&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(WH-556)
EPA/503/8-89-001
August 1989
Saving Bays And Estuaries
A Primer For Establishing
And Managing Estuary
Projects
Printed on recycled paper
-------
Saving Bays and Estuaries:
A Primer for Establishing and
Managing Estuary Projects
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
August 1989
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J) ^
77 West Jackson Boulevard, I2tn Floor
Chicago, It 60604-3590
-------
A
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A Primer for Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects is the
result of a collaborative effort among EPA, its contractors, and
representatives of other federal and state agencies.
The EPA Office of Water thanks its Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection (OMEP) for its leadership in developing the Primer.
Special thanks are due to Michelle Miller, Project Manager; Tom
DeMoss; Tom Armitage; Norma Hughes; Steve Glomb; Mary Lou
Soscia; Paul Kraman; Mark Alderson; and Tudor Davies, Office
Director.
Valuable support also came from EPA's Regional Managers; State
of Maryland: Ken McElroy, Mary Jo Garreis, and Robert D. Miller;
State of Delaware: Mark Blosser; and NOAA: Virginia Tippie and
Sharon Shutler.
Too numerous to mention are the participants in a September 1988
workshop where the question of what is a CCMP was addressed.
Some of the answers are incorporated in this publication.
-------
FOREWORD
A Primer for Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects is
designed to help guide estuary and other coastal area programs
as they grapple with the management of estuarine and coastal
resources. As more and more of our nation's people move toward
our coastlines, these areas experience increasing stress. Bur-
dened with the demands of various interests—agriculture, recrea-
tion, conservation, fishing, manufacturing, mining—state and local
decision makers have sought new ways to better manage coastal
area resources. The National Estuary Program is attempting,
through this document and other management tools, to support
these state and local efforts.
This Primer is based on water management achievements in the
Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and Puget Sound, as well as on
the cumulative experiences of water quality management efforts
over two decades. Estuary program managers are encouraged to
examine these earlier endeavors and review the water manage-
ment plans developed by them. While this Primer can be used as
a blueprint for estuary program management, it is not the only
acceptable approach to estuarine management. The bottom line is
that we restore our estuaries as we comply with the requirements
of the laws governing them.
The Primer is a guidance tool which has evolved over several
years. It represents the thoughts and ideas of many federal and
state water quality program managers and others engaged in
environmental management. But it is not the last word. It is our good
fortune that we continue to learn.
The process described in this book is still evolving. Moreover, the
steps in this process do not always follow one after another. Steps
are often retraced, inverted, or overlapped.
There are two certainties, however. One is that the affected
governments, institutions, and people need to be integral to each
step in the estuary management process and lend support. The
other is that funding must be secured for each management action.
Funding options for both short- and long-term activities will need to
be considered; firm commitments will have to be made if our
estuaries are to be restored.
Tudor T. Davies, Director
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
United States Environmental Protection Agency
July 30, 1989
-------
GLOSSARY
Anadromous fish: Fish that spend their adult lives in the sea but
swim upriver to freshwater spawning grounds to reproduce.
Benthic organism: A form of aquatic plant or animal life that is
found on or near the bottom of a stream, lake, or ocean.
Best management practices (BMPs): Methods or techniques to
control nonpoint source pollutants from being washed into water
bodies.
Carcinogenic: Cancer producing.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO): In a wastewater collection and
treatment system where domestic and industrial wastewater is
combined with storm runoff, a pipe discharges overflow when the
system cannot handle the increased capacity caused by
stormwater runoff.
Designated uses: Under the Clean Water Act, projected uses of
a water body (e.g. industrial, contact recreation, coldwater fishery).
Dissolved oxygen (DO): The oxygen freely available in water.
Dissolved oxygen is vital to fish and other aquatic life and for the
prevention of odors. Traditionally, the level of dissolved oxygen has
been accepted as the single most important indicator of a water
body's ability to support desirable aquatic life. Secondary and
advanced waste treatment are generally designed to protect DO in
waste-receiving waters.
Head of tide: Landward limit of tidal influence within an estuary.
Eutrophication: The slow aging process during which a lake,
estuary, or bay evolves into a bog or marsh and eventually disap-
pears. During the later stages of eutrophication, the water body is
choked by abundant plant life as the result of increased amounts
of nutritive compounds such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Human
activities can accelerate the process.
Marine biota: All of the living material in a marine area; often refers
to vegetation.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A
provision of the Clean Water Act which prohibits discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States unless a special permit
is issued by EPA or (where delegated) a state or a tribal govern-
ment on an Indian reservation.
Nonpoint source: Pollution source which is diffuse and does not
have a single point or origin or is not introduced into a receiving
stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are generally carried
off the land by stormwater runoff. The commonly used categories
for nonpoint sources are agriculture, forestry, urban, mining, con-
struction, dams and channels, land disposal, and saltwater intrusion.
-------
Nutrients: Any substances assimilated by living things that
promote growth. The term is generally applied to nitrogen and
phosphorus in wastewater, but is also applied to other essential
and trace elements.
Organic: 1. Referring to or derived from living organisms. 2. In
chemistry, any compound containing carbon.
Pathogens: Microorganisms that can cause disease in other or-
ganisms or in humans, animals, and plants. They may be bacteria,
viruses, or parasites and are found in sewage, in runoff from animal
farms or rural areas populated with domestic and/or wild animals,
and in water used for swimming. Fish and shellfish contaminated
by pathogens, or the contaminated water itself, can cause serious
illnesses.
pH: A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a liquid or solid material.
Phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton community comprised
of tiny plants.
Plankton: Tiny plants and animals that live in water.
Point source: A stationary location or fixed facility from which
pollutants are discharged or emitted. Also, any single identifiable
source of pollution, e.g., a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smoke-
stack.
Pollutant loading: The amount of any given pollutant entering a
body of water.
Tidal flushing: The movement of water and associated suspended
or dissolved material from one location to another as a result of tidal
influence.
Turbidity: 1. Haziness in air caused by the presence of particles
and pollutants. 2. A similar cloudy condition in water due to
suspended silt or organic matter.
Wasteload allocation: The maximum load of pollutants each
discharger of waste is allowed to release into a particular waterbody.
Water quality management plan: A watershed management plan
under the Clean Water Act, Section 208.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a waterbody.
Watershed geomorphology: Physical geological characteristics
of a watershed.
Zooplankton: That portion of the plankton community composed
of tiny aquatic animals.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements I
Foreword II
Glossary Ill
I National Estuary Program: An Overview 1
Unique Resources 1
What Is the National Estuary Program? 1
Historical Perspective 2
Great Lakes Program 2
Chesapeake Bay Program 3
Roots of the National Estuary Program 4
Water Quality Act of 1987 5
The National Estuary Program's Approach 7
Management Conference 7
Characterization and Problem Definition 8
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 8
Estuary Program Primer 8
II The Planning Initiative: Building a Management
Framework 11
Collaboration and Flexibility: Essential Ingredients .... 11
Building a Constituency 11
Local-State-Federal Partnership 12
Management Conference: The Umbrella for Action ... 12
Management Conference Process 12
Starting in the Right Direction 12
Who Are the Members of the Management
Conference? 14
Policy Committee 14
What Does the Policy Committee Do? 15
Who Are the Members of the Policy Committee? ... 16
Management Committee 16
What Does the Management Committee Do? 17
Who Are the Members of the Management Committee? 17
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee 17
What Does the Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee Do? 18
Who Are the Members of the Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee? 18
Citizens Advisory Committee 19
What Does the Citizens Advisory Committee Do? . . 19
Who Are the Members of the Citizens Advisory
Committee? 20
Local Government Committee 20
What Does the Local Government Committee Do? . . 20
Who Are the Members of the Local Government
Committee? 20
Financial Planning Committee 21
What Does the Financial Planning Committee Do? . . 21
Who Are the Members of the Financial Planning
Committee? 21
Staff Support for the Management Conference 22
-------
Ill Characterization and Problem Definition 23
Setting the Course 23
Scientific Characterization 24
Characterization Steps 25
Identification and Ranking of Priority
Problems for Study 25
Collection of Priority Data Sets 27
Identification of Data Management Support .... 28
Screening Priority Data Sets 29
Estuary Segmentation 29
Data Analysis 30
Consideration of Incomplete Data 33
Reporting of Results 35
Evaluation of Institutional and Management Programs 36
Characterization Report 37
IV The Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan 39
A Blueprint for Action 39
Developing a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan 39
Components of a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan 40
A Summary of the Characterization Findings .... 41
Priority Problems Addressed in the CCMP 42
Environmental Quality Goals and Objectives for
the Estuary 44
Setting Goals 44
Setting Objectives 45
Action Plans for Controlling Pollution and Managing
Resources 45
Approaches to Action 47
Controlling Point and Nonpoint Sources 47
Protecting Living Resources 48
Protecting Land and Water Resources 51
Controlling Pollutants 53
V Implementing the CCMP 55
Funding 55
A Plan for Public Information and Involvement .... 55
Program Integration and Coordination 56
Periodic Review, Evaluation, and Redirection .... 57
Establishing a Monitoring Program 57
Providing for Research 57
Modifying the CCMP 58
Implementation 58
APPENDIXES
A. Federal Financial Assistance Under the National Estuary
Program
B. Building an Effective Public Participation Program
C. Using Finfish as Indicators of Toxic Contamination
D. Summary of the Guidance Manual for Health Risk
Assessment for Consumption of Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish
E. Alternative Financing
F. Citizen Monitoring
-------
Chapter I
The National Estuary Program:
An Overview
Unique Resources
Estuaries are unique waterways where fresh water drained from
the land mixes with salt water from the ocean. This blend of salt
and fresh water makes estuaries biologically productive, sustaining
certain finfish, shellfish, marshes, underwater grasses, and micro-
scopic marine life. Because of their economic, aesthetic, and
recreational value, estuaries are increasingly attracting both people
and commerce to their shores. Aquatic life is affected by these
growing populations, which need and use water for services as well
as for commercial and industrial activity.
In establishing the National Estuary Program under the Water
Quality Act of 1987, Congress recognized the special need to
protect an important but endangered resource: our nation's es-
tuaries.
According to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, "the term 'estuary' means all or part of the mouth
of a river or stream or other body of water having
unimpaired natural connection with the open sea and
within which sea water is measurably diluted with fresh
water derived from land drainage." The 1987 amend-
ments, known as the Water Quality Act of 1987, ex-
pand the definition to include "associated aquatic
ecosystems and those portions of tributaries draining
into the estuary up to the historic height of migration of
anadromous fish or the historic head of tidal influence,
whichever is higher."
The National Estuary Program is managed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to identify nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse, and to promote
the preparation of comprehensive management plans to ensure
their ecological integrity. The program's goals are protection and
improvement of water quality and enhancement of living resour-
ces.
What Is the National
Estuary Program?
-------
Historical Perspective
Great Lakes Program
To achieve these goals, the National Estuary Program conducts
activities to help
• Establish working partnerships among federal, state, and local
governments;
• Transfer scientific and management information, experience,
and expertise to program participants;
• Increase public awareness of pollution problems and ensure
public participation in consensus building;
• Promote basinwide planning to control pollution and manage
living resources; and
• Oversee development and implementation of pollution abate-
ment and control programs.
The National Estuary Program has roots in earlier efforts and
legislation. The experiences of the Great Lakes and the
Chesapeake Bay provide useful models and lessons for the new
program.
• The first is the phased program approach used to identify and
define priority problems, establish their probable causes, and
devise alternative strategies to address them.
• The second is the collaborative problem-solving process that
involves all concerned parties in each phase of the program and
secures commitments to carry out recommended actions.
Launched in 1970, the Great Lakes Program is the oldest estuary-
like program in this country. A cooperative effort between the
United States and Canada, the program fulfills the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreements of 1972 and 1978 between the United
States and Canadian governments. Waters of the Great Lakes
were burdened with too many nutrients. The resulting eutrophica-
tion problems were depleting the supply of oxygen dissolved in the
water, thus killing fish. Excessive phosphorus discharges were
cited as the probable cause.
The program initially tackled control of pollution from individual,
identifiable sources. Major municipal treatment plants were re-
quired to reduce phosphorus in effluents, and phosphate detergent
was banned in many of the Great Lakes states. These efforts to
reduce point-source pollution, which successfully reduced
nutrients, resulted in elevated oxygen levels and restoration of
some fish in Lake Erie and elsewhere.
The Great Lakes Program then turned to nonpoint sources of
pollution. The principal nonpoint source of excess nutrients was the
runoff of surface water from agricultural land. This water carries
topsoil laden with nutrients (including fertilizers) to the estuary. To
demonstrate the value of nonpoint source controls, the Great Lakes
Program Office, working with the Department of Agriculture's Soil
Conservation Service, funded projects with individual farmers.
These projects were aimed at controlling nonpoint source pollution
in several states. The program illustrated how voluntary best
management practices could reduce phosphorus loadings from
-------
agricultural sources, especially into Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.
Today the states have their own phosphorus control programs as
part of the implementation agreement with Canada.
After adopting measures to control point and nonpoint sources of
nutrients, the Great Lakes Program focused on methods to abate
pollution caused by nonpoint sources of toxics. Toxic pollution is
the result of activities that have occurred in the watershed for many
years. The Great Lakes Program is also studying the effects of
airborne toxics.
One lesson from the Great Lakes Program is that pollution controls
evolve from a phased process. After nearly two decades, the Great
Lakes Program now focuses on toxics control. Its management
process consists of identifying pollution problems based on "im-
paired uses"; linking critical pollutants to use impairments; identify-
ing sources, primarily chemicals; developing remedial actions; and
implementing actions.
A second lesson is recognition of the need for continuous monitor-
ing of water quality and living resources. Without monitoring, there
is no way to know whether the actions taken have worked. The
Great Lakes Program is carrying out a monitoring plan that surveys
the lakes to determine the levels of and trends in concentrations of
nutrients, metals, and toxics. The results will enable the United
States and Canada to assess compliance with the objectives of the
agreement, evaluate the effects of the control program, and identify
emerging problems.
The Chesapeake Bay Program, which was mandated by Congress,
began in 1977 as a federal-state partnership. From 1978 to 1982,
scientists examined the bay. They found that phosphorus and
nitrogen loads from both point and nonpoint sources were the chief
causes of the bay's declining water quality and resources. As a
result, specific recommendations were made in 1983 to reduce
sources of the nutrients and to clean up the bay.
The findings and recommendations of the study spurred the states
to action. In 1983, the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Penn-
sylvania, and the mayor of the District of Columbia, signed the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement with EPA's Administrator. The agree-
ment commits the states and the District to prepare plans that will
improve and protect the bay's water quality and living resources.
The following actions are being implemented successfully:
• Institution of land-use controls at or near the bay shoreline;
• Development of nonpoint source control programs for
agricultural and urban sources;
• Acceleration of tighter controls of point sources, particularly
municipal treatment plants; and
• Strengthening of wetlands protection laws and programs.
While continuing to implement those actions, a 1987 agreement
pledged new regional leaders to more specific goals, objectives,
and commitments. The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement is sup-
ported by a series of plans, reports, and strategies describing how
these goals, objectives, and commitments will be met.
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Roots of the National
Estuary Program
In an ongoing effort to carry out these agreements, the state
legislatures and the District of Columbia have appropriated money
to effect the program's recommendations. The federal government
continues to provide resources to assist in bay cleanup. The
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes programs are both continued
under the 1987 Water Quality Act.
The lessons learned and the precedents set by the Chesapeake
and Great Lakes programs, along with federal legislation and
historic programs such as basin planning, helped lay the foundation
for the National Estuary Program. This program employs collabora-
tive problem-solving approaches to balance conflicting uses while
restoring or maintaining the estuary's environmental quality. Fur-
ther, the program follows the basic problem identification, charac-
terization, and phased management process learned from earlier
efforts.
An estuary program is woven together by
two themes: progressive phases for
identifying and solving problems and
collaborative decision making.
Through the experiences of the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and
other programs, EPA and program participants also learned how
to get results with less money. The National Estuary Program
encourages this by focusing on the most significant problems,
using existing data, emphasizing applied research, funding specifi-
cally targeted basic research, and employing demonstrated
management strategies. These techniques save both time and
money, but more importantly, lead to earlier corrective actions.
In 1985, the Congress directed EPA to conduct programs in four
estuaries: Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, Buzzards Bay in
Massachusetts, Long Island Sound in New York and Connecticut,
and Puget Sound in Washington. In 1986, EPA added San Fran-
cisco Bay in California and Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds in North
Carolina to the program.
The two estuaries were added in 1986 because EPA believed it
was appropriate to extend the program to new coastal areas. The
Agency also wanted to expand the types of pollution problems
being addressed, while making certain they were issues of national
concern. EPA was further persuaded by the obvious commitment
state and local governments and the public in these estuaries had
already made to pollution abatement. However, it was clear they
could still benefit from the expertise available through EPA's na-
tional program.
The types of environmental problems the national program ad-
dressed were, and remain, complex. They include loss of habitat
and living resources, contamination of sediments by toxics, eleva-
tion of nutrient levels, contamination by bacteria, and depletion of
oxygen. These problems can affect human health through contact
with the water and by ingestion of contaminated shellfish and
-------
finfish. More frequently, pollution problems limit desirable uses of
the estuary like recreational and commercial finfishing and
shellfishing, and may even close beaches to swimming. Other
important uses, such as shipping, municipal and industrial water
use and disposal, may not be affected by environmental problems.
Nevertheless, the program assumes that these potentially conflict-
ing use demands can be met through collaborative planning.
Through 1986, program activities were supported by broad legis-
lative authorities and funding appropriations. Despite the com-
plexity and pressing nature of the problems, the Congress had yet
to enact legislation aimed specifically at these fragile bodies of
water. This situation was about to change.
Passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987 signaled recognition by
Congress that the health of the nation's estuaries had to be
protected. The new law amends and extends the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 and its 1977 amendments, known as
the Clean Water Act. The Water Quality Act formally establishes
the National Estuary Program. Section 317 declares that the in-
crease in coastal population, demands for development, and other
direct and indirect uses of the estuaries threaten these unique
bodies of water. The law further states that it is in the national
interest to maintain the ecological integrity of the nation's estuaries
through long-term planning and management.
Section 320(b) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 states the purposes
of Management Conferences.
(b) PURPOSES OF CONFERENCE.—The purposes of any
management conference convened with respect to an estuary under
this subsection shall be to—
(1) assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and
uses of the estuary;
(2) collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients,
and natural resources within the estuarine zone to identify the causes
of environmental problems;
(3) develop the relationship between the inplace loads and
point and nonpoint loadings of pollutants to the estuarine zone and
the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural resources;
(4) develop a comprehensive conservation and manage-
ment plan that recommends priority corrective actions and com-
pliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of
pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the estuary, including restoration and main-
tenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities in the estuary,
and assure that the designated uses of the estuary are protected;
(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the
plan by the States as well as Federal and local agencies participating
in the conference;
(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the
plan; and
(7) review all Federal development projects in accordance
with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on
September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance
programs or projects would be consistent with and further the
purposes and objectives of the plan prepared under this section."
Section 320 authorizes the EPA Administrator to convene Manage-
ment Conferences to develop comprehensive plans for estuaries
of national significance. The conferees are charged with balancing
the conflicting uses in the estuary while restoring or maintaining its
natural character.
Water Quality Act
of 1987
-------
National Estuary Program
Section 320 of the Water Quality Act
Governor's
nomination
1
*
EPA
Administrator
convenes
Management
Conference
*
State-EPA Conference
Agreement
• Develop Agreement
as 5-year plan
• Prepare Annual
Work Plans
*
Estuary
Characterization
• Define environmen-
tal problems and ex-
plore probable
causes
• Take early action on
priority problems
• Assess trends, col-
lect and analyze
data, and evaluate
pollutant loads
• Review and revise
current designated
uses of portions of
the estuary and
freshwater tributaries
• Review, evaluate,
and redirect existing
laws, regulations,
and programs
i
5 Years
1
Management
Conference develops,
and Administrator
approves,
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
(CCMP)
• Draft action plans
• Include compliance
schedules
• Develop financial
strategy for
implementation
k
1 \
Implementation
Figure 1.1
f
Monitoring to assess
_ __ _ environmental results;
simultaneous with
implementation
-------
The law acknowledges the importance of collaboration by requiring
Management Conferences; it also requires implementation by the
conferees. Furthermore, it reflects the phased process used in the
Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs. Through this
process, each estuary program examines changes in water quality
and natural resources, evaluates point and nonpoint pollutant
loadings, and determines the relationship between these loadings
and pollution problems. The Conference then devises a manage-
ment plan to address these problems. The law supports the notion
that, through collaborative planning, disputes about uses of water
can be resolved. It also endorses the value of education and
research as essential components of longer term efforts to restore
and maintain estuaries.
In 1988 Management Conferences were convened in six additional
estuaries: New York-New Jersey Harbor, Delaware Bay, Delaware
Inland Bays, Galveston Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Santa Monica Bay.
As new estuaries are added to the National Estuary Program, new
approaches to estuarine problem solving evolve. For example, it is
now clear that when priority needs are identified, action plans
addressing them should be put into place before completing com-
prehensive plans. Furthermore, financial strategies should be
developed to support actions. In time it is hoped that additional
management mechanisms will evolve, further advancing estuarine
management.
The National Estuary Program's approach is to convene a Manage-
ment Conference, characterize the estuary, define the estuary's
problems, and develop the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). Figure 1.1 outlines this approach,
reflecting the mandate of Section 320 of the Water Quality Act.
A state governor may nominate an estuary by showing how this
body of water is nationally significant and by meeting EPA program
criteria. After the EPA Administrator reviews the nomination and
selects the estuary for the National Estuary Program, the Ad-
ministrator convenes a Management Conference to oversee ac-
tivities. The Conference consists of representatives of EPA, state
and foreign governments, appropriate interstate or regional agen-
cies and other appropriate federal agencies, local governments,
affected industries, public and private educational institutions, and
the general public.
One of the first activities undertaken in the estuary program is
drafting the State-EPA Conference Agreement. This agreement
identifies program activities, products, and milestones and
schedules that lead to the completion of the CCMP within five years
and link it to the purposes of the Management Conference. A
detailed annual work plan is also prepared.
The Conference lists the problems of the estuary and, from a broad
array of concerns, selects specific areas to investigate. Narrowing
the field, establishing priorities, and selecting which problems to
tackle is a challenge. To meet that challenge, the Management
Conference asks such questions as:
The National Estuary
Program's Approach
Management Conference
-------
Characterization and
Problem Definition
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
Estuary Program
Primer
Is the environmental problem systemwide and pervasive, or is
it local, affecting small areas only?
If the problem is local, is it nevertheless significant enough to
adversely affect the entire estuary or its resources?
Does the problem reduce the estuary's ability to support benefi-
cial uses?
What information is needed to identify the causes of the prob-
lem?
What actions can be taken to abate the problem or its causes?
Is enough known to take immediate action?
When a significant problem is identified by the Conference, early
action to address the problem should begin. However, since most
problems require further investigation, the Conference performs an
objective, technical assessment of the state of the estuary. This
assessment attempts to link pollution sources to environmental
problems. It also evaluates the management programs in place to
protect the estuary. This phase, called characterization, is the basis
for defining and selecting the problems to be addressed in the
CCMP. A blueprint for achieving environmental protection in the
estuary, the CCMP requires a commitment to action by the con-
ferees.
A CCMP summarizes the estuary's problems and indicates which
ones will be addressed. Through a collaborative process, the
Management Conference establishes program goals and objec-
tives, determining desirable and allowable uses for the estuary and
its various segments. Specific pollution control and resource
management plans, designed to meet each objective, are the core
of the CCMP. After evaluating the range of approaches carefully,
the conferees select those producing the greatest environmental
benefit — at the least cost and in the most timely manner — for
action. Actions are supported by a financial strategy; some actions
may be eligible for special funding as demonstration projects.
Strong public support and subsequent political commitments are
required to carry out the actions agreed to in the CCMP.
Each estuary program must establish its own objectives and
operating methods, which will depend on the character and
problems indigenous to its body of water. The interests and values
of its public are also a paramount concern. With flexibility to
respond to the uniqueness of each estuary, all programs will entail
the same four phases. These phases, highlighted here, are dis-
cussed thoroughly in the following chapters.
Phase 1, the Planning Initiative, consists of building a management
organization for identifying and solving problems. This includes
setting up the Management Conference and committee structure
8
-------
(Chapter II). During Phase 2, Characterization and Problem Defini-
tion, the state of the estuary and its problems are defined (Chapter
III). The chief task of Phase 3 is to create a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan. The CCMP is designed,
developed, and adopted by the Management Conference (Chapter
IV). Implementation of the CCMP and reassessment of needs
occur during Phase 4 (Chapter V). Implementation will be the
responsibility of the Management Conference using the resources
provided under the Water Quality Act of 1987 and other federal,
state, and local auspices. The four-phase process, basic to the
program, is an iterative and complex one.
Management Process
Phase 1 Planning Initiative: Building a Management
Framework
Phase 2 Characterization and Problem Definition
Phase 3 Creation of a Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan
Phase 4 Implementation of the Comprehensive Con-
servation and Management Plan
-------
Chapter II
The Planning Initiative: Building a
Management Framework
The management framework is essentially a vehicle for decision
making. Conflicting needs and uses must be balanced without
compromising the environmental goal of restoration and main-
tenance of the estuary. Not surprisingly, these decisions are often
fraught with tensions. Therefore, each Management Conference
must serve as a forum for open discussion, cooperation, and
compromise among disparate interests, resulting in consensus.
Such a forum is the instrument for collaborative decision making
that leads to acceptance and support for implementation actions.
When creating its committee structure, the Conference targets four
constituencies: elected and appointed policy-making officials from
all governmental levels; environmental managers from federal,
state, and local agencies; local scientific and academic com-
munities; and private citizens and representatives from public and
user interest groups — businesses, industries, and community and
environmental organizations. These constituents are all key mem-
bers of the Conference.
A Management Conference is a forum for
open discussion, cooperation, and com-
promise that results in consensus.
Because each estuary is a unique body of water, its problems,
citizens' concerns and preferences, state and local governments,
and institutions are also unique. So flexibility is the key to organizing
and managing an effective estuary program. Local needs and
values are among the important forces driving the creation of a
specific management organization — a framework that will deter-
mine program goals and objectives and how to achieve them.
Collaboration and
Flexibility: Essential
Ingredients
Building a Constituency
11
-------
A Local-State-Federal
Partnership
Management
Conference: The
Umbrella for Action
Management Conference
Process
Starting in the Right
Direction
As a local-state-federal partnership, the framework must also take
into account differences in how state and local governments are
organized. The division of responsibilities among resource, water,
and commerce agencies, and the degree of centralization in en-
vironmental planning, are equally important considerations. There-
fore, program planning and management for each estuary will
probably involve a somewhat different mix of public agencies and
different levels of representation. Flexibility ensures a dynamic
program that allows both structure and strategy to be modified in
response to successes, failures, political realities, and unforeseen
problems.
Many of the strategies considered in the estuary program will
require new laws, regulations, and policies. It may be necessary to
create institutions or to modify the mission of existing ones. Funding
to implement selected actions will certainly need to be identified. In
addition, each state and local government has its own rulemaking
process. It is, therefore, essential to understand how the systems
work in the jurisdictions participating in an estuary program.
The recommendations in this chapter stem from EPA's experience
with current estuary programs and the suggestions of their parti-
cipants. They are offered only as guidelines, since the character of
each program is different.
As Chapter I described, the Water Quality Act established the
National Estuary Program to promote comprehensive planning for
estuaries of "national significance" that are threatened by pollution,
development, or overuse. The EPA Administrator, who decides
which estuaries will be part of the program in response to nomina-
tions submitted by state governors, assumes significant respon-
sibility. The Administrator may convene Management Conferences
for estuaries with boundaries in more than one state. The Act relies
on state implementation of its programs. Accordingly, the states
are responsible for most estuary program activities.
The Management Conference, authorized by Section 320 of the
Act, is the organizational umbrella under which each estuary pro-
gram is conducted. Initially convened for up to five years, the
Conference may be extended or reconvened to oversee imple-
mentation and to redirect or adopt new strategies.
The Conference's first major task is to build the management
framework for identifying and solving problems in the estuary.
Remembering the two themes driving an estuary program —
progressive phases for identifying and solving problems and col-
laborative decision making — the Conference initiators begin to
identify or build a constituency for the estuary.
A kickoff meeting is a good way to start because it serves a number
of purposes. As a media event, it can make the public aware that
12
-------
all is not well in the estuary. And as an educational platform, it is a
forum for identifying estuary problems and public concerns. The
kickoff meeting is also an opportunity to involve all interested
people and groups concerned about and affected by the estuary
program. Furthermore, it is a chance to include influential officials
in the earliest deliberations.
As an outgrowth of the kickoff meeting, a committee structure is set
up and assigned responsibilities by the Management Conference.
Each estuary program designs a committee structure to meet its
particular needs. The Conference must strive to understand the
community of the estuary: how decisions are reached, what per-
ceptions are prevalent, and who or what institutions are influential.
The size of the community also makes a difference. For instance,
a comparatively small area like Buzzards Bay, located within a
single state, requires a simpler committee structure than the much
larger interstate estuary, Long Island Sound. Generally, the struc-
ture consists of a policy-making committee, a management com-
mittee, work groups or subcommittees, and other standing
committees including a scientific and technical advisory committee
(STAC), a citizens advisory committee (CAC), and often a local
government committee (LGC) and a financial planning committee
(FPC).
The organizational structures of several generic programs are
depicted in Figures 2.1 through 2.4.
Management Conference
EPA Administrator
State Governor
Policy
Committee
Appointed by EPA
Administrator and State
Governor
Management
Committee
Environmental managers
from participating
agencies—federal,
state, local; other
representatives
Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
(STAC)
Represented by policy and management committees, by CAC
and STAC, but also participating as part of the Management
Conference:
Elected officials
Civic organizations
Educators
Businesses
Boaters
Environmental groups
Scientists
Industries
Recreational fishing groups
General public
Figure 2.1
13
-------
Who Are the Members of the
Management Conference?
Policy Committee
The Conference members include the EPA Administrator (or his or
her designee); representatives of state, local, and foreign govern-
ments; and other appropriate interstate or regional agencies and
entities. Affected industries, public and private educational institu-
tions, and the general public are also represented. Collectively, all
participants constitute the Management Conference.
EPA may act as the lead agency or serve as a cooperating or
sponsoring agency for each program. EPA's role is primarily to
facilitate and provide scientific and management expertise. The
Conference may involve other federal agencies, such as the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Generally, estuary programs have identified a need for a high-level
committee composed of federal, state, and local governmental
decision makers. This committee (usually called a policy, lead, or
sponsoring agencies committee) directs all Management Con-
ference activities. Committee members are key officials, or their
designees, who are in a position to ensure the resources and
funding needed to support the program. They usually are appointed
by the EPA Administrator or a state governor. Highly sensitive to
both the special interests and needs of constituent groups, they are
also well aware of the realities of time and resource constraints that
confront environmental management agencies. Therefore, they
routinely make decisions after weighing costs, benefits, and public
Management Conference
Tec
Scientis
and loca
Figure 2.2
Policy Committee
Two EPA Regional Administrators
Two states' environmental
commissioners
Management Committee
Environmental managers from
participating federal, state, and
interstate agencies
Chairs of TAC and CAC
:hnical Advisory
Committee
(TAC)
s from federal, state,
agencies; universities
Citizens Adviso
Committee
(CAC)
Representatives frc
interested groups, in
user and environments
ry
m all
eluding
1 groups
14
-------
Management Conference
EPA Administrator
State Governor
Policy Committee
Management
Committee
Local Government
Committee (LGC)
Financial Planning
Committee (FPC)
Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC)
Figure 2.3
Management Conference
Sponsoring Agencies
Committee
Appointees of EPA Regional
Administrator, State Governor(s),
and Project Office
Management Committee
Federal, state, local agency
representatives; CAC and
TAG chairs
Technical Advisory
Committee
(TAG)
Federal, state, and local
agencies; community
representatives
Citizens Advisory
Steering Committee
1
Citizens Advisory
Committee
(CAC)
Figure 2.4
opinion. Within the Management Conference, their positions re-
quire them to make such decisions on behalf of their respective
governments or agencies.
The policy committee sets program goals and objectives and
establishes priorities and direction for the estuary program. Its
members decide on recommendations from all committees. Al-
What Does the Policy
Committee Do?
15
-------
Who Are the Members of
the Policy Committee?
Management
Committee
though the policy committee guides, reviews, and evaluates the
program, it leaves the operational duties to other working commit-
tees.
The EPA Regional Administrator and the governors of involved
states or their designees are members of the key policy committee.
Other political appointees, such as state secretaries of natural
resources or environmental protection, may sit on the committee.
A local mayor or other Sleeted officials may serve; so may senior
regional EPA managers (the Deputy Regional Administrator or the
Water Management Division Director). One or more senior regional
agency officials may be appointed by the governor of each par-
ticipating state. Additional state and local representatives may also
be members. These include appointees from the water department
or water quality board, the public health department, or the depart-
ment of natural resources. In some programs, committee chairper-
sons also sit on the policy committee.
An effective management committee communicates and colla-
borates among its members to build consensus for recommended
actions. Members represent water quality, resource management,
and other important environmental perspectives. They understand
the estuary, what needs fixing, and what mechanisms are available
or needed to fix it. The management committee members serve as
the focal point for consensus building among Conference partici-
pants and all other committees. Their recommendations reflect this
process.
Weighing differences and negotiating compromises can be diffi-
cult. Assume, for example, an estuary program has a $100,000
budget. The STAC believes this budget must support research to
find out what is causing a decline in oyster reproduction. The user
groups within the CAC want to establish oyster farming to offset the
decline. The state environmental agency wants to manage septic
systems in certain shore communities, because bacterial con-
tamination is closing oyster beds. Opening such beds can offset
the decline in production.
In these negotiations, members recognize that scientific studies to
determine the cause of the decline may take several years. Never-
theless, the management committee may negotiate an agreement
that allows for all three approaches in a phased program. The
committee also understands that oyster farming may not succeed
if the same problem affects new oysters. The committee may seek
professional negotiators to facilitate consensus. In fact, failure to
settle disputes amicably and early can lead to serious polarization,
thus impeding later progress.
When setting up this committee, several pitfalls should be avoided.
These include spending too much on a scientific study that will not
yield results for years; committing resources to address a symp-
tom, but neglecting its cause; and failing to keep lawmakers and
other influential citizen leaders informed and involved.
16
-------
What Does the
Management Committee
Do?
It is under the direction of the management committee that the
tough day-to-day work gets done. Advised by staff, work groups,
and other committees, the management committee defines and
ranks the problems of the estuary, produces characterization
reports, develops management strategies, and designs the CCMP.
All management committee activities, including implementation,
occur under the general guidance and direction of the policy
committee.
In conjunction with the standing committees and work groups or
subcommittees, the management committee develops the five-
year State-EPA Conference Agreement, negotiated among EPA
and the Conference states and their designees, to set major
program milestones. It also oversees the annual work plans and
budgets required by EPA, and approves all resource and funding
allocations. (Appendix A describes the federal financial assistance
process.) Planning to meet congressional deadlines, develop
budgets and schedules, and meet work plan commitments is
essential. The consensus-building process must account for this
need.
The committee also oversees and supports the activities of the
STAC, CAC, LGC, FPC, and the work groups or subcommittees.
It is responsible for informing the public and providing for public
involvement during each program phase. To ensure this, the
management committee, working with the CAC, develops and
funds a public participation program. It recommends key members
for the committees, and establishes clear roles and responsibilities
for them. When the management committee fails to give each
committee a job to do, these key elements of the program founder.
The management committee may include the EPA regional Water
Management Division Director and representatives of state and
local agencies from each participating state. Representatives of
key federal agencies, such as NOAA, may also be on the manage-
ment committee. Mid-level agency managers and technical staff
usually serve on this committee. Naturally, the number of repre-
sentatives depends on the number of agencies involved. Neverthe-
less, the areas that should be represented include natural
resources, pollution control, and planning. Representatives of the
standing committees are also management committee members.
Other members may include representatives of local academic and
scientific communities, environmental groups, industry, and user
organizations like receational and commercial fishery associations.
Each estuary program should determine the specific role and
responsibilities of the scientific and technical advisory committee.
It is especially important for the management committee to deter-
mine how the STAC is to function. It is equally important for the
Who Are the Members of
the Management
Committee?
Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee
17
-------
What Does the Scientific
and Technical Advisory
Committee Do?
Who Are the Members of
the Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee?
STAC to understand that the estuary program is fundamentally a
management program, rather than a research program.
At the same time, program managers must recognize the impor-
tance of basing the management strategies on sound scientific
information. The STAC provides the science in estuary programs,
identifying and defining the estuary's environmental problems. The
STAC also recommends scientific studies, investigations, samp-
ling, and monitoring programs that are necessary to determine the
causes of environmental problems.
The STAC reports to the management committee, and its chair-
person may sit on that committee or on the policy committee. The
STAC provides advice and guidance related to research, data
management, modeling, and sampling and monitoring efforts,
which affect the scientific adequacy of the estuary program ac-
tivities. Depending on the problem, STAC members suggest the
specific scientific activities necessary to meet program objectives
established by the Management Conference. The STAC also con-
ducts peer review of studies, reports on the status and trends in the
estuary, and alerts the management committee to emerging en-
vironmental problems. In addition, it oversees the assembly and
analysis of historical data bases for characterizing the estuary. To
ensure scientific rigor and quality, the STAC also reviews the
development of any requests for proposals and the actual
proposals submitted.
In carrying out its responsibilities, the STAC may create work
groups and subcommittees. It may also advise the management
committee on the selection of work group members. The STAC
may help provide initial direction for each work group or subcom-
mittee. In addition, it may determine objectives and likely sources
of scientific, technical, and logistical support required to perform
assigned tasks.
Members are nominated by the management committee and ap-
pointed by the policy committee. They are selected with advice from
local, state, and federal agencies; regional scientists; and public or
private institutions conducting scientific studies in the water basin.
STAC members, who should represent a balance of scientific
disciplines, may be noted local experts or outside scientists. An
EPA regional representative from the Office of Research and
Development should be included as well. Typically, members
should have expertise in the following areas:
• Sources of nutrients/toxics;
• Transport and fate, including modeling;
18
-------
Ecological and human health effects; and
Living resources.
Because public funds are used, the success of any estuary pro-
gram will ultimately depend on citizen support. To generate that
support the citizenry, persuaded that it has a vested interest in the
outcome, must be involved in the entire program. The citizens
advisory committee is germane to the estuary program because it
ensures representation of the public voice during all program
phases. An educated, informed, and involved citizenry is the estu-
ary program's most valuable ally. In the long run, many people and
corporations will be affected by measures taken to maintain and
restore the estuary. These include, for example, levying additional
taxes to pay for sewage treatment and sediment controls, imposing
changes in lawn care and agricultural practices, restricting some
waterfront land uses, and placing stricter regulations on dis-
chargers.
Although the CAC is the formal mechanism for public involvement,
it does not preclude the necessity for a general public participation
program. The CAC's role must be clearly defined by the manage-
ment committee. (For specific guidance on setting up a public
participation program, see Appendix B.)
The CAC reports to the management committee. CAC repre-
sentatives may sit on that committee and on the policy committee.
The CAC helps to ensure that the management committee and
estuary program staff include the public in the decision-making
process, and integrate public opinion and expertise into each
program phase. The CAC recommends the most effective ways to
inform the public and solicit its participation. It also identifies key
people and organizations that can help bring estuary-related issues
to the public's attention and build support for program activities.
The CAC ensures representation of public concerns while options
are fluid, rather than after data collection and analyses have been
completed and final decisions made. Public support for implemen-
tation is more likely if the public has been involved throughout
program evolution. The CAC engages in the following activities to
fulfill its role:
• Helps to establish program goals and objectives;
• Participates in determining funding levels for program ac-
tivities;
• Comments on research priorities;
• Reviews technical findings and analyses;
• Helps develop implementation plans;
• Assists with public participation activities; and
• Educates user groups concerning the purpose and benefit of
proposed programs.
Citizens Advisory
Committee
What Does the Citizens
Advisory Committee Do?
19
-------
Who Are the Members
of the Citizens Advisory
Committee?
Local Government
Committee
What Does the Local
Government Committee Do?
Who Are the Members of
the Local Government
Committee?
The CAC may conduct some activities to obtain input from a cross-
section of interest groups about goals, objectives, and preferences
related to environmental quality. Public meetings are one vehicle.
Other activities may be designed to disseminate information and
secure comments from various representative individuals and
groups about the scope, goal, and progress of the program. The
numerous methods for this purpose include press releases,
newsletters, and questionnaires. To accomplish specific objec-
tives, the CAC may also establish special work groups, subcom-
mittees, or task forces.
Citizens are nominated by the management committee and ap-
pointed by the policy committee. The CAC should represent a
broad spectrum of major resource groups, for example, fishing
interests, farmers, and recreational users. It should also include
representatives from various environmental organizations and
citizens councils. Equally important are representatives from busi-
ness and industry, such as lumberers, shippers, and steel and
petrochemical manufacturers. Of course, representation will vary
with the type of users prevalent in the estuary basin.
Although each program needs to establish the specific criteria for
appointees, nominees generally should meet the following criteria:
• Serve as a spokesperson for a major user or interest group;
• Have experience in the development of water quality and
resource management policy;
• Understand the technical and economic feasibility of the pollu-
tion control options under consideration; and
• Represent a group that is affected by the recommendations and
proposed programs.
Many of the actions selected for implementation are likely to affect
local jurisdictions. To ensure that local governments and agencies
are part of the decision-making process, an LGC may be estab-
lished.
Critical to implementing actions of the Management Conference,
the LGC provides practical advice on sewage treatment, develop-
ment issues, zoning ordinances, health concerns, and other local
planning needs, issues, and existing projects. An LGC can also
provide the political analyses that are needed for effective decision
making.
As with all standing committees, local government representatives
20
-------
are also nominated by the management committee and appointed
by the policy committee. Representatives may come from important
municipalities, counties, or townships; they may represent sewer
districts, conservation districts, or agencies such as health or
planning departments. Each Management Conference that
chooses to set up an LGC should determine the most effective
system for local government representation.
For every action the Management Conference selects for im-
plementation, a method to pay for it must be determined. Some
actions may be supported financially with Clean Water Act funds,
some with state and local funds, and others using private sector
funds. Whether financing is readily available or creative funding is
explored, it is often useful to establish an FPC to develop a financial
strategy to support CCMP actions. Action plans may call for the
construction or improvement of sewage treatment plants, im-
plementation of nonpoint source control programs, or restoration
of fish and shellfish habitat. To move these plans into action,
funding must be secured.
The FPC develops a funding strategy that includes accessing
revenues, such as taxes, fees, and assessments; managing the
flow of funds; and recommending institutions to oversee financial
planning and management. The FPC might also identify new
sources of funding, like creating debt or soliciting from private
foundations.
The Puget Sound FPC identified a number of possible state funding
sources to support Management Conference activities. The sour-
ces included taxes on watercraft, litter, food fish and shellfish,
pesticides, gasoline, and toilet paper. In addition, they identified
potential projects that could be funded with local revenue or as EPA
demonstration programs in watersheds, such as repairing failing
septic systems, fencing streams, monitoring septic systems, and
preventing erosion of river banks.
The FPC members should be knowledgeable about financing
public projects and represent key interest areas or jurisdictions.
The Puget Sound Financial Committee, for example, consists of 16
members. Its chair is a public finance and municipal lawyer and
member of the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. He helped
set up the Washington State Public Works Trust Fund, a revolving
loan fund to finance repair and replacement of existing public works
projects. Also serving on the FPC are four local elected officials,
two of whom are wastewater utilities managers; four state legis-
lators on the Ways and Means Committee; one member from the
Department of Revenue; three members from the business com-
munity, including a banker; and three members representing the
public interest.
Financial Planning
Committee
What Does the Financial
Planning Committee Do?
Who Are the Members of
the Financial Planning
Committee?
21
-------
Staff Support for the
Management
Conference
Funds to support the Management Conference and to develop the
CCMP are provided through Water Quality Act appropriations.
Portions of these funds should be earmarked for staff support to
the Conference. It is up to the Management Conference, however,
to determine the composition of the staff, how it will be hired, and
who will direct its activities. Various options are available.
A state project office may provide this support. The Conference
may contract with a nonprofit organization, educational institution,
or state/local entity to assume staff responsibilities on its behalf. By
using the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), support can also
be secured from EPA and other federal agencies, such as NOAA.
The Conference ultimately should try to have staff or other support
with the following expertise:
• A program manager or staff director experienced in planning,
operating, and budgeting, and sensitive to public concerns;
• Experienced public participation specialists to serve as staff to
the citizens advisory committee and as liaison with the public
(Appendix B);
• A staff member experienced in the development and evaluation
of management strategies and with an in-depth understanding
of major federal and state statutes and implementing regula-
tions affecting water quality, coastal land use, and protection of
living resources;
• Biologists knowledgeable about marine or estuarine systems to
help characterize the estuary and recommend corrective ac-
tions;
• A chemist, toxicologist, or general environmentalist to support
in the characterization phase; and
• A statistician familiar with environmental modeling to help in the
characterization phase.
The Management Conference — its committees, elected officials,
and the general public — form the management structure under
which problems and concerns related to the estuary are addressed
and, over time, resolved.
22
-------
Chapter
Characterization and
Problem Definition
Setting the Course
Once the Management Conference has built a framework for
identifying, negotiating, and solving problems, it is ready to embark
on other tasks. The Conference begins to "take the pulse" of the
estuary, determining the state of its health and the reasons for its
decline, and taking early corrective action if possible. The process
entails examining symptoms for probable causes, testing
hypotheses for actual causes, and defining the most pressing
problems. Known as "characterization and problem definition,"this
phase provides the objective basis used to develop action
strategies for the estuary's Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan.
Characterization is the description of the
quality of the estuary, defining its problems
and linking problems to causes.
Generally, a Management Conference is convened because there
are obvious problems in the estuary. These may include, for
instance, decline in a popular recreational or commercial fish
species, contamination of beaches, kills of fish, or extensive bloom
of algae. Although these occurrences are often referred to as
"perceived problems," they actually are symptoms of water pollu-
tion. The challenge to the Conference, working with the STAC, is
to separate these symptoms from their causes or sources. Fre-
quently, some symptoms may be addressed by regulatory agency
actions while scientists examine data to determine the exact cause.
All participants, expressing their different economic, aesthetic,
health, and recreational concerns, will help determine which
problems will be addressed during characterization.
The scientific investigations and reports resulting from charac-
terization must be translated into plain English, telling a story about
the estuary that the public can understand. The importance of this
step cannot be stressed strongly enough. The success of an
estuary program depends on public understanding of the estuary's
problems and public support for enacting prescribed remedies.
23
-------
Scientific
Characterization
Scientific data are used during the characterization phase as the
basis for an integrated, systemwide assessment of each estuary.
The assessment addresses historical trends, present conditions,
and probable future trends if current practices are not modified. It
is analogous to telling a story about the past, present, and potential
future of each estuary. The results are used to substantiate environ-
mental problems, evaluate their causes, recommend future
remedial and management strategies, and develop long-term
monitoring plans.
Estuary characterization relies primarily on
existing scientific information, particularly
historical data.
Estuary characterization relies primarily on existing scientific infor-
mation, particularly historical data. Such information, which can be
collected and analyzed relatively efficiently and cost-effectively,
provides the most direct way to evaluate trends in estuarine condi-
tions. Table 3.1 lists information used for characterization.
Table 3.1—Common Kinds of Historical Information Used for Estuary
Characterization
Pollutant Sources to the Estuary
• Watershed geomorphology
• Land use patterns
• Freshwater input
• Pollutant loadings: direct discharges, riverine discharges,
nonpoint source runoff
Circulation of Material in the Estuary
• Weather patterns
• Tides/currents
• Salinity
• Temperature
• Sediment grain size
Distribution of Chemicals in Estuarine Waters and Sediments
• Organic carbon
• Nutrients
• Dissolved oxygen
• Chemical contaminants
Distribution of Biological Organisms in the Estuary
• Plankton
• Benthic invertebrates
• Fish
• Aquatic vegetation
• Endangered species
Rates of Biological Processes
• Primary production
• Secondary production
• Respiration
• Commercial fishery catches
• Recreational fishery catches
Factors Important to Human and Environmental Health
• Distribution of bacteria and pathogenic organisms
• Prevalence of disease in fish and shellfish
• Tissue contaminants
Geographic Areas of Special Importance
• Critical spawning or nursery habitats
• Recreational areas
• Beach closures
• Shellfish harvesting areas
24
-------
However, readily available historical data, which consists of infor-
mation already computerized or collected by local, state, and
federal agencies, may not address the specific problems being
investigated in each estuary. Historical data are also incomplete
and limited to specific regulatory programs. To overcome these
limitations, new sources of data are identified and information is
collected from virtually all possible sources—scientists, academic
and research institutions, and public health and living resource
agencies. Characterization should benefit from previous, published
work as much as feasible; however, many of the analyses that will
be done will require access to original data for manipulation.
Because collecting new scientific information is generally quite
costly, historical data are used to set priorities for the kinds of new
information needed for the characterization effort. These data are
also used to shape new sampling and monitoring programs needed
to define specific problems.
Characterization proceeds through the following major steps:
• Identifying the most significant problems for investigation;
• Collecting priority data sets;
• Identifying data management support;
• Screening priority data sets;
• Determining estuary segments;
• Analyzing data;
• Considering significant gaps in available data;
• Reporting results in both peer-reviewed technical publica-
tions and public documents; and
• Preparing a characterization report or a series of charac-
terization reports.
The relationship among these steps is presented in Figure 3.1.
The first step in the characterization process is identifying the most
important environmental problems in the estuary. This activity is
conducted by the Management Conference and therefore cannot
begin until a management framework is set up. Because all the
problems cannot be addressed, it is critical to rank them so that
effort and funding levels can be allocated effectively. The Manage-
ment Conference must establish criteria by which it will define and
rank environmental problems for characterization.
Overestimating the severity or significance of certain problems can
divert attention from those that actually deserve greater concern.
The presence of toxic contaminants in the tissue of fish, for ex-
ample, may capture widespread publicity and interest because of
its potential effect on human health. However, the incidence of such
contamination may be limited to specific sites. On the other hand,
Characterization
Steps
Identification and Ranking
of Priority Problems for
Study
25
-------
Steps in Characterization
Identify Priority
Problems
Estuary Management
Committee
Collect Priority
Data Sets
Identify Data
Management Support
Screen Priority
Data Sets
Determine
Estuary Segments
Analyze
Data
Report
Results
Address Priority
Data Gaps
Public Synthesis
Documents
Peer- Reviewed
Technical Publications
Characterization
Report
Figure 3.1 Relationships among characterization steps.
nutrient enrichment, eutrophication, and resulting dissolved oxygen
depletion may have far greater systemwide impacts, affecting not
only finfish species but shellfish and crab populations.
Problems with a systemwide impact generally are ranked higher
than those with localized effects. Furthermore, problems that sig-
nificantly curtail the designated uses of an estuary may be ranked
high. Some problems may receive a high ranking because correc-
tive mechanisms, such as regulatory programs and authorities, are
already in place.
From a management perspective, simply knowing that a problem
exists is not sufficient reason to study it. It is also necessary to be
able to identify the likely cause and to ascertain whether corrective
actions are feasible within reasonable cost and other limits. Trac-
table, or manageable, problems generally should be ranked higher
than those with no apparent solution or those requiring an inor-
26
-------
dinate amount of effort to correct. Furthermore, if the cause of a
priority problem is understood, the conference should develop an
"action-now agenda" for early action, redirecting resources from
existing programs.
After specific criteria for the known environmental problems in an
estuary have been developed, the problems are ranked to identify
which warrant highest priority. These are considered in the remain-
ing characterization steps.
The second step in the characterization process is the collection of
"priority data sets" that are
• Relevant to defining the nature and extent of a priority prob-
lem;
• Pertinent to specific parameters needed to define the prob-
lem;
• Broad in temporal and spatial coverage;
• Good quality, as indicated by a preliminary assessment; and
• In a usable format.
Although extensive information may be available for a particular
estuary, the initial selection criterion (relevance) ensures that col-
lection efforts focus only on data sets directly related to the priority
problems. The second criterion (pertinence) further confines col-
lection efforts to data sets containing information important for
characterization, such as specific variables and sampling periods.
The third criterion (breadth of temporal and spatial coverage)
emphasizes data sets with broad temporal or spatial scales as
opposed to data sets that represent a narrow time frame or those
that are highly site-specific. The fourth criterion focuses on quality
assurance to prevent questionable data from influencing the
analyses. Finally, the data must be formatted for computer use.
The goal of the data collection and selection
process is to identify what combination of
data sets best provides the information
needed for estuary characterization.
Rarely will any single data set rank highly with respect to all
selection criteria. Instead, the goal of the data collection and
selection process is to identify what combination of data sets best
provides the information needed for estuary characterization.
To help identify the most important data sets, questionnaires
frequently are sent to investigators and organizations. A sample
data request form used to obtain information related to a priority
problem in Long Island Sound appears in Figure 3.2.
Collection of Priority
Data Sets
27
-------
Identification of Data
Management Support
.Long Island Sound Data Characterization: Oxygen _
Depletion in Western Long Island Sound
1 US Document Reference Number
2. Organization Contacted
3. Principal Investigator
4 Contact.
5 Telephone Number
6. Address of Contact
7 Citation
a) Author(s)
b) Year
c) Title
d) Journal/Rept
e) Volume- Number
fl Pages
8. Sample, Survey Type"
al Station(s)
b) Synoptic Survey
c) Vertical Resolution
9 Measurement
a) Dissolved Oxygen
b} % Oxygen Saturation
c) Temperature
d) Salinity
el Phytoplankton Pigments
f) Phytoplankton Counts
g) Inorganic Nutrients (Ammonium,
Nitrate, Phosphate, Silicate)
h) Organic Nutrients (DOC, TOC, DON,
TON, OOP, TOP)
i) BOD, COD
j) Biological Rates (Primary
Productivity, Water Respiration,
Sediment Respiration, etc.)
10 Data, Study Area.
11 Time Span of Data.
12 Status of Data
a) Ran
b) Reprint
c) Computerized
d) Database Name
e) Data Products
13 Comments1
Y/N
Frequency /Resolution
Y/N
Units
From
Y/N Availability
To-
Cost
Figure 3.2 Example of a form used to identify priority data sets for
use in estuary characterization.
While key data sets are being identified, collected, and reviewed,
each estuary program should find a data management system that
can store large amounts of historical and future information related
to the estuary's conditions. EPA's Ocean Data Evaluation System
(ODES), for example, may be used for storing and analyzing
marine environmental monitoring data. A data management sys-
tem must support two primary functions. First, it enhances the
characterization process by providing extensive data storage and
analytical capabilities. It is thus a free-standing data base access-
ible to the scientific community conducting characterization
studies. Second, it serves as a long-term archive that can be
continuously updated. The data base will be expanded with infor-
mation from sampling and monitoring efforts to determine whether
the abatement and control programs improve water quality and
living resources.
28
-------
In developing data management support for each estuary program,
existing systems are evaluated. The state agency responsible for
implementing the estuary program's findings should use an existing
data management system if possible. Evaluation criteria include
the following:
• Ease of access and use;
• Use of relatively standard hardware and software;
• Capability of storing diverse kinds of information, such as
physical, chemical and biological data; land use statistics;
and point and nonpoint source records;
• Data analysis features, including analyzing statistics and
generating presentations like tables, graphs, charts, and
maps;
• Flexibility to adapt to changing needs; and
• Cost of usage and maintenance.
After priority data sets have been collected and entered into the
data management system, they can be accessed as needed.
Before data sets are analyzed, however, they must be screened
(Figure 3.1).
The screening procedure is designed to review the quality of the
data and to identify unusual values or missing information. For
example, nonexistent observations from important time periods or
sampling stations should be identified. In addition, unusually high
or low data values can be isolated for closer inspection.
Screening can be conducted by combining computerized checks
with experts' technical reviews. The results of the screening proce-
dure are included in each data set. They help determine which data
sets are appropriate for the various evaluations conducted during
data analysis. Screening also helps identify insufficient or missing
information that may need to be addressed later in the charac-
terization process.
Estuary segmentation — partitioning an estuary into a series of
spatial units or segments — is a useful analytical tool. It permits
consolidating an extensive amount of environmental information
into representative data elements when certain conditions, such as
water temperature and salinity, are relatively homogeneous within
a segment. During data analysis, historical information collected for
each segment is combined to represent the average set of condi-
tions encountered in the segment. In this manner, a data base
consisting of hundreds of stations can be reduced to a description
of conditions based on a relatively smaller number of segments
(Figure 3.3). Besides facilitating data integration, segmentation
also allows researchers to examine data based on station locations
of uncertain origin. This is particularly useful because the lack of
information on exact station locations is a limitation frequently
encountered with historical data sets.
Screening Priority
Data Sets
Estuary Segmentation
29
-------
Estuary Segmentation
Data Analysis
Concentration
of
Chemical
• 5
® 4
© 3
O 2
O 1
Island
Figure 3.3 Estuary segmentation permits reducing the variability
from hundreds of data points to a simplified picture of
estuary trends.
In addition to providing a means for summarizing data for geo-
graphic stretches of the estuary, segmentation is important for the
development of water quality models and the subsequent allocation
of waste discharges into the estuary. Future management actions
will most likely set pollution load reduction goals segment by
segment. The impact of this scheme on the affected dischargers
may be significant. Therefore, a segmentation scheme will need to
consider political boundaries and the locations of the dischargers,
as well as physical features and hydrography of the estuary.
Once the data are screened, they can be analyzed by scientists to
answer specific questions about the relationships among pollu-
tants, pollutant loadings, and their effects on water, sediment, and
living resources. The general objectives of these analyses are to:
• Determine the temporal trends and spatial patterns related to
the most pressing problems of each estuary;
• Determine possible causes of these problems;
• Provide an integrated description of the conditions encountered
in each estuary; and
• Identify significant, missing data that warrant additional monitor-
ing or sampling.
The identification of temporal trends—or changes over time—is
important for recognizing problems and suggesting potential
causes. The landings of a particular species of fish in an estuary,
for example, may continuously decline over a 40-year period
(Figure 3.4). This trend suggests that the species may be adversely
affected within the estuary, but it does not suggest the potential
cause. Nevertheless, the temporal trend of interrelated, suspected
causes, such as overfishing, pollution, or habitat loss, can be
compared with the overall trend in fish landings. If there are
30
-------
similarities between a suspected cause and the decline in landings,
the cause may be further evaluated to determine whether it was
the actual reason for the observed problem. Generally, charac-
terization efforts do not establish cause-effect relationships. Ab-
solutes or certainties are replaced with a philosophy that accepts
a preponderance of evidence.
Temporal Trend
=0
3
1950 1960
1970
Year
1980 1990
Possible Causal Factors
Overfishing Habitat Loss
Pollution
1950
Years
1990 1950
1990
Years
Years
Determine If Further Confirming Information Available
Figure 3.4 To suggest problem areas, temporal trends in
important resources may be correlated with
possible causal factors. Shaded zone indicates
comparison of possible causal factors to
temporal trend in fish landings.
Spatial patterns — relative locations — can also be used to identify
problems and suggest possible causes. A gradient (that is, a
continuous increase or decrease) in the distribution of copper
concentrations in bottom sediments found near the head of an
estuary is illustrative (Figure 3.5). Close inspection of the gradient
might show that concentrations are highest immediately
downstream from a city, but that they decline both up- and
downstream as one moves farther away. Such a pattern suggests
that the copper contamination originates in the city, and that
subsequent analyses should attempt to identify the exact source.
Another analytical technique to determine the potential causes of
environmental problems is an evaluation of relationships among
environmental variables. The reduction of aquatic vegetation may,
for instance, be cited as a priority problem in an estuary. The
association between declining vegetation and a second estuarine
variable, such as the presence of nitrogen in the water column,
could be examined (Figure 3.6). If there is a positive correlation,
nitrogen could be the culprit.
31
-------
Spatial Pattern
Copper Concentration
Medium
::::::: Low
Figure 3.5 Example of a spatial pattern for copper concentrations in
sediments found near the head of an estuary.
In all these examples, the potential cause of a problem is identified
through association. Although this kind of circumstantial evidence
is valuable, it does not conclusively prove a cause-effect relation-
ship. The problem and potential cause could be associated purely
by chance; both could be the result of yet another variable. Confir-
mation of cause-effect relationships usually requires conducting
field or laboratory experiments under carefully controlled condi-
tions.
Cause-Effect Relationship
50
40
Percent 30
Vegetated
Stations 20
10
I
I
0.5 1.0 1.5
Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L)
2.0
Figure 3.6 Example of a potential cause-effect relationship: The
association between declining vegetation and the presence
of nitrogen in the water.
32
-------
Historical data sets for most estuaries differ in terms of factors like
temporal and spatial coverage, kinds of measurements, and level
of detail. Therefore, the analytical methods used for charac-
terization generally include various quantitative and qualitative
techniques. Nevertheless, the goal is to integrate a wealth of
diverse information into a unified description of the past, present,
and probable future conditions in each estuary (without, of course,
exceeding inherent data limitations).
As historical data are being analyzed during estuary characteriza-
tion, various gaps in the historical data base are uncovered. Some
of these data gaps substantially influence data analysis and there-
fore must be addressed. It is not feasible to address every missing
link in the historical data base. Scientists must therefore rank this
missing information to determine its importance to accurate
analysis and interpretation. Once they have determined which
information is required, they can overcome the deficiency by re-
evaluating existing data or by collecting new information.
There may be significant gaps in data on temporal trends. Although
a decline in landings of a species of fish may have been docu-
mented between 1950 and 1980, for instance, similar information
may not have been summarized since 1980 (Figure 3.7). Without
these data, it would be difficult to estimate whether landings con-
tinued to decline after 1980. This would be especially true if the
number of landings remained relatively constant between 1970
and 1980. To determine whether the problem still exists, scientists
would have to identify and collect additional existing information on
landings from 1980 to the present. If a source of information cannot
be identified, the estuary program may have to undertake its own
sampling program to determine current conditions and any trends.
Historical Data Gaps
to
O)
Newly Summarized
Historical Information
New sampling
conducted during
estuary program
may show
continuation or
reversal of
trend
1950
Figure 3.7
1960
1970
Year
1980
1990
Missing information on the trend of parameters through
time can be supplied by newly funded synthesis of
previously collected data or new sampling.
Data for spatial patterns may also be incomplete. The presence of
high concentrations of copper in bottom sediments downstream
from a city again provides an illustration (Figure 3.8). Assume that
information on concentrations upstream from the city and down-
stream from the area of high concentrations is not available. Without
it, scientists cannot characterize the spatial extent of contamination or
Consideration of
Incomplete Data
33
-------
determine whether the source of contamination is in the city. Such
information is essential to determine the magnitude and likely
cause of the problem. Accordingly, the acquisition of these data
probably would be given a high priority. New data could be collected
at a series of sampling stations located at increasing distances from
the city and the area of high concentrations.
Use of New Sampling Stations
To Fill Spatial Data Gaps
River
Pollutant Concentration
High '•:'•:'•:'• Low • New Stations
Sampling New Stations Yields Following Results
Upstream source with
little dilution in estuary,
or strong source in all
areas (e.g., atmosphere
or runoff).
Source is city
Source is city but
pollutant is degraded,
diluted, or sedimented
by the time it reaches
estuary.
Figure 3.8 New sampling to fill in missing spatial data can yield
important information about the source and extent of a
problem.
Insufficient evidence about a suspected cause-effect relationship
can lead to a pressing need to obtain missing data. Again, the
relationship between declining aquatic vegetation and increased
nitrogen concentration provides an illustration. This relationship
could be due to the stimulative effect of the nutrient nitrogen on
phytoplankton populations and the resulting decrease in light
penetration through the water column. The relationship could be
confirmed experimentally by exposing the aquatic vegetation to
varying light intensities. Such an experiment would show the
relationship between light reduction and mortality of the vegetation
(Figure 3.9).
34
-------
Correlation Shown by
Historical Data
Analysis
•si*
•- CO
CD *2
>
o ®
C o
0) -^
Jf (S
^}
Nitrogen Concentration
Correlation Tested by
Fertilization Experiment
Water Surface
CO
r
o
C
_co
Q.
S
0)
£
0)
Q.
Depth of Light Penetration
Nitrogen Concentration
Figure 3.9 The collection of appropriate experimental data can be
valuable for corroborating relationships suggested by
historical data analysis.
Results are synthesized into scientific reports.
After data analyses are complete for each estuary problem, results
are synthesized into scientific reports. These reports may be a
series of findings on several identified problem areas and may be
issued separately as they become available. To increase the pool
of information and to encourage further research on the estuary,
all scientific findings should undergo peer review. Publication in
professional and academic journals should also be encouraged.
The reports provide evidence useful for the following:
• Summarizing major environmental problems within each es-
tuary;
• Identifying suspected causes of as many of the problems as
possible;
• Recommending early actions and future remedial and
managerial strategies to correct the problems; and
• Developing a long-term monitoring program to evaluate the
effectiveness of these strategies and to identify emerging
environmental problems at an early stage.
Reporting of Results
35
-------
Evaluation of
Institutional and
Management Programs
The scientific evaluation of the physical, chemical, and biological
state of the estuary does not proceed in isolation. While it is under
way, a simultaneous evaluation of the institutional structures, in-
cluding laws, regulations, and management programs, is con-
ducted. This evaluation addresses federal, state, and local laws,
regulations, policies, and other institutional efforts. It looks at how
regulations are being enforced, whether programs are being coor-
dinated, and if resources are allocated and used effectively. As part
of this evaluation, programs may be redirected and resources
reallocated. For each priority problem that is considered, financial
planning and analysis should be undertaken.
A simultaneous evaluation of the institutional
structures, including laws, regulations, and
management programs, is conducted.
For each priority problem, consider an evaluation of the following:
• Federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are in effect;
• Existing criteria, standards, and regulatory control programs,
along with their compliance and enforcement records;
• Presence of needed regulatory authorities;
• Support from management institutions, such as planning and
natural resource agencies and their policies;
• Integration among federal, state, and local agencies, institu-
tions, and their programs; and
• Level and allocation of existing resources and potential new
resources.
For each key problem, it would be helpful to develop an extensive
list of laws, regulations, policies, control programs, and resources
at federal, state, and local levels. Identify gaps and inconsistencies.
Most of the existing regulatory programs are directed toward point
source management. Therefore, if a priority problem is linked to a
point source, determine how well these programs are working.
Specifically, assess whether issued permits are of good quality,
inspections are being conducted, and enforcement actions are
taken when violations occur.
If, however, a priority problem is caused by surface runoff, for
example, evaluate nonpoint sources of pollution. Find out whether
an adequate nonpoint source program is in effect. Are other
authorities to control nonpoint source pollution needed?
To improve management of living resources, inventory available
and operational statutory, regulatory, and zoning ordinances. Sedi-
ment control or other point and nonpoint source requirements may
need strengthening to ensure that water and sediment quality can
sustain living resources. Initiatives to protect these resources and
their habitats may be advisable. Such protections may include
providing for minimum freshwater flows during drought conditions
or establishing antidegradation policies for habitats critical to
spawning, nursery, and forage areas.
36
-------
Finally, examine how the various control programs are integrated;
be sure that existing programs are not working at cross-purposes.
Resources from each governmental level and program should be
brought to bear on the most serious problems. Find out if programs
are cooperating in this effort. Determine whether citizens are
involved so they can help to ensure intergovernmental and inter-
agency coordination. Some state and local governments may
consider reorganizing their agencies to foster program integration
and appropriate targeting of efforts.
During this phase, it is vital to understand what actions are already
being taken within the current institutional framework. Further,
environmental degradation can occur when existing authorities are
not being exercised, or activities and resources are not focused on
the right problem. It is also important to determine whether existing
environmental regulatory programs are keeping pace with a grow-
ing population and its needs.
Often, early in the evaluation, a priority problem will be identified
for early action. This action can proceed while the rest of the
evaluation continues. Once this evaluation has been completed,
the Management Conference summarizes the findings. These
findings will help form the base of information needed to develop
additional control strategies and to recommend initiatives.
The characterization report or series of problem-specific charac-
terization reports is a public education tool. Because it describes
the estuary's problems objectively and lays out a range of potential
solutions, the report must be widely read and understood. Scientific
and technical findings and reports must be summarized in lay terms
and presented clearly, using fact sheets and visual aids. The
citizens advisory committee and public participation staff should be
enlisted to help make the characterization report meaningful to the
citizenry. The report's findings should also be presented at meet-
ings and workshops for the public and for the mass media.
The characterization report tells the story of the state of the estu-
ary. It describes both spatial and temporal changes that have been
caused by human activity; natural climatic, biological, and physical
changes; and occasional major natural events. The report high-
lights the way the estuary used to be, the way it is today, and the
way it might become if current trends continue.
Population trends are an important part of the report. Significant
population growth usually leads to increased withdrawal of fresh
water. Population growth also results in additional needs for
sewage treatment; greater runoff from paved surfaces, construc-
tion, and agricultural activity; and more pollution from commerce
and industry.
The characterization report is a public educa-
tion tool... that sets the stage for the for-
mulation of the CCMP and its action plans.
The characterization report describes changes in land-use pat-
terns, such as reductions in cropland, pastures, and forested areas.
Water quantity and flow levels needed to sustain important resour-
Characterization
Report
37
-------
ces may also be addressed in the report. Hydrological information
will be included. There may no longer be a free exchange of fresh
and ocean waters. Pollutants may be trapped in the estuary,
accumulating and changing the balance and function of the ecosys-
tem. The report describes the estuary's major problems and sug-
gests possible solutions based on objective evidence.
Besides depicting the physical, chemical, and biological state of the
estuary, the characterization report assesses whether existing
institutional mechanisms are appropriate in light of the estuarine
system. The report addresses current laws, regulatory programs,
and governmental and nongovernmental institutions, pointing to
gaps and needs for new authorities and efforts. It may suggest a
more strenuous set of standards and criteria, stepped up enforce-
ment actions, or even a new regulatory agency.
The characterization report sets the stage for formulating the
CCMP and its action strategies. Therefore, all participants in the
Management Conference must be fully informed. They must un-
derstand the story the report tells and its implications for the future.
38
-------
Chapter IV
The Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan
A Blueprint for Action
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan,
developed by the Management Conference, is a blueprint for
restoring and maintaining an estuary. It identifies the most pressing
problems in an estuary and establishes goals and objectives for
resolving them. The CCMP prescribes specific actions to protect
and enhance the estuary and its water and sediment quality, living
resources, and surrounding land and water resources.
Section 320(b) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 directs
Management Conferences to develop "a comprehen-
sive conservation and management plan that recom-
mends priority corrective actions and compliance
schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of
pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physi-
cal, and biological integrity of the estuary, including
restoration and maintenance of water quality, a
balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife, and recreational activities in the estuary, and
assure that the designated uses of the estuary are
protected
The first task of the Management Conference is to summarize the
characterization findings in "plain English." Characterization
describes the estuary's problems and, where possible, links
problems to causes and sources. It includes an analysis of institu-
tions and geographical impacts for each problem that will be
addressed. The conferees may then debate the merits of each
problem and determine which ones will be the focus of the CCMP.
These are called priority problems.
Characterization findings form the basis for developing the environ-
mental quality goals and objectives that each Conference estab-
lishes for the estuary. Once these goals and objectives have been
set, the Conference develops specific action plans to achieve them.
Developing a
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
39
-------
Components of a
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
The action plans, which are the core of the CCMP, may address
water and sediment quality, living resources, land and water resour-
ces, population growth, public access, or governance. They may
focus on toxicants, pathogens, eutrophication, habitat loss or
modification, another specific problem, or even a cause. Implemen-
tation activities are built into the action plans. Some action plans
may be developed early, before the rest of the CCMP is developed,
in response to a known priority problem. In fact, a CCMP could be,
in effect, a series of action plans.
Implementing action plans is the key to estuary cleanup. To help
ensure implementation, therefore, the following steps are recom-
mended for developing the CCMP:
• Disseminate and discuss the characterization findings with af-
fected parties in the watershed.
• Continue public information and involvement efforts to ensure
support for the CCMP.
• Integrate and coordinate all activities for CCMP development
and implementation; work with affected jurisdictions, agencies,
and programs.
• Select, by Conference consensus, priority problems to be ad-
dressed in the CCMP.
• Establish, by Conference consensus, environmental quality
goals and objectives for the estuary.
• Evaluate and select management activities.
• Prepare action plans for controlling pollution and managing
resources.
• Secure commitments to implement action plans.
• Periodically review, evaluate, and redirect efforts as necessary
while action plans are being carried out.
The centerpiece of the CCMP consists of action plans for attaining
the goals and objectives set by the Management Conference.
Figure 4.1 depicts the relationship among the CCMP components
and the process the Management Conference should use to con-
duct an estuary program. Table 4.1 presents the essential com-
ponents in a CCMP.
Table 4.1 .—CCMP Components
"Plain English" summary ol the characterization findings
Statement of priority problems to be addressed in the CCMP
Environmental quality goals and objectives for the estuary
Actions plans for achieving goals and objectives
40
-------
Management Conference
Program
Integration:
Provide f9r
coordinating
other existing
public and
private
activities
Research:
Identify needs
and initiate
studies
Phase 1 -
Phase 2 —
Planning Initiative:
Establish Framework
for Decision Making
Characterization and
Problem Definition
Public
Information and
Involvement:
Establish
ongoing
program
Phase 3 - COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (CCMP)
COMPONENTS
Summary of Characterization Findings
Priority Problems
Monitoring:
Initiate
short-term
and provide
for long-term
activities
Environmental Quality
Goals and Objectives
Phase 4 — Implementation of
the CCMP
Figure 4.1 Relationship Among the CCMP Components
and the Management Conference Process.
The characterization report developed during Phase 2 describes
the estuary's current condition, historical trends, and projected
future conditions (Chapter III). A summary of the report's findings
is an important part of the CCMP. The summary highlights the most
significant problems in the estuary. Subsequently, action plans will
be directed toward abating one or several of these problems. The
summary is also an important tool for public education and par-
ticipation. It is a springboard for building consensus for the CCMP
and its implementation. Characterization summaries may take the
form of issue papers or fact sheets on one or several key problems.
Whatever the form, however, it is critical that the public understand
and accept the problem as real and needing to be addressed.
A Summary of the
Characterization
Findings
41
-------
Priority Problems
Addressed in the
CCMP
Although the characterization report may include all the problems
that were identified in the estuary, the Conference must select
those that the CCMP will actually address. This selection process
entails considering costs and benefits. It also requires assessing
the length of time for problem resolution and the likely success of
efforts. Using the criteria in Table 4.2, the conferees then rank
priority problems. After conferees have developed and recom-
mended a remedial course of action for the highest ranked
problems, other problems can be addressed.
Table 4.2.—Selection Criteria for Priority Problems
• Does the problem affect a number of resources and/or uses of the
estuary?
• Does the problem adversely affect public health?
• Does the problem have a systemwide impact?
• Does the problem have a number of major local impacts of high
priority to the general public?
• Is the problem of great concern to the public, major users, and
political leaders?
• Can the problem be corrected through timely institutional or
regulatory mechanisms?
• Can the problem be controlled at reasonable cost with existing
technology?
• Does the problem require further research, thereby precluding
immediate action?
An obvious problem may be addressed early in the program, even
before characterization. If the problem and a proposed action for
adressing it meet the criteria set for an Action Plan Demonstration
Project, funding can be sought from EPA. Such a project would
have to demonstrate the effectiveness of a small-scale remedial
strategy, while providing information that could be applied basin-
wide. Another problem may be addressed because of early backing
from a state legislature. But certain problems may be so complex
that abatement or cleanup could consume all of an estuary
program's resources. In these cases, the Conference should ex-
plore other funding sources. Some estuary programs may rely on
creative financing, while others may redirect existing resources to
a priority problem or tap funds held by Conference members.
(Information on funding alternatives is included in Appendix E.)
Setting priorities requires great effort. After the characterization
report has been released, the Conference holds workshops, meet-
ings, and media briefings to educate all affected publics. The CAC,
LGC, and STAC explain the characterization findings, and the
management committee hears the concerns of citizens groups,
local officials, users, and the regulatory community.
Figure 4.2 depicts a problems/causes matrix used to help present
the characterization findings. It identifies problems and causes
typically found in an estuary. The matrix may be a useful tool for
explaining problems and determining priority problems.
42
-------
^~~-\^^ Causes
Problems ^~~\^
Toxicants
Pathogens
Eutrophication
Habitat Loss/
Modification
Changes in
Living Resources
Other
POINT SOURCES
Industrial
Sources-
Direct
Industrial
Sources-
Indirect
POTW's
CSO's
Storm
Water
Animal
Feed lots
NONPOINT SOURCES
Agri-
culture
Urban
Mining
Silvi-
culture
Construc-
tion
Septic
Landfills
In-Place
Sediments
Atmo-
sphere
Ground
Water
OTHER
Shipping
&
Mannas
Dredging
Operations
Shoreline
Develop
creshwater
Flow
Sea-Level
Rise
Other
Figure 4.2 National Estuary Program Problems/Causes Matrix
CO
-------
Environmental
Quality Goals and
Objectives for the
Estuary
Setting Goals
Based on public feedback and other selection criteria, the manage-
ment committee then recommends which priority problems should
be the focus of the CCMP. The policy committee is responsible for
adopting management committee recommendations and for secur-
ing commitments of local, state, and federal resources to solve the
problems. A well-presented and understandable characterization
report and summary documents can help to enlist these critical
commitments.
When Congress established the National Estuary Program under
the Water Quality Act, it mandated the restoration and maintenance
of the nation's estuaries. The law provides that estuarine produc-
tivity is to be assured, and the needs of an array of users are to be
accommodated. The Management Conference is charged with
achieving this intricate balance by setting broad environmental
quality goals that comply with the mandate of the Act and should
reflect the will of the people.
Goals, Objectives, and Action Plans
GOALS are broad, long-term aims the Management Conference sets
for the estuary.
OBJECTIVES are more specific, shorter-term targets for attaining
goals.
ACTION PLANS are detailed programs for meeting goals and objec-
tives, indicating who, what, where, when, and how the plans will be
carried out.
Goals are usually long term and broad in scope. The Conference
establishes overall goals related to the desired condition for the
estuary and its segments. To determine what goals the public
wants to attain and will support, the Management Conference
presents options for public discussion. These may range from
maintaining current conditions to restoring the estuary to a past
condition, or to restoring or maintaining pristine quality.
In one tributary where Whitewater sports are popular, for example,
the goal might be to maintain a pristine condition. In an industrial-
ized segment, it might be to maintain the current condition by
preventing further degradation. In yet another segment, the goal
might be to restore wetlands to a previous, healthier condition.
Setting goals requires the public to understand the effects of
population growth. Everyone must be aware that the needs of a
growing population increase pollutant loads, foster industrial and
commercial development, and create additional demands on water
use. The consequences of population growth may be habitat
modification and further environmental degradation.
44
-------
Setting Objectives
Environmental quality objectives, unlike goals, are specific and
shorter term. They are aimed at achieving broader, longer term
goals. Achievable through the implementation of specific action
plans, objectives generally reflect the environmental criteria, the
preferred uses, or the elimination of use impairments that the
Conference considers appropriate and desirable for various es-
tuarine segments. Objectives undoubtedly will vary from one seg-
ment to another. Typically, they are established on the basis of
preferred uses, standards, and permit activities to improve water
quality. But objectives may also be based on changes in environ-
mental indicators, such as diseased fish.
One of the goals in the Chesapeake Bay Program, for example, is
to reduce point and nonpoint sources of pollution to improve water
quality, thus sustaining the bay's living resources. Some 16 objec-
tives have been set to reach that goal. Included is a commitment
from Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Colum-
bia to develop, adopt, and implement a basinwide plan that would
reduce, by 40 percent, the nutrients entering the bay. Actions to
meet this objective by the year 2000 began in 1988.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority provides another illus-
stration of setting goals and objectives. One of the Authority's
long-term goals is to protect consumers of shellfish from conta-
minants, maintain and enhance the abundance of shellfish, and
control pollution so that closed shellfish beds can be reopened and
additional closures prevented.
To safeguard consumers and shellfish, the Authority has set
specific objectives and taken action to achieve them. Attaining one
objective, the Puget Sound Authority is developing stormwater
control programs that will reduce pollutant loadings from
stormwater and combined sewer overflows. Besides instituting
pollution control programs to protect and restore shellfish, it is
testing for toxicants in certain shellfish beds. The Authority is also
extending monitoring and certification efforts. In addition, it is
attempting to further public education and involvement in the
protection of shellfish, and to identify funding sources for shellfish
protection programs. The Authority aims at prevention, not just
remediation.
To help achieve environmental goals and objectives, the Manage-
ment Conference develops action plans directed toward specific
priority problems. Action plans may address the management
areas, as shown in Table 4.3, or problems or causes such as those
on the matrix in Figure 4.2. An action plan for a known problem may
be implemented before the full CCMP is developed and adopted,
but it is still considered a part of the CCMP. A CCMP usually
contains more than one action plan.
Action Plans for
Controlling Pollution
and Managing
Resources
45
-------
Table 4.3.—Focus of Action Plans by Management Area such as:
• Water and sediment quality: pollution abatement and control. Action
plans focus on point and nonpoint sources.
• Living resources management, including specially protected areas. Ac-
tion plans focus on protection and restoration.
• Land use and water resources management. Action plans focus on set
asides as well as special protective legislation and initiatives.
• Population growth. Action plans may address local zoning restrictions
or sewage treatment hookups.
• Public access. Action plans may focus on zoning, pier and beach use,
and shoreline development requirements.
• Governance. Action plans focus on new and existing institutions or
creative management.
As the Management Conference designs the CCMP, it will consider
the universe of management activities to meet its goals and objec-
tives. Because water management problems are widespread,
programs around the country have tried various measures to tackle
problems. Many of these measures have worked successfully. The
National Estuary Program handbook, Saving Bays and Estuaries:
A Handbook of Tactics, describes various methods estuary
programs have used to manage specific environmental problems.
This handbook, available from the EPA Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection, is designed to provide assistance to Con-
ferences as they assess and select management activities.
The steps to follow in preparing an action plan appear in Table 4.4.
At least one specific action plan should be developed for each
problem the Conference elects to address. Examples of action
plans addressing typical problems are presented in this chapter.
Table 4.4.—Action Plan Steps
1. State the problem, identifying the probable causes and
sources.
2. State the program goals related to the problem, source,
or cause.
3. Set specific objectives to attain the goals.
4. Determine the universe of possible management ac-
tivities, both new and existing, for consideration.
5. Select the activity that will work, that the public will sup-
port, and that can be implemented within reasonable
time and resources.
6. Establish specific action plans needed to abate and con-
trol the problem or protect the resource. Each action
plan addresses:
• WHO: Identify who will act, pay, and enforce; spell out roles and
resource commitments for each participating agency, institution,
and enterprise.
• WHAT: Describe what will be done. For example, specify numerical-
ly based load reductions and use designations in this location;
describe what specific activities are necessary to reach them.
• WHERE: Describe the location this action will affect.
• WHEN: Include schedules.
• HOW: Outline the procedure used to perform this activity.
• HOW MUCH: Cost-out the action and from where the funding will
come.
7. Implement and monitor results.
8. Report on progress, costs, and results.
9. Review, re-evaluate, and redirect as needed.
46
-------
Table 4.5.—Steps in Approaching Action Plans
• Identify problem of concern — > Set objectives aimed at causes or
sources.
• Assess source control programs •
tional actions.
••> Improve programs through addi-
• Review laws and regulations affecting problem —> Enforce, modify,
propose new ones.
• Examine institutions —> Improve management.
• Review designated uses — > Revise to protect human health, water
and sediment quality, living resources, and other concerns.
• Consider universe of management activities — > Select highest rank-
ing activities.
• Develop action plans — > Set schedules; get commitments.
• Prepare a funding strategy — > Determine costs and funding sources.
• Implement — > Monitor, review, revise, refine, and redirect as neces-
sary.
As stated above, some action plans may focus on management
areas such as water and sediment quality, living resources, land
use, water resources, population growth, public access, or gover-
nance. Others may address specific pollution problems and their
causes or sources. Each estuary may take a different approach,
yet still develop an action agenda that solves a similar problem. It
is best to consider, through "brainstorming," a myriad of ap-
proaches and actions. Also, consider any negative impacts one
approach might have on another resource. The bottom line, how-
ever, is mitigating the problem and restoring the estuary's health.
Table 4.5 outlines a general approach that may be used.
To suggest an approach to improved water and sediment quality,
consider the full range of point and nonpoint source controls. Point
sources of pollution, which expel nutrients, toxics, suspended
solids, and microorganisms, usually are abated by limiting the
discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) permit program. This program requires pretreating
effluents, upgrading treatment technology, reducing concentra-
tions of pollutants in the effluent, and properly maintaining and
operating all equipment at both municipal and industrial plants.
Improved management and enforcement of permit programs will
most likely be important for controlling point source loadings in an
estuary.
Like point sources, nonpoint sources consist of nutrients, toxics,
sediments, and bacteria. Instead of being discharged from an
outflow pipe of an industrial or sewage treatment plant, however,
these pollutants run off the land. Nutrients and toxics usually come
from agricultural land and from urban streets. Sediment is eroded
from agricultural and urban sources and from construction sites.
Animal and human wastes contribute to high bacterial levels. In
addition, groundwater discharges may contain contaminants.
Many management practices can be used to control nonpoint
sources of pollution. Referred to as best management practices,
they range from planting cover vegetation and forests to reducing
Approaches to Action
Controlling Point
and Nonpoint
Sources
47
-------
Protecting Living Resources
the use of lawn fertilizer in urban and suburban neighborhoods and
cleaning city streets. They may also include requiring NPDES
permits for sources not traditionally considered point sources.
Construction activities, animal feedlots, storm drains, car washes,
and laundry facilities, for instance, may be issued permits. In
addition, EPA is issuing stormwater permitting regulations and a
national combined sewer overflow (CSO) permitting strategy.
A Management Conference should look at as many management
options as possible if living resources management is a goal. An
estuary's living resources range from fish and their spawning
habitat to microscopic phyto- and zooplankton at the bottom of the
food chain. Waterfowl and marshlands adjacent to the estuary are
also estuarine resources.
Through the public participation program and the scientific charac-
terization effort, the Management Conference determines which
natural resources are of greatest public concern and which ones
are critical to maintaining and restoring the stability and diversity of
the ecosystem. The public often measures an estuary's health by
the state of its living resources. Citizens may voice concern, for
example, if a particular living resource like striped bass, oysters, or
waterfowl is declining. An action plan can be directed to this popular
resource, while contributing to the enhancement of the estuarine system.
Declines in living resources usually indicate a greater problem;
therefore, the cause must be determined. Poor waterquality is often
the reason. Destruction of habitat or modification of spawning,
nursery, and forage areas also stresses fish and wildlife. Overfish-
ing and overharvesting, along with natural climatic changes and
disease, may further affect living resources.
Generally, the causes of a declining species or altered habitat are
complex. Although some causes may have been identified during
characterization, others may require additional study. In any case,
because the recovery period for living resources is long, interim
steps aimed at suspected causes may be in order. Additional
actions can follow once the actual causes have been discovered.
The preservation of living resources may require using an array of
protective strategies. It may be necessary, for example, to control
commercial and recreational catches. Wildlife and wetlands or
other habitats may also need immediate protection.
Enhancement strategies may be considered to supplement protec-
tive strategies. These include stocking hatcheries, planting wet-
lands or underwater grasses, and initiating aquacultural programs.
Obviously, such enhancements will require water and sediment of
acceptable quality.
In its planning to protect and restore living resources, the Con-
ference should also consider special protection areas, such as
those set aside under federal, state, regional, and local programs.
Some waters that have exceptionally significant recreational or
ecological features may warrant special protection. Antidegrada-
tion policies may be developed for these waters. Other measures
to protect exceptional areas include setting higher standards,
severely restricting waste inputs, designating no-discharge areas,
48
-------
or limiting shoreline development. Such areas may be slated as
high priorities for study and monitoring.
Protection and enhancement of living resources require public
understanding, not only of what is happening to the resource and
why, but of the time necessary for recovery. The ecosystem's
response to improvements will not occur overnight. Organisms will
need time to re-establish themselves through natural propagation
or through human intervention like developing aquaculture or
hatcheries. The quality of the estuary will, however, have to be able
to sustain living resources.
After the Conference has reviewed and selected management
activities, it designs, writes, and enacts action plans. To protect and
enhance a living resource such as submerged aquatic vegetation,
an action plan will likely address improvements in water and
sediment quality first. Replenishing grasses can then be con-
sidered. Table 4.6 outlines a preliminary plan of action to correct
the loss of submerged grasses.
Table 4.6.—CCMP Action Plan Outline for Loss of
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
PROBLEM Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation in two major
tributaries due to increased turbidity and sedimen-
tation from nonpoint sources.
PROGRAM GOAL
OBJECTIVES
CCMP ACTIONS
Within One Year:
Within Two Years:
Within Three Years:
LEAD
RESPONSIBILITY
COOPERATING
AGENCIES
RESOURCES
Restore submerged aquatic vegetation beds to
1950 levels in identified tributaries.
Reduce nonpoint source nutrient and sediment
loadings to each tributary.
Re-establish submerged aquatic vegetation where
water quality and clarity are sufficient to support it.
Survey tributaries and identify areas where water
and sediment quality is sufficient to support sub-
merged aquatic vegetation.
Identify groundwater discharges impacting the es-
tuary.
Identify tributary segments with highest nonpoint
source loadings of nutrients and sediments.
Develop a nonpoint source control program for
each segment, setting targets for load reductions.
Develop and implement revegetation programs for
selected segments.
Develop and implement systemwide survey
methodology for submerged aquatic vegetation.
Conduct annual surveys.
Full implementation of nonpoint source control pro-
gram for selected segments.
Monitor segments for improvements in water
quality.
State department of natural resources and water
pollution control agency.
Environmental Protection Agency, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service.
Public and private organizations to conduct annual
surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation to supple-
ment aerial surveys.
$500,000 annually for revegetation program com-
mitted by state legislature.
Redirection of existing resources and new funding
of nonpoint source abatement and control
programs in selected tributaries, agreed to by
state/EPA. SCS to target special control projects in
key tributaries.
49
-------
Table 4.7 CCMP Action Plan Outline to Protect Wetlands*
PROBLEM More than half of the wetlands along the coasts and
riverbanks of Puget Sound have been destroyed by
human activity: primarily agriculture and industrial
activity and commercial and residential development.
PROGRAM GOAL To ensure that the most important wetlands of the
Puget Sound Basin are preserved in perpetuity and
that degradation of other valuable wetlands is mini-
mized.
OBJECTIVES 1. Identify those critical wetlands that should be
preserved and either purchase or, through another
mechanism, safeguard them.
2. Require local governments to develop local wet-
land protection programs that meet state standards.
3. Develop and implement a program to protect wet-
lands on state-owned uplands and aquatic lands.
4. Develop and implement a long-range wetlands
education strategy.
ACTION #1: Criteria Development and Program Planning
Who: Department of Ecology (lead); Departments of Natural
Resources, Fisheries, and Wildlife. A work group repre-
senting government and a balance of key citizen inter-
ests is evaluating funding sources.
What: (a) Prepare detailed criteria for selection of wetlands
to be preserved.
(b) Evaluate techniques and mechanisms for their
preservation such as acquisition, conservation ease-
ments, transfer of development rights.
When: Criteria and techniques for preservation by 9/88;
marine and estuarine components by 12/89.
ACTION #2: Identification of Wetlands to Be Preserved
Who: State agencies.
What: (a) Develop preliminary list of already identified wet-
lands.
(b) Identify additional areas meeting criteria set in #1.
(c) Hold public workshops to educate and encourage
citizens to participate in selection process.
When: Final list by 4/90.
ACTION #3: Wetlands Preservation
What: (a) Develop management standards.
(b) Prepare a preservation strategy for each site.
When: Initial acquisitions by 8/88; site strategies by 12/90.
ACTION #4: State Rules for Wetlands Protection
What: Develop rules prescribing minimum standards for
local wetlands, including schedules.
When: 5/89.
ACTION #5: Local Program Development
ACTION #6: State Wetlands Protection
ACTION #7: Wetlands Education
PROGRAM COSTS$4.7 million in FY 1990; $3.9 million in FY 1991; ap-
proximately $3.5 million a year thereafter. It is es-
timated that wetlands acquisition, the greatest portion
of these monies, will cost about $2.5 million each year
and could be financed from bond sales, state capital
construction budget, and other sources identified by
the working group.
*For complete plan, see 1987 Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan.
50
-------
Protecting Land and
Water Resources
To manage the use of land and water in the watershed, the
Conference must determine why these resources are being adver-
sely affected and how to prevent further major loss. Natural causes
may be responsible for some of the loss. Other forces beyond the
Conference's control, such as overwhelming demands from
dramatic growth in population, may be the cause. A serious drought
in a watershed with an already overextended supply of surface
water may take many years to overcome. Planning ahead may help
to reduce additional losses of land and water resources. In Puget
Sound, for example, the loss of wetlands from human activity is a
major concern. To preserve the remaining wetlands, the Puget
Sound program is taking actions as briefly outlined in Table 4.7.
The Management Conference can use existing regulatory
programs and other mechanisms to control land and water uses.
Among those worth considering are federal, state, and local special
protective laws and set aside programs that employ provisions of
the following legislation and programs:
• Clean Water Act Section 208 planning, Section 303 desig-
nated use authority, and Section 404 permitting authority;
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act;
• Endangered Species Act;
• Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act;
• Historic Preservation Act;
• 1985 Farm Bill "swampbuster" provisions;
• Private and public land banks, including agricultural ease-
ments, conservation easements, wildlife refuges, and parks;
• Groundwater strategy;
• Critical, exceptional, or sensitive areas protective legislation;
• Wellhead protection program;
• Local zoning ordinances; and
• EPA and state antidegradation policies for water quality.
If, for example, freshwater inflow has been identified as a problem
in the estuary, initiating conservation measures, developing reser-
voirs, or eliminating freshwater diversion to maintain minimum
flows may be useful. Estuaries must often compete for fresh water.
Needs for municipal water, hydroelectric power, and agricultural
irrigation projects must be balanced against the needs of an
estuary.
Because the nation's population is growing rapidly in coastal areas,
it has become increasingly necessary to plan to protect land and
water resources. Unless protective measures are adopted, popula-
tion pressure and changing land use patterns undoubtedly will lead
to further degradation of these resources.
In addressing problems of population growth, public access, or
governance, all conceivable management and regulatory ap-
51
-------
Table 4.8. CCMP Action Plan Outline for Controlling Metals:
Copper, Nickel, Lead
1. State the problem, identifying the probable causes and sources. (The
matrix was used to help select the problem.)
• Elevated levels of copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb).
• Environmental indicator-quahog tissue.
• Cu levels are believed to be from background, plumbing, and
point sources; Ni from electroplating, POTW, and two tributaries;
Pb from CSOs, URO, POTWs, and perhaps atmospheric deposition.
2. State the program goals related to the problem, source, or cause.
• To reduce levels enough to meet public health-based standards.
3. Set specific objectives to obtain the goals.
• To eliminate CSOs.
• To tighten the pretreatment program.
• To set load reductions (such as by 70% by 1995).
4. Determine the universe of management strategies, both new and ex-
isting, to consider.
(The following list might represent the result of brainstorming exer-
cises with committees. It includes existing programs and new initia-
tives.)
• 304(1) program (toxics control strategy)
• hazardous waste disposal program
• national CSO strategy
• regional/local CSO strategy
• stormwater management regulations
• legislated load strategy
• tax on dischargers
• pretreatment program enforcement
• tax on leaded gas
• low-cost loans for upgrading factories
5. Select the activity that will work, that the public will support, and that
can be implemented within reasonable time and resources.
(The following are selected as part of a major public participation ef-
fort.)
• Enforce existing pretreatment permits.
• Create a CSO permit program.
• Legislate a surtax on leaded gas.
6. Establish specific action plans needed to abate and control the prob-
lem or protect the resource. Each action plan addresses:
WHO: Identify who will act, pay, and enforce; spell out roles and
resource commitments for each participating agency, institution,
and enterprise.
• Environmental regulatory agency with oversight authority for
POTWs CSOs.
• State legislature (Agency would draft model law, working with oil
industry and station operators; or, petition to referendum): Tax on
gas.
WHAT: Describe what will be done. For example, specify numeri-
cally-based load reductions and use-designations in this location;
describe what specific activities are necessary to reach them, includ-
ing random monitoring and spot checking on effluents.
• Develop a schedule and monitor compliance with pretreatment:
CSOs.
• Pass law: Tax on gas.
WHERE: Describe the location this action will affect.
WHEN: Include schedules.
HOW: Outline the procedure used to perform this activity.
HOW MUCH: Cost-out the action and from where the funding could
realistically come.
• Develop estimates, such as $5 million over five years, using costs
above and beyond normal compliance and oversight costs.
7. Implement and monitor results.
• Implementation would be ensured by signed agreements between
the RA and the Governor.
• Monitoring would include streams as well as larger receiving
waters.
8. Report on progress, costs and results.
9. Review, re-evaluate, and redirect as needed.
52
-------
proaches should be considered. Then, as part of a public forum,
determine what will work, what the public and political climate will
bear, and what can be implemented within reasonable time and
resources.
The Management Conference may use an instrument, such as the
problems/causes matrix in Figure 4.2, to help determine the focus
of an action plan. This kind of tool may be useful in presenting to
the public a range of problems and causes or sources for the
selection of issues to address. For instance, the matrix may help
focus attention on the adverse impacts caused by toxics, organics,
or metals.
At a September 1988 workshop, for example, a group of estuary
program managers assisted Narragansett Bay project leaders in
developing a preliminary action plan. Using the matrix as a starting
point, the group selected an attack on high levels of copper, lead,
and nickel for a plan of action. The group prepared the sample,
preliminary action plan that appears as Table 4.8. This action plan
is being considered to help set the stage for the development of an
actual plan by Rhode Island citizens and agencies. Although the
action plan outline focuses on metals, it can be adapted for any
pollutants.
Whatever approach is taken to develop actions, it is essential that
the public and local governments participate actively. A brainstorm-
ing process is one suggested method for involving small groups of
people in identifying and setting priorities for management or
regulatory actions. Other community involvement processes and
techniques, such as workshops, charettes, and conferences, can
be used as well. However, those who will ultimately pay to imple-
ment actions will need to be part of the process and accept the
actions.
After the CCMP is approved by the Management Conference, it
must be submitted for the approval of the EPA Administrator and
the state governor.
Controlling Pollutants
53
-------
Chapter V
Implementing the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan
Every estuary program strives for the ultimate goal of restoring the
estuary to a better condition. The process described in this Primer
is designed to meet this end. But, even if everything is done right,
CCMPs themselves will not protect and restore the estuary. The
CCMP actions must be implemented.
Throughout this document, public involvement and support have
been stressed. Political commitments have been emphasized. It
has been stated that each action plan must identify who pays.
These are the keys to implementation.
Implementation must be built into each action plan. However,
implementation need not wait until a formal CCMP is submitted and
approved by the EPA Administrator. If an action receives com-
munity support and funding can be secured, then implementation
should begin. Implementation of an action should proceed at any
point in the process that is possible, legally supportable, and makes
sense. Implementing an action can be a local, state, or federal
decision. Funds can come from a court settlement, a state or federal
appropriation, or even private sources. Creating funding sources
can be a challenge in itself. To ensure funding, however, a funding
strategy should be part of the CCMP or each action plan. (Appendix
E addresses funding alternatives.)
This primer has stressed the importance of informing and involving
the public throughout the life of the estuary program. To ensure
public participation, a well-designed public participation strategy
needs to be developed as an outgrowth of early Management
Conference activities. The strategy should present ways to inform
the public. It should describe methods for soliciting the concerns
and opinions of affected persons and organized groups essential
to the collaborative problem-solving and decision-making proces-
ses. It should be designed to mobilize support for the CCMP and
its implementation.
Funding
A Plan for Public
Information and
Involvement
55
-------
Program
Integration
and Coordination
The Water Quality Act, in fact, specifically mandates that public
participation must be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by
EPA and the states. In an estuary program, opportunities to inform
and involve the citizenry occur through the CAC, but are broadened
by a public participation program that develops educational
materials, conferences, workshops, and public meetings.
Public acceptance, or informed consent, is necessary for CCMP
implementation. The public, after all, pays for cleanup. Public
pressure helps to ensure that federal, state, and local commitments
for program implementation are met. Moreover, restoration and
maintenance of an estuary is a long and arduous task. It requires
public appreciation of the estuary's value for the citizens of today
and tomorrow. (For guidance on how to develop a public participa-
tion program, see Appendix B.)
The key to successful implementation of the CCMP may well be
the influence of the EPA Administrator, affected state governors,
and local elected officials. Through their efforts, the expertise and
resources of other governmental programs — at federal, state, and
local levels—can be applied to this effort. But these officials cannot
carry the burden alone.
During all four phases of an estuary program, coordination among
jurisdictions, agencies, and existing programs is vital. This is par-
ticularly important when responsibility for devising action plans is
assigned. The Water Quality Act specifically requires that plans be
drawn for coordinated CCMP implementation by the states as well
as by federal and local agencies participating in the Conference.
Each action plan, therefore, not only delineates roles and respon-
sibilities for Conference participants, but also provides for the
resource commitments to carry out the plan.
A specific role has been assigned under the Act to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At the EPA
Administrator's request, NOAA is authorized to conduct monitoring
and research activities. Although the Act does not specify roles for
other federal agencies, they may also be involved in estuarine
protection.
In addition, many federal statutes address this concern. Among
them are the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act;
Coastal Zone Management Act; Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; 1985
Farm Bill; Safe Drinking Water Act; Clean Air Act; and Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(known as Superfund).
State laws and regulatory programs also affect the restoration and
maintenance of estuaries. Many counties and other local sub-
divisions are engaged in similar efforts as well. Each estuary
program identifies and includes local, state, federal, and non-
governmental programs that are or could be involved in this effort.
The CCMP must consider, however, already established regulatory
time frames, such as NPDES permit review cycles.
56
-------
Each Management Conference evaluates all the existing environ-
mental control programs affecting the estuary to be sure they are
consistent with the goals and objectives set for the estuary. This
evaluation, which begins during the characterization phase, leads
to the identification of mechanisms that may enhance each
program's effectiveness. On the other hand, an assessment of
existing programs may indicate that environmental quality cannot
be achieved without major new activities or programs, laws, or
institutions. An evaluation assumes the cooperation of all agencies;
its results may depend upon it.
As implementation of an action plan proceeds, each activity is
reviewed, evaluated, and redirected as necessary. Therefore, a
schedule for Management Conference review, evaluation, and
redirection of action plans is built into the CCMP. As each activity
is reviewed, crucial data resulting from scientific research and
monitoring are considered.
Generally, data gathering, research, and monitoring are initiated
during the characterization phase since new and existing informa-
tion is required to identify estuarine problems and their causes. For
some problems, scientific activities may continue for years. The
CCMP action plans, therefore, should specify what additional re-
search is needed. CCMPs should also provide for ongoing monitor-
ing. The Water Quality Act requires monitoring of all implemented
actions to determine their effectiveness. Monitoring, therefore,
goes hand-in-hand with implementation.
Monitoring needs are identified as part of each action plan. As
actions are implemented, monitoring begins. Monitoring, which is
an essential part of the review and evaluation process, continues
throughout the implementation phase to measure effects of actions
and indicate any new trends. Results of monitoring may demonstrate
a need to redirect efforts.
Although the states are primarily responsible for monitoring results
of actions, the Management Conference may ask for EPA's assistance.
EPA may, in turn, enlist NOAA's support as provided under the Act.
In addition, to assist in monitoring, citizens have been recruited by
some programs. Appendix F describes citizen monitoring efforts.
As noted earlier, research efforts in an estuary generally consist of
applied science. Research may be short or long term. Some
problems identified through characterization may require long-term
research, while others can be alleviated through more immediate
abatement activities. As research results clarify a problem, the
Conference may initiate a new program or modify an existing effort.
EPA, NOAA, other federal agencies, state and local governments,
educational institutions, and various private- and public-sector
groups may sponsor research.
Periodic Review,
Evaluation, and
Redirection
Establishing a
Monitoring
Program
Providing for Research
57
-------
Modifying the CCMP
Implementation
Because the CCMP is a flexible management tool, it permits an
estuary program to adapt to changing circumstances and to apply
the lessons learned by experience. Some CCMP actions may be
unsuccessful. New data may reveal unforeseen problems. Earlier
assumptions may have been incorrect, and technological advance
may enhance cleanup capabilities. The resolution of some
problems will free resources to tackle others.
Furthermore, even though the CCMP is a document reflecting
consensus, conflicts among jurisdictions, agencies at various
governmental levels, and the public are inevitable. These will need
to be resolved, possibly by modifying the plan.
Scientific evidence and public backing are vital for estuary restora-
tion and protection. Developing a comprehensive series of actions
aimed at cleanup is also essential. But it takes money and political
will to make cleanup and preservation a reality. As part of the
CCMP, the Management Conference ensures that funding sources
are identified and that participating parties commit their moral
support, political muscle, and financial resources to implementa-
tion. Agreements to this effect are required. The Administrator's
approval and the governor's concurrence lend additional impor-
tance to the CCMP. Funds authorized under the Act, along with
state and local resources, further support CCMP implementation.
Implementation has been a recurrent theme throughout the primer.
Action plans are essentially implementation activities, and may be
initiated before the CCMP receives formal approval. In such cases,
funding may come from the National Estuary Program, from
Management Conference participants, or other sources.
Implementation of some CCMP activities will certainly take longer
than the five years the Water Quality Act allocates for a Manage-
ment Conference. Therefore, the Act provides that the Manage-
ment Conference may be extended or reconvened to oversee
implementation, redress problems, and address additional con-
cerns. In reality, it may take decades to restore and maintain those
unique and fragile resources: the nation's estuaries.
58
-------
Appendix A
Federal Financial Assistance Under the
National Estuary Program
This appendix of A Primer for Establishing and Manag-
ing Estuary Projects provides guidance on how to
apply for and process federal assistance agreements.
The Primer, which describes the National Estuary
Program's origins, statutory provisions, and approach,
is designed for EPA's programs and regional offices,
coastal states, and other interested parties. For more
information, contact an EPA regional office.
Section 320(g) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 authorizes EPA to
award federal financial assistance to develop Comprehensive Con-
servation and Management Plans (CCMPs) under the National
Estuary Program. Projects geared to formulating CCMPs are
described in five-year State-EPA Conference Agreements and in
more specific Annual Work Plans developed by Management
Conferences, which the EPA Administrator convenes. This appen-
dix outlines guidance for eligible applicants and estuary program
managers. It provides information on the following application and
review procedures:
• Estuary work plans;
• Types of projects;
• Who is eligible;
• Types of assistance;
• Selection criteria;
• How to apply;
• Review process;
• Timeframes; and
• How to get more information.
Applying for
Assistance
A1
-------
Estuary Work Plans
Five-Year and Annual
Work Plans
Establishing long-term and annual estuary work plans ensures the
efficiency and coordination essential to the collaborative problem-
solving process of the National Estuary Program. This work plan-
ning mechanism encourages annual evaluations of current and
projected activities so that long-term plans can be modified or
redirected as necessary.
EPA has established a three-level process to assist individual
estuary programs with planning and oversight of their activities and
to manage the funds available to the National Estuary Program.
The first, highest level planning is presented in a Five-Year State-
EPA Conference Agreement that is developed by each Manage-
ment Conference shortly after it is convened. This Agreement sets
out milestones to be achieved over the term of each program.
Based on this Agreement, the Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection (OMEP) sets budgetary targets for each Management
Conference when the fiscal year budget for the National Estuary
Program is announced. These targets are broad budgetary goals
for total expenditure by each estuary program (including the Na-
tional Estuary Program contribution). They are directly related to
the activities that are to be carried out by each Management
Conference in that year as specified in the Agreement. Given the
possibility that required activities may change during the course of
the characterization and CCMP development phases of the estuary
programs, Management Conferences may request that OMEP
reconsider targets agreed upon prior to the budget cycle.
Annual Work Plans—a middle level of planning—are developed by
the Management Conference for each year using the budgetary
targets. These Annual Work Plans present progress to date, indi-
cate major program directions necessary to meet previously ac-
cepted milestones, document projects to be undertaken in the
upcoming year, and specify funds to be used to support the
projects. They also document the way in which 25 percent cost-
share requirement will be met. Annual Work Plans are similar to,
but not the same as, Assistance Agreements as outlined in EPA's
"Policy on Performance-Based Assistance" (May 31, 1985).
At the most specific planning level, a series of individual assistance
applications are prepared by potential recipients. On a project-by-
project basis, these applications describe in detail the work to be
done, who will do it, what will be accomplished and how, and the
costs and schedule for the work. Assistance applications are
essentially the same as other grant applications for EPA funds, but
the National Estuary Program has certain additional requirements,
mentioned below.
A2
-------
Development and
Submittal of Annual
Work Plans and
Assistance Applications
The Annual Work Plan for each estuary program must be approved
by the Management Conference before individual assistance
awards can be made. They should be prepared within 60 days of
the receipt of targets for that year. The Management Conference
must submit a draft Annual Work Plan to EPA headquarters,
through EPA regions, for review and comment before final ratifica-
tion by the Management Conference.
Individual assistance applications may be developed at the same
time as the Annual Work Plan, but should not be submitted until
after the Annual Work Plan is approved by the Management
Conference. Since assistance application award decisions will be
made by EPA regions, applications should be sent to the ap-
propriate EPA regional grants administration office.
It is necessary that each assistance application be endorsed by the
Management Conference before approval is granted. This require-
ment ensures that the Management Conference has control over
how funds are spent on an estuary. It also allows the Management
Conference to direct the effort, ensuring that each project is con-
sistent with the Conference's annual goals and objectives.
Compilation of an Annual Work Plan allows each Management
Conference to review its current activities in the light of its goals
and past activities, and encourages direct focus on necessary
activities for the year to follow. The Annual Work Plan should be
the result of extensive planning and review by each of the Con-
ference committees and should represent a consensus on direc-
tions to be taken.
The Management Conference's development of the Annual Work
Plan should address these questions:
• Have successes and failures in the program been taken into
account in planning the new year's activities?
• Is planned work consistent with the seven purposes of the
Management Conference specified in Section 320(b) of the
Clean Water Act?
• Is planned work directed towards meeting negotiated mile-
stones contained in the Five-Year State-EPA Conference
Agreement?
• Will individual projects obtain information necessary to fur-
ther define problems or develop solutions?
• Are the problems addressed significant to the entire estuary?
• Is there a demonstration of the 25 percent program cost
share?
Evaluation of Annual
Work Plans
A3
-------
Types of Projects
Who Is Eligible
Types of Assistance
Among the projects eligible for federal financial assistance under
Section 320(g) are research efforts, surveys, studies, modeling,
and other technical work needed to develop the CCMP.
A variety of tasks will be required as part of developing the manage-
ment framework, characterization report, and CCMP. It will be
necessary, for example, to gather and analyze existing historical
data from information previously collected in the estuary. Identifying
the need for and conducting research to acquire new or additional
data to address priority problems may also be relevant. Perhaps
the task will be to increase regional public understanding about the
problems and complexities of the estuary and to solicit public
involvement during the decision-making and management proces-
ses. A review and evaluation of new initiatives in water and sedi-
ment quality programs and in living resource programs may be
called for. All these types of projects are eligible for federal financial
assistance.
Eligible applicants include state, interstate, and regional water
pollution control agencies and entities; state coastal zone manage-
ment agencies; interstate agencies; other public or nonprofit private
agencies; and institutions, organizations, and individuals. For-profit
organizations are not eligible for direct grants or cooperative agree-
ments under Section 320 (g).
Where Management Conferences have been convened for a par-
ticular estuary, the responsible EPA regional office can provide
preapplication assistance. All proposals or work statements
respond to the priority tasks identified in the estuary program
approved Annual Work Plan, which the Management Conference
develops. Each estuary program handles its own request for
proposals. Proposals are submitted to the EPA regional estuary
coordinator. Appropriate advisory committees within the estuary
management organization and the EPA regional program will
review and approve each proposal.
Federal financial assistance is awarded under two categories:
cooperative agreements and grants. They differ only in the degree
of federal involvement during the project. Cooperative agreements
require substantial federal involvement. Grants do not. The applica-
tion form must clearly indicate which type of assistance is being
requested.
Because EPA's award of assistance under the National Estuary
Program depends on annual congressional appropriations and
Annual Work Plans developed by the estuary program Manage-
ment Conferences, National Estuary Program grants usually are
funded on a 12-month basis. However, an applicant may choose
its project period and budget period in consultation with and subject
to the approval of the EPA Regional Administrator. Applications for
assistance must be submitted annually during EPA's designated
application period.
A4
-------
Matching Funds
Federal funds provided under the Water Quality Act, Sections
320(g) and 205(1), to each estuary program must be matched, in
proportion, by non-federal funds. OMEP requires that 25 percent
of the total estuary program cost be provided from non-federal
sources. Each assistance application must be accompanied by a
copy of the approved Management Conference Annual Work Plan.
The required format and content of an Annual Work Plan are
specified in the National Estuary Program grant regulations. The
work plan must show that non-federal sources provide at least 25
percent of the aggregate costs of research, surveys, studies and
modeling, and other technical work necessary for the development
of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
In many cases, the recipient of an individual assistance award may
not be required to provide matching funds for a project because
these funds are being provided by a state or third party. Neverthe-
less, the recipient remains responsible for matching funds. If funds
are not provided as specified in the Annual Work Plan, the recipient
may either provide matching funds or return the federal funds
received. In order to ensure that grant recipients have met cost-
share requirements, each award will contain a special condition
that requires submittal of a financial status report at the end of each
fiscal year, September 30.
The EPA Grants Administration Division has determined that the
National Estuary Program projects are eligible for review under
Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs." For more information on the review process, applicants
should consult their state's office or the official designated as the
single point of contact. Because this is a 60-day review period, all
applicants should seek such review well before EPA's required
dates for final applications.
To ensure substantial EPA participation and oversight, assistance
under the National Estuary Program generally will be awarded in
cooperative agreements. Therefore, the scopes of work in coopera-
tive agreements must describe what EPA's involvement will be,
when and how it will be performed, and the person responsible for
carrying out EPA's part of the work. These provisions should be
negotiated between EPA and the applicant during preapplication
assistance, before the formal application is submitted.
During the final application review process, EPA may also deter-
mine that further involvement is necessary. If so, these provisions
will be added as "special conditions" before EPA offers the award.
Usually, awards under $10,000 may be made in the form of grants.
Such grants still require products or deliverables or both.
Schedules must be clearly established in the statement of work.
Review Under Executive
Order 12372
Cooperative Agreements
Grants
A5
-------
Selection Criteria
How to Apply
Review Process
Evaluation of Assistance
Applications
Each Management Conference will approve preapplication
proposals in accordance with the proposal's technical merit and
relevance to the objectives, projects, and tasks identified in the
estuary program's annual work plan.
Applicants should obtain an application kit from their EPA regional
grants administration office. The kit contains the application form
and other relevant documents, including pertinent regulations.
EPA's regional estuary program coordinator will provide preap-
plication assistance. The completed application should be sub-
mitted to the appropriate EPA regional program office for approval
and award.
Statements of work in the final application must contain schedules
for progress reports and products (including workshops and educa-
tional materials) that will contribute findings and recommendations
for management decisions. They must provide for the presentation
of project data and information in EPA prescribed formats. Data
collected for the National Estuary Program must be submitted in
the Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) format developed by
OMEP. (For information, contact Marine Operations Division of that
office.) Statements of work must also specify methods to ensure
ongoing project coordination and problem resolution.
Because an informed public is so critical to the estuary programs'
success, the National Estuary Program has established policy that
requires presenting all products and information in a form and
format the public can readily understand. To support this policy, all
products must be submitted to the National Technical Information
Service for additional distribution to the public. In addition, ap-
plicants must demonstrate that they have adequate resources to
complete the tasks described to meet work plan objectives.
The EPA regional program office will review final applications, with
approved scopes of work, for funding. Basically, there are two
levels of review. First, the estuary management and advisory
committees, along with the EPA regional office, review proposals
submitted in response to the Annual Work Plan. If a proposal is
approved, the applicant submits a formal, more complete applica-
tion to the EPA regional office. The regional office has the authority
to approve the application for EPA funding.
After the appropriate estuary management and advisory commit-
tees have approved the proposal, the EPA project officer reviews
the final application, making sure it is complete and meets program
requirements.
A6
-------
Based on the information presented in each assistance application,
EPA approves or disapproves each application on the following
criteria:
Are the work, schedule, and budget consistent with the
Annual Work Plan?
Has the proposed work been adequately reviewed by the
Management Conference, Conference committees, EPA,
and if appropriate, other peer reviewers?
Is the effort proposed consistent with the products to be
obtained?
In the case of cooperative agreements, is there substantial
federal involvement in the project?
Is the organization performing the work qualified?
Is the 25 percent non-federal cost share requirement of
Section 320(g)(3) being demonstrated?
Are schedules, progress reports, products and deliverables,
and requirements for submitting project data adequate, in
Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) format, and in
machine-readable form?
Will products contribute to the development of a CCMP?
In addition to grants issued to support the development of CCMPs
for individual estuaries, EPA issues grants to support the broader
attainment of National Estuary Program goals and objectives.
These grants are national in scope. They are reviewed and ap-
proved by OMEP at EPA headquarters.
Concurrence by the EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD) will be required at the regional level for all projects involving
laboratory and field studies. Concurrence should be secured by the
ORD representative, or designee, on the scientific and technical
advisory committee. An ORD concurrence form is available from
the EPA regional office. The ORD representative will:
• Make certain the project does not duplicate current
EPA/ORD research projects or activities;
• Evaluate whether the quality of science in the proposal is
adequate; and
• Determine whether the research protocols in the proposal are
consistent with those ORD and EPA have established.
Headquarters Program
Grants
Office of Research and
Development Concurrence
A7
-------
Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Requirements
Checklist
Timeframe
The "General Regulations for Assistance Agreements" (30 CFR
Sec. 30.302 [d]) stipulate that quality assurance/quality control
plans are required for any projects containing environmental meas-
urements. Therefore, where appropriate, each application must
include a quality assurance plan certification. Valid quality as-
surance/quality control plans must be in place and certified by the
regional quality assurance officer before EPA will fund the project.
(For further guidance, see the EPA report, "Guide for Preparation
of Quality Assurance Project Plans for the National Estuarine
Program.")
The EPA regional estuary coordinator should identify which
projects require quality assurance/quality control plans and refer
them to the regional quality assurance officer before the region
approves the application for funding. Some projects, like historical
data collection or public participation, may not require a plan. In
these cases, the regional quality assurance officer will prepare a
negative statement to be submitted with the application.
A checklist identifying the critical elements of a complete applica-
tion appears in Figure A.1. The final application form should contain
an original signature. In addition, it should include a detailed
breakdown of budget categories and the applicant's procurement
system certification (EPA 5700-48). The application kit provides
further information.
Although there is some flexibility in the annual cycle, OMEP en-
courages each Management Conference to adopt a cycle that
allows for completing Annual Work Plans and assistance applica-
tion review within the first quarter (by January 1) of each federal
fiscal year (October 1 to September 30). A typical cycle calls for
establishing program targets for total expenditure on each estuary
program by October 15, submittal of draft Management Conference
Annual Work Plans by December 1, and submittal of assistance
applications by January 1.
However, the annual schedule depends upon the date on which
OMEP is informed of its annual budget. For instance, sometimes
Congressional appropriations are not made by October 1 st. In such
cases, OMEP will inform Conferences two weeks after the OMEP
budget is appropriated. The schedule for that year would be
delayed.
To be considered for fiscal year funding, completed applications
must usually reach the EPA regional program office by June 1.
Check with the regional program office for information about dead-
lines for submittal of applications.
A8
-------
Figure A.1—National Estuary Program Application Checklist for
Assistance Agreements
YES NO NA
Preapplication assistance provided by regional office
Proposal approved for funding by the management committee
(date)
Proposal reviewed and approved by the scientific and technical ad-
visory committee or designated work group (date)
EPA application form (Standard Form 5700-33) (state and local agen-
cies) or
EPA application form 5700-12 (educational institutions and others)
• Agency/organization name, address, and contact person, including
phone number
• Correct budget and project periods
• Proposed funding dollars correct: appropriate federal cost share
(75 pecent) and non-federal cost share (25 percent), calculated as
aggregate for all estuary program participants each fiscal year
• Executive Order 12372 (replaces OMB Cir. A-95) requirements ack-
nowledged
• Official signature - original enclosed
Budget
• All budget categories properly identified and correctly totaled
• Indirect cost rate and base shown; if previously negotiated, a state-
ment of when and with what federal agency
• Completed Procurement System Certification (EPA 5700-48) at-
tached
Statement of Work
• Annual Work Plan
• Clearly written statement of work attached; contains schedule for
products and deliverables,including periodic progress reports to
the region, state project officer, and management committee
• Statement of work discussion describes relationship between
proposal and approved fiscal year work plan elements
• Statement of work contains requirements that newly generated data
is in ODES format and machine-readable form
• Separate pages of detailed project budget; project dollars justified
with statement of work and reflected in total budget categories
• Statement of work contains "substantial federal involvement" re-
quired for cooperative agreement(s)
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
• Quality assurance certification attached
• Project officer's negative quality assurance statement attached
Special Conditions
• Separate list of conditions of substantial federal involvement iden-
tified in statement of work and/or other negotiated special condi-
tions
• A special condition applicable to all grants is that all final products
must be submitted to the National Technical Information Service (11
copies plus applications)
• Financial Status Report due annually (Sept. 30)
Distribution of Form Application
• Original plus three copies to EPA regional estuary program coor-
dinator
Project Officer/Reviewer_
Date
A9
-------
For More Information
EPA Contacts by
Estuary Program
Any questions? If so, please consult the EPA regional contact.
Additional guidance is also available in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, 66.456, "Comprehensive Estuarine Manage-
ment." The catalog is available from the Government Printing
Office, SSOM, Washington, DC 20402.
Program FTS/Commercial
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds 257-2126
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds Study .... (404)347-2126
EPA Region 4
4345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Buzzards Bay 835-3514
Buzzards Bay Project (617)565-3514
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Delaware Bay 597-9800
Delaware Bay Estuary Program (215)597-9800
EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Delaware Inland Bays 597-9800
Delaware Inland Bays
Estuary Program (215)597-9800
EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Galveston Bay 255-6444
Galveston Bay Estuary Program (214)255-6444
EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75270
Long Island Sound 835-3550
Long Island Sound Study (617)565-3550
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Long Island Sound Study 264-2514
EPA Region 2 (212)264-2514
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
A10
-------
Narragansett Bay 835-3523
Narragansett Bay Project (617) 565-3523
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
New York-New Jersey Harbor 264-2514
New York-New Jersey
Harbor Estuary Program (212)264-2514
EPA Region 2 (212)264-2514
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Puget Sound 399-0966
Puget Sound Estuary Program (206) 442-0966
EPA Region 10
Office of Puget Sound
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
San Francisco Bay/Delta 454-0960
San Francisco Bay/Delta Project (415)974-0960
EPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Santa Monica Bay 454-0960
Santa Monica Bay Estuary Program . . . .(415)978-0969
EPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Sarasota Bay 257-4727
Sarasota Bay Estuary Program (404) 347-4727
EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30305
New Programs Contact
National Estuary Program 475-7102
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(WH556F) (202)475-7102
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
A11
-------
Appendix B
Building An Effective Public
Participation Program
This appendix of A Primer for Establishing and Manag-
ing Estuary Projects provides guidance on how to
establish and manage a public participation program.
The Primer, which describes the National Estuary
Program's origins, statutory provisions, and approach,
is designed for EPA's programs and regional offices,
coastal states, and other interested parties. For more
information, contact an EPA regional office.
Informing and involving the public and getting its support can be
the most difficult aspect of an estuary program, yet it is the
cornerstone of a successful program. An effective public participa-
tion effort will help ensure implementation of the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). This plan is the
product of a collaborative problem-solving process in which key
members of the public have been fully engaged. The desired
long-term improvements in the estuary will affect daily life through
better septic systems, water conservation, additional taxes, or
limits on some property uses. Everyone in the water basin needs
to understand his or her role as a user of the estuary. Because so
much is at stake, it is important to put the best talent, adequate
resources, and full program commitment into designing and execut-
ing an effective process for full public participation.
This appendix provides guidance on what constitutes effective
public participation, how to design and structure a program, how to
carry it out, and what kinds of resources should be devoted to it. It
will help programs meet the statutory requirement that public
participation "be provided for, encouraged and assisted . . . ." as
well as the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR Part 25, "Public
Participation Under the ... Clean Water Act."
A Cornerstone of
Success
B1
-------
What Is Public
Participation?
Designing the Public
Participation Program
Section 101(e) Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Public participation in the development, revision, and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent
limitation, plan, or program established by the Ad-
ministrator or any State under this Act shall be provided
for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and
the States.
Public participation in the context of the National Estuary Program
means involving citizens in the decision-making process that the
Management Conference oversees.
Recognizing estuaries as commonly held treasures — productive,
fragile, and enormously appealing places to live, recreate, and do
business—the National Estuary Program has stressed the political
and social ramifications of estuary management. This emphasis is
expressed through requirements for an effective public participa-
tion program. EPA believes that estuary programs will reach the
implementation phase only with public support. The Agency's
conviction is validated by experiences in other programs.
The goal of public participation is to establish the public consensus
that will ensure long-term support and implementation of the
CCMP. As the Management Conference proceeds and the colla-
borative process evolves, public consensus must be achieved at
least during two phases: first, when priority problems are identified
and, second, when solutions and action strategies for implementa-
tion are selected and adopted.
Consensus signifies substantial agreement among the four key
constituent groups: elected officials, environmental managers,
scientists, and the public. These groups must concur that a partic-
ular course of action is technically well-founded, feasible, fair, and
most likely to succeed. Consensus also implies the willingness of
program participants to work together and to compromise. Some-
times participants will be unable to reach consensus. At other
times — when enforcing regulations, for instance — agencies will
have to carry out their legal responsibilities regardless of consen-
sus. Nevertheless, agreement among these four groups is essen-
tial for general program direction and the development of
long-range courses of action.
To achieve consensus, the public must have accurate, timely, and
relevant information. It must be well-informed to participate intelli-
gently in the decision-making process.
The Management Conference should develop a public participation
work plan to ensure orderly, informed, and balanced participation.
Planning for public participation activities should occur simul-
B2
-------
taneously with planning other aspects of the program — at the very
beginning. Two steps should be taken to design the work plan:
• Assess issues and politics.
• Determine information and participation techniques.
After this, a public participation work plan should be designed to
meet identified needs. The Conference may ask its citizens advi-
sory committee (CAC) to develop the work plan, or it may engage
a trained professional to complete this effort.
An assessment of policy issues and politics undoubtedly occurred
before the estuary was placed in or nominated for the national
program. Staff should review the materials gathered during the
nomination process to develop a profile of the social, technical, and
political issues related to the estuary.
There are various ways to do this. By answering the following
questions, the Conference can begin to identify the organizations
that are interested in the estuary.
• Are there major conservation groups, fishing associations,
boating clubs, or businesses that regularly interact with EPA
and state agencies on water quality issues?
• Do local newspapers consider the problems in the estuary
an issue?
• Do citizen organizations or universities conduct public meet-
ings or conferences on subjects related to the estuary?
• Have elected officials used the health of the estuary as a
campaign issue?
• What do local environmental groups think about how the EPA
and state agencies are implementating environmental
protection laws?
The best and quickest way to assess whether the public under-
stands the issues is through informal discussion. First, talk to
interested people. Ask how they would rate the estuary's condition.
Solicit their views on its major problems and their perceptions about
how government (at all levels) is addressing them. Keep notes on
conversations.
Determine which groups are influential, and assess public atti-
tudes about issues.
• Do groups seem polarized on one or more issues?
• Is there substantial agreement on a particular issue?
• Is any environmentai advocacy group recognized as espe-
cially effective?
• Is there a coalition group that appears capable of getting
other groups together?
Assessing Issues and
Politics
B3
-------
Determining Information
and Participation
Techniques
The answers to these questions will help in planning a public
participation program after issues and political ramifications have
been assessed. The interviewees will form the nucleus of a mailing
list. The kickoff meeting, described in Chapter II of the primer, is a
particularly effective vehicle to answer these questions. Another
option is to assign, through a grant or cooperative agreement, an
organization to answer them.
Evaluation of information tools and participation mechanisms is the
second step in designing the public participation work plan. For
example, it makes no sense to produce another newsletter if
several good ones are circulating. Research the existing public
documents of agencies such as Sea Grant, Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, Corps of Engineers, state water quality and resource agen-
cies, Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension Service
and, of course, EPA. Find out about their distribution channels and
mailing lists. In addition, examine the publications private groups
are distributing.
When planning the public information part of the estuary program,
take advantage of these and other existing communications chan-
nels; design the program to complement, supplement, and expand
current efforts. New programs frequently are criticized because
they are duplicative; with a little research, an estuary program will
not make this mistake. Financial considerations are even more
compelling reasons to determine what is already being done. There
simply will not be enough money to do everything on the agenda.
Smart choices require understanding the total picture.
To determine the most effective ways to involve the estuary's
citizenry, its trust and confidence in EPA and other agencies must
be assessed. Trust must be built.
Find out how the active citizens and interest groups in the area
make themselves heard in the policy arena. Some groups attend
public hearings; others prefer informal meetings. Some citizens
prefer direct access to the EPA Regional Administrator, the gover-
nor, and other decision makers. So far, most estuary programs
have developed informal participation programs. Find out whether
constituents are comfortable with this approach or would prefer
more structured, formal arrangements. Consider the size of the
area and the number of governments, citizens, and interest
groups that should be involved.
B4
-------
Preparing a Public
Participation Work Plan
To prepare a simple and flexible work plan, take these steps:
• Define objectives;
• Foster both the information and participation activities neces-
sary to meet them;
• Identify staff and budget resources; and
• Develop a schedule of activities.
Because the public participation program must respond to and
support the overall estuary program, including each of its phases,
this process will be relatively fluid. As the program changes in
response to scientific findings, political issues, or funding restric-
tions, the public participation plan must be modified. The work plan
should be simple and flexible — a means to an end, not an end in
itself.
When designing the work plan, bear in mind that the public not only
must have adequate, timely information, but also must be involved
in the decision-making process. Every activity should be clearly
linked to the goal of achieving the consensus needed for long-term
support of the estuary program. Many expensive activities have
been conducted in the name of public participation. These activities
include educational films, exhibits, fancy publications, and
programs for school children, which sap limited resources and do
not immediately or directly contribute to the program goals. For
instance, if a budget for public participation is $100,000 or less
annually, it will pay only for a basic program.
The following components are essential for a basic program:
• An excellent experienced staff person;
• A comprehensive mailing list;
• A general program slide show;
• One written information piece: newsletter, newsbulletin, or
fact sheet series;
• Public meetings; and
• A defined role for the citizens advisory committee.
A credible public participation program with these six components
can be conducted for a reasonable sum.
Depending on the size of the geographic area, more staff may be
necessary. If additional resources are available, the basic program
can be expanded. Nevertheless, these six elements are neither
expendable nor interchangeable; they form the foundation for a
public participation program.
Making Public
Participation Work
B5
-------
An Expert Staff Person
A Comprehensive
Mailing List
While in no way usurping the need for management, policy, other
committee members, or the staff director as spokespersons, the
person responsible for the public participation program serves as
the linchpin. Because this staff member will interact with all kinds
of citizens and their organizations, public speaking and writing skills
are vital. He or she must understand technical material and be able
to translate it into lay language for a variety of interest groups. A
good listener as well, this expert must be able to convey citizens'
concerns to the Conference. Sensitivity to the biases of various
interest groups and an ability to put those biases in perspective,
while maintaining a neutral stance, are essential qualities. Under-
standing the workings of government as well as the problems of
the estuary will help. Further, the public participation expert sup-
ports other estuary managers, helping them deal effectively with
public groups and the media.
There are several ways to organize and staff a public participation
program. EPA or a state agency could provide for the public
participation function, including an expert coordinator. The work
could also be performed under contract. A grant or cooperative
agreement can be arranged with an agency like Sea Grant or with
a nonprofit organization. All these arrangements have been tested,
with varying success, in the National Estuary Program.
Knowing who constitutes the public for an estuary is essential to
conducting an effective public participation program. Identifying
target audiences and creating a representative, accurate mailing
list of organizations and people will lay the groundwork for the
information and participation activities. The mailing list will start to
form as plans develop for the kickoff meeting. Although the groups
undoubtedly will vary in each estuary, the following should be
included:
• Conservation and environmental organizations;
• Service, civic, and good-government groups;
• Recreational boating clubs;
• Commercial and recreational fishing associations;
• Real estate firms and developers;
• Agricultural businesses and farm groups;
• Seafood packers and marketers;
• Chambers of commerce, business, and industry;
• Shippers and port-related groups;
• Local government elected officials;
• Federal and state legislators;
• Federal, state, and local agency officials;
• Scientists and educators; and
• Media — print, radio, and television.
B6
-------
The mailing list may contain as many as 10,000 names. To maintain
a list this large and to exploit its potential, the list should be
computerized. Coding and software that permit sorting by both
geographic area and interest group will multiply the uses of the list.
It is not enough, however, to have assembled a list of names. The
importance of maintaining personal contact with interest group
leaders, media representatives, and key legislators and officials
cannot be overstated. Sometimes the job of the public participation
staff will be to initiate contacts and create opportunities for com-
munication between these people and other program personnel.
Public participation staff will also need to keep participants in-
formed about work progress during the entire program. A slide
show, basic program information paper, and public meetings are
essential tools for initiating and maintaining contact with the target
audiences.
Capitalizing on the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand
words, you may find that a good, straightforward slide show is an
effective educational tool. It can translate technical, scientific, and
regulatory information into an intelligent and convincing explana-
tion of the need for an estuary program, its components, and how
the program may change the future course of the estuary.
Photographs depicting the state of the estuary, how it is used, and
the sources of pollution — along with a pithy script — can help
introduce the estuary program to the public.
Remember that technical slides and slides cluttered with words are
inappropriate for a basic public presentation. On the other hand,
maps are an effective way to translate technical material for a lay
audience. A basic estuary map, color-coded or used with overlays
to show which areas need protection, or where pollution problems
have been pinpointed, is particularly useful if readily identifiable
reference points are included. Although tables and charts with
technical data should be reserved for scientific symposia, scien-
tific findings summarized in bar and pie charts can be very effective.
The slide show should create a visual image of the estuary and
convey a few significant concepts about the program.
A basic slide show has several advantages. It will help ensure
consistency in the delivery of the message, regardless of the
presenter or the audience. It precludes the need to prepare a
speech for every meeting, and anyone affiliated with the estuary
program can use it easily. If the presentation is informal, it can be
tailored to the specific audience — boaters and farmers, for in-
stance — by adding a few slides.
The presentation can also evolve during the course of the estuary
program. Initially, it probably will deal with broad issues and the
intent of the program. Later on, it can include basic summaries of
scientific findings and suggested management actions. It should
contain up to 80 slides, which can be presented in 10 to 15 minutes.
A script can be read by the presenter, or a taped, automated
presentation can be used. A question-and-answer period should
be built into every presentation.
General Program
Slide Show
B7
-------
One Written
Information Paper
Public Meetings
Information fuels the public participation program; people who are
uninformed or misinformed cannot participate effectively. The
estuary program has an obligation to provide information about why
the program is being conducted, what its goals are, what problems
it is trying to address, the progress it is making and, ultimately,
what sorts of solutions it is proposing.
Generally, the public will be less interested in organizational details
than in what substantive issues are being examined, how much
money is being spent, and who may be affected. Citizens will be
interested, for example, in the causes of the problem and possible
solutions. But details about which federal or state agencies and
departments are involved will not engage them. Relevance to the
audience should be the guide.
Capturing public attention is the goal. If the estuary's problems are
interesting, pertinent, and controversial, the media will cover them.
Most organizations have their own information pieces, such as
newsletters, and they often sponsor conferences. Take advantage
of all these. Contacting the media regularly, preparing short arti-
cles for organizational newsletters, and speaking at conferences
and workshops are effective communications tools.
In addition, the estuary program needs a vehicle to deliver its
message directly to its target audiences. Newsletters, bulletins, fact
sheets, and issue papers are commonly used. The logo and format
should be distinctive and identifiable with the estuary program.
Newsletters should be nontechnical and fairly short. Six or eight
pages of well-written material every two or three months can be
extremely effective. Printing and mailing are costly, so careful
planning is essential. Do not allow newsletters, bulletins, or fact
sheets to substitute for personal contact.
Opportunities to provide information and interact personally with
interested citizens occur frequently at organizational meetings,
special workshops, and conferences. Exploit these opportunities
fully. The slide presentation can become the core of a traveling road
show to publicize the estuary program.
Public meetings fall under two categories: regularly scheduled
meetings of organized groups, to which Conference repre-
sentatives are invited to speak, and meetings that the Conference
organizes. The former are, by far, the wiser use of time. Dozens of
organization meetings can be attended in the same time it takes to
organize a Conference-sponsored meeting. Other organizations'
meetings have another advantage. Conference representation
conveys how important it is for the group to participate in the
estuary program. The Conference substantially expands its out-
reach potential by meeting people on their turf.
B8
-------
A mailing list should indicate when the group meets and who chairs
the organization. A public participation strategy should include
meeting with at least two or three affected organizations within each
of the categories of interest groups in the estuary.
The Management Conference will create a citizens advisory com-
mittee to ensure direct citizen involvement in the policy-making
process. At explicit junctures in the estuary program, direct inter-
action among the various affected interest groups and between
those groups and program managers needs to occur. A formally
constituted advisory committee is an important way to facilitate this
interaction.
There are many ways to operate a CAC. The chairperson or other
CAC representative serves on the management committee or, in
some cases, on the policy committee. Some estuary programs are
experimenting with management committees that represent both
public and private interests, in contrast to those composed solely
of government agencies.
CAC members should be appointed by the Management Con-
ference. The CAC should consist of about 20 people who broadly
represent the estuary's user and interest groups. It is advisable to
develop criteria for appointees. Usually each member should
• Serve as a spokesperson for a major user or interest group;
• Have experience in the development of water quality and
resource management policy;
• Be knowledgeable about the technical and economic
feasibility of some of the pollution control options being
considered;
• Be potentially affected by the management recommenda-
tions of the Management Conference; and
• Be able to provide constructive advice and work with varying
points of view in a committee setting.
The Conference must establish a clear charge for the CAC—what
its purpose is and how it functions. The CAC's primary role is to
help see that the public participation goal is met and that, through
public consensus, long-term support for CCMP implementation is
assured. It is critical that the committee's charge reflects this. Other
specific functions of the CAC include these:
• Helping establish program goals and objectives;
• Helping set funding levels;
• Assisting with public participation activities;
• Helping to communicate program activities to user groups;
• Commenting on research priorities;
• Reviewing technical findings and analyses; and
• Helping to develop implementation plans.
A Citizens Advisory
Committee
B9
-------
Making advisory committees work well takes both planning and
skill. With committees composed of diverse interests, the potential
for conflict is great. Committee members and staff may benefit from
some training in meeting facilitation and agenda-planning. Further,
having by-laws and adopting Robert's Rules of Order generally
help the committee function in a businesslike way.
An essential step in creating an effective advisory committee is
taking the time for members to become acquainted. Every business
meeting should include some time to converse informally. Meetings
must be organized so that all committee members are encouraged
to participate, but no one dominates.
Staffing a citizens advisory committee is a time-consuming, full-
time job. If the committee meets four to six times annually, for
example, providing direct support will require one to two days a
week. Staff work will include organizing meetings, developing
agendas, communicating with committee members, preparing
background materials, and doing follow-up work.
Although the committee chairperson can be expected to take some
responsibility for these tasks, the staff will need to do much of the
work. Volunteer committees can accomplish more useful work if
they are supported by strong staff and believe their contribution is
worthwhile. People who serve on advisory committees generally
have many commitments. If they think their time is being wasted,
they will quickly lose interest. A clear charge for the committee and
good staffing are, therefore, extremely important.
Providing direct advice to the program is not the CAC's only role,
however. As leaders of a wide variety of interest groups, advisory
committee members are the hub of a network that may become an
estuary coalition. If one of the public participation program's goals
is to help ensure long-term support and implementation of recom-
mendations, the advisory committee should be an integral part of
the management framework. Selecting members carefully and
meeting their needs will increase the likelihood that they and their
organizations will remain involved.
To supplement the CAC's formal advice, the groups they represent
will probably want to provide their own input. Moreover, program
managers need to recognize that a small committee, regardless of
its quality, can never represent every viewpoint. So program
managers should be open to input from other citizens. Encouraging
broad public involvement means going beyond the CAC. If this is
done well, it will facilitate the development of permanent net-
works and coalitions that are essential to sustained implementation
of resource management programs.
B10
-------
Resources
A commitment to effective public participation requires dollars as
well as staff. A typical program budget may be broken down as
follows:
Item(s)
Percent of Budget
Staff salary and fringe benefits 30
Secretarial support (half-time) 10
Writer (half-time) 14
Slide show graphics and production 4
Newsletter (quarterly) 15
CAC meeting support and travel 10
Staff travel 4
Mailings, copying, office support, postage,
and other miscellaneous expenses 8
Percent Total 95%
This leaves 5 percent for additional activities, such as a program
kickoff event or a boat ride, press conference, workshops, a pro-
gram logo and brochure, or a professionally produced public ser-
vice announcement. The budget assumes that one of the
participating agencies can provide support services like computer
time for the mailing list. More elaborate activities, such as films,
publications, citizen monitoring programs, and educational
programs for school children, clearly exceed this budget.
Additional activities may be funded and conducted by participating
agencies, private organizations, and foundations. A key respon-
sibility of the Management Conference is to identify and obtain new
and innovative sources of funding for work plan elements. For
public participation, members of the CAC should place this objec-
tive on their agenda. All agencies have some money budgeted for
public information materials. Many private groups conduct excel-
lent educational activities. Coordination with these programs can
expand the outreach capability of the estuary program.
In summary, the goal of the estuary program is to develop viable
management strategies that will ensure protection of the estuary's
resources. Legislatures, executive agencies, and public interest
groups must cooperate to define policy priorities, initiate legislation,
appropriate funds, and implement actions. Given the complexity of
the issues related to estuarine management, it will not be easy. The
guidance provided here will, however, help program managers
design an estuary program with a high probability of success.
B11
-------
Appendix C
Using Finfish as Indicators of
Toxic Contamination
This appendix of A Primer for Establishing and Manag-
ing Estuary Projects provides guidance on using f inf ish
to indicate health or stress in an estuary and to monitor
changes or trends in the estuary. The Primer, which
describes the National Estuary Program's origins,
statutory provisions, and approach, is designed for
EPA's programs and regional offices, coastal states,
and other interested parties. For more information,
contact an EPA regional office.
Since 1985, the public has voiced strong concern about the high
incidence of diseased finfish in the nation's estuaries. When EPA
tried to determine the environmental significance of this
phenomenon, it found no consensus within the scientific com-
munity. Consequently, in July 1986, EPA's Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection convened a workshop to determine if a set of
scientifically appropriate, cost-effective finfish indicators could be
identified and used to assess whether toxic contamination in es-
tuaries significantly affected human health and ecology. Workshop
findings led EPA to develop guidance for using finfish as indicators
of estuarine health or stress and for monitoring the estuary. The
workshop's report, "Proceedings and Summary of the Workshop
on Finfish As Indicators of Toxic Contamination," is available from
the National Estuary Program.
The first task for workshop participants was to develop, evaluate,
and rank criteria related to finfish indicators so that the criteria
would be useful in estuary programs. The recommended criteria
appear in Table C.1.
EPA's Workshop
on Finfish as
Indicators of
Toxic Contamination
Setting Criteria
C1
-------
Highlights of
Conclusions About
the Usefulness of
Finfish as Indicators
Screening Across Estuaries
Table 1.—Criteria for Using Finfish as Indicators of Toxic Contamination
The following criteria are essential:
• Causality. There must be an unequivocal cause and effect relation-
ship between toxic pollution and the indicator.
• Cost-Effectiveness. The indicator must be affordable and provide
enough data to warrant the amount of money spent.
• Useability. Laboratories throughout the country must be able to use
the indicator.
The following criteria would also be helpful:
• Specificity
—The method should be pollutant-specific. That is, its use should in-
dicate the effects of a specific pollutant or class of pollutants.
—The method should be species-specific.That is, it should be ap-
plicable only to one or a limited number of fish species.
• Applicability to small or large spatial scales
—The method should permit identification of small areas of con-
tamination within the estuary.
OR
—The method should also permit locating the effect of contamina-
tion in large areas of the estuary.
• Usefulness as an early or late indicator
—The method should be usable as an early indicator of toxic con-
tamination. That Is, it should be sensitive enough to demonstrate
an effect after brief exposure to low concentrations of pollutants.
OR
—The method should be useable as a late indicator. That is, it
should have a low degree of sensitivity and be capable of
demonstrating an effect after prolonged exposure to high con-
centrations of pollutants.
Human Health Indicators
The following discussion highlights workshop conclusions regarding
the usefulness of finfish as indicators of toxic contamination.
Historical data on the abundance and distribution of fish populations
and on the concentration of contaminants in fish generally are
readily available. Therefore, these parameters are the most useful
early screening tools. The use of other indicators is more limited
because historical data are usually unavailable. Furthermore, cost
and time considerations preclude collecting large amounts of field
data during the screening phase.
Concentrations of contaminants in tissues, or tissue residues, are
useful indicators of human health effects. Lesions, tumors, and
other histopathological changes are not useful for this purpose.
C2
-------
Fish Health Versus
Ecosystem Health
Indicators
Scientists participating in the workshop were reluctant to conclude
that any single measure of fish health could be used as a definitive
indicator of an ecosystem's health. However, if several indicators
demonstrate change in a fish population, it is generally safe to
assume that the ecosystem has been affected. This assumption
should be strengthened by considering effects on organisms at
other trophic levels, and by directly measuring contaminant levels
in the environment.
In a trend monitoring program, the use of finfish as indicators of
toxic contamination is limited for three reasons: (1) some methods
still need to be verified in the field; (2) fish move around; and (3)
fish are very active as they undergo detoxification. Other or-
ganisms, such as bivalve mollusks, are better indicators on a small
spatial scale because they are less subject to these constraints.
Finfish may, however, be more suitable for future studies in which
the objective is to assess toxic stress over relatively large areas,
such as an entire estuary.
Enzyme and immunological tests are especially useful as early
warning signs of toxic stress. They can also be employed to
indicate the recovery of fish from toxic stress. Unlike lesions, death,
or population changes, the effects of toxic contamination measur-
able by these tests appear sooner, and at lower levels and shorter
lengths of exposure to pollutants. These effects are reversible as
the fish recover from stress. Recovery can be measured in the field
in less time than the life cycle of the species being observed. The
effects of stress must, however, be measured at appropriate times
during the species' life cycle.
Gross pathological and population changes appear over the longer
term. Such effects indicate a highly disturbed ecosystem and
suggest that fish have been exposed to high levels of pollutants for
relatively long periods.
In order to use indicators in developing regulations or permit
requirements, EPA must establish a causal relationship between
finfish indicators and toxic contamination. This will require further
research because finfish indicators are not yet refined enough to
prove such relationships. Therefore, it is too early to conclude that
a particular finfish disease or population effect was caused by a
particular environmental pollutant. Standard laboratory testing for
toxicity is still needed.
Trend Monitoring
Early and Late Indicators
of Toxic Stress
Establishing Causal
Relationships as a Basis for
Regulatory Action
C3
-------
Recommendations
for the Use of Finfish
Indicators in Estuary
Programs
Using only field data, EPA cannot expect to establish causal
relationships between a specific pollutant and a specific adverse
effect for any type of organism. Finfish indicators are, neverthe-
less, a useful monitoring tool. If estuary managers use several
indicators that lead to the same conclusion, they can gather enough
evidence to warrant some type of action, although it may not be
regulatory action.
Using historical data, program managers whose estuaries are
known or believed to be stressed by toxic contamination should
attempt to establish baseline conditions. Baselines should be set
for water and sediment concentrations of toxic pollutants, the
abundance and distribution of finfish, and the levels of tissue
residue.
The use of a single finfish indicator is insuffi-
cient to evaluate the ecological significance
of toxic contamination....several indicators
should be used simultaneously.
Monitoring should be conducted to determine the current locations
and spatial extent of severe effects,and to identify the specific
pollutants. The use of a single finfish indicator is insufficient to
evaluate the ecological significance of toxic contamination. The
workshop's scientists recommend using several indicators simul-
taneously. They also recommend that, depending on the stage of
the program and the resources available, managers should select
indicators from high- or low-level suites, discussed below.
A suite is a group of indicators that should be used to evaluate the
significance of toxic contamination. Low-level suites employ
methods that rely on historical data. These suites are useful for
problem identification and assessment. High-level suites require
collecting new information in the laboratory or in the field. Useful
monitoring tools, high-level suites not only indicate the nature of
the problem but enable managers to select methods to resolve it.
C4
-------
Indicators in the
Low-Level Suite
Finfish indicators in the low-level suite are useful primarily for
making nationwide comparisons of estuaries, and for identifying
regional problems. The objective is to assess, on a preliminary
basis, the extent and severity of ecological effects caused by toxic
contamination. Because these indicators can be applied to analyze
existing information, they are particularly appropriate for the early
stages of estuary programs. During Phase 1, the Planning Initiative,
they can be used as evidence in defining and ranking problems to
be addressed by the Management Conference. During Phase 2,
Characterization and Problem Definition, they can be used to
establish status and trends.
The following indicators are from the low-level suite.
Sources of information. Information about problems related to
toxic contamination, such as fishery closures, is compiled from
various sources. These include newspaper articles, anecdotes,
published reports, and newsletters.
Gross pathology. Reports of obvious anatomical abnormalities
like fin erosion, skeletal deformities, and tumors help to identify the
presence of a problem.
Behavioral abnormalities. Changes in behavior, such as
avoidance or attraction of fish to contaminants, can be measured
by comparing the reactions of fish before and after they are
exposed to the test material. Other behavioral changes, for ex-
ample erratic swimming or lethargy, may indicate specific modes
of toxicity like neurological or metabolic dysfunction.
Distribution and abundance. Profiles of the spatial distribution
and abundance of a species may be directly related to mortality
caused by exposure to toxics, or to behavioral changes like
avoidance and attraction cited above.
Tissue residues, especially in commercial species. Fish tissue
should be analyzed for the concentration of some or all of the 129
priority pollutants. Bioaccumulation of certain substances in fish
indicates not only that the contaminant is in the environment, but
that it may potentially threaten the environment and human health.
Finfish indicators in the high-level suite are useful primarily for
longer term monitoring studies. Monitoring is conducted in targeted
studies to answer specific scientific or managerial questions raised
during the problem definition and characterization phase. These
indicators are also useful biological monitors of health or stress in
the estuary. Because of their sensitivity, they may be used to
determine the effectiveness of management actions. Methods in
the high-level suite require collecting specific laboratory or field
data.
Indicators in the
High-Level Suite
C5
-------
Establishing Baselines and
Reference Areas
In addition to the high-level indicators discussed below, certain
low-level indicators—tissue residues and fish distribution and
abundance, for example—should also be considered for use in
monitoring studies.
Macrophagetriad. The macrophage triad is a useful early warning
of general stress. Macrophage cells exhibit three behaviors, or
responses, that have demonstrated a direct relationship to the
presence of toxics.
Enzymes (mixed function oxidases, metallothionein). Certain
enzymes or proteins may be produced by an animal as a result of
exposure to various classes of pollutants. Immunological methods
measure the presence and amounts of the enzymes or proteins
produced.
Hematology. Routine clinical tests of blood components can pro-
vide information about the physiological condition of the animal.
They can also detect general stress.
Cytogenetics. Cytogenetics examines the relationship between
changes in the chromosomal structure and pathological conditions.
These changes can be linked to exposure to specific pollutants.
Histopathology. Finfish disease can be exhibited through struc-
tural change in tissues or organs during the course of an animal's
exposure to pollutants. Tissue and organ abnormalities are ob-
served using standard light microscopy techniques. Although
these studies are more expensive, they can detect specific lesions
that develop shortly after pollutant exposure, and long before gross
abnormalities develop.
Egg and larval development and viability. Eggs and larvae are
sensitive stages in the life cycle of fish. Problems with egg or larval
development, such as death or deformity, indicate an ecological
effect that may be due to toxic contamination.
Estuary program managers should establish baseline and/or con-
trol data for the species and indicator methods under consideration.
Where historical data are inadequate, a reference area should be
established. NOAA's Status and Trends Program has already set
up reference areas in or near most of the estuaries in the National
Estuary Program. Reference areas, which should be repre-
sentative of the entire estuary under study, should be relatively free
from toxic effects. If such an area cannot be found, estuary
program managers should look for nearby areas with comparable
hydrographic and faunal conditions.
C6
-------
During the characterization phase, a preliminary list of priority
problems should be proposed. If there is a decrease in the abun-
dance of fish, a high incidence of diseased fish, or a potential threat
to human health due to toxins in fish, the following steps are
warranted.
• Use the low-level suite of indicators; and
• Synthesize historical data on the abundance of fish, the
amount and type of tissue residues, and the incidence of
disease.
At the same time, collect and analyze data on toxic contamination,
sources, and pollutant loads. If the analysis shows a correlation
between toxic contamination and changes in fish, the program may
choose to do the following:
• Conduct field sampling to define further the nature and extent
of the problem;
• Conduct laboratory toxicity studies to identify the pollutants
of most concern; and
• Identify any probable current sources of those pollutants and
reduce current loadings.
Furthermore, if toxic contamination is the cause, follow-up activities
should be conducted. The program should identify pristine refer-
ence areas and summarize all available data on these areas.
After the contaminant problem has been characterized and neces-
sary critical information identified, a focused monitoring program
should be designed to assess correlations between specific
toxicants, or groups of toxicants, and the effects on fish. Indicators
from the high-level suites should be used during this phase. To
design the monitoring program, first select the appropriate species.
Follow the guidelines developed in the workshop.
• A relatively nonmotile, nonmigratory species should be used.
• Commercially or recreationally important species are
preferable.
• Species for which baseline data are available are preferable.
• Provisions for making an archive of tissue samples for future
use in assaying additional indicators should be included.
How to Use Finf ish
Indicators in an
Estuary Program
Vears One and Two
Years Three and Four
C7
-------
After Year Two
Then consider which pollutants are of concern. Determine whether
species-specific methods, scientific expertise, laboratory facilities,
and background data are available. Be sure costs are reasonable.
Technical staff and STAC members should consult and become
familiar with the entire workshop proceedings. A summary report
contains detailed information on the utility of the various indicator
methods.
After an activity has begun, implement the monitoring plan.
Analyze and synthesize monitoring data, comparing new data with
historical data from the characterization report. Review and
evaluate the data periodically to determine whether there has been
any improvement in estuarine conditions. Management strategies
may have to be redirected or supplemented to achieve a system
response.
C8
-------
Appendix D
Summary of the Guidance Manual for
Health Risk Assessment for
Consumption of Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish
This appendix of A Primer for Establishing and Manag-
ing Estuary Projects provides guidance for under-
standing the health risk assessment process for
seafood consumption. The Primer, which describes
the National Estuary Program's origins, statutory
provisions, and approach, is designed for EPA's
programs and regional offices, coastal states, and
other interested parties. For more information, contact
an EPA regional office.
One of the National Estuary Program's goals is to protect human
health by helping state and local agencies identify the potential
risks of eating aquatic organisms from chemically contaminated
areas. This goal will be met, in part, by developing information on
the relative health risks associated with consumption of fish and
shellfish from a number of contaminated estuarine locations
throughout the United States. A systematic risk assessment pro-
cedure to estimate health risks, with clear statements of assump-
tions and uncertainties, will be used.
This appendix summarizes a guidance manual that the National
Estuary Program has developed. The manual facilitates stan-
dardization of procedures used to assess the human health risks
of ingesting chemically contaminated fish and shellfish. As of 1987,
the manual constitutes technical guidance under the National
Estuary Program. It will probably be issued in 1989 as final EPA
guidance applicable to all freshwater, estuarine, and marine fish
and shellfish.
The Guidance
Manual: An Overview
D1
-------
Contents of the
Guidance Manual
What Is Risk
Assessment?
The risk analysis process consists of two distinct phases: risk
assessment and risk management. Risk assessment involves esti-
mating the scientific probability that an adverse health effect will
result from exposure to a toxic agent. Risk management entails
interpreting risk assessment results—scientific results—to formu-
late public policy. The National Estuary Program manual provides
technical guidance on risk assessment procedures; risk manage-
ment approaches, which involve policy decisions, are only briefly
discussed. Selecting policy alternatives is left to state and local
regulatory authorities. Public policy decisions based on risk
management could be any of the following:
• Identifying locations as high-priority areas for environmental
cleanup;
• Issuing public fish consumption advisories for certain areas; and
• Banning fishing in certain areas.
The National Estuary Program health risk assessment guidance
manual provides the following information:
• A description of the risk assessment procedure for chemically
contaminated fish and shellfish;
• Guidance on presenting and interpreting risk assessment
results;
• A summary of assumptions and uncertainties of the recom-
mended procedure for risk assessment; and
• An explanation of the dose-response values that are available
for individual chemicals, and of information sources for updating
these values.
The document does not provide guidance on the risk management
issue of which level of risk is small enough to be acceptable, given
counterbalancing economic factors like consumer preference or
economic impacts on recreational and commercial fisheries. State
or local regulatory authorities will make case-by-case judgments
concerning restricting sportsfishing or issuing informational health
advisories even when fishing is not legally prohibited or limited.
Risk assessments are limited by rudimentary scientific knowledge
of the effects of toxic chemicals on humans. Most of the present
information is developed by interpreting results of laboratory tests
on experimental animals like rats, mice, and primates for applica-
tion to humans. Although this extrapolation carries many uncertain-
ties, estimates of health risk can be used to formulate decisions
about actions to reduce risk.
D2
-------
Many investigators and state and local regulatory agencies
evaluate the significance of toxic contamination in fish and shellfish
relative to human health concerns simply by comparing tissue
concentrations of selected chemicals to Action Levels or tolerances
established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (An Action
Level is a restriction on chemical contamination. Foodstuffs with
concentrations of a chemical exceeding the Action Level are re-
quired by federal law to be confiscated and destroyed.) Action
Levels do not provide a sufficient basis for all local risk assess-
ments because they are available only for chemicals likely to be at
levels of concern to commercial fisheries on a national basis. They
do not, therefore, include some chemicals highly suspected of
causing cancer or other adverse effects that might be of concern
in some local areas due to higher-than-average local fish consump-
tion and high, localized contamination levels.
Action Levels are national protective levels set by
FDA. Tolerance levels indicate the ability of an
organism to fend off an adverse effect.
FDA is authorized to develop Action Levels or tolerances for
specific localities if it is in the national interest. Tolerances have
legal enforcement status, whereas Action Levels have less formal
regulatory limits. To date, however, all Action Levels and toler-
ances have been developed to be protective on a national basis,
rather than regionally or locally.
The procedure for determining these national protective levels
involves assessing the health risks to the average national con-
sumer of a foodstuff. It presumes the consumer eats foods from a
typical "national market basket," and weighs the resulting average
national health risks against the likely national economic impacts
of setting particular levels as Action Levels or tolerances. There-
fore, FDA has stated that Action Levels and tolerances are not
intended to protect local consumers of fish and shellfish, like
sports-fishermen, who may eat more of a given fish than the
average national consumer.
Risk Assessment
Estimation, using best available scientific methods,
of the probable health risks of a given activity.
Risk Management
The use of regulatory tools to protect against levels
of risk deemed unacceptable based on risk assess-
ment and socioeconomic considerations.
FDA has the lead responsibility for managing risks related to
consumption of foods distributed in interstate commerce. For some
chemicals in foods, EPA assists FDA in its risk management
responsibilities by helping conduct the technical risk assessments
that are the starting point of risk management. FDA then incor-
porates economic considerations and develops Action Levels and
D3
-------
What Is Risk
Management?
tolerances. Foods not distributed through interstate commerce are
primarily a state responsibility, not FDA's. Previously, procedures
for assessing risks from the consumption of contaminated fish and
shellfish have not been standardized among agencies — or some-
times, even among programs within a single agency. In addition,
risk assessment procedures for other problems, such as con-
tamination of drinking water, have been better developed than
those for consumption of contaminated aquatic organisms. The
1987 National Estuary Program guidance manual explains how to
apply general EPA risk assessment policies to the particular
"exposure route" (mechanism of human exposure) of eating fish
and shellfish.
The EPA risk assessment process is based on estimating the
highest probability, given uncertain technical information, of risks
to humans. The process uses a combination of empirical data
(observational data) on the long-term, chronic effects of toxic
chemicals, and models for extrapolating from high doses to low
doses and from animals to humans. In most cases, empirical data
are available only for animal test species. This is primarily because
it is hard to obtain long-term (a generation or lifetime) observations
of human health effects like cancer, and human data are only rarely
available, in cases where accidental exposures have occurred.
Risk management is the application of the results of risk assess-
ment by regulatory agencies to formulate public policy. For ex-
ample, regulatory agencies may use the results of risk assessment
studies to develop public health advisories to limit consumption of
particular fish species where contaminant levels are relatively low,
or to ban such consumption where levels are higher. In general,
the process and outcomes of risk management are case-specific
because technical, socioeconomic, and political issues must be
considered, and these factors are case-specific. Risk management
requires policy makers at federal, state, and local levels to balance
these public concerns.
In the National Estuary Program and other EPA or state programs
for fresh, estuarine or marine waters, the results of health risk
assessment for fish or shellfish consumption generally may be
used in risk management to do the following:
• Identify problem areas, problem pollutants, and problem fish or
shellfish species (and problem weight or length classes within
species, if relevant);
• Develop guidelines and criteria for contaminant concentrations
that would be used to develop fish and shellfish consumption
advisories in cooperation with FDA and state governments; and
• Provide public information in cooperation with FDA or state
governments.
D4
-------
Risk management is important in areas other than public policy
making. It also provides the public with information on which to base
individual decisions regarding where to harvest aquatic food or-
ganisms, which species to harvest, and how much to consume. In
other words, where to fish, what to fish, and whether to eat what
one catches.
The guidance manual discusses the four major components of the
risk assessment process: hazard identification, dose-response
assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization.
Hazard identification involves defining the toxicological hazards
(toxicity profiles) posed by each chemical contaminant. Toxicity
profiles are based on each chemical's physical, chemical, and
metabolic properties, and on toxicological effects (also called
"dose-response effects"). Noncarcinogenic effects (that is, all
harmful effects other than causation of cancer, including birth
defects) are summarized in the toxicity profile for each chemical of
concern. The guidance manual also describes the "weight-of-
evidence" approach used by EPA to classify chemicals according
to their carcinogenic (cancer-causing) potential.
Dose-response assessment is one factor in hazard identification.
Data on the relationship between the contaminant dose and the
observed "response" (effect on the test organism) are used to
determine the toxicological potency of a substance. For car-
cinogens, there is presumably a finite risk of cancer, even at low
doses. For noncarcinogens, chemicals that induce effects other
than cancer, such as nervous system damage, liver effects, skin
disorders, and birth defects, there is usually a dose below which
adverse biological effects are not observed. This is called the
"no-observed-adverse-effects level" or NOAEL. The EPA risk
assessment approach is based on the use of dose-response data
from epidemiological (human disease) studies or from bioassays
of the animal species that are most appropriate for estimating a
response in humans. Lacking this information, a measure of
toxicological potency is derived from the dose-response relation-
ship for the most sensitive species tested (usually a laboratory
strain of rats or mice). Results of laboratory experiments are then
extrapolated to humans.
A standardized set of dose-response data then takes into account
all the appropriate laboratory animal and epidemiological studies
available for each of approximately 200 chemicals provided by EPA
in a computerized data base. The data base is called the Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS, EPA 1987). Periodically updated
versions of the IRIS data base are also available in document
format from EPA or from the National Technical Information Ser-
vice. Data on new chemicals are continually added as they become
available.
Components of the
Risk Assessment
Process
Hazard Identification
Dose-Response
Assessment
D5
-------
Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment is the process of determining what human
populations are exposed to chemicals of concern; the pathways by
which they are exposed; and the magnitude, frequency, and dura-
tion of the exposure. An exposure assessment for contaminated
fish and shellfish involves
• Analysis of tissue concentrations of contaminants in aquatic
organisms;
• Analysis of the exposed human population, including fisheries
harvest activities, rates of consumption of fish and shellfish,
diet composition, and other population-related factors; and
• Estimation of the ingested dose of each food species by sub-
group within the exposed population (for example, age groups,
ethnic groups, and fishermen versus nonfishermen) and by
geographic location.
This analysis of a subgroup's overall exposure is called "integrated
exposure analysis."
Tissue Concentration Analysis. Studies to determine concentra-
tions of contaminants in tissues of aquatic biota must be designed
carefully. Features to consider include study objectives, species of
concern, sampling locations, and sampling times. Examples of the
relationship between possible objectives and various sampling
strategies are provided in the guidance manual. The manual also
provides guidance on selecting species for the study and on
performing statistical analyses of the resulting data.
Exposed Population Analysis. The analysis of exposed popula-
tions includes four steps:
• Identify the potentially exposed population by fishery harvest
area;
• Describe the demographic and aquatic harvesting activities of
the population;
• Characterize catch and consumption patterns; and
• Estimate average consumption rates
The first three steps typically involve conducting surveys of the
potentially exposed population. The guidance manual discusses
survey methods, data analyses, and data repo.ting formats. The
summary exposure variable for use in subsequent steps of risk
assessment is the average consumption rate. The manual pro-
vides guidance for calculating average consumption rates for each
harvested species and, if data are available, for each segment
within the human population.
The manual also shows how to use alternative consumption rates
derived by other investigators. Decision makers in each state or
locality may choose whether to collect site-specific data on human
consumption patterns, or to use typical values derived from other
studies. Individuals can also be given the opportunity to determine
their own personal consumption patterns if risk assessment site
results are presented on the basis of "risk per meal of fish per week"
or a similar approach.
D6
-------
Integrated Exposure Analysis. The integrated exposure analysis
results in an estimate of ingested dose by species. The ingested
dose is calculated for specific segments of the human population
(for example, a certain age group along a certain stretch of river).
For a given segment of the exposed population, the ingested dose
is calculated as shown below:
Ingested dose = concentration of a chemical in the
edible portion of an organism x a
number representing the relative
amount of chemical absorbed by the
digestive system -*• by the average
body weight of all individuals in the
population segment.
In the risk characterization stage, the preceding steps are brought
together to estimate the probability and extent of adverse effects
associated with consumption of contaminated fish or shellfish from
a given water body. Numerical estimates of risk can be presented
on an individual basis. Risk to an individual is expressed as a
probability (for example, a one in 10,000 increased lifetime chance
of getting cancer or other effects). Risk to a population is expressed
as the excess number of cancers or other adverse effects produced
within the specific population over one generation.
The results of risk assessment may be presented in both tabular
and graphic format. All risk estimates should be interpreted as
plausible-upper-limit values for the stated assumptions and expo-
sure conditions, in keeping with EPA's national guidelines for risk
assessment (EPA 1986). Risk estimates for a given area and
aquatic food species vary with consumption rates, and consump-
tion rates vary greatly among individuals. Therefore, graphs show-
ing plausible-upper-limit risks versus consumption rates are
recommended as the primary means of presenting results. Using
the tables to compare the pattern shown on the graphs with
personal consumption rates of various fish and shellfish, con-
sumers can determine any extra risk to which they might be
exposed.
Risk assessment results should include a summary of assumptions
and an uncertainty analysis. The summary should note general
assumptions inherent in all health risk assessments, and specific
assumptions adopted for the risk analysis in question.
By using EPA's 1986 policy for risk assessments and estimating
the plausible-upper-limit to risk, it is highly unlikely that risk will be
underestimated. The "upper bound estimate" of the risk is not likely
to be exceeded. The actual risk is likely to be below this level, and
may be close to zero in some instances. Therefore, the estimate
provides a consistent basis for relative risk comparisons
Risk Characterization
D7
-------
References
and is a very conservative (that is, a "protective") approach to
determining whether there are any significant public health risks
posed by specific chemicals' contamination of fish or shellfish in a
given area. In instances of contamination by multiple chemicals,
EPA's 1986 guidance recommends that the risk estimates from the
individual chemicals be added together to obtain the overall risk
assessment. This additive approach is neither conservative nor
non-conservative because in a few instances effects could cancel
one another out, while in others, effects could enhance one
another. But the overall risk assessment will remain conservative
because each of the underlying individual risk estimates was
conservative.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Draft
guidance manual for health risk assessment of chemically
contaminated fish and shellfish. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Of-
fice of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC,
by Battelle Memorial Institute, Duxbury, MA, and PTI
Environmental Services, Seattle, WA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Guidelines for
health risk assessment, Parts II-VI. U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC. Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 185. pp. 33992-34054.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Integrated Risk In-
formation System Supportive Documentation, Volumes I
and II. EPA 160018-861032a, March 1987. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC.
D8
-------
Appendix E
Alternative Financing
This appendix of A Primer for Establishing and Manag-
ing Estuary Projects is a summary of the guidance
manual, Financing Marine and Estuarine Programs: A
Guide to Resources. The Primer, which describes the
National Estuary Program's origins, statutory
provisions, and approach is designed for EPA's
programs and regional offices, coastal states, and
other interested parties. For more information, contact
an EPA regional office.
As part of the National Estuary Program (NEP), state resource
managers, town planners, and local administrators jointly develop
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP) to
protect estuaries. These plans call for a broad range of actions
including the construction or improvement of sewage treatment
plants, implementation of nonpoint source control programs, and
habitat restoration programs. Implementing these plans will require
the outlay of significant financial resources. Under NEP, funds are
provided to develop comprehensive management plans and as-
sociated demonstration projects for resource protection, but not to
implement cleanup activities. In order to move from planning to
action, resource managers must therefore understand the financial
mechanisms available to support their cleanup programs.
This appendix describes a guidance manual that the National
Estuary Program has developed to help estuary program managers
understand the concepts and terminology of public finance, and
secure funds needed to support restoration and protection
programs. The guidance manual, Financing Marine and Estuarine
Programs: A Guide to Resources, is divided into three parts. The
first part of the document, the financial primer, introduces basic
financing concepts and explains initiatives needed to begin finan-
cial planning for long-term resource management activities. The
second part includes case studies that provide specific examples
demonstrating how towns and cities have raised money to solve
specific water quality problems. The last part, a glossary, defines
terminology that managers unfamiliar with financial planning must
understand. The following pages present highlights of the primer.
An Overview
E1
-------
The Financial Primer
Accessing Revenues
In order to compete successfully for limited funds, estuary program
managers must understand the basic principles of public finance.
To finance technical plans, managers must access revenues,
manage the flow of funds, and build institutions to oversee financial
planning and management. The financial primer discusses ways to
link sources and uses of funds, and institutions that control these
programs.
Several kinds of financial mechanisms, or tools, help establish a
flow of funds from sources to their uses. The financial primer
reviews the basic characteristics of five tools used to access capital
including these:
• Levying taxes
• Collecting fees
• Securing intergovernmental transfers
• Issuing municipal bonds
• Attracting (extracting) private capital
The usefulness of each depends on the investment, project costs
and benefits, and explicit acknowledgement of any financial risk.
Taxes. Cities and states have successfully used taxes to fund
projects to protect the coastal environments. Income taxes,
property and sales taxes, and commodity taxes—gas, cigarettes,
and liquor—can be used to raise revenues. In Washington State,
for example, an eight-cent-per-pack cigarette tax helps finance the
state's water quality protection plan.
Fees. Fees, such as charges to polluters for the costs their dischar-
ges impose upon society, can be used to help finance pollution
control activities. Fees can be calculated as a function of use—user
fees—or on the basis of proportional cost imposed on the system—
impact fees. For example, in many coastal areas septic systems
are a source of near-coastal water pollution. Septic sources can be
controlled by inspecting tanks periodically, pumping out septage,
and replacing poorly operating drain fields. A number of com-
munities have financed such programs entirely with periodic fees
collected from homeowners with septic systems. Impact fees can
be charged to recover the cost of services from those responsible
for creating the need for those costs. In California, for example,
several wastewater treatment plants have been financed with fees
paid by land developers on the basis of demands for treatment that
their developments are expected to generate.
Intergovernmental Transfers. Fees or taxes may be collected by
one level of government and passed on to another. These inter-
governmental transfers, as they are known, redistribute income
geographically, usually from federal to state to local governments.
Even though intergovernmental transfers are used for a consider-
able proportion of state and local revenues, their utility for support-
ing broad governmental activities is often limited.
Debt financing. Resource managers can use debt financing to
raise "up-front" capital for a facility and then distribute the burden
of repayment among those benefiting from it. Governments borrow
funds from investors by issuing debt in the form of a bond. However,
E2
-------
a bond must be repaid, so revenue must be raised through taxes
or user fees. While bonds cannot finance routine expenses such
as water quality monitoring, they are well suited to finance facilities
such as wastewater treatment plants. Bonds may be short-term,
long-term, general obligation, or revenue bonds, depending upon
how the principal and interest are repaid. When considering bonds
to finance projects, planners must evaluate credit ratings and interest.
Private Capital. Tapping the resources of private capital is another
way of financing projects to protect estuaries. Public/private
partnerships are another way to finance estuary protection initia-
tives. For example, the public partner might finance and build the
facility while, for a fee, the private partner operates and maintains
it. In 1986, about 100 municipal wastewater treatment plants were
operated privately. Some of the most innovative ways in which
estuarine managers can attract private capital is to form new types
of public/private partnerships by taking advantage of rapidly es-
calating real estate values. For example, impact fees have been
used to finance capital facilities like sewage treatment plants in
rapidly growing areas. Similarly, selling "capacity credits" to
developers is a new way to finance pollution control projects.
However, through the use of capacity credits, users pay voluntarily.
Capacity credits are best suited to finance facilities such as treat-
ment plants or stormwater control facilities.
Once funds have been secured, it is important that they be dis-
bursed and managed successfully. Some activities require an initial
lump sum while others require an annual budget to support ongoing
activities. Taxes, fees, and other forms of revenue must be directed
to the appropriate programs. Hence, it is extremely important that
program managers understand the legislative budgetary and ap-
propriating process. The financial primer explains three techniques
for coordinating the distribution of money: appropriations, capital
budgeting, and independent mechanisms.
Appropriations. Based on previously authorized budgets, a legis-
lature appropriates funds to government programs annually. For
some programs, the Congress, states, and local governments
appropriate funds on a project-by-project basis. The most obvious
drawback to this type of funding is that year-to-year appropriations
for multi-year projects are not assured.
Capital Budgeting. Most state and local governments have some
form of a capital budget that accounts for construction and upkeep
of the physical facilities owned by public entities. Almost all capital
budgets have four basic components:
• Selecting the scope of services for which the state or local
government is responsible;
• Identifying assets through a physical inventory, an assess-
ment of condition, and an evaluation of performance;
• Integrating the data with estimates of costs to operate and
maintain existing facilities and build new ones;
• Drafting a summary plan for distribution to (and concurrence
by) all governmental public works agencies and interested
nongovernmental groups.
Managing Revenues
E3
-------
Building Institutions
Through capital budgeting, all available funds are assembled and
allocated to the highest priority capital project needs. Each year,
projects can be recommended to the appropriate decision-making
body for funding on the basis of a systematic, substantiated plan.
Resource managers use capital budgeting to help set priorities for
capital facilities such as municipal treatment plants.
Independent Mechanisms. Among other mechanisms, enterprise
and revolving loan funds should be considered. Enterprise funds
help manage the finances of government activities that are largely
supported through user fees. Common city enterprise funds in-
clude water and sewer services, electric and gas utilities, airports,
and local transit. An advantage to running a program through an
enterprise fund is that revenues can be predicted with reasonable
certainty.
Revolving loan funds (RLF) provide long-term, low-interest loans
for major capital investments. Individual RLFs are capitalized and
operated in various ways with which managers must become
familiar. The benefits from revolving loan funds include the ability
to target investments to specific project types and the security of a
long-term source of capital with few effects from political volatility.
However, because the fund must have capital to begin lending, the
state must first authorize or otherwise secure seed capital.
The 82,000 individual governments in the United States provide the
framework within which capital for investment is secured and
managed. The characteristics of these governments and their
components are often the critical variables in the creation and
implementation of a financing plan. Governments include federal,
state, and local authorities (regional authorities and special dis-
tricts).
Conventional governments, including federal agencies, state
government, and governing boards of local governments, operate
a wide variety of services, and they have the ability to authorize an
equally wide variety of mechanisms to recover those services.
However, conventional governments rely on only a few sources to
recover costs. The federal government is the primary public inves-
tor in natural resource protection programs. EPA's National Estuary
Program, for example, funds programs to preserve the water and
resources of estuaries threatened by overuse and development. A
number of other federal programs assist in the restoration and
protection of estuarine and marine waters such as U.S. Soil Con-
servation Service, Farmers Home Administration, and Coastal
Zone Management Act. State and local governments also play an
important role in the financing of environmental protection
programs.
In certain situations, the natural resources that need to be protected
are not covered by existing institutional boundaries. Interstate
and/or inter-jurisdictional coordination is frequently necessary.
Often, many of the revenue-raising mechanisms that link users to
payments are readily administered by special-purpose units
created to manage such flows. Hence, managers looking for ways
to raise revenue for implementing estuary protection programs
should consider creating a special-purpose government. These
governments include, for example, stormwater management dis-
E4
-------
tricts, interstate water management commissions, and regional port
authorities. Since the early 1970s, special-purpose governments
have proliferated. The fiscal limitations imposed by state and local
debt limits have been one of the chief reasons for this rapid growth.
The case studies in the financing primer demonstrate the use of
financial tools, financial management mechanisms, and manage-
ment institutions capable of raising revenue for a wide range of
projects. The ten case studies presented in the primer discuss how
various local, state, and special-district governments successfully
used some of the financial mechanisms mentioned above, in
addition to other techniques to finance environmental protection
programs. Each case study includes a section that evaluates the
applicability of the particular financing technique to estuarine and
marine resource restoration and protection programs. The case
studies provide a number of examples that may assist managers
as they choose the financing tools to address their specific needs.
The Case Studies
E5
-------
Appendix F
Citizen Monitoring
This appendix of A Primer for Establishing and Manag-
ing Estuary Projects provides guidance on how suc-
cessful volunteer estuarine monitoring programs can
be developed, implemented, and maintained, aug-
menting existing government-sponsored monitoring
efforts. The Primer, which describes the National Es-
tuary Program's origins, statutory provisions, and ap-
proach, is designed for EPA's programs and regional
offices, coastal states, and other interested parties. For
more information, contact an EPA regional office.
Government agencies participating in the National Estuary Pro-
gram have recognized that monitoring programs operated by
citizens can effectively support the development and implementa-
tion of comprehensive estuarine management plans in a number
of ways. First and most important, citizen data can be high quality
information that is vital to estuarine management. Citizens often
can collect data that might not be available through generally
accepted methods. Citizen monitors also help to build public com-
mitment to environmental quality goals and objectives. Through
their participation in monitoring programs, citizens learn how they
contribute to pollution problems and develop a sense of guardian-
ship toward the waters they are monitoring. Finally, these programs
also help citizens understand the difficulties faced by the scientific
community as it attempts to link water quality changes to impacts
on living resources.
Citizen volunteers can easily learn how to collect environmental
data in estuarine and near coastal waters. In the Chesapeake Bay,
for example, an established citizen monitoring program has
demonstrated that trained volunteers can collect data that are
technically defensible. Citizen volunteers working in the
Chesapeake Bay have responded to irregular events such as
storms, algal blooms, and fish kills faster than government agen-
cies. They have also provided greater geographical coverage than
government agency monitoring programs. Moreover, citizens can
collect useful and low-cost environmental data, while at the same
time involving the public in working to solve estuarine environmen-
tal problems.
A Useful Tool
F1
-------
Establishing a
Program
Identifying Information
for Collection
Obtaining Funding and
Controlling Costs
Monitoring involves the collection of repetitive environmental meas-
urements or observations over time to determine a condition or
track changes in environmental parameters. The information col-
lected by citizen volunteers can be analyzed to describe the con-
dition of a watershed, indicating whether water quality is improving
or worsening.
A review of existing citizen monitoring programs has shown that
there are several key ingredients required to establish a successful
program: identifying needed information, obtaining funding and
controlling costs, providing credible information, and selecting and
keeping good volunteers.
The first step in developing a citizen monitoring program is to
determine the type of data that will be collected. Data should be
collected in response to a specific question, a demonstrated need,
or special use for the data. Citizen volunteers must know that the
data they collect are contributing to some action, or will provide
them with some direct benefit or personal reward.
The data to be collected should permit the use of simple methods
and equipment that volunteers can quickly and accurately master.
The monitoring project should include quality control assurance
adequate enough to instill confidence among decision makers in
the data generated.
Funding for citizen monitoring programs can be obtained primarily
from federal and state agencies and private industry and organiza-
tions. Federal sources include funds available under Sections 106
and 205(j) of the Clean Water Act, the National Estuary Program,
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) Sea Grant Program. State funding is sometimes available
through general state revenues or through more innovative
mechanisms such as user taxes on motorboat fuel or funds ob-
tained from industrial fines. Other sources of funding can include
grants from private industry or nonprofit organizations. Private
funding has been obtained by a number of volunteer estuary
monitoring programs. The Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers or-
ganization, for example, has partially funded a citizen volunteer
monitoring program through a grant from IBM Corporation. In
establishing a volunteer monitoring program, it is very important to
secure commitments for program funding. It is helpful if monitoring
program project periods coincide with the period of time during
which the volunteers can be supported. Loss of program funds
during the monitoring project period has caused some volunteer
monitoring programs to fail.
Simple and inexpensive sampling methods can help keep program
costs down. Monitoring programs should evaluate a variety of
sampling equipment to determine which provides the most useful
result for the least cost. However, the quality of the data should not
F2
-------
be sacrificed just to reduce project costs. Since data of poor quality
cannot be used in management decisions, the use of inferior
equipment or methods may cause the project to be unsuccessful
in fulfilling its objectives.
In order to collect credible data, citizen monitoring programs must
follow established quality control/quality assurance procedures.
When possible, some sites monitored by citizen volunteers should
be located near sites sampled by state agencies. Data collected by
the volunteers can then be compared with results obtained at the
nearby state sampling locations. The Chesapeake Bay Citizens
Monitoring Program validated some data sets in this way and found
little difference between data collected by the citizens and by the
state. This analysis demonstrated that trained volunteers can col-
lect quality-controlled and assured data. (An evaluation of quality
assurance and quality control measures for citizen monitoring
programs undertaken by the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
describes the important elements in a quality assurance and quality
control program. Copies of Quality Assurance Project Plan for the
Citizens Monitoring Project are available from the Alliance.)
Sampling equipment used in citizen monitoring programs should
be validated annually and maintenance records kept in the project
files. To ensure quality assurance/quality control, all volunteers
should receive training followed by biannual quality control ses-
sions to verify that sampling procedures are consistent among
volunteers. If volunteers do not attend at least one quality control
session a year, the program coordinator should perform a site visit
to validate their sampling techniques.
Data should be examined upon collection to identify questionable
values, and the responsible volunteer should be consulted to
determine possible causes of variation. If questionable data con-
tinue to be collected, the program coordinator should perform a site
visit. If a volunteer cannot meet the quality standards established
for the collection of data, the data collected by that volunteer should
be kept separate from the remaining project data. The use of simple
sampling methods should decrease the occurrence of poor quality
data. A quality assurance project plan should be developed that
establishes the steps to be taken to protect the quality and integrity
of the data. Information concerning the development of a quality
assurance project plan for environmental monitoring in estuaries
may be obtained from the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(OMEP).
Careful consideration should be given to the recruitment of volun-
teers. Participation should not be limited to the scientific com-
munity. Willing and able volunteers can be found among the retired
community, environmental clubs, teachers, and other interested
citizen groups. The citizen monitoring program manager or coor-
dinator should be prepared to make a substantial investment of time
in providing assistance to the volunteers.
After recruiting volunteers, it is essential to maintain their motivation
and provide positive feedback to them. A survey of successful
Providing Credible
Information
Selecting and Keeping
Volunteers
F3
-------
Managing a Citizen
Monitoring Program
Role of Citizen
Monitoring in CCMPs
citizen monitoring programs has identified program elements
needed to maintain motivation and positive feedback. Disseminat-
ing information about their efforts was found to be a key element in
motivating volunteers to participate effectively in a study of this
type. The volunteers collecting the data are interested in knowing
the data they collect are useful to decision makers or regulatory
agencies. A newsletter may be helpful in achieving this goal.
Program publicity acknowledging volunteer efforts is also a source
of motivation for the volunteers. It was also found that periodic
meetings among volunteer monitoring organizations for comparing
notes and ideas help to maintain interest in a project. In addition,
responsibility for coordinating some parts of the citizen monitoring
program should be delegated to volunteers in order to encourage
interest. Both interesting and tedious tasks should be rotated so
that each volunteer can participate in all aspects of the program.
An awards banquet can also be held to show the volunteers that
their efforts are appreciated.
Once the purpose of a citizen monitoring program is established,
key personnel must be selected. These personnel may include a
program coordinator, volunteer technical advisors, and someone
to manage and analyze the data. The coordinator of the citizen
monitoring program is responsible for recruiting volunteers, estab-
lishing quality-control procedures, maintaining program files, and
running the citizen monitoring program. The role of the data
manager/analyst includes the maintenance of computer files and
the development of report results. The citizen monitoring program
can use the same data management system used by the Manage-
ment Conference. This will allow the data generated by the citizen
volunteers to be available to anyone interested in the estuary or the
citizen monitoring program.
Recruiting volunteers is an on-going process. Throughout the
duration of the project, the list of volunteers will change. Motivated
volunteers will remain with the project and perhaps bring in new
recruits. The coordinator should develop a system for evaluating
the project so that volunteers can provide input that will strengthen
the project.
To augment already existing estuary monitoring programs, there
are five major areas in which citizen volunteers can help (1)
collecting data to characterize water resources; (2) collecting data
to assist in planning and policy development; (3) functioning as
"watch dogs" for enforcement and assisting in the implementation
of regulations; (4) educating the public and promoting public aware-
ness of environmental issues; and (5) collecting data for special
research projects designed to address specific problems. A survey
of existing citizen monitoring programs reveals a variety of data
collection methodologies and objectives. Figure F.1 presents some
parameters and sampling methods used by several volunteer
monitoring programs and shows how these data assist decision
makers. (Information describing these programs and others is
available in EPA's Directory of National Citizen Volunteer Environ-
mental Monitoring Programs and may be obtained from OMEP.)
F4
-------
Program Parameters and Sampling Methods'
oo
Anne Arundel County Volunteer Monitoring Program
pH color comparator kit; dissolved oxygen: micro
winkler titration kit, water temperature thermometer;
rainfall- ram gage, clarity; secchi disc, depth:
secchi disc with measured line, air temperature:
thermometer, salinity hydrometer, weather conditions-
visual observation
Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitoring Program
Water and air temperature thermometer; ph: color
comparator kit; clarity secchi disc; depth: secchi
disc with measured line; salinity hydrometer; dis-
solved oxygen micro winkler titration kit, weather
conditions visual observation; site characteristics-
visual observation
Boston Harbor Monitoring Program
Temperature and salinity salinity/temperature meter,
dissolved oxygen dissolved oxygen meter; charity:
secchi disc
Clean Ocean Action - Trash Attack
Plastics, glass, and aluminum hand gathered
Curriluck Sound/Back Bay Monitoring Program
Dissolved oxygen, micro winkler titration kit;
temperature, thermometer; salinity hydrometer,
clarity secchi disc; pH color comparator kit, tide
level visual observation
Rhode Island Salt Pond Watchers
Bacteria hand collected into sterile bottles and stored
in coolers until collected, chlorophyll a, nutrients, and
salinity hand collected and filtered into bottles, then
frozen until collected, temperature thermometer;
eelgrass disease- visual observation and index chart;
clarity secchi disc, dissolved oxygen- micro winkler
titration kit, shoreline surveys visual observation
Adopt-A-Beach
Program serves as a support program for individual
projects that are monitoring a variety of parameters
using well established field methodologies including-
wetland characterization, visual observation; coliform
levels m shellfish hand gathered, coliform levels in
water hand gathered, epibenthic fauna: suction pump;
marine debris, visual observation, long-term trends in
bird mortality visual observation
FIGURE F 1 PARAMETERS AND METHODS USED BY SEVERAL CITIZEN MONITORING
PROGRAMS TO COLLECT DATA AND THE GOALS THESE DATA ARE USED TO OBTAIN
F5
-------
Providing Data
for Characterization
Supporting Planning and
Policy Development
Supporting Enforcement
and Compliance
Citizen monitoring programs can provide frequent and time-vari-
able sampling of water quality associated with storm events and
algal blooms. Volunteers have collected data accurately, describ-
ing a number of parameters including the number and size of fish
kills, precipitation levels, and the number of fish caught by recrea-
tional fishermen. The New Jersey Sea Grant citizen monitoring
program, composed of members of fishing clubs, angler associa-
tions, and charter boat associations, collects data on marine
recreational fishes. Volunteers can also provide ground-truthing for
remote sensing data. Because of the large geographic areas
covered by many citizen monitoring programs, volunteers can help
assess water bodies that are not being monitored by government
agencies, and collect needed samples or observations from remote
locations or private property. It is difficult for volunteers to collect
samples from boats because they may encounter problems locat-
ing sampling sites, personal safety cannot be assured, and bad
weather can interfere with sample collection. Citizens in the
Chesapeake Bay collect their data near shore; few differences in
water quality have been observed between samples taken near
shore and those taken from the center of tributaries to the bay.
Volunteer monitoring programs can complement government ac-
tion; however, a clear statement of management issues and
specific management questions that define the information needed
for management action must be available to them. Citizen monitor-
ing data can enhance citizen involvement in planning and policy
development. Highly informed citizens can offer quality input in
these ways:
• Critiquing local proposals for development.
• Acting as "expert witnesses," using trend data and information
on past practices and conditions in a given area.
• Focusing attention on emerging issues.
• Forming constituencies for legislative initiatives or political actions.
• Influencing local action or ordinances.
Citizen volunteers can act as "watch dogs" to ensure full implemen-
tation and enforcement of environmental regulations. Volunteers
who collect samples often have a vested interest in the health and
well-being of the local environment and can help the regulatory
community in these ways:
• Producing an inventory of, or "red flagging," illegal pipes or
discharges, and dumping sites.
• Collecting observations of excessive erosion and failed sedi-
ment control structures.
• Compiling data collected for compliance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
• Alerting officials to spills and their impacts.
F6
-------
Educating the Public
Citizen volunteers provide a valuable link to the local community.
The "Adopt-A-Stream" program, established in the Pacific
Northwest to promote environmental education and stream enhan-
cement, provides a good example of public education through
volunteer monitoring. Volunteers participate in the restoration of
adopted streams to their original condition. Projects like "Adopt-A-
Stream" promote the concept of stewardship for the resource being
monitored. Such programs also help to instill a conservation ethic
in local communities.
Citizen monitoring can provide data for special research projects,
such as shoreline cleanups, ground-truthing of submerged aquatic
vegetation, wetland inventories, and other surveys. Volunteers can
collect samples in remote locations at frequent intervals.
EPA's Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection and Office of
Water Regulations and Standards are jointly developing a detailed
manual for citizen monitoring program managers. The manual will
address how to do the following:
• Plan a citizen monitoring program.
• Develop a quality control/quality assurance plan.
• Raise money to support the program.
• Train volunteers.
• Select sampling equipment.
• Select parameters to measure.
• Develop a data management system.
For additional assistance, some citizen monitoring programs
produce newsletters that are available to interested individuals. A
list of the existing programs is provided in the Directory of National
Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs, which is
updated annually. Contact OMEP for more information or to receive
a copy of these publications.
Providing Data for Research
Citizen Monitoring
Manual
F7
------- |