United States
Environmental Protection Agency
COMMUNITY-BASED
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
LESSONS FROM THE
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-------
February, 2005
EPA-842-B-05-003
Acknowledgments
This handbook was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Coastal Management Branch. The content of this handbook is the
result of a collaborative effort among the directors and staff of the 28 National
Estuary Programs and the EPAs National Estuary Program Regional
Coordinators. The EPA Work Assignment Manager was Tim Jones, who
provided overall project coordination.
Special thanks to the following people who reviewed and provided useful
suggestions in the preparation of this document: Ashley Allen, Dick
Eckenrod, Diane Gould, Doug Jacobson, Stuart Lehman, Macara Lousberg,
Debrah Marriott, Fred McManus, Tracie Nadeau, Amy Owsley, Margherita
Pryor, Kimberley Roy, Gustavo Rubio, Roger Taylor, and Thomas Webler.
-------
Message from the Of Gee Director
Environmental protection programs in the United States have significantly improved water
quality during the last quarter century. Nonetheless, many challenges remain. Of the waters
assessed in the United States, about 40% of streams, 45% of lakes, and 50% of estuaries remain
too polluted for fishing, swimming, and other uses. The watershed approach—targeting high
priority water quality and habitat problems within hydrologically-defmed areas—is essential to
address these issues.
Through this handbook, we describe the highly successful approaches to watershed
management implemented by the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs). The NEPs, unique
partnerships of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and numerous federal, state,
and local organizations, work together to address coastal watershed management challenges.
This document presents new information from nearly 20 years of the NEP experience and
describes how the NEPs:
• protect and restore estuaries by developing and implementing comprehensive
management plans;
• foster consensus on difficult issues by establishing effective governance structures;
• conduct vigorous education and outreach by involving the public;
• obtain significant funding by leveraging scarce resources;
• establish credibility by using science to inform decision making; and
• sustain their efforts by measuring and communicating results.
The principles and lessons learned contained in this document are relevant not only to NEPs,
but to other watershed organizations who are working to implement watershed protection and
restoration efforts. Whether working in coastal or non-coastal areas, watershed organizations
can learn from the NEPs about innovative approaches to integrating science and management,
fostering collaborative decision-making, and involving the public. While coastal estuaries may be
home to certain elements that are not found in non-coastal areas, this handbook provides
examples that do not require the presence of coastal elements to be successfully applied.
I hope this document will be useful for all practitioners involved in watershed management,
including the staff of the NEP and EPA. Thank you to all of the 28 NEPs who contributed to
the development of this report.
Diane Regas, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
an
i rancisco
r,stuary
'roject
1 CONSUL
Columbia
River K.s1 uary
Pa.lnerslnp l ""
, >" 1%. H,»i.U...ia-l
77^ ' .'*
COMMUNITY-BASED
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
LESSONS FROM THE
NATIONAL ESTUARY
PROGRAM
FEBRUARY, 2005
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Office of Water
United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
lONd
1SL\M)
SOUND
vi I'm
,M'
!i:
*,^^
L [lu-'i •• I'-u-.i-n;
Cosco Bay Istuary Project
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter 1: The National Estuary Program (NEP) 1
NEP Principles in Chapter 1 1
Introduction 1
Origin 2
The Cornerstones of the NEP 3
Applicability of the NEP Approach 5
Chapter 2: Establishing a Governance Structure 7
NEP Principles in Chapter 2 7
Introduction 7
The NEP Governance Structure 8
Setting the Direction for the Program 8
Directing Day-to-Day Program Activities 9
Involving Stakeholder Groups and the General Public 11
Conducting Scientific Investigations to Support Management Plan Actions 14
Working with Local Government 15
Ensuring Long-Term Financial, Political, and Community Support 15
Providing Support to the Governance Structure 16
Staffing the Program Office 16
Selecting an Institutional Setting 18
Preparing to Assess the Estuary and Its Institutions 19
Establishing a Governance Structure: Examples 19
Chapter 3: Identifying Problems and Solutions 21
NEP Principles in Chapter 3 21
Introduction 21
Technical Characterization 22
Task 1: Identify and Describe the Resources and Uses of the Estuary 23
Task 2: Determine the Condition of the Resources 23
Task 3: Identify the Priority Problems 25
Task 4: Identify Likely Causes of the Priority Problems 26
Task 5: Provide Input to the Management Plan 30
Base Program Analysis: Understanding the Institutional Challenges 32
Task 1: Identify Relevant Local, State, and Federal Organizations 32
Task 2: Assess Effectiveness of Existing Programs 33
Task 3: Identify Changes Needed to Improve Program Effectiveness 33
From Characterization to Plan Development 35
Identifying Problems and Solutions: Examples 35
-------
Chapter 4: Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action 39
NEP Principles in Chapter 4 39
Introduction 39
Components of a Management Plan 40
Statement of Priority Problems 40
Mission Statements, Goals, and Objectives 40
Action Plans 41
Monitoring Strategy 43
Finance Strategy 44
Developing the Management Plan 45
From Management Plan Development to Implementation 47
Developing the Management Plan: Examples 48
Chapter 5: Implementing the Management Plan 51
NEP Principles in Chapter 5 51
Introduction 51
Maintaining Momentum from Planning Through Implementation 52
Revisiting the Governance Structure 52
Sustaining Stakeholder Involvement and Partner Support 53
Obtaining Funds 56
Funding Operating Costs 57
Funding Implementation Projects 59
Monitoring and Communicating Results 62
Environmental Monitoring 62
Programmatic Monitoring 63
Communicating Results 63
Updating the Management Plan 65
Implementing the Management Plan: Examples 66
Chapter 6: Conclusion 75
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended 77
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance 83
Appendix C: Components of Action Plans for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 91
Appendix D: Pros and Cons of Becoming a Tax-Exempt Nonprofit 93
Appendix E: Excerpt from an NEP Finance Plan 95
Appendix F: Reference Material 97
-------
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Examples of Public Participation in the NEP 12
Table 3.1: Examples of Historical Information Used for Estuary Characterization 24
Table 3.2: Galveston Bay Ecosystem Impact Matrix 27
Table 3.3: Basic Information Collected for Each Program in the Management Framework 33
Table 3.4: Question Guide for Institutional Analysis 34
Table 4.1: Basic Steps for Action Plan Development 42
Table 5.1: Excerpt from one of the Charlotte Harbor NEP's Quarterly Environmental Reports 63
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: The 28 National Estuary Programs, their Study Areas, and Surrounding Watersheds 3
Figure 2.1: Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure 9
Figure 2.2: Organizational Structure for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 10
Figure 3.1: Relationships Among Technical Characterization Tasks 23
Figure 3.2: Interconnections Among Priority Problems in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary 29
Figure 3.3: Worksheet Used to Establish Relative Importance of an Estuary's Resources 35
Figure 5.1: Resources Leveraged by the NEPs 56
Figure 5.2: Sources of NEP Leveraged Dollars (Percent Total) 57
Figure 5.3: Habitat Restored or Protected by the NEPs 65
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
Executive Summary
Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program (NEP) is
designed for all individuals and organizations involved in watershed management,
including states, tribes, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations. This
document describes innovative approaches to watershed management implemented by
the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs). The NEPs are community-based watershed
management organizations that restore and protect coastal watersheds. Drawing on
nearly 20 years of experience, readers will learn how the NEPs organize and maintain
effective citizen involvement efforts, collect and analyze data, assess and prioritize
problems, develop and implement management plans, and communicate results of
program activities. While estuaries and their coastal watersheds are the focus of the
NEPs, the estuary program experience can also be adapted to non-coastal watershed
initiatives.
Each chapter begins with the key management principles from the NEP experience.
These broad principles are described and illustrated with examples from the 28
individual NEPs. The examples show how the NEPs address specific problems within
identified priority problem areas, such as loss of habitat, polluted runoff, and invasive
species. In many cases, actions address multiple problems simultaneously, such as land
acquisition to reduce polluted runoff and increase habitat. The examples are found
throughout the text and in sidebars, as well as at the end of each chapter. Six
appendices provide additional information regarding the NEP watershed approach,
including a brief summary of each NEP that includes their Web site address. The
following paragraphs summarize the contents of each chapter.
Chapter 1 discusses the origin of the NEP and presents the four cornerstones or
principles of the NEP: (1) focus on the watershed; (2) integrate science into the
decision-making process; (3) foster collaborative problem solving; and (4) include the
public. The chapter also describes the four phases of the NEP process—establishing a
governance structure, identifying problems and solutions, developing the Management
Plan, and implementing the Management Plan—and discusses the applicability of the
NEP model to other watershed management efforts.
Chapter 2 explains how the NEPs develop a governance structure and support the
work of stakeholder committees. The chapter describes how the NEPs provide a
forum for open discussion, cooperation, and compromise that results in consensus.
Examples of governance structures are provided that show how the NEPs set a course
for their programs, direct day-to-day operations, coordinate with local governments,
and ensure long-term financial support.
-------
Chapter 3 describes how each NEP assesses an estuary to determine its health and the
effectiveness of existing management efforts. The chapter outlines how the NEPs
conduct a Technical Characterization that describes the quality of the estuary, defines
its problems, and suggests possible solutions. The chapter also describes how the
NEPs conduct the Base Program Analysis—an evaluation of the institutional
structures that affect the estuary. Finally, the chapter discusses how the findings
resulting from the Technical Characterization and Base Program Analysis are combined
and translated into plain English, telling a story about the estuary and its watershed.
Chapter 4 explains how the NEPs use the results of the Technical Characterization
and Base Program Analysis to develop management plans that address the problems of
the estuary. The chapter discusses how the NEPs involve affected jurisdictions,
agencies, and other organizations and individuals in the writing of the plan to ensure
stakeholder support and a commitment to implement the plan. The chapter also shows
how the NEPs use demonstration projects during plan development to showcase
innovative management strategies, involve the public, and demonstrate the types of
changes that full implementation can bring about.
Chapter 5 describes how the NEPs maintain the momentum of their watershed
programs as they shift from planning to implementation. The chapter explains how the
NEPs adopt bylaws and other agreements that define participant roles and provide a
mechanism for resolving conflicts; articulate a clear and realistic definition of success
that includes measurable indicators; seek a variety of funding sources to avoid over-
reliance on a single entity; and involve citizens in environmental monitoring and
building public support for implementation.
Chapter 6 summarizes the key principles that run throughout this unique and creative
approach to watershed management and highlights how they are applied to achieve
success.
-------
The National Estuary Program (NEP)
Chapter 1:
The National Estuary Program (NEP)
INTRODUCTION
Estuaries are unique areas where freshwater from rivers mixes with saltwater from the
ocean. These bays, sounds, lagoons, and other waterbodies are among the most
biologically productive places on earth,
comparable to rainforests and coral reefs. In
addition to providing habitat for a wide variety
of fish and wildlife, including many endangered
and threatened species, estuaries provide
substantial economic benefits to the nation. Our
ability to sustain commercial fisheries,
recreational fisheries, tourism, and related
activities depends upon healthy estuary
ecosystems. For example, the economic value of
commercial fisheries supported by estuaries is at
least $19 billion annually.1
Estuarine and coastal watersheds (areas of land
that drain into a coastal body of water, such as
an estuary or bay) are among the most
aesthetically appealing areas in the nation. They
are also among the most densely developed.
This narrow fringe of land, which comprises 17
percent of the land area of the United States, is
home to more than 53 percent of the nation's
population. America's coastal population will
grow to more than 127 million people by 2010—
an increase of more than 60 percent in only fifty
years.2
This preference for the coasts has created
pressures that threaten the very resources that
NEP PRINCIPLES
IN CHAPTER 1
The NEP is built on four cornerstones:
1) a focus on watersheds as the basic
management units,
2) sound decision-making is based
on good science,
3) a collaborative approach to
problem solving, and
4) the inclusion of the public.
The NEP's community-based watershed
approach can be adapted for a variety
of environmental management situations,
including both coastal and non-coastal
watershed initiatives.
The four phases of the NEP process—
establishing a governance structure, linking
good science and sound management,
developing the Management Plan, and
implementing the Management Plan—
are flexible and need not occur
sequentially.
1 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service. Hstuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. Washington: U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1990.
2 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Service. Fifty Years of Population Change Along the
Nation's Coast: 1960-2010. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990.
-------
attract people to these areas. These pressures include increased loadings of nutrients,
toxic chemicals, and pathogens that strain the assimilative capacity of our estuaries and
coastal areas and cause the degradation and loss of critical habitats and species that
make these areas precious and economically valuable. This chapter discusses the origin
of the NEP, describes the four cornerstones or principles of the NEP, outlines the
NEP process, and discusses the applicability of the NEP approach to other watershed
management efforts.
ORIGIN
Modeled after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay programs, the NEP was designed to restore and maintain the integrity
of estuaries and their watersheds. As called for in Section 320 of the Clean Water Act,
the NEPs conduct long-term planning and management to address the complex factors
that contribute to the deterioration of estuaries, such as increasing development along
our coasts. (See Appendix A for the Clean Water Act, Section 320.)
EPA periodically calls for nominations into the NEP from state governors. If an
estuary faces significant risks to its ecological integrity, contributes substantially to
commercial activities, would benefit greatly from comprehensive planning and
management, and meets several other criteria, EPA may include it in the program.
EPA has accepted 28 estuaries into the NEP since 1987 and all of these NEPs have
completed their Management Plans. Figure 1.1 shows the 28 NEPs, their watersheds,
and their study areas. (See Appendix B for summary information on each of the 28
NEPs, including each program's Web site address.)
Once an estuary is accepted into the NEP, a Management Conference is formed by
EPA to provide the local decision-making framework for the estuary. The Management
Conference is a collection of committees that guides the program. The Management
Conference typically includes local governments, affected businesses and industries,
public and private institutions, nongovernmental organizations, the general public, and
representatives from EPA, other federal agencies, state governments, and interstate or
regional agencies. In addition to being a Management Conference participant, EPA
provides financial and technical assistance, and reviews program performance. The
Management Conference defines program goals, identifies the causes of the estuary's
environmental problems, and designs actions to protect and restore habitats and living
resources. These action plans come together in a Management Plan which serves as a
blueprint for protecting and restoring the estuary. Developing the Management Plan is
a three to five year process that involves convening stakeholders and reaching
consensus on solutions.
-------
The National Estuary Program (NEP)
THE CORNERSTONES OF THE NEP
The fundamental principles that guide the NEP evolved from its place-based
environmental management predecessors such as the Chesapeake Bay Program. The
four cornerstones of the NEP are to:
• focus on watersheds,
• integrate science into the decision-making process,
• foster collaborative problem solving, and
• involve the public.
Cornerstone 1: Focus on watersheds.
Because environmental problems do not conform to political jurisdictions, the NEPs
define their management areas according to watershed boundaries and the ecosystems
within them. Focusing on these hydrologically-defined geographic areas helps the
NEPs achieve an effective mix of point source pollution and polluted runoff controls,
as well as land preservation and other measures to protect and restore water and other
natural resources. By considering all sources of pollution in the watershed, the NEPs
are better able to set priorities and concentrate on those activities necessary to produce
tangible improvements in water quality and habitat. Focusing on watersheds also
results in more effective and efficient coordination among stakeholders working to
improve water quality.
Figure 1.1: The 28 National Estuary Programs, their study areas, and
surrounding watersheds
Puget Sound
Lower Columbia Rivej
Tillamook Bay
San Francisco
Estuary T ^ \
Morro Bay
Santa Monica Bay
New Hampshire Estuaries
Massachusetts Bays
/Buzzards Bay
.-Narrangansett Bay
Peconic Bay
Long Island Sound Study
Delaware Estuary
Delaware Inland Bays
aryland Coastal Bays
Albermarle-Pamlico Sounds
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuarfej
Study Area — location where NEPs focus their restoration efforts
Watershed - land area that drains into an estuary
Indian River Lagoon
San Juan Bay
-------
Cornerstone 2: Integrate science into the decision-making process.
Decision-making should be based on the best information and science available.
Sound science provides objective information that informs debate, produces data on
the status and trends of the estuary, and furnishes a basis for policies and programmatic
decisions. The NEPs employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques to assess the
natural resources and the communities that depend upon them and to set goals and
identify environmental objectives. Science is also used by the NEPs to develop
management options and action plans, implement solutions, evaluate the effectiveness
of actions, and revise plans. NEP stakeholders and partners play a key role in
identifying problems to be assessed and collecting the scientific data needed to form
conclusions. The NEPs apply science in an iterative fashion to encourage partners to
set goals and targets and to make maximum progress based on available information,
while continuing analysis and verification in areas where information is incomplete. By
basing decisions on sound science, the NEPs
are viewed as credible sources of information.
Cornerstone 3: Foster collaborative
problem solving.
As an environmental management approach,
collaboration involves creating a shared vision
and joint strategies to address concerns that
go beyond any particular interest or
stakeholder. By ensuring that stakeholders
responsible for and interested in the
management and use of the estuary are
involved in the process, the NEPs have achieved successful collaboration. The NEP
director and staff serve as facilitators that balance conflicting estuary needs and uses
without compromising the environmental goals of restoration and protection of the
estuary. The NEP ensures that decisions are made with the input of stakeholders and
that all options, suggestions, and opinions are treated as worthy of consideration.
Decisions are made through the NEP governance structure which provides the forum
for bringing together diverse stakeholders to identify issues, develop management
actions, and resolve conflicts. The governance structure provides the platform for
collaborative decision-making and reflects the unique problems, citizen concerns, and
other characteristics of the watershed. The NEPs have found that this collaborative
approach helps overcome the obstacles to cooperation, such as different statutory and
budgetary responsibilities and the costs of sharing information and coordinating
program efforts.
-------
The National Estuary Program (NEP)
Cornerstone 4: Involve the public.
The NEPs are guided by the principle that stakeholders in the watershed ought to have
a meaningful role in shaping the program and substantive opportunities to participate in
its activities. The NEPs strive to facilitate a constructive dialog in which the range of
stakeholders in the watershed are given opportunities to help define estuary problems,
set priorities, and implement solutions that they feel are relevant. This means that the
NEPs seek to engage not only governmental entities, but the general public, nonprofits,
businesses, and universities as well. This community-based approach has a high
likelihood of long-term success because ownership of the solutions extends to
community members who must play a role in achieving them. Strong citizen
involvement programs result in support for the funding of implementation projects and
changes in day-to-day behaviors in the watershed that affect the estuary. An informed
and involved public is often the NEPs' most valuable asset for mustering the critical
support needed to implement such actions as sewage treatment upgrades, sediment
controls, and habitat restoration.
These basic principles—focusing on watersheds as the basic management unit, linking
good science with sound decision-making, solving problems collaboratively, and
involving the public—are themes that underpin the NEP and guide the NEP's
approach to watershed management.
APPLICABILITY OF THE
NEP APPROACH
The principles, examples, and lessons learned contained in this handbook are relevant
not only to the NEPs but to other watershed organizations, including local
governments, nonprofits, and others who are working to establish, implement, and
evaluate watershed protection and restoration efforts. While the NEPs are home to
certain elements not found in non-coastal areas, such as the presence of salt water
ecosystems, and receive funding and organizational support from EPA, this handbook
can be successfully applied without the presence of these elements. For example, the
checklists and other methods used by NEPs to assess the effectiveness of existing
institutions to manage water quality problems can be used by inland watersheds.
Similarly, the governance structures of the NEPs can be applied to other watershed
organizations. The NEPs are located in federal and state agencies, local governments,
nonprofits, and other organizations just as other watershed organizations are found in a
variety of institutional settings. Whether working in coastal or non-coastal areas,
watershed organizations can learn from the NEPs' innovative approaches to integrating
science and management, fostering collaborative decision-making, and involving the
public.
-------
The remainder of this document is organized according to the following four phases of
the NEP approach:
Phase 1: Establishing a Governance Structure—Convening the Management
Conference and establishing a structure of committees and procedures
for conducting the group's work. (Chapter 2)
Phase 2: Identifying Problems and Solutions—Assessing the condition of the
estuary to determine its health, problems facing the estuary, trends for
future conditions, and the priority problems to be addressed, as well as
assessing the effectiveness of existing management efforts to protect
the estuary. (Chapter 3)
Phase 3: Developing the Management Plan—A Blueprint for Action—
Describing the state of the estuary, developing detailed strategies for
actions to address the problems of the estuary, monitoring and funding
Management Plan implementation, and assessing environmental results.
(Chapter 4)
Phase 4: Implementing the Management Plan—Carrying out actions,
monitoring estuary conditions, reviewing progress, and redirecting
priorities or efforts where appropriate. (Chapter 5)
Each chapter includes specific examples that demonstrate how the 28 NEPs have
applied this community-based approach since the program's inception in 1987.
-------
Establishing a Governance Structure
Chapter 2:
Establishing a Governance Structure
INTRODUCTION
Each estuary program develops a governance structure that serves as the forum for
bringing together diverse stakeholders to identify issues and develop the Management
Plan. This governance structure, referred to as
the Management Conference, is composed of
the NEP Program Office and various
stakeholder committees. The governance
structure acts as the organizational umbrella
under which each program is conducted.
The NEP office can be located in a variety of
institutional settings, from state or local
agencies to universities or nonprofits. Its
committee structure provides the platform for
collaborative decision-making and reflects
citizen concerns and the unique problems and
characteristics of the watershed. A
comparatively small area located within a
single state generally requires a simpler
committee structure than a much larger,
interstate watershed. Most programs target
five general constituencies as key members of
the governance structure: elected and
appointed policymaking officials from all
governmental levels; environmental managers
from federal, state, regional, and local agencies;
local scientific and academic communities;
private citizens; and representatives from
public and user interest groups—businesses,
industries, and community and environmental
organizations.
This chapter explains how the NEPs develop a
governance structure and support the work of
stakeholder committees. The chapter describes
how the NEPs provide a forum for open
NEP PRINCIPLES
IN CHAPTER 2
The Management Conference is a forum
for open discussion, cooperation, and
compromise that results in consensus.
The Management Conference promotes
sharing of information and allows
participants to make efficient use of
limited staff resources.
The committees that comprise the
Management Conference should remain
open to new members as the community
learns about the program and wishes to
participate.
An NEP's institutional affiliations affect
perceptions about the program. An NEP
based in a government agency, for
example, must work to demonstrate that
it is committed to the entire range of
stakeholders, not just its host agency.
An NEP office, regardless of its
institutional setting, should have some
degree of autonomy and visibility.
Autonomy shows that the office is
committed to the entire range of
stakeholders and visibility builds support
for future funding of the program.
-------
discussion, cooperation, and compromise that results in consensus. Examples of
governance structures show how the NEPs set a course for their programs, direct day-
to-day operations, coordinate with local governments, and ensure long-term financial
support.
THE NEP GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
All Management Conferences establish several core committees to carry out their work.
These generally include a policy and management committee and advisory committees
for technical and citizen input. Some NEPs also have committees dealing with finance
and local government. A director and program staff coordinate these committees and
are accountable to the Management Conference. The NEP director and staff are also
responsible for facilitating the development of the Management Plan, supporting its
implementations, and producing documents,
such as annual budgets and work plans.
Figure 2.1 depicts the organizational
structure of a typical NEP Management
Conference. Figure 2.2 (on page 10) shows
the organizational structure from the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership.
KlCKOFF MEETINGS
A kickoff meeting is a good first step in
developing a governance structure. As a
media event, such a meeting can make the
public aware that all is not well in the
watershed. As an educational platform, it
provides a forum for identifying problems
and concerns. The kickoff meeting is also
an opportunity to involve all interested
people and groups concerned about and
affected by the watershed's problems.
Furthermore, it is a chance to include
influential officials in the earliest deliberations.
As an outgrowth of the meeting, project
participants can be organized into
committees and workgroups and assigned
responsibilities.
The following sections describe how the
NEPs are involved in:
• setting the direction for the program;
• directing day-to-day program activities;
• involving stakeholder groups and the
general public;
• conducting scientific investigations to
support Management Plan actions;
• working with local governments; and
• ensuring long-term financial, political, and
community support.
SETTING THE DIRECTION FOR THE PROGRAM
Policy Committee. Most NEPs establish a Policy Committee to create a long-term vision,
set priorities, and provide overall direction. The Policy Committee is typically
composed of high-level federal, state, and local government decision-makers that set
the general tone and direction for the program and help ensure that resources needed to
support the program are available. The EPA Regional Administrator or state governor
often appoints Policy Committee members. Additional state and local representatives
-------
Establishing a Governance Structure
may also be members. These members may include appointees from the water
department or water quality board, the public health department, or the department
of natural resources. In some programs, chairpersons from other committees also sit
on the Policy Committee.
The members of the Policy Committee frequently make decisions on
recommendations from all of the other committees. While this committee guides,
reviews, and evaluates the program, it usually leaves the operational duties to the
Management Committee.
DIRECTING DAY-TO-DAY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
Management Committee. A core group is needed to ensure that the day-to-day work of
the committees gets done. This group, often referred to as the Management
Committee, is responsible for the nuts and bolts of the planning and implementation
Figure 2.1: Typical NEP Management Conference organizational
structure
Policy Committee
EPA Regional Administrator and
state environmental agency directors
Management Committee
Environmental managers from participating
federal, state, and interstate agencies
Chairs of STAC and CAC
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
(STAC)
Scientists from universities and
federal, state, and local agencies
Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC)
Representatives from all Interested
groups, including user and environ-
mental groups
-------
Figure 2.2: Organizational structure for the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership
Lower
Columbia
River Estuary
Partnership
Board of Directors
Executive Committee
Development Committee
J_
_L
Executive Director and Staff
Public Funds
Private Funds
J_
Education
Science
Note: In addition to standing committees, the board may also form additional committees or work groups to assist with specific
activities. Standing committees may also form subcommittees.
process. Management Committee representatives usually include mid-level agency
managers and technical staff from the involved federal, state, regional, and local
government agencies. Advised by staff, work groups, and other committees, the
Management Committee defines and ranks the problems of the watershed, develops
management strategies, and oversees development of the Management Plan and its
components. Management Committee activities typically occur under the general
guidance and direction of the Policy Committee.
The Management Committee makes recommendations on who should serve as
members of the various advisory committees, and chairpersons from each of these
committees typically sit on the Management Committee. This facilitates clear
communication about the program's goals and objectives to the program staff and
committees. Clear communication allows the committee members to gain a better
understanding of their roles and responsibilities as well as the activities needed to meet
program goals.
The Management Committee develops and oversees annual work plans and budgets,
approves all resource and funding allocations, oversees program implementation, and
monitors environmental results. In addition to defining specific tasks necessary to
achieve conference goals, the annual work plan provides an opportunity to integrate
-------
Establishing a Governance Structure
planning and resources of key Management Committee members and develop synergy
among various organizations. If developed properly, the work plan process can expand
the influence of the NEP by providing a vehicle for requesting and obtaining matching
funding at the state and local levels.
The Management Committee is also responsible for informing the public about
program activities and providing public involvement during each phase of the
management process. To ensure this, the Citizens Advisory Committee, typically in
coordination with the Management Committee, develops a public participation
program.
INVOLVING STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Citizens Advisory Committee. To generate public support for the program, citizens must
have a vested interest in the outcome of its activities. For this to occur, the public
must participate in each phase of the planning and implementation process—forming a
management structure for the program; identifying and prioritizing the problems facing
the watershed; creating a Management Plan; implementing the plan; and monitoring
progress and program success. Examples of how the public can be involved in each of
these steps are shown in Table 2.1 (on page 12).
Most NEPs form a Citizens Advisory Committee to ensure that the Management
Committee and program staff include the public in the decision-making process and
integrate the public into each program phase. The Citizens Advisory Committee
recommends the most effective
ways to inform the public and
solicit its participation. It also
identifies key people and
organizations that can help bring
watershed-related issues to the
public's attention and build support
for program activities. To
successfully incorporate the public
into these processes, the Citizens
Advisory Committee must work
closely with other committees, such
as the Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee. For example, the Citizens Advisory Committee can work with
the program's outreach coordinator to present scientific findings to the public. By
forming a Citizens Advisory Committee as part of the program's management
structure, the program ensures representation of public concerns while options are
fluid, rather than after data collection and analyses have been completed and final
decisions made.
WHAT is PUBLIC PARTICIPATION?
Public participation is a two-way process consisting of
informing stakeholders about the watershed—public
outreach—and eliciting participation in program activities
and the decision-making process—public involvement.
The success of a public participation strategy can be
measured by increased awareness of the watershed,
enhanced support for management actions, and greater
participation in the planning and implementation processes.
-------
NATIONAL
Table 2.1: Examples of public participation in the NEP
Phase
PROGRAM
Establishing a
Governance
Structure
Linking
Good Science
and Sound
Management
Developing
the
Management
Plan—
A Blueprint
for Action
Implementing
the
Management
Plan
Public Participation Program Components
Identify stakeholders—potentially interested and
affected parties.
Develop a process for public input and
participation.
Develop a vision, preliminary goals, and objectives
for the program.
Conduct public opinion surveys to identify those
issues of greatest concern and measure public
understanding of watershed issues.
Hold workshops to gather information from local
residents and disseminate scientific findings.
Use resource valuation/comparative risk ranking to
prioritize problems.
Refine program visions, goals, and objectives
through public meetings and workshops.
Utilize charettes, constituent focus groups,
workshops, etc., to identify all possible options for
addressing problems.
Utilize focus groups and public and technical input
to develop criteria, narrow the range of options, and
refine actions.
Obtain commitments and widespread community
support for actions.
Conduct a public review of the draft management
plan.
Distribute the management plan and/or public
summary documents to stakeholders.
Educate new residents and participants about the
mission, goals, and progress of the program.
Utilize tools such as environmental report cards to
update constituents on implementation progress
and program successes.
Encourage citizens to implement "good
housekeeping" best management practices.
Conduct volunteer monitoring and other ways to
use volunteers.
Conduct public opinion surveys to determine
behavior changes and trends in public perception of
NEP progress.
Involve the public when plan redirection or
reformulation is needed.
Add to or modify participating entities as needed.
Form institution oversight organizations—public
watchdog.
Results /Outcomes
Agreement on Management
Conference.
Involvement of individuals and
groups with expertise and interest
in subject area as well as those who
are potentially impacted.
Build constituencies.
Watershed users help determine the
focus of the program.
The public decision-making process
is guided by science.
Controversial is sues are identified.
Participants develop a shared
understanding of the problems.
A plan is created and built that all
parties support.
Strong public support helps to
secure governmental agency
commitments for implementation.
Recommended actions are created
that are measurable and achievable
and take into account social impacts
and impacts on quality of life.
Interest in conservation and
management is sustained/
enhanced.
New participants and their interests
are brought into the process.
Residents are actively involved in
management plan implementation
and monitoring.
Information on public attitudes
and behaviors is used to evaluate
success of public participation
efforts.
Based on EPA RESOLVE Workshop, June 1997, and Integrating Technical Analysis with Deliberation in Regional Watershed
Management Planning: Applying the National Research Council Approach. [1999] by Thomas Webler and Seth Tuler.
-------
Establishing a Governance Structure
A typical Citizens Advisory Committee represents a broad spectrum of major resource
groups, such as fishing interests, farmers, and recreational users. It also includes
representatives from various environmental organizations and citizen councils. Also
important are representatives from business and industry, such as lumber, shipping, and
petrochemical manufacturing. Of course, representation will vary with the type of
stakeholders present in the watershed. Some programs, particularly in populous areas
with numerous established stakeholder groups, focus membership on individuals that
can represent a given constituency and serve as liaisons to that group. In these cases,
if the individuals lose their connection to their constituency, new representatives are
assigned. Other programs encourage individual citizens to serve directly on the
Citizens Advisory Committee. Members of the general public who will work with the
program constructively and effectively, and who care about the issues and the program,
often make a contribution that is as valuable as that of a seasoned community leader or
environmental resource manager. Regardless of
the makeup, the Citizens Advisory Committee
should remain open to new members to ensure
widespread representation as more members of
the community learn about the program and as
new interests and issues arise. In very large
watersheds, such as the Long Island Sound
drainage basin with a population of 8.4 million,
it may be necessary to establish guidelines for
membership.
Citizens Advisory Committee membership
should reflect the program's purposes for the
Committee. Although each program establishes
its own criteria for appointees, nominees
generally meet one or more of the following
criteria.
• Serve as spokespersons for a major user
or interest group and bring information
back to that group.
• Are well-respected leaders in the
community.
• Have experience in the development of
water quality and resource management
policy.
• Have experience with volunteer
nonprofit groups, the general public,
outreach and education activities, and
the media.
CITIZENS ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES
The Long Island
Sound Study
developed membership evaluation guidelines
to determine the basic eligibility of an
applicant for membership on the Citizens
Advisory Committee. These guidelines
include a member composition requirement
(e.g., a fair distribution of members from
New York and Connecticut and among
various membership categories including
environmental, conservation, and watershed
associations; user community groups; regional
and local government agencies; and
environmental education or academic
organizations) and specific membership
criteria (e.g., evaluation of potential bias,
minimal knowledge or interest in water
quality and resource management issues, and
an ability to attend meetings regularly). The
Citizens Advisory Committee application
process requires potential members to
submit a letter of interest and undergo a
formal evaluation by the membership
committee. For additional information, see
www.longislandsoundstudv.net.
-------
• Understand the technical and economic feasibility of the pollution control
options under consideration.
• Understand the consensus-building process.
• Are energetic and motivated individuals.
Although many NEPs use a Citizens Advisory Committee as a formal mechanism for
public involvement, this does not preclude the need for general public participation.
The Citizens Advisory Committee often creates a strategy that outlines when and how
to involve groups and individuals in the community.
CONDUCTING SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS TO SUPPORT
MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Although the program is fundamentally a
management program rather than a basic research program, the importance of
obtaining sound scientific information cannot be overstated. Stakeholders and those
responsible for implementing recommended management strategies need actions that
are based on firm scientific findings. To ensure that recommended actions are tied to
good science, most NEPs form a Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee to
recommend scientific studies, investigations, sampling, and monitoring programs to the
Management Committee that are necessary to determine the causes of observed or
perceived environmental problems. This
group is integral to the characterization
phase, discussed in Chapter 3: Identifying
Problems and Solutions. Depending on the
problem, Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee members recommend the specific
scientific activities necessary to meet
objectives established by the program. The
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
may also conduct peer reviews of studies,
report on the status and trends (description
of the past and current conditions of the
watershed and estuary, and predictions about
the future conditions) in the watershed and
estuary, and alert the Management
Committee to emerging environmental
problems. In addition, the Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee may develop
the monitoring strategy, a "State of the Bays
Report," and the Technical Characterization
study. To ensure scientific rigor and quality,
the Scientific and Technical Advisory
;,**¥•
-------
Establishing a Governance Structure
Committee may also review the development of requests for proposals for technical
studies as well as the actual proposals submitted.
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee members should represent a balance of
scientific disciplines that address the key issues of the watershed. They may be noted
local experts, nationally recognized scientists, or resource management agency
personnel. Members of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee can be
selected with advice from the Management Committee; local, state, and federal
agencies; regional scientists; and public or private
institutions conducting scientific studies within
the watershed.
WORKING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Local Government Committee. Many of the actions
in a Management Plan affect local jurisdictions
and require the support and commitment of local
government agencies. To ensure that local
governments are part of the decision-making
process, some NEPs form a Local Government
Committee. Other programs include local
government representatives on their Management
and/or Policy Committees. Local government
representatives can assist the program by
providing practical advice on local planning
needs, issues, and existing projects. The Local
Government Committee can also provide the
political analyses that are needed for effective
decision-making and implementation.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
INVOLVEMENT
In the Barnegat Bay
Estuary Program, the Management
Conference includes a Local
Government Committee represented by
the Ocean County Mayors' Association.
The Committee meets monthly and
provides the Barnegat Bay Estuary
Program's Director and other program
representatives with a forum to interact
with 33 municipalities in Ocean County
on environmental issues of concern. For
additional information, see
www.bbep.org.
In many programs, the Policy Committee nominates local government representatives.
Members may come from municipalities, counties, or townships representing town
boards, sewer districts, conservation districts, or agencies such as health or planning
departments.
ENSURING LONG-TERM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL, AND
COMMUNITY SUPPORT
Finance Planning Committee. Watershed programs require long-term funding to support
both Management Plan implementation and staff operations. Implementation and
operations may be supported with federal, state, local, and private sector funds.
Whether financing is readily available or new funding mechanisms are needed, a
Financial Planning Committee can be used to develop a funding strategy to support
Management Plan implementation.
-------
The funding strategy can include accessing revenues such as taxes, fees, and
assessments; managing the flow of funds; and recommending institutions to oversee
financial planning and management. The Financial Planning Committee may also
identify new sources of funding, such as municipal debt or private foundations. It
could also recommend a partnership or alliance with an outside agency or nonprofit
group to assist with fundraising. Committee members should be knowledgeable about
financing public projects and should represent key interest areas or jurisdictions. While
some programs choose to establish and maintain a separate Financial Planning
Committee, other programs assign those responsibilities to members of the
Management Committee.
PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
The careful consensus-building required of the committees to define program goals and
other activities presents several potential challenges, including conflicting agendas,
institutional constraints, and differing work styles. Effective group leaders can help
address these challenges. Some NEPs hire professional facilitators to assist in conflict
resolution and consensus-based decision-making. Others train committee chairs in
group leadership and group dynamics. Still others rely on NEP staff with this
expertise. Most NEPs have found that while the decision-making process produces
some degree of conflict, there are few, if any, conflicts that cannot be resolved.
STAFFING THE PROGRAM OFFICE
Each NEP has a Program Office that facilitates the work of the committees. The
Program Office consists of a director and a small staff—usually three to five
professionals.
-------
Establishing a Governance Structure
The NEP director and staff serve many functions. They provide administrative and
technical support to the committees, conduct public outreach and education activities,
and coordinate and integrate program activities with existing efforts in the watershed.
This collaboration promotes sharing of information and allows programs to make
efficient use of limited staff resources. The director and staff usually are hired by the
Policy or Management Committee; however, the director and staff work in support of,
and with direction from, all of the committees.
The NEP directors must have a broad range of
knowledge, skills, and abilities. Maintaining
local support, securing funds, and facilitating
partner actions requires both interpersonal and
technical skills. A director adept at
collaborating with partners and addressing
complex environmental issues provides access to
additional resources and authorities, helps avoid
duplication, reduces turf battles, and combats
the perception of the NEP creating a new layer
of government. The NEP director speaks on
behalf of the committees and is accountable to
them. Because the director can be pivotal in
bringing stakeholders to the table, the director
should not be perceived as representing a
particular entity or stakeholder. This allows the
director to work in collaboration with the
stakeholders and to better represent the
program.
Most NEPs also have a communication or
outreach coordinator and a science or technical
coordinator. Some NEPs hire staff with fundraising and business management skills.
Staff that provide technical input for restoration efforts and other projects implement
key goals in the Management Plan and build the credibility of the program. Staff with
communication skills produce independent newsletters, Web sites, and events that help
achieve the environmental education goals of the Management Plan and heighten the
NEP's visibility without jeopardizing productive partnering.
The NEP office typically serves as the focal point of planning and coordination among
government agencies with jurisdiction over the watershed. Therefore, office location
can impact the overall visibility of the program as well as perceptions about the
program. Visibility and awareness of the program are greatly enhanced when the
Program Office is located within the study area, rather than in a far away state capital
or other non-estuarine location.
-------
SELECTING AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING
Each NEP is initially assigned a host organization or sponsor, such as a state or local
government agency, university, or nonprofit. The host organization administers the
federal grant funds that support the NEP and provides a physical location for the
director and staff. However, individual NEPs are envisioned to be inherently
autonomous.
i- ,f
The director and staff of an individual NEP must be, and must be perceived to be,
independent of any particular interest group or agency. While the NEP sponsor
provides an invaluable service to
the NEP as an administrative and
financial manager, among many
other things, NEP directors and
staff are directed not by their
administrative sponsors but by the
NEP committees (which typically
include the sponsors as members).
Funding awarded to the sponsor or
grantee is intended to be used for
purposes and activities developed
and approved through consensus by
all members of the committees. By requiring approval and oversight by the
committees, a safeguard is built into the NEP framework to prevent individual
interests from steering an NEP. To this end, many NEPs have developed and adopted
operating procedures, agreements, or bylaws which outline roles and responsibilities.
After NEPs complete their Management Plans, many consider establishing separate
institutions. The advantages of remaining with the original host include access to the
technical resources of the host agency's employees; ability to maximize funds for
programs and minimize funds for administration; access to payroll services, benefits for
employees, and physical office space; and coordination between the work of the host
agency and the work of the program. The advantages of a separate Program Office
can include a location more accessible to the public, greater visibility, and increased
fundraising opportunities. Chapter 5 provides examples of NEP governance
structures.
-------
Establishing a Governance Structure
PREPARING TO ASSESS THE ESTUARY AND ITS
INSTITUTIONS
Once the Program Office has convened and established a structure of committees and
procedures for conducting the group's work, steps can be taken in moving toward the
next phase of the NEP process—assessing the conditions of the estuary and
evaluating the effectiveness of institutions that affect the estuary. This
"characterization" process identifies priority problems, their likely causes, and how to
coordinate existing programs to better protect and restore the estuary and its
watershed.
ESTABLISHING A GOVERNANCE
STRUCTURE: EXAMPLES
^ Example 1: Initiating the program through a kickoff meeting
The Charlotte Harbor NEP organized a Public Conference and Technical Symposium
as a kickoff event for their estuary program. The two-day gathering focused attention
on Charlotte Harbor's large watershed by bringing together much of the knowledge and
expertise of Southwest Florida. The event was an important first step in the program's
process of bringing together public and private stakeholders to discuss critical
environmental issues facing the region. Hundreds of people attended the forum,
which featured more than 60 presentations on technical issues, covering Southwest
Florida's history, geography, and geology, as well
as topics more specific to the water quality and
living resources of the Charlotte Harbor region.
The Public Conference featured discussions on
economic activity, resource management efforts,
environmental education, recreational boating
concerns, and citizen groups. For additional
information, see www.charlotteharbornep.com.
^ Example 2: Creation of an advisory
committee to assess atmospheric deposition
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program was one of the first NEPs to assess nitrogen
deposition to a coastal ecosystem. Since the Program had no experience assessing
atmospheric deposition and no atmospheric scientist on staff, the senior scientist
created a national advisory group to help develop the Program. The advisory group
now includes nationally recognized experts in wet and dry deposition methodologies
for nitrate and ammonia (and more recently mercury), national atmospheric program
managers, experts with technical knowledge of modeling, and local stakeholders
including several counties and the Tampa Electric Company. Since the Program does
-------
not do most of the monitoring or modeling work itself, the county and university
scientists doing the work also sit on the committee. The committee meets periodically
to answer specific complex questions that require group discussion and consensus. The
committee responds to other questions on an as-needed basis through individual
telephone calls, conference calls, or written recommendations. For additional
information, see www.tbep.org.
^ Example 3: Puget Sound's Finance Committee and Local Government
Finance Working Group
The Puget Sound Finance Committee was responsible for identifying funding
mechanisms that could be used to meet the projected shortfalls in Management Plan
implementation funding. In order to ensure that a broad range of options would be
considered and that these options would get the benefit of close scrutiny, a concerted
effort was made to have competing interests and key stakeholders serve on the
Committee. As such, the Committee included representatives from state and local
governments, members of the business
community, members of the state legislature,
local elected officials, and tribal and citizen
groups. The Puget Sound Water Authority, a
partner of the NEP, assigned several of its staff
to provide technical and administrative
assistance to the Committee. In addition, the
program hired an applied financial and economic
analysis firm to undertake the technical
evaluations needed to generate fiscally sound
and defensible funding options.
A six-member Local Government Finance Working Group was established to work
independently on local financing issues. Joint staffing of the Finance Committee and
Local Government Finance Working Group provided for continuity between the two
groups and ensured that the work of the Finance Committee integrated the needs,
fiscal constraints, authority limitations, and general concerns of local governments.
Through its work, the Financial Planning Committee identified a number of possible
state funding sources to support Management Plan actions such as taxes on watercraft,
litter, fish and shellfish, pesticides, gasoline, and toilet paper. The group also identified
projects that could be funded with local revenue or implemented as EPA
demonstration projects. For additional information, see www.psat.wa.gov.
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
Chapter 3:
Identifying Problems and Solutions
INTRODUCTION
Once the estuary programs have built a framework for identifying, negotiating, and
solving problems, they are ready to embark on other tasks. The NEPs begin to "take
the pulse" of their estuaries, determining the state of their health and the reasons for
their decline, and take early corrective action if possible. This process, referred to as
Technical Characterization, defines the most pressing problems in the estuary, identifies
the probable causes for these problems, and suggests possible solutions based on
objective evidence.
Each NEP also conducts a Base Program Analysis.
determines whether existing institutional
mechanisms are effectively addressing
problems occurring in the estuary. The Base
Program Analysis provides an assessment of
existing federal, state, and local resource
programs to identify gaps in estuary
management and how they might be filled.
It includes a review of public and private
funding opportunities.
Together, the Technical Characterization
and Base Program Analysis are the basis for
defining and selecting the problems to be
addressed in the Management Plan. This
chapter outlines how the NEPs conduct the
Technical Characterization and the Base
Program Analysis. The chapter also
discusses how the findings resulting from
the Technical Characterization and Base
Program Analysis are combined and
translated into plain English, telling a story
about the estuary and its watershed that the
public and local decision-makers can
understand.
The Base Program Analysis
NEP PRINCIPLES IN CHAPTER 3
Technical Characterization describes the
estuary's water quality and habitat problems and
identifies likely causes of the problems.
Technical Characterization relies primarily on
existing scientific information.
The Base Program Analysis is an evaluation of
the institutional structures that affect the estuary.
It is conducted in conjunction with the Technical
Characterization.
The results from the Technical Characterization
and Base Program Analysis must be translated
into plain English, telling a story about the
estuary that the public can understand.
The Technical Characterization and Base
Program Analysis findings set the stage for the
formulation of the Management Plan.
-------
TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION
The fundamental goal of Technical Characterization is to identify the problems facing
the estuary and present this information in a way that supports the selection of actions
for inclusion in the Management Plan. To satisfy this goal, characterization proceeds
through the following tasks:
Task 1: Identify and describe the resources and uses of the estuary.
Task 2: Determine the condition of the resources.
Task 3: Identify the priority problems that exist in the study area.
Task 4: Identify the likely causes of the priority problems.
Task 5: Provide input to the Management Plan.
The relationships among these tasks are presented graphically in Figure 3.1.
Technical Characterization of problems facing the estuary relies primarily on existing
scientific information already collected by federal, state, and local agencies. Such
information, which can be obtained and analyzed relatively efficiently and cost-
effectively provides the most direct way to evaluate trends in estuary conditions.
Table 3.1 (on page 24) lists the types of historical information used for
characterization. These data are also used to shape new sampling and monitoring
programs needed to define specific problems.
In addition to gathering scientific information to assist during the Technical
Characterization process, the NEPs also rely on public input to provide additional
direction and focus. Gathering public input at the early stages of the Technical
Characterization process is essential for building a long-term commitment to achieving
the estuary's goals. This is often accomplished through public workshops and
conferences.
As a whole, the Technical Characterization process 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. Results are used to substantiate environmental problems, evaluate their
causes, recommend future remedial and management strategies, and develop long-term
monitoring plans. Once this process is complete, the NEPs assess the effectiveness of
existing efforts to manage the identified problems. This process, referred to as the Base
Program Analysis, is discussed further on pages 32 through 34.
The following sections describe the tasks of the Technical Characterization process
more fully.
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
Figure 3.1: Relationships among Technical Characterization tasks
\
\
Review existing information
I
Address data gaps
Task 1: Identify Resource/Uses
Review existing information
Address data gaps
Task 2: Determine Conditions U L 1
J_
Other Decisions
- Action Plan Demonstration Projects K1
- "Action Now" Agenda
f *
Task 3: Identify Priority Problems
I
Management Characterization
*
Task 4: Identify Likely Causes
M and Possible Solutions
Task 5: Provide Input to
Management Plan
Technical characterization
^ Relationship to other parts of Management Plan development process
From EPAs National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterisation in the National Estuary Program (1994)
TASK 1: IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE RESOURCES AND USES OF THE
ESTUARY
The first step in the characterization process is to describe the resources and uses of
the estuary and to identify the values it holds. Opinion surveys, public workshops,
interviews, conferences, and other methods have been used by the NEPs to identify
public perceptions concerning the resources and uses of an estuary.
TASK 2: DETERMINE THE CONDITION OF THE RESOURCES
Once the highest priority resources and uses of an estuary have been identified, the
NEPs assess the condition of each of these resources. This involves a status and
trends analysis of each of the resources. The status and trends analysis is a description
of the past and current conditions of the estuary and forecasts the future conditions of
the estuary should current trends continue. The NEPs include changes in
demographics, land use, census, and other data that may influence the environmental
conditions in the analysis.
-------
Table 3.1: Examples 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
• Invasive species
Biological Indicators
• 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
The status and trends analysis can highlight
gaps in information concerning the
condition of the estuary, identify the need to
collect new data, and suggest questions that
direct future characterization work, such as
"Although seagrass acreage has remained
constant, has the health and productivity of
the seagrass beds been altered?" and "What
is the optimal level of seagrass habitat
necessary to support the sea trout fisheries?"
The NEPs collect data from virtually all
possible sources—scientists, academic and
research institutions, and public health and
living resource agencies. 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. To
ensure the quality and validity of all data
collected, the EPA has developed a set of
procedures to follow when collecting and
analyzing data (see EPA Guidance for Data
Quality Assessment, www.epa.gov/
quality!/qs-docs/g9-final.pdf).
Detection of subtle changes over time
requires more detailed analyses and
statistical tests. For these analyses, several
attributes of the data (e.g., distributional
characteristics, seasonality and correlation
among factors) should be explored to
determine the applicability of available tests
for detecting changes in environmental
conditions. Data collected during this task
can help in designing sampling protocols
(detailed plans of a scientific experiment,
treatment, or procedure for dealing with a
sample) for monitoring plans. This data can
be entered into STORET (short for
STOrage and RETrieval), a repository for
water quality, biological, and physical data
that is used by state environmental agencies,
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
EPA and other federal agencies, universities, private citizens, and many others (:
www.epa.gov/storet/).
see
In evaluating the conditions of an estuary, it is often useful to adopt a segmentation
scheme. Segmentation refers to the division of an estuary into sub-areas based on
homogeneous conditions such as bottom type or water temperature. Physical,
chemical, and/or biological data for the estuary are then aggregated based on these
segments. Segmentation represents a compromise between the difficulty of resolving
the physical detail of an entire estuary and the expediency of dealing with a small
number of geographical units. Analysis of the status and trends of the resources for
estuary segments may also provide direction for individual actions in these segments.
From a statistical perspective,
determining the status and
trends of estuarine resources
has inherent uncertainty
associated with it due to a
number of factors including
measurement errors, precision
limits, and statistical
variability of the analytical
methods. This uncertainty in
the data often leads to a set
of hypotheses concerning
cause-effect relationships,
rather than a definitive
conclusion. The uncertainty
in cause-effect relationships
and trends in estuary health
should be made clear to the
public.
TASK 3: IDENTIFY THE PRIORITY PROBLEMS
Once the assessment is complete, the Management Conference must reach consensus
on the priority problems. These priorities form the foundation for the development of
the Management Plan, where it is often necessary to make choices from the universe of
management options.
Because all the problems cannot be addressed at once, it is critical to rank them so that
effort and funding levels can be allocated effectively. The Management Conference
must establish criteria by which it will define and rank environmental problems for
characterization.
-------
£*
The NEPs establish criteria for
identifying priority problems to avoid
overestimating the severity of certain
problems which can divert attention from
those that actually deserve greater
concern. The presence of seasonal
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs), for
example, may capture widespread public
interest because of its potential effects
on fish populations. However, the
incidence of HABs may be limited to
specific sites and may be the result of
natural causes.
Problems with a system-wide impact
generally rank higher than those with
localized effects. Furthermore, problems that significantly curtail the designated uses
of an estuary may be ranked high. Some problems may receive a high ranking because
corrective measures, such as regulatory programs and authorities, are available but have
not been implemented.
The Galveston Bay Estuary Program, for example, developed an assessment matrix to
assist in establishing priorities among the estuary's problems. The Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee drafted an initial priority problem list. This list was
subsequently reviewed and revised by the Management Committee through a series of
public meetings. Based on this review, a draft assessment matrix was developed and
reviewed by the Management Conference and technical experts, resulting in the final
matrix presented in Table 3.2. This matrix presents the essential information about
estuarine resources and sources of perturbation. The Galveston Bay Ecosystem
Impact Matrix also identified relationships that were previously poorly understood, and
was used by the Management Conference throughout the characterization process.
TASK 4: IDENTIFY LIKELY CAUSES OF THE PRIORITY PROBLEMS
To identify the likely causes of the priority problems, NEPs strive to collect data that
are:
relevant to defining the nature and extent of the priority problems;
broad in temporal and spatial coverage;
good quality; and
available in a usable format.
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
ce
ce
a
U
W ^
CQ
S s
S-S
a
' j
1 =
-------
Although existing information concerning a particular problem is first examined, the
NEPs also conduct new research to illuminate possible causes. The NEPs work with
many organizations that sponsor research including federal agencies such as EPA and
NOAA, state and local government, and universities. For example, the Long Island
Sound Study NEP collaborated with academic and not-for-profit institutions, as well as
state and local governments to study hypoxia, examine the role of sea level rise in
wetland losses, develop ecological indicators, and assess sources of nutrients and
innovative technologies for their control.
Once the data are collected, the NEPs begin to answer specific questions about the
relationships among pollutants, 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 the estuary;
• determine possible causes of these problems;
• provide an integrated description of the estuary's conditions; and
• identify significant, missing data that warrant additional monitoring or
sampling.
.•^sniifctf ~:
For example, the Barataria-Terrebonne NEP
described the interconnections among seven
priority problems (Figure 3.2): hydrological
modification, habitat loss, sediment loss, changes
in living resources, eutrophication, pathogens,
and toxic substances. Barataria-Terrebonne NEP
identified hydrological modification as the "lynch
pin" problem that influences all six of the other
priority problems.
Once likely cause-effect relationships of the
priority problems have been established, the
NEPs determine the strength of those
relationships. Statistical techniques, such as
regression and correlation analyses, have been
used by the NEPs to explore the nature of these
relationships.
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
Figure 3.2: Interconnections among priority problems in the
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
Direct Effects
Hydrologic modification
Indirect Effects
Sediment loss
Habitat Loss
Changes in Living
Resources
Socio-Economic Impacts
-*- -<-
If time and resources permit, the NEP can take these findings one step further by
developing mathematical functions to summarize the observed relationships. These
functions can form the basis for the use of predictive tools, such as water quality and
hydrologic models.
It is important to emphasize the distinction between identifying likely causes of priority
problems and establishing absolute cause-effect relationships. The former involves the
development of hypotheses using the best available evidence concerning cause-effect
relationships. The latter typically requires the collection of field or laboratory data
under controlled conditions; an effort that is often beyond the resources available to an
NEP.
In characterizing an estuary, it is important to consider the links among the priority
problems in addition to considering them in isolation. These links can dramatically
influence conclusions concerning cause-effect relationships and subsequent
recommendations for action.
-------
TASK 5: PROVIDE INPUT TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
After data analyses are complete for each estuary problem, the NEPs synthesize results
into reports that provide input to the Management Plan. 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, many NEPs publish their findings. These findings also help the
NEPs design monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of their actions.
The NEPs have used various methods to communicate the results of the
characterization effort, ranging from narrative descriptions to conceptual models that
describe estuarine processes and functions and determine likely causes of the priority
problems. The NEPs develop characterization reports that:
• summarize major environmental problems within each estuary;
• identify suspected causes of the problems;
• recommend early actions and future remedial and managerial strategies; and
• suggest long-term monitoring efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of these
strategies.
Most reports feature a narrative description
that takes the form of a qualitative, non-
technical summary of existing information
explaining the relationships between human
activities and impacts on resources. A
narrative description may also include
considerable quantitative and technical
information to provide a more
comprehensive assessment of these
relationships.
Many reports include a conceptual model to present the current understanding of
estuarine structure and function. Good conceptual models clearly and succinctly
represent the best understanding of ecosystem resources (e.g., wetlands, fish,
sediments), processes (e.g., predation, turbulent mixing), and factors controlling their
interactions. A well-constructed conceptual model can plainly represent and
communicate the estuary's complex interactions and processes in a form that is more
concise than most narrative descriptions.
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
In general, the NEP Technical Characterization process culminates in three types of
products that vary in their level of detail depending on the audience:
• Individual project reports provide technical information on the outcomes of discrete
studies.
Characterization reports furnish a comprehensive description of the
estuary, including a summary of the results
of individual project reports.
• Public outreach summaries provide a
condensed version of the characterization
reports.
The Technical Characterization results
provide a baseline for monitoring and a basic
understanding of important physical,
chemical, and biological processes in the
estuary. This information helps to specify a
set of variables and ecological processes that
can be used to detect changes in the estuary in
response to management actions. The steps
taken to ensure that high quality data results
from the monitoring program should follow
the same procedures used in the data
collection and analysis activities during
Technical Characterization.
With a baseline provided by Technical
Characterization, ongoing monitoring serves
as a tool to track the progress of the
Management Plan and evaluate the relevance
of management goals. Ongoing monitoring
ensures that the Management Plan stays on
target and can provide feedback for future
revisions. The subject of environmental
monitoring is addressed in greater detail in
Chapter 5.
if)
GETTING THE WORD ,- <
« s
OUT THROUGH A
STAKEHOLDERS '' •
REPORT
The Mobile Bay NEP 'XV*"'
produced an award-winning stakeholders
report, "Our Water Our Future," in
preparation for the release of the
Management Plan. This document
highlighted the Mobile Bay area's history,
environmental issues, and resources, and was
developed in a sequence of text, graphics,
and photos with Web site links for more
information. Designed at an eighth grade
level, the document appeals to audiences of
all ages and remains in high demand. The
document won a 1999/2000 American
Advertising Federation Award. See
www.mobilebaynep.com for additional
information.
"< . .,*?"; '';,
-------
BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS: UNDERSTANDING THE
INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES
While the Technical Characterization describes the natural environment, the Base
Program Analysis describes the institutional environment. The Base Program Analysis
proceeds through the following tasks:
Task 1: Identify relevant local, state, and federal organizations.
Task 2: Assess effectiveness of existing programs.
Task 3: Identify changes needed to improve program effectiveness.
As with the Technical Characterization, it is wise to gather and review the results of
previous programmatic analyses that have been conducted for the estuary. The use of
valid existing information can speed up the Base Program Analysis process
considerably. The following sections describe the tasks of the Base Program Analysis
process.
TASK 1: IDENTIFY RELEVANT LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
ORGANIZATIONS
The first step in conducting a Base Program Analysis involves the development of an
inventory of existing organizations that have the potential for affecting the problems
being assessed under the Technical Characterization. Base Program Analyses
conducted in the NEP quite often go beyond basic statutes, codes, and legal authorities
to identify the array of mechanisms available to protect the estuary. These
mechanisms include influences on behavior, such as economic incentives, and
technical assistance and education programs, factors not typically considered part of a
resource management infrastructure.
The NEPs inventory existing organizations and mechanisms that may influence the
estuary, including:
• regulatory programs;
• public and private resource management programs;
• incentive programs and voluntary initiatives;
• planning efforts; and
• public education and technical assistance programs.
Once the existing organizations have been identified, the basic information shown in
Table 3.3 can be collected for each of the programs.
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
Table 3.3: Information
collected from organizations
during the Base Program
Analysis
TASK 2: ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
The organizations and their programs
identified by the institutional inventory
are analyzed to assess their potential
effectiveness for addressing the problems
of the estuary. Programmatic strengths
and weaknesses are identified, allowing
an array of enhancements or alternatives
to be considered during development of
the Management Plan. The focus of this
assessment is on how the framework and
individual programs or activities within it
are able to protect the estuary,
particularly with regard to addressing the
priority problems discussed in the
Management Plan, and not on the
effectiveness of the programs
themselves.
Table 3.4 (on page 34) provides a range
of questions that are often considered
when conducting the programmatic
assessment. Ideally, the programmatic
assessment will result in as much
objective, quantitative information as
possible, including data on resources
invested (staff, funding, etc.) and
environmental results.
TASK 3: IDENTIFY CHANGES
NEEDED TO IMPROVE PROGRAM
EFFECTIVENESS
Name of Program
Priority Problem Addressed
Implementing Organization
Program Authorities (laws and ordinances)
Program Description:
I. Purpose
II. Functions
A. Regulatory
B. Resource Management
C. Finance Mechanisms
D. Voluntary Initiatives/Economic Incentives
E. Public Education/Technical Assistance
F Planning
III. Geographic Jurisdiction
IV Resource or Activity Managed
V Funding
A. Source of Funding
B. Funding Rationale
C. Allocation of Funding
D. Proposed Budget and Actual Funding
E. Other Resources Available
VI. Administration
A. Organizational Structure
B. Decision-Making Process
C. Linkages to Cooperating Agencies
D. Total Staff
Source: NEP Guidance, Base Program Analysis. EPA, 1993.
The results of the Base Program Analysis
present findings on the overall
management framework for the estuary, based on a synthesis of the institutional
analysis and consideration of crosscutting issues. The heart of this synthesis is an
analysis of management changes that are necessary to improve the coordination and
application of existing programs.
-------
Table 3.4: Question guide for institutional analysis
v -iy
\
What is the organization's mandate, resource trends, and scope of
jurisdiction or influence?
• What are the most successful aspects of this organization—things that work well and should
be capitalized upon in the future?
• What innovative aspects of this organization's programs or approaches could serve as
models for future activities?
• Are there any gaps in existing resources or authorities that limit the organization's ability to
take action on one or more of the priority problems?
• What kinds of problems has this organization experienced? For example:
- unclear goals, responsibilities, or procedures?
— conflicting efforts by other programs?
— difficulties in coordinating with other organizations?
— drastically insufficient resources?
• Do other activities duplicate any of this organization's efforts?
• Are there complementary organizations that could enhance this organization's effectiveness?
• Are there organizations that impede this organization's effectiveness?
• How much support does the organization enjoy from the public and the legislature?
• What specific actions could improve the effectiveness of the institutional framework?
- What current activities should be accelerated or expanded?
— What new efforts should be instituted? Are new authorities or entities required?
- What obstacles to effectiveness must be overcome?
— What should be the Management Conference's action priorities?
• For each action suggested, what are the appropriate tasks, actors, and timing?
• What are the potential barriers to redirection? How can support be generated?
Based on EPA's National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterisation in the National Estuary Program (1994)
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
FROM CHARACTERIZATION TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT
The ultimate goal of the Technical Characterization and Base Program Analysis is to
establish the status and trends of estuarine resources, identify impacts being
experienced, determine the likely causes of those impacts, and describe and evaluate
the institutional environment. However, the Technical Characterization and Base
Program Analysis are not an endpoint. The Technical Characterization combined with
the results of the Base Program Analysis set the stage for the formulation of the
Management Plan. To be useful, they must lead to the development of an effective
Management Plan.
IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS: EXAMPLES
Example 1: Use of worksheets to determine relative importance of estuary
resources
Worksheets, like the one shown below (Figure 3.3), can be used to develop a graphical
representation of the overall relative importance of the estuary's resources. The Santa
Monica Bay Restoration Commission used forms of this worksheet as workshop tools
to stimulate discussion among participating managers and technical experts.
Figure 3.3: Worksheet used to establish relative importance
of an estuary's resources
£ ....> t»
V*,1
^K>. f^^
Low
Ecological
Value
High
Economic/Public
Value
' *
y» j. J.U.H1U11 j. j.v^uiLii
)(Fish
X Wetlands
X Zooplankton
X Benthos
High
Ecological
Value
Low
Economic/Public
Value
From EPA's National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterisation in the National Estuary Program (1994)
-------
Environmental managers and regulators were asked to position the valued resources
along the Public Value axis while technical and scientific participants were asked to
position the resources along the Ecological Value axis. The results were combined and
resources were then positioned on a master worksheet. Valued resources in the upper
right quadrant had the highest overall value, while those positioned in the lower left
quadrant had the lowest value. For additional information, see
www.santamonicabay.org.
^ Example 2: Data collection to identify priority problems and develop
monitoring protocols
The Sarasota Bay NEP used
continuous monitors to evaluate
diurnal fluctuations in dissolved
oxygen levels. Previous sampling in
Sarasota Bay was conducted during
the mid-morning to early afternoon,
thus eliminating data collection in
early morning—the lowest dissolved
oxygen period. The Sarasota Bay
NEP used the continuous datasets
to evaluate the extent of hypoxia
(low oxygen), the potential impact
of hypoxia on fisheries, and to
reevaluate monitoring programs. Based on the results of this monitoring effort, it was
determined that elevated hypoxia levels did not have an adverse impact on juvenile fish
counts. Because temperature was not an important driver in the system, Sarasota Bay's
monitoring program focuses on nutrients and light-related parameters. For additional
information, see www.sarasotabay.org.
^ Example 3: Narrative description of estuarine processes
The Puget Sound Action Team used a narrative approach to describe the estuary in its
"State of the Sound Report." Qualitative and thorough descriptions of the estuarine
processes were combined with simple diagrams illustrating circulation patterns, marine,
freshwater, and terrestrial habitats, and living resource information, relating how
various factors influence the estuarine processes and resources. This report also made
use of easy-to-read qualitative narrative matrices to describe: 1) the possible causes,
current status, and outlook for each problem indicator; 2) pollutants, possible sources,
and associated impacts; 3) sources, effects, and trends; and 4) the distribution of
certain contaminants in the Sound. These concise, simple matrices helped illuminate
potential management solutions. For additional information, see www.psat.wa.gov.
-------
Identifying Problems and Solutions
^ Example 4: Relationships of
priority problems
Nitrogen is the limiting nutrient
for algal productivity in Sarasota
Bay. Studies conducted showed a
correlation between seagrass
coverage and nitrogen loads in
Sarasota Bay. The Sarasota Bay
NEP found that reductions in
nitrogen inputs (47 percent)
significantly increased seagrass
coverage. Examined together,
water clarity, light, and seagrass
coverage appear to be good
indicators of system health. Through these efforts, it was demonstrated that significant
increases in seagrass habitat can be achieved with relatively small increases in water
clarity of 1.5 feet in shallow water systems like Sarasota Bay. For additional
information, see www.sarasotabay.org.
^ Example 5: Identification of data gaps through Technical Characterization
The Technical Characterization report developed by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership stated that the development of long-term solutions to the problems
identified in the Lower Columbia River would require ongoing data collection and
analysis. The characterization report identified four basic problems: toxics in sediment
and fish tissue; decline in species; threats to wildlife and fish; and loss of habitat. The
report also recommended the following studies and long-term monitoring and
evaluation to address data and information gaps:
• Problem confirmation and source identification;
• Fate and transport assessment;
• Criteria and standards development;
• Ambient monitoring and assessment;
• Fish and wildlife monitoring and assessment; and
• Human health monitoring and assessment.
For additional information, see www.lcrep.org.
-------
^ Example 6: Data gathering and action formulation
In addition to developing technical issue papers and offering advice and guidance on
scientific issues affecting the estuary, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership's
Science and Technical Work Group helped bridge the gap between data gathering and
action formation. Members of the Technical Work Group played a key role assisting
the Management Committee in the comparative risk ranking of potential actions. The
ranking was used to select actions based on the most significant problems in the
estuary, including perceived risks to public health,
ecological health, and quality of life. The
program's risk ranking exercises are described in
Chapter 4 of its Management Plan. For additional
information, see www.lcrep.org.
..,v/;«i
-. jrf'-c
^ Example 7: Contribution of Base Program
Analysis to Management Plan action plans
The purpose of the Base Program Analysis
conducted by the Barataria-Terrebonne NEP was
to provide members of the Management
Conference with information they could use to
develop actions for the Management Plan. The
seven priority problems identified in the Barataria-
Terrebonne Conference Agreement were used to
provide information about the types of program
changes needed in the future. A database was
developed containing programs, monitoring
stations, laws, and the research and reports
relevant to the project area. The report lists 84
federal programs and 63 state programs according
to their primary management tools and their
relation to the seven priority problems. An
analysis identified the types of strategies and regulations that lead to program
effectiveness and prototypes were recommended for the action plans in the
Management Plan. In addition, some strategies were identified that could be
implemented prior to final Management Plan approval. For additional information, see
www.btnep.org.
-------
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action
Chapter 4:
Developing the Management Plan-
A Blueprint for Action
INTRODUCTION
The Management Plan is a blueprint for restoring and protecting an estuary. Written by
the estuary program office, with substantial input from stakeholder committees, it
identifies the most pressing problems in an estuary and establishes goals, objectives,
and actions for resolving them. The Management Plan also contains strategies for
monitoring progress and financing implementation. The plans are living documents
that are reexamined and revised by the
estuary programs on a regular basis to
ensure that the goals, objectives, and
specific actions continue to address the
most pressing problems. During plan
development, the NEPs implement
demonstration projects to test possible
actions and show the results that full plan
execution can bring about.
This chapter explains how the NEPs use
the results of the Technical
Characterization and Base Program
Analysis discussed in Chapter 3 to develop
Management Plans that address the
problems of each estuary. The chapter
outlines how the NEPs involve affected
jurisdictions, agencies, and other
organizations and individuals in the writing
of the plan to ensure stakeholder support
and a commitment to implement the plan.
The chapter also shows how the NEPs use
demonstration projects during plan
development to showcase innovative
management strategies, involve the public,
and demonstrate the types of changes that
full implementation can bring about.
NEP PRINCIPLES IN CHAPTER 4
The Management Plan identifies the most
pressing problems in an estuary and establishes
goals, objectives, and actions for resolving
them.
Implementation of demonstration projects
during Management Plan development can
showcase innovative management strategies,
involve the public, and demonstrate the types
of changes that full implementation of the
Management Plan can bring about.
The Management Plan must be developed
in conjunction with affected jurisdictions,
agencies, and programs to ensure continued
stakeholder support and future
implementation commitments.
The Management Plan is a living document
and should be revised on a regular basis (e.g.,
every five years) to ensure that the goals,
objectives, and specific actions continue to
address the most pressing problems and serve
as effective tools for restoring and
maintaining the integrity of the estuary.
-------
COMPONENTS OF A
MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Management Plan contains five basic components:
• Statement of priority problems to be addressed in the Management Plan
• Mission statement, goals, and objectives for the estuary
• Action plans for achieving goals and objectives
• Monitoring strategy
• Finance strategy
The following sections describe these five basic components.
STATEMENT OF PRIORITY PROBLEMS
Prioritizing the problems that will be addressed in the Management Plan is an
important early step in Management Plan development. No Management Plan can
tackle all of the issues affecting an estuary at one time. Therefore, problems must be
prioritized to ensure that limited resources can be applied wisely during implementation
of action plans. As discussed in Chapter 3, there are many strategies used to prioritize
identified problems in the estuary, including
opinion surveys, stakeholder workshops, and
various resource valuation techniques. The actions
within the Management Plan should be clearly
linked to the priority problems.
SAN FRANCISCO
ESTUARY PROJECT
MISSION
STATEMENT
''I
' '
JMPJ
'WE, THE PEOPLE of California and
the San Francisco Bay-Delta region, believe
the San Francisco Estuary is an international
treasure and that our ongoing stewardship is
critical to its preservation, restoration, and en-
hancement. Acknonjkdging the importance
of the estuary to our environmental and eco-
nomic well-being, ive pledge to achieve and
maintain an ecologically diverse and produc-
tive natural estuarine system."
For additional information, see
www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep/
sfep.html.
MISSION STATEMENTS, GOALS, AND
OBJECTIVES
Most NEPs develop a mission statement, goals,
and objectives to help ensure that stakeholders
work toward the same end. This approach focuses
participants on the desired end product rather than
a problem-based approach that tackles individual
problems one-by-one. A clear mission statement
with specific goals and objectives leads to the
development of integrated action plans that
address multiple problems simultaneously in order
to work toward achieving the desired end. This
approach takes into consideration social as well as
ecological factors and allows the NEPs to maintain
direction in the dynamic environment in which they
operate.
-------
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action
An NEP formulates the mission
statement early in the program's
development and may also formulate
preliminary goals and objectives. After
the Technical Characterization and Base
Program Analysis are complete, the NEP
revisits and refines the goals and
objectives. Frequently, stakeholders are
asked to identify the most important uses
and resources of the estuary. This
stakeholder input serves as an important
basis for an NEP's program goals and
objectives.
Overall program goals focus on desired
end products or results for the estuary.
All program goals should be
environmentally meaningful and resonate
with the public. Goals may range from
maintaining current conditions to
restoring the estuary to a past condition.
Objectives, unlike goals, are specific and
more clearly defined, and are aimed at
achieving the broader, long-term goals. Objectives must be measurable and achievable
through the implementation of specific action plans. They may reflect the
environmental criteria, the preferred uses, or the elimination of impairments that the
estuary program participants consider appropriate and desirable for various estuarine
segments. Objectives undoubtedly will vary from one segment of the estuary to
another, but in each case are used to determine if the program goals are being met.
ACTION PLANS
Once the Management Conference has formulated goals and objectives, work can
begin on developing specific actions to achieve them. These action plans—discrete
activities to address a priority problem or issue and its impacts—are at the heart of the
Management Plan. Table 4.1 (on page 42) summarizes the basic steps involved in
developing action plans. Each action plan typically addresses a priority issue such as
environmental education or a priority problem such as habitat loss.
CLEAR GOALS AND _ i,
OBJECTIVES HELP DEFINE l\ "•
SUCCESSFUL , ' '
IMPLEMENTATION " ..' ',, '-.
Measuring success can be
simplified by defining goals and objectives in readily
measured, unambiguous terms. One of the goals
of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program is to restore a
minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh
every five years and a total of 1,800 acres over the
long-term. The goal is stated in measurable terms
and provides both long-term and intermediate-term
measures of success. The goal statement also
provides a clear endpoint to gauge when the goal
has been achieved. The Interlocal Agreement through
which the Tampa Bay Management Plan is being
implemented specifies that when the policy board
determines that a goal has been achieved, the goal
will be restructured to provide ongoing maintenance
of the resource. For additional information, see
www.tbep.org.
-------
Table 4.1: Basic steps for action plan development
1. State the problem, identifying the probable causes and sources.
2. State the program goals related to the problem and its source.
3. Set specific, measurable objectives to attain the goals.
4. Determine the universe of possible management activities, both
new and existing, for consideration.
5. Select the activity that will work, that the public will support, and
that can be implemented within reasonable time and resources.
6. Establish specific action plans needed to abate and control the
problem or to protect the resource.
7. Implement and monitor results, collecting data on measurable
indicators of progress.
8. Report on progress, costs, and results.
9. Review, reevaluate, and redirect efforts as needed.
Each action plan should address the following:
• WHO: Identify who will take the lead in carrying out the action; define roles
and resource commitments for each participating organization.
• WHAT: Describe what will be done. For example, set numeric load reduction
targets and use designations for a location; describe which specific activities are
necessary to reach them.
• WHERE: Describe the location where the action will take place and the area
that will be affected.
• WHEN: Include schedules for action implementation and completion.
• HOW: Outline the procedures or steps that will be used to carry out the action.
• HOW MUCH: Estimate the cost of implementing the action.
• SOURCE OF FUNDS: Identify funding sources that can be used to carry out
the action.
A range of techniques has been used by the NEPs to develop management actions.
For example, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership held multiple public
meetings, convened work groups, used comparative risk ranking, conducted
constituent focus groups, and then developed final criteria to narrow down a list of 180
actions to 43 (see Appendix C).
-------
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action
MONITORING STRATEGY
In order to track both programmatic and environmental results, the NEPs develop a
monitoring strategy. The NEPs include several basic elements in their monitoring
strategies.
First, they include a clear and realistic definition of success. This definition is typically
driven by the goals and objectives developed during the planning process. Considered
in total, the achievement of these goals and objectives equates to the yardstick that
the stakeholders will use to determine if progress is being made during the
implementation process.
Second, the NEPs select appropriate and measurable indicators that track with this
definition. Indicators are tools that are used to assess progress toward a particular goal
or objective. The NEPs' indicators measure progress toward enhancing and preserving
their diverse estuarine ecosystems. To reconcile the long-term nature of
environmental improvements and the need to demonstrate short-term results to
stakeholders, the NEPs integrate programmatic indicators with environmental
indicators.
Third, the NEPs develop a communication plan. The plan identifies goals, objectives,
and target audiences, as well as how the NEPs will create, package, and distribute their
messages. One eye-catching way the NEPs use to reach a wide audience is Web-based
interactive maps. This medium is a user-friendly way to track indicators and progress
toward goals. For example, Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool
(PIVOT), a tool developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Coastal Services Center, has been used by the Tillamook
Estuaries Partnership to present local environmental issues
and how the NEP is addressing them. Additional
information on PIVOT can be found on the Web site:
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm.
Next, the NEPs identify the roles environmental agencies
and volunteers will play in monitoring. Environmental
agencies bring substantial monitoring resources to the table,
and volunteers can collect data in remote areas and help a
program's outreach and education efforts. The NEPs
convene the agencies that collect, analyze, and store estuary
data to create a well coordinated monitoring program that
eliminates redundancies and fills gaps. By combining local,
regional, and national monitoring systems, the NEPs create
a comprehensive network.
-------
Finally, the NEPs outline the technical components of the strategy. The NEPs consult
technical documents such as EPA's National Estuary Program Monitoring Guidance.
The Guidance provides examples and details related to identifying monitoring
objectives, establishing testable hypotheses, selecting statistical methods, choosing
analytical methods and alternative sampling designs, evaluating expected monitoring
study performance, and conducting monitoring and data analysis. The Guidance can
be found on the Web site: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/water/
owr c c atal o g. n s f.
FINANCE STRATEGY
To successfully leverage federal
seed money into substantial sums,
the NEPs develop finance plans
to obtain a variety of federal,
state, local, and private funding.
Finance plans allow the NEPs to
tap into a broad spectrum of
funding sources: public and
private, direct and indirect, to
achieve their goals and control the pace of their programs. Rather than pursue a new
grant each month, the NEPs identify and evaluate a broad spectrum of potential
funding before seeking a particular source. NEPs attract additional funding from
various sources and through partnerships with other organizations. For example, the
NEPs have tapped the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, stormwater utility
fees, municipal bond funding, fines and settlements, tax abatements and incentives,
and sales fees. The following paragraphs describe the finance planning process and the
time it takes to see financial results.
Finance planning involves four steps: (1) establish program priorities; (2) identify
funding options; (3) evaluate funding options; and (4) develop a plan to pursue the
most promising funding sources. To accomplish these steps, the NEPs may retain a
consultant to facilitate a series of meetings, interviews, and follow-up sessions to
determine a reasonable list of priority actions and identify potential funding sources.
The resulting plan identifies sources of funding to support priority activities, such as
operating costs, outreach, and habitat protection. For example, the NEPs may seek
funding from an individual state Environmental Trust by first educating the
organization on how the NEP program goals will support their mission. Other
organizations, such as foundations, local governments, and businesses, may also be
approached to fund additional project-related costs. A finance plan identifies who will
develop the funding mechanisms, how this will be done, and when the mechanisms will
be in place. Appendix E provides an excerpt from one NEP finance plan.
-------
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action
It may take time to see positive results from finance planning and resulting actions. For
example, the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary's first direct mail appeal yielded
only a handful of responses. Yet as this NEP became more active in the community,
developed support among local residents, and found advocates within state and local
government, its reputation grew. With this stronger reputation, the NEP is now
bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars from a variety of sources and is in a better
position to argue for more significant resources. The process of building this support
took several years with small returns from early appeals blossoming into substantial
support.
DEVELOPING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Management Plan development is a multi-year process that seeks to involve all of the
watershed's stakeholders. The NEPs take a number of steps to develop their
management plans.
First, the NEPs disseminate and discuss the characterization findings with affected
parties in the watershed. These findings, which describe the estuary's problems and
link problems to causes, form the basis for developing the goals and objectives for the
estuary. To ensure that stakeholders have equal access to this information, it should be
widely shared in a format that all participants can understand.
Second, the NEPs gather information through public input, technical studies and
demonstration projects. The stakeholders debate the merits of each problem and
determine which ones will be the focus of the Management Plan. Some programs
begin the prioritization process by holding a series of public workshops. These
meetings serve to disseminate information on the state of the estuary and to increase
public awareness and support for the estuary program. The meetings also provide an
opportunity to solicit citizen knowledge and opinions regarding the problems of the
estuary. The Management Conference uses this
information to draft, evaluate, and select actions
for controlling pollution and managing resources.
By ensuring that the public is involved, a plan is
created that all parties support. Actions are
created that are measurable, achievable, and
sensitive to social and cultural factors. Strong
public support of the Management Plan helps to
secure commitments from implementing entities,
as well as funding for implementation.
Next, the NEPs integrate and coordinate their
activities with affected jurisdictions, agencies, and
I
-------
programs. Coordination with affected jurisdictions and agencies ensures that the
estuary program is informed about the results of studies and research efforts conducted
by other agencies, as well as initiatives that may be planned or underway that could
impact the estuarine system. Continued involvement by resource agencies and affected
jurisdictions also helps to ensure that commitments to implement the actions can be
secured. Most NEPs include federal and state resource agency personnel on their
Policy and/or Management Committees to ensure their participation throughout the
process.
Finally, the NEPs begin implementing
actions prior to completing the Management
Plan. These early actions, referred to as
Action Plan Demonstration Projects, are
used by the NEPs to showcase innovative ' IWI
management strategies, to involve the public
in hands-on estuarine resource management,
and to demonstrate the types of changes that
full implementation of the Management Plan
can bring about. Early implementation
activities can help to legitimize program
activities and maintain a high level of stakeholder interest. The following are examples
of Action Plan Demonstration Projects.
• The Indian River Lagoon NEP worked with state agencies and utilized volunteers to
help protect natural habitat by planting mangroves in areas where there was habitat
loss due to development or where the mangroves have been crowded out by the
invasive species Brazilian pepper. Volunteers and contractors of the Indian River
Lagoon Program planted more than 100,000 mangrove trees along causeways and
shorelines of the lagoon. Young mangrove sprouts are planted in vertically split PVC
pipes filled with native soils. This allows the roots to stabilize along the wave-
turbulent shoreline. As the plants grow, the protective pipes fall away allowing the
plant to survive without further support. This Action Plan Demonstration Project
provided a useful technology and approach that was used by the NEP in the
Management Plan.
• The Barataria-Terrebonne NEP implemented several Action Plan Demonstration
Projects during Management Plan development to test the feasibility of new
technologies prior to large-scale implementation. They included: 1) oil canal
conversion; 2) seagrass best management practices; 3) seafood processing plant
wastewater improvement; 4) small-flow wastewater treatment; and 5) alternative
dredging and soil deposition. Following implementation, the program prepared
reports on the results of each demonstration project.
-------
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action
The Mobile Bay NEP funded an Action
Plan Demonstration Project that was
collectively implemented by the Alabama
Coastal Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, McDavid Christmas Tree Farm,
Cam Beckwith, and Alabama Power. The
partners addressed the priority issue of
habitat loss by placing discarded Christmas
trees in fencing along an eroding shoreline.
The trees absorbed wave action and
reduced siltation. The Youth
Conservation Corps planted black-needle
rush (Juncus roemerianus) between the brush
fence and shoreline. The marsh planting
increases the rate of sediment entrapment,
protects the shoreline from erosion, and
augments wildlife habitat along the
shoreline.
STRAW VOTING TO IDENTIFY
POSSIBLE MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACTIONS
The Partnership for the Delaware
Estuary utilized straw voting
exercises at stakeholder group
meetings to determine levels of support for
proposed actions. Following the voting exercise,
a facilitator led a discussion about those actions
with the highest level of support as well as those
actions with the least support. These
discussions not only helped to identify
stakeholder priority actions, but also brought
to light controversial issues, opinions on the
feasibility of implementing actions, suggestions
for action reformulation, and suggestions for
additional actions. For additional information,
see www.delawareestuarv.org.
FROM MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
TO IMPLEMENTATION
The Management Plan articulates a vision and goals for the estuary, identifies priority
problems, specifies actions to address the problems, and outlines monitoring and
finance strategies. While completion of the Management Plan requires many years of
concentrated work, it is only the first step toward cleaning up and protecting the
estuary. Implementation of the Management Plan becomes the focus of NEP efforts
once it is approved by the Management Conference, state government, and EPA.
To successfully implement the plan, the NEPs need the skills, knowledge, and abilities
to:
• raise funds,
• secure partner commitments,
• monitor progress,
• document and communicate results,
• provide public education and involvement opportunities, and
• revise the program to maintain momentum.
The next chapter discusses how the NEPs address these challenges.
-------
DEVELOPING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN: EXAMPLES
^ Example 1: Stakeholder involvement in development of the program vision
The Partnership for the Delaware Estuary conducted a series of facilitated workshops
to form a "vision of the Delaware Estuary for the year 2020 which was shared by the
users of the estuary." During facilitated discussions, workshop participants,
representing a variety of stakeholder interests, were asked to identify the most
important uses and resources of the estuary, based on their perspective as a user (e.g.,
fishing, recreational boating, land development, manufacturing, etc.). These
workshops resulted in a collective list focusing on fisheries, wildlife, recreation, water
supply, and commerce as the most important uses of the estuary. These uses and
values became the basis for goals and objectives endorsed by the program. For
additional information, see www.delawareestuary.org.
^ Example 2: Public involvement and community outreach demonstration
projects
The San Juan Bay Estuary Program conducted
several community efforts to enhance education,
health, and the environment. The Program
delivered numerous presentations focusing on
themes such as water quality. Demonstration
Projects in Loiza, San Juan, and Catano
communities included:
• A solid waste management project in
Loiza that has reduced floatable debris
through recycling and improved the
overall environmental quality of the
coastal community of Pinones.
• A series of 10 presentations and home visits, supplemented by the installation
of warning signs, to alert Peninsula de Canteras Community to fish advisories.
• A 10-week series of workshops on Las Cucharills Marshland ecology, including
sessions on community organizing and environmental restoration, that gave
participants a coherent vision and ideas about how they could achieve it.
For additional information, see www.e s tuari o s an j uan. o rg.
-------
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action
^ Example 3: Development of environmental education goals and objectives to
help focus outreach efforts
The Public Education Strategy of the Charlotte Harbor NEP is to educate and to
motivate the people within the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed to understand, to
participate in, and to implement their Management Plan. To achieve this strategy, the
Charlotte Harbor NEP developed four public education goals and four quantifiable
objectives to support the goals.
Public Education Goals:
1. Increase public awareness, understanding, and support of the action items in
the Management Plan through involvement in educational programs, resource-
based activities, and special events.
2. Establish and maintain environmental education efforts with organizations,
educational centers, and government agencies.
3. Increase awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural resources of
the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed.
4. Develop stewardship and a sense of shared responsibility for estuaries, rivers,
tributaries, and their watersheds.
. ..
Public Education Objectives:
1. Maintain a core staff, including a Public
Affairs Specialist, at the Charlotte
Harbor NEP office to ensure
implementation of the Management
Plan.
2. Support and further the educational
action items of the Management Plan.
3. Assess annually the progress of the
Public Education Strategy.
4. Develop future directions based on the annual assessment.
Following the development of these objectives, priority actions were developed by the
Program to define the management activities needed to attain the quantifiable
objectives. For additional information, see www.charlotteharbornep.com/.
-------
^ Example 4: Use of resource valuation to gain public and political support
The Peconic Estuary Program conducted a resource valuation study assessing the
public's assessment of the estuary's values. The Program felt that a credible picture of
the monetary worth of the natural resources and environmental amenities of the area
would better substantiate the value of the actions in the Management Plan and broker
more support from public officials and the general public. By documenting market and
non-market resource benefits, decisions on resource allocation for implementation
could be made at least in part on cost-benefit considerations. The multifaceted study
responded to the needs of the Peconic
Estuary Program by identifying estuarine-
dependent economic sectors and their
P7HiSS|Hji| impacts on the local economy and
cfllll^H assessing the largely non-market values
of natural amenities, and the recreational
services provided by those amenities.
The second part of the study was
comprised of (1) a recreation study, (2) a
resource valuation analysis, (3) a property
value study, and (4) a wetlands
productivity analysis.
The results of the resource valuation study indicated that the public has a strong
attachment to the environmental and amenity resources of the Peconic Estuary system,
even if they do not use the resources directly. The resource valuation survey identified
the public's priorities for enhancing or preserving local natural resources. The relative
priorities of respondents, in order, were farmland, eelgrass, wetlands, shellfishing
grounds, and undeveloped land. The estimated per acre dollar values were about
$74,500 for farmland, $70,000 for eelgrass, $56,700 for saltmarsh, $30,000 for
unpolluted shellfishing grounds, and $14,000 for undeveloped land, using a 25-year
time horizon and a seven percent discount rate.
The economics information generated was extremely useful to the Program, presenting
a credible picture of the market and non-market worth of the services provided by
Peconic Bay and its environs. The results of the various studies conducted (the impact
assessment, travel cost, and contingent choice) influenced several initiatives within the
region and helped generate over $100 million at the state, county, and local levels to
support environmental preservation. For additional information, see
www.peconicestuary.org.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
Chapter 5:
Implementing the Management Plan
INTRODUCTION
The focus of this chapter is on how to move from studying problems plaguing our
estuaries to implementing management measures to solve those problems. To ensure
success, the NEPs work with their partners to see that they follow through with their
commitments to support Management Plan implementation. The NEPs invigorate
local involvement by addressing local problems and developing finance mechanisms to
raise money to pay for implementation activities. Indicators of success are developed,
tracked, and communicated by the NEPs to build additional support for
implementation. The NEPs improve their implementation performance by sharing
successes and lessons learned at events, such as national conferences and workshops,
and by updating their Management Plans periodically. This chapter discusses how the
NEPs organize effective institutional
arrangements that ensure long-term
oversight and accountability, obtain
stable and diverse sources of funding,
monitor results and communicate them
to the public, and update the
Management Plan periodically.
The NEPs have learned that the
following actions can help lead to
successful implementation:
• Organize effective institutional
arrangements that ensure long-
term oversight and accountability.
• Obtain stable and diverse sources
of funding.
• Monitor results and communicate
them to the public.
• Update the Management Plan
periodically.
The following sections describe how the
NEPs successfully implement their
Management Plans.
NEP PRINCIPLES IN CHAPTER 5
To prevent conflicting agendas and individual interests
from derailing the program, the NEPs adopt bylaws
and other agreements that define participant roles and
provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts.
Several different institutional structures or
arrangements have been effective for various NEPs
as they move into implementation.
A variety of funding sources are needed to avoid over-
reliance on a single entity since implementation occurs
over many years and is costly.
A clear and realistic definition of success, including
measurable indicators, should be developed and
communicated to all stakeholders.
Environmental results should be communicated in
terms that are meaningful to all stakeholders.
Citizens can play an important role in environmental
monitoring and building public support for
implementation.
-------
MAINTAINING MOMENTUM FROM PLANNING THROUGH
IMPLEMENTATION
With the Management Plan complete, the NEPs increase their focus on
implementation: obtaining funds, building partner support, and measuring and
communicating results. To sustain the momentum gathered during plan development,
the NEPs revisit their governance structure to ensure that it is appropriate to
effectively implement the Management Plan. The NEP asks itself whether it should
remain within its current institutional host, become a nonprofit, or establish a nonprofit
arm. Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages in regards to
fundraising, building partner support, and measuring and communicating results. The
NEPs also intensify their efforts to involve stakeholders and build partner support.
The NEPs engage stakeholders in applied activities, such as volunteer monitoring and
implementing mini-grants, and create an environment that respects all voices, gives real
power to participants, clearly states objectives and timetables, and makes clear progress
on those objectives.
REVISITING THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
In deciding whether to remain in its original institutional location, an NEP investigates
a variety of different alternatives and identifies the place that best suits its specific
needs. The NEPs examine the community of the estuary: how decisions are reached,
what perceptions are prevalent, and who or what institutions are influential. Several
different institutional locations have been effective for different NEPs. Coastal Bend
Bays and Estuaries (Texas) and Tillamook Bay (Oregon) moved from state and local
government institutions to become independent nonprofit organizations. San Francisco
and Delaware Bay NEPs remained in their state government institutions but created
nonprofit arms to conduct outreach and fundraising activities. The San Juan Bay NEP
established a trust fund to conduct fundraising and a board of directors with
representatives from the public and private sectors to provide overall direction for the
program. And, the New York-New Jersey Harbor NEP remained in the EPA Region II
office. While locating the NEP within a government agency can allow the NEP to
more easily coordinate with other government programs and have greater access to data
and certain regulatory functions, locating the NEP outside a government agency, in a
satellite office or nonprofit, has advantages including greater autonomy, visibility, and
certain funding opportunities. Appendix D presents a one-page list of the advantages
and disadvantages of becoming a nonprofit.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
SUSTAINING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND PARTNER SUPPORT
The NEPs reinforce the partners' commitment by continuing to hold stakeholder
meetings, managing the NEP committee process, and working to sustain the consensus
and common vision reached among
the partners during plan
development. While the NEPs
implement some actions
independently, they oversee,
coordinate, and in other ways
influence many more partner actions.
For example, the NEP may provide
seed money or the initial
organization for implementing
partners that do have the legal
authority or resources to implement
LOCATING THE NEP
WITHIN AN ACADEMIC
INSTITUTION
2asco Bay
In 1997, the Casco Bay Estuary Project moved from
the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
to the University of Southern Maine. The Muskie
School for Public Service, a graduate school at the
University, and the Marine Law Institute act as hosts to
the Project. The Casco Bay board of directors went
through a request for proposals process to find a host
site. The University's successful bid brought the Project
to an academic institution that exemplifies environmental
stewardship. With the University, the Project receives
an office on campus and the use of the institutional
infrastructure. Benefits the Project has received from
being located at the University include:
• Convenient location for meetings and outreach
efforts.
• Credibility as an academic institution that is
viewed as neutral without associations with
enforcement agencies or advocacy groups.
• Many opportunities for graduate and
undergraduate assistantships/internships.
• Opportunities to guest lecture in courses at the
University and to get students involved in
projects that benefit the Estuary Project.
For additional information, see
www.cascobav.usm.maine.edu.
actions.
The NEPs, however, are sometimes
frustrated by a decline in stakeholder
participation after the Management
Plan is completed. Without the
focus of plan development,
stakeholders may lose interest in the
program. "Lack of time" is
everyone's first response to the
question of why they don't remain
involved. But research from the
NEP experience suggests that it is
more a matter of setting priorities
than the availability of time itself.3
People free up time for things that
are most important to them. The
challenge for NEPs and other
community-based watershed efforts
is to invigorate local support by
addressing local problems, but doing
so in a coordinated manner that
enhances mutual benefits and makes progress on regional problems. The mechanisms
for involving the public vary from NEP to NEP. Some programs hire staff to focus on
3 Webler, Thomas. "Why Do (or Don't) Local Government Officials Participate in Watershed Planning
Efforts." Coastlines 10.2 (2002). Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
A GUIDEBOOK TO HELP ENGAGE THE
COMMUNITY
\
: PRO**
this activity, while others delegate this task to a separate entity, such as a local
nonprofit. For example, the Morro Bay NEP has partnered with nonprofit
organizations working in and near the estuary to create the Estero Conservation
Alliance. Through this Alliance,
member organizations cooperatively
work to meet common goals and
complete joint projects to enhance
Morro Bay and surrounding areas.
How can coastal managers and
watershed organizations like the NEP
entice local government officials and
other stakeholders to participate in
the implementation process?
• First, focus attention on producing a
working environment that respects all
voices, builds a sense of camaraderie,
gives real power to the participants,
clearly states the objectives and
timetable, and makes clear progress
on these objectives. Stakeholders are
more likely to participate if the
watershed project stays abreast of
local problems and incorporates these
into the program's objectives. Going
out into the communities, listening to
concerns, and inviting local
participation are much more
productive ways to secure
involvement than merely sending a
form letter to the town clerk, mayor's
office, or county commissioners. For
example, Massachusetts Bays NEP
created five Local Governance Committees that function like mini-NEPs. Each
covers a specific region of the coast and staff visit each community in order to
secure its commitment to implement Management Plan actions.
• Second, recruit people who have a strong environmental ethic, enjoy working
collaboratively with peers, are able to take a regional perspective, and who pursue
goals linked to the project's objectives. Invitations to new participants should
include announcements listing existing participants and provide opportunities for
networking and learning.
Understanding community social <
systems is key to successful
Management Plan implementation.
EPA's Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide
to Understanding a Sense of Place is a toolbox for
understanding the social dynamics involved in
community-based efforts. Readers learn about a
flexible, step-by-step process for building a picture
of community cultural preferences and priorities by
identifying local values, beliefs, and behaviors as they
relate to community life and the surrounding natural
environment. Easy-to-use worksheets and
community assessment stories from around the
country provide methods that can be used to:
• identify a community's vision and goals,
• engage volunteers and other stakeholders,
• enhance education and outreach efforts, and
• build and strengthen partnerships.
To order the Guide (EPA 842-B-01-003), contact the
National Service Center for Environmental
Publications, U.S. EPA Publication Clearinghouse,
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242, 1-800-490-
9198, ncepiwo@one.net.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
Third, use mini-grants, segmentation schemes, and other mechanisms that enable
stakeholder groups to make progress on their local agenda while remaining connected
to the watershed project. The Maryland Coastal Bays Program awards an average of
$100,000 per year for local stakeholders to conduct projects in the watershed.
Recipients provided many times the amount of their grants in matching funds which
attracted more money to the watershed. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program subdivides
the bay into seven segments. The program established nitrogen load reduction goals
and management actions to achieve them for each segment. Achieving the
chlorophyll targets will provide sufficient water clarity to allow recolonization of
12,350 acres of seagrasses and tangible results for local stakeholders.
Fourth, use volunteer programs to
broaden public involvement throughout
the implementation process. Some NEPs
have developed volunteer water quality
monitoring programs while others enlist
volunteers to deliver education and
outreach activities. These opportunities
for active involvement allow the public
to become engaged in tangible efforts,
build stewardship for the resource, and
create public and private interest in
providing financial support for
implementation.
USE OF THE INTERNET TO
STIMULATE PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
The Tampa Bay Estuary
Program's Community EAUMTJJ frogram
Advisory Committee created the Bay Opinion
Poll to stimulate continued public involvement
and communication. This informal poll assesses
perceptions of the bay and identifies major
community concerns related to bay protection.
The poll is available on the Tampa Bay Estuary
Program Web site: www.tbep.org.
Finally, avoid approaching any
stakeholder group as an homogenous body. Watershed managers need to approach
local government organizations and other stakeholder groups as individuals with
different experiences, needs, values, and beliefs. To maximize stakeholder
participation, it may be wise to design a process that contains a variety of ways and
levels for stakeholders to become involved.
-------
OBTAINING FUNDS
NEPs attract funding and support to administer these funds from various sources and
through strategic partnerships with other organizations. For example, the NEPs raised
$11 for every $1 provided by EPA in 2003. This additional funding comes from a
variety of federal, state, local, and private sources (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2). To help
manage this additional funding, the NEPs obtained substantial support through
partnerships with the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. For example, the Coastal
Bend Bays and Estuaries Program (CBBEP) directly administered only about one-third
of their leveraged funding, with the remaining two-thirds administered by local
governments, universities, state agencies, and nonprofits. The CBBEP also created a
land trust that has proved successful in acquiring and managing funds to protect habitat
in the watershed.
How do the NEPs leverage these resources? First, the NEPs develop finance plans
that identify and evaluate funding sources to implement their priority actions. The
funding plans enable the NEPs to sift through potential sources and decide where to
invest limited time and personnel. Rather than focus on a new grant each month, the
Figure 5.1: Resources leveraged by the NEPs
$220,000,000
$200,000,000
$180,000,000
$160,000,000
$140,000,000
$120,000,000
$100,000,000
$80,000,000
$60,000,000
$40,000,000
$20,000,000
$17 million
Leveraging Ratio = 11:1
D EPA §320 Funds • Support from Other Sources
Source: NEP Annual Workpkns, June, 2003.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
NEPs pursue funding that supports
their priorities. (See Appendix E for
an excerpt from an NEP finance pi;
.an.
Second, the NEPs develop strategic
alliances with implementing partners
to obtain their financial support. The
NEPs reinforce the partners'
commitment by continuing to hold
stakeholder meetings, managing the
NEP committee process, and working
to sustain the consensus and common
vision reached among their partners
during plan development. While the
NEPs implement some actions
independently, they oversee,
coordinate, and in other ways
influence many more partner actions.
Figure 5.2: Sources of NEP
leveraged dollars (percent total)
Federal
Private 11%
3%
Source: NEP Annual Workplans, June, 2003.
Third, the NEPs demonstrate results that convince stakeholders that the NEPs are
effective, can be trusted with their resources, and will give them credit for their
contributions. The NEPs work closely with the media and produce independent
newsletters, Web sites, and events that promote the achievements of the program and
heighten the visibility of the NEP and its implementing partners.
Finally, the NEPs provide seed money or staff to initate and develop new funding
sources. For example, the NEP may lead meetings with local governments to develop
stormwater utilities or obtain resources from the State Revolving Loan Fund.
The following sections provide examples of the types of funding NEPs have secured
from federal, state, local, and private sources to finance their operations and projects.
Most NEP activities are funded by more than one source and involve extensive
partnering.
FUNDING OPERATING COSTS
Covering operating costs remains a perennial challenge for most NEPs. Nonetheless,
the NEPs have developed several creative approaches to address this challenge.
County general budget. The Peconic Estuary Program Office is part of the Office of
Ecology in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the county general
budget covers most of the operating costs of the estuary program. Suffolk County has
a long-standing commitment to environmental management. It pushed for Peconic
57
-------
Estuary to be recognized as a National Estuary Program, and with the success of that
effort, it has offered continued support. The Peconic Estuary Program presents its
budgets as an investment with a greater return, not just as money to be expended.
State line-item funding. The Galveston Bay Program and the Coastal Bend Bays and
Estuaries Program each receive state line-item funding of about $1 million per year
from the Texas legislature; the estuary programs use some of these funds for program
operation. The Galveston Bay Program and the Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries
Program worked together to gain support for this state line-item funding. The estuary
programs worked with local representatives to develop language for a bill in the state
legislature, and the estuary programs enlisted local governments, nonprofit
organizations, and individual citizens to support this measure. These NEPs also
educated legislators statewide about the National Estuary Program and the estuary
programs' role in Texas coastal protection. The bill received strong support and passed
in 1999.
The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays used a series of breakfast presentations and
individual meetings with state legislators to articulate current environmental problems
such as Pfiesteria. Made aware of these problems, the Legislature provided specific
monies for the NEP project to restore and preserve the Rehoboth, Indian River, and
Little Assawoman Bays. The funding supports NEP outreach and research efforts and
establishes local "tributary teams" to develop consensus-based plans to implement best
management practices near the rivers and streams feeding into these bays. The Center
for Inland Bays has successfully used the line-item funding to leverage additional
funding sources.
FUNDING NEEDED TO SUPPORT OPERATING
EXPENSES
The experience of several of the NEPs
suggests that annual funding of $600,000
to $2.0 million is needed for initial program
implementation. Basic staffing and
program operations—to support outreach,
monitoring, and other activities—account
for approximately $400,000 to $600,000
of this total. Grant programs, contracts,
and seed money—to implement other
Management Plan actions—account for
$200,000 to $1.4 million that are directly
controlled by the Program itself.
n. The Partnership for the
Delaware Estuary (a nonprofit organization that
was created to implement actions in the Delaware
Estuary Plan) generates some of its operations
funding with an annual giving program. Initially,
the Partnership used a mail house to send out an
appeal to the 25,000 people on the program's
mailing list. Later, the Partnership sent out
personalized appeals and an annual report to
previous donors and a select group from the
mailing list (less than 1,000 people) which
resulted in a significant increase in the amount of
donations.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
Technical assistance fees. Buzzards Bay includes technical assistance fees on partner grant
applications. The estuary program requests a 10 to 30 percent overhead charge for its
grants to cover staff, printing, and outreach expenses. This charge, which generates
$20,000 to $150,000 per year, requires a moderate amount of extra development and
management. The Buzzards Bay Project communicates with grant makers to
determine where staff expenditures and support costs are allowed under their grant
programs. The estuary program thoroughly itemizes its expenses so that the grantor can
see the specific needs and costs associated with completing tasks under the grant.
FUNDING IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS
The NEPs use a variety of sources to fund implementation activities. The following
examples show how the NEPs have used specialty license plate fees, foundation grants,
capital giving campaigns, stormwater utility fees, state bond acts, tax credits, and low-
interest loans to fund land acquisition, habitat protection, pathogen controls, and other
activities.
Affinity credit card. The Long Island Sound
Study NEP worked with the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
(CTDEP), to develop a Long Island Sound
affinity credit card. The CTDEP developed
the proposal for the Long Island Sound
affinity credit card and fronted the operating
costs until the program started to generate
revenues. People's Bank won the award and
continues to donate $5 to the Long Island
Sound account of Connecticut's
"Environmental Quality Fund" for every
Long Island Sound credit card application it
receives. The bank also donates half of one
percent of the interest on all purchases made
with the card. Revenues from the Long
Island Sound affinity credit card program
support grants for education, research, public
access, and habitat restoration projects.
Specialty license plate fees. These fees generate
$400,000 per year for the Indian River
Lagoon Estuary Program and at least 80 percent of these funds support habitat
protection projects. The NEP proposed the idea to the state legislature with 12,000
signature petitions stating that registered vehicle owners intended to purchase the
specialty plate. The NEP paid a $15,000 administration fee to the state and developed
COST OF
MONITORING PLAN 'I v [ "O1 I1
IMPLEMENTATION -.11 1111
The costs of the Puget Sound Ambient
Monitoring Program were calculated by a
technical costing subcommittee of the
monitoring management committee. The
estimates provided by this subcommittee
demonstrate that the costs of comprehensive
monitoring programs can be substantial. In
addition to the $200,000 in staff and consultant
time required to develop the monitoring
program design, the calculated costs of full
implementation of the monitoring program
were estimated at $3.2 million per year. The
initial sampling program was reduced in scope
due to resource constraints, and costs for the
program were $250,000 to $350,000 over the
first two years. For additional information,
see www.psat.wa.gov.
-------
a marketing strategy. The NEP is responsible for promotion of the license plate and
management of the grant program supported by these revenues. The Anheuser-Busch
Corporation donated $15,000 to help pay for more than 70 billboard advertisements
and the Florida Outdoor Advertising Association donated $60,000 worth of billboard
advertising space. For three months, a local car dealership provided all new car buyers
with Indian River Lagoon license plates.
rants. The Narragansett Bay National Estuary Program partnered with a
local nonprofit organization, Save The Bay, and received $200,000 in foundation grants
to support habitat restoration. Recognizing the overlap in their interests, the two
organizations successfully applied to the Pew Charitable Trusts for grant funding that
was available to partners in the Restore America's Estuaries coalition. The
Narragansett Bay National Estuary Program leveraged these resources by using them as
matching funds for a variety of other grant funding.
UtaL giving campaign. In Casco Bay, a capital giving campaign raised more than
$56,000 from local businesses to relocate juvenile lobsters prior to a Portland Harbor
dredging project. As the Portland Harbor dredging project was moving forward, local
lobstermen raised concerns that dredging would disrupt lobster habitat. The Chair of
the Board for the Casco Bay NEP, a city manager, wrote letters to harborfront property
owners and businesses and the cities of Portland and South Portland asking for
financial support to research the issue and to design and implement a plan to protect
the lobsters. Before dredging began, a coalition of lobstermen, state regulators, and
staff and volunteers from the Casco Bay Estuary Project and Friends of Casco Bay
moved 34,012 small lobsters from the dredge area. This group also tagged 4,000
lobsters to help evaluate the project's success and keep the dredging project on
schedule.
Stormwater utility fee. This fee funds a stormwater management program in Sarasota
County, Florida that addresses priority actions in the Sarasota Bay NEP's Management
Plan, such as encouraging property management that minimizes stormwater runoff.
The Sarasota Stormwater Environmental Utility has generated more than $100 million
in revenue to fund planning, maintenance, and capital improvements, such as canal
cleaning, mowing, and low-cost construction projects. The staff of the Sarasota Bay
NEP served as an information source and members of the NEP's Citizen Advisory
Committee provided public testimony during the utility development process.
State bond act. The Long Island Sound NEP Citizen Advisory Committee facilitated a
memorandum of understanding signed by the governor and legislative leaders that
committed over $100 million of New York State Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act
funds to wastewater treatment, stormwater control, nonpoint source pollution control,
and wetlands restoration projects in the watershed. New York State guidelines favor
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
projects that address the highest priorities
identified in NEP Management Plans. New
York State also forwards funding
recommendations to the NEP Management
Conferences for consultation regarding
consistency with the NEP Management Plan
priorities. Over $200 million of this total has
supported water quality improvement projects
in the New York-New Jersey Harbor, Long
Island Sound, and Peconic Bay NEPs.
Taxes. Ocean County, New Jersey voters approved a Natural Lands Trust financed by a
new property tax of 1.2 cents per $100 of valuation. The measure is expected to raise
nearly $4 million annually for the protection of the Barnegat Bay's watershed and
agricultural lands. The new tax received broad support and was based on the results of
public opinion surveys. Only natural lands or easements on natural lands will be
purchased by the Trust, and public access will be guaranteed. No development will be
allowed on the purchased properties.
Tax credits and low-interest loans. The Buzzards Bay Project and the Massachusetts Bays
Program encourage citizens in their watersheds to take advantage of programs in
Massachusetts that offer tax credits and low-interest loans to individuals that remediate
failing septic systems. Under this program, the state's Clean Water State Revolving
Fund makes interest-free loans to communities. The communities in turn lend money
to homeowners that repair failing septic systems. Homeowners repay the loans with
real estate taxes.
Real estate transfer tax. The Peconic Bay NEP worked with a nonprofit partner to
implement a two percent real estate transfer tax, an assessment made by the county on
land and deed transfers based on the sales price of property. Five towns surrounding
the estuary have raised nearly $70 million in less than three years with the tax.
-------
MONITORING AND COMMUNICATING RESULTS
The NEPs' Management Plans present goals, objectives, and actions designed to
improve and protect estuaries and the quality of their waters. To evaluate how
effective their actions have been in achieving Management Plan goals, the NEPs
conduct environmental and programmatic monitoring. The NEPs develop and track
environmental indicators to help communicate results to stakeholders and the general
public that show how well management efforts are progressing and what changes in the
estuary are taking place.
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Environmental monitoring measures changes in the biophysical conditions of the
estuary and answers questions such as:
• Is the ecological integrity of the estuary changing?
• Is water quality improving or getting worse?
• Is the area of wildlife habitat increasing or decreasing?
Table 5.1 presents an excerpt from one of the Charlotte Harbor NEP's quarterly
environmental reports. These reports are posted on their Internet Web site and present
information on trends in water quality and the health of the surrounding habitat.
To supplement their own environmental monitoring programs, the NEPs often
establish volunteer programs that can provide high-quality, reliable data. Volunteer
monitoring programs provide the NEP with both a large, committed, and voluntary
workforce, and a venue for public education and outreach. The direct involvement of
individual citizens provides a strong base for continued support—from planning
through implementation. Extensive information on how to develop volunteer
monitoring programs and use volunteer data effectively can be found in EPA's Volunteer
Estuary Monitoring. ^4 Methods Manual (www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ monitor/).
For example, the Morro Bay NEP, in conjunction with Friends of the Estuary and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, administers a volunteer monitoring program.
Volunteers collect samples and record flow, nitrates, coliforms, dissolved oxygen, water
temperature, turbidity, phosphates, and macroinvertebrates. In addition,
geomorphology, vegetation cover, and stormwater runoff are assessed yearly within the
watershed. Over two hundred citizen monitors, ranging in age from school children to
retirees, have participated in this very successful program. The Volunteer Monitoring
Program increases public awareness and also assists the NEP in recording trends in
environmental resources and water quality. The data are used to strengthen the
mathematical models used by the NEP for management decisions.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
4jtf«Ife
Table 5.1: Excerpt from one of the Charlotte Harbor
NEP's quarterly environmental reports
Charlotte Harbor Proper/Lemon Bay
Parameter
Temperature
Salinity
Color
Chlorophyll a
Total Nitrogen
Assessment
Slightly higher than normal
Slightly higher than normal
Normal
Normal
High in January
Parameter
Phosphorous
Dissolved Oxygen
Turbidity
Secchi Depth
Near Bottom
Dissolved Oxygen
Assessment
Slightly higher than normal
Normal to very good
Better than normal
Normal to very good
Normal to very good
Through the last quarter, water flows, water quality, and habitat were in generally good shape. Issues of
particular concern this quarter included higher than normal water flows from the Myakka, higher than normal
excess nutrients in Charlotte Harbor and Lemon Bay, a sewage spill in the Estero Bay basin, closed shell
fishing in East Pine Island Sound, and chronic water quality impairments of water bodies identified within
the study area.
For additional information, see www.charlotteharbornep.com/ProgramReports/reports.htm.
PROGRAMMATIC MONITORING
Programmatic monitoring measures how well management efforts are progressing and
answers questions such as:
• Are milestones being met?
• How much funding is being spent?
• Are partners following through on their commitments?
For example, the Charlotte Harbor NEP communicates their programmatic progress
through monthly progress reports posted on their Internet Web site. These reports
summarize the research, restoration, funding, and outreach activities completed during
the month.
COMMUNICATING RESULTS
The NEPs use environmental indicators to track and communicate how well
management efforts are progressing and what changes in the estuary are taking place.
These indicators measure the estuary's conditions over time and show the pressures on
the estuary and the resulting effects on ecological and human health. These indicators
help gauge how effective NEP management efforts have been in achieving measurable
results. For example, several NEPs use the area in which shellfish can be safely
harvested as an indicator. This indicator shows the extent to which contamination
-------
restricts shellfish harvesting and can reflect problems related to how land is used and
cared for in the nearby watersheds. NEPs use these indicators to help answer two key
questions:
• Is the condition of the estuary changing?
• Are the goals and objectives of the Management Plan being met?
To communicate their monitoring results, the NEPs report their indicators on both an
individual and aggregate level.
On an individual level, the NEPs
report on a suite of indictors
tailored to their estuary. For
example, the Puget Sound NEP
tracks and reports on 19 indicators
to assess the successes and
shortcomings of its efforts to
protect and restore Puget Sound.
The NEPs communicate these
results through such means as State
of the Bay reports, Web sites, and
newspaper inserts. For example,
the Long Island Sound Study
developed their Sound Health
2003—A. Report on Status and 'Trends
in the Health of Long Island Sound
report to communicate their results
to a broad audience. This easy-to-
read document (in newspaper
format) required $10,000 and four months of staff time to produce, and $65,000 to
print and distribute. It was inserted in the Sunday editions of more than 400,000 area
newspapers and distributed to area libraries, nature centers, the state marine trades
associations, and schools.
On a national scale, EPA uses a more limited number of indicators to assess the
progress of the NEP as a whole. For example, the EPA tracks the number of acres
and types of habitat restored and protected by the 28 NEPs. The EPA communicates
these results through its Web site and other mechanisms. (See Figure 5.3.)
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CARD
The San Francisco Estuary Project
produced the "Bay-Delta
Environmental Report Card" to
communicate the progress of the NEP '
to the public. The report card documented progress
addressing the top 10 critical issues, such as invasive species,
facing the Bay-Delta users, managers, watchdogs, and
communities. The report card communicated the status
of these issues, changes in public awareness of the issues
over the three years, including ecosystem politics, funding,
and effectiveness of efforts to address the issues. The
report card also served to educate the public about
emerging issues and new priorities for the future. For
additional information, see www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/
sfep/sfephtml.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
Figure 5.3: Habitat restored or protected by
the NEPs
barrier island
beaches and dunes
instream
mangroves
other
Total Acres Reported = 68927.40
n barrier island • beaches and dunes nestuarine ninstrearn
• mangroves D other • riparian nSAV
• uplands • wetland
Source: NEP Government Performance Results Act reports, October, 2001.
UPDATING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Because the Management Plan is a flexible tool, it permits an estuary program to adapt
to changing circumstances and to apply the lessons learned by experience. Some
actions may be unsuccessful. New data may reveal unforeseen problems. Earlier
assumptions may have been incorrect and technological advances may enhance cleanup
capabilities. The resolution of some problems will free resources to tackle others.
Furthermore, even though the Management Plan is a document reflecting consensus,
conflicts among jurisdictions, agencies at various government levels, and the public are
inevitable. These conflicts will need to be resolved, possibly by modifying the plan.
To help ensure the relevance of their Management Plans to ongoing project activity,
many NEPs have provisions in their bylaws or operating plans that require periodic
reviews of their plans. The updating of Management Plans has been used by estuary
programs to celebrate progress and reaffirm commitments to their estuaries. The
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program updates their Management Plan every five
65
-------
years. The update includes measurable environmental goals and targets as well as
timeframes for implementation over the next five to ten years. The Indian River
Lagoon, Long Island Sound and New York-New Jersey Harbor estuary programs also
periodically update their goals and implementation schedules. For example, to renew
the commitment of stakeholders to the implementation of their Management Plan, the
Long Island Sound Study developed a Long Island Sound 2003 Agreement. The 2003
Agreement was an update to the 1996 Agreement on implementing the Management
Plan, and was approved by the Policy Committee. The 2003 Agreement was developed
using a consensus-based process coordinated through the Management Conference and
was subject to public review and comment.
IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN:
EXAMPLES
^ Example 1: Development and implementation of a bi-state total maximum
daily load (TMDL)
The Long Island Sound Study's (LISS) close partnership with the states of New York
and Connecticut fostered an innovative TMDL approach that can serve as a model for
how flexibility and market forces achieve efficient waste load allocations. The LISS
Management Plan called for reductions in point and nonpoint source nitrogen loading
to the Sound to improve water quality and reduce hypoxia. The LISS worked with the
states and local governments to adopt aggressive nitrogen reduction targets in 1998
and then to adopt a nitrogen TMDL for the Sound in
2001. This TMDL, arguably the most comprehensive
and complex one developed in the nation to date,
establishes an enforceable schedule for point and
nonpoint nitrogen reduction to the Sound over a 15-year
period ending in 2014. The LISS helped Connecticut
develop a general permit to incorporate nitrogen load
limits for participating publicly-owned treatment works
in the watershed. The LISS also fostered New York's
bubble permit proposal for dischargers to the Sound.
The Connecticut general permit scheme incorporates a
nitrogen credit trading program that, in concert with the
TMDL limits, sets a historic precedent in finding new
ways of meeting water quality standards and protection,
while keeping costs down for taxpayers. The TMDL is
posted on the LISS Web site. For more information, see
www.longislandsoundstudv.net.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
^ Example 2: Wetland construction to filter pathogens from stormwater runoff
The Buzzards Bay Project assisted the Town of Marion, Massachusetts in developing a
constructed wetlands system to abate pathogen contamination at Spragues Cove, a
shellfish harvesting site regularly closed due to high concentrations of fecal coliforms.
The discharge also adjoined a bathing area. A three-acre constructed wetland was
designed to collect and treat stormwater runoff and
associated nonpoint source pollutants from a 64-acre
drainage area. Within the first year following construction,
sampling indicated a reduction of fecal coliform bacteria in
the cove. As additional plants become established in the
wetlands, it is expected that fecal coliform counts will
continue to decrease. For more information, see
www.buzzardsbay.org.
^ Example 3: Development of a technical assistance
program to address toxic contamination
The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program set up the Hazardous
Waste Reduction Program as a partnership with the Rhode
Island Department of Environmental Management and the
University of Rhode Island. The Program focuses on both
education and prevention. The Program provides technical
assistance to businesses for pollution prevention through a
waste information hotline and distributes information on source reduction, recycling,
and chemical substitution-disposal alternatives. The Program also has developed a
system for conducting onsite hazardous waste assessments for local businesses and
industries. The Hazardous Waste Reduction Program has been so successful that it is
now a state-funded, broad-based industrial pollution prevention program. The Program
has been expanded to include information on, and a collection and treatment facility
(the Eco-Depot) for, household toxic and hazardous wastes. For more information, see
www.nbep.org.
^ Example 4: Dam removal to allow fish to return to historic spawning areas
The Management Plan for the Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds National Estuary Program calls for the
restoration of vital fisheries habitats by means such as
replanting vegetation, repairing hydrological systems,
and improving water quality. The removal of the
Quaker Neck Dam successfully restored 1,054 miles
of anadromous fish spawning habitat along the Neuse
River and its tributaries. This project was significant
because it was the first dam ever removed specifically
to benefit the environment. Biologists reported that
-------
striped bass had returned to spawn in the lower half of the newly opened portion of
the river. Other species expected to benefit include several major commercial and
recreational fish species, such as American shad, hickory shad, and shortnose sturgeon.
The success of the Quaker Neck Dam removal project resulted in the removal of two
additional North Carolina dams for environmental purposes. For more information, see
www.apnep.org.
^ Example 5: Outreach to homeowners to combat an invasive plant
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program provided seed money to a local homeowners
association to develop a brochure on the Brazilian pepper plant. This plant threatens
native species and poses health threats including skin irritation and respiratory
problems. This educational leaflet provides homeowners with information on how to
identify and eradicate the Brazilian pepper and where to obtain help. The brochure was
distributed to citizens with shoreline homes and has been one of the Program's most
popular public outreach tools. For more information, see www.tbep.org.
^ Example 6: Development of best management practices to improve
freshwater flows to the estuary
The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program's Management Plan
(www.charlotteharbornep.com/) calls for a watershed approach to surface water
management. Under this approach, a plan is created for each drainage basin that
establishes minimum flows and water levels for each water body and determines the
maximum cumulative withdrawals. One such plan is the Peace River Comprehensive
Watershed Management Plan, developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management
District and a team of stakeholders, which helps serve as a framework for future water
use decisions. This plan seeks to provide a holistic method of protecting water quality
in the basin and also ensuring adequate water supply for urban areas, agriculture, and
the environment. Activities in the Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and
related efforts by the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and the state include:
additional research of surface and groundwater flow conditions within the study area;
regulation of surface and groundwater withdrawals
for water supply, agriculture, and industrial
purposes; regulation and monitoring of flow rates
of point source discharges from sewage treatment
plants and industrial facilities; use of best
management practices to decrease and retain
stormwater runoff; issuance of water use permits;
and public education programs. Two community
education programs related to water use for
landscaping are xeriscaping and the Florida Yards
and Neighborhoods Program (http://hort.ufl.edu/
fynZ).
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
^ Example 7: Development of a priority list and a GIS map of habitat sites for
restoration and acquisition
Through an ongoing process, the New York-
New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Habitat
Work Group (www.harborestuary.org/)
developed a list and Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) map (see figure to the right) of
priority habitat sites for restoration and
acquisition. This information is being used by
the states, federal partners, and others to
identify appropriate restoration and acquisition
projects. The map and the tireless activity of
the workgroup have resulted in the funding of
millions of dollars worth of restoration
projects. One of the major sources of funding
has been the multimillion dollar New York
State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act. The
map has also been used by the Corps of
Engineers to refine its list of sites to be
included in the Hudson-Raritan Reconnaissance
Study, an effort that may ultimately result in the
restoration of hundreds of acres of habitat.
^ Example 8: Replacement of failing septic tanks
The Casco Bay Estuary Project and the Maine State Department of Environmental
Protection entered into an innovative cooperative agreement to target the specific
problem of overboard discharges (i.e., sand filter septic systems from homes on islands
or other areas where conventional septic systems are difficult to install). The
Department was understaffed, making statewide coordination of their Overboard
Discharge Program and remediation of overboard discharges throughout the state
difficult. The Estuary Project, working on a project to open closed clamflats to
harvesting by removing known sources of pollution, arranged with the Department to
manage the overboard discharge program in Casco Bay. With a clear understanding of
the shared desire to accomplish this environmental goal, the Department agreed to
provide the Estuary Project $1,000 for every overboard discharge system that is
replaced with an acceptable alternative system. This cooperative agreement is
mutually beneficial to the stakeholders, effectively addresses a serious environmental
threat, provides measurable results, and furnishes revenue to the Estuary Project. For
more information, see www.cascobav.usm maine.edu.
New York - New Jersey Harbor
Source: New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program Habitat Workgroup, July 31, 2002
69
-------
^ Example 9: Clam beds reopened through water quality improvements due to
increased municipal sewerage coverage
In November 2000, the Seabrook Middle Ground was reopened to clamming for the
first time in nearly 10 years. This reopening points to marked water quality
improvements largely due to increased municipal sewerage coverage in the Town of
Seabrook and other smaller scale pollution control measures. The pollution source
identification and reduction work that made this possible was a cooperative effort by
the New Hampshire Estuaries Project; New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department; New Hampshire Office
of State Planning; New
Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services; the
Towns of Seabrook, Hampton,
and Hampton Falls; and a
number of dedicated volunteers
from Great Bay Watch and area Mtttoi*»»^^^»^l:^^** . "^»M'J«^
towns. The reopening of the
Seabrook Middle Ground
represents a significant increase
in the area and number of
shellfish available for
recreational harvest by New
Hampshire residents. For
additional information, see
www.state.nh.us /nhep.
^ Example 10: Innovative partnerships to implement the Management Plan
Innovative partnerships are being created for implementation of The Galveston Bay
developed through the Galveston Bay Estuary Program. The goal of the Program's
Natural Resource Uses Subcommittee was to implement a project that would address
the highest priority actions in the Plan—restoring wetlands and using dredged material
in wetlands restoration. The objectives of the Clear Creek Wetland Restoration Project
are:
Demonstrate a cost-effective way to use dredged material in a beneficial manner.
Test innovative seeding techniques that allow planting in very loose sediment.
Form a partnership of agencies, businesses, and interest groups to serve as a model
for restoration efforts throughout the Bay and in other coastal areas.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
The project proved successful and demonstrated the benefits of agency-industry
partnerships in leveraging resources and expertise including:
• Galveston Bay Estuary Program administered the grant and facilitated the project
coordination.
Reliant Energy, Inc. provided the site for the project,
dredged the intake canal, and transported the
material to the wetland site. Their expert staff
provided project coordination.
EPA Region VI provided a major source of funding,
technical review, and facilitated the quality assurance
process.
Natural Resources Conservation Service tested the
innovative treatment and distribution of seeds.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed the air boat
for seed distribution.
Padgett Shoreline Construction, Inc. built the levee
and donated about half of its billable equipment
time.
Clear Creek Wetland Restoration Project
implementing The Galtitstm Bay Plan
A ra^t Coastal Ami-lira Partswshsp Awwd SfcdpesRt
• Novus Systems, Inc., tested a variety of wave action barriers to protect the levee.
For more information, see www.gbep.state.tx.us.
^ Example 11: Environmental stewardship awards illustrate community
involvement
To sustain stakeholder involvement and partner support, the Mobile Bay NEP created
annual Stewardship Awards to recognize individuals, businesses, and local governments
that "maintain and promote the wise stewardship of the water quality and living
resources of the Mobile Bay and Delta." Presented at the Bay Area Earth Day
celebration, a recent round of recipients included the City of Mobile Urban Planning
Department for its smart growth work, a local ecotourism business for its commitment
to protecting the Bay, and a man who led the effort to sponsor a specialty license plate
issue that will raise money for land conservation in Alabama. Additional awards went
to those who helped educate the public about the Mobile Bay ecosystem. The awards
generate publicity for the program and strengthen ties with the recipients. For more
information, see www.mobilebaynep.com.
-------
^ Example 12: Regional volunteer monitoring programs
The Buzzards Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program and Massachusetts Bay Program
have successfully built networks of citizen volunteers who contribute to key
monitoring efforts. To document and evaluate nitrogen-related water quality and long-
term ecological trends in Buzzards Bay's important embayments (more than one-
quarter of the Massachusetts coast), the Coalition for Buzzards Bay recruited over 300
Baywatchers to monitor 180 stations. Baywatchers measure early morning oxygen
levels, temperature, salinity, and water clarity on a set schedule once a week from May
to September. The volunteers also collect samples on four dates in July and August for
analysis of nutrients by a university laboratory. These basic parameters provide an
immediate snapshot of the health of the Bay and are an excellent first warning system.
The data are also being used to develop recommended limits and TMDLs for Buzzards
Bay embayments and sewage treatment facilities. For more information, see
www.buzzardsbav.org.
Massachusetts Bays' volunteer program is
similar, but focuses on wetlands. The
Wetland Health Assessment Program was
developed out of the need to better assess
the overall quality of wetlands in order to
enhance protection, preservation, and
restoration efforts. Both programs have the
dual benefit of collecting comprehensive
water quality data while educating and
empowering people to get involved and
make a difference in the sound management
and restoration of their estuarial
watersheds. For more information, see
www.mass.gov/envir/massbavs.
^ Example 13: Developing environmental indicators: lessons learned
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) developed approximately 50 environmental
indicators of the health of Long Island Sound and the progress being made in
protecting and restoring it.
The LISS reported the following lessons learned from development of their
environmental indicators:
• Many environmental databases are not designed to provide watershed or ecosystem-
specific information. The authors required additional time and effort to organize the
data for Long Island Sound.
-------
Implementing the Management Plan
• Even when relying on existing monitoring programs and data, developing
environmental indicators is a significant undertaking. Achieving initial agreement
from Management Conference partners requires persistence and patience, however
the investment needed to maintain and revise the indicators is less than the
investment needed to develop them. The indicators can then provide an ongoing
tool for assessing and reporting on progress.
• Information sharing among NEPs undertaking development of environmental
indicators and state-of-the-estuary reports would benefit these efforts.
• Environmental indicators used in state-of-the-estuary reports can provide a powerful
communication tool. Specific products tailored to different audiences can make the
overall effort more effective.
For more information, see www.longislandsoundstudy.net.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
Conclusion
Chapter 6:
Conclusion
Much has been learned from the NEPs' experience. The NEPs have succeeded
because they focus on the watershed, use science to inform decision-making,
emphasize collaborative problem solving, and involve the public. The combination of
these four elements has produced many positive results. The age-old adage: "A chain is
only as strong as its weakest link;" tells us that successful watershed management
depends on fulfilling all of the core elements. Some of the key ways in which the
NEPs realize the core elements include:
Establishing governance structures according to watershed boundaries. Because environmental
problems do not conform to political jurisdictions, the NEPs define their management
areas and management committees according to watershed boundaries and the
ecosystems within them. Where watersheds cross political jurisdictions, the NEPs
establish partnerships that enable them to draw upon the full range of available
management resources and tools. This watershed and ecosystem-based approach
allows the NEPs to better understand and address the complex environmental
problems found in estuaries.
Using science to develop and implement the Management Plan. The NEPs use science to assess
estuary conditions, develop solutions to estuary problems, and adapt management
efforts. They conduct a Technical Characterization that describes the quality of the
estuary, defines its problems, and links problems to causes. The NEPs use these
findings to develop the Management Plan. Science is also employed during
implementation to monitor water quality and habitat and guide restoration and
protection decisions. By basing decisions on sound science, stakeholders see the NEPs
as credible sources of information.
Fostering collaborative problem solving. The NEPs invest a considerable amount of time to
facilitate consensus on complex environmental issues. They develop mechanisms such
as charters, bylaws, or memoranda of agreement to provide a framework for resolving
conflicts. The NEP directors strive to be neutral parties to avoid being viewed as
representing a particular entity or stakeholder. The NEPs use these mechanisms and
skills to work in collaboration with the stakeholders and prevent conflicting agendas
from derailing the program.
Informing and involving stakeholders to sustain commitment. The NEPs involve affected
jurisdictions, agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals in the writing
and implementation of the Management Plan. The NEPs inform stakeholders about
-------
the estuary and their mission, goals, objectives, and progress to ensure their sustained
commitment. The NEPs involve stakeholders through such mechanisms as opinion
surveys and small group meetings as well as formal participation on citizen advisory
and other committees.
Leveraging limited funding resources to ensure implementation. A diversity of long-term
funding sources are critical. The NEPs develop finance plans and strategic alliances
with implementing partners to attract funds from various sources. The plans enable the
NEPs to sift through potential funding sources and identify a variety of sources to
pursue. The strategic alliances enable the NEP to cultivate partners who bring
resources to the table for collaboration over long periods of time.
Measuring and communicating results to build support. The NEPs develop clear and realistic
measures of success and use a variety of media to communicate them to all
stakeholders. The NEPs translate environmental and programmatic results into plain
English, telling a story about the estuary and its watershed that the public and local
officials can understand.
We hope that the wealth of knowledge, experience, and tools presented here can help
you to further watershed protection and restoration in your area. The NEP can serve
as a model for future watershed protection and restoration efforts. The lessons learned
by the 28 NEPs can be adapted for use in a variety of watershed management
situations, both coastal and non-coastal. We also would like to hear how you used this
guide, what you liked or disliked, and the lessons you learned while conducting your
watershed projects. Please send us your comments through EPAs feedback link at
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/contact.htm.
-------
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended
Appendix A:
Clean Water Act, Section 320,
as Amended
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
a. MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.
1. NOMINATION OF ESTUARIES. The Governor of any State may nominate to the
Administrator an estuary lying in whole or in part within the State as an estuary of
national significance and request a management conference to develop a comprehensive
management plan for the estuary. The nomination shall document the need for the
conference, the likelihood of success, and information relating to the factors in paragraph
(2).
2. CONVENING OF CONFERENCE.
A. IN GENERAL. In any case where the Administrator determines, on his own
initiative or upon nomination of a State under paragraph (1), that the
attainment or maintenance of that water quality in an estuary which assures
protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows
recreational activities, in and on water, requires that control of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of pollution in
more than one State, the Administrator shall select such estuary and convene a
management conference.
B. PRIORITY CONSIDERATION. The Administrator shall give priority
consideration under this section to Long Island Sound, New York and
Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts;
Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston
Harbor); Puget Sound, Washington; New York New Jersey Harbor, New York
and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays,
Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San
Francisco Bay, California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas;
Barataria Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon,
Florida; Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana and Mississippi; and Peconic Bay,
New York.
3. BOUNDARY DISPUTE EXCEPTION. In any case in which a boundary between two
States passes through an estuary and such boundary is disputed and is the subject of an
action in any court, the Administrator shall not convene a management conference with
respect to such estuary before a final adjudication has been made of such dispute.
-------
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended
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 management plan that recommends priority
corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of
pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, 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;
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 financial assistance programs and Federal development projects in
accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September
17,1983, to determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent
with and further the purposes and objectives of the plan prepared under this section.
For purposes of paragraph (7), such programs and projects shall not be limited to the assistance
programs and development projects subject to Executive Order 12372, but may include any
programs listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an
effect on the purposes and objectives of the plan developed under this section.
c MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE. The members of a management conference convened under
this section shall include, at a minimum, the Administrator and representatives of—
1. each State and foreign nation located in whole or in part in the estuarine zone of the
estuary for which the conference is convened;
2. international, interstate, or regional agencies or entities having jurisdiction over all or a
significant part of the estuary;
3. each interested Federal agency, as determined appropriate by the Administrator;
4. local governments having jurisdiction over any land or water within the estuarine zone,
as determined appropriate by the Administrator; and
5. affected industries, public and private educational institutions, and the general public, as
determined appropriate by the Administrator.
-------
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended
d. UTILIZATION OF EXISTING DATA. In developing a conservation and management plan
under this section, the management conference shall survey and utilize existing reports, data, and
studies relating to the estuary that have been developed by or made available to Federal, interstate,
State, and local agencies.
e. PERIOD OF CONFERENCE. A management conference convened under this section shall be
convened for a period not to exceed 5 years. Such conference may be extended by the
Administrator, and if terminated after the initial period, may be reconvened by the Administrator
at any time thereafter, as maybe necessary to meet the requirements of this section.
f. APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.
1. APPROVAL. Not later than 120 days after the completion of a conservation and
management plan and after providing for public review and comment, the Administrator
shall approve such plan if the plan meets the requirements of this section and the
affected Governor or Governors concur.
2. IMPLEMENTATION. Upon approval of a conservation and management plan under
this section, such plan shall be implemented. Funds authorized to be appropriated under
titles II and VI of this chapter and CWA § 319 of this title may be used in accordance
with the applicable requirements of this chapter to assist States with the implementation
of such plan.
g GRANTS.
1. RECIPIENTS. The Administrator is authorized to make grants to State, interstate, and
regional water pollution control agencies and entities, State coastal zone management
agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals.
2. PURPOSES. Grants under this subsection shall be made to pay for activities necessary
for the development and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and
management plan under this section.
3. FEDERAL SHARE. The Federal share of a grant to any person (including a State,
interstate, or regional agency or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year —
A. shall not exceed —
(i) 75 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the development of a
comprehensive conservation and management plan; and
(ii) 50 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the implementation
of the plan; and
B. shall be made on condition that the non-Federal share of the costs are provided
from non-Federal sources.
h. GRANT REPORTING. Any person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency or entity) that
receives a grant under subsection (g) of this section shall report to the Administrator not later than
18 months after receipt of such grant and biennially thereafter on the progress being made under
this section.
-------
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended
i. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator not to exceed $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for -
1. expenses related to the administration of management conferences under this section,
not to exceed 10 percent of the amount appropriated under this subsection;
2. making grants under subsection (g) of this section; and
3. monitoring the implementation of a conservation and management plan by the
management conference or by the Administrator, in any case in which the conference has
been terminated.
The Administrator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year of the sums authorized to be
appropriated under this subsection to the Administrator or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to carry out subsection (j) of this section.
j. RESEARCH.
1. PROGRAMS. In order to determine the need to convene a management conference
under this section or at the request of such a management conference, the Administrator
shall coordinate and implement, through the National Marine Pollution Program Office
and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, as appropriate, for one or more estuarine zones-
A. a long-term program of trend assessment monitoring measuring variations in
pollutant concentrations, marine ecology, and other physical or biological
environmental parameters which may affect estuarine zones, to provide the
Administrator the capacity to determine the potential and actual effects of
alternative management strategies and measures;
B. a program of ecosystem assessment assisting in the development of (i) baseline
studies which determine the state of estuarine zones and the effects of natural
and anthropogenic changes, and (ii) predictive models capable of translating
information on specific discharges or general pollutant loadings within estuarine
zones into a set of probable effects on such zones into a set of probable effects
on such zones;
C. a comprehensive water quality sampling program for the continuous monitor-
ing of nutrients, chlorine, acid precipitation dissolved oxygen, and potentially
toxic pollutants (including organic chemicals and metals) in estuarine zones,
after consultation with interested State, local, interstate, or international agencies
and review and analysis of all environmental sampling data presently collected
from estuarine zones; and
D. a program of research to identify the movements of nutrients, sediments and
pollutants through estuarine zones and the impact of nutrients, sediments,
and pollutants on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or potential uses
of the estuarine zones.
-------
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended
2. REPORTS. The Administrator, in cooperation with the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall submit to the Congress no less often
than biennially a comprehensive report on the activities authorized under this subsection
including -
A. a listing of priority monitoring and research needs;
B. an assessment of the state and health of the Nation's estuarine zones, to the
extent evaluated under this subsection;
C. a discussion of pollution problems and trends in pollutant concentrations
with a direct or indirect effect on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or
potential uses of each estuarine zone, to the extent evaluated under this
subsection; and
D. an evaluation of pollution abatement activities and management measures so
far implemented to determine the degree of improvement toward the objec-
tives expressed in subsection (b)(4) of this section.
k. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section, the terms "estuary" and "estuarine zone"
have the meanings such terms have in CWA § 104 (n)(3) of this title, except that the term
"estuarine zone" shall also 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.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
Appendix B:
NEP at a Glance
Appendix B contains summary information for each of the 28 NEPs, including each
program's Web site address. Source: The National Estuary Program: Protecting Our Nation's
Estuaries (EPA842-F-99-001).
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds,
North Carolina
tissues: n>au
habitat protection, and fisheries
The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
system is the nation's second
largest estuarine system. Working
closely with local councils, the
Albemarle-Pamlico NEP is
implementing cost-effective
solutions for the top
environmental priorities in the river basin. The NEP
has spearheaded a number of significant restoration
and protection projects, including identifying and
acquiring over 27,000 acres of habitat; opening over
1,000 miles of blocked fish spawning areas; and
developing more than 50 geospacial datasets as a
component of the North Carolina Corporate
Geographical Database. Several commercial and
recreational fisheries have also been improved.
Web site: www.apnep.org
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine
Complex, Louisiana
Key management issues: water flow alterations,
sediment reductions, habitat loss! alteration,
nutrients, pathogens, toxic chemicals,
and changes in living resources
The confinement
River by man-
made levees along with extensive channel
construction through adjacent wetlands has changed
the natural flow of water and sediments, increasing
the impacts of subsidence and allowing the intrusion
of salt water. Restoration projects implemented over
a two-year span, however, have improved over 5,700
acres of wetlands at a cost of over $58 million.
Nearly 2,500 sewage treatment systems have also
been installed, eliminating the discharge of almost
one million gallons of raw or partially treated sewage
each day. Conservation projects on more than 4,000
acres of agricultural lands have reduced runoff
containing nutrients, bacteria, and toxic chemicals.
Web site: www.btnep.org/
Barnegat Bay, New Jersey
Key management issues: nonpoint source
pollution (pathogens, nutrients, sediments),
and habitat loss! alteration
Over 450,000 people live
within New Jersey's
Barnegat Bay watershed,
and that number doubles
in the summer when
people flock to the shore.
The estuary is not only vital to the state's tourism
industry, but also supports commercial and
recreational fish populations and rare species. To
balance suburban growth with ecosystem protection,
all 33 municipalities in Ocean County approved a
referendum in 1997 to purchase critical land areas.
This land acquisition will help protect stream
corridors, water supply areas, natural lands,
agricultural land, buffer areas, and aquifer recharge
areas. A growing network of private and public
partners are working together to ensure the success
of this project.
Web site: www.bbep.org/
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts
Key management issues: nutrients, pathogens,
contaminated seafood, and habitat ks si alteration
The diverse habitat of Buzzards
Bay includes sandy beaches, salt
marshes, eelgrass beds, and urban
ports. The waters of the Bay are
relatively healthy, but some of the
smaller embayments are
threatened by increasing amounts
of pollution from residential
development, industrial wastes,
and sewage contamination. To
address these issues, the Buzzards Bay Project has
assisted in the construction of a test center to
promote advanced septic treatment solutions and
established limits on the amount of nitrogen that
can enter the embayments. In addition, the program
has acquired lands for preservation and reopened
more than 4,000 acres of shellfish beds.
Web site: www.huzzardshay.org/
Casco Bay, Maine
Key management issues: habitat protection, toxic
Project
overflows, water quality in shellfish and
swimming areas, and community stewardship
Casco Bay Estuary Project
Casco Bay is a
picturesque New
England Bay covering
578 miles of shoreline. ""*"
The Bay supports recreational activities, tourism, and
industries, such as shipping, commercial fishing, and
shellfishing. Accomplishments of the Casco Bay
Estuary Project include promoting the adoption of
Portland's combined sewer overflow management
plan; organizing efforts to eliminate pollution
sources to 360 acres of clam flats and reopen closed
clamming areas; assisting in the relocation of 37,000
juvenile lobsters during the dredging of Portland
Harbor; assisting with state shellfish advisories by
conducting annual toxicity testing in the Bay; and
helping to produce an award-winning public service
announcement on the protection of the Bay.
Web site: www.cascobav.usm.maine.edu/
Charlotte Harbor, Florida
Key management issues: nutrients, pathogens,
ntroduced species,
and water flow alterations
.TFE
The Charlotte Harbor
Estuary on Florida's west
coast is home to more
than 2,300 animal species,
including manatees, sea
turtles, and dolphins.
Over 2,100 species of plants—from grasses to
mangroves to oaks—are also found in the region.
Rapid growth, however, is changing the character and
ecology of the watershed. To preserve the estuarine
environment, this program is sponsoring 32 varied
projects, ranging from removing exotic plants that
threaten native species to erecting educational signs
on visitor trails. The program also has created an
information center, synthesized existing scientific
knowledge of the watershed, completed a regional
monitoring plan, and assessed the economic value of
the area's natural resources.
Web site: www.charlotteharhornep.com/
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries,
Texas
Key management issues: habitat loss/'alteration,
nutrients, stormwater runoff, debris, pathogens, and
drinking water quality I supply
Located in a semiarid region,
this estuary faces pressures
from agriculture, tourism,
maritime commerce, and the
large and growing City of
Corpus Christi. The Coastal Bend Bays and
Estuaries Program is working to meet the area's
water needs while protecting the estuaries' rich plant
and animal life. The program is focusing on three
key actions: shoreline management, nonpoint source
management, and freshwater resources. The
program's Management Plan was completed in a
streamlined, community-based process with an
unprecedented diversity of stakeholder involvement.
The Texas Legislature also has designated $900,000
over two years for the program.
Web site: www.cbbep.org/
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
Delaware Estuary,
Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Kej management issues: population growth, urban
sprawl, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals
The Delaware Estuary watershed
spans three states. Bringing
stakeholders together in such a
large and complex watershed
poses daily challenges. The
Partnership for the Delaware
Estuary coordinates resources,
draws on the expertise of its many stakeholders, and
inspires large numbers of residents in its watershed
to become involved. Through these actions, the
Partnership works to support environmentally
sound land use practices, enhance important habitats,
reduce polluted runoff, and reduce toxic and bacterial
contamination. These efforts help ensure that
contact recreation and fishing are permitted
throughout the estuary.
Web site: www.delawareestuarv.orp;
Galveston Bay, Texas
Key management issues: habitat loss, nonpoint source
pollution, and water flow alterations
Galveston Bay has lost 30,000
acres of wetland habitat and 90
percent of its seagrasses since the
1950s. Contaminated runoff has
degraded water quality and
sediments in the Bay's tributaries
and some near-shore areas. In
addition, altered freshwater
inflows have changed the water's salinity and
circulation patterns, which can severely stress wetlands
and oyster reefs. In an effort to address these
problems, industry and various levels of government
are working together to leverage funding, save
money, and develop creative restoration solutions.
This diversified partnership has, for example,
implemented an innovative seeding technique and
used dredged material in wetland restoration efforts.
Web site: www.ghep.state.tx.us
Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware
Key management issues: nutrients and habitat loss
Development
and intensive
agriculture in a
burgeoning coastal resort area threaten the Inland
Bay's habitat and natural resources. To help address
these issues, the Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
established the James Farm Ecological Preserve, a
150-acre county-owned property, which is leased as an
outdoor living and recreation area. The program is
also investigating harmful algal blooms and
recommending pollution control strategies to
address nutrient levels in the Bays. In addition, the
program is restoring seagrasses; strengthening
scallop, clam, and oyster populations; planting trees
and shrubs to buffer stream banks from pollution;
and examining the amount of nutrients entering the
watershed through precipitation.
Web site: www.inlandbaYS.org/
Indian River Lagoon, Florida
Key management is sues: habitat loss I alteration,
increased freshwater flows, nutrients, sedimentation, and
"muck " deposits
The location of the Indian
River Lagoon on Florida's
eastern coast—between the
temperate climate of the north
and the subtropical climate of
the south—combined with its
large size make it an estuary of
high biological productivity. To
ensure the health and diversity of the estuary, this
program is partnering with numerous municipalities
and counties to reduce stormwater runoff, which
carries excess nutrients and sediments into the
lagoon. The program's blueway/conservation and
recreation lands project has acquired approximately
8,800 acres of land in the watershed, and mangrove
replanting is helping to restore critical habitat. Sales
and renewals of the program's license plate initiative
across Florida have raised more than $1.6 million
dollars for estuary restoration.
Web site: http://www.sjrwmd.com/programs/
outreach /irlnep 7index.html
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
Long Island Sound,
Connecticut, New York
Key management issues: nutrients, habitat loss
and degradation, toxic chemicals, and pathogens
LONG
ISLAM)
SOI ND
SI Lin
More than 8 million
people live within the
16,000 square-mile Long
Island Sound watershed.
Boating, fishing,
swimming, and beach-
going generate more than $5 billion annually for the
regional economy. The top propriety of the Long
Island Sound Study is to reduce nutrients that are
impairing fish and shellfish habitat by depleting
oxygen levels in many areas of the Sound. The
program has set an ambitious goal to reduce
nitrogen loads by almost 60 percent over 15 years
and to restore 2,000 acres and 100 river miles of
habitat by 2008. To meet these goals, the program is
upgrading sewage treatment plants to treat nitrogen;
restoring wetlands, beaches, dunes, coastal
grasslands, forests, and shellfish reefs; and involving
local communities in developing watershed-based
approaches to control polluted runoff.
Web site: www.longislandsoundstudy.net
Lower Columbia River Estuary,
Oregon, Washington
Key management issues: biological integrity,
impacts of human activity and growth, habitat loss/
alteration, conventional pollutants, toxic
contaminants, institutional constraints,
and public awareness! stewardship
Columbia
River Estuary
Partnership
The Columbia River is
one of the nation's
premiere natural
resources. It supports a
billion dollar economy with impacts far beyond the
Pacific Northwest. The lower Columbia River and
Estuary are in trouble, however, and its problems are
manifested in the numerous threatened and
endangered species of salmon and steelhead. To
maintain the ecological integrity and economic health
of the watershed, the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Partnership developed a comprehensive, well-
supported Management Plan with extensive public
involvement. The plan makes use of a number of
innovative tools, including a system to compare and
rank the problems in each of the seven priority
management areas. The plan also brings a
coordinated approach to environmental monitoring
on the lower Columbia River.
Web site: www.lcrep.org/
Maryland Coastal Bays, Maryland
Key management issues: nutrients, population growth,
toxic chemicals, habitat!wildlife loss, sediments, and
fisheries
During the summer, the population
of the Coastal Bays swells to more
than 250,000 people each week.
Population growth is one of the
major threats to the estuary, along
with excess nutrients, habitat loss,
sedimentation, and toxic chemicals.
As a result, species diversity has
declined in the northern bays. To
instill a stewardship ethic among citizens and
visitors, the Maryland Coastal Bays Program has
sponsored more than 50 events, including free boat
tours, cleanups, fundraisers, and land management
workshops. It also has held "Alternative Futures"
workshops to allow residents to create their vision
for the watershed's future and to produce different
growth scenarios. The program also helped secure a
grant to preserve nearly 10 percent of the watershed's
natural land.
Web site: www.mdcoastalbays.org
Massachusetts Bays, Massachusetts
Key management issues: contaminated shellfish, habitat
loss, stormwaterpollution, municipal wastewater
management, local land use, and growth
The Massachusetts Bays region
encompasses all of the coastal
waters from the tip of Cape Cod
to the New Hampshire border.
Because of the region's
diversity—in terms of its land use, ecology, and
other factors—it hosts a wide range of
environmental problems. In light of these
challenges, the Massachusetts Bay Program has
spearheaded an interagency program to reopen
contaminated shellfish beds by identifying sources of
pollution and implementing solutions for
remediation. To address habitat loss and
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
degradation, the Program has piloted a unique,
holistic approach to assess wetland quality that may
serve as a model in New England. Other initiatives
include conducting a workshop series to prepare
municipal officials for upcoming stormwater
regulations and helping towns with growth planning
and open space preservation.
Web site: www.mass.p-ov/envir/masshavs
Mobile Bay, Alabama
Key management issues: water quality, physical and
hydrologic modifications, habitat loss, living resources,
human uses, and public involvement I education
The Mobile Bay watershed covers
more than 71,500 square miles
along the Gulf of Mexico. The
program's successful projects
include shoreline erosion control,
habitat restoration, and wetland
stormwater management. It has
enhanced public awareness of key management
challenges through community meetings and
encouraged volunteer monitoring by citizens .Local
governments and businesses have also been active
participants in supporting watershed activities. The
program has completed an economic valuation of
Mobile Bay, along with preliminary characterization
studies for each of the key management issues.
Web site: www.mobilebaynep.com/
Mono Bay, California
Key management issues: erosion and sedimentation,
pathogen contamination of shellfish operations,
nutrients, freshwater flow reductions,
heavy metals, and habitat loss.
This estuary
encompasses roughly
2,300 acres of
mudflats, eelgrass
beds, tidal wetland, '' '
and open water
habitat—making it the most significant wetland
system on California's south central coast. Threats to
the estuary include erosion and sedimentation, as
well as water diversion, urban and agricultural runoff,
and changing land uses that threaten water quality
and wildlife habitat. Faced with these challenges, the
program has held workshops and established multi-
stakeholder issue groups to focus on priority
problems. In addition, the U.S. District Court
awarded the program $3.6 million to carry out its
conservation and Management Plan, drawing from
gas and electric utility penalty funds.
Web site: www.mhnep.org/index.html
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Key management issues: nonpoint source pollution
(nutrients),pathogens, habitat loss'/'degradation,
monitoring, and local land use!growth
For hundreds of years,
Narragansett Bay has
supported a remarkably
diverse set of resource
uses. The densely • ' i
populated upper Bay watershed has served as a cradle
of American industry, while the lower Bay provides a
recreational resource of regional importance and
international renown. The Bay is home to
important fisheries and supports a wide variety of
migratory fish and wildlife. The Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program is working collaboratively to better
assess the ecological health of the Bay, reverse
ecological degradation, and improve planning for the
Bay's future. Specifically, the Bay Program is
mapping Rhode Island's estuarine habitats and
promoting habitat restoration; monitoring water
quality and advocating nutrient controls; and helping
to develop watershed-based approaches toward
sustainable use of the Bay's natural resources.
Web site: www.nhep.org/
New Hampshire Estuaries,
New Hampshire
Kej management issues: pathogens, habitat loss/
alteration, nutrients, and toxic chemicals
The New Hampshire , •. 7^
Estuaries Project is ,s!» "
using the health of •' • '
the state's shellfish
population as an indicator of water quality and a
measure of overall estuarine health. For the first
time in more than 10 years, the Hampton/Seabrook
Estuary—the most productive recreational clam flat
in coastal New Hampshire—was opened, and more
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
than 800 shellfishers participated in the opening day
harvest. Many organizations within the state have
worked together to identify and eliminate pollution
sources and reopen shellfish beds. Their work has
resulted in the opening of an additional 550 acres of
shellfish waters in the Great Bay Estuary.
Web site: www.state.nh.us/nhep/
New York-New Jersey Harbor,
New York, New Jersey
Kej management issues: toxic chemicals, dredged
material management, pathogens, nutrients, and habitat
loss I alteration
For over 300 years, the Harbor _
has served as a critical port and
economic center in the midst
of a densely populated area.
These factors have contributed
stresses to the estuarine ' h
system. Many areas of the
Harbor contain elevated levels of toxic chemicals.
Pathogenic contamination results in beach and
shellfish bed closures. To address these and other
issues, the program is identifying sources of loadings
of toxics, pathogens, and nutrients to the Harbor
and is reducing them by cleaning up sources of
toxics, controlling discharges from combined sewer
overflows, and improving nitrogen removal at
treatment plants. A protocol now allows managers
to quickly assess potential impacts of accidental
sewage discharges and to take action to protect the
public. The program also developed a map of
priority habitat sites and helped direct millions of
dollars to their acquisition and restoration.
Web site: www.harhorestuarv.orp-/
Peconic Bay, New York
Key management issues: nutrients, pathogens, toxic
chemicals, brown tide, and natural resource threats
One of The Nature
Conservancy's "Last Great
Places in the Western
Hemisphere," the Peconic
Estuary is a high-quality
resource, vital to the
economy of Long Island.
However, brown tides have decimated the once
nationally significant bay scallop industry, bacterial
contamination has closed many shellfishing areas,
and nutrient inputs have depressed dissolved oxygen
locally. In response, the Peconic Estuary Program has
integrated economics with habitat and water quality
management, establishing specific policies to control
nitrogen inputs. More than 50 early implementation
projects deal with stormwater management,
wastewater treatment upgrades, and scallop,
wetlands, and eelgrass restoration. Public support
and nonfederal resources have been critical, resulting
in tens of millions of dollars for land preservation,
pollution control, and resource management.
Web site: www.peconicestuary.org
Puget Sound, Washington
Key management issues: habitat loss, declining fish
stocks, stortmvater runoff, onsite septic systems,
introduced species, and shellfish protection
PruETSOl'M)
ACTION TLiAM
Puget sound encompasses
2,300 miles of shoreline
and is home to more than
200 species offish and 14
species of marine
mammals. The Puget Sound Action Team has
helped protect this critical resource. The program's
plan led to the development of the nation's first
sediment standards. More than a third of the 140
local governments in the basin have adopted the
plan's basic stormwater program. Further, laws have
been passed to require certification of professionals
who work with onsite septic systems. Commercial
shellfish acreage has been reopened after years of
closures. And an award-winning public education
program has involved more than 1.5 million people.
The program also works with British Columbia on
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
common issues in eluding marine protected areas,
toxics, and the introduction and spread of aquatic
nuisance species.
Web site: www.psat.wa.gov/
San Francisco Estuary, California
Key management issues: aquatic resource
degradation, wetlands loss, decline of wildlife species,
altered flow regimes, introduced
species, increased pollution, and lack of
an
" raitdsco
stuary
' r«iect
Facing a variety of challenges—
from the loss of wetlands to a
lack of economic incentives to
promote public/private habitat
protection—the San Francisco
Estuary Project has made great
strides by strengthening and
providing support for local
planning efforts. The project worked cooperatively
with local, state, and federal agencies, and private
organizations to develop the Baylands Ecosystem
Habitat Goals Report—a scientific guide for restoring
and improving the baylands and adjacent habitats of
the San Francisco Estuary. The project is now
working to implement the report by developing a
regional wetlands Management Plan that will include
identifying restoration projects and their costs,
establishing a wetland monitoring framework, and
reaching agreements among funding, regulation, and
implementing parties.
Web site: www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep/sfep.html
San Juan Bay Estuary, Puerto Rico
Key management issues: sewage discharges, reduced
water circulation, nutrient-toxic contamination,
living resource degradation, aquatic debris,
and lack of public awareness I involvement
The San Juan Bay Estuary
is one of many tropical
areas trying to harmonize
economic development
with resource protection.
Urban development during the past 40 years has led
to considerable changes in freshwater inflows and
degradation of many habitats and living resources.
To address these challenges, the program focuses on
improving water and sediment quality and enhancing
and protecting habitat and living resources. The
program is restoring the Martin Pena Channel, and
promoting active participation of all associated
communities. The program helped establish a solid
waste management and recycling program and
conducted environmental education demonstration
projects directed at community-based conservation
and development. In addition, it has created fences
to reduce illegal dumping, cleaned up beaches,
planted mangrove seedlings, and reforested
tributaries.
Web site: www.estuariosanjuan.org/
Santa Monica Bay, California
Key management issues: stormwaterl urban
runoff, habitat restoration, toxic chemicals,
pathogens, sediment contamination,
contaminated seafood, and bay plan financing
As home to more than 5,000
species of flora and fauna, Santa
Monica Bay provides a rich natural
resource immediately adjacent to
the second largest metropolitan
area in the nation. With more
than 45 million visitors per year,
the Bay faces many challenges SiimmmmmmmmmiM
regarding water quality and habitat protection. To
address concerns about health risks to Bay
swimmers, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Commission completed the first west coast study to
assess human health risks of swimming in waters
contaminated by urban runoff. Other
accomplishments include developing a
comprehensive Bay monitoring program; leading
efforts to establish a stormwater permit for Los
Angeles County and its 85 cities; conducting
groundbreaking research on urban runoff sources,
toxicity, and impacts; restoring coastal wetland
habitats; and funding public outreach programs to
encourage Bay stewardship.
Web site: www.santamonicabaY.org
-------
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance
Sarasota Bay, Florida
Key management issues: population growth and
development, nutrients, habitat loss I degradation, and
stormwater runoff I sewage discharges
Nearly 50 years of urban
growth and development '• '< ' ! '-
have taken a toll on Sarasota
Bay. Excess nitrogen—which
enters the Bay through
wastewater, stormwater,
P™tvUin»Out\V»tt.rllrrit»»r
rainfall, and the
atmosphere—poses the biggest threat to the health
of the estuary. Working with the community, the
Sarasota Bay NEP has helped to reduce the amount
of nitrogen entering the Bay by 47 percent, resulting
in an 18 percent increase in seagrass coverage. The
program has embarked on a series of projects to
enhance habitat related to seagrasses, wetlands, and
artificial reefs. As compared with 1998, the Bay now
supports an additional 110 million fish, 71 million
crabs, and 330 million shrimp. The program has
also enhanced more than 130 acres of wetlands since
1990—about eight percent of those lost since 1950.
Web site: www.sarasotabay.org/
Tampa Bay, Florida
Key management issues: water and sediment quality,
habitat loss! alteration, species loss! decline,
and spill prevention I response
Tampa Bay—Florida's largest
open water estuary—stretches
398 square miles at high tide.
After decades of pollution, the
Bay is coming back to life,
thanks in part the Tampa Bay
Estuary Program. In particular,
the program has focused on controlling nitrogen
loadings to the Bay to restore vital underwater
seagrass beds. The Tampa Bay Nitrogen
Management Consortium, an innovative public-
private partnership, developed an action plan to
achieve nitrogen reduction goals. The consortium is
making impressive progress toward the program's
long-term goal of recovering 12,350 acres of
seagrasses baywide. The program is also providing
national leadership in addressing air deposition of
nitrogen and other pollutants to coastal waters.
Web site: www.tbep.org/
Program
Tillamook Bay, Oregon
Key management issues: habitat loss! degradation,
bacterial contamination, altered flow regimes,
sedimentation, and erosion
Dominated by rugged
mountains with a ,,".'','
narrow coastal plain, ,'., ,, /_. - . |
Tillamook Bay faces a
challenging combination of environmental concerns.
In particular, past land use practices and flooding
have impacted critical habitats for salmon spawning
and rearing. To address these challenges, the
Tillamook Coastal Watershed Resource Center
houses a 150-layer GIS database and posts
environmental data and watershed enhancement
updates online. Other projects include streamside
fencing and riparian re-vegetation to keep livestock
out of streams and to restore riparian areas; adding
large rocks and woody debris to improve in-stream
habitat; and purchasing ecologically valuable land to
be preserved in land trusts. A consortium of
agencies, industries, and stakeholders is responsible
for implementing the programs Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan.
Web site: www.thnep.org
-------
Appendix C: Components in Developing Action Plans
Appendix C:
Components in Developing Action
Plans for the Lower Columbia River
Estuary Partnership
1. Public meetings. Public meetings were held throughout the study area at key program junctures to
presentthe priority issues,discuss the preliminary goals and objectives for each issue, ask what possible
actions could be taken to address the issues, and discuss how implementation should occur. At each series
of meetings, the Program did two things: asked for reaction to specific ideas and sought guidance for the
next step. The first set of meetings encouraged a brainstorm of actions, the second conducted the
comparative risk ranking, and the final set reviewed the draft Management Plan and discussed
implementation ideas.
2. Charrette. A charrette—an interactive meeting between various groups of people in a community and
experts designed to produce a tangible outcome—was held which involved management committee
members, workgroup members, and scientific and technical experts in biology, ecology, land use planning,
economics, and other disciplines. The day-long "From Issues to Action" charette explored possible actions,
based on the participants' technical expertise and input from the earlier public meetings. The experts' input
helped refine the overall goal, or vision, for each priority is sue and helped identify objectives for each. A
preliminary list of 180 actions was developed, providing a full range of options to consider.
3. Comparative Risk Ranking. The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership was the first NEP to
utilize comparative risk ranking in the development of its Management Plan. The risk ranking allowed the
estuary program to explore how citizens and technical experts perceive the relative risk posed by
environmental problems in the estuary. Using the Program's priority issues as a basis, the Management
Committee identified 21 problems (such as loss of wetlands and habitat, contaminated sediment,
stormwater runoff, and altered streamflow). Participants were asked to rank the problems against each other
according to their perceived risk to public health, ecological health, and quality of life. A set of criteria was
developed to assist the focus groups and technical group in their ranking. Criteria included questions, such as
"How widespread is the problem?" "What are the consequences of delay?" "Is this a fundamental or
underlying is sue—one that is the cause of other problems on the list?" and "Does the problem result in lost
jobs, increased health care costs, or lowered incomes?" Three separate rankings were completed:
• Public ranking-more than 1,100 citizens ranked risks by completing a survey published in 14 area
newspapers or by attending one of eight public meetings.
• Constituent focus group ranking - 267 participants ranked risks at 27 focus group meetings hosted
by individual management committee members for their constituents.
• Technical ranking—the 31-member management committee ranked risks with the help of the
program's science and technical workgroup experts.
The results of the rankings were used to identify actions to address the priority issues, define the role of the
estuary program in implementing actions, and design objectives and components of the estuary program's
education efforts.
-------
Appendix C: Components in Developing Action Plans
4. Focus Groups. Like public meetings, constituent focus group meetings were held at three junctures in
developing the Management Plan. Each Management Committee member hosted a meeting with their
constituents to get reaction to Committee ideas and to seek guidance on next steps. In one series of focus
groups, 17 meetings were held to ask participants to help refine the list of 180 actions. Another series of
meetings with constituents was held to complete the risk ranking. At the final series of meetings, participants
reviewed and commented on the draft Management Plan and asked questions about implementation: "Of
the long list, what are the top five or ten actions ? Which ones should stay in the Management Plan? Which
ones should be dropped?" "Which actions could citizens help implement?"
5. Management Committee Action Selection. Using the results of the public and technical input, the
Management Committee used a three-step process to determine which actions to include in the Management
Plan and how they would be implemented.
• Determining SMART Actions. The Management Committee screened each of the 180
actions to determine which actions were SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Responsive, and Trackable.
• Refining the List of Actions. SMART actions were screened further, using a set of criteria
that focused on factors such as social impact and impact on quality of life, technical basis
for the action, linkage to estuary program goals, and effectiveness in protecting and
restoring the river and estuary. The process involved considerable discussion of policy and
consistency. This process narrowed the list of actions from 125 to 92 and resulted in well-
defined, action-oriented, specific actions.
• Developing an Implementation Plan for Each Action. The last step was to develop an
implementation plan to specify who would implement each action, how much it would
cost, and how it would be funded. Several interdependent actions were combined,
narrowing the list of actions down to 43. Criteria such as feasibility, probability of success,
resulting impacts, and timeframe for implementation were applied to each action.
6. Research Groups. For the final series of public meetings reviewing the draft Management Plan, the
Program conducted a series of research groups. The same questions were asked as in the public meetings;
however, in the research groups, the participants were randomly selected and paid a small stipend to help
ensure that they reflected a cross-section of the community.
-------
Appendix D: Pros and Cons of Becoming a Tax-Exempt Nonprofit
Appendix D:
Pros and Cons of Becoming a Tax-
Exempt Nonprofit
JiamtoamiiamM^^
Reasons to Become a 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Nonprofit:
NEP-Specific Benefits
• Receive donations/Ability to fundraise
• Quicker decision-making for grants and contracts
• Flexibility
• Can be proactive
• Independence
• Visibility
• Ability to support or challenge agency partners
• Support from citizens
• Less encumbered by bureaucracy
General Benefits
• Tax exempt status
• Can apply for public or private grants
• Can act as neutral forums for stakeholders
• Can access private funds more easily as a nongovernmental organization
• Can be modified as required
• Greater flexibility in the use of paid or volunteer staff than governmental organizations
• Qualifies an organization for low postal rates, favorable pension plan status, and tax-sheltered
annuity plans
• In some states, can also receive property tax and sales tax exemptions
Reasons Not to Become a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit:
NEP-Specific Drawbacks
• Lack of institutional framework for operational funding and staff support
• State agencies can still exercise influence if they are on the board of directors
• Not in the loop in state budget decision-making
• Incur new costs (e.g., increase in health insurance, liability insurance, computer maintenance,
Internet, accounting, legal, corporate reporting, etc.)
• Vulnerable to economic downturns
• Competition with other nonprofits
• Politics of the job
General Drawbacks
• Harder to secure government appropriations and grants
• Cannot receive more than 90 percent of their income from an endowment
• Can only undertake limited lobbying activities
• Cannot exercise regulatory authority
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Management Branch. Nonprofit NEPs: Looking Back on the
Lessons They Learned. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
Appendix E: Excerpt from an NEP Finance Plan
Appendix E:
Excerpt from an NEP Finance Plan
Source
Marmot Foundation
Visteon Corporation
Conectiv
DelDOT
City of Wilmington
PG&E Logan Generating Plant
Longwood Foundation
Total:
ALICO
Delaware River Port Authority
The AIG Life Companies
PA DEP Growing Greener
Sun Company
PACZM
Delaware 319
Delaware 319
U.S. EPA Region III - RGI
Total:
PG&E
Environmental Endowment for NJ
League of Women Voters
U.S. EPA Headquarters - Enviro. Ed.
U.S. EPA Region II - 104(b)3 C.WA.
U.S. EPA Region II - RA Priority
Total:
Delaware River and Bay Authority
Chichester Foundation
MBNA
Prospect Hill Foundation
MacArthur Foundation
Good Samaritan Foundation
William Penn Foundation
Total:
Program
Funding Committed
Schoolyard Habitat
Sense of Place Habitat Projects
2002 Teachers Institute
Program Support
Program Support
Habitat Work
Building/Equipment
Requests Pending
General Operating and Program Support
General Operating and Program Support
Program Support
Clean Water Theater
Program Support
Coast Day 2003
Schoolyard Habitat
Delaware CESP
Clean Water Partners - N.C.C.
Proposals Not Funded
Classroom Education
Schoolyard Habitat
Classroom Education
Municipal Stenciling
Maurice River Ecotourism
Schoolyard Habitat
Potential Proposals
Delaware CESP
Programs
Educational Program
General Operating
Programs
Programs
Programs
Amount
$ 10,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 2,500.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 28,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 50,000,00
$ 148,500.00
$ 59,000.00
$ 229,000.00
$ 70,000.00
$ 80,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 29,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 24,000.00
$ 137,000.00
$ 668,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 11,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 54,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 13,600.00
$ 96,600.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 100,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$ 150,000.00
$ 20,000.00
$ 300,000.00
$ 640,000.00
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
Appendix F: Reference Material
Appendix F:
Reference Material
Martin, Morton, Dobrzynski, and Valentine. Estuaries on the Edge: The Vital Link
Between Land and Sea. Washington: American Oceans Campaign, 1996.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service. Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National
Resource Base. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Service. Fifty Years of Population
Change Along the Nation's Coast: 1960-2010. Washington: U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Community Culture and the Environment: A
Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Estuary Program Guidance, Base
Program Analysis. Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Estuary Program Guidance:
Technical Characterization in the National Estuary Program. Washington: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1994.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Management Branch. Nonprofit NEPs:
Looking Back on the Lessons They Learned. Washington: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2002.
Watershed Management Approach. 2000. Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. 25 Aug. 2004 .
Webler, Thomas. "Why Do (or Don't) Local Government Officials Participate in
Watershed Planning Efforts." Coastlines 10.2 (2002). Washington: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. "Integrating Technical Analysis with Deliberation in
Regional Watershed Management Planning: Applying the National Research Council
Approach." Policy Studies Journal 27.3 (1999): 530-543.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
-------
Columbia
River Estuary
,,,„_ , Tillamook
Partnership
; Milan l'n>L;i(mi
Barataria-'rerrt'b
Buzzards Bay
Project
an
i"
Francisco
Estuary
y^
COMMUNITY-BASED
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT:
LESSONS FROM THE
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
EPA-842-B-05-003 February, 2005
Visit the EPA Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries
to download a copy of this handbook and find:
Policy and Guidance Documents,
Reports and Fact Sheets,
Funding Information, and
Web Site Links to the National Estuary Programs
"fLSLAKD
SOUND
STLDY
Casco Boy Estuary Project
•
Es varsesProject
------- |