United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4504F)
EPA842-F-98-002K
January 1998
vvEPA
The National Estuary Program:
A Ten-Year Perspective
Demonstrating Practical Tools for Watershed
Management Through the National Estuary Program
The NationalI Estuary Prog'ram
duction
This past year, 1997, marked the 10th anniversary of the US
EPA's flagship watershed effort, the National Estuary Program
(NEP). What began as a demonstration of an alternative to
traditional command-and-control regulatory approaches to
water quality problems has evolved into a model for
integrated, watershed-based, stakeholder-oriented, water
resource management. A decade of trial and effort has taught
some useful lessons about applying this approach; it has also
led to significant environmental improvements and insights
upon which the EPA expects to build over the next 10 years of
the program.
Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
Programs, with their collaborative
approach to managing watersheds and
estuaries, were clearly drawn upon in
shaping the NEP under the Act.
Stakeholders, Congress determined, must
have a major role in deciding how to
protect and restore their estuaries. Congress also recognized
that state and local entities were at the forefront in carrying
out activities affecting estuaries, and that they needed to be
integral partners in the decision-making process. EPA's role
was to provide technical and financial assistance, management
guidance, and the organizational vehicle to foster the growing
partnerships.
The National Estuary Program was created by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, influenced by public alarm over beach
closures, fish kills, contaminated shellfish beds, and a general
sense of deteriorating coastal environments. There was
growing awareness of the impacts of
nonpoint source pollution, and that such
impacts were related to the surge in coastal
growth and development. More
fundamentally, there was new appreciation of
estuaries as an incredibly rich and varied
resource at increasing risk from cumulative
activities in coastal watersheds.
These systems, and the risks, were too
complex to be addressed by one entity alone
and went well beyond the existing mandates
of regulatory and enforcement programs. At
that time, water quality was chiefly defined by concentrations
of chemicals in a waterbody and was primarily driven by point
source concerns and programs. There were few, if any, tools to
recognize and address more comprehensive issues.
Additionally, there was little authority or capability to
integrate efforts within geographic or hydrologic units.
Congress recognized that in order to achieve long-term
protection of water quality and living resources — the
fundamental "fishable, swimmable" goals of the Clean Water
Act — the participation of those most affected by
environmental decisions was critical. Experiences from the
jatjs the National Estuary Program? 1
The NEP is a voluntary program that brings a community
together to improve its estuary using a forum to establish
working relationships and the trust necessary to develop
solutions. This fosters a higher likelihood of
long-term success because solutions are
"owned" by participants who have a stake in
reaching them.
EPA periodically calls for nominations to the
program from state governors. If an estuary
meets the agency's criteria, EPA may then
designate it to be included in the program.
Once the designation has been made, a
Management Conference is formed to
provide the decision-making framework for
participants, which typically include
government agencies at the federal, state, and local level;
community residents; user groups; scientific and technical
institutions; business and industry; and environmental groups.
The EPA functions as the overall facilitator of the process and
as a Management Conference representative. The
Management Conference, or stakeholders, together define
program goals and objectives, identify estuary problems, and
design action plans to prevent or control pollution and restore
habitats and living resources such as seagrasses and shellfish.
These action plans come together in a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) which serves as
a blueprint for protecting and restoring the estuary.
-------
Administration of each of the 28 designated local NEPs
includes a Management Committee which serves as the focal
point of the program. It is supported by a Director and
technical and outreach staff, scientific and technical advisory
committees, and citizen advisory committees.
Does U Work?
The NEPs build on existing programs and traditional water
quality control measures and tailor them to specific places and
communities — coastal watersheds and related estuaries.
Each local NEP must examine changes in water quality and
natural resources, evaluate point and nonpoint source pollutant
loadings, and determine the relationship between loadings and
priority problems for its particular system. Local NEPs
generally target a broad range of
issues, including contaminated
runoff and sediments, releases
from septic systems, shoreline
erosion, declines in fish and
shellfish, and loss of wetlands.
There is a strong emphasis on
the ability to transfer these
solutions to other watershed
systems in other areas.
their CCMPs and are in the implementation phase. The other
11 are still in the process of developing CCMPs (with seven
scheduled to have approved plans by the end of 1998). Local
programs are not, however, waiting until their CCMPs are
approved to protect and restore their estuaries. Most have
taken early action to address known problems or those
identified during the plan development process.
li
A number of key lessons have been learned over the past ten
years. The NEP has demonstrated that community-based
resource management achieves results. Although it takes time
to see environmental changes such as improvements in water
quality, progress is being made. In order to demonstrate
improvements in the estuary, we have seen the importance of
National Estuary Programs
Bay, ME
Buzzards Bay, MA
Peconic Bay, NY
Barnegat Bay, NJ
Corpus ChristfiTXjJr
- iSPi
•^itf
_ NEP Map Key
Planning Phase
The method used is an
interactive, collaborative
decision-making process where
stakeholders work together to
develop the CCMP for their
estuary. All stakeholders
participate as equal partners in
setting priorities, planning, and
implementing the action plan.
No one single entity drives the
local NEP; decisions are made
collectively by the Management
Conference with input from the stakeholders.
The goal is to develop—and, most importantly, implement—
their CCMP, tailored to meet their particular needs and
problems, while meeting national program requirements.
CCMPs integrate available regulatory tools as well as
innovative restoration and protection methods and techniques
addressing point and nonpoint source pollution, and set time
tables for implementation. Critical to this is building and
sustaining long-term public support to carry out the actions
agreed upon in the plan.
The NEP Today
What began in 1987 with six local NEPs scattered around the
country, has grown to 28 hi 18 states and Puerto Rico. The
project sites offer a broad range of environmental conditions
and stakeholder representation. Of the 28,17 have completed
New Hampshire Estuaries
tts Bays, M
ett Bay, RI
Tampa Bay, FL*
Charlotte Harbor, FL*"
Indian River Lagoon, FL
asota Bay, FL
^San Juan Bay, PR
NEPs setting measurable environmental goals and indicators.
Both programmatic and environmental monitoring are critical
to assess progress in implementing CCMP actions as well as
changes in environmental conditions.
The program has seen that building an effective management
and decision-making framework requires commitment, close
collaboration on the part of participants, and time. It is
especially important that there is close coordination between
federal, state, and local governments. It takes time for groups
to build strong partnerships and develop the trust to
collectively reach decisions on actions and implementation.
The NEP has seen the importance of incorporating groups that
have not always been part of coastal discussions, such as oil
and gas interests and the housing and development sector.
Through the NEP, these and other stakeholders can work
together, in some cases for the first time, to protect and restore
their estuary.
-------
It has been found to be critical that the appropriate
stakeholders are involved in the NEP during the early stages of
development of the CCMP. Involvement from the beginning
has facilitated commitments to and adoption of the CCMP—
and its implementation. The EPA has clearly learned that the
consensus-building process must reflect the character of the
local community and balance the divergent needs and interests
of the coastal stakeholders.
The NEP has provided a laboratory where environmental
impacts are examined. Research conducted or sponsored by the
NEPs has led to some significant discoveries.
• While it was known that estuaries serve as sinks for upstream
pollutants, the NEPs have built on the work of the
Chesapeake Bay Program to demonstrate that nitrogen from
the air is also a major contributor to problems in coastal
waters—particularly in eastern and gulf coast estuaries.
• Research funded, in part, by the NEP, led to the discovery of
the marine toxic microorganism Pfiesteria which produces
neurotoxins that kill fish and may cause human health
problems. This discovery has assisted a number of other
estuaries coping with the impacts of Pfiesteria.
• Nutrient over-enrichment has long been linked to stimulating
growth in aquatic plants and contributing to low levels of
dissolved oxygen in estuaries, but local NEPs have recently
seen possible links to red and brown tides.
• It was not anticipated that accidental or intentional
introduction of species would become a significant
environmental and economic concern for some estuaries in
the NEP. However, a number of instances of this problem
have been noted. Brazilian pepper is encroaching on native
plant communities in the Florida NEPs. The introduction of
the Asian clam in ballast water has disrupted the food web in
Pacific coast NEPs by consuming food sources such as
phytoplankton vital to native and endangered species. The
Japanese oyster drills found in northwest NEPs are
decimating oyster populations. The work conducted by these
and other NEPs was key in helping to support legislation to
address the introduction of invasive species in ballast water
(National Invasive Species Act).
A real surprise has been the commonality in environmental
issues faced in estuaries around the country. While each
estuary and its setting are unique, the NEP has found that all
face similar environmental problems and challenges: over-
enrichment of nutrients, contamination from pathogens and
toxic chemicals, alteration of freshwater inflow, loss of habitat,
declines in fish and wildlife, and introduction of invasive
species. Consequently, the need to exchange scientific and
management information among NEPs is critical to ensure
their success and the ability to transfer the knowledge gained
to other estuaries improves conditions nationwide.
Collectively, the NEPs have created a significant knowledge
base and wealth of experience in dealing with the problems
that threaten the health of virtually all estuaries. They serve as
a vital national network for technical assistance. Each local
program has produced a vast amount of outreach materials—
documents, workshops and the like—to educate and inform
the community and to share management insights. They also
directly provide critical technical assistance to the local
governments surrounding the estuary and indirect assistance to
the entire collection of estuaries which ring the country.
Many local NEPs have created innovative management
approaches to solve these common problems. They have
employed alternative on-site wastewater treatment
technologies to control nitrogen; established marina pump-out
facilities; provided education and training for owners,
installers, and pumpers of septic systems to reduce pathogens;
promoted beneficial uses of dredged material to restore and
create wetland habitat; installed fish passages to increase
spawning; and helped citizen volunteers remove invasive plant
species from public areas.
Accomplishments"
Local NEPs, and the partnerships forged therein, have
produced many significant programmatic and environmental
improvements. They have been the catalyst to bring together
various levels and branches of government that previously
never worked cooperatively—thereby providing more
comprehensive management and expediting the regulatory
review processes. They have been instrumental in getting local
ordinances passed addressing problems associated with
stormwater runoff, have facilitated conservation easements for
critical areas, and have helped local stakeholders to place
limits on nitrogen loading to estuaries. One local NEP has
fostered a coordinated effort to improve wastewater treatment
^facilities in two adjoining states as a means of reducing
nutrients. Partnerships between NEPs and industry have led to
new ways of doing business. NEP pollution prevention
activities targeting toxic chemicals have been adopted by
small businesses and reduced their wastes. Action Plan
Demonstration Projects (APDP) function as program-funded,
small-scale projects to test the effectiveness of technologies
and approaches that may be included in the CCMP. These
have included creation of artificial wetlands for stormwater
mitigation, construction of an artificial oyster reef from
recycled coal ash, and design of shrimp by-catch reduction
devices. Through these APDP projects and early action on the
part of NEPs, many acres of shellfish beds have been
reopened, seagrass acreage has increased, shorelines have
been stabilized, and native habitat has been restored.
The most significant challenge facing the NEP is to
successfully implement the CCMPs. Transition from plan
development to action can be very difficult. Local NEPs need
to gain commitments from implementors to support CCMP
actions and create an effective administrative or institutional
structure to ensure they are carried out. This usually requires
that they develop the financing necessary to make this happen.
-------
Public participation in the development of the CCMP is one of
the most important facets. All too often, the completion of the
plan is seen as an end-point rather than a beginning and,
consequently, finding a way to maintain public involvement is
a great challenge. The public must be involved early in the
decision-making process in order to ensure that CCMP actions
are carried out.
Because CCMP actions typically transcend a single agency,
each local NEP must establish an appropriate institutional
arrangement to ensure implementation. NEPs have employed a
wide range of organizational structures for this effort, the most
common being a coordinating institutional arrangement
between the Management Conference and a designated state
agency which serves as the administrative "host". A few NEPs
have established non-profit organizations that serve either as
the coordinating body or as a complement to that group.
Financing CCMP implementation can be costly.
Implementation occurs over many years and so a stable, long-
term source of funding is critical. While the EPA is committed
to support the NEPs at some level during implementation, each
program must identify other funding vehicles early in the
planning process to ensure continued program success. NEPs
must be able to leverage other sources of funds from key
players, such as state and local governments, to implement
CCMP commitments.
Now that the NEP has reached its tenth year, the EPA is at a
critical point in setting its direction for both the near and long
term.
There are approximately 130 estuaries in the United States. Do
they all need to be part of the NEP? The EPA recognizes that it
may not be appropriate, or even necessary, to designate all of
these estuaries as NEPs. What may be more important and
effective is to transfer the lessons learned within the NEP to
other areas. Clearly, a wealth of knowledge, experience, and
tools exist after ten years of the NEP that can be used to further
coastal watershed protection. The EPA is working with other
federal, state, and local agencies to get information to local
decision-makers and interested stakeholders.
The EPA has committed a significant amount of time and
resources in support of Management Conference activities for
the local NEPs—matched by state partners. Local NEP
participants have invested vast numbers of hours in developing
their CCMPs and gaining consensus among stakeholders, as
well as educating and getting the community involved in
activities to restore their estuaries. This common investment is
yielding dividends. NEPs are successfully addressing the broad
range of problems and issues facing local coastal communities.
Not only does the NEP benefit the individual estuaries in the
program, but the approach and findings have assisted other
coastal areas in addressing water quality issues on a watershed
basis.
The US EPA looks forward to continuing its partnership with
the 28 NEPs over the years to come and witnessing
improvement in the health of our nation's estuaries.
Please visit the US EPA web site at www.epa.gov/owow/
estuarieslnep.html to find out more about the NEPs.
Previous Publications in the Demonstration Projects Series
tReport Title
Nat ional EstuarjnP'rogram
Biological Nutrient Removal Project
Buttermilk Bay Coliform Control Project
Georgetown Stormwater Management Project
Texas Coastal Preserves Project
Shell Creek Stormwater Diversion Project
City Island Habitat Restoration Project
Buzzards Bay "SepTrack" Initiative
New Options for Dredging in Barataria-Terrebonne
Coquina BayWalk at Leffis Key
"Pilot Project Goes Airborne"
Long Island Sound, CT/NY
Buzzards Bay, MA
Delaware Inland Bays, DE
Galveston Bays, TX
Puget Sound, WA
Sarasota Bay, FL
Buzzards Bay, MA
Barataria-Terrebonne Basin, LA
Sarasota Bay, FL
Narragansett Bay, RI
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1995
1997
1997
1997
1997
por copies of any of these publications contact:
National Clearinghouse for Environmental Publications
Telephone: (513) 489-8190
Facsimile: (513)489-8695
]? u¥licat ionlT
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
EPA842-F-
95-001A
95-001B
•95-001C
95-001D
•95-001E
95-001F
•97-002G
•97-002H
•97-0021
•97-002J
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(4504F)
Washington, DC 20460
------- |