Sarasota
Bay National Estuary Program is
developing a draft "Framework for
Action" document that will serve as a
preliminary strategy for bay restoration
and management; the document will
include a plan for implementation
funding. This early draft CCMP
technique has also been used
successfully by the Puget Sound
Estuary Program.
Early action projects, both
NEP-sponsored demonstration projects
and locally funded efforts, have been
applying a range of regulatory and
nonregulatory techniques to the unique
problems of estuaries. Regulatory
tools include standards, permits,
enforcement, and local zoning
ordinances and building codes.
Nonregulatory techniques include
public education, agricultural "best
management practices," and voluntary
actions. Management Conference
actions typically address key problems
like eutrophication, toxics and metals,
pathogens, and changes in living
resources and their habitats.
Eutrophication
As the Long Island Sound Study
continues to examine the hypoxia
problem in the sound, the LISS
Management Conference believes that
the sound's serious hypoxia problem
requires action now. LISS is acting to
prevent an increase in nitrogen levels
by removing nutrients biologically and
by using nonpoint (diffuse) source
controls to prevent leaking septic
systems, animal waste, and fertilizer
from washing into the water. The
Management Conference is also
looking into technologies such as
aeration and tide gates to regulate the
flow and ckculation of water into and
around the sound. The Conference is
Regulatory Tools Nonregulatory Tools
Enforcement
zSSgeS
Building Codes
Education
Agricultural BMP's
Actions
Figure 9. Regulatory and Nonregulatory Tools
developing a long-term monitoring
program to test the effectiveness of its
hypoxia management actions. These
early actions to help solve a problem
still under investigation are key
components of effective estuary
management.
Agricultural lands contribute
significantly to oxygen depletion and
excessive algae in tributaries to the
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds. Partners
in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study, the States of North Carolina and
Virginia, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service,
and local conservation districts, are
testing a variety of techniques to
control agricultural runoff, which
carries animal wastes, fertilizers,
pesticides, and soil. Some traditional
techniques are being employed—waste
storage lagoons, fencing to protect
streams from livestock, and filter strips
and other methods to slow runoff and
remove pollutants. In addition, some
new irrigation techniques will help
redirect lagoon-stored animal waste for
use as farmland fertilizer.
The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study is supporting a demonstration
project to reduce nutrient pollution by
testing two methods of reducing
animal waste, which contributes
excessive nutrients to this watershed.
One method will allow the use of
animal waste stored in collection
lagoons as a substitute for commercial
fertilizer. The waste will be dispersed
over grass fields through devices called
detachable rinsers. Various tests of
soil, topography, water table depth, and
vegetation will be conducted as part of
this project. In addition, ground water
and surface water monitoring,
conducted both before and after
implementing the system, will
determine if nutrient loads are being
reduced.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 19
-------
Agricultural runoff pollutes waterways.
TTife storm wafer outfall Is a source of pollution to the Indian River Lagoon.
The second component of the
project will test irrigation systems that
include animal waste lagoons. These
systems will be designed for about 25
farmers, each of whom will receive
instructions and an animal waste
utilization plan. The projects are
expected to provide a model for
effectively managing overflowing
lagoons and to demonstrate the nutrient
value of manure for crops.
Management techniques like those
used by the Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuary Study, often called "best
management practices," promote
efficient CCMP development and early
action. Local farmers who volunteer
on a cost-share basis implement these
best management practices.
The Indian River Lagoon National
Estuary Program has attempted to
evaluate the mitigation alternatives for
the problems associated with land
drainage runoff—nutrients, mud and
discolored ground water, excessive
fresh water, suspended solids, and
various toxins and pathogens.
Watershed runoff control systems,
including weirs at channel outfalls and
diversion of flow into coastal wetlands,
have proven to be effective in
simulation experiments.
Toxics and Metals
Early Puget Sound studies showed
that many contaminants occurred in
urban bay sediments, including heavy
metals and organic chemicals such as
PCBsandPAHs. Sources of this
pollution include releases from
Superfund sites, industrial operations,
storm drains, and overflows from
combined domestic and storm sewers.
In response, a cooperative effort to
understand and address these toxicant
problems was incorporated into the
earliest phases of the Puget Sound
Estuary Management Plan. A key
feature of this toxic substances control
program, the Urban Bay Action Team
(UB AT), is the involvement of a broad
base of public and private interests in
the entire process, from planning
through implementation. The sense of
local ownership and commitment
instilled by the UBAT mechanism has
proven vital in the success of the
program. The team approach has
engendered cooperation among all
government levels. Commitments,
responsibilities, and accountability
among all participants are well
defined; innovative, cost-effective
solutions to problems are explored
before resorting to regulatory and
enforcement actions; and knowledge
and ideas are transferred among the
various UBATs, adding to the entire
program's effectiveness. The Puget
Sound Estuary Program learned
through this effort that success is more
20 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Parts
easily attained by bringing resources
together to focus on a common
problem.
For example, seven Urban Bay
Action Teams have been established in
Puget Sound and are currently active.
Collectively they have conducted more
than 675 inspections at 282 sites;
issued many warning letters, violation
notices, administrative orders; revised
NPDES permits; negotiated consent
orders and decrees; and completed
cleanups of leaking underground
storage tanks and other sites. In
comparison with the traditional permit
program method, the innovative UB AT
approach—a focused education,
compliance, and enforcement
effort—has proven more aggressive,
more comprehensive, and more timely.
An EPA Office of Research and
Development pilot study is being
conducted in New Bedford Harbor, in
cooperation with the Buzzards Bay
Project, to investigate dredging of
contaminated sediments as a remedy to
eliminate toxic contamination in the
harbor. A monitoring plan is being
implemented to determine the effects
of this dredging. The resulting data
will be used to evaluate the dredging
and to modify or terminate the
operation if the dredging itself causes
unacceptable contamination. The rapid
availability of data and their immediate
use in the decision-making process has
proven to be an effective management
approach.
. A Delaware Estuary Program
Demonstration Project aims to reduce
agricultural runoff containing
pesticides and conventional pollutants
entering Red Clay Creek by
implementing best management
practices on a mushroom-growing
operation. The project tests several
disposal methods for spent mushroom
compost and educates local agricultural
producers about proper pesticide usage
and disposal. The management
practices to be installed at the
mushroom farm include construction
of two lined ponds to hold runoff from
spent compost piles prior to pick up by
a recycling company, which converts
spent compost to potting soil, and an
irrigation system to spray runoff water
from the ponds into hay fields, which
are maintained for long-term
cultivation. Wastewater spreading
rates will depend on soil tests and
nutrient analysis of the wastewater to
ensure that nutrients are applied at an
optimal rate for uptake by the hay.
The project is expected to demonstrate
an agricultural nonpoint source control
program that can be used in other
Delaware Estuary watersheds.
Pathogens
Pathogens, which are carried into
waterways with poorly treated sewage,
contaminate shellfish areas. Two
demonstration projects conducted in
Buzzards and Santa Monica Bays are
taking early action to control pathogen
contamination.
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
' AND' ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL .
Bacterial pollution leads to closed shellfish
beds.
A small bay within Buzzards Bay,
Buttermilk Bay, is the site of a
demonstration project to treat
stormwater. Prior to this project,
stormwater collected from urban
neighborhoods was transported directly
to a swimming beach. To prevent this
problem, a stormwater detention
system was built under a parking lot to
allow stormwater to collect, solids to
settle, and the remaining liquid to
percolate through unsaturated soil
where a large percentage of bacteria
and viruses are removed. This project
has resulted in the removal of a
substantial amount of contamination to
Buttermilk Bay.
A demonstration project to prevent
storm drain pollution from entering
Santa Monica Bay is being
implemented. The project expands an
existing effluent improvement program
by testing the effects of ozone
treatment on dry weather flows. If
successful, ozone treatment may
substantially reduce the contaminated
effluents entering the bay and also
provide a source of partially treated,
reclaimed water for irrigation. Ozone
is a more powerful disinfectant than
chlorine; however, it has never before
been applied to stormwater.
Living Resources and Their Habitat
Numerous NEP early action
projects are designed to test various
approaches to enhance and protect
living resources and their habitats. For
instance, the Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project is creating new
habitats for expanding the breeding of
native birds, least terns. The project
will create new, protected breeding
sites using three techniques: erecting a
fence around the site, preparing the
nesting area by removing non-native
vegetation and spreading oyster shells
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 21
-------
or sand on the site, and placing decoys
and tapes of tern sounds to attract birds.
Early in the Galveston Bay
National Estuary Program (GBNEP),
two areas of Galveston Bay were
recognized as particularly significant
to the estuary. Those areas, Christmas
Bay and Armand Bayou, were seen as
geographic portions of the estuary
which required greater regulatory
protection and management than were
available under current programs.
Under a GBNEP initiative, the Texas
General Land Office and Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department have
cooperated to designate each of these
areas as special Texas Coastal
Preserves. This special status will help
ensure the ecological integrity of these
areas. Management plans for
Christmas Bay and Armand Bayou,
now being drafted under the guidance
of the GBNEP task force, will serve as
a model for the development of a
CCMP for the entire Galveston Bay.
Past dredging operations in
Sarasota Bay have adversely affected
the natural bay environment. Changes
resulting from dredged channels and
spoil islands (sites for dredged
materials) include a proliferation of
exotic vegetation, loss of habitat,
interference with water flow and
circulation, and alterations in living
resources. Moreover, less than 22
percent of the shoreline remains in its
natural state. To maximize the quality
of both habitat and appearance there,
the Leffis Key Bayside Park Project
has been designed to remove the piled
dredge material from spoil islands to
encourage the growth of native
intertidal mangrove habitat and to
create shallow tidal lagoons. In
addition, native vegetation will be
planted, and non-native vegetation that
has grown on spoil islands will be
removed. These activities are expected
to enhance fisheries, maintain
biodiversity, and promote tidal
exchange.
Dredging and disposal activities in
the San Francisco Bay area have been
an issue of concern for more than a
decade. Aquatic disposal of dredged
materials in the bay has been limited to
three sites since the mid-1970s. In
addition, there is an ocean disposal site
designated specifically for dredged
material excavated as part of
maintenance dredging for the San
- Francisco Bay entrance channel. The
site that receives the most dredged
material is located in the bay near
Alcatraz Island. In 1982, this site was
discovered to have accumulated
enough material to present a
navigational hazard. The discovery
stimulated a debate regarding disposal
practices and the overall management
of dredged material in San Francisco
Bay.
In response to the Alcatraz
mounding problem and concerns about
the impacts of dredged material on the
bay's water quality and biological
resources, EPA, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Bay Conservation and Development
Commission and other dredging and
environmental interests are engaged in
a joint effort to develop a long-term
management strategy for San
Francisco Bay area dredged material.
The strategy involves evaluation of
dredging needs, disposal options
(including selection of ocean, in-bay,
and upland sites) and beneficial use.
The strategy is scheduled to be
completed by 1995. The San
Francisco Estuary Project has provided
support by publishing a report on
dredging and waterway modification
and holding a dredging forum for the
public.
Floating marine debris—a threat to
marine life, aesthetics and economic
potentialities—is being addressed
around the United States. Efforts
include public and industry education
on the nature of the problem and
control measures, regulation of
sources, and monitoring of trends. In
t» _J. __ ___
Defcr/s can W// wildlife.
22 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Parts
addition, at a local level, some areas
are paying increased attention to the
problem. One such example is taking
place as part of the merged New
York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program/New York Bight Restoration
Plan. Major sources of floatable
marine pollution include combined
sewer overflows, storm sewers,
transfer operations at marine solid
waste stations, improper medical waste
disposal, river and coastal discharges,
nonpoint source pollution, boat
discharges, and beach litter. Under the
New York Bight Restoration Plan, a
short-term marine debris action plan
has been developed and implemented
to collect and remove debris from the
harbor before it can reach recreational
or sensitive environmental areas. EPA,
Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, the
states of New York and New Jersey,
and New York City have cooperated
since 1989 to achieve this goal. A
final long-term plan was recently
issued. Through its own funding, New
York City is developing techniques to
combat floatables from combined
sewer overflows. To minimize the
potential for marine debris, significant
improvements have also been made to
operations involving the transport and
transfer of solid waste to the Fresh Kill
landfill.
New York and New Jersey also
carried out joint pilot projects to show
that deposition of marine waste can be
reduced through proper handling and
recycling at recreational boating
marinas. Through these projects,
marina users and the public were
provided with information about
proper disposal methods. The New
York project resulted in the installation
of bulletin boards to promote vessel
waste exchange and recycling and the
setting up of highly visible facilities to
receive wastes at five recreational
marinas. We Care About New York, a
nonprofit New York City
beautification organization, helped to
coordinate the system by providing
support at all five areas; local
sanitation departments transported and
disposed of the waste. At the Oyster
Bay marina, a vessel collected trash
from other vessels. The New Jersey
Department of Environmental
Protection administered a pilot
recycling project at three recreational
marinas, building on the state's
mandatory recycling efforts and
anti-litter beach campaign and utilizing
the campaign's existing resources and
contacts with coastal interest groups.
Through the work done in CCMP
development, including early action
demonstration projects, the NEP has
learned a great deal about successfully
managing estuarine resources. The
CCMP-development process has
served as a highly effective catalyst for
action. Innovative techniques, a focus
on efficient and early intervention, and
a sustained reliance on teamwork have
helped initiate activities that will have
a lasting effect on restoring and
maintaining estuary health in the future.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 23
-------
-------
Assessing the NEP:
What Has Been Learned
During the four years of the National
Estuary Program, the estuary projects
have tested the NEP approach to
estuarine management. It is clear that
the NEP four-phased management
process and the underlying concepts of
collaboration, consensus building, and
public participation have advanced
estuarine management. More is
understood about the functions of
estuaries and their complex systems;
and more is understood about the
application of regulatory,
technological, and educational
methods for restoring and protecting
them.
The CCMP development process
was derived from programs to study
and manage the Chesapeake Bay and
Great Lakes. The evolutionary nature
of the NEP, as well as its flexibility, is
demonstrated by the Puget Sound
Estuary Program and the Buzzards Bay
Projects. The two programs have now
completed their CCMPs. Though both
have followed the NEP approach, each
has tailored this approach to reflect
state and local needs and priorities.
Part IV of this Report to Congress
outlines the Puget Sound and Buzzards
Bay adaptations of the NEP approach
to estuarine management. This section
also presents some of the significant
lessons learned as part of the NEP,
under which these two estuary projects
matured.
Two Successful Management
Conferences
The experiences of the projects in
Puget Sound and Buzzards Bay have
proven the importance of teamwork in
developing CCMPs. The Puget Sound
Estuary Program, in partnership with
the State of Washington, established
firm commitments to early and
decisive action. The Buzzards Bay
Project, recognizing the need to
develop alliances among local
governments in Massachusetts, helped
create the Buzzards Bay Action
Committee, which is committed to
CCMP implementation. By focusing
initially on a smaller embayment
(Buttermilk Bay), the Buzzards Bay
Project also showed that a smaller
geographical area can serve as a
microcosm for the entire estuary
project.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program
has its roots in a 1983 State of
Washington initiative that established
the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority. The Authority was charged
with identifying pollution-related
threats to Puget Sound marine life,
assessing pollution threats to human
health, and investigating the need for
improved coordination among agencies
responsible for protecting Puget Sound
water quality. In 1985, in cooperation
with the Washington Department of
Ecology and EPA Region X, the
Authority began to coordinate
activities for a new Puget Sound
Estuary Program, which became part
of the NEP in March 1988.
The Buzzards Bay Project, like the
Puget Sound Estuary Program, was
among the early initiates of the NEP.
In Section 320 of the Clean Water Act,
Congress directed the Administrator of
EPA to give priority consideration for
the NEP to Buzzards Bay, Puget
Sound, and others. Soon thereafter, the
Governors of Massachusetts and
Washington nominated Buzzards Bay
and Puget Sound, respectively, for
NEP inclusion.
Both programs followed NEP
guidance and established Management
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 25
-------
Conferences with similar committee
structures and membership
distribution. The two Management
Conferences identified the priority
problems on which they focused
characterization efforts, early actions,
and, ultimately, their CCMPs.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program
issued its first management plan in
1987 and revised it in 1989. This plan
evolved into the 1991 CCMP, now
approved by EPA. The final CCMP
includes a summary characterization of
the estuary and of detailed actions to
be taken to address priority problems.
The CCMP action plans are focusing
on 15 programs that address pollution
sources and ecological resources. It
also contains an unfinished agenda of
issues still to be addressed.
Several changes and additions
distinguish the final CCMP from the
1987 plan and its 1989 update. More
emphasis has been placed on the role
of federal and tribal governments, and
several programs have been added or
modified. Emphasis has been on the
development of action plans that
describe how the state goal of
no-net-loss/long-term-gain of wetlands
will be achieved. Because of their
ongoing support, it appears likely that
state executive agencies, including the
Departments of Ecology, Natural
Resources, Fisheries, Wildlife,
Transportation, Agriculture,
Community Development, Trade and
Economic Development, and
Commerce, will use their authorities to
protect wetlands to the maximum
extent possible.
The State of Washington has been
and continues to be the moving force
behind the Puget Sound Estuary
Program. The state has provided over
$54 million in five years to support
Management Conference activities.
In addition, Public Involvement/
Education funding, or PIE Fund, which
comes from cigarette taxes, has been
dramatically supportive. As CCMP
implementation proceeds, the state
remains committed to the effort to
protect and restore Puget Sound.
Implementation of corrective
actions to address known problems
continues in areas such as sediment
management, dredged sediment
disposal, monitoring, additional point
source control, and nonpoint source
control. An extensive public
involvement and education effort
continues to be a high priority.
The Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority has been extended until 1995
by the Washington legislature to
oversee CCMP implementation. Four
new state taxes and user fees have been
proposed to support the CCMP action
programs.
The Buzzards Bay Project was
started in 1985 under the joint
management of EPA and the
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs. It had three
objectives: (1) to set up a management
structure to coordinate project
activities and help achieve long-term
goals; (2) to identify and research the
priority water quality problems in
Buzzards Bay; and (3) to develop a
management plan for the protection of
bay water quality and valuable
resources. In January 1988, the
Buzzards Bay Project was officially
designated as an NEP estuary of
national significance.
The now-completed CCMP is the
culmination of research and
demonstration projects designed to
help investigate the most pressing
problems in the bay and to outline
solutions. In 11 action plans, the
CCMP reflects the project's efforts to
: manage three priority problems:
shellfish bed closures due to pathogen
contamination; high nutrient inputs;
and fish and shellfish contamination by
toxic metals and organic compounds,
such as PCBs. Buzzards Bay Project
outreach efforts have been supported
by the Coalition for Buzzards Bay as
well as by the Lloyd Center for
Environmental Studies, two
independent groups. The Buzzards
Bay Project has also awarded
mini-grants to assist local efforts to
address bay issues.
The Buzzards Bay Project
submitted its final CCMP to EPA in
November 1991. The major focus of
the Buzzards Bay Project and the
CCMP is on local responsibility for
preserving the bay and its resources.
According to the CCMP, the protection
of the bay is dependent upon
enlightened future land-use
management; in the New England
tradition of home rule, such
management decisions belong to the
community and its inhabitants. The
Buzzards Bay Advisory Committee of
locally elected town selectmen signed
a compact, committing themselves to
the CCMP action program. The
compact led to formation of the
Buzzards Bay Action Committee,
which is dedicated to CCMP
implementation. The Buzzards Bay
Action Committee has hired an
executive director to oversee
implementation of the action program.
In its chapter on implementation, the
CCMP also solicits federal and state
assistance; a fully integrated
intergovernmental approach is thought
to be optimal. The Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management Office has
been the lead state agency supporting
the Buzzards Bay Project.
Table 3 outlines key elements of
the Puget Sound and Buzzards Bay
CCMPs.
26 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 4
Table 3. Comparison of Puget Sound and Buzzards Bay CCMPs
Puget Sound Estuary Program
Buzzards Bay Project
Priority Problems
• Toxic substances
•Wetland/habitat loss
• Shellfish bed protection
• Nonpoint pollution sources
• Spill prevention/response
• Pathogen contamination
•Toxic contamination
• Increasing nitrogen
Action Programs
Addressing Problems
• Estuary Management and Plan Implementation
• Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection
• Spill Prevention and Response
• Monitoring
• Research
• Education and Public Involvement
• Puget Sound Foundation
• Household Hazardous Waste
• Nonpoint Source Pollution
• Shellfish Protection
• Wetlands Protection
• Municipal and Industrial Discharges
• Contaminated Sediments and Dredging
• Stormwater and Combined Sewer Overflows
• Laboratory Support
• Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayments
• Shellfish Resources
•Stormwater Runoff
• Sanitary Boat Waste
•On-Site Systems
• Oil Pollution
• Wetlands and Marine Habitat
• Shifting Shoreline
• Sewage Treatment Facilities
• Toxic Pollution
• Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal
• New Bedford Remediation
• Land-Use Management
• Embayment Management in Buttermilk Bay
Innovative Laws • Puget Sound Foundation (in formative stage)
and Programs . Local Government Wetland Protection Standards
• Wetlands Restoration Program
• Stormwater Standards
• Growth Management Act
• Sediment Management Standards
• Public Involvement and Education
• Urban Bay Action Program
• Regulatory standards for nitrogen inputs to sensitive embayments
• Municipal laws requiring Best Management Practices for Stormwater
runoff
• Marina pumpout facilities
• Setbacks for septic systems
• Wetlands Conservancy Program
• Toxic Use Reduction Act
• Town "build-out" analyses to guide growth and development
Monitoring Plans • Active since 1989, including monitoring for pesticides
• Data collected and transferred by federal, state, local, and
tribal governments to be compatible with Puget Sound Ambient
• Monitoring Program
• Monitoring specific to coastal embayments and open bay
• Focus on sewage loading, high fecal coliform counts, and closed
shellfish beds
• Protocols will be standardized
Financial Plans
• Puget Sound Foundation, developing nonprofit corporation for
research and education
• Other sources include state and local general funds,
Centennial Clean Water Fund (cigarette tax), state revolving
fund for low- or interest-free loans for clean water projects, state
wastewater discharge permit fees, state superfund, a variety of
fees, federal funds (Section 31.9 of Clean Water Act, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Soil Conservation Service, etc.), local fees and
utility revenues, and private sector sources (land trusts).
• Identifies most relevant funding source for each action
• Presents cost estimation procedures and preliminary cost estimates
for Stormwater control, on-site septic system improvement, boat
pump-out facilities, oil spill containment equipment, and toxic audit
teams
• Guides local governments on new funding sources since most
actions call for local government implementation
Educational Plans • Continuing education/involvement supported in the short term
by a Public Involvement and Education Fund
(PIE Fund); long term by Puget Sound Foundation
• Coalition for Buzzards Bay, an independent group of organizations,
expected to continue public education efforts on Buzzards Bay
Implementing
Agencies
• Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
• Washington Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources
• Other state, local, tribal, and federal agencies
• Buzzards Bay Action Committee: Local Municipalities
• Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Office of
Coastal Zone Management; Department of Environmental
Protection
• Other state and federal agencies
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 27
-------
Resolving Watershed-Wide
Conflicts
As the Puget Sound and Buzzards Bay
projects demonstrate, the NEP has
served as a catalyst for state and local
short-term action and long-term
management. The NEP geographic or
watershed approach to resource
management looks at the entire system
and measures the combined impact of
laws, programs, and human behavior.
In this way, the need for change can be
assessed in relation to the sustainability
of the estuary and its living resources.
This approach has been instrumental in
drawing attention to the conflicts
among different human uses and
between human uses and natural
systems and resources.
These conflicts are amplified in
locations where shellfish harvesting is
banned. In areas with rapid human
population growth or with older
sewage treatment systems, the need for
improved sewage treatment and septic
systems is crucial. These
improvements lag behind, largely
because sewage treatment is so
expensive and requires public funding.
Poorly treated sewage entering
waterways increases pathogen levels,
causing shellfish contamination. This
contamination, in turn, requires the
closing of shellfishing areas to prevent
consumption of contaminated seafood.
To exacerbate the issue, a lack of
funding to perform required sanitary
surveys prevents the reopening of
improved shellfish beds. Then the
public cannot eat seafood unless it also
wants to pay for advanced sewage
treatment and sanitary surveys;
commercial harvesters are denied their
livelihood; recreational clammers are
prevented from using the shellfish
beds; state officials are harassed for
doing their job; and elected officials
are caught between the need to protect
the public health and the need to
raise taxes.
Estuarine problem solving involves
grappling with these conflicting human
activities and balancing them with the
estuary's natural system and
resources—a challenge to Management
Conferences. Management
Conferences must consider the town
manager's concern about raising taxes
to expand capacity of the sewage
treatment plant and the clammer's
frustration over closed shellfishing
areas. The Conference also must
address the recreationist's
disappointment about the loss of forest
land, open space, and swimmable
waters; the farmer's interest in using
: fertilizer; and the developer's interest
; in providing housing for a growing
population. Though challenging, these
divergent interests are being resolved
through the deliberations of
Management Conferences.
Coordinating and Integrating
Scientific and Management Efforts
As discussed in Part I of this report,
Management Conferences are the
institutional framework through which
intergovernmental cooperation and
program integration are achieved. As
Management Conferences build upon
the Clean Water Act base programs
and other EPA, federal, state, and local
authorities and programs, existing
watershed-related efforts are being
redirected to meet Conference goals
and objectives. Moreover, the NEP
process engenders new laws and
programs. The State of Washington,
for example, recently adopted a
regulation which sets minimum
stormwater standards for new
development. Local governments in
Washington will be required to adopt
stormwater programs that include these
new standards, a major step in
controlling pollutant discharges in the
Puget Sound watershed.
Marinas also contribute to pollution.
28 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 4
Through the cooperative,
intergovernmental efforts of
Management Conferences, research
into estuary functions is under way,
and the status and trends of estuarine
water quality and living resources are
being defined. The NEP stimulates
other public agency research efforts
and encourages the use of existing
studies and available data through
both public and private institutions.
The NEP helps to identify needed
research and facilitates interaction
between scientists who perform the
research and managers who use the
research results.
Monitoring Estuaries
An important lesson learned in the last
four years is the value of monitoring.
Monitoring data are crucial in helping
both to define estuary functions and to
note any changes resulting from
management actions. To assess the
success of management actions, each
Management Conference must design
a long-term monitoring strategy.
The Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority began a comprehensive
long-term monitoring program in 1989
to measure the ecosystem of the Puget
Sound. The monitoring program will
characterize the condition of the water,
sediment, plants, animals, and habitats
in Puget Sound and its watershed. The
program has begun to collect and
record information to document the
status and trends in contamination, the
effects of contamination on natural
resources, and any changes in the
Puget Sound ecosystem due to natural
causes. Another key lesson learned in
Puget Sound has been recognition of
the need to establish and use
standardized procedures for the
collection and analysis of various types
of environmental samples. The Puget
Sound Estuary Program Protocols and
Guidelines was developed to
standardize sample collection and
analysis within the sound, allowing for
comparability of data and
determination of long-term trends.
Puget Sound experiences have
served as a model to the other NEP
projects, which are developing
monitoring programs, and to the NEP,
which is developing monitoring
guidelines to help Management
Conference.
WEP Monitoring Guidelines
As CCMPs are implemented,
monitoring will help determine the
effectiveness of the actions taken.
Though each project may target a
different problem or fill a different
information need, the NEP advocates
that all monitoring programs within a
watershed use comparable methods
and measurement strategies and be
based on the same scientific
principles.
To this end, EPA is providing
guidelines on the design,
implementation, and evaluation of the
required monitoring programs. The
interim final guidance document
differentiates between the sampling
done as part of characterization and the
long-term monitoring that is part of
CCMP implementation. Sampling
during characterization is done to fill
data gaps, provide baseline data on
pollutant loadings, and estimate the
degree of variability over both space
and time. The monitoring conducted
during the implementation of action
plans is designed to be part of a
long-term program to evaluate trends,
link observed patterns to management
actions, and provide information that
can be used to redirect or refocus the
management plan if necessary.
The guidance document describes
each of the steps to be taken in
designing a long-term monitoring
program: (1) State the objectives;
(2) establish requirements to meet the
objectives; (3) select analytical
methods and sampling designs;
(4) evaluate anticipated results for
adequacy; and (5) implement the
program, with periodic assessments.
According to the interim guidelines,
development of a monitoring program
should begin during the first two years
of the Management Conference and
should be an integral part of a CCMP.
Educating and Involving
the Public
The NEP has from its beginning
encouraged public education and
public participation in estuary projects.
Volunteer monitoring, recognized by
EPA as an important public education
and involvement mechanism, is used to
achieve a better understanding of an
estuary's functions and to enlist citizen
support in identifying and managing
estuarine problems. Experience has
shown that properly trained volunteers
can perform basic sampling and simple
analytic tasks with accuracy and
reliability while keeping expenses low.
This program has proved to be an
excellent method for educating
students, as well as older citizens, and
for developing stewardship of estuaries.
To promote citizen monitoring
programs in NEP projects, EPA
sponsored national workshops on
volunteer monitoring in 1988 and
1989. A national volunteer monitoring
network was formed as a result of
these workshops. To foster the
network, EPA published a directory of
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 29
-------
volunteer monitoring groups, helped
produce a guide to volunteer
monitoring for state agency use, and
trained volunteers. EPA currently
sponsors a newsletter for citizen
volunteers.
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds,
Narragansett Bay, Puget Sound, San
Francisco Bay, and Tampa Bay projects
have well-established programs for
volunteer monitoring. Planning for
volunteer monitoring efforts is now
taking place in Galveston Bay, Sarasota
Bay, Casco Bay, Indian River Lagoon,
and Delaware Inland Bays. The
Delaware Inland Bays Estuary Program
has awarded a grant to the Delaware
Sea Grant Program to develop a citizen
monitoring program, train volunteers,
and manage the program in the
Inland Bays.
An integral element of the NEP
approach to estuarine management is
public participation and education.
The goal of public participation is to
involve citizens with diverse interests
in helping to influence decisions
concerning their communities,
waterways, and estuarine
environments. The purpose of public
education is to teach people about their
environment, the role they play in
polluting it, and the role they can have
in restoring and protecting it. Through
public participation and education
programs, citizens of the estuarine
watershed become its stewards and
protect the estuary and its resources for
future generations.
To further encourage public
involvement in CCMP development,
the NEP ensures that each
Management Conference has a
representative, active citizens
committee and an effective public
participation strategy, and it ensures
that the voices of the citizens are
heard. The San Francisco Estuary
Project, like all the NEP projects,
: supports a strong public participation
component. In addition to a Technical
Advisory Committee, the project relies
on the advice of a Public Advisory
; Committee consisting of 57
representatives from various public
and private interest groups. The
project reaches out to the public
through workshops, conferences, and
publications as part of its effort to
educate citizens about the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and the
environmental problems it faces.
Recently this estuary project, in
cooperation with the Aquatic Habitat
Institute, held a three-day technical and
public education conference that
focused on the impact of fresh water
flows on estuarine wetlands, biological
resources, hydrodynamics and
'. circulation, and water chemistry.
Discussions of how scientific data are
used in developing policy and
presentations on the state of the estuary
were key components of the
conference. Such educational
opportunities help to foster a
partnership among scientists,
managers, and the public to restore and
protect our estuaries for future
generations.
Public education is a nonregulatory
mechanism Management Conferences
use for controlling pollution sources
and protecting resources. Some
educational efforts aim to stop the
dumping of trash and motor oil into
sewer drains. Others ask citizens to
"adopt" estuarine tributaries, beaches,
and even highway segments in an
effort to help keep them litter-free.
! The Sarasota Bay National Estuary
Program succeeded in reclaiming a
four-and-a-half-mile site as part of its
ongoing effort to restore natural
habitats along the bay. A new
• trash-free park is now framed by
boardwalks, nature trails, and
mangroves. Volunteers planted about
21,000 marsh grass plugs, 300
mangrove trees, and dozens of sea
grape plants in the park, transforming
the estuary.
As part of the Buzzards Bay
Project CCMP, the Management
Conference has called on local
governments to control growth and
development, using zoning, public
health authorities, and conservation
easements. In addition, a citizen
coalition recently handed out report
cards to twelve municipalities. The
report cards were based in part on
questionnaires sent to elected officials
and to conservation, health, planning,
and zoning board members. The
questions covered stormwater runoff,
septic system maintenance, shellfish
bed closures, wetlands protection,
growth plans, and other issues. One
community was rated an "A"; four
were "B"; and the others were rated
"C," with three of these rated "C-."
The report cards are given annually to
encourage the towns to be better
stewards of the bay.
Education is the key technique
used by the Delaware Estuary Program
to address suburban nonpoint source
pollution and water conservation
issues. As part of a Demonstration
Project, the Delaware Estuary Program
has established a comprehensive
"Clean Water Works" program. The
program encompasses three initiatives:
evaluation of watershed management
alternatives; education of homeowners,
landscapers, and students; and
implementation of activities that
include a citizen Watershed
Watch group.
The Narragansett Bay Project is
helping to prevent further pollution to
the bay by establishing the Hazardous
Waste Reduction Project, a waste
30 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 4
Learning about estuarine resources.
reduction public education and
technical assistance program for Rhode
Island's electroplating industry.
Initially, the project has focused on
reducing toxic wastes from those
electroplating firms discharging to the
Field's Point sewage treatment plant.
If successful, the project could be
expanded to other Rhode Island
treatment facilities and other types of
businesses; it should also provide a
model for other states.
This project includes two main
procedures. First, a series of
workshops are offered, targeted at a
broad audience within the
electroplating industry. These
workshops provide information on
waste reduction technologies and
management practices. Second,
hazardous waste audits are conducted
at industry sites. Trained technical
staff visit electroplating plants to
observe and evaluate then: standing
inventories, materials handling,
manufacturing processes, and
pretreatment programs. Audit reports
show plant managers opportunities to
reduce waste and improve pretreatment
techniques. The project aims to
complete approximately 20 audits
each year.
The Galveston Bay National
Estuary Program has utilized public
education and involvement as a
substantial force for improving the
stewardship of estuarine resources.
For example, a major annual "Bay
Day" festival was recently organized,
which drew approximately 15,000
participants in the first such effort.
Bay Day, co-sponsored by the
Galveston Bay Foundation, involved
exhibitions in theme pavilions which
highlighted the significance of bay
resources and their use and
management. Some 55 resource
agencies, companies, and groups
provided displays and handed out
literature related to the estuarine
environment. The increased
awareness, cooperation, and
involvement resulting from this
successful effort are seen by the
GBNEP as vital in providing for
effective implementation of future
management.
New estuary projects—
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary
Program and Casco Bay Estuary
Project—are just beginning to realize
the benefits of involving the public to
help protect their estuaries. Citizens
around the Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuarine Complex are being invited to
participate in initial activities to help
define and select priority problems.
Mailing lists are now being developed,
and public outreach and involvement
efforts are under way. A major goal of
the Casco Bay Estuary Project is to
educate as many people as possible and
involve them in efforts to protect
Casco Bay resources. A newsletter of
the Casco Bay Estuary Program is
already being widely distributed. New
Management Conferences have many
fine NEP models from which to draw
experiences with public outreach
programs.
Financing CCMP Implementation
Because CCMPs must be implemented
to be successful, the NEP requires that
CCMP financial plans be part of the
final CCMP submittal to EPA for
approval. Funding for CCMP actions
is raised primarily from state and local
sources by the Management
Conference.
The Puget Sound Estuary
Program's CCMP contains a
discussion of four proposed new state
taxes recommended by the Puget
Sound Finance Committee: A
one-time fee charged to motor vehicle
manufacturers for new registration of
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 31
-------
vehicles in the state; an increase in the
state foodfish and shellfish tax, and
extension of the tax to finfish
aquaculture; a new tax on marina use
fuels (currently exempt from the motor
vehicle fuel tax); and a surcharge on
the state leasehold excise tax assessed
on public lands (including aquatic
lands) leased to private parties in the
Puget Sound region. These new taxes,
in combination with a Puget Sound
regional fee (an annual fee that would
be charged to households and
businesses in the Puget Sound basin), a
nonprofit foundation, and increased
reliance on the state general fund,
would raise needed revenues to
implement the CCMP.
The Buzzards Bay project
developed a guidebook to help local
governments develop financial
mechanisms suited to local
implementation of CCMP actions such
as on-site septic system maintenance,
Vehicle Registration Tax
Household & Business Fee j
Fish Tax _ I
• General Fund
• Leasehold Tax
• Enterprise Fund
^ • Marina Fuel Tax
• Special Assessments
_ • Nonprofit Foundation
Fertilizer Tax
• Local Bonds
• User Fee
• Utility Fee
• Livestock & Poultry Tax
• Cleaning Products Tax ,
• Boat Registration Fee '
storm water management, boat
pump-out programs, and
comprehensive water quality
programs. Mechanisms discussed in
the guidebook include establishing
special districts and levying rates,
charges, and special assessments.
The guidebook also suggests using
enterprise funds supported by user fees
and local bond banks that reduce
costs through lower municipal bond
interest rates.
Since a dominant focus of the Long
Island Sound Study (LISS) is the
reduction of nutrient loadings to the
sound, the project has developed a
draft financing report that suggests
taxes and fees on uses that contribute
to nutrient loadings. Possible new
sources of revenue for consideration
include a fee on water use, a tax on
nitrogen-containing fertilizers, a head
charge on livestock and poultry, and a
tax on household and industrial
cleaning products. Additional
suggested sources of revenue focus on
boaters who use the sound: boat
registration fees, slip fees, and a
marine fuel tax. LISS's finance
\ committee is exploring all
i potential revenue sources.
I The Narragansett Bay
| Project has developed several
j experimental financing plans to
help pay for implementation
activities. They include using
stormwater management utilities to
fund local soil erosion,
sedimentation control, and
• stormwater management
' programs.
Applying NEP Lessons
As NEP projects move forward, they
learn from their own experiences and
from the experiences of other projects.
Through technology transfer
conferences, science symposia,
guidance documents, and other
publications, the NEP facilitates the
exchange of information, experiences,
and technologies.
The NEP has supported 17 estuary
projects, inspired other resource
management programs, and catalyzed
the local action needed to protect
estuaries. It has been the instrument
through which new research has been
undertaken, new technologies have
developed, new regulatory
mechanisms have evolved, and further
public attention and funding have been
focused on estuarine watersheds.
Demonstrating Science Advisory
Board Recommendations
EPA programs are reassessed on an
ongoing basis, and new priorities and
approaches to environmental
management are devised. Recently the
Agency's Science Advisory Board
made ten recommendations in its
report, Reducing Risk: Setting
Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection.
Recommendations that have been
adopted by the Administrator and form
the basis of the new EPA policy
directions reinforce the importance of
geographic targeting to achieve the
greatest reduction of environmental
risk. Geographic targeting and other
approaches are already reflected in the
NEP approach and philosophy.
Rgure 10. Financing CCMP Implementation
32 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Part 4
Targeting greatest risks. As part
of the CCMP process, each
Management Conference studies its
estuary's problems and, with the
guidance of its scientific and technical
advisors, selects priority problems in
that watershed to be addressed in its
CCMP.
Considering ecological risk as
much as human health. The NEP, in
its earliest projects, has focused
attention on the need to protect and
enhance living resources and then-
habitat.
Emphasizing pollution prevention.
The CCMP is a long-term problem-
solving approach to estuarine
management. Preventing pollution is
inherent in these strategies designed to
protect resources. In addition, early
actions like Narragansett Bay's
educational effort for industries
demonstrate the NEP commitment to
pollution prevention.
Integrating CCMPs into public
policy. When the Management
Conference—with a strong
institutional framework that is locally
based—endorses and firmly commits
its resources to the CCMP and begins
to carry it out, the CCMP is public
policy.
Continuing to develop public
understanding. As this report shows,
public education is key to the work of a
Management Conference, its CCMP
development, and, most of all, the
long-term restoration and protection of
the entire estuarine watershed.
The NEP and the 17 estuary
projects are at the forefront of
environmental resource management.
Some challenges have yet to be met,
but it is clear that the NEP formula is
working.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 33
-------
-------
Looking to the Future:
Trends and Needs
As we approach the end of this
century, it is heartening to observe the
pollution control advances that have
been made. Under the Clean Water
Act, many regulatory controls have
evolved to control point sources.
These control programs include
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits,
recently expanded to cover urban
stormwater runoff, and pretreatment
programs, which requke treatment of
industrial effluents before they are
transported to municipal sewage
treatment plants. In addition, sewage
treatment technologies have gained in
sophistication and effectiveness. In
combination, these conventional and
new methods and technologies have
led to some improvements in estuarine
water quality, particularly with respect
to reduced toxic discharges.
In spite of these advances, some
problems remain important challenges
for us all: pollution from the air, waste
sites, and ground water; runoff from
the land and urban streets; and the loss
of wetlands and other vital habitats.
The keys to meeting these challenges
can be found more easily as we further
consolidate our alliances with other
federal, state, and local government
agencies, the scientific community, and
the public.
Closer Integration with EPA
Programs
As mentioned in Part II of this report,
there is mounting concern about the
impacts on estuaries from air
deposition, solid and hazardous waste,
and ground water. The Long Island
Sound Study is investigating the role of
vehicle emissions to pollution
contributions to the sound. Studies of
Chesapeake Bay have already
established clear links to vehicle
emissions. Work at Superfund sites in
Puget Sound and Buzzards Bay have
been coordinated with those estuary
projects, but even closer ties between
remediation activities at waste sites
and estuary projects are needed. The
problems caused by solid waste are
being addressed by the New York-New
Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, yet
few projects are directly dealing with
trash by encouraging household
recycling and waste reduction efforts.
The Narragansett Bay Project is, in
cooperation with Rhode Island
businesses, performing hazardous
waste audits and encouraging source
reduction, recycling, and safer
chemical substitution. The Delaware
Inland Bays project is looking at
ground water as a major contributor to
its nutrient problem, recognizing that
more must be understood to manage
the problem. Though much interaction
among EPA's base programs is under
way, more effort is needed among EPA
Headquarters and Regional Offices and
in the estuary projects to closely
integrate with these and other EPA
base programs.
Future Research Needs
The NEP will continue to rely on the
support of EPA's Office of Research
and Development (ORD) and NOAA,
as well as other federal and state
agency and private research arms. The
results of NOAA's Status and Trends
Program and ORD's EMAP Near
Coastal efforts are expected to provide
assessments of the conditions of
estuaries and information on whether
they are degrading or improving,
adding to the assessments and
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 35
-------
information produced by individual
NEP project monitoring efforts. Status
and Trends information is already
being used by a number of
Management Conferences.
There are also a number of areas
where new research is needed:
D How significant is the problem of
contaminated sediments? What are
their impacts on bottom-dwelling
communities? Can remediation
reduce risks? If so, what kind of
remediation?
D How significant a problem is
atmospheric deposition as a source
of toxic substances to estuaries?
D What are the effects of exotic
species on the ecological integrity
of the ecosystems? What attributes
of exotic species make them
successful invaders? How can we
ensure the diversity of species in
estuarine ecosystems?
P What are the processes controlling
nutrient cycling and algal
production? What intervention is
effective in controlling
phytophankton growth?
A Scientific/Management/Public
Partnership
Using the scientific knowledge
gathered and interpreted during the
characterization phase, the
Management Conference ensures that
the public, elected officials, and special
interest groups—all part of the
Management Conference—understand
the problems of the estuary and are
prepared to support the measures
needed to correct the problems.
This process is simple in theory; in
practice, it is complex. Scientists do
not always agree on what causes a
problem or what should be done to
solve it. Furthermore, scientists and
managers do not always communicate
well with each other. In the NEP,
managers operate on a five-year plan;
scientists rarely do. Under the
auspices of Management Conferences,
however, scientists are focusing their
research and applying their findings,
understanding project managers' needs
and time constraints. Managers are
challenging scientists to direct their
studies to meet Management
Conference needs for short-term
answers. Communications between
.scientists and managers are enhanced
through Management Conferences,
resulting in better solutions to
management issues.
Members of the public often
express concerns about a highly visible
problem, yet this issue may not be the
most important problem for the
Management Conference to consider.
In fact, spending resources on a highly
visible but relatively insignificant
problem could divert attention from a
crucial matter. It is imperative,
, therefore, that scientific findings be
widely communicated and form the
basis for public education efforts.
Faced with diverse constituencies,
each with a different idea of what
constitutes a monitoring program
appropriate for Santa Monica Bay, the
Santa Monica Restoration Program
.held a two-day consensus-building
conference for scientists, managers,
dischargers, regulators, and public
interest group representa-tives. The
conference goal was to outline
monitoring objectives that would guide
the development of detailed
hypotheses and sampling and analysis
plans. Conference participants were
led through a set of structured
exercises that focused on the overall
concerns driving the regulatory/
monitoring system, agreement on a
monitoring philosophy for the bay, and
a determination of which bay resources
were the most highly valued. These
exercises were followed by a
decision-making process through
which specific monitoring objectives
were developed. The selected
objectives reflected and harmonized
management goals, scientific
knowledge, and public concerns.
Every estuary program in the NEP
has a public participation and
education component. Solutions to
pollution problems are grounded in
scientific information, but protection of
habitats and commitments to action are
dependent upon public education.
Through education and participation,
the public gains an understanding of
the estuary and its problems, the will to
act to solve immediate problems, and
the desire to be stewards of the
ecosystem for the future.
Priority Concerns
The public, in partnership with
scientists and government managers, is
facing enormous challenges, especially
since coastal population growth is
expected to continue to increase well
into the 21st century. To protect our
coastal resources, this growth will need
to be much better managed in the
future. Critical management areas that
must be addressed include, among
others, general growth and
development, nonpoint sources, and
natural habitats.
Growth and Development
Coastal population growth and
development patterns are causing the
disruption of the natural processes of
coastal ecosystems and threatening
both the ecological and economic
values of estuaries. As we approach
the year 2000, we must continue to use
and improve conventional pollution
36 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Parts
Figure 11. Three Future NEP Targets
controls and to accelerate enforcement
actions as needed. However, new
strategies are required to solve the
more complex problems brought about
by increasing pressure to develop land
in rural areas and in sensitive and
pristine areas.
As land development takes place,
forested lands and wetlands and other
vegetative covered places are often
stripped away, leaving the land bare,
without protection from erosion.
Furthermore, as concrete and other
nonporous surfaces cover the land,
there is less opportunity for rainwater
to seep into the ground and replenish
ground water. Without wetlands and
forests, stormwater carries pollutants
directly into our waterways.
Development near shorelines often
damages life-sustaining habitats of
shore birds and animals. It also
increases sedimentation in shallow
water, choking underwater grasses and
threatening fish and shellfish habitats.
Looking ahead, two of the major
challenges facing the NEP are
controlling nonpoint, or diffuse,
pollution sources and protecting
estuarine habitats.
Nonpoint Source Control
Nonpoint sources are diffuse
pollution sources that do not
have a single point or discharge
outlet, like a pipe. The pollutants are
generally washed off the land and
urban and suburban streets and roads
by heavy rains and melting snow.
Runoff from agricultural land, which
may carry soil, pesticides, fertilizers,
and manure, is a prime example of a
nonpoint source. Reducing
agricultural nonpoint source pollution
through changes in farming
practices, more efficient use of
fertilizers and better irrigation
practices, and reduced reliance on
environmentally harmful pesticides
remains a challenge.
Currently, voluntary management
practices are being used to control
diffuse sources from both urban and
agricultural sites. In some areas, state
and local governments have issued
regulations requiring that these
practices be used. Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act provides funding for
some of these nonpoint source control
projects.
Recent amendments to the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA)
require states with federally approved
coastal zone management programs to
develop nonpoint source pollution
control programs in coastal areas.
These programs will bring together for
the first time authorities and
capabilities within state coastal zone
management and nonpoint source
control agencies to address the
problem of coastal nonpoint source
pollution. In consultation with NOAA
and other federal agencies, EPA
proposed guidelines in May 1991
specifying measures to be used by
states to control nonpoint source
pollution of coastal waters. In October
1991, EPA and NOAA jointly
proposed additional guidelines to
further help states develop these
programs; final guidelines are expected
to be issued in 1992. The new coastal
nonpoint source pollution control
programs will be developed and
implemented through existing state
coastal zone management programs
administered by NOAA under section
306 of the CZMA and through existing
state nonpoint source control
management programs under Section
319 of the Clean Water Act.
New EPA regulations will require
urban storm drainage systems and
runoff from various industrial and
commercial sites to be permitted under
the NPDES program. The rule applies
to 173 cities and 47 urbanized counties
with populations of 100,000 or more,
plus some smaller cities that use the
storm sewer systems of these
jurisdictions. It also applies to
industries that discharge stormwater
runoff into municipal storm sewers or
directly into waterways. The
regulation provides a mechanism for
stopping illegal connections to storm
drains. While many communities have
already acted to check urban
stormwater runoff, the new
requirements are expected to further
reduce this pollution source.
Habitat Protection
As growing human populations
encroach upon sensitive habitats like
wetlands, NEP projects have begun to
address habitat protection. Many
questions about the relationships
among pollutant concentrations,
habitat, and living resources are still
unanswered. Estuary projects are
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 37
-------
Tho NEP alms to protect living resources.
beginning to look beyond traditional
approaches toward strategies that
address total estuarine ecosystem
health. These strategies are
considering the protection of living
resources and their habitats and are
trying to understand how ecosystems
function. Long-term strategies like
these require the further coordination
of research and monitoring activities of
EPA and NOAA with those of
individual NEP projects and with the
efforts of marine academic institutions.
While long-term strategies are
being developed, Management
Conferences are acting locally to
address immediate threats to estuarine
habitats. For example, they are
limiting fish harvesting, replanting
underwater grasses, seeking building
restrictions like setbacks, creating land
conservation areas, planning
construction projects to minimize
erosion, sparing or replanting trees,
protecting and restoring wetlands,
stabilizing shorelines, and curbing
harmful uses of waterways. Such
efforts are not yet occurring in all
areas, however, and will likely be more
widely practiced in the future.
Management Conferences will
need to work even more closely with
agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife
Service and Corps of Engineers to
better understand and mitigate some of
these problems and to develop and
expand new technologies. Stabilizing
shorelines using grasses instead of
bulkheads, removing dams blocking
fish migrations, creating new wetlands,
eliminating freshwater diversions, and
developing aquaculture projects are
some examples of activities expected
to be expanded in the future.
Steps in the Right Direction
The NEP moves forward with the
recognition that it has a long way to go
in meeting Congress' directive to
restore and protect estuaries of national
significance. Completely fulfilling this
charge will take a long time—probably
decades.
In the short term, however, many
important steps have been taken, and
many more are under way. Each
estuary project in the NEP is focusing
on the key environmental problems in
the estuary; integrating efforts with
other federal, state, and local
programs; considering air and land
pollution sources, as well as
controlling direct water discharges;
developing restoration and protection
strategies; and fostering stewardship of
estuarine ecosystems.
These accomplishments are just
some of the fruits of the NEP's f irst
four years. The following section
provides details of the progress being
made in each of the 17 NEP projects.
Lloyd's Neck Lighthouse.
38 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Moving Ahead:
The NEP Projects
The Seventeen NEP Projects
The 17 estuaries are at various stages
between initiation and completion.
Tier 1 Management Conferences were
convened by June 1988. They include
estuary projects in Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds, Buzzards Bay, Long Island
Sound, Narragansett Bay, Puget
Sound, and San Francisco Estuary.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program and
the Buzzards Bay Project have
submitted their final CCMPs to the
EPA Administrator. Tier 2 projects
include additional estuaries: Delaware
Estuary, Delaware Inland Bays,
Galveston Bay, New York-New Jersey
Harbor, Santa Monica Bay, and
Sarasota Bay. Tier 3 Management
Conferences are the most recent
additions to the NEP. Following are
descriptions and progress reports on all
17 NEP Projects.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 39
-------
-------
Part6
ALBEMARLE-
PAMLICO SOUNDS
LONG ISLAND
SOUND
PUGET SOUND
BUZZARDS BAY
,-MOBTO *_,;
NARRAGANSETT BAY
NARRAGANSETT BAY
SAN FRANCISCO
ESTUARY
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 41
-------
; ALBEMARLE-
RAMLJCO SOUNDS
ATIANTIC OCEAN
Introduction
The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds of
North Carolina form the second largest
estuarine complex in the United States
and the third largest in North America.
Spectacular surroundings and abundant
wildlife are major attractions for
hunters and nature lovers. For instance,
snow geese, tundra swans, and sea
ducks winter in the estuary's varied
habitat. Many fur-bearing animals also
live here, including river otter,
raccoon, mink, muskrat, opossum, and
nutria. Revenues from estuary-related
activities such as fishing, tourism,
recreation, and resort development are
expanding. In the next few years,
tourism will probably surpass the
textile, furniture, and tobacco
industries hi regional economic
importance. Ten percent of the local
workforce is presently in the business
of directly serving tourists. Boat
registrations are also indicators of
increased usage of coastal waters.
Between 1970 and 1984, the number of
registered boats in the Albemarle-
Pamlico Sounds increased 155 percent;
between 1970 and 1991, the number of
marinas increased almost 300 percent.
Significant agricultural and
industrial activities also take place
here. Agricultural development in the
region generates $1.5 billion annually.
Counties neighboring the Albemarle-
Pamlico Sounds contain 45 percent of
the state's cropland and contribute 50
and 40 percent of the state's swine and
chicken production, respectively.
North Carolina's extensive phosphate
reserves are an important resource for
international fertilizer markets, and one
phosphate mine is located beside
estuary waters. The U.S. Department
of Defense greatly influences the area,
with 19 facilities occupying 97,000
acres near the estuary.
Chief Threats to the
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
Signs of environmental stress in the
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds are not
hard to find. Widespread blooms of
noxious blue-green algae in the
Chowan River occurred in 1972, 1978,
1983, and 1987. There are now 21,600
acres of productive shellfish waters
closed to harvest in North Carolina.
Striped bass, shad, and river herring
fisheries collapsed in the mid-1970s,
and outbreaks of fish and crab disease
have affected other commercially
important species as well.
Various types of pollutants are
directly or indirectly responsible for
the situations mentioned above. Algal
blooms are caused by excess nutrients
in the estuary. The blooms contribute
to a loss of dissolved oxygen in
estuarine waters, harming fish and
other marine life. Nitrogen and
phosphate (found in fertilizers), as well
as human and animal wastes, are the
primary contributors of nutrients to the
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds.
Agricultural runoff into the sounds
carries fertilizer and animal waste from
nearby farms. In addition, the sounds
receive direct discharges of nutrients
associated with a phosphate mining
and processing facility and numerous
municipal wastewater discharges.
Studies suggest that several fish
and crab diseases are related to poor
water quality. Although toxic
contamination is not yet a systemwide
problem, several potential sources of
toxics cause concern, including a
metal-plating operation on the Neuse
42 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
River; textile manufacturing on the
Pamlico, Roanoke, Chowan, and
Neuse Rivers; pulp and paper
manufacturing on the Roanoke,
Chowan, and Neuse Rivers; and
Department of Defense activities at
Cherry Point Marine Air Station.
Another well-known water quality
problem threatening marine life is
bacterial contamination. Bacteria from
agricultural runoff and sewage
treatment plant discharges have forced
shellfish beds to close.
Construction projects and channel
maintenance that dig up sediments or
fill in marshes and other parts of the
estuary can disrupt reproduction,
migration, and feeding patterns for
many animals.
A last threat to fish populations in
the sounds is increased fishing
pressure. The recreational catch
probably exceeds the commercial catch
for bluefish, spotted seatrout, red drum,
and Spanish mackerel. This direct
competition for fishery resources is
greatly attributed to fishing gear usage.
Since 1980, 53 percent of
commercially licensed vessels have
actually been pleasure vessels allowed
to use commercial gear to take fish for
personal consumption.
The Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuarine Study
The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study (APES) was formally accepted
into the NEP in 1987. Municipal and
state government, academic
institutions, Congress, citizen groups,
and several federal agencies are
represented on the Policy Committee.
Public participation is an essential part
of the study, and activities such as
local leadership development
workshops, presentations to local
governments, and public meetings
that include tours of APES-funded
projects have been very successful.
APES has completed its
characterization report and is
developing a draft CCMP. A final
CCMP is due November 1992.
Priority Problems
APES formulated an extensive list of
environmental concerns, which can be
grouped into the following priority
issues:
D declines in fisheries productivity
n health of aquatic resources
D impairment of nursery area function
D eutrophication
n anoxia-related fish kills
D habitat loss
D shellfish closures
D changes in distribution of bottom
dwelling organisms
Scientific Research
The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study funded 18 technical projects in
fiscal year 1990. The projects
addressed fishery, water quality,
habitat, and human environment issues.
One set of investigations identified five
distinct nursery ground habitats. This
information could lead to
recommendations for extending the
boundaries of primary nursery areas
and improved monitoring of their
functional and geographic integrity.
Blue crab and fish diseases such as
ulcerative mycosis have also been
studied.
APES-sponsored studies provide
information that influences
management decisions. Assessments of
marine fish stocks guided the North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
in formulating management goals. In
addition, an analysis of development
patterns around the estuary is helping
APES set regional priorities for
resource protection. Fifteen research
projects were funded in fiscal year
i>
Learning from generation to generation.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 43
-------
1991, five of which are continuations
of 1990 projects.
Monitoring
A 1988 monitoring plan expanded the
state's baseline monitoring within the
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds area. The
goals of this plan are to evaluate
long-term trends and assess the
effectiveness of improved
management actions. The plan was
revised in June 1989 and now includes
seven components to achieve the two
stated goals. The seven components
include implementation of a citizens'
water quality monitoring program
with more than 60 monitors,
development of emergency response
capabilities to chronicle episodic
events, expansion of existing Division
of Environmental Management
ambient water quality sites from 74 to
99 sites along with continuous
monitoring of 37 open water sites
maintained by the U.S. Geological
Survey, a survey offish tissue and
sediment toxicants, a one-time
synoptic basinwide water quality
study, and measurements of sediment
oxygen demand in critical areas.
Investigations and monitoring of
water and sediment quality in the past
several years have produced valuable
information. This work has
documented that low dissolved oxygen
water masses can occur and dissipate
very rapidly during a 24-hour period.
Nitrogen plays the major role in algal
growth, but phosphorus is more
important at some times of the year.
Sediment samples show that sediments
in the Pamlico and Neuse River
Estuarine Systems in the vicinity of
known point source discharges have
specific trace metal enrichment levels
greater than 100 times higher than
Television programs help the public protect the sounds.
sediment samples from other sites.
These investigations have significantly
increased scientists' knowledge of
toxicants in the estuary. Study findings
have caused 10 sites in the Pamlico
River and 17 sites in the Neuse River
to be suggested as "areas of concern"
because of heavy metal concentrations.
Management Tools
APES is reviewing and implementing
improved mechanisms that address
both point and nonpoint sources of
nutrients entering the Albemarle-
Pamlico Sounds. The North Carolina
Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) has proposed
several regulatory measures to reduce
point source pollution. One measure is
a compliance order to greatly reduce
discharges by renovating the phosphate
mining and processing facility on the
Pamlico River. Others include
continued statewide phosphate
detergent bans, limits on nutrients in
: water treatment plant discharges, and
comprehensive basinwide permitting
and pollution control.
As nutrient limits on point source
discharges are implemented, most
nutrients will enter the estuary from
nonpoint sources such as agricultural
runoff. An APES-sponsored project in
the Merchants Millpond watershed
demonstrates the type of coordinated
effort needed to address problems of
nonpoint source pollution. This
watershed is within the Chowan River
basin, where the need for
improvements in animal waste
management has been known but
poorly addressed. The Gates County
Soil and Water District is working with
the Division of Soil and Water
Conservation to offer cost-share funds
to farmers in the area who want to
implement best management practices
(BMPs). In the long run, BMPs such as
proper waste management, sediment
control, and erosion control save
money as well as reduce nutrient
runoff, but there are initial set-up
expenses. Seventy-five percent of these
44 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
expenses are defrayed by the
cost-sharing program. The project also
provides technical assistance in
implementing the BMPs. To date,
results of this project include four
waste management systems and eight
stream protection systems that have
been installed as alternatives to
traditional free-ranging livestock
methods. These systems serve as
educational demonstrations for other
farmers, and monitoring will indicate
what impact the systems have on the
amount of nutrients entering Merchants
Millpond.
As part of a pilot project, an urban
stormwater detention basin will receive
runoff from 200 acres of downtown
Greenville, North Carolina, and will
reduce the amount of nutrients, heavy
metals, and sediment that reach the Tar
River. This area is typical, both
geographically and culturally, of a
number of other small cities within the
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds area. This
type of BMP for developed areas
should therefore have widespread
applicability.
In an effort to alleviate wetlands
loss, APES is also sponsoring a marsh
construction project. Building
inexpensive breakwaters and planting
marsh grass will provide vital habitat,
prevent erosion, and filter pollutants.
The breakwaters will be low enough so
that they are not destroyed in severe
storms and do not affect water quality,
but high enough to buffer eroded
shorelines from damaging wave action
and protect marsh grass planted behind
them. The marsh, in turn, will increase
estuarine habitat while further reducing
shoreline erosion. APES will share
construction costs with each
landowner, each of whom will allow
periodic access to the project for public
education purposes. Landowners and
contractors will perform the
construction themselves, building local
conservation skills and broadening
public knowledge about the project.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 45
-------
BUZZARDS BAY
LMl
LM1
Introduction
Buzzards Bay is bounded by the
western edge of Cape Cod,
southeastern Massachusetts, and the
Elizabeth Islands. The bay has a
426-square-mile drainage basin that
includes 233,000 inhabitants in four
counties. One of these, Barnstable
County, is the fastest-growing county
in New England. Many local residents
are employed by the commercial
fishing, shellfishing, and lobstering
industries. In 1988, the commercial
shellfish harvest alone was worth
$4.5 million. The bay also serves as a
crucial transit route for the New
Bedford fishing fleet and for shipping
through the Cape Cod Canal. Nearly
20,000 vessels pass through Cape Cod
Canal yearly, and during the summer
over 10,000 boats anchor in Buzzards
Bay. The bay's ragged coastline
attracts thousands of tourists who
enjoy fishing, boating, and swimming
along the shore. Home to a unique mix
of semitropical and arcadian species
including harbor seals, ospreys (called
buzzards by the colonists), and roseate
terns, the area offers many research
opportunities for local laboratories and
academic institutions.
Chief Threats to Buzzards Bay
A legacy of industrial pollution from
New Bedford Harbor, coupled with
current development activities and the
bay's poor flushing capabilities, create
pollution problems in Buzzards Bay.
Conflicting uses of the bay exacerbate
these problems. For example, the same
harbor or embayment is often used for
swimming and harvesting shellfish, as
well as for discharging industrial and
residential wastewater.
Over 37 million gallons of sanitary
waste are discharged from sewage
treatment plants into the bay each day.
This waste is a primary source of
disease-causing bacteria and viruses
(pathogens). Other sources of
pathogens include sewage discharges
from boats, failing residential
cesspools and septic systems, and
stormwater runoff from urban and
agricultural areas. As of April 1990,
13,200 acres of shellfish areas were
closed due to pathogen contamination.
Buzzards Bay at sunset.
46 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Toxic contamination from PCBs,
PAHs, pesticides, and trace metals is
also beginning to affect marine
organisms and the food chain. Osprey
populations decreased 50 percent
during the 1940s and 1950s because of
DDT-related reproductive failure.
Today, 18,000 acres around New
Bedford Harbor are closed to
lobstering, finfishing, and shellfishing
because of high PCB levels. Some
samples from outside New Bedford
Harbor also show PCB levels that are
dangerously close to Food and Drug
Administration limits. Toxic
contamination comes from a variety of
sources including industrial discharges,
boat paints, oil spills, atmospheric
transport, and pesticides in stormwater
runoff.
Septic systems, sewage treatment
facilities, and runoff contribute
nutrients as well as pathogens. Excess
nutrients cause algae to thrive,
preventing sunlight from reaching
important submerged eelgrass habitat.
Moreover, the death and decay of algae
causes hypoxia—reduced amounts of
dissolved oxygen in the water that can
harm fish and other marine organisms.
Although good circulation in Buzzards
Bay has prevented severe hypoxia,
several highly developed areas are
showing signs of excessive nutrient
loading.
The Buzzards Bay Project
One of the first estuary protection
programs in the country, the Buzzards
Bay Project (BBP) began in 1985
under the joint management of EPA
and the Massachusetts Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs
(EOEA). In January 1988, the project
joined the NEP. The Buzzards Bay
Project is administered by the
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Coastsweep Cleanup.
Management (MCZM) in conjunction
with EPA Region I. Its final CCMP
was submitted in November 1991.
Priority Problems
Based on studies and results from prior
research and scientific investigations,
the Management Conference, through
a consensus-building process,
identified three priority problems in
Buzzards Bay:
D pathogen contamination
n toxic contamination
n increasing nitrogen
Scientific Research
In 1985, the Buzzards Bay Project
began collecting and evaluating
historical information; conducting
bay wide surveys of water, sediment,
and biota quality; and investigating
relationships between land use
practices, nutrient enrichment, and the
closure of shellfish beds. Between
1985 and 1989, the project funded a
number of studies to assess and
characterize existing conditions in the
bay, including the status of water
quality, sediments, and living
resources. The Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries recently completed
surveys in Buzzards Bay under the
Shellfish Sanitation Program to
identify various discharge pipes and
their contribution of fecal coliforms to
the bay.
Monitoring
Continued monitoring of water quality,
sediment quality, and living resources
is necessary to determine whether
management actions are successful.
However, future monitoring must be
carried out with existing resources
because new funds are limited. The
project has completed a draft
monitoring plan that will be
implemented beginning in 1991. The
plan will assess effects of specific
management actions, determine trends
in environmental quality, and detect
early signs of changes that could harm
important living resources. To
conserve funds, monitoring efforts of
the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection and the
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 47
-------
Division of Marine Fisheries will be
coordinated with needs and goals
stated in the CCMP. In addition, the
Buzzards Bay Project and EOEA will
jointly design and implement a marine
data management system to organize
monitoring program information.
Management Tools
The Buzzards Bay Project is initiating
a program that addresses pathogen
pollution from septic systems and
marine craft discharges. This program
utilizes several management tools
including public education, community
training, analysis of existing
regulations, and implementation of
best management practices.
In summer 1990, the Barnstable
County Health and Environmental
Department developed a manual that
educates local communities about the
environmental advantages of proper
siting of septic systems. Activities and
workshops are providing follow-up
explanation and information about
implementing septic system
regulations to ensure effectiveness.
The program is also training
residents and boaters about proper
disposal and control of sewage and
other marine craft wastes. The training
addresses topics such as effective
operation and maintenance of septic
systems and pump-out facilities,
procedures for pumping and hauling,
and financing management operations.
In a related effort, Massachusetts
Coastal Zone Management (MCZM)
staff will work with a selected marina
to provide a pump-out facility and
ensure its usage through education and
enforcement. MCZM staff will also
provide mobile pump-out facilities to
several towns that will develop
management plans to direct their use.
These areas will then be proposed to
EPA as no-discharge zones.
Finally, the program is
investigating the effectiveness of
biologically pretreating septage, boat
wastes, and leachate in a solar
greenhouse before discharging it to a
sewage treatment plant. Constructed
wetlands and selected plants, animals,
algae, and bacteria will be used to
cleanse the waste stream before
discharge.
To further address human-related
nitrogen additions that are
overwhelming coastal embayments,
the Buzzards Bay Project developed a
comprehensive strategy for managing
human nitrogen inputs to the
Buttermilk Bay drainage basin.
, Recently adopted by the three towns
surrounding the embayment—
', Plymouth, Bourne, and Wareham—the
Buttermilk Bay Nitrogen Management
Strategy is composed of four major
steps:
1. Delineation of the drainage area;
2. Calculation of the nitrogen
contribution from existing
development including
"grandfathered" lots within the
drainage basin;
3. Calculation of the potential
additional nitrogen contributions
I under existing zoning within the
drainage basin; and
4. Comparison of the total nitrogen
contribution from steps 2 and 3
with the acceptable contribution
limit of 115,617 pounds per year.
This effort by the Buzzards Bay
Program is the first nitrogen
management strategy of its kind in the
nation.
48 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
LONG ISLAND
SOUND
G"f~^^£^Vl>£jpr -fffp^^ns?.ry,t~ ~ 'A. ~*
Introduction
Long Island Sound, bordered on the
north by Connecticut, and on the south
by Long Island, New York, lies within
the most densely populated region of
the United States. The sound, 110
miles long, stretches westward from
the Race to the East River. More than
14.5 million people live in counties
directly bordering the sound. Shipping,
transportation, recreation, fishing, and
dredged material disposal all take place
here. A total of 600 miles of coastline,
including 248 miles of beaches, attract
swimmers, boaters, and nature
enthusiasts. Six million people visited
state-owned beaches in 1988. With
over 200,000 vessels, Long Island
Sound is home to one of the largest
fleets of recreational boats of any
coastal body in the world. In addition,
over 750,000 recreational fishermen
are registered in the Long Island Sound
area. In 1987, sport fisheries were
worth $70 to $130 million, and
commercial fisheries were worth $36
to $40 million.
Chief Threats to Long Island Sound
Hypoxia, or low levels of dissolved
oxygen in the water, is the primary
concern in Long Island Sound. Though
the sound has experienced some
hypoxia in the past, there is evidence
that suggests oxygen levels might have
dropped further in recent years. In
1987, for example, certain areas of the
sound were completely without
oxygen. Stormwater runoff,
atmospheric deposition, and sewage
treatment plant discharges bring
nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus into the sound. Studies
have shown that nitrogen is the nutrient
most directly linked to low oxygen
conditions. Long Island Sound has
experienced numerous fish kills and
migrations due to hypoxia, which is
particularly severe in the western
portion of the sound. In 1987, hypoxic
conditions reduced the total catch of
finfish in the western sound by
56 percent from 1986.
Toxic and pathogen contamination
are also problems in Long Island
Sound. Toxic substances are carried
into the sound by stormwater runoff,
sewage treatment plants, and
atmospheric deposition. These toxic
substances come from metals,
pesticides, industry or household
chemicals, and petroleum compounds.
Some liver damage in winter flounder
is attributed to toxic contamination.
Sewage discharges from New York
City and the surrounding area
contribute to the pathogen problem.
High levels of fecal coliforms,
indicating pathogen contamination,
periodically close beaches in
Mamaroneck Harbor.
Although human inputs,
particularly discharges from treatment
plants, are the major cause of Long
Island Sound's pollution problems,
nature plays a role as well. Natural
currents through the East River carry
pollutants, including sewage discharge
and floatable wastes, into Long Island
Sound from New York-New Jersey
Harbor. Upper layers of polluted water
flow in from the harbor, while lower,
cleaner water layers flow out from the
sound.
The Long Island Sound Study
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS)
began in 1985 when Congress asked
EPA, in cooperation with the states of
Connecticut and New York, to sponsor
a study of the estuary. LISS officially
became part of the NEP in 1987. The
LISS Policy Committee has overall
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 49
-------
USS Is trying to protect the oysterlng industry.
responsibility for the study, including
approval of goals and the CCMP. The
committee includes the Regional
Administrators from EPA Regions I
and II, the New York State
Commissioner of Environmental
Conservation, and the Connecticut
Commissioner of Environmental
Protection. The Management
Committee, Technical Advisory
Committee, and Citizens Advisory
Committee include participants from
federal agencies such as NOAA and
the Army Corps of Engineers, as well
as from state and local agencies,
academic institutions, local
governments, and various citizen
groups.
In November 1990, the LISS
Policy Committee approved release of
a status report announcing interim
actions for hypoxia management. The
plan identifies five immediate
management actions to be undertaken
by the appropriate agencies of New
York and Connecticut. Recommended
actions include completing renovations
and construction necessary for all
municipal facilities in the LISS study
area to meet existing state and federal
standards for secondary treatment
levels; implementing a "no net
increase" policy for nitrogen by
prohibiting increases in current
nitrogen loadings from point source
discharges; providing technical and
financial assistance to encourage
existing facilities to retrofit their plants
for biological nutrient removal;
planning for potential nutrient controls
in additional portions of the sound's
tributary drainage areas and verifying
actual nutrient loadings; and planning
for long-term reductions in nitrogen
loadings by documenting the degree of
nitrogen removal that can be achieved
at affected facilities.
LISS is proceeding with interim
actions that will prevent increases in
nitrogen loading to the sound while
planning for long-term nitrogen
reductions. Specifically, the states of
New York and Connecticut, along with
EPA, have agreed to prevent increases
in point source discharges by capping
them at 1990 levels. Plans and
recommendations aimed at achieving
no-net-increase in nonpoint sources of
nitrogen are being developed.
Characterization reports on toxic
materials, pathogens, and floatable
debris have been completed. The
CCMP is due to EPA in 1993.
Priority Problems
The following priority concerns were
identified for Long Island Sound by the
LISS Management Conference:
D hypoxia
n toxic contamination
n pathogens
n floatable debris
n living marine resources
Scientific Research
LISS has developed a complex
computer model to identify the limiting
nutrient, the causes of decreased
oxygen levels, the extent to which the
problem is caused by human activities,
the likelihood that the problem will
worsen, and the nature of possible
solutions. This model actually consists
of coupled water quality and
hydrodynamic models of the sound.
The water quality model describes
relationships between carbon,
nutrients, phytoplankton populations,
and dissolved oxygen concentrations.
It calculates variations in water quality
along the length of the sound and
vertically according to depth.
Preliminary results indicate that almost
75 percent of the decrease in dissolved
oxygen in the western narrows, the
most threatened location in the sound,
results from nutrient inputs,
specifically nitrogen. The model also
suggests that lowering nitrogen inputs
could increase levels of dissolved
oxygen enough to alleviate hypoxia,
although improvements will not be
apparent for some time.
50 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Long Island Sound
The hydrodynamic model is
being developed by NOAA to
mathematically describe circulation of
water in the sound. With information
generated by the coupled model, LISS
will be able to identify the most
important sources of nutrients, target
cleanup funds where they will have the
greatest impact, and develop
recommendations for the CCMP. Both
models are based on actual field data
and are refined according to new
monitoring information.
Major sites of oxygen depletion are
also the subject of scientific research.
The University of Connecticut's
Marine Sciences Institute is studying
processes in the surface, intermediate,
and lower water levels and their effect
on net amounts of dissolved oxygen.
The State University of New York's
Marine Sciences Research Center is
examining the uptake of oxygen by
sediments due to the decay of organic
matter.
Another critical research effort will
characterize the principal living marine
resources of the sound, their habitats,
and the effects of hypoxia and other
water quality problems on their health.
This information is needed to evaluate
the likely benefits from improved
dissolved oxygen levels.
Monitoring
Many monitoring activities in Long
Island Sound are related to the hypoxia
problem. Since 1986, LISS has
conducted a comprehensive field
program to provide data for the
computer models described previously.
The program has measured water
quality, production and use of oxygen
in the water column and sediments,
waste input, and water movement. The
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection and the New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation monitor
effluents at sewage treatment plants
that discharge to the sound, testing for
nitrogen and phosphorus.
The presence of toxic and
pathogenic contaminants is also
monitored in the sound. NOAA has
measured concentrations of more than
70 toxic contaminants throughout Long
Island Sound since 1984. NCAA's
National Status and Trends Program
for Marine Environmental Quality has
two projects that measure levels of
contaminants in various biological
tissues at several sites and depths in the
sound. In the eastern basin each fall,
the Benthic Surveillance Project
monitors contaminants in the livers of
winter flounder and examines the food
in their stomachs. Also in the fall, the
Mussel Watch Project measures
contaminant concentrations in blue
mussels at ten sites.
Management Tools
Deteriorated sanitary sewer systems
and stormwater runoff are the major
sources of bacteria and other pathogens
entering Long Island Sound after
rainstorms. As part of a demonstration
project in Mamaroneck Harbor, New
York, LISS is trying to find out how
much pathogen contamination comes
exclusively from stormwater runoff.
This information will help permit
writers to establish safe bacterial limits
for stormwater discharges.
Two other demonstration programs
are testing management tools to
improve dissolved oxygen levels in
Long Island Sound by reducing nutrient
discharges. The Housatonic River is the
second-largest river draining into the
sound, carrying thousands of tons of
nitrogen and other nutrients. Many of
these nutrients are washed into the river
from fertilized crop fields. The first
demonstration program has targeted 27
farms in the Housatonic watershed to
reduce fertilizer loss into runoff waters.
Farmers will work with the Department
of Agriculture's Soil Conservation
Service and the Cooperative Extension
Service to implement techniques such
as concrete manure pits and contour
plowing. A second program is testing
biological nutrient removal systems that
remove nutrients from wastewater.
Low-cost retrofitted devices have been
installed in New York City's Tallman
Island treatment plant and the . •
Stamford, Connecticut, treatment plant.
While conventional treatment processes
remove 5 to 20 percent of total nitrogen
and phosphorus, previous testing
indicates that biological nutrient
removal will remove as much as
75 percent.
Sand fiddler.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 51
-------
NARRAGANSETT BAY
NARRAGANSETT BAY
LMl
Introduction
Narragansett Bay, which lies in the
heart of Rhode Island, is composed of
three drowned river valleys. The bay is
fed by five major rivers that drain
1,849 square miles of land including
the urban centers of Providence, Rhode
Island; Worcester, Massachusetts; and
Fall River, Massachusetts. These water
bodies together provide a playground,
workplace, wildlife habitat, highway,
and dumping ground for local
residents. Bay-related activities
contribute significantly to the regional
economy. Pleasure boating was a
$64 million business in 1987, and
tourism generated $1.4 billion in 1989.
The total value (primary and
secondary) of quahogs harvested in
1989 was over $70 million. Revenues
from other commercial fisheries in
1989 were valued at $28 million.
Historically a center of industrial
activity, the bay still supports various
types of manufacturing businesses. The
bay is also a haven for local wildlife
populations, providing a winter home
for harbor seals and a habitat for over
100 species offish and 20 kinds of
shore birds.
Chief Threats to Narragansett Bay
Analysis of sediment layers gives
insight into the history of pollution
problems in Narragansett Bay.
Bacterial (pathogen) contamination
began around 1750 as the area became
increasingly urbanized. The presence
of toxic metals increased in the
mid-1800s, coinciding with the
Industrial Revolution, while toxic
organic chemical pollution became
prominent in the early 1900s due to
rising petroleum use. Today, these
three classes of contaminants still
cause concern.
By the year 2010, Rhode Island's
population is expected to grow by
10 percent. Of this growth, 47 percent
is predicted to occur in coastal cities
and towns. Continued development
forced by this growth will increase
strain on the state's sewage disposal
systems. During a rainfall, existing
sewage treatment plants cannot handle
the volume of stormwater that is added
to the normal sewage loads. The
system releases a mixture of untreated
sewage and polluted stormwater into
the estuary from more than 100
combined sewer overflows. These
discharges may contain pathogens that
accumulate in bottom-feeding animals,
like clams, causing disease when
ingested raw by humans. Today, up to
40 percent of bay shellfish beds and
several beaches are periodically closed
due to sewage contamination.
The Blackstone River corridor is a
prime source of contaminated "in
place" sediments from 19th- and
20th-century textile, dye-works, and
metal finishing industries. These
sediments are eroded during high river
flow, resuspending trace metals and
other pollutants harmful to marine life
and humans. In addition, Worcester,
Fall River, Woonsocket, and
Providence are still centers of industry
and manufacturing. Some companies
in these cities continue to discharge
wastes directly into the estuary; many
sites contain wastes that are not
adequately stored, resulting in seepage
into ground water that eventually
passes into the bay. This industrial
waste often contains trace metals and
organic chemical residues. Data from
1985 through 1989 showed that
concentrations of nickel and copper in
the Seekonk and Providence Rivers
exceeded EPA and Rhode Island water
quality standards. Data from 1986 and
1989 showed that concentrations of
52 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Narragansett Bay
lead, nickel, copper, cadmium,
chromium, and PCBs in the Blackstone
River beginning at the state line
exceeded water quality criteria.
Stormwater runoff from urban
areas carries motor oil, pesticides, and
combustion by-products into the
estuary. These and other materials
contain toxic organic pollutants such as
PAHs and PCBs. Riverine runoff is the
primary source of PCBs. Toxic organic
pollutants cause reproduction problems
in invertebrates, fishes, and birds, as
well as a broad spectrum of health
problems in humans. Although
production of PCBs was banned in
1979, PCBs remain a problem since
they persist in the envkonment and can
accumulate in animal tissues. PCBs in
the Blackstone and Woonasquatucket
Rivers also currently exceed EPA and
Rhode Island water quality standards.
The Narragansett Bay Project
The Narragansett Bay Project (NBP)
was created in 1985 to administer a
five-year conservation and
management study of the bay. The
project is jointly sponsored by EPA
and the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management. NBP
formally became part of the NEP in
March 1988. EPA and NOAA are
represented on the Management
Committee, as are many state and local
agencies and organizations including
user groups, fishermen's organizations,
boaters, trade organizations,
environmentalists, scientists, and
planners. Public participation has been
the driving force behind many NBP
activities, which include surveys,
workshops, the newsletter Currents,
"Round Table" discussions, and
publication of the Clean Water
Shopping Guide.
In 1987, NBP commissioned a
series of status and trends reports to
assess the state of the bay. The reports
examined pollutants in water and
sediments as well as pollutants
accumulated by animals. Based on
characterization studies like these, the
project is now developing management
initiatives to be implemented through
the CCMP.
The CCMP will provide for
technically sound, regionwide
protection of Narragansett Bay water
The Narragansett Bay Project aims to protect quahogs.
quality and living marine resources.
NBP staff are currently drafting CCMP
chapters for Management Committee
consideration. Each issue area is
covered by a briefing paper compiling
six years of research information and
proposing alternative recommendations
to alleviate specific pollution
problems. The Management
Committee will discuss the issues and
select draft recommendations. When
all issue areas have been addressed, the
Management Committee will prioritize
CCMP recommendations and assign
funding mechanisms where necessary.
The draft CCMP was completed in
December 1991. This draft will be
subject to public comment and review
in a series of regional public
information meetings scheduled for the
beginning of 1992. Public comments
will go to the Management Committee
for consideration, and the Management
Committee will then produce a final
version for Executive approval. When
the Executive Committee endorses it,
the plan will be submitted to the EPA
and the States of Rhode Island and
Massachusetts.
After EPA and state approval is
given, CCMP recommendations will
become policy that in part governs the
bay. Preliminary recommendations
include abating combined sewer
overflow discharges, establishing
wastewater management districts,
eliminating illegal sewer connections
to storm drains, increasing the number
and geographic distribution of marina
pump-out facilities, establishing state
seafood inspection programs, and
declaring no-discharge zones in certain
coastal waters. Extensive mitigation
efforts are also recommended for
Mount Hope Bay—the largest shared
resource of the states of Rhode Island
and Massachusetts. Future monitoring
of Narragansett Bay will help gauge
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 53
-------
the effectiveness of CCMP
recommendations on bay water quality.
The public will help implement the
CCMP by serving as advocates for its
implementation and by overseeing its
progress.
Priority Problems
General issues of concern were
identified through an assessment
process in which a wide range of
interested individuals and
organizations participated. The
Management Committee then held an
Issues Workshop where agreement was
reached to address the following list of
seven concerns:
Q management of fisheries
a nutrients
D impacts of toxic contaminants
D health and abundance of living
marine resources
D health risk to consumers of
contaminated seafood
D land use
D recreational uses
Scientific Research
Research conducted under NBP
sponsorship has produced findings
concerning bay pollution, its effects on
living organisms, and the potential
public health risk that it may cause. In
general, research has shown that
concentrations of toxic metals, fecal
coliforms, and organic contaminants
are highest in the more industrialized
areas around the upper bay and
decrease in the lower bay toward
Rhode Island Sound. As shown, by the
sediment record and analysis of
historical water quality data, there are
encouraging signs that bay pollution
levels are improving. Recent evidence
Learning about Narragansett Bay.
of deteriorating water quality in some
local bays like Greenwich Bay,
however, is discouraging.
To measure the impacts of both
sewage and toxic pollutants during
rainstorms and the impacts of
combined sewer overflows, a wet
weather study was sponsored by the
NBP. This study ranked the major
sources of pollution to the Providence
River under a series of wet weather
conditions. Results show that the
Blackstone and Pawtuxet Rivers
contributed more overall riverine
contamination to the Providence River
in both wet and dry weather than did
any of the other tributaries. In addition,
the Blackstone River ranked first as the
source for PCBs, and the Pawtuxet
River ranked first as a source for
petroleum hydrocarbons.
Other NBP-sponsored studies
include SINBADD (a baywide water
quality study investigating the sources
and distributions of nutrients and trace
metals entering Narragansett Bay),
SPRAY (a study investigating the
relationship between pollutants and
dissolved oxygen in the Providence
and Seekonk Rivers during the summer
months), and a sediment analysis. The
sediment study involves the compiling
of a history of pollution in the bay
through sediment analysis.
Monitoring
A variety of monitoring and baseline
assessment programs have been
conducted and are ongoing throughout
the Narragansett Bay watershed. For
example, measurements have been
taken of baywide water quality, trace
metals in quahogs, and toxic
substances in sediments. However,
most of these programs have been
limited spatially and temporally. Thus,
few baywide long-term monitoring
data sets exist.
To address this problem, the
Narragansett Bay Project is currently
drafting a long-term monitoring plan.
A final version will be presented to the
Management Committee for inclusion
in the CCMP. Once in place, the plan
will assess management actions
recommended in the CCMP and
provide information useful to a wide
range of groups including decision
makers and managers, the general
public, and the scientific community.
The monitoring plan will also
coordinate various ongoing monitoring
efforts conducted by NOAA, EPA, the
State of Rhode Island, and the State of
Massachusetts.
54 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Narragansett Bay
Management Tools
Many pollutants in Narragansett Bay
come from diffuse, nonpoint sources
rather than from easily identifiable
outfalls and other point discharges. A
sister organization to the NBP, the
Land Management Project (LMP), has
been created as an experimental effort
to demonstrate the effects of land use
on water quality and to help
communities manage nonpoint source
pollution in conjunction with related
development or pollution control
planning. LMP activities and services
include drafting model ordinances,
providing technical assistance, and
giving workshops and presentations.
Through these activities, LMP
educates local and state agencies,
private firms, agricultural operators,
and interest groups about a range of
environmentally sound management
practices. These practices, including
proper siting, limitations on nonporous
area, and provisions for on-site
infiltration, provide amenity and water
quality benefits as well as cost savings.
The Hazardous Waste Reduction
Project (HWRP) is investigating
management tools that will address the
problem of hazardous wastes in
Narragansett Bay. The project is
developing a technical assistance
information exchange system, which
may include newsletters, workshops,
and a waste information "hotline."
Working with the Department of
Economic Development in performing
hazardous waste audits on ten Rhode
Island companies, the project is
building an in-house capability to
perform hazardous waste audits.
Finally, HWRP will provide
information to Rhode Island businesses
on source reduction, recycling, and
chemical substitution-disposal
alternatives.
NBP is also sponsoring a wasteload
allocation (WLA) project that will
measure dissolved oxygen and toxic
metals in the Providence River and
upper bay. Based on research findings,
the project will identify, recommend,
and implement preferred abatement
strategies for pollution reduction.
WLA work will provide the basis for
permit limitations for individual direct
dischargers and could lead to more
stringent pretreatment limits for
indirect dischargers. The project will
also consider nonpoint pollution
sources and control strategies other
than permit limits.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 55
-------
PUGET SOUND
smut or
fUCA
Introduction
Approximately 3.2 million people live,
work, and play on or near the
complexly carved shores of Puget
Sound. This number is rapidly rising.
Of Washington state's ten
fastest-growing counties, nine surround
the sound. The regional population is
expected to grow to 3.8 million by the
year 2000 and to nearly 4.4 million by
2010—nearly a 40-percent increase. A
variety of valuable commercial and
recreational activities made possible by
the sound's abundant and diverse
resources encourages this dramatic
growth. Commercial fish and shellfish
harvests worth about $125 million
were claimed in 1987, with salmon
contributing the most to that figure.
Puget Sound's ports handled goods
valued near $38 billion in 1986, driven
by recent rises in foreign trade. In that
same year, sales of recreational boats
alone added $700 million to the local
economy. Over a million recreational
anglers and shellfishers enjoy the
estuary's bounty annually. Finally, one
study showed that travelers spent
$2.75 billion in a single year in the
basin, providing a livelihood for
numerous shoreline restaurants, small
cruise boats, marinas, and other
water-dependent recreational
businesses.
Chief Threats to Puget Sound
Despite clear economic benefits
generated by the sound's popularity,
the pressures of mounting population
have taken their toll on this body of
water. Rapid urbanization over the past
50 years has transformed thousands of
farmland and forest acres into
residential or commercial
developments. These projects have
filled in or drained crucial habitats
such as estuarine and freshwater
wetlands. In Puget Sound, 60 percent
of estuarine wetland area, as well as a
high proportion of freshwater wetlands
in the sound's watersheds, has been
lost, and the loss continues with
development. At the same time, the
new hardened land surfaces do not
soak up rainwater and in fact help
stormwater carry pollutants into the
estuarine system. This runoff
contributes to flooding, erosion, and
further losses of fish and shellfish
habitat.
Urban runoff from stormwater
outfalls and combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) is also a major source of toxic
chemical pollution. During severe
storms, stormwater outfalls and CSOs
discharge toxic-laden industrial
wastewater, sanitary sewage, and
stormwater directly into the sound
without treatment. Additionally, small
amounts of toxic substances that
accumulate in the sediments are still
discharged from permitted industries
and municipal sewage treatment plants.
Dredging and disposal of contaminated
sediments, dumping of industrial and
household toxics into storm drains,
agricultural runoff, air pollution,
accidental oil and chemical spills, and
landfill leachate all contribute their
own toxic challenges. Toxic substances
can persist in the sound's sediments for
decades, disrupting biological systems
and contaminating seafood.
Bacteria and viruses that may cause
diseases including typhoid, cholera,
and hepatitis are introduced from
diffuse sources in rural as well as
urban areas. Failing septic systems,
animal wastes, sewage treatment
plants, stormwater outfalls, and CSOs
are sources of these microscopic
organisms and are linked to increasing
development, grazing, logging, and
other human activities in rural
56 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Puget Sound
watersheds. One measure of this
nonpoint pollution is the closure of
many commercial and recreational
shellfish beds in the past decade
because of contamination by enteric
bacteria. This degradation of shellfish
habitat is consistent with the national
trend, which shows no signs of reversal.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program
A management framework to clean up
Puget Sound existed even before its
introduction into the National Estuary
Program. The State of Washington
established the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority in 1983 to identify
pollution-related threats to the sound's
marine life, to evaluate pollution
threats to human health, and to
investigate the need for coordination
among agencies responsible for
protecting Puget Sound's water
quality. In 1985, following passage of
the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority Act, the Authority was
charged with developing and
overseeing implementation of the
Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan, which it has done
from the outset with cooperation from
the state Department of Ecology and
EPA Region X.
After extensive study and public
review, the Authority issued its first
management plan in 1987, followed by
a 1989 revised plan. Meanwhile, in
March 1988, the Puget Sound Estuary
Program (PSEP) became a charter
member of the NEP. Under an
agreement with EPA, the Authority's
1987 and 1989 management plans
were considered partial CCMPs. The
1991 plan was developed to meet the
requirements of an NEP CCMP,
addressing for the first time the need
for consistency among federal actions
related to CCMP goals and affecting
the sound. The Authority's enabling
legislation originally called for the
agency to disband following issuance
of the 1991 management plan.
However, because of the 1991 plan's
enhanced role, as well as the state's
increased commitment to the sound,
the legislature recently extended the
Authority's work until 1995.
PSEP became the first estuary
program to formally submit a final
CCMP when it presented its 1991
management plan to the EPA
Administrator on February 22, 1991.
The Administrator approved the
CCMP on May 6. Of course, the
Authority has already overseen
implementation of a number of actions
from the 1987 and 1989 plans; the
1991 plan targets new initiatives as
well as modifies 1989 plan elements.
A view of Mount Rainier from Filuce Bay.
Priority Problems
A number of studies conducted by
EPA, NOAA, state agencies, and
academic institutions both before and
after the program's induction into the
NEP have characterized conditions in
Puget Sound. In 1986, the Authority
prepared nine issue papers on Puget
Sound concerns and in 1989 prepared
three additional papers for public
comment. As a result of these actions,
PSEP has identified the following
broad priorities in the watershed:
n cleanup toxic substances where
sources are controlled
n control sources of toxic substances
D protect and stop loss of wetlands
and other aquatic habitats
n increase protection of shellfish beds
D improve control and cleanup of
nonpoint source pollution
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 57
-------
D support long-term research
D support and improve public
involvement and education
D prevent spills and enhance
response capability
D continue and maintain established
programs
Scientific Research
Although significant research has been
done to support the 1987 and 1989
management plans, many questions
remain unanswered. For instance, little
was known about the sound's shallow
nearshore zone, southern and northern
portions, and small bays; about natural
variability in the sound's living
populations; and about biological and
geochemical processes transforming
the sound's toxic chemicals and
controlling their fate and toxicity.
Accordingly, PSEP and other
organizations have sponsored
conferences and workshops to
communicate previously gathered
scientific data and to help clarify
research priorities for the future. Past
meetings have discussed general Puget
Sound research on toxic substances,
sediments, status and management of
biological resources, sea-surface
microlayer contamination, and many
other topics.
The research program described in
the 1991 Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan depends on the
establishment of the Puget Sound
Foundation as a long-term funding and
implementation tool. The Foundation
will be a public, nonprofit corporation
charged with coordinating and funding
research and education efforts. The
1991 research program elements to be
carried out by the Authority, and
eventually the Foundation, include
setting future research needs and
priorities, developing a stable funding
base, initiating a competitive research
, grants program, translating and
disseminating research results,
improving data management,
coordinating with outside research
activities, and investigating geographic
areas for designation as NOAA
National Estuarine Research Reserves.
Monitoring
Before 1988, Puget Sound had no
long-term, comprehensive monitoring
program. Various federal, state, and
local agencies have intermittently
monitored water quality, sediments,
and biological resources in particular
regions of the sound. Yet these
programs have generally not sampled
conditions across the entire body of
water or coordinated their efforts and
results. To correct this problem, the
Authority approved a Puget Sound
Ambient Monitoring Program
(PSAMP) in 1988. Managed by a
steering committee, PSAMP integrates
existing monitoring programs
undertaken by different agencies hi the
sound, attempting to prevent overlap
and duplication of effort. PSAMP has
also guided new or expanded
monitoring ventures, such as the
Department of Ecology's field
sampling and laboratory analysis of
sediments, the Department of
Fisheries' investigation of toxic
contamination of bottomfish and
recreational fish, the Department of
Health's monitoring of shellfish
bacterial and chemical contamination,
and the Authority's citizens'
monitoring pilot projects. Among other
elements, the 1991 management plan
calls for finalizing a central data
management system, issuance of
monitoring reports, use of standard
protocols and data formats, and
establishment of a pesticides
monitoring subcommittee; these
projects are all under way.
Management Tools
The management plan's nonpoint
source pollution program contains the
first fully integrated, watershed-based
approach to nonpoint source pollution
control in the United States. Under
Washington's "Nonpoint Rule,"
counties identify and rank their priority
watersheds, then develop and
implement action plans through
watershed committees. These
committees are assisted by an
interagency technical group and the
Nonpoint Source Handbook for local
governments. Out of 12 early action
watershed plans, 10 have been
approved and are now in various stages
of implementation with funding from
the Department of Ecology. Plans are
currently being developed by the
committees for 14 more watersheds.
Substantial progress has been made
in addressing the issue of contaminated
sediments in the sound. The State
Department of Ecology recently
adopted a sediment management
standards regulation that establishes
standards for 47 chemical
contaminants and also establishes a
process to identify and prioritize
contaminated sites for cleanup. The
primary affected parties, including
ports, industry, federal and other state
agencies, tribes, municipalities, and
environmental groups participated in
the regulation's development.
Washington is the first state in the
United States to have legally
enforceable sediment standards.
58 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Puget Sound
These innovative state and local
funding efforts, and the new Puget
Sound Foundation, will still fail to
finance all cleanup and restoration
efforts essential for Puget Sound. As a
result of a financing strategy,
developed partially with EPA support,
the program has proposed two new
funding sources in its 1991 plan: a
commercial marine fuels tax and a
motor vehicle manufacturers fee for
each new car or truck registered in the
state, neither of which the legislature
has yet approved.
Wetland restoration planting.
With its CCMP activities in
nonpoint sources and in 14 other
program areas so far advanced, the
Puget Sound Estuary Program has tried
to find creative funding sources in the
face of state and local government
budget constraints. In 1986, the state
legislature passed an 8-cents-per-pack
tax on tobacco products to create the
Centennial Clean Water Fund
(CCWF). Providing annually about
$45 million in grants statewide, the
fund pays for 50 percent of the cost of
building local sewage treatment plants
and other water quality facilities and
up to 75 percent of other activities
related to water quality, such as
watershed planning. Over the past four
years, the fund has also provided $2
million for the Authority's Public
Involvement and Education (PIE) fund,
which has informed over one million
community residents as diverse as
builders, farmers, and schoolchildren.
The CCWF is also the primary source
of funding for the development and
implementation of the local nonpoint
watershed action plans. At the local
level, many municipalities have
created self-supporting stormwater
utilities both to build stormwater
management facilities, such as
detention ponds and infiltration basins,
and to begin education programs aimed
at reducing sources of stormwater
pollution. In most cases, businesses or
households pay monthly utility fees
based on their amount of impervious
land surfaces promoting stormwater
runoff.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 59
-------
SAN FRANCISCO
ESTUARY
Introduction
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary,
also known as the San Francisco
Estuary, comprises the
1,153-square-mile Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta and the four
embayments of the San Francisco Bay.
It is the largest estuarine system on the
Pacific Coast of the Americas. A total
of 7.5 million people live in the 12
surrounding counties, making the
region the fourth most populous
metropolitan area hi the nation. Of
critical importance are the uses made
of the estuary's freshwater. Some two
thirds of California's 30 million people
obtain their drinking water from the
estuary's freshwater supply, while
farmers rely on the estuary to irrigate
4.5 million acres of agricultural land.
Ports in the estuary provide jobs, an
important tax base, and a link to world
trade. Local residents and visitors
enjoy swimming, water siding, fishing,
and sailing at 290 shoreline recreation
areas and over 300 marinas. The bay
and delta also sustain rich communities
of crabs, clams, fish, birds, and other
aquatic life. The estuary provides an
essential resting spot for 75 percent of
the hundreds of thousands of Pacific
Coast shorebirds that migrate south in
whiter. In addition, wetlands serve as
nursery grounds for salmon, herring,
crab, and oysters, fueling the region's
multimillion-dollar fisheries.
Chief Threats to San Francisco
Estuary
Since the San Francisco Gold Rush of
1849, human activity has greatly
affected the bay and delta, making the
San Francisco Estuary the most
modified large estuary in the nation.
Less than 45,000 acres of the estuary's
historic tidal marshes remain intact, a
reduction of 92 percent. Freshwater
has been diverted from the estuary
since 1890, and waterways have been
physically altered for navigation, water
export, and flood control purposes.
More recently, water quality has
declined as pathogens and toxic
chemicals from urban and agricultural
runoff and over 100 municipal and
industrial sources enter the estuary.
Biological resources have
undergone major changes. Populations
of Chinook salmon, striped bass, and
Delta smelt have declined drastically.
About 275,000 salmon spawn in the
estuary watershed today, down from
900,000 at the turn of the century. The
number of adult striped bass is less
than one million, a reduction of 66
percent from 1960 levels. Habitat loss,
water diversion, pollution, and
dredging activities may all contribute
to the decline offish populations. Bird
populations are also down, affected by
the loss of wetlands and riparian areas.
More than 50 percent of the current
average annual inflow of fresh water to
the estuary is diverted for agricultural,
industrial, and municipal use. As more
and more fresh water is pumped out,
salt water moves in to take its place.
Drinking water, habitats, and crops can
be adversely affected. In addition,
millions of young salmon and striped
bass are killed each year when they are
sucked into the strong pumps of state
and federal water projects.
Pollutants from runoff and
wastewater discharges affect the food
chain. Bacterial contamination has
caused a once-thriving shellfish
industry to collapse. PCBs are
probably responsible for reproductive
problems in starry flounder, while
PCBs and DDE (a DDT derivative)
have reduced embryo size and shell
thickness of Black-Crowned Night
Heron eggs. Moreover, high levels of
60 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
mercury in fish tissues prompted the
California Department of Health
Services to issue a health advisory
concerning fish consumption.
The San Francisco Estuary Project
The San Francisco Estuary Project
(SFEP) is cosponsored by EPA Region
IX, the California State Water
Resources Control Board, and the
Regional Water Quality Control
Boards of the San Francisco Bay and
Central Valley regions. SFEP became
part of the NEP in 1987. NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service
participates on the project's
Management and Technical Advisory
Committees. SFEP has over 100
participants, who represent diverse
environmental, social, and economic
interests, and who serve on one or
more of the project's committees. To
promote participation, management
issue subcommittees have been formed
to help develop status and trends
reports, program goals, and possible
management actions. SFEP completed
a characterization report and will
complete the CCMP by November
1992.
Priority Problems
An initial list of 189 problems cited by
various committee members was pared
down to the following five
management issues:
D decline of biological resources
D increased pollutants
D freshwater diversions and altered
flow regime
D dredging and waterway
modification
D intensified land use
Scientific Research
Status and trends reports are currently
addressing issues of dredging and
waterway modification, land use and
population, effects of land use
intensification, pollutants, aquatic
resources, wildlife, and wetlands and
other habitats.
SFEP has developed a data and
information management system,
San Francisco Estuary
which is now maintained by the
Aquatic Habitat Institute (AHI) and
serves as a clearinghouse of scientific
information on the estuary. SFEP is
also funding projects that encourage
local academic involvement and
address key gaps in knowledge. In
addition, a report describing and
evaluating the responsibilities and
activities of the many agencies that
manage the estuary's water quality and
living resources will identify actions
necessary to improve that
management.
Monitoring
Many monitoring programs are
conducted in the San Francisco
Estuary. To date, however, there has
been no comprehensive, coordinated,
long-term monitoring of the entire
body of water. In response, SFEP will
develop a regional monitoring strategy
that will track the long-term health of
the estuary and measure progress
toward CCMP management objectives.
This strategy will include agreed upon
monitoring goals and objectives and, to
the extent possible, will incorporate
current monitoring programs.
Information from monitoring is
often used for different purposes, each
with its own data requirements.
Ideally, the type of monitoring
conducted is determined by various
information needs. To ensure
monitoring efficiency, strategy
designers will decide on monitoring
goals and data quality objectives. Once
agreement is reached on the quality
and type of monitoring needed, an
assessment plan will be devised to
ensure that all monitoring meets
information needs and quality
standards.
Striped bass with lesions - Striped bass population is down two-thirds.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 61
-------
San Francisco Estuary
Marsh waterfowl-88 percent of wetlands are lost.
Management Tools
During the past three years, SFEP has
spent considerable time and effort in
assembling technical information on
the estuary's major management
issues. With the project's technical
documents completed or well under
way, most of the management issues
subcommittees have begun to
formulate goals and potential actions
for possible inclusion in the CCMP. In
addition, several demonstration
projects are under way to help develop
effective management tools.
For example, the California State
Coastal Conservancy, with funding
from SFEP, is conducting five wetlands
enhancement projects in the San
Francisco Bay area. The projects are
creating new wetlands, enhancing
existing ones, improving wetland
vegetation and hydrology, and
providing natural flood control. Several
of the projects involve constructing
nature trails and conducting public
education activities. A final report will
evaluate the various ways to conserve
wetlands—acquisition, restoration,
preservation, and enhancement. The
project will serve as a model for what
: will probably be an important CCMP
action plan.
Artificial wetlands are known to
effectively filter pollutants from
municipal wastewater, but their use on
nonpoint source pollution has not been
investigated. A SFEP demonstration
project is now testing the ability of
wetlands to trap stormwater pollutants
such as floatable contaminants,
hydrocarbons, toxic contaminants,
inert settleable solids, and nutrients.
The project site is a 55-acre marsh
built 10 years ago for stormwater flow
research. Scientists are currently
collecting water column, sediment, and
plant tissue data to determine the
wetland's effectiveness in trapping
pollutants. SFEP will then estimate the
cost of constructing and operating
artificial wetland treatment sites for the
entire estuary and will report its results.
Three additional demonstration
projects include testing the feasibility
of using dredge materials to create
wetlands, developing a wasteload
allocation model for south San
Francisco Bay, and developing a
model local wetlands protection
ordinance.
No program would be complete
without a strong public education and
involvement component. Working
closely with its Public Advisory
Committee, the San Francisco Estuary
Project has developed information
sheets, slide shows, public forums, and
tours to educate citizens about the
value of the San Francisco Bay-Delta
and threats to its integrity. A bimonthly
newsletter keeps constituents informed
of project activities and coming events.
Planning for future generations, the
SFEP is developing a curriculum for
use in Bay-Delta K-12 schools. The
curriculum will focus on eight
estuarine habitats and highlight a
selected species for each habitat.
In spring 1991, SFEP sponsored a
three-day "State of the Estuary"
conference with more than 50 other
organizations. Technical sessions,
policy discussions, and public
education workshops focused on the
project's priority management issues.
Findings from the project's technical
studies were presented in a State of the
Estuary report. The event provided a
focus for public, legislative, and media
attention on the threats to the San
Francisco Estuary and the goals and
actions of the San Francisco Estuary
Project.
62 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
DELAWARE ESTUARY
GALVESTON BAY
SANTA MONICA BAY
DELAWARE
INLAND BAYS
NEW YORK-
NEW JERSEY HARBOR
SARASOTA BAY
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 63
-------
DELAWARE ESTUARY
KKKSYLVANIA
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Introduction
Delaware Estuary, bordered by
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey, is comprised of Delaware Bay
and the tidal portion of the Delaware
River. It extends from the head of tide
in the Delaware River near Trenton,
New Jersey, to the mouth of Delaware
Bay between Cape May, New Jersey,
and Cape Henlopen, Delaware.
Farming is a primary economic activity
in many counties bordering the
estuary, producing corn, soy beans, and
other important crops. Northern
portions of the estuary are heavily
industrialized. Over 120 chemical
manufacturing plants and the country's
second-largest concentration of
petrochemical plants lie along the
Delaware Estuary's shores. The area is
also densely inhabited—over 40
percent of the nation's population lives
within a day's ride of the Delaware
Estuary. The Delaware Estuary also
hosts the largest heron, egret, and ibis
rookery on the East Coast; is the
second major staging site for shore
birds in North America; and is the
principal mating area for horseshoe
crabs on the East Coast.
Delaware Estuary served as a
primary source of food and as a major
transportation route for the early
inhabitants of its shores. The estuary
continues to support these uses today
through commercial fishing and
shipping activities. The modern Port of
Philadelphia, including berths in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and
Delaware, is the largest freshwater
port in the world. Over 9,000
manufacturing concerns and 100,000
jobs are dependent on port activities.
Commercial finfishing and shellfishing
are economically significant as well.
The Delaware blue crab catch from
May to October 1989, for example,
exceeded $2 million. Tourism and
recreation are also supported by the
estuary. Visitors enjoy swimming,
boating, and fishing, while nature
lovers are attracted by fascinating
wildlife such as peregrine falcons, bald
eagles, and thousands of migrating
shore birds.
Chief Threats to Delaware Estuary
As early as 1670, boatyards along the
Appoquinimink River in Delaware
were closed because of excessive silt
from deforestation. By the late 1800s,
pollution was causing typhoid
epidemics in Philadelphia and
Camden. In the 1930s, dissolved
oxygen levels in the area were low
enough to trigger massive fish kills that
threatened to destroy entire fish
populations. Septic gases from the
estuary were so pervasive in the 1940s
and 1950s that white houses turned
yellow and dock workers and sailors
became ill from exposure to the gases.
Fortunately, the situation has
improved over the past four decades.
Water quality standards have been set,
sewage treatment plants have been
upgraded, and studies have focused
attention on environmental issues in
the estuary. Results of these efforts can
already be seen. In the past 20 years,
federal and state pollution control
efforts have reduced the discharge of
oxygen-demanding wastes by 76
percent. Decreased pathogen
concentrations have allowed public
health officials to reopen many areas
for shellfishing and swimming. Today,
the estuary supports year-round fish
populations. Shad and herring migrate
upriver in increasing numbers, once
again sustained by the water's oxygen.
Despite these recent successes,
many problems remain. Urban and
suburban nonpoint source pollution
64 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
H still enter the estuary from combined
sewer overflows and stormwater
drains. These discharges contain toxic
substances, bacteria, and other harmful
contaminants. Saltwater intrusion,
freshwater withdrawals and diversions,
and general contamination threaten
important supplies of drinking water.
Dredging and filling activities
associated with development continue
to destroy wetlands—habitats vital to
marine productivity. A total of 184
acres of estuary wetlands has been lost
in Pennsylvania alone since the 1970s.
In addition, petroleum transport
through the estuary poses a risk of
oil spills.
Pollution, destroyed habitat,
parasites, decreased levels of dissolved
oxygen, and overfishing have caused
declines in several fish and shellfish
populations. Weakfish and clam
fisheries have almost disappeared
because of population declines.
Contamination of fish and shellfish
threatens human health. Levels of
PCBs found in catfish have been high
enough that officials have questioned
the safety of eating them. Further, New
Jersey has closed the Camden area for
fishing due to chlordane contamination.
Off-loading tanker in Delaware Bay.
The Delaware Estuary Program
In April 1988, the governors of
Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey publicly committed themselves
to restoring and protecting the
Delaware Estuary, supporting plans to
preserve the estuary's environmental
quality and realize its full economic
potential. All three states and EPA
Regions II and HI signed a NEP
Conference Agreement in June 1989.
According to this agreement, the
CCMP is due in October 1994.
A strong committee structure is a
key element of the Delaware Estuary
Program. Each committee oversees
specific workplan elements to meet
objectives of the Conference
Agreement. The Policy Committee,
which sets the program's overall
direction, includes the secretaries of
the three state environmental agencies
and the EPA Regional Administrators
for Regions H and III. The
Management Committee, responsible
for running the program's day-to-day
affairs, consists of state, regional, and
federal agency representatives
including EPA, NOAA, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Army Corps
of Engineers. The Science and
Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC) includes experts from
academic and private institutions as
well as industry and government
agencies. The STAC provides
guidance on efforts to identify,
evaluate, and address environmental
problems in the estuary. The Citizens
Advisory Committee (CAC) represents
a broad spectrum of major user and
interest groups. It implements a public
participation strategy that includes a
quarterly newsletter and mini-grants to
grassroots organizations. The Local
Governments Committee (LGC),
whose members represent various
Delaware Estuary
levels of local government, oversees
projects that inventory and assess
existing regulatory, monitoring, and
land use management programs. The
LGC also publishes a bimonthly
newsletter, The Rising Tide. The newly
formed Financial Planning Committee
has the task of finding funding to
conduct studies during the five-year
program period and to implement the
CCMP.
During every year of the program,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New
Jersey each provide approximately one
year of staff support. Additional staff
support is being provided by EPA
Regions JJ and III and the Delaware
River Basin Commission (DRBC).
Priority Problems
A list of issue areas was formulated
through a series of public and tri-state
workshops held in February and April
of 1989. The list will be further defined
in 1991 based on the inventory of point
and nonpoint loadings and incoming
status and trends data. Concerns
include these:
D water quality
D habitat
D water supply
D living resources
In May 1991, the Management
Conference formulated a list of
objectives with substantial public
input. Action steps are currently being
generated for each of the objectives.
Together, the objectives and action
steps will guide development of a
CCMP meeting the specific needs of
the Delaware Estuary, as well as
promote early implementation. The
objectives cover these areas: harvested
finfish and invertebrate species; bird
populations; estuarine-dependent
amphibians, reptiles, and mammals;
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 65
-------
ecological balance for a diverse
indigenous biota; habitat; air quality;
water quality; water supply; sediments;
recreation; commerce; cultural
heritage; and pollution prevention.
Scientific Research
Several STAC activities have worked
toward developing an agenda for
scientific characterization and
research. The "State of the Delaware
Estuary" workshop in October 1989
helped make a preliminary assessment
of the extent of scientific and technical
knowledge of the estuary. In March
1990, citizen participants identified the
uses and values they desire for the
Delaware Estuary in the year 2020. A
follow-up workshop in May 1990
identified the new scientific and
technical information required to
ensure that the estuary can sustain
these uses and values in 2020. The
Management Committee participated
in a field trip on the estuary to acquaint
members with its resources and some
of its problems.
In terms of specific research, the
STAC has supervised several studies to
determine the state of the estuary for
the key issues. Scientists have
examined existing data sets for water
quality, metals, living resources, and
habitat loss and alteration.
Characterization studies this year will
compile a long-term history of the
estuary, an assessment of
phytoplankton species, fisheries
landings records, and the effects of
transportation on the estuary. Future
research activities will examine factors
limiting primary production, metals
speciation and behavior in tidal
reaches, and long-term river flow and
circulation. The STAC has also
Black-crowned night heron.
proposed more extensive research on
wetlands, the influence of storm sewers
and atmospheric inputs, and the
distribution and diversity of estuarine
animals.
Monitoring
In the future, the Delaware Estuary
Program will devise a monitoring plan
that may incorporate various state
monitoring programs. The STAC has
identified various monitoring needs.
Because water quality in the tidal river
region of the estuary has improved,
surveys of fish and benthos in a stretch
of the estuary extending from the head
of the tides to the C & D Canal is
planned for next year's STAC projects.
Surveys of metals and organics in
sediments and in the tissue of selected
estuary organisms are also planned.
Management Tools
The following demonstration projects
represent management tools for early
implementation.
Alcyon Lake in Gloucester County,
New Jersey, is so contaminated by
various nonpoint sources that local
health agencies have prohibited public
contact with its waters. The Delaware
Estuary Program is conducting a
"Clean Water Works" demonstration
project at Alcyon Lake to test a
three-pronged approach for reducing
nonpoint source pollution and reviving
the lake as a recreational resource.
First, the Gloucester Planning
Department will identify and rate best
management practices (BMPs),
including ordinances, enforcement,
model landscaping, and decreased
water consumption. The selected
practices, implemented by local
governments, should reduce pollutant
inflow to the lake and preserve water
quality. Second, a hands-on education
program will show school-age
children, residents, and professionals
how they can help clean up the lake.
Third, a Watershed Watch group made
up of citizen volunteers, local officials,
academic representatives, and federal
managers will monitor water quality
66 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
and hold watershed cleanups. The
group will also promote passage of
model ordinances, encourage schools
to adopt the education program,
identify sources of funding for the
BMPs, and evaluate the overall Clean
Water Works program. If successful,
the program will be duplicated
throughout the estuary.
The Red Clay Creek demonstration
project, conducted by the Chester
County, Delaware, Conservation
District, addresses nonpoint source
pollution in that body of water.
Organic compounds such as diazinon
and formaldehyde, and other
conventional pollutants such as
phosphorus and coliforms are brought
to the creek by runoff from nearby
agricultural land. To decrease this
pollution inflow, the project will install
BMPs on the basin's mushroom
compost and educate local agricultural
producers about proper pesticide usage
and disposal.
In 1957, the parasite MSX almost
wiped out the entire estuarine oyster
population. In New Jersey, the Maurice
River Oyster Culture Foundation and
Rutgers University are developing
techniques through a demonstration
project to grow commercially
significant numbers of MSX-resistant
oysters. These techniques will provide
economic benefits by increasing oyster
harvesting in the estuary.
The Cumberland County, New
Jersey, Department of Planning and
Development has developed a rare,
threatened, and endangered species
demonstration project. The project will
identify and map critical habitat areas
for such species in southern
• Cumberland County. The project will
then synthesize this information in a
local planning database to help local
governments develop environmentally
sound land use regulations.
In addition to demonstration
projects, the Delaware Estuary
Program is developing a preliminary
CCMP that is scheduled for
completion and for early
implementation in 1992.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 67
-------
DELAWARE
INLA*0>BAYS
LM1
Introduction
The Delaware Inland Bays in Sussex
County, Delaware, consist of
Rehoboth, Indian River, and Little
Assawoman Bays. They are
surrounded by barrier islands to the
east and fringing marshes to the north,
south, and west. Agriculture dominates
the local economy: 47 percent of the
land surrounding Delaware Inland
Bays is used for agricultural
production. The state produces
$200 million broiler chickens each
year, most of which come from the
Inland Bays area. The recreation
industry is vital to the region, with
day-trip accessibility to nearly 40
percent of the nation's population;
recreation provides substantial
employment in Sussex County (12.3
percent). Popular as a summer vacation
resort, the bays attract wind surfers,
water skiers, swimmers, nature lovers,
and hunters. The bays support an
abundance of wildlife and wildlife
habitat, including an important nesting
area for osprey and a year-round home
for black ducks. More than 750,000
people visited 4,900 acres of state park
land around the Inland Bays in 1986
alone. Other valued activities include
recreational and commercial fishing
and shellfishing.
Chief Threats to the Delaware
Inland Bays
A myriad of environmental stresses are
threatening this shallow estuarine
system. Agricultural runoff, urban
runoff, wastewater outfalls, septic
systems, wide-ranging recreational
activities, and the effects of increased
development all contribute to
environmental stresses and
deteriorating water quality in the
Inland Bays watershed.
The bay's primary source of fresh
water is ground water, which contains
high levels of nitrogen. Ground water
nitrogen sources are poultry and other
agricultural operations, as well as
numerous on-site wastewater systems
operating in sandy, porous soils. Once
excess nutrients reach the bays, they
cause algal blooms. When this algae
dies and decays, dissolved oxygen is
removed from the water, resulting in
fish kills.
Bacterial and viral contamination
of surface waters and shellfish areas is
also a concern. Swimmers can ingest
contaminated water, and
disease-causing bacteria and viruses
build up in the tissues of filter-feeding
organisms such as clams, making them
dangerous to eat. Over the past two
decades, the number of shellfish beds
closed to harvest due to bacterial
contamination has increased by
75 percent.
Poor planning and environmentally
insensitive development have altered
or destroyed habitat in and around the
estuary. Seventeen percent of the
wetlands around the bays have
disappeared since 1950. Such
extensive destruction threatens the
entire estuary because both uplands
and wetlands provide important habitat
for living resources and help filter
pollutants. Without wetlands, erosion
also becomes more of a problem,
threatening to destroy valuable real
estate and covering productive shallow
habitat with sediments.
The Delaware Inland Bays Estuary
Program
Building on past efforts, the Inland
Bays Estuary Program Management
Conference was convened in July
1988. Goals and objectives were
established by March 1989 with the
68 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Delaware Inland Bays
help of public input, and a five-year
conference agreement with EPA was
signed in June 1989. A characterization
and status and trends report will be
complete in 1992, with the CCMP due
to EPA in 1993. An early action
agenda—the Inland Bays Recovery
Initiative—is currently in place.
The Inland Bays Estuary Program
(IBEP) recently sponsored a workshop
to identify specific actions to be
included in the CCMP. Aimed at
combatting nutrient overenrichment
and habitat loss, recommendations
included managing poultry manure and
dead bird disposal, setting numerical
goals for nutrient reduction from point
sources, linking new development to
central sewer systems that use land
treatment, adding county planning
personnel, developing county land-use
and development goals, and preventing
construction at the water line. Other
results from the workshop were a
recommended outline for an early draft
CCMP and a timetable and process for
CCMP preparation.
Priority Problems
The program has developed a
problem-ranking matrix that focuses on
the following major concerns:
n nutrient overenrichment
D loss and alteration of habitats
Q land-use planning
Scientific Research
Wasteload allocations, which identify
the nutrients entering the bays and
determine their amounts and sources,
were conducted in 1978 and again in
1986. Both showed that nonpoint
sources, including ground water and
stormwater runoff, are the major
contributors to total pollutant loadings.
Future research and modeling will
update and refine loading estimates
and will determine allowable loads.
The University of Delaware's
College of Marine Studies (CMS) and
College of Agriculture have
performed much research related to
the Inland Bays. The University of
Delaware Sea Grant College Program
View of the bays looking east toward the Atlantic Ocean.
has provided primary funding for many
studies. The Sea Grant College Marine
Advisory Service is currently
evaluating the bays' capacity to
support recreational uses.
Monitoring
Since 1972, the State of Delaware has
routinely monitored water quality at 27
stations in the Inland Bays. Traditional'
chemical testing is now supplemented
by an innovative biological monitoring
program. Combined with wildlife
surveys by the Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC)
Division of Fish and Wildlife, these
efforts will ensure that program
initiatives are improving water quality
as well as restoring a diverse and
healthy biological community. A
citizen monitoring program has begun
under the direction of the University of
Delaware Sea Grant College Marine
Advisory Service.
Management Tools
An early management step for the
IBEP was to find out whether and how
the Sussex County taxpayers use the
bays and to determine how these
taxpayers would protect the bays. A
questionnaire and a series of
workshops showed that 93 percent of
the citizens interviewed considered it
important just to know that the bays
are there; 54 percent recognized that
the bays' water quality is deteriorating;
and more than 80 percent favored
controlling uses of the bays. Citizens
called for tough enforcement of point
source permits; restrictions on septic
systems and stormwater runoff from
urban, agricultural, and developing
areas; and limits on bay shoreline
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 69
-------
Students examining a seine net during Inland Bays Appreciation Day.
development. This input is being used
in CCMP development.
The Inland Bays Estuary Program
is currently conducting a
demonstration project to highlight the
value of artificial wetlands as a
stormwater management tool. In other
studies, properly designed artificial
wetlands have proven to be 40- to
60-percent effective hi eliminating
nitrogen, 60- to 80-percent effective
for phosphorus, 80-percent effective
for sediments, and 60-percent effective
for trace metals. The Inland Bays
project site, located in the Sussex
County Industrial Park, was approved
by the Sussex County Council in
October 1990, and planning for pond
construction is now under way.
DNREC will administer project funds,
provide technical assistance, and
monitor water quality before and
during construction, and for two years
after project completion. This
demonstration project will serve as a
model for implementing similar
techniques in estuary-wide watershed
management.
The Delaware Inland Bays Estuary
Program is also testing another
management tool that involves finding
alternative erosion stabilization
methods. Traditional stabilization
techniques used to combat erosion,
especially vertical bulkheading, harm
habitats and facilitate erosion of nearby
unprotected shoreline. The Inland
Bays program is sponsoring a project
1 to demonstrate the benefits of
alternative stabilization methods. The
project, led by the Wetlands and
Aquatic Protection Branch of DNREC,
has chosen two eroded shoreline sites
to stabilize with a combination of
native vegetation and rock groins. The
project will educate landowners, the
public, and professional marine
contractors, and it could encourage
state legislators to initiate a tax
incentive program to promote natural
erosion control measures. To evaluate
the success of the program, DNREC
will conduct quarterly monitoring
surveys for at least two years.
Construction will begin in 1991, and
educational materials for the general
public, contractors, consultants, and
other interested parties will be
available in 1992.
The knowledge and experience
gained from the scientific research and
syntheses and from the implementation
of the Recovery Initiative and
demonstration projects will be used by
the Management Conference to
develop a CCMP that will effectively
address the major problems degrading
the water quality and surrounding
habitats, leading to true environmental
improvements in the Inland Bays.
70 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
LMl
Introduction
Galveston Bay is the seventh-largest
estuary (600 square miles) and one of
the most highly productive estuaries in
the United States. The bay lies
southeast of the Houston metropolitan
area hi the northwest Gulf of Mexico,
with a watershed entirely within Texas
that also encompasses Dallas and Fort
Worth. As home to the largest
petrochemical complex in the nation,
30 percent of the nation's refining and
nearly half of the U.S. chemical
production takes place on the shoreline
of Galveston Bay. The estuary is
characterized by its seafood
productivity, its role as a major
recreational resource, and its
multibillion-dollar contribution to the
economy as the sixth-largest port in the
world. Galveston Bay is also a
repository for half of the permitted
wastewater discharges in Texas.
Chief Threats to Galveston Bay
Historically, Galveston Bay has had
severe water quality problems,
particularly in the industrialized upper
estuary portion of the Houston Ship
Channel. Both point and nonpoint
sources of wastewater have contributed
toxic substances to water and
sediments. Some toxic compounds
have found their way into the food
chain and have been measured in
marine organisms (seafood) and birds.
Because of industrial input of dioxin,
seafood contamination advisories and
fishery closures have been issued for
some portions of the bay. As a result
of bacterial contamination, fully half of
the estuary is subject to regulatory
closure to shellfishing because of risk
to public health. Besides human health
concerns, poor water quality has
greatly reduced the natural diversity
and productivity in portions of the bay
and has caused nutrient enrichment and
low oxygen levels.
Development pressures and land
subsidence (sinking due to ground
water and petroleum extraction) have
led to a loss of 16 percent of Galveston
Bay's coastal wetlands between 1956
and 1979. Additional losses since
1979 are now being determined and are
expected to be significant. These
losses are a major management
concern because wetlands are essential
to the survival of living resources in
Galveston Bay, including
economically significant recreational
and commercial species. Wetlands are
critical in supplying food and shelter
for larval and juvenile fish and
shellfish; they also serve an important
role in natural nutrient cycling and in
buffering runoff and wastewater
entering the estuary.
Other threats to Galveston Bay
include alteration of the natural
physical features of the system.
Changes in the amount and timing of
freshwater inflow from reservoirs on
both the Trinity and the San Jacinto
Rivers have resulted in alteration of the
salinity patterns in the bay. Dredging
of navigation channels up to 40 feet
deep in this shallow bay (with an
average depth of only about 9 feet),
have resulted in the intrusion of saline
Gulf waters into the fresher portions of
the upper estuary. This change is
important because some species, like
oysters, depend upon the freshwater
mix for a food supply and to escape
marine predators and disease
organisms that cannot survive in fresh
water. Dredging also raises concerns
of reintroduction of toxic substances
bound in the dredged sediments. The
huge volume of ship traffic, especially
involving transport of toxic petroleum
compounds, creates a risk of spills
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 71
-------
Galveston Bay Is home to the largest
petrochemical complex In the world.
from collisions and other accidents.
These accidents occur regularly in
Galveston Bay, as illustrated by two
major incidents in the summer of 1990
that resulted in major impacts to the
marine system.
The Galveston Bay National
Estuary Program
Accepted into the NEP in July 1988,
the Galveston Bay National Estuary
Program (GBNEP) has formed six
committees: Policy, Management,
Local Government Advisory,
Scientific/Technical Advisory, Citizens
Advisory Steering Committee, and the
Galveston Bay Public Forum (formerly
the Citizen's Advisory committee).
State and local agencies, universities,
user groups, and private citizens are all
represented on various program
committees. The committees also
include federal agency representatives
from NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), EPA, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Geological
Survey, Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service, Coast
Guard, and Army Corps of Engineers.
The characterization report has been
completed; the CCMP is to be
completed by September 1994.
Priority Problems
Based on public and Management
Conference consensus, the following
list was adopted in fall 1990. The four
major problems are ranked in order of
importance. Subcategories that may
contribute to or interact with other
listed problems were also developed
for each major problem:
D reduction/alteration of living
resources
O public health issues
O resource management issues
D shoreline erosion
Scientific Research
Water quality studies have focused on
combined effects of pollution from
point sources (end of pipe) and
nonpoint sources (land runoff).
Unauthorized discharges of water were
identified in a shoreline survey that
included both aerial and boat
investigations. When combined with a
study using historical water quality
monitoring data for the estuary itself,
these studies will represent the first
ecosystem-level review of water
quality.
Management of living resources, a
high priority for Galveston Bay, will
be based on population studies of key
finfish, bird, and amphibian species, as
well as on historical trends and the
causes for those trends. Trends for the
habitats upon which these species
depend—particularly wetlands—will
be determined by using a geographic
information system based on computer
analysis and field verification of aerial
photos. Oysters, as a key species in the
bay, are being surveyed with
state-of-the-art sonar, combined with
health studies of individual oysters and
entire reefs. By-catch (the incidental
catch of species other than shrimp by
shrimp trawls) and other sources of
incidental mortality caused by human
activity are also being investigated.
Public health issues in Galveston
Bay are closely linked to both living
resources and water quality. A study is
being conducted, for example, on
chemical contamination of key seafood
species and resulting levels of risk to
seafood consumers. Historical data
concerning shellfish (oyster) regulation
and bacterial contamination of water
and seafood will help the program
conduct a bay wide analysis of these
critical public health factors. Toxic
and bacterial contamination of seafood
has been a particularly controversial
concern in the Houston area.
Other work is aimed at
characterizing dredging impacts and at
determining the complexities of
sediment characteristics and
bottom-dwelling organisms for bay
management. Combined, the GBNEP
scientific studies of water quality,
living resources, and public health will
provide a solid foundation for
management action plans in the CCMP.
Monitoring
Because Texas has so many agency
jurisdictions related to Galveston Bay,
designing an effective ecosystem
monitoring strategy is both necessary
and difficult. Among the state
programs, the Texas Water
Commission monitors traditional
parameters and some toxic compounds
72 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Galveston Bay
at a series of stations in Galveston Bay
and its tributaries. These
measurements are primarily for water
quality, but they include some
consideration of sediment and tissue
contaminants.
Living resources are the
responsibility of the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, which has
historically emphasized commercially
and recreationally important species
such as oysters, shrimp, blue crabs, red
drum, and speckled trout. The Texas
Department of Health monitors rainfall
runoff to determine potential
contamination threats to oyster reefs
and determines human health risks and
regulatory actions associated with toxic
contamination of edible species.
Physical parameters are monitored
by a variety of agencies; for example,
tides are measured by the Texas Water
Department Board and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The U.S.
Geological Survey records freshwater
flow into Galveston Bay, while
NOAA's Status and Trends program
contributes data on concentrations of
toxic substances in oysters.
Although these programs provide
substantial data for Galveston Bay,
they are considered too fragmented for
effective ecosystem management under
the NEP. The GBNEP is designing a
goal-directed monitoring strategy that
will redirect current efforts through a
coordinated approach. Using
comparable technologies, samples will
be gathered and analyzed to answer
key management questions. Sound
scientific principles will be used in
future monitoring to measure how well
management practices are succeeding.
The first step in this process is optimal
segmentation of Galveston Bay (that is,
geographic subdivision of the bay for
sampling). Under this project, various
existing regulatory boundaries will be
compared with natural biological and
hydrological boundaries in the bay.
Management Tools
Recognizing the need for immediate
action in preserving critical habitats in
Galveston Bay, the GBNEP secured
Texas Coastal Preserve status for
Christmas Bay and Armand Bayou in
February 1990. Under this program,
administered by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department and General Land
Office, the GBNEP has initiated
long-range protection, enhancement,
and public use of these unique
estuarine resources. As a tool,
preserve status involves drafting
management plans involving multiple
resource agencies.
Critical information needs for
management are being addressed with
a coordinated data and information
management system. This system
centralizes useful information for
managers and the public at Galveston
Bay Information Center on the campus
of Texas A&M University of
Galveston. The Center houses a
collection of reports, books, videos,
maps, and other information on the
bay. The Center also has a
comprehensive computer-searchable
bibliography. More than 3,000
references on Galveston Bay are
readily available with this system, soon
to be accessible by phone.
The Information Center will also
house two other key management
tools. The first is a Galveston Bay
Data Base Inventory, a computer file
of data set descriptions that completely
specify the data available for the
estuary. This system allows managers,
scientists, and the public to focus
immediately on information related to
key management topics. Complete
descriptions of the data and the name
of contact sources for the actual data
are also available on the system. The
second tool is COMPAS, NOAA's
Coastal Ocean Management, Planning,
and Assessment System. This
microcomputer-based system provides
critical graphical information derived
from raw data. COMPAS should be
helpful in providing information to
managers and the public, without the
need for time-consuming technical data
analysis.
GBNEP aims to reverse trends toward
declining living resources.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 73
-------
NEW YORK-
NEW JERSEY HARBOR
HUDSON RIVER f
raw YORK
Introduction
The New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary consists of the New York
Bight Apex north of the Sandy
Hook-Rockaway Transect, including
tidal portions of the Hackensack,
Passaic, Raritan, Navesink,
Shrewsbury, Kill Van Kull, and Arthur
Kill Rivers in New Jersey and the
Hudson and East Rivers in New York.
The estuary serves as a recreational
resource available to over 16 million
residents and 17.4 million visitors to
the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. Oceanfront tourism
in New Jersey alone generates
$4 billion in annual revenues. Among
the area's attractions are beautiful
beaches, abundant wildlife
(particularly in the Hackensack
Meadowlands), the Manhattan skyline,
Battery Park, and the Statue of Liberty.
Although this urban area is densely
inhabited, there are also many resident
populations of birds and mammals
including whales, harbor seals, osprey,
bald eagles, and snowy egrets. In
addition to tourism, the Port of New
York and New Jersey plays a major
role in the regional economy. In 1985,
this world class port handled 51
million tons of cargo valued at $49
billion. Port activities generate $14
billion per year in economic activity in
the metropolitan area and support
200,000 jobs.
Chief Threats to the New York-
New Jersey Harbor Estuary
The major threat to the New
York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary is its
increasing population density, resulting
in pollution and overuse. Each day,
municipal sewage treatment plants in
New York and New Jersey discharge
more than 2.6 billion gallons of
wastewater into the estuary. Much of
this wastewater receives secondary
treatment that removes 85 percent of
organic pollutants, but some
wastewater still receives only primary
treatment. Moreover, malfunctions or
overloads in the system can result in
discharges of untreated sewage.
Untreated wastewater is a primary
source of toxic metals, organic
chemicals, pathogens, nutrients, and
floatable debris.
Construction practices, such as
deepening channels, building
bulkheads against erosion, and filling
water areas to expand development
have also taken a toll on the health of
the New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary. Filling and draining wetlands
eradicates important habitats and
disrupts the self-cleaning mechanism
of the estuary. Dredging channels
resuspends sediments that are often
contaminated by toxic chemicals and
organic materials.
Effects of pollution and
contamination can be seen everywhere.
New Jersey has lost 75 percent of its
wetlands since 1925. Public beaches
have been closed in both states because
of bacterial contamination or floatable
debris. New York and New Jersey
have issued advisories limiting
consumption of bluefish, striped bass,
and American eel because
concentrations of toxic chemicals and
pathogens in the fish are often above
Food and Drug Administration limits.
Pollution has an economic effect as
well. In 1988, business in many areas
of New Jersey declined by 80 percent
because of beach pollution. The Army
Corps of Engineers estimated that in
1987,17,800 vessels in the harbor
were damaged by floating debris at a
cost of $48 million.
74 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
The New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program
Formally established in July 1988, the
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program (HEP) has formed
committees, all with open membership.
The Management Committee includes
representatives from local, state, and
federal agencies such as EPA, NOAA,
and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Overall, the Management Committee
has 20 members, including four from
the Citizens Advisory Committee, two
from local governments, and two from
the Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee. The Management
Committee has accepted the
responsibility for management and
coordination of the New York Bight
Restoration Program. The Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee
(STAC), consisting of researchers and
scientists from academia and state and
local agencies, is presently conducting
characterization analyses. The CCMP
will be organized according to
"problem modules" and will describe
precise actions and time frames for
controlling pollution. The CCMP will
be submitted in 1994; prior to this, a
preliminary CCMP will be issued.
Priority Problems
HEP has organized high-priority
problems into the following modules:
P pathogen contamination
D floatable debris
D toxic contamination
P nutrient and organic enrichment
D habitat loss and alteration/living
resources
Scientific Research
Shell disease, which affects lobster,
crab, and shrimp, has been investigated
by a working group reporting to EPA
and NOAA as part of the Bight
Restoration Program. The group
concluded that the disease is a natural
occurrence, but that it is more
widespread and severe in polluted
areas. Follow-up studies on this
problem are needed.
A major effort of the Harbor
Estuary Program (HEP) for this past
year has been to address wasteload
allocations for eight toxic metals,
including mercury, copper, lead,
nickel, silver, zinc, arsenic, and
cadmium. Based on data currently
being collected, limits will be set on
point-source discharges of those metals
found to contribute to the exceeding of
water quality standards. This
evaluation will be completed in 1992.
Monitoring
Scientists are currently monitoring the
presence of trace metals in sediments
and ambient water. Samples are taken
from a variety of locations to test
discharge from both point and
nonpoint sources. The data collected
will be used to calibrate toxic models.
A secondary monitoring effort will
expand on this work. Many long-term
monitoring efforts in harbor areas have
significant data sets. As part of this
study, interlab comparability studies
are being conducted to evaluate past
procedures as compared with current
"clean" analyses.
In the future, HEP plans to monitor
the movement of sediments and
suspended sediments in the harbor.
Measurements will be taken in various
tidal conditions and at different times
of the year. A regionwide
biomonitoring program that includes
the harbor, Long Island Sound, and the
New York Bight is also part of future
monitoring goals.
Management Tools
HEP is developing a New York-New
Jersey Environmental Lifestyle Guide
as a pollution prevention tool. The
project recognizes that in an area of
dense urban population, citizen
behavior can have a significant impact
on the environment. In 1989, for
example, 164 garbage slicks plagued
the harbor from Upper Bay to Raritan
Bay. Much of this garbage came from
careless disposal of common trash. The
Lifestyle Guide outlines positive steps
residents can take at home and in the
workplace to prevent pollution.
Flexibility is the guide's strong point.
Because the information will have
Fishing in the shadows of New York City.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 75
-------
greater impact if it is tailored to each
reader's particular situation, the format
allows for interchangeable sections
such as oil recycling, water
conservation and boater pollution.
Coordination with other
conservation and restoration
organizations has been a major aspect
of HEP's management strategy. Under
the United States-Japan Fishery
Agreement Approval Act of 1987, the
Administrator of EPA, in consultation
with NOAA and other federal, state,
and interstate agencies, directs the
New York Bight Restoration Plan.
Since pollutants in the New York-New
Jersey Harbor Estuary affect the New
York Bight, efforts of the two
programs are intertwined. The same
Management Conference coordinates
both the New York Bight Restoration
Plan and the Harbor Estuary Program.
Also, New York State has established
the Hudson River Estuary
Management Program, which is
concerned with river conditions from
Troy to the Verrazano Narrows. This
study overlaps somewhat with HEP's
study area. While the Hudson River
Plan is primarily focused on living
resources, appropriate HEP
recommendations will be included in
the Hudson River Plan, and HEP will
consider recommendations of the
Hudson River Plan in developing its
CCMP.
76 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
SANTA MONICA BAY
Introduction
Santa Monica Bay is a relatively small
(266 square mile), open embayment on
the central part of the southern
California coast. The bay lies adjacent
to one of the nation's most populous
and urbanized coastal communities.
About 8.5 million people currently live
in Los Angeles County, with over
10 million residents projected by 2010.
Much of this population is drawn to the
bay's temperate Mediterranean climate
and rich marine resources, which
promote a variety of activities.
Swimming, surfing, sunbathing, and
sailing are all popular, providing
significant income for coastal
communities. Residents and tourists
enjoyed an estimated 44 million
beach-user-days along the entire
coastline in 1987. With commercial
fishing restricted to outer portions of
the bay, sport fishing from shore and
vessels is also widespread. Santa
Monica Bay still provides some
essential nesting and foraging habitats
despite harmful human influences. At
least five endangered species are
among the bay's residents and
transients, including the California
least tern, brown pelican, and gray
whale.
Chief Threats to Santa Monica Bay
Until the mid-1970s, the bay's greatest
pollution problem was the nearly
800 million gallons of treated sewage
discharged per day by two municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Among
other contaminants, municipal effluent
had contained considerable amounts of
DDT and PCBs. Today, tighter source
controls, refined treatment technology,
and discharge monitoring have
considerably reduced the effects of
sewage discharges, although DDT and
other contaminants persist in bay
sediments and in local fish tissue.
Municipal flows also contain
suspended solids, oil and grease, and
heavy metals. Industrial discharges to
the bay consist of seawater heated in
three power plant coolant processes
and treated industrial wastewater from
an El Segundo oil refinery.
With the threat from municipal
discharges now reduced, storm drain
runoff is seen as a serious residual
issue. Untreated flows from about 60
storm drains wash large amounts of
automobile wastes, oil (more than 10
barrels per day), litter, gardening and
household chemicals, and metals into
the bay. Further, heavy rainfalls greatly
increase the volume of these
discharges and periodically cause raw
sewage to spill into Ballona Creek and
other parts of the estuarine system.
Chemical and bacterial pollutants can
also cause serious problems such as
actual human health threats and
damage to the bay's few remaining
wetlands or simply public fear or
concern over possibly tainted seafood
and temporary beach closures. Like the
storm drains, hard-to-control nonpoint
sources such as air emissions, ocean
dumping, vessel operation, oil seeps
and spills, and marine debris contribute
their own diverse set of pollutants.
The Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project formally joined the NEP in July
1988. EPA Region IK, the State Water
Resources Control Board, and the Los
Angeles Regional Water Resources
Control Board lead the Management
Conference. The project expects to
complete its CCMP by 1994. To this
end, the members of the Management
Conference recently participated in a
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 77
-------
successful day-long workshop to
initiate CCMP development. During
the workshop, the newly formed
management subcommittees (on
nonpoint source pollution, point source
pollution, marine habitat, wetlands,
and watershed management) held their
first meetings to begin the process of
identifying the action plans that will
form the core of the CCMP.
Priority Problems
Soon after the bay's induction into the
NEP, a two-volume State of the Bay
report was produced. The report
analyzes an extensive collection of
data to ascertain the kinds, sources, and
levels of contamination present in the
bay, as well as its potential ecosystem
and human effects. As a result of this
and other studies, the Santa Monica
Bay Restoration Project (SMBRP) has
identified the following areas of
concern:
D human health risks associated with
eating contaminated seafood
D human health risks associated with
disease-causing pathogens in the
surfzone
P loss and degradation of wetlands
D impact of pollution on the benthic
(bottom-dwelling) community
D impact of pollution on the pelagic
(open-ocean) community
Scientific Research
A number of studies are or will be
under way to investigate these key
problems. For example, the Southern
California Coastal Water Research
Project (SCCWRP) is analyzing white
croaker and rock crab samples to
clarify the extent of bay seafood
contamination. In a complementary
study, other researchers will survey
Sanfa Monica Bay Restoration Project is protecting the California least tern.
recreational fishermen to gauge their
catch and fish consumption patterns.
Through these efforts, the Management
Conference should better understand
; the human health risks associated with
consuming local seafood.
In a joint study, the environmental
interest group Heal the Bay, Los
Angeles' Hyperion Monitoring
Division, and the County Sanitation
Districts' Virus Laboratory have
discovered pathogen contamination in
Santa Monica's Pico-Kenter storm
dram. Such disease-carrying bacteria
might harm swimmers and surfers. A
second phase of the study will attempt
to locate the pathogen sources.
Another effort is under way to
study the nonpoint source
contaminants of stormdrains in the Los
Angeles area. The research will assess
existing data, define goals of a
monitoring plan, and recommend best
management practices. Studies are also
being sponsored by the SMBRP to
identify the extent of contaminated
sediments on the sea floor and to
analyze the biological effects of these
sediment toxins on the bay's biota.
Monitoring
Numerous agencies and organizations
currently monitor bay environmental
quality, resource status and use, and
human impacts. For instance, NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service, the
California Department of Fish and
Game, and the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography conduct quarterly
surveys offish stocks and
physical/chemical parameters. All
NPDES-permitted dischargers in the
bay are required to monitor water
quality and benthic populations. The
two municipal wastewater treatment
plants also monitor daily for bacterial
contamination at various beach stations
78 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Santa Monica Bay
Management Tools
To address its serious storm drain
discharge problems, the project
recently led negotiations to develop a
landmark stormwater discharge permit
for Los Angeles County. Issued jointly
in June 1990 to the county and cities in
the watershed, this NPDES permit
requires permittees to control the
amount and quality of stormwater
runoff into the bay. Unlike most
NPDES permits issued to individual
municipal and industrial dischargers,
this permit focuses on the use of best
management practices, rather than
numeric effluent limitations. The
permit divides the county into five
drainage basins. Each will be phased
into compliance over three years,
beginning with the Santa Monica Bay
drainage basin in July 1990. The public
will have many opportunities to
influence the permit's success: annual
workshops will focus public review
and comment, and permit provisions
require that permittees solicit public
input in developing their best
management practices and programs.
Whether the issue is storm drain
discharges, contaminated seafood, or
habitat destruction, community
involvement is essential to restoring
and protecting the bay in this densely
populated watershed. The Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Project's
Public Advisory Committee is working
hard to gather public support for saving
the bay. With a special appearance by
the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the
project kicked off a storm drain
campaign on Earth Day 1990. An
excited crowd greeted the Turtles and
picked up over 40,000 copies of
"Storm Drain Savers," an original
eight-page Turtles comic book
discussing Santa Monica's storm drain
problems. Public enthusiasm continued
into September 1990, when thousands
of Los Angeles County citizens
combed the beaches for marine debris
during Coastal Cleanup Day. This
activity was repeated in September
1991, with a 50-percent increase in
participation. The project is building
upon its public participation program
by sponsoring multilingual and
multiethnic programs concerning
fishing and seafood contamination
issues and radio station spots in which
a local marine biologist discusses the
bay's problems with the public. Such
activities and events generate public
input and contribute to consensus
building for the CCMP.
-
The Project is improving tidal circulation and limiting public access to the Ballona Lagoon
Marine Preserve,
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 79
-------
SARASOTA BAY
CHN.F OF
MCXICO
LMl
Introduction
Sarasota Bay is a narrow,
56-mile-long, subtropical bay on the
southwest coast of Florida. Spectacular
white sand and related bay environs
make this a favorite spot for tourists
and seasonal and retired residents.
Canal front residential development
valued in the billions of dollars and
visitor expenditures that totaled
$1.5 billion in 1987 indicate that a
healthy Sarasota Bay is an important
economic asset. Favorite activities in
the bay include boating, skiing, diving,
and surfing. Sailing, especially regatta
events, attracts a national field of
competitors. The bay also has
significant ecological value. For
instance, it provides a breeding ground
for loggerhead turtles and dolphins and
a corridor for seasonal manatee
migrations. The estuary is also a
nursery ground for commercial and
recreational fisheries.
Chief Threats to Sarasota Bay
Sarasota Bay is relatively clean in
comparison with industrialized
estuaries in the United States;
however, the system has been heavily
altered by development and overuse
and is considered vulnerable, given a
projected population increase of
25 percent over the next five years.
The bay is typical of Florida estuaries
because its problems stem more from
development and overuse than from
industrialized pollution. In Sarasota
Bay, stormwater, inadequately treated
wastewater, dredging, unmanaged
access and use, and habitat loss are the
primary concerns.
Rainfall that washes over roads,
parking lots, and other impervious
surfaces collects pollutants and
eventually flows into the bay.
Stormwater entering the bay increases
turbidity, decreases salinity, and causes
eutrophication—increased algal
growth due to an excess of nutrients.
These algal blooms reduce water
clarity and the amount of dissolved
oxygen in the water, harming fish,
submerged aquatic grasses, and other
marine life.
Wastewater discharge also
contributes to eutrophication and
creates additional problems. Pathogen
contamination from septic systems and
inadequately treated wastewater has
led to shellfish bed closures in most
areas of the bay.
In the past, Sarasota Bay was
routinely dredged to create navigation
channels and enhance private
development. The bay's shoreline
length has increased by 64 percent as a
result, leaving less than 22 percent of
that shoreline in its natural state.
Carving channels where shallow sea
grass beds once were has destroyed
important habitats and created large
areas where bottom sediments are
devoid of aquatic life. Dredge spoil
islands have also blocked natural water
circulation in the bay and changed
salinity patterns, disrupting aquatic
communities.
In addition to dredging, boat
propellers in shallow water harm sea
grass beds. Scarred grass beds often
cannot support sea grass and other
marine life and take several years to
recover. This problem is particularly
relevant to Sarasota Bay, since
65 percent of the bay area is less than
three feet deep.
80 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Sarsota Bay
The Sarasota Bay National Estuary
Program
P decline in finfish and shellfish
populations
D inadequate and inconsistent public
access and overuse of resources
Scientific Research
Based on information included in the
State of the Bay report, the Technical
Advisory Committee, which includes
members from NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service and the
Florida Sea Grant Program, decided
what scientific work was still needed to
manage the bay properly. Research
planned and in progress ranges from
laboratory tests to interviews with
anglers.
Sarasota Bay
Six projects were completed,
including projects that map and catalog
the quality and quantity of freshwater
and intertidal wetlands in the bay area;
assess finfish diversity, shellfish
.
'
in 1992.
Priority Problems
The following list of concerns was
presented in the State of the Bay
report, a document reviewed by over
150 scientists and citizens from the bay
area as well as by all committees in the
Management Conference:
D decline in water quality
D stormwater and wastewater
D habitat loss
Students planting marsh grass.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 81
-------
contamination, and alterations to bay
bottom habitats; and analyze historical
water quality data and sediment
contamination.
Other technical work that began in
1990-1991 and will be completed in
1992 includes a model of pollutant
loadings, a baywide circulation model,
an assessment of how and where
people use the bay, and an assessment
of potential impacts from a rise in sea
level. Scientific research and technical
expertise for conducting these studies
is available through New College,
Mote Marine Laboratory, the
Universities of Florida and South
Florida, government agencies, and
private consulting firms.
Monitoring
In 1990, the Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program initiated a quarterly
comprehensive monitoring program
that included 102 sampling sites
baywide. The program, supported by
local governments with coordination
and oversight provided by Mote
Marine Laboratory, also includes a
baywide sediment scan and an analysis
of historical water quality data.
Emphasizing nutrients, light, and
light-related parameters, this long-term
program will help determine where
water quality is a problem in the bay
and will become a tool for measuring
progress over the next several decades.
Management Tools
The Sarasota Bay National Estuary
Program is examining a variety of
initiatives to improve bay
management, including upgraded
wastewater treatment facilities,
enhanced stormwater management
programs using Stormwater
Environmental Utility resources,
baywide habitat restoration, and public
education and community support.
Public education may be the most
important component, because many
homeowners around the bay
unknowingly pollute it, as indicated by
the response to a recent public opinion
survey and by the reaction to the "Bay
Repair Kit." The kit, released by the
program this year, is a nationally
recognized homeowner's guide to
protecting the bay.
The Sarasota Bay program is
successfully conducting six early
action demonstration projects to test
innovative approaches on a small scale
and develop cost estimates for baywide
application. The projects focus on
preserving, restoring, and protecting
ecologically significant bay areas;
protecting sea grass beds through
marking and through public awareness;
modifying bulkheads and seawalls to
create more natural shorelines; and
improving stormwater drainage
systems through structural changes and
best management practices. Not only
have the projects proven valuable in
demonstrating early actions and
developing implementation strategies,
but they have also fostered strong
public recognition and support for
Sarasota Bay program goals.
The Management Conference is
expected to consider preliminary
recommendations from each of the
ongoing technical, early action
demonstration, and public education
and outreach projects through the
Framework for Action report review
process, due in August 1992. The
recommendations will be reviewed by
the Citizen and Technical Advisory
Committees prior to approval by the
program's Management and Policy
Committees. Subsequent to the release
of the Framework for Action report by
the Management Conference, the
findings will be presented in a series of
public meetings to take place in 1993
and 1994. It is anticipated that the
recommendations will broaden and
strengthen as this process is completed,
leading to the release of the final
CCMP in June 1994.
82 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
BARATARIA-
TERREBONNE
ESTUARINE COMPLEX
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
TAMPA BAY
MASSACHUSETTS
BAYS
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 83
-------
BARATARIA-
TERREBONNE
ESTUARINE COMPLEX
BARATAF1
"TEftHEBONHE BAY
BAY
QUif Of MEXICO
H6SSH
Introduction
The Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex of Louisiana is an area of
unparalleled national significance.
With a total water and wetland area of
3,600 square miles, this estuarine
system contains more coastal wetlands
than any other hi the United States and
has an open water area twice that of
Long Island Sound. The complex
consists of estuarine wetlands and
bodies of water filling basins between
the two active distributary systems of
the Mississippi River, the lower
Mississippi River proper and the
Atchafalaya River. Described as a
"Sportsman's Paradise," the area is
heavily used by boaters, fishermen,
and hunters. Of great economic
importance, the Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuarine Complex supports at least 19
percent of the estuarine-dependent
fishery resources of the United States.
Commercial fishing in Louisiana
employs well over 35,000 people,
while subsistence fishing helps support
many other coastal residents. The
complex is also home to a great variety
of endangered wildlife and is a source
of several valuable mineral resources,
including oil and natural gas.
Chief Threats to the
Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuarine Complex
Like other estuaries, Barataria-
Terrebonne has been used as a waste
repository for point and nonpoint
sources of pollutants, including
domestic and industrial discharges and
agricultural drainage. It has also
suffered the effects of shoreline
development and dredge-and-fill
activities. However, some significant
environmental degradation has resulted
from activities unknown or unusual in
other estuarine systems: large-scale
hydrologic and sediment modification
caused by an interplay of natural
processes and human activities such as
canal construction, flood control, and
oil and gas activities.
Hydrologic modifications have
been identified by the Management
Conference as the "lynch pin" problem
confronting the Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuarine Complex. Reductions in the
natural flow of sediments and fresh
water to the estuarine complex have
altered its balance of salt and fresh
waters, the rate of natural sediment
deposition, and the passage of runoff
waters through wetlands. As a result,
habitat modifications and losses and
changes in the area's living resources
have occurred. Through its focus on
hydrological modifications, the
Management Conference will address
most of the major problems
confronting the Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuarine Complex.
The Barataria-Terrebonne National
Estuary Program
The Barataria-Terrebonne National
Estuary Program was convened in
April 1990. Its Policy Committee is
chaired by the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality; EPA
Region VI provides the
Vice-Chairman. The Management
Committee is chaired by the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources;
again, EPA Region VI fills the
Vice-Chairman position. Committees
include representatives from EPA,
NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers, Soil
Conservation Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological
Survey, and the Coast Guard. The key
to committee structure, however, is the
84 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex
Priority Problems
The primary environmental quality
problems in the Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuarine Complex are the physical
deterioration of habitats; diffuse
sources of pathogens, nutrients, and
toxicants; and activities related to oil
and gas production. Pending further
refinement, the Barataria-Terrebonne
National Estuary Program will focus
on seven major problems:
D hydrological modification
n reduced sediment flows
D habitat loss and modification
D changes in living resources
P eutrophication
n pathogen contamination
P toxic substances
Hydrologic modification is
considered the "lynch pin" problem
because it is linked to all the other
problems.
Scientific Research
Federal and state agencies are currently
undertaking several studies of the
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex. For instance, the U.S.
Geological Survey and the Fish and
Wildlife Service are conducting a
five-year cooperative research program
on the causes of coastal wetland loss,
emphasizing sedimentation and
wetland plant ecology. These agencies
also have recently completed a study
on the geology and environmental
processes of barrier islands fringing the
complex.
Universities have historically
contributed much technical
information on water quality and
habitat degradation in this estuarine
system. The Center for Wetland
Resources, the School of Geosciences,
and the Institute for Environmental
Studies at Louisiana State University,
as well as Nicholls State University,
have all researched local ecology,
eutrophication, geological history,
environmental contamination, and
fishery resources and will continue to
do so in the future. Research has also
been sponsored by the Louisiana Sea
Grant Program at Louisiana State
University. Louisiana Universities
Marine Center, the consolidated
marine laboratory of the Louisiana
Universities Marine Consortium,
provides excellent facilities, including
}!Jir'.'-;.%lifeMi\H
Cypress swamp, Jefferson Parish.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 85
-------
LUMCON research boat, Timbalier Island.
two research vessels in Cocodrie and a
field station at Port Fourchon.
In the future, one major research
focus will be on the relative
importance of salinity increases and
reduced sedimentation on coastal
wetland losses within the
Barataria-Terrebonne Basins.
Management Tools
The Barataria-Terrebonne National
Estuary Program expects to build upon
several state estuarine management
efforts, including those of the Barataria
Basin Technical Working Group, the
State Coastal Restoration Authority,
the Wetland Conservation and
Restoration Task Force, and the
Federal/State Task Force empowered
in 1990 by the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration
Act, P.L. 101-646 (the "Breaux Bill").
A primary management challenge
of the Barataria-Terrebonne National
Estuary Program is to integrate the
various goals and objectives of these
ongoing state management activities,
as well as those of federal activities.
The program will focus on specific
manageable regions and will promote
the inclusion of water quality and
living resource considerations in
wetland restoration plans. Overall, the
Management Conference will strive to
improve basin hydrology and manage
salinity, reduce natural habitat loss and
improve sediment management,
improve water quality, maximize fish
and wildlife populations, protect
human and cultural resources, and
inform and educate the public
concerning the resources and
environmental problems of the
estuarine environment.
86 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
LMl
Introduction
Casco Bay lies within the Gulf of
Maine, bounded by Cape Elizabeth on
the west and Small Point on the east.
Currently the most heavily developed
bay in northern New England, Casco
Bay attracts both business and tourism
with its quality of life. Indeed, much
of Maine's economy is dependent on
the Casco Bay region. In 1988 alone,
estimated tourist sales in the area
totaled $236 million. Strategically
important for commerce since colonial
times because of its deep water and
protection from open ocean, Casco Bay
is still Maine's most important cargo
port and fishing center. The Portland
Fish Exchange—the only fish auction
north of Boston—is located here. The
bay's rich habitat provides 20 percent
of all lobster caught in Maine and
supports an abundance of other living
resources, including endangered and
threatened species.
Chief Threats to Casco Bay
Until 1983, people believed that Casco
Bay was pristine. That year, studies
showed that sediments in Casco Bay
were laden with various pollutants
including heavy metals, PCBs, and
PAHs. In NOAA's 1988 Long Term
Status and Trends Program report,
Casco Bay ranked among the most
polluted sites in several categories.
While more data must be collected to
determine the actual extent of
contamination, there is general
agreement that economic growth in
the area has placed new pressures on
the bay's environment. Currently
11 percent of the shellfish areas are
closed because of pollution,
contaminants are harming eagles and
waterfowl, and routine violations of
pollution standards threaten safe
swimming in certain areas.
Despite these threats, Casco Bay's
problems are less extreme than those of
other NEP estuaries. The bay offers an
opportunity to emphasize protection as
well as restoration.
The Casco Bay Estuary Project
The Governor of Maine's 1989
Agenda for Action recommended eight
immediate steps to improve the bay
and eight subsequent initiatives to be
completed after 1989. The Casco Bay
Estuary Project, established within the
National Estuary Program in April
1990, will build upon on this Agenda
for Action. Goals of the Casco Bay
Management Conference include
preventing further degradation and
improving existing conditions in the
bay. The Conference will work toward
these goals with a process that
emphasizes action and the involvement
of all interested parties. The project is
made up of a Management Committee,
a Citizens Advisory Committee, a
Local Government Advisory
Committee, and a Technical Advisory
Committee. Federal, state, and local
government agencies are represented
on the Management Committee and
throughout the conference structure.
The CCMP will be completed in
September 1995.
Priority Problems
The Management Conference has
identified three issues that will be
addressed in the project's inaugural
year. First, more information is needed
to assign priorities to specific concerns
and problems. This effort will include
gathering existing information and
collecting new data. Second, a broad
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 87
-------
spectrum of people and interests must
be involved in the project. This
involvement is necessary for
developing credible and effective
programs. Third, the Management
Conference aims to focus on issues and
activities at the local level. The
Conference realizes that the success of
future actions depends on local efforts.
In addition to identifying the above
needs, the Management Conference
has received feedback on the following
list of specific environmental concerns:
D toxic waste
D balancing economic development
with environmental protection
D lack of enforcement
D nutrients
D bacteria
D combined sewer overflows
Scientific Research
Work in the first year will help focus
future research and management
efforts. To this end, the project will
gather and analyze existing
information about the bay. New
research will include measuring the
distribution of contaminants in
sediments and beginning an extensive
effort to identify critical habitats for
mapping on the state Geographic
Information System.
In advance of a formal information
analysis, scientists have been able to
identify research needs: studies of
flushing capability, nutrient loading
capacity, extent of pollutants,
appropriate biological monitoring
protocols, fate and transport of
contaminants in the environment and
food chain, and safe levels of
pollutants in sediments and tissues.
Healthy worm.
f Igljf _rf , ~3f ys
Worm with oil-like globules on feet.
Monitoring
Effective monitoring has often been
lacking in the past and will be a
priority for the Casco Bay
Management Conference. Monitoring
; will include physical, biological, and
' social trends (such as population and
land use), as well as chemical testing.
An important component of the Casco
Bay monitoring program will be data
collected by citizen volunteers to
provide quality-controlled, credible
information for use in evaluating
Casco Bay water quality.
Management Tools
Many activities which affect the health
of coastal resources are controlled
locally, such as zoning, site review,
stormwater control, health code
enforcement, building performance
standards, and infrastructure planning.
The Casco Bay Estuary Project plans
to develop management tools for use at
the local level that will strengthen the
ability of communities to protect water
quality and habitats. Funding
mechanisms for these activities will be
crucial to success. It is also important
that management and funding
approaches take into account the
differences among the wide variety of
communities involved, from urban
areas to small rural towns.
88 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
Introduction
Florida's Indian River Lagoon system
stretches from Ponce de Leon Inlet
near Daytona Beach to Jupiter Inlet, a
distance of 155 miles. It includes
Mosquito Lagoon, Banana River
Lagoon, St. Lucie Estuary, and Indian
River Lagoon, an area with a drainage
basin of approximately 2,300 square
miles and a surface water area of
approximately 353 square miles. The
Indian River Lagoon is in a
biogeographical transition zone,
between the temperate Carolinian
province and the subtropical province,
resulting in a complex ecosystem that
has the highest species diversity of any
estuary in North America. The Indian
River Lagoon supports a number of
rare and endangered species, including
the loggerhead turtle and the West
Indian manatee.
The mild climate and diversity of
recreational opportunities have
attracted many visitors and residents to
this coastal area. Currently the lagoon
area is one of the fastest-growing
population centers in the nation. The
resources of the lagoon are an
important part of the region's
economy, with direct economic
benefits from commercial fisheries,
sport fishing, and other recreational
pursuits.
Chief Threats to Indian
River Lagoon
Though presently a source of
community pride and economic
well-being, Indian River Lagoon may
not be as healthy as it appears.
Stormwater runoff through manmade
drainage systems, wastewater
discharges, and mosquito control
impoundments pose great threats to
Indian River Lagoon. These
disturbances cause sediment and
nutrient loading, pathogen and toxic
contamination, and destruction of
habitat. Such impacts ultimately affect
the area's ecology and economy.
In certain areas, high nutrient levels
have resulted in increased algal
growth, often reducing the levels of
dissolved oxygen to levels below that
required to support a healthy fish
population. Total fish landings and
thek dockside value have steadily
decreased since 1982. Construction of
mosquito control impoundments has
resulted in an 85-percent loss of
mangrove swamp and a 30-percent loss
of seagrass meadow. Continued habitat
destruction could lead to extinction of
endangered species and to reduced
species diversity. Measurable levels of
toxic metals have been found in some
commercially important species, even
though toxins do not yet pose a health
risk.
The Indian River Lagoon National
Estuary Program
Convened in April 1990, the Indian
River Lagoon National Estuary
Program now has a functional
organizational framework. A
nine-member Policy Committee
consisting of representatives from
EPA, the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, the St.
Johns River Water Management
District, the South Florida Water
Management District, and five counties
within the lagoon basin provide
direction for the Management
Conference. A Characterization
Report will be submitted in 1994, and
the CCMP will be complete in 1996.
The program's Management
Conference will conduct a program
inventory to identify and describe
various state, local, and regional
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 89
-------
programs in operation. This report will
scrutinize the effectiveness of existing
management programs and identify
duplicated efforts, gaps, weaknesses,
and inconsistencies. In general, the
Management Conference will plan for
long-term improvements and will
initiate early action activities to
address defined management problems.
One early action activity will
restore the connection between the
Indian River Lagoon and 75 acres of
coastal marsh presently impounded for
mosquito control purposes.
Reincorporating this marsh into the
lagoon ecosystem is expected to
improve water quality and wildlife
habitat. This marsh reconnection
project will serve as a demonstration
project with possible application
throughout the lagoon system.
The Management Conference also
recognizes the importance of an
informed, involved, and educated
public and is in the process of
developing a public involvement and
education plan. One of the first steps
in this effort was a workshop aimed at
familiarizing educators with the
lagoon. Two workshop sessions
attended by a total of 60 teachers were
held during July of 1990.
Priority Problems
The Indian River Lagoon National
Estuary Program Management
Conference, with the help of public
input, has identified and assigned
priorities to the environmental
problems facing the lagoon. The
adopted list is based on a list prepared
through the Surface Water
Improvement and Management
(SWIM) program, which was itself
based on lists prepared by several
previous groups. The Management
Conference wanted to refine and build
on the existing list of priority
environmental problems rather than to
duplicate these efforts. The following
priority environmental problems list
will be reevaluated by the Management
Conference as part of the lagoon
characterization process:
D increased nutrient loadings
D lagoon circulation
n increased suspended matter
loadings and sedimentation
n loss of seagrass beds and increased
stress on remaining beds
D loss of emergent wetlands and their
isolation from the lagoon
D increased input of toxic substances
D increased levels of pathogens
Scientific Research
Much of the information on Indian
; River Lagoon is scattered among
several agencies and institutions. The
Data and Information Management
System (DIMS) created by the Indian
River Lagoon National Estuary
Program will become a clearinghouse
for information. DIMS will have two
components—an information center
for lagoon-related publications and a
system for integrating numerical data
from many sources. The Management
Conference is also investigating the
possibility of using DIMS to aid in
coordinating the various environmental
learning centers located throughout the
lagoon.
The Management Conference also
plans to study seagrass and other
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
throughout the lagoon. Seagrass and
SAV are prime habitat for many
important species and good indicators
of the overall health of the lagoon.
Through this project, which will build
on existing information, the extent of
seagrass growth and of SAV coverage
in the lagoon will be determined, and
factors causing the loss of seagrass
The West Indian manatee is an endangered species.
90 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Indian River Lagoon
and of S AV will be identified
and analyzed. Recommendations to
correct causes of vegetation loss, to
restore seagrass and SAV, and to plan
for further study will be developed also.
Other research projects include an
inventory and assessment of
agricultural runoff within the lagoon
basin and a review of water quality and
circulation models for possible
application to the lagoon. Further
research projects on nonpoint source
pollution of the lagoon, fisheries, and
restoration methods are anticipated in
upcoming years.
Monitoring
To study water quality in the Indian
River Lagoon and certain other bodies
of water within the State of Florida, the
state legislature passed the Surface
Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) Act. Through SWIM, a
lagoon-wide water quality monitoring
program has been implemented that
involves several agencies and local
governments. The Indian River Lagoon
National Estuary Program will work
closely with the SWUVI program and
build on this foundation. The addition
of a volunteer monitoring network, an
effort to assist in developing water
quality data for the lagoon system, is
receiving favorable consideration.
The Management Conference will
also establish a sampling network to
monitor toxic substances in the lagoon.
It is anticipated that this program will
analyze water column, sediment, and
tissue samples from locations
throughout the lagoon to determine the
extent of toxic contamination of the
lagoon and to establish baseline
conditions for future monitoring
projects.
Children are learning to appreciate the
lagoon.
Management Tools
To implement the CCMP, the Indian
River Lagoon National Estuary
Program plans to integrate and
coordinate management plans for the
lagoon with several existing
management programs. These
management plans include SWIM and
the comprehensive growth
management plans of the various cities,
counties, and regional planning
councils within the lagoon, as well as
management plans for the various state
and federal facilities, refuges, parks,
and preserves located within the
lagoon.
There are excellent opportunities to
incorporate CCMP strategies,
standards, and recommendations into
the SWIM program and the local and
regional comprehensive growth
management plans. The SWIM plan
for the Indian River Lagoon was
updated in 1991 and is scheduled to be
updated again in 1994; and the
comprehensive growth management
plans for local governments, which
must include conservation and coastal
elements addressing protection of
resources such as the Indian River
Lagoon, are due to be updated and
amended between 1994 and 1996. The
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary
Program Management Conference
intends to take full advantage of these
and any other available opportunities
to implement the CCMP.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 91
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
BAYS
Introduction
The Massachusetts Bays study area
includes Massachusetts and Cape Cod
Bays, Ipswich Bay (to the New
Hampshire border), and the system's
major freshwater source, the
Merrimack River. A multitude of
historic sights in a beautiful natural
setting attract tourists to this area from
around the world. In 1985,22.6 million
visitors spent $6.2 billion in the region,
for a total economic gain of $10.9
billion. In addition to boosting tourism,
the Atlantic Ocean and its resources
provide job opportunities for most
local residents. In 1987, Massachusetts
ranked third nationwide in fishery
value ($278.9 million); Gloucester is
the leading port for volume of fish
landed. In terms of cargo, the Port of
Boston, one of the oldest and most
historic international trade centers in
the United States, is the regional
deep-water port for New England.
Boston handles more than 25 million
tons of cargo annually, worth more
than $7 billion. The bays, however, are
ecologically as well as economically
vital. State and national parks,
protected salt marshes, and tidal flats
provide habitat for many species of
estuarine and marine animals and
plants. In particular, Cape Cod Bay
and Stellwagen Bank are favorite spots
for the right whale, one of the world's
most endangered whale species.
Chief Threats to the
Massachusetts Bays
Sewage inputs, nonpoint (diffuse)
source pollution, and improper
development are Massachusetts Bays'
major sources of degradation. Since
the days of the Boston Tea Party, the
bays have borne the brunt of waste
disposal in the area. Many of the 42
bordering communities use the bays as
receptacles for wastewater and sewage
sludge. In 1985, the United States sued
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
because sewage treatment plant
discharges into Boston Harbor were in
violation of the Clean Water Act.
Other sewage outfalls near Salem and
Scituate contribute pollutants as well.
Bacteria from treatment plant
discharges, along with septic tank
leaks and storm drain runoff,
contaminate shellfish beds. While the
number of closed shellfishing areas in
southeastern Massachusetts remained
relatively stable between 1970 and
1980, in the next four years the total
number of closed acres jumped from
19,891 to 25,398.
Excess nutrients flowing into the
bays from the surrounding land also
present problems. This runoff,
comprised mainly of improperly
applied lawn and farm fertilizers, clogs
waters with algal bloom and leads to
decreases in the amount of dissolved
oxygen available to marine life.
Destruction of habitat is a serious
consequence of extensive water
contamination and increasing land
development, such as the construction
at Boston's Logan Airport. The 48,105
acres of salt marsh remaining in
Massachusetts are less than half the
amount found by the first colonists.
Such habitat destruction threatens both
endangered species and valuable
resources.
The Massachusetts Bays Program
In 1988, the Massachusetts Bays
Program (MBP) was established and
funded by the Boston Harbor-
Massachusetts Bays Environmental
Trust Fund (created as a result of the
92 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Massachusetts Bays
lawsuit mentioned above). This
original MBP, modeled after the NEP
structure, was managed by the
Massachusetts Coastal Zone
Management Office (MCZM). The
program was accepted into the NEP in
April 1990.
All committees of the Management
Conference have been formed, with
participants from federal (EPA,
NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological
Survey, and the Department of
Agriculture's Soil Conservation
Service), state, and local agencies or
organizations. MCZM, primarily
funded by NOAA, has provided
infrastructure and personnel support
including a Program Coordinator, a
writer for the CCMP, and office space
for data management activities.
Biennial drafts of the CCMP will be
submitted to EPA, with a final CCMP
due in September 1995.
Priority Problems
The original MBP sponsored a
goals-setting workshop in October
1988. Participants defined the
following problems, which are
assigned priorities and explained in
the 1991 CCMP:
D toxics
D bioaccumulation of toxics
D pathogen contamination
n water quality
D habitat loss and modification
D sea level rise
Scientific Research
To make the most of limited resources,
the original MBP worked with the
Massachusetts Water Resources
Authority (MWRA) Harbor Studies
Department to sponsor several studies.
These investigations examined the
sources, transport, and fates of
pollutants entering Massachusetts and
Cape Cod Bays. The Massachusetts
A view of Boston Harbor.
Institute of Technology (MIT) Sea
Grant Program and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) have also funded
several relevant projects.
While most research in the past has
focused on site-specific problems,
current MBP research is
comprehensive and wide-ranging.
Studies on physical, biological, and
chemical oceanography,
characterization of contaminant
sources, transport and retention of
contaminants, and bioaccumulation
and biotransformation are being funded
by MBP, MWRA, MIT Sea Grant, and
USGS. The Boston Harbor-
Massachusetts Bays Environmental
Trust Fund has also provided $400,000
to conduct three projects in areas
directly influenced by MWRA sewage
outfalls in Boston Harbor.
Preliminary results from
MBP-sponsored studies indicate that
circulation within the bays is
substantially connected with the Gulf
of Maine and that the Merrimack River
and perhaps other rivers to the north,
which are major sources of fresh water
to the bays, are also significant sources
of pollutant loadings. Another
important finding is that atmospheric
deposition may contribute as much
contamination as do sewage outfalls or
the Merrimack River.
Future research will continue
efforts to understand the sources,
transport, fate, and effects of
contaminants entering Massachusetts
Bays. To this end, MBP funded three
projects on sources of contaminants,
examining the effects of atmospheric
deposition, organic pollutants from the
Merrimack, and land use. In
coordination with USGS, MBP will
continue physical oceanography work
to understand transport and circulation
in the bays and will conduct studies to
assess the impact of contaminants or
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 93
-------
at
Schoolchildren and adults help keep the harbor clean.
human alterations on living resources.
MBP research efforts, based on the
1991 CCMP, may include
investigations of a predictive model
for circulation in the bays, processes
controlling nitrogen transport and
availability, processes controlling
bioaccumulation in marine organisms,
and the impact of contaminants or
human alterations on living resources.
Monitoring
Long-term monitoring is planned by
MBP. This monitoring will measure
changes in key dynamics and resources
in the ecosystem, record changes in
pollutant loadings, provide information
on the ecosystem to resource managers
and the public, and measure the
success of MBP management actions.
A monitoring plan will be developed
in early 1994 for submission with the
final CCMP. All monitoring will be
coordinated with municipal, regional,
state, and federal agencies and with
research institutions. Monitoring
results will also be developed for use
by the Gulf of Maine Initiative.
Management Tools
Public participation was a major
priority of the original MBP and
continues to be emphasized today. The
ongoing objective is to expand public
outreach so that local planners, elected
and appointed officials, opinion
leaders, environmental activists, and
the general public are all involved.
Their participation will ensure the
political support necessary for the
success of the Massachusetts Bays
Management Conference objectives.
The original MBP included a
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC),
as does the current Massachusetts Bays
Management Conference. The first
outreach,, activities Jncluded
distributing fact sheets and brochures;
giving a press conference; conducting
regional meetings; issuing Bays Action
Grants; and creating a database of
committee members, contractors, and
related organizations. The CAC also
held several public meetings with the
environmental community and
interested citizens. The Management
Conference will continue and expand
on these activities through the current
CAC. The committee will consult with
and inform the public regarding
Management Conference objectives,
action plans, and CCMP drafts.
The program's approach to CCMP
development is itself an important
management tool. The MBP
Management Conference has
conceived of the CCMP as an evolving
agenda for management activities, to
be issued and updated biennially. The
first CCMP, in 1991, was based on
existing information and a review of
management actions taken or proposed
by earlier planning documents or other
estuary studies. In particular, the first
CCMP was geared toward identifying
management actions that can be
undertaken in the Massachusetts Bays
immediately. Taken together, the
biennial CCMPs will be an integral
part of the management process—both
directing and reflecting progress made
at various stages.
94 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
TAMfiABAY
Introduction
The largest open water estuary in
Florida, Tampa Bay lies on the west
central coast of the state's peninsula.
The bay's 398 square miles support a
variety of aquatic life and human uses.
Many species of fish and wildlife
thrive in its mangrove forests, salt
marshes, and seagrass beds. Residents
and tourists alike enjoy the bay's
excellent fishing, boating, and beaches.
Businesses have depended upon the
ports of St. Petersburg, Manatee, and
Tampa (the latter now the seventh-
busiest in the nation) for vital
transportation and for income
opportunities. Municipalities and
industry discharge treated wastewater
and other effluents into the bay, and
electrical power facilities rely on the
bay as a source of cooling water.
Finally, beautiful views along the
904 miles of Tampa Bay shoreline
greatly enhance residential and
commercial real estate values.
Together, these beneficial uses add
approximately $3 billion annually to
the regional economy.
Chief Threats to Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay is not grossly polluted, but
water quality is declining in Old
Tampa Bay (the northwestern
segment), despite being good to
excellent in much of lower and middle
Tampa Bay. In poorly flushed
Hillsborough Bay (the northeastern
segment) nitrogen overloading from
treated sewage effluent and untreated
stormwater runoff may lead to algal
blooms and low dissolved oxygen
levels if left unabated. Improved
municipal and industrial water
management practices since the 1960s
and early 1970s have reduced the
adverse effects of nutrient loading
from water treatment facilities and
from phosphate mining and processing
around the bay. However, a major
phosphoric acid spill in 1988
emphasized that serious threats to the
bay still exist.
Dredge-and-fill operations, power
plant thermal discharges, turbid water
conditions, and propeller damage have
reduced Tampa Bay's seagrass bed
area to 19 percent of its 1876 coverage.
Wetlands, too, have been affected by
the pressures of urbanization and are
being altered throughout the
watershed. These habitat losses have
been accompanied by steady declines
in finfish and shellfish landings since
peak catches in the 1950s and 1960s.
Vital habitat, water quality, and tidal
flushing are also threatened by the
prospect of increasing marina
construction and operation that comes
with rising interest in recreational
boating. Urbanization has also brought
proposals for highway and bridge
construction to ease automobile travel
over and around the bay; construction
and operational impacts from these
projects threaten both water quality
and natural systems.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program
A part of the National Estuary Program
since April 1990, the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program receives its
direction from a nine-member Policy
Committee consisting of EPA Region
IV, the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, the
Southwest Florida Water Management
District, and six local governments in
the bay area. An existing basinwide
management plan developed through
the water management district's
Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) program has
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 95
-------
already accomplished much of the
initial characterization and
consensus-building work. Because of
the substantial existing information
base, the Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program (TBNEP) expects to complete
its draft CCMP in four years rather
than the usual five.
Priority Problems
Pending refinement through further
studies, workshops, and public
meetings, the program will focus on
seven categories of priority problems
in the bay:
D water quality
deterioration/eutrophication
D loss of habitat, including seagrasses
and emergent vegetation
Q lack of community awareness
D increased user conflicts between
various recreational activities,
industrial and navigational needs,
and urban development
D lack of agency coordination and
response
D circulation and flushing
D hazardous/toxic contamination
Scientific Research
Through SWIM, the Southwest Florida
Water Management District has
prepared a computerized collection of
all available data sources for Tampa
Bay. Its approximately 1,350
references include technical literature,
interpretive reports, mathematical
models, computerized information
systems, permit and compliance
information, and other relevant
compilations.
Florida's Department of
Environmental Regulation and
Department of Natural Resources
currently sponsor a variety of applied
research projects. These projects
emphasize improved methods of
stormwater treatment and control,
sediment analysis, and coastal resource
assessment.
A recent NO AA report
documented the status and trends in
concentrations of selected toxicants in
sediments and biota of Tampa Bay.
The National Status and Trends
(NS&T) report concluded that oysters
from those sites in Tampa Bay have
had relatively high concentrations of
mirex, chlordane, mercury, and zinc as
compared to the oysters from the other
70 NS&T Program sites along the Gulf
Coast. The potential for toxic effects
among resident oysters is probably
relatively low as a result of
accumulation of PAHs, DDT,
chlordane, dieldrin, copper, and lead in
oyster tissues and moderate as a result
of contamination by PCBs, mercury,
and zinc. Overall, the study found
what appears to be a moderate
potential for adverse effects of
sediment-associated toxic substances
in the bay, though no observations of
toxicant-associated effects in resident
fish have been reported. Alterations in
benthic communities have been
observed; however, the alterations
have been attributed more to losses of
habitats than to exposure to toxicants.
Another NOAA study is measuring the
bay's current structure and developing
a predictive model of circulation. Both
studies will help to determine the
cause-effect relationships crucial to
estuary characterization.
These government-funded studies
are complemented by the strong
research capabilities of the area's
academic institutions, including the
University of South Florida, the
University of Tampa, Mote Marine
Laboratory, and the Florida Institute of
Technology.
Scientists and policy makers from
many of these government and
academic organizations, as well as
from the private sector, shared their
ideas in February 1991 at Tampa
BASIS 2, a three-day Bay Area
Scientific Information Symposium. At
A marina on Tampa Bay.
96 THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
Tampa Bay
this second BASIS meeting, papers and
discussion focused on watershed
practices. BASIS 2 also updated
themes from the first BASIS meeting
in 1982.
At workshops during the summer
of 1991, a framework for
characterization was agreed upon by
members of the Technical Advisory
and Citizens Advisory Committees of
the Tampa Bay NEP. Workshop
attendees determined the key bay
resources and processes and developed
guidelines for depicting them and their
interrelationships. The depictions are
to help educate decision makers and
the public and to describe the
characterization process components.
Directions for immediate and future
bay assessments were also determined
through these workshops. Priority
assessments will address estuarine
seagrasses, low-salinity habitats, and
benthic habitats, and a nitrogen
"budget" will be refined, expanded,
and used to assess hypotheses linking
excess nitrogen inputs to impacts on
water quality and living resources.
TBNEP is the first estuary project to
develop a characterization framework
using consensus-building workshops.
Monitoring
TBNEP realizes the importance of
integrating data from existing
monitoring programs in the bay with
that from future Tampa Bay
monitoring projects. Accordingly, the
TBNEP is designing a Basinwide
Monitoring Program. This design will
identify the baseline monitoring
programs necessary to provide
continuing baywide characterization
and general indicators of bay "health"
and will develop basic data reporting
formats and minimal collection
protocols for each data collection
Framework for Characterization Workshop.
effort. The NEP has provided a draft
Monitoring Guidance Document that
will be used extensively during the
Tampa Bay Basinwide Monitoring
Program design. This design project
will be closely linked to concurrent
work in developing a data management
' strategy.
Management Tools
When it reaches its CCMP
implementation phase, the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program will closely
coordinate with other ongoing bay
management efforts at the state and
local levels. The key connections will
be to the Tampa Bay SWIM plan and
local government comprehensive
plans. The SWIM plan for the bay was
updated in 1991 and will be updated
again by August of 1994.
Local governments in Tampa Bay
will have particular influence over
CCMP development and
implementation. Officials from six
major Tampa Bay cities and counties
sit on the Policy Committee, the
Management Conference's ultimate
decision-making body. Municipalities
in the region, already playing
important roles in SWIM projects, will
also help to carry out CCMP initiatives
through their state-mandated local
government comprehensive plans.
Covering all municipal services, these
plans include strategies for managing
environmental resources within a given
jurisdiction. Comprehensive plans for
municipalities in the Tampa Bay
watershed are due for amendment in
1994 and 1995, presenting another
excellent opportunity to coordinate
with CCMP implementation.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 97
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |