Successful Coastal Management Solutions

v>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Estuary
Program
EPA xxx-x-OO-xxx
February 2000
Successful Coastal
Management Solutions
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
<**«„ Mail code33643^f
-------
Except where noted, all photos are from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program
-------
US EPA Headquarters Library
U* ' Mailcode3201
CONTENTS im******
DC
PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [[[ ii/'

INTRODUCTION [[[ iv

HABITAT [[[ H 1 1 2
Degradation and Loss of Habitat [[[ H 1
Characterization/Assessment [[[ H 2
Priority Planning [[[ H2
Management Actions [[[ H 4-9
Habitat Restoration [[[ H4
Habitat Creation [[[ H8
Additional Actions [[[ H 10
Financing [[[ H 11
Monitoring/Research [[[ H12

PATHOGENS [[[ P 1 - 1 3
Pathogen Contamination [[[ P 1
Characterization/Assessment [[[ P2
Priority Planning [[[ P2
Management Actions [[[ P4-10
Legislative Changes [[[ P4
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Abatement Programs ............................................... . .................. P 5
Identification of Nonpoint Sources Control of Discharges from Marine Vessels .............................. P 9
Additional Actions [[[ , ....................... . P 1 1
Financing [[[ P 12
Monitoring/Research [[[ P 13

FRESHWATER INFLOW [[[ FI 1-8
-------
FISH & WILDLIFE FW 1-9
Fish and Wildlife Species FW 1
Characterization/Assessment FW2
Priority Planning FW 2
Management Actions FW4-6
Habitat Restoration and Creation FW 4
Education FW6
Additional Actions FW7
Financing FW8
Monitoring/Research FW9

1NTRODUCED SPECIES IS 1 -8
Introduced Species IS 1
Characterization/Assessment IS 1
Priority Planning IS 2
Management Actions IS 3-6
Regulation IS 3
Prevention IS 4
Management IS 5
Education IS 5
Financing IS 7
Monitoring/Research IS 8

TOXICS . Tl-9
Toxic Contamination T 1
Characterization/Assessment T2
Priority Planning 12
Management Actions T4-7
Education T4
Prevention T5
Additional Actions T7
Financing T 8
Monitoring/Research T9

REFERENCES R 1-3
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM CONTACTS C 1-3
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was
established under Section 320 of the Clean
Water Act in 1987 to "identify nationally signifi-
cant estuaries threatened by pollution, develop-
ment, or overuse; promote comprehensive
planning for and conservation and management
of, nationally significant estuaries; encourage the
preparation of management plans for estuaries of
national significance; and enhance the coordina-
tion of estuarine research." Most of the 28
estuaries currently participating in Tiers I-V of
the NEP were selected in response to chronic
environmental problems stemming from increas-
ing population and development. The programs
use a watershed management approach to
address the chronic environmental problems.

The watershed management approach is a
strategy for effectively protecting and restoring
aquatic ecosystems and protecting human health.
This type of management strategy recognizes the
integrated and interconnected nature of the
ecosystem. It has as its premise that many water
quality and ecosystem problems are best solved
at the watershed level, rather than at the indi-
vidual water-body or discharger level.

The NEP process, which targets the watershed,
is adaptable to a variety of environmental man-
agement situations because, unlike traditional
regulatory approaches to environmental protec-
tion, it targets a broad range of issues and en-
gages local communities in the process. It is
hoped that the modules contained in this docu-
ment will facilitate the transfer of this type of
integrated approach for both coastal and non-
coastal watershed planning initiatives.
To achieve its goal of protecting and improving
water quality and enhancing living resources,
one of the primary activities that the NEP per-
forms is the transfer of scientific and manage-
ment information, experience, and expertise
among NEP program participants and other
watershed management efforts. To facilitate the
transfer of technology and sharing of lessons
learned, the Coastal Management Branch of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has sponsored the development of this document
to illustrate the diversity of management
solutions that have been adopted in response to
specific environmental goals within the context
of political, regulatory, and economic frame-
works of each NEP.

These management actions are organized into
"stand-alone" modules for key environmental
issue areas that can be easily referenced by NEP
program participants and other resource manag-
ers. Seven modules have been developed and
comprise this document: (1) habitat; (2) patho-
gens; (3) freshwater inflow; (4) nutrients;
(5) fish and wildlife; (6) introduced species; and
(7) toxics. Each module is further organized
into six sections: (1) background and overview
of the issue; (2) characterization/ assessment;
(3) priority planning; (4) management actions;
(5) financing; and (6) monitoring/research.
A section of references and a list of contacts for
all the NEPs are also provided.
Executive Snnn»\
.in
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
Established under Section 320 of the Clean Water
Act in 1987, the National Estuary Program (NEP)
identifies nationally significant estuaries threatened
by pollution, development, or overuse and pro-
motes the preparation of comprehensive manage-
ment plans to ensure their ecological integrity.
Section 320 outlines an approach to estuarine
protection and management that emphasizes the
importance of collaboration among multiple users
and stakeholders. This approach supports the
notion that, through collaborative planning, dis-
putes about uses of water can be resolved. It also
endorses the value of education and research as
essential components of long-term efforts to
restore and manage estuaries.

To date, 28 estuaries (see map) have been desig-
nated as estuaries of national significance and are
classified in tiers, based on the year that they were
accepted into the program. Most of the NEPs were
formed in response to chronic environmental
problems stemming from increasing population
and development or years of industrial or
municipal discharges. The NEPs range greatly in
terms of geographic scope (from 50 to 34,889 km2)
and jurisdictional boundaries.

After an estuary has been designated as a NEP, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
convenes a Management Conference to develop a
comprehensive management plan. The Manage-
ment Conference is charged with balancing
conflicting uses in the estuary while restoring or
maintaining its natural resources. The Management
Conference consists of representatives from the
EPA, other appropriate Federal agencies, state
governments, appropriate interstate or regional
agencies, local governments, affected businesses
and industries, public and private institutions,
non-governmental organizations, and the general
public.

This collaborative planning process enables
multiple stakeholders and members of local, state,
and Federal government agencies to participate in
the decision-making process. Substantive public
participation and consensus building are vital to
the NEP planning process. As such, many aspects
of the NEP approach can be adapted to a variety of
community based environmental protection pro-
grams.

Most NEPs focus their efforts on all, or a signifi-
cant portion of the estuarine watershed. This
watershed approach encompasses both coastal and
inland residents, in recognition of the integrated
and interconnected nature of the ecosystem. The
watershed approach also considers the sociological
and ecological characteristics of the system to-
gether, ensuring that decisions take into account
the integrated nature of the ecosystem and address-
ing problems instead of mere symptoms. When
planning initiatives incorporate the entire water-
shed or basin, cumulative impacts can be better
addressed and political boundaries can be more
easily crossed.

The goals of the NEP are the protection and
improvement of water quality and the enhance-
ment of living resources. To achieve these goals,
one of the primary activities that the NEP performs
is the transfer of scientific and management
information, experience, and expertise among NEP
program participants and other related watershed
management efforts. This technical transfer of
information and lessons learned includes a wide
range of activities: characterizing environmental
problems; establishing working partnerships
among Federal, state, and local governments;
increasing public awareness of pollution problems
and ensuring public participation in consensus
The Waters^ Protects Approach is a strategy for eftectivefyptotecting
and restonng aquatic ecosystems and protecting human health. This
strategy has as its premise that many water quality and ecosystem
priMems are best solved at the watershed level rather than at the
individual water-body or discharger level. Major features of the Watershed
Protection Approach include targeting priority problems, promoting a high
level of stakeholder involvement, formulating integrated solutions fiat
make use of the expertise and authority of multiple agencies, ami
measuring success through monitoring and other forms of data gathering.
-------
building; promoting basin-wide planning to control
]X)lIution and to manage living resources; and
overseeing the development and implementation
of pollution abatement and control programs.
Recognizing the important role of the NEP in
transferring technology and lessons learned

-------
-------
-------
HABITAT
DEGRADATION AND LOSS
OF HABITAT

In the last decade, the ability and desire to
restore degraded and lost habitats have pro-
gressed significantly. Much of this progress
has been due to advancement in the scientific
knowledge available to restore habitat and
through an increase in public awareness of the
need to restore and maintain various kinds of
habitat. In response to a variety of impacts and
threats, habitat restoration is being undertaken
by citizens, private organizations, universities,
and governmental agencies (NOAA 1998a).
At the national level, there are 14 Federal
programs working to restore habitats, while at
least 11 Federal laws authorize and fund restora-
tion activities (NOAA 1998a). One of these
programs is the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Estuary Program
(NEP).
Currently, throughout the coastal United States,
there are 28 estuaries in the NEP, all with
similar concerns. One concern common to
many of the estuary programs is degradation and
loss of habitat. With human population density
increasing near the coast, estuarine habitat is
gradually being converted to urban landscapes
or is being altered in ways to satisfy the popula-
tion demands. Open spaces and large tracts of
forested land are being subdivided and devel-
oped, while wetlands, marshes, and riparian
areas are being drained to allow for public
access, development, or activities that support
human habitation. As habitat diversity de-
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the
following 24 of the 28 NEPs consider
habitat degradation and loss
a high-priority action item:

Albemarle-Pamlico (NC)
Barataria-Terrebonne (LA)
Buzzards Bay (MA)
Casco Bay (ME)
Charlotte Harbor (FL)
Corpus Christi Bay (TX)
Delaware Estuary (DE, NJ, PA)
Delaware Inland Bays (DE)
Galveston Bay (TX)
Indian River Lagoon (FL)
Long Island Sound (NY, CT)
Lower Columbia River (OR)
Mobile Bay (AL)
Morro Bay (CA)
Narragansett Bay (RI, MA)
New York - New Jersey Harbor (NY, NJ)
Peconic Bay (NY)
Puget Sound (WA)
San Francisco Bay (CA)
San Juan Bay (PR)
Santa Monica Bay (CA)
Sarasota Bay (FL)
Tampa Bay (FL)
Tillamook Bay (OR)
Htihtii.it
H-l
-------
creases, the concomitant loss of wetlands,
riparian, marsh, open, and forested areas has a
s ignificant effect on the health of the entire
ecosystem.

"his section provides an overview of the charac-
terization/assessment, priority planning, man-
agement actions, financing, and monitoring and
research being conducted by the NEPs to ad-
clress the issue of habitat degradation and loss.

CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
To determine if habitat degradation and loss is
«. problem at a NEP site, the existing habitat
conditions within the estuary must first be
characterized and assessed. This process deter-
mines how much habitat has been lost or altered
over the years, and is generally conducted
through the comparison of historical data with
present-day conditions, determined by evaluat-
ing more recent data or by direct on-site obser-
vations. Habitat degradation and loss is gener-
ality considered an issue at a NEP site if there
has been a significant decrease or change over
the years.
Habitat data are normally available as aerial
photographs, digitized maps, land-use maps,
documentation of submerged aquatic vegetation,
or descriptions on deeds and land surveys.
Several of the estuary programs found that
liistorical data were available from universities
iind various government agencies, such as the
National Wetland Inventory, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), and U.S. Department of Natural
Resources (USDNR). Other estuary programs
found that historical data were not readily
available and that the program needed to assess
habitat loss through indirect approaches. Water
quality data and fluctuations in wildlife popula-
tions have been used to assess estuarine health
and, therefore, infer habitat availability.

Once habitat data have been collected, a com-
parison and assessment is made of whether
existing habitats have been reduced in size or
degraded to the extent that the habitats do not
meet the goals of the estuary program. If the
results of the assessment indicate that the avail-
able habitat is adequate, then habitat loss is not
considered a major problem for that specific
NEP. If the results of the assessment suggest
that degradation or loss may be an issue, the
NEP will develop appropriate actions to help
correct the problem. Before the management
actions are developed, these steps are priori-
tized, based on various factors, which are
discussed in the following section.

PRIORITY PLANNING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

• Government agencies involved in the
management of the estuary program
basically determine the issues and priori-
ties that they will address based on the
goals and responsibilities of their agency.
The only non-government involvement
would then be determined by the funds
raised directly by the estuary program.

• Based on available research, technical
advisors make recommendations on issues,
public opinion is considered, and regula-
tion structures are designed to address the
gaps. The priority in which the issues are
addressed is determined by the time frame
by which the regulations are enacted and
when the funds are made available to the
responsible parties.

• Technical advisors determine the technical
issues and the priority in which they will
be addressed. The Citizens Advisory
Committee works only on public
education and outreach issues.

• Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will be addressed.

• Technical advisors and representatives of
the general public meet to decide on the
technical issues and on the priority in
which they will be addressed.

• The general public presents its opinion
on the issues and the technical advisors or
members of the management committee
determine the priority in which they will
be addressed.

• Various groups living in and around the
area (land trusts and other watershed
groups) submit proposals for management
actions. The management group deter-
mines if funds are available and if the
project is appropriate to the goals of the
program.
Public Opinion
and to review the results obtained over the last
three years. In support of this public meeting,
the San Francisco Estuary Project distributes
performance information — including the
Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card (San
Francisco Estuary Project 1999) — to educate
the public on the progress made as a result of
program activities. After a review of the results,
the public is invited to help direct future program
actions by commenting on priority items, which
could remain the same, be re-prioritized or, in
some cases, be removed.

The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
approached priority planning by conducting a
consensus session, where 54 critical areas within
the estuary were ranked according to importance
by a diverse group, which included farmers,
educators, elected officials, and citizens. Every-
one was given the opportunity to select 5 to 10
issues as high-priority items. The issues in this
group were then narrowed down to the final
priorities.

A unique approach to priority planning is illus-
trated by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program, which used a formal comparative
risk assessment approach. Through newspaper
surveys and public meetings, the public was
targeted as one group. Then, through a series
of focused workshops, various groups of stake-
H -.?
-------
holders were targeted as a second group. Tech-
nical experts comprised a third group. Risk
rankings from the three groups wen; then com-
pared and problem-area priorities were devel-
oped. It is interesting and important to note
i hat the problems of habitat loss and modifica-
tion were ranked as the greatest threat to the
Columbia River Estuary by all three groups.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
c.ddress each issue. The following are examples
of management actions for issues of habitat loss
that have been successfully implemented by
I«[EPs across the country. The management
c.ctions presented here have been categorized
2nd pouped under the headings of habitat
restoration or habitat creation.

Habitat Restoration
The restoration activities described in the fol-
lowing management actions focus mostly on
wetlands. Wetlands are described as "those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal
c ircumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas."
(40CFR 230.3). The wetlands described below
have been altered either directly or indirectly
by man through impairment of some physical
property. The result has been a reduction in the
diversity of wetland-associated species. The
goal of wetland restoration projects is to use
natural material to restore wetlands or alter
physical processes to allow the wetland to
recover naturally. In addition to management
actions that focus directly on restoration
projects, one action relates to assessing the
health of newly restored wetlands habitat.
CHRISTMAS TREE MARSH
RESTORATION PROGRAM
Baraturia- Terr ebon ne National
Estuary Program
Over the last seven
years, several
Louisiana parishes
CHRISTMAS TREE MARSH
RESTORATION PROGRAM
Barataria- Terrebonne
National Estuary Program
have participated in Web: http://www.btnep.org
. , -,. . Problem: Wetlands ioss due
tne State S L.nnstmas to sediment removal by wave
Tree Marsh Restora- actlon and sediment removal
__ __. for oil exploration canal
tion Program. This construction.
program makes USe Solution: Rebuild wetlands
,. , .. , using post-holiday Christmas
Ot pOSt-nOllday |rees (0 protect shorelines and
Christmas trees tO fil1 canals bV 'rapping and
,.,, . , , ... holding suspended sediments.
nil in abandoned oil
and gas canals, which helps to protect shore-
lines and restore the natural hydrology of the
marshes. Since 1991, more than 450,000 trees
have been recycled to fill in abandoned canals,
to construct shoreline, and to serve as sediment
fences.

Jefferson Parish has been one of the most active
participants in the Christmas Tree Marsh Resto-
ration Program. Part of this success is due to
volunteers — mostly high school students —
that bundle together the trees. These bundles
are then airlifted into the marsh by the Louisiana
Army National Guard, who also volunteer time,
resources, and aircraft. Additional volunteers,
who donate their time, boats, and fuel, arrange
the bundles in fences. For one specific project,
Jefferson Parish installed 35 Christmas tree
brush fences to combat shoreline erosion near
the Town of Jean Lafitte. These structures
H-4
Habitat
-------
protect against wave damage and trap sediments
that eventually build up new wetlands.

In January 1997, Senator John Breaux hosted a
ceremony recognizing the support of the Clinton
Administration in the Louisiana Coastal Resto-
ration Program. As part of the special dedica-
tion ceremony, 80 Christmas trees from the
White House lawn were transported to Jefferson
Parish to benefit the Christmas Tree Marsh
Restoration Program. The donation of White
House Christmas trees to the Jefferson Parish
program garnered much local and national news
coverage. From 1995 to 1998, 8 Louisiana
parishes participated in the program, benefiting
more than 12 acres of marshes at a construction
cost of approximately $273,000 (Barataria-
Terrebonne National Estuary Program 1998).
BARRIER ISLANDS
Barataria- Terrebonne National
Estuary Program
Louisiana's barrier
islands are deteriorat-
ing because of
hurricanes, global
sea-level rise, sub-
sidence, inadequate
sediment supply, and
human disturbances.
These islands are essential habitats for
neotropical migrant birds, and serve to protect
inland wetlands and coastal communities from
hurricane storm surges. The State of Louisiana
and a Federal task force, formed under the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and
BARRIER ISLANDS
Barataria- Terrebonne
National Estuary Program
Web: http://www.btnep.org
Problem: Barrier island
deterioration by various natural
and hurnan disturbances.
Solution: Rebuild or repair
barrier islands using dredged
material
Restoration Act (CWPPRA), are reconstructing
these important islands. Federal agencies
comprising the CWPPRA task force include
the USAGE, EPA, Department of Commerce,
Department of the Interior, and Department of
Agriculture.

The islands are being restored primarily through
the use of hydraulic dredges to replace the sand
on the islands. The restored islands are then
stabilized with plantings of various non-woody
species. The Barataria-Terrebonne National
Estuary Program partnership is currently work-
ing on projects that will encourage the use of
woody plant species to increase the habitat value
of the restored islands.

Between 1995 and 1999, enough sediment was
pumped onto the Barataria-Terrebonne barrier
islands to restore more than 2,200 acres, at a
cost of more than $47 million. In addition,
vegetative plantings and, for some shoreline
applications, rocks were used to stabilize the
barrier island restoration projects (Barataria-
Terrebonne National Estuary Program 1998;
NOAA 1999).
LAKE NAOMI WETLAND
RESTORATION PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
LAKE NAOMI WETLAND
RESTORATION PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
Web: http://www.delep.org
Problem: Loss of wetlands
habitat from the Lake Naomi
area.
Solution: Create a wetland
mosaic from an abandoned
sand and gravel mine
The Lake Naomi
Wetland Restoration
Project was per-
formed as part of the
habitat restoration
for the Delaware
Estuary Program.
The project,
conducted in the middle Delaware sub-basin,
created 7.5 acres of wetlands, which provide
food and habitat for winter birds. The restora-
tion was conducted by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP),
in conjunction with the Lake Naomi Club, the
USFWS, and Ducks Unlimited. The project
converted an abandoned sand and gravel mine to
H-S
-------
a wetland mosaic, which provides habitat for
several species of wildlife. The site is 80 per-
cent standing water, with islands for nesting
habitat and rest areas. The remaining 20 percent
v* ill be vegetated with winterberry, which will
transition the site from the shallow waters to
adjacent upland, dominated by hemlocks. Forty
percent of the standing water will be 4-18 inches
deep, creating habitat that will support button
bush, wild celery, and duck potatoes, all of
which serve as additional food sources. The
mosaic of open water and vegetated ishallows
should attract a variety of waterfowl, songbirds,
and other animal species, including black bear
and snowshoe hare. The entire restoration
project cost $7,000. The Lake Naomi Club
provided the land, Ducks Unlimited provided
the construction materials, USFVVS provided
technical assistance, and the Pennsylvania
DEP Wetland Replacement Project paid for the
equipment and construction (Delaware Estuary
Program 1996).
This project involves 1,400 feet of reef berms
along the south shore of Dickinson Bay. The
reef berms were created using oyster shells held
in place by submerged wooden fences, revet-
ment mat, and rip-rap. Deposition of oyster spat
on the oyster shell substrate will be monitored
to determine the colonization rates on the reef.
Shoreward of the oyster berms, a newly created
marsh was planted with Spartina alterniflora.
The survival and distribution of Spartina, as
well as the rate of shoreline erosion, will be
monitored to evaluate the success of the wetland
restoration. The Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service is responsible for the $250,000
project, the results of which will be compared
to more conventional shoreline stabilization
methods to evaluate its success (Galveston Bay
Estuary Program 1999a; 1999c).
DICK1.NSON BAY OYSTER REEF/
WETLAND RESTORATION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
One goal of the
Galveston Bay
Estuary Program is
to restore, create, or
protect the diverse
habitats throughout
its system. Included
in these habitats are
oyster reefs and wet-
hinds. The Dickinson
Bay Oyster Reef/
Wetland Restoration Demonstration Project was
created to develop innovative ways to stabilize
s lorelines and, at the same time, to create oyster
and fish habitat.
DICKINSON BAYO YSTER
REEF/WETLAND
RESTORATION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Galveston Bay Estuary
Program
Web: http:/,'gbep.tamug.tamu.
edu
Problem: Loss of shoreline
and oyster and fish habitat.
Solution: Create reef berms
using oyster shells, revetment
mat, and rip-rap and create
emergent marsh using
Spartina atternifhra.
MARSH RESTORATION AT
SAYBROOK POINT, CONNECTICUT
Long Island Sound Study
In 1994, the
Connecticut DEP
Wetlands Restoration
Unit began reviving
the Saybrook Marsh
on the grounds of
Fort Saybrook
Monument Park in
Old Saybrook. Over
time, the marsh area
had been cut off from
its source of brackish
water and Phragmites had spread over the area.
Using special heavy construction equipment
MARSH RESTORATION
ATS A YBROOK POINT.
CONNECTICUT
Long Island Sound Study
Web: http://www.epa.gov/
region01/eco/lis
Problem: Marsh degradation.
due to loss of brackish water
source, clearing of channels,
and construction
ot shallow ponds along w th
the removal of invasive
Phragmites.
Solution: Reconnect the
marsh to a brackish water
source.
H-6
Habitat
-------
designed for wetland restoration, the Wetlands
Restoration Unit reconnected the marsh to its
brackish-water source, cleared existing channels
of debris, constructed several shallow ponds,
and removed the invasive Phragmites.
Although Phragmites is expected to return in the
near future, as the area gradually becomes more
saline, indigenous vegetation, such as Spartina,
should eventually return (Long
Island Sound Study 1999a).

SAM FRAMCISCO BAY JO1 \TVE.\Tl RE
WETLAXDS RESTORATION* PROJECT
San Francisco Estuary Project
The San Francisco
Bay Joint Venture
Wetlands Restoration
Project, established
in 1995, is a partner-
ship among 28
government agencies,
environmental orga-
nizations, hunting
and fishing groups,
business interests, and landowners. The goal of
the Venture is to acquire, restore, and protect
wetlands throughout San Francisco Bay. The
focus is on completing on-the-ground projects
by leveraging existing public and private
resources, developing new funding sources, and
creating public-private partnerships. Since its
establishment, the Venture has acquired 3,175
acres of wetlands and has restored 871 acres.
It has assisted with at least 30 public-private
wetland projects and has approximately 90
additional acquisitions or restorations on its list
(San Francisco Estuary Project 1996).
COQUISA BAYWALKATLEFFIS KEY
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT
VENTURE WETLANDS
RESTORATION PROJECT
San Francisco Estuary
Project
Web: http://sfep.abag.ca.gov
Problem: Habitat loss due to
various human disturbances.
Solution: Acquire and
preserve various types of
habitat by a NEP directed
partnership.
The Sarasota Bay
National Estuary
Program — with
assistance from
Manatee County, the
Florida Department
of Environmental
Protection (DEP),
and the EPA — has
created 30 acres of
native habitat near
Coquina Beach in
Manatee County. The area had previously been
a small mangrove island before being covered
by dredged material in the 1950s. The objec-
tives of the project were to (1) restore a dredged
material disposal site as a model for other
projects; (2) increase mangrove, wetland,
and shallow-water habitat; (3) improve bay
circulation; and (4) increase spawning and
juvenile fish habitats.
COQUINA BAYWALK AT
LEFFtS KEY
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web: http://pelican.gmpo.gov/
gulfofmex/estuarypartner/
Sarasota/SarasotaBay.html
Problem: Loss of small
mangrove island due to
dredged material disposal.
Solution: Restore native
habitat, including mangrove
wetlands, through removal of
exotic species, and excavation
of intertidal pools and tidal
inlets.
The project included removal of exotic species,
excavation of intertidal pools and tidal inlets,
and construction of boardwalks for public
access. Volunteers planted more than 50,000
native saltmarsh, intertidal, and upland plants
and trees after the exotic species had been
removed and excavation was complete. Inter-
pretive signs were also prepared to educate
visitors to the native species. This project
received an Environmental Excellence Award
from the Florida Marine Research Institute and
was featured in Good Housekeeping magazine.
Habit ai
H-7
-------
The overall project cost $350,000, which was
iinded through a wide range of sources (Scheda
Ideological Associates 1998; EPA 1997).

WETLANDS HEALTH
ASSESSMENT PROGR.4M
Massachusetts Bays Program
*rhe Massachusetts
Bays Program, in
collaboration with
Coastal Zone Man-
agement and the
University of Massa-
chusetts at Amherst,
has spearheaded a
unique approach to
assess wetland
quality and ecologi-
cal health to better protect the overall condition
of critical areas. Considered a cornerstone of
the Massachusetts Bays Program work plan, the
Wetlands Health Assessment Program is teach-
WETLANDS HEALTH
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Massachusetts: Bays Program
Web: http:/'wwwepa.gov/
regionOt 'eco/massbay
Problem; Protection and
conservation of newly restored
wetlands habitai require
monitoring and assessing
their hea/th.
Solution: Utilize citizen help in
monitoring wetland health and
promote ecological stewardship
as an approach to habitat
protection.
ing citizens how to determine wetland health by
evaluating the condition of a variety of biologi-
c:il, chemical, and ecological indicators, such as
tidal influence, vegetation, aquatic macro-
ir[vertebrates, avifauna, water chemistry, and
land use. Using these tools, volunteers are
assessing the effectiveness of modifications to
wetland sites that have recently been restored
through improved tidal flow. Concurrent with
the citizen monitoring program, scientists are
collecting data to validate citizen efforts, and are
developing an easy-to-use manual for the future.
Tie long-term goals of the program are to use
citizen help to monitor wetland health, to pro-
mote ecological stewardship, and to advocate a
comprehensive biological approach to wetland
piotection (Massachusetts Bays Program 1999).
Habitat Creation
Habitat creation involves the use of manmade
or natural material to develop a substrate that
serves as a habitat for habitat-specific species.
Prior to creating habitat, an evaluation should
be conducted to evaluate if this is the appropri-
ate action. Once it is determined that habitat
creation is the appropriate action, then a multi-
step process — including site survey to final
design to installation — is implemented.
PL'\TA GORDA WATERFRONT
JUVENILE FISHERIES HABITAT
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
PUNTA GORDA
WATERFRONT JUVENILE
FISHERIES HABITAT
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
Web: http://charlotteharb3rnep.
com
Problem: Loss of shelter and
feeding habitat for juvenile fish.
Solution: Construct and install
throughout the estuary concrete
igloo-shaped hollow structures
to create artificial juvenile fish
habitat.
The Charlotte Harbor
National Estuary
Program is partially
funding a project to
create artificial fish
habitat throughout
the harbor and off-
shore reefs. The
project involves
constructing and
installing "reef balls" of various sizes to act as
safe shelter for juvenile fish. Reef balls are
hollow, igloo-shaped concrete structures with
holes that allow juvenile fish to move in and out
of the structure. In addition to providing safe
shelter for the fish, reef balls also provide a
suitable surface for the attachment of other
estuarine life, which may serve as food for fish
or other marine organisms. In May 1999, the
Charlotte Harbor Reef Association, volunteers
from the Reef Balls Foundation, and the Marine
Contracting Group placed 105 reef balls on the
south end of Charlotte Harbor Reef. The group
H-8
Habitat
-------
also has plans to place 105 reef balls at the north
end of the reef, and 252 reef balls under various
piers and private docks throughout the area.
The Charlotte Harbor NEP funded one-third of
the $6,000 cost of the project (Charlotte Harbor
National Estuary Program 1999).
CLEAR CREEK BENEFICIAL L'SES
OF DREDGED MATERIAL
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
SARASOTA BAY WALK AT CITY ISLAND
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
CLEAR CREEK BENEFICIAL
USES OF DREDGED
MATERIAL DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
Galveston Bay
Estuary Program
Web: htjp://gbep.tamug.tamu.edu
Problem: Loss of wetland
due to subsidence.
Solution: Use dredged
material to build a smooth
cordgrass wetland
Over the years, the
Clear Creek area has
lost many acres of
wetlands to subsid-
ence or erosion.
The Galveston Bay
Estuary Program
worked with several
government agencies
and private companies to develop 14 acres of
smooth cordgrass wetlands along Clear Creek.
This project used material dredged from the
channel of Clear Creek to build a berm around a
14-acre area that had previously been wetlands,
but which had since experienced subsidence.
The containment area was then filled with the
dredged material and planted with smooth
cordgrass to create the wetland. With a total
cost of $195,000, this project successfully
demonstrated that dredged material could be
used to create wetlands. The project was so
successful that it was selected to receive one of
six 1999 Coastal America Partnership Awards
presented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and EPA (Galveston Bay Estuary Program
1999b).
In 1990, the City
of Sarasota, with
assistance from the
Florida DEP and the
EPA, created 4.5
acres of productive
intertidal habitat on
City Island in
Sarasota. The
primary objective
of the project was to
create more than one
mile of natural, intertidal shoreline, intertidal
pools planted with native plants, and a nature
trail with interpretive signs. To meet these
objectives, debris and non-native plant species
were removed from the site, six intertidal pools
were excavated, natural land elevations were
restored, 25,000 native plants were transplanted
SARASOTA BAY WALK
AT CITY ISLAND
Sarasota Bay
National Estuary Program
Web: http://pelican.gmpo.gov/
gulfofmex/estuarypartner/
Sarasota/SarasotaBay.html
Problem. Loss of intertidal
habitat due to human distur-
bances and urbanization.
Solution: Create intertidal
shoreline, intertidal pools
planted with native vegetation,
and a nature trail with interpre-
tive signs over a 4.5-acre area
of Sarasota
to the site, and a public boardwalk was con-
structed. The project took about three years and
$200,000 to complete, and now has more than
20,000 visitors each year. In addition, many
species native to Sarasota Bay (e.g., scallops,
conch, striped mullet, and sea trout) have
returned to the site and the native plants are
thriving. Monitoring suggests that the area is
equal in productivity to natural coastal wetlands
(Scheda Ecological Associates 1998; EPA 1995).
Htihitut
H-9
-------
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
[n addition to the management actions described above, other specific management actions for
habitat modification are included in the following table:

Management Actions Indexed by Category
_____

Itetional Estuary Program Preservation Restoration Creation Management Actions
Albemarle-Pamlico

Darataria-Terrebonne

Buzzards Bay
Charlotte Harbor

Delaware Estuary
Delaware Inland Bays
Cialveston Bay
Long Island Sound

Lower Columbia River

Maryland Bays

Massachusetts Bays
San Francisco

Sarasota Bay

Tampa Bay
Buckridge Tract Purchase

Barrier Islands*
Christmas Tree Marsh Restoration Program*
Davis Pond Freshwater Division
Atlas of Tidally Restricted Salt Marshes to Establish
Priorities for Management Action
Bay Lands Center
Winsegansell Salt Marsh Restoration

Punta Gorda Waterfront Juvenile Fisheries Habitat*

Lake Naomi Wetland Restoration Project*
Gambles Gut Marsh Habitat Restoration Project
Cooper River Fishway Project
Corporate Environmental Stewardship Program
Northern Delaware Wetland Rehabilitation
Maurice-Cohansey Watershed Minigrant Initiative

James Farm Restoration Project
Artificial Reef Program
East Galveston Bay Wetland Restoration Project
Demonstration of Coordinated Shoreline Management
Planning and Action for Galveston Bay
Clear Creek Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material
Demonstration Project*
Dickinson Bay Oyster Reef/Wetland Restoration*

Marsh Restoration in Saybrook Point, Connecticut*
Lower Columbia River Habitat Restoration Project

Rural Legacy Grant

Wetlands Health Assessment Program*
CALFED Restoration Efforts
San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Wetlands Restoration Project*

Coquina BayWalk at Leffis Key*
Sarasota BayWalk at City Island*

Seagrass Habitat Restoration through Water Quality
Improvements
Habitat Restoration Master Plan
Enhancement/Restoration of Cockroach Bay Tract
Providing Public Access and Habitat Protection at an
Archeological Site: Emerson Point
Management actions marked with a * (asterisk) are described in the Management Actions section.
H-10.
Habitat
-------
FINANCING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

To complete the numerous management actions
that each NEP develops, the NEP must secure
funding. All NEPs are started with base funding
provided by EPA for at least three years, but
additional funding is always necessary. Addi-
tional funding often comes from various govern-
ment and private sources, which normally assist
with the implementation of the specific action
items and programs. Examples of supplemental
funding sources that have been available to
some NEPs include Federal government agen-
cies, state government agencies, and donations.

A significant portion of the money expended
thusfar for CCMP implementation has come
from the EPA. EPA supplies the funds through
various agreements and grants to assist the
specific NEP in implementing the management
actions outlined in the CCMP. Apart from the
NEP, Federal government agencies have devel-
oped grants to encourage private organizations
or state and local governments to conduct
research in specific environmental areas. The
process of securing funding through one of
these grant programs usually involves groups
writing a grant proposal that is submitted to the
governing Federal agency, where it is then voted
upon based on the information supplied in the
proposal. Although some monetary resources
are required to write the grant proposal, these
could be small relative to the amount of money
potentially available through the specific grant.

The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds NEP, for
example, received $307,000 from EPA's annual
wetlands grant to assist with specific projects
within the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage area.
Another example of a NEP successfully imple-
menting management actions using grant funds
is found in the Mobile Bay Estuary Program.
This Tier-V estuary program has received
$150,000 in Federal grants to study various
issues of concern to the estuary, including
atmospheric deposition and oyster-bed restora-
tion. Some Federal agencies, such as the
USFWS, have developed grants specifically to
encourage private or local governmental groups
to help restore fish and wildlife habitat and
populations. Examples of this type of assistance
include the USFWS Wildlife Conservation and
Appreciation Fund and the Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration.

In some cases, legislation is passed to provide
an estuary program with limited funding.
One example of legislative funding is in the
Barataria-Terrebonne NEP, which has been
partially funded by the Coastal Wetland Plan-
ning and Restoration Act (CWPRA). The
CWPRA collected $40 million in Federal and
state money to conduct several restoration
projects identified in the Barataria-Terrebonne
CCMP.

In addition to Federal and state funds, some
NEPs receive donations. Most NEPs receive
some cash donations from communities and
businesses, as well as donations of real estate
from land trusts and estates. Many NEPs have
increased donations by establishing a non-profit
organization to allow the donations to be tax
deductible. Another way that NEPs collect
funds is through the sale of a special state
license plate. The specially designed license
.H-ll
-------
plate costs the operator more than the standard
plate, but the excess funds are provided to the
program. Community and business donations
itat
-------
PATHOGENS
PATHOGEN CONTAMINATION
Pathogens are microorganisms that cause dis-
ease. Human pathogens in estuarine environ-
ments consist of both pollution-related bacteria
and viruses —the hepatitis and Norwalk viruses,
for example —and naturally occurring marine
organisms — Vibrio vulnificus, for example.
The primary routes of human exposure are
through the consumption of raw molluscan
shellfish, and recreational or occupational
contact with surface waters. Diseases associated
with these pathogens include gastroenteritis,
hepatitis, typhoid fever, cholera, and poliomyeli-
tis; Vibrio vulnificus exposure has caused death
in immuno-compromised individuals.
Pollution-related pathogens can enter estuarine
waters through malfunctioning septic systems,
stormwater overflows from sewage treatment
plants, runoff from farms and animal popula-
tions, and overboard discharge of sewage from
vessels. Once released into the water, pathogens
disperse, contaminating not only the water
column and bottom sediments, but also fish
and shellfish. With the intent of protecting the
public from exposure to pathogenic microorgan-
isms, both shellfish-growing areas and bathing
areas are monitored for contamination.
In the winter of 1924, sewage-contaminated
oysters caused a widespread outbreak of typhoid
fever, resulting in 1,500 cases of the disease and
150 deaths (NOAA 1998b). This outbreak led
to the development of the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program (NSSP) to protect the public
from illnesses associated with the consumption
of molluscan shellfish. The NSSP, currently
administered by the Interstate Shellfish Sanita-
tion Conference, requires the classification of
shellfish-growing areas, based on actual and
potential pollution sources. The NSSP also
protects public health through policies and
procedures for interstate commerce in mollus-
can shellfish.

Shellfish-growing waters are monitored for an
indicator of sewage pollution (i.e., fecal
coliform bacteria) and a sanitary survey, a
qualitative written evaluation, is conducted
for all areas potentially affecting the growing
waters. Growing area classifications —
approved, conditionally approved, restricted,
conditionally restricted, and prohibited—are
based on fecal coliform monitoring results and
the sanitary survey. Fecal coliform concentra-
tions in growing waters, determined by the
Most Probable Number (MPN) procedure, must
be equal to or less than 14 colonies per 100 mL
(with some allowances for higher concentra-
tions) to attain an approved classification.
To then ensure public health, growing-water
classifications are enforced through patrols,
inspections, and harvest tagging.

There is a direct correlation between the
concentration of sewage pollution indicators —
fecal coliform, Enterococcus, and E. coli — in
water and the occurrence of illness in swimmers
-------
(Cabelli 1983). At the same time, naturally
occurring Vibrio vulnificus has been responsible
for wound infections in swimmers and
watermen. In general, state-level recreational
water monitoring programs are not as developed
as shellfish-growing water programs. There has
been significant discussion on the appropriate
indicator for recreational water monitoring.
Most states use either fecal coliform or
Enterococcus monitoring data, or a combination
of both, to establish bathing restrictions or
prohibitions in estuarine and marine waters.

As the population near the nation's coast
increases, the risk of pathogen-related
illnesses will also increase for consumers
of shellfish and those who use the water for
recreation or their livelihood. Several Federal
programs, such as the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National
Estuary Program (NEP), include pathogen
contamination as a priority problem
that must be addressed and corrected.

This section provides an overview of the
characterization/assessment, priority planning,
management actions, financing, and monitoring/
research being conducted by the NEPs to
address the issue of pathogen contamination.
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the following
12 of the 28 NEPs list pathogens as
a high-priority action item:

Albemarle-Pamlico (NC)
Buzzards Bay (MA)
Casco Bay (ME)
Long Island Sound (NY, CT)
Massachusetts Bays (MA)
Morro Bay (CA)
New Hampshire (NH)
New York - New Jersey Harbor (NY, NJ)
Peconic Bay (NY)
Santa Monica Bay (CA)
San Juan Bay (PR)
Tampa Bay (FL)
CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
To determine if pathogen contamination is a
problem at a NEP site, the specific pathogens
and their concentrations within the estuary must
be characterized and assessed. This process,
which begins with measuring the concentration
of pathogens from various locations around the
estuary, helps to determine whether contamina-
tion has increased or decreased over the years.

Pathogen monitoring is normally conducted on
a regular basis by state agencies in support of
Federal regulations. The collected data are
compared to state and Federal guidelines for
pathogen concentrations, based on the defined
use of the site. Each body of water has an
assigned use designation, depending on whether
the area is used for drinking water, recreation
(i.e., swimming), and/or fish and shellfish
harvesting. The levels of pathogen contamina-
tion that can be tolerated vary with the desig-
nated use of the site. Whenever the pathogen
concentration exceeds the allowed levels, the
area is considered "impaired" and must be
closed until the levels drop below the permitted
guidelines. If a body of water is designated
"impaired" on a regular basis, pathogen con-
tamination is probably an issue and the NEP
will develop appropriate actions to correct the
problem. Before the management actions are
developed, these steps are prioritized, based
on various factors, which are discussed in the
following section.

PRIORITY PLANNING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

For most estuaries, issues must be prioritized
because funds to address them are usually
limited. Priorities are often determined at the
beginning of the program through a priority
planning process, which differs among NEPs,
depending on their partnerships and available
funding. The San Francisco Estuary Project, for
p-2
-------
example, divides the various program areas
among NEP staff and small working committees
to develop priority actions. The small working
committees normally include technical advisors
and program stakeholders. Once the priority
actions are determined, the issues are brought to
the management committee for final
prioritization. Then, about every three years
(since 1993), the San Francisco Estuary Project
invites the public to a one-day meeting to
evaluate the plan currently being implemented
and to review the results obtained over the last
three years. In support of this public meeting,
the San Francisco Estuary Project distributes
performance information — including the
Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card (San
Francisco Estuary Project 1999) — to educate
the public on the progress made as a result of
program activities. After a review of the results,
the public is invited to help direct future pro-
gram actions by commenting on priority items,
which could remain the same, be re-prioritized
or, in some cases, be removed.

The Long Island Sound Study ranks its issues
primarily by their potential ecological value, but
other factors, such as availability of funds,
presence of local partners, availability of basic
knowledge about the site, and status of site
planning and design, are also considered.
The New York - New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program organized specific work groups and
various agencies, along with its Citizen's
Advisory Committee, to determine management
actions for various priority issues. To ensure
broad citizen involvement, public meetings were
held to solicit input from various users. Then,
each issue was reviewed separately by the
management committee members to establish
their priority.
The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
approached priority planning by conducting a
consensus session, where 54 critical areas
within the estuary were ranked according to
importance by a diverse group, which included
farmers, educators, elected officials, and citi-
zens. Everyone was given the opportunity to
select 5 to 10 issues as high-priority items.
The issues in this group were then narrowed
down to the final priorities.

A unique approach to priority planning is
illustrated by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program, which used a formal comparative risk
assessment approach. Through newspaper
surveys and public meetings, the public was
targeted as one group. Then, through a series
of focused workshops, various groups of stake-
holders were targeted as a second group.
Technical experts comprised a third group.
Risk rankings from the three groups were then
compared and problem-area priorities were
developed. It is interesting and important to
note that the problems of habitat loss and modi-
fication were ranked as the greatest threat to the
Columbia River Estuary by all three groups.

• Technical advisors determine the technical
issues and the priority in which they will
be addressed. The Citizens Advisory
Committee works only on public
education and outreach issues.

" Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will oe addressed.

• Technical advisors and representatives of
the general public meet to decide on the
technical issues and on the priority in
which they will be addressed.

• The general public presents its opinion
on the issues and the technical advisors or
members of the management committee
determine the priority in which they will
be addressed.

• Various groups living in and around the
area (land trusts and other watershed
groups) submit proposals for management
actions. The management group deter-
mines if funds are available and if the
project is appropriate to the goals of the
program.
Public Opinion
that can be considered in priority planning, are
shown in the text box. Once the issues have
been prioritized, the specific NEP is responsible
for directing available funds and resources to the
highest priority action items. This is
normally accomplished through management
actions that define a particular project, through
the agency or groups performing the work, and
by estimates of the cost to complete the project.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. Although all issues and
actions developed by the NEPs are important,
many management actions for pathogen
contamination are generally incorporated and
enforced quickly by local and state government
agencies because of the potential impact on
human health. Management actions that NEPs
across the country have implemented to reduce
or eliminate pathogen contamination include
legislative changes, abatement programs for
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), identifica-
tion of nonpoint-source discharges, and control
of discharges from marine vessels. Each of
these management actions and related examples
from specific NEPs are discussed in the
following sections.

Legislative Changes
Pathogen contamination normally results from
the discharge of human or animal wastes
through failing septic systems or runoff. In
most cases, legislative action is required to
correct these problems. Once proper legislation
is in place, municipalities and state agencies
have the authority to correct the problems
responsible for pathogen contamination. Sev-
eral NEPs have assisted states in developing
legislation, which gives state agencies the
authority to demand correction measures.
The New Hampshire Estuaries Project and
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program are two
programs that have assisted in passing legisla-
tion to mitigate pathogen contamination.
P-4
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
LEGISLATIVE CHA.\GES
\ew Hampshire Estuaries Project
RHODE ISLA.\D LEGISLATIVE CHA\GES
\arragftitsett Bay Estuary Program
NEW HAMPSHIRE
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
New Hampshire
Estuaries Project
Web: http: 'www.state.nh.
usnhep
Problem. Sheilfisn bed
closures due tc oathogen
contamination.
Solution: New legislation
changing the stale agency
responsible for sh^i'fisn
sanitation.
Pathogen contamina-
tion is the highest
priority issue for the
New Hampshire
Estuaries Project
because contamina-
tion results in the
closure of most
shellfish beds along
the state's coast.
When the New Hampshire Estuaries Project
began, pathogen contamination of shellfish was
monitored and overseen by the New Hampshire
Department of Human Health (DHH). Under
the supervision of DHH, monitoring for patho-
gens in the estuary was conducted by the New
Hampshire Department of Environmental Safety
(DES), the New Hampshire Fish and Game
Department (F&G), the University of New
Hampshire Jackson Estuarine Laboratory (UNH
JEL), and the Great Bay Coast Watch — a local
volunteer monitoring group. Some of the data
collected were used for classification of shell-
fish-growing waters while other data were
collected for baseline monitoring or to answer
specific questions regarding contaminant load-
ing or sources. To help improve shellfish
sanitation management, the New Hampshire
Estuaries Project established a Shellfish Project
Team, comprised of representatives from the
New Hampshire DHH, DES, F&G, Office of
State Planning, UNH /EL, volunteer monitoring
groups, and recreational shellfishers. The
Shellfish Project Team proposed several solu-
tions for improving shellfish management and
developing a sustainable vehicle for estuary
wide water-quality monitoring in New Hamp-
shire. One of these solutions was to transfer
legislative authority for classification of shell-
fish-growing waters from the New Hampshire
DHH to DES. The state government incorpo-
rated this action and legislation was enacted
(personal communication with Dr. Jim Chase,
1999).
RHODE ISLAND
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program
Web: http:.'/home.earthlink.
net -narrabay^ nbep.html
Problem: Inadequate-
legislation for on-sile sewage
ctiscosal.
Solution: Revision o'
legislation for on-site sewage
disposal that requires licensing
of designers, installers and
change in design criteria.
The Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program has
helped to enact
legislation that
addresses mitigation
of pathogen contami-
nation through the
control of on-site
sewage disposal
systems. This new
state legislation (1)
requires all septic system designers/installers
to be licensed in the state of Rhode Island, (2)
changed septic system design requirements to
soils-based rather than water-table-based crite-
ria, and (3) revised regulations for on-site
sewage disposal systems. A future objective of
the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program is to pass
legislation requiring municipalities to establish
or to associate with wastewater management
districts. In the meantime, the Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program is implementing a non-regula-
tory approach, which provides technical assis-
tance and grants to communities to study the
wastewater management district association
(Narragansett Bay Estuary Program 1999).
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Abatement Programs
In most cases, the NEPs have reported that
CSOs represent the largest source of pathogens
into estuaries. Several NEPs have listed CSO
abatement as the most important action for
mitigating pathogen contamination. The NEPs
P«th.
P-5
-------
iiave worked with EPA and state agencies to
develop CSO upgrades and inspection programs
1.0 prevent illegal dumping of raw sewage into
ihe environment. The Casco Bay Estuary
Project and the Long Island Sound Study both
list CSO abatement as important in mitigating
pathogen contamination.
CASCO BAY/MTIATIVE
Casco Bay Estuary Project
Hfty-nine active
GSOs discharge
pathogens, toxic
chemicals, nutrients,
£ind sediments into
the Casco Bay estu-
ary. Investigation of
these CSOs deter-
mined that the cities
of Portland, South Portland, and Westbrook
were responsible for most of the discharge.
In 1991, EPA and the Maine Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) began an
aggressive campaign — called the Casco Bay
Initiative — which imposed on communities an
aggressive schedule to develop and implement
CSO abatement programs. The Casco Bay
CASCO BAY INITIATIVE
Casco Bay Estuary Project
Web: http:,-/ww'.v.muskie.usm.
ma/ne.edu/.:ascobay
Problem: 5S CSOs dumping
pathogens and :oxics into
Casco Bay.
Solution: Partnership
between EPA. ME DEP. and
cities responsib e 'or the CSOs
to design and implement
abatement projects.
Initiative required each city to develop and
i ubmit a plan to the Maine DEP for approval.
Once approved, the cities were required to
f.ubmit yearly progress reports to the DEP
Division of Engineering and Technical Assis-
tance. The progress reports included informa-
tion such as CSO volumes and events from the
previous year, and annual progress made on
CSO abatement projects. Although the initiative
was successful in getting the plans written and
approved, they were not always implemented.
Several years after the City of Portland's CSO
abatement plan was approved, work on CSO
abatement had still not been initiated. Finally,
the Maine DEP, the EPA, and the City of Port-
land, with assistance from the Casco Bay Estu-
ary Project, formed a partnership to develop a
revised five-year schedule for CSO abatement.
The partnership was successful in developing
a plan that the City of Portland would agree to
fund. According to the Casco Bay Estuary
Project, the key to the success of the partnership
was an excellent working relationship among
EPA, DEP, Friends of Casco Bay, board mem-
bers, and the Mayor of Portland (Casco Bay
Estuary Project 1998).

CSO A BATE ME.\T PROJECTS
Long Island Sound Study
In its CCMP, the
Long Island Sound
Study listed several
million-dollar CSO
abatement projects
planned for New York
and Connecticut
locations. The New
York and Connecticut
CSO projects began in 1994 when the CCMP
was approved but, because of the cost of the
necessary upgrades, will not be completed until
sometime between 2001 and 2006 (Long Island
Sound Study 1994).
CSO ABATEMENT PROJECTS
Long Island Sound Study
Web: http:.'/www.epa.gov
region01/eco/)is
Problem: CSO contamination
throughout the New York and
Connecticut area.
Solution: CSO abatement
projects costing several -nillion
dollars and implementation over
several years.
P-6
-------
Identification of Nonpoint Sources
Many NEP CCMPs list nonpoint sources of
pollution as contributing to much of the patho-
gen contamination in an estuary. Nonpoint
sources vary in size and scope, but are classified
together because there is not one specific point
of entry that can be controlled and monitored.
Included in the nonpoint-source category are
malfunctioning septic systems, farm runoff, and
urban runoff. Through investigative work, few
nonpoint sources can be identified and con-
trolled, but many can not be controlled.

In cases where nonpoint-source discharges
can not be identified, the NEP must develop a
program that relies on public involvement to
help reduce or eliminate the problem. The
primary implementation tools used by NEPs for
unidentified nonpoint-source controls include
best management practices, changes in building
codes, consent agreements, and education
(Long Island Sound Study 1994). The main
drawback with these tools is that they rely on
voluntary public involvement with no guarantee
of effectiveness.

Sometimes, after an extensive investigation,
pathogen contamination can be linked to a
specific malfunctioning septic system or a series
of systems. When a malfunctioning system
is located, the state requires the landowner to
upgrade or replace the failing system. If
replacement is necessary and a municipal sewer
collection system is available, hookup to the
municipal system may be required. Examples
of programs that were initiated to address a
nonpoint-source pathogen contamination
problem include the following:
SA.\TA MOMCA BAY
EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STLDY
.Monica Kay Restoration Project
Urban runoff and
stormwater flow are
the most significant
uncontrolled sources
of pollution to
Santa Monica Bay.
Although water
quality at 90 percent Solution: Conduct ot a health
nf
-------
Results of the study led to improvements in
teach warning signs, improved monitoring,
£ind financing for capital projects to divert dry-
weather flows that might otherwise impact
popular beach sites. The County of Los Angeles
Department of Health Services (DHS) revised
its 1987 beach warning and closure policy based
on the results of the 1995 epidemiological study.
The DHS now directs lifeguards to close a
teach for a minimum of 48 hours after a known
discharge of untreated or partially treated
sewage. Warning signs must be posted perma-
nently at all continually flowing storm drains,
storm drains flowing intermittently during dry
weather, and discharge points from Malibu
Lagoon. Warning signs must also be posted at
£jiy site where sampling indicates that bacterial
counts are above the health-risk thresholds.
People are also advised to stay out of the water
for at least 72 hours following a storm event
(Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project 1998).
SHELLFISH BED
RESTORATION, PROGRAM
Massachusetts Bays Program
Approximately 40
I>ercent of the shell-
iish beds in Massa-
chusetts and Cape
Cod Bays are either
closed or variously
restricted due to
contamination.
Nonpoint-source
pollution, especially
stormwater runoff,
has been identified as
ihe most important
iiource of contamina-
1 ion to the shellfish beds. In accordance with an
action plan specified in its CCMP, the Massa-
chusetts Bays Program has coordinated an effort
to restore and protect 13 shellfish beds in these
bays. Using a coordinated "institutional"
approach, the project participants believed that
remediation and restoration of the shellfish beds
would be more successful if a single, specific
SHELLFISH Bt:D
RESTORATION PROGRAM
Massachusetts Bays
Program
Web: http:,. www.epa.gov
region01 .• eco massbay
Problem: Shell'ish bed
impacted by nonpoint-source
pollution, specifically
stormwater runoff and
discharge from storr" drains.
Solution: Targeting a single
specific category of pollution —
discharge from storm drams —
and the use of innovative
remediation tecirologies are
proving to be successful m
restoring contaminated
shellfish oeds.
category of pollu-
tion sources was
targeted. The
Shellfish Bed
Restoration Pro-
gram presented
opportunities for
some program
participants to
demonstrate the
effectiveness of
innovative tech-
nologies, which
specifically target
remediation of contaminants in storm water.
One such technology, which employs a sedi-
mentation basin, a series of filter screens, and a
constructed wetland to mitigate pollution associ-
ated with stormwater runoff, has been used at
two shellfish bed sites targeted for restoration.
Although many of the mitigation projects are
still in initial stages, preliminary results from
several sites indicate encouraging early suc-
cesses in restoration and opening of shellfish
beds (Massachusetts Bays Program 1997).
VOLL'XTARY L\SPECTIO.\ A\D
I\FORMAT10.\ASSISTA.\CE PROGRAM TO
REDLCE BACTERIAL POLLUTION CAISED
BY MALFL\\CTIOM.\G SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Galvestou Bay Estuary Program

In response to VOLUNTARY INSPECTION
pathogen contamina- AND INFORMATION
. ° . . ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
tion, Suspected to be Galveston Bay Estuary
originating from Program
- ... . Web: http:,.gbep.tamug.
failing SeptIC SyS- tamu.edu
tems, the GalveStOn Problem: Pathogen
_, _ _ contamination from suspected
Bay Estuary Program on.sits S9Dtlc systerrs
initiated the Volun- Solution: Voluntary inspection
¥ . . and information assistance
tary Inspection and program to educate the
Information ASSIS- homeowners about their
„ failing septic systems.
tance Program to
Reduce Bacterial Pollution Caused by Malfunc-
tioning Septic Systems. This program con-
ducted door-to-door voluntary inspections of on-
site septic systems at homes along the Galveston
P-8
Pathogens
-------

Bay shoreline to determine potential malfunc-
tions. Of the 102 septic systems surveyed in the
Dickinson Bayou Watershed, 46 were found to
be failing. As a result of this voluntary survey,
some of the residents were given technical
assistance and information regarding septic
system problems; several homeowners have
voluntarily corrected the problem. Additional
technical assistance, in the form of an assess-
ment plan outlining the technical and economic
options for homeowners with failing septic
systems, is being supplied to the Pine Oak
subdivision. This assessment will evaluate the
cost differences between a municipal system
and enhancement or replacement of malfunc-
tioning systems. On the Bolivar Peninsula, the
Texas General Land Office removed 12 houses
because of malfunctioning septic tanks
(Galveston Bay Estuary Program 1999a).
CO\STRL'CTEl) \\ETLA\DS SYSTEM
Buzzards Ray Project
The Buzzards Bay
Project assisted in
developing a con-
structed wetlands
system to abate
pathogen contamina-
tion from a moder-
ately settled area.
This area was con-
taminating the western section of Sippican
Harbor, called Spragues Cove, a valuable shell-
fish harvesting site and the Town of Marion's
only bathing area. The Massachusetts Division
of Marine Fisheries (DMF) and the Town of
CONSTRUCTED
WETLANDS SYSTEM
Buzzards Bay Project
Web: mtp:.-WAV.
buzzardsbay.org
Problem: Pathogen :ontamin.a
[ion from a moderateiy settled
urban area that closed baihn^
areas and snellfish beds.
Solution: Constructed
••vetlanos to filler sroTnvalvi
runoff.
Marion's public health department consistently
closed the area due to high concentrations of
fecal coliforms. Upon investigation by DMF, it
was determined that stormwater was the major
source of contamination.

The Town of Marion submitted a proposal to the
Buzzards Bay Project to reduce bacteria and
other pollutants entering the bay from Spragues
Cove Creek. The town's proposal was funded
and resulted in a three-acre constructed wetland
adjacent to Silvershell Beach. The constructed
wetland was designed to collect and treat storm-
water runoff and associated nonpoint-source
pollutants from 64 acres of Marion's lower
village. Within the first year of construction,
sampling indicated an overall reduction of fecal
coliform bacteria in the cove. As additional
plants become established in the wetlands, it is
expected that fecal coliform counts will con-
tinue to decrease (Buzzards Bay Project 1999).

Control of Discharges from
Marine Vessels
Although vessel-discharged sewage is normally
only a minor source of pathogens, when dumped
in an inappropriate area, it can cause closures of
shellfish beds and health warnings at beaches
and bathing areas. In response to the dumping
of vessel sewage, the Federal government
enacted the Clean Vessel Act, which mandates
the use of marine sanitary devices on vessels
and establishes "No Discharge Zones." It also
made available Federal grants to install sewage
pumpout facilities at marinas. Several NEPs
have assisted state agencies with planning the
locations of pumpout facilities and designating
additional areas as "No Discharge Zones."
The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program is one
program that has addressed pathogen contami-
nation through abatement of marine vessel
discharges.
f-9
-------
\IARI\A PL\VIPOLTSITI\G PL4.\
.\arragansett Bay Estuary Program
MARINA PUMPOUT
SITING PLAN
Narragansetl Bay
Estuary Program
Web: r:tc: home.
earthln-K.net'-iarrabay/
nbec.htmi
Problem: Dumping of
sewage fr^m vessels
into area waters.
Solution: installation of
vessel pumpout stations at
marinas and assignation
of a "No Discharge Zone."
The Narragansett
Bay Estuary Program
developed and as-
sisted in implement-
ing a bay-wide
pumpout facility
plan, called the
Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program
Marina Pumpout
Siting Plan. This
plan provides for
access to pumpout facilities throughout
Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island. Once
implemented, the plan successfully located
pumpout facilities along the entire Rhode Island
coast so that Rhode Island officials could desig-
nate the entire coast of Rhode Island as a "No
Discharge Zone" (see Figure). The Narragansett
Bay Estuary Program also instituted a boater
education program on the proper disposal of
waste. The educational materials included
nformation on the operation and maintenance
of marine sanitation devices, and the identifica-
tion of "No Discharge Zones" and local
pumpout stations (Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program 1999).
Application for Federal No Discharge Area Designation
The Proposed No Discharge Area for Rhode Island Waters

G Ejrtw4t«4ti<«
SOCK
"No Discharge Zone" in Rhode Island
(Rhode island Department of Environmental Management 1999).
P-10.
-------

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
In addition to the management actions described above, other specific management actions for
control of pathogen contamination are included in the following table:

Management Actions Indexed by Category
National
Estuary Program
Legislative
Changes
CATEGORY
Control of
CSO Identification Discharges
Abatement onNonpoint fromManne
Programs Sources Vessels
Management Actions
Buzzards Bay

Casco Bay
Galveston Bay

Long Island Sound

Massachusetts Bays

Morro Bay
Narragansett Bay
New Hampshire

New York -
New Jersey Harbor
San Juan Bay
Santa Monica Bay
Constructed wetlands to filter stormwater runoff*

Sand Filter Sewage Treatment System Removal
Program
Partnership between EPA, ME OEP, and cities
responsible for the CSOs to design and imple-
ment abatement projects to close the CSOs*

Voluntary inspection and information assistance
program to educate the homeowners about their
failing septic systems*
CSO abatement projects costing several million
dollars and implemented over several years*

Shellfish Bed Restoration Program*

Development and implementation of Total
Maximum Daily Loads
Implementation of grazing management
measures that are successful at reducing
bacteria levels
Establishment of an off-leash dog park with
supplies for the pickup and disposal of pet
waste available in the high-use recreational
sections
Installation and maintenance of bird-deterrent
floats in shellfish-growing areas to reduce the
potential for avian fecal contamination of
harvestable shellfish
Exploration of the biofiltration potential of the
Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas) to decrease
bacterial levels and to increase the overall water
quality of the bay
Revision of the on-site sewage legislation to
require licensing of designers/installers, change
design criteria, and update disposal regulations*
Installation of vessel pumpout stations at marinas
and designation of a "No Discharge Zone"*

New legislation changing the state agency in
charge of pathogen contamination control*
Reduction or elimination of the discharge of raw
or inadequately treated sewage due to sewage
treatment plant malfunctions and illegal
connections

Elimination of raw sewage discharge from illegal
hookups and direct discharging from houses
along the canal

Santa Monica Bay Epidemiological Study*
Management actions marked with a * (asterisk) are described in the Management Actions section.
-------
FINANCING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

To complete the numerous management actions
that each NEP develops, the NEP must secure
funding. AH NEPs are started with base funding
provided by EPA for at least three years, but
additional funding is always necessary. Addi-
tional funding often comes from various govern-
ment and private sources, which normally assist
with the implementation of the specific action
items and programs. Examples of supplemental
funding sources that have been available to
some NEPs include Federal government agen-
cies, state government agencies, and donations.

A significant portion of the money expended
thusfar for CCMP implementation has come
from the EPA. EPA supplies the funds through
viirious agreements and grants to assist the
specific NEP in implementing the management
actions outlined in the CCMP. Apart from the
NEP, Federal government agencies have devel-
oped grants to encourage private organizations
or state and local governments to conduct
research in specific environmental areas. The
process of securing funding through one of
these grant programs usually involves groups
writing a grant proposal that is submitted to the
governing Federal agency, where it is then voted
upon based on the information supplied in the
proposal. Although some monetary resources
aie required to write the grant proposal, these
could be small relative to the amount of money
potentially available through the specific grant.

Several NEPs have been successful in obtaining
Federal grants from various agencies to assist in
the control and mitigation of pathogen contami-
nation. Funds from the Clean Vessel Act have
been used to build pumpout facilities and to
designate "No Discharge Zones." Some NEPs
have successfully accessed Clean Water Act
Section 319 funds to control erosion and to
implement sediment-retention practices on farm
land. Stormwater erosion on farms normally
r-12
Plltlt< >t>t
results in runoff that contains high concentra-
tions of pathogens. Controlling the sediment,
therefore, helps to control the number of
pathogens that can contaminate the water.

Each individual NEP was established as a
partnership between EPA and a state or local
government body to work together to identify
and address the environmental issues affecting
the estuary. Along with EPA funds, the local
sponsoring partner also provides financial
resources to administer the estuary program
and to implement the management actions. In
several cases, the states supply this funding
through the involvement of various state agen-
cies (such as Department of Environmental
Protection, Department of Human Health, and
water management districts), which are man-
dated to assist the NEPs with implementing
their action plans. For mitigating pathogen
contamination, funds are generally distributed
directly to state and local agencies responsible
for upgrading CSO facilities. However, patho-
gen contamination can also be successfully
mitigated on a smaller scale. For example, the
Casco Bay Estuary Project, in cooperation with
the State of Maine, has successfully imple-
mented a program to convince homeowners to
remove sand filter systems in exchange for
acceptable sewage treatment systems. The State
of Maine agreed to pay the homeowner up to 90
percent of the removal costs and the Casco Bay
Estuary Project S1,000 for each system re-
moved.

MONITORING/RESEARCH
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

Once management actions have been funded
and implemented, the results of their implemen-
tation need to be determined. This is normally
accomplished by monitoring the ecosystem to
document any changes that may result from
one or more management actions.

Routine monitoring for pathogen contamination
in estuaries that contain shellfish habitat is
required by Federal law. Monitoring is gener-
ally conducted after every rain event to deter-
mine if shellfish have been contaminated with
fecal coliforms above the levels determined
acceptable for shellfish consumption. Routine
monitoring for pathogens is generally required
at sewage treatment facilities and at some CSOs.
Data from this type of monitoring can be used
by the estuary program to develop baseline
concentrations, which can later be used to
monitor pathogen concentrations as manage-
ment actions are implemented.

An excellent example of monitoring is the
Regional Monitoring Program conducted for
the San Francisco Estuary Project by one of its
implementation entities — the San Francisco
Estuary Institute. The institute is the lead
organization for carrying out the San Francisco
Estuary Project's CCMP research and monitor-
ing actions for the San Francisco Estuary. The
Institute has developed a Regional Monitoring
Program (RMP) for Trace Substances, which
includes 68 agencies and organizations that
work in partnership to address toxic contami-
nant issues. This program collects samples at
24 stations 3 times a year for (1) water quality
and chemistry; (2) aquatic bioassays; (3) sedi-
ment quality and chemistry; (4) sediment
bioassays; and (5) transplanted, bagged bivalve
bioaccumulation, survival, and condition stud-
ies. The RMP is funded by local industry and
government at a cost of $3 million per year, and
provides a forum for dischargers and regulators
to discuss solutions to toxic contamination
problems. The RMP supports several inter-
agency public/private coordinating committees
that focus on specific areas of toxic contamina-
tion, including: (1) pesticide toxicity in urban
and agricultural runoff; (2) contaminants in
San Francisco Bay fish; (3) air deposition of
mercury, copper, and nickel; and (4) improving
regulatory decisions on the basis of RMP
results.
/'-/ 3
-------
-------
v°/EPA
FRESHWATER
INFLOW
FRESHWATER INFLOW

The availability of fresh water has been an issue
in America for a long time. When the popula-
tion of the United States initially increased,
settlers moved west across the plains in search
of fertile areas with a good supply of fresh
water. The availability of fresh water was so
important to the settlers that the U.S. govern-
ment included water rights on deeds for prop-
erty. Today, the right to access fresh water is
still an issue and most original water rights
deeded to landowners are still in effect.

As the population continues to grow, the
domestic demand for fresh water must compete
with those of agriculture and industry. With
this ever-increasing demand for water, state and
local governments search for the least expensive
delivery mechanisms.

One way that fresh water can be obtained is
through stream or river diversion. In this case,
water is diverted from the original flow path into
a low-lying area or structure to form a holding
basin. Once contained, the water can
be removed, purified, and delivered to the
final user. Because many communities were
originally located along rivers, it is not unusual
for one river to be diverted in several locations
to supply water to different communities.

A consequence of freshwater diversion that is
normally not considered is the change in fresh-
water inflow at the mouth of a river. As water is
diverted upstream for various uses, less volume
is delivered to the river's mouth. This change in
flow results in alterations to the water quality
(e.g., salinity) as well as to the quality of the
area's habitat. The issue of freshwater inflow is
so important that several Federal programs,
including the U.S. Enviromental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Estuary Program
(NEP), consider freshwater inflow a priority
problem that must be addressed.

According to a survey of directors from the
28 NEPs, conducted in the fall of 1999, the
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National Estuary
Program and the San Francisco Estuary Project
are the only NEPs that list freshwater inflow as
a high-priority action item. Several other
estuaries list freshwater inflow as a concern,
but not as a top priority. This section provides
an overview of the characterization/assessment,
priority planning, management actions, financ-
ing, and monitoring/research being conducted
by the NEPs to address the alteration of fresh-
water inflow.

CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
To determine if alteration of freshwater inflow is
a problem at a specific NEP site, conditions
within the estuary must first be characterized
and assessed. This process determines the
change in freshwater inflow over an extended
period of time. It is generally conducted
through the comparison of historical data with
present-day conditions. Once the data have
been collected, a comparison and assessment
can be made to determine whether current
freshwater inflow has degraded or altered the
quality of the surrounding habitat or if the
amount of the freshwater inflow is adequate to
meet the goals of the estuary program. If it is
determined that freshwater inflow is an issue,
the NEP will develop appropriate actions to
-------
address the problem. Before the manage-
ment actions are developed, these steps are
prioritized, based on various factors, which are
discussed in the following section.

PRIORITY PLANNING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

For most estuaries, issues must be prioritized
l>ecause funds to address them are usually
limited. Priorities are often determined at the
l>eginning of the program through a priority
planning process, which differs among NEPs,
depending on their partnerships and available
funding. The San Francisco Estuary Project, for
example, divides the various program areas
{imong NEP staff and small working committees
to develop priority actions. The small working
committees normally include technical advisors
erformance information—including the
Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card (San
Francisco Estuary Project 1999) —to educate
the public on the progress made as a result of
program activities. After a review of the results,
the public is invited to help direct future pro-
jp-am actions by commenting on priority items,
which could remain the same, be re-prioritized
or, in some cases, be removed.

The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
approached priority planning by conducting a
consensus session, where 54 critical areas
within the estuary were ranked according to
importance by a diverse group, which included
farmers, educators, elected officials, and citi-
zens. Everyone was given the opportunity to
select 5 to 10 issues as high-priority items. The
issues in this group were then narrowed down to
the final priorities.

A unique approach to priority planning is
illustrated by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program, which used a formal comparative risk
assessment approach. Through newspaper
surveys and public meetings, the public was
targeted as one group. Then, through a series
of focused workshops, various groups of stake-
holders were targeted as a second group. Tech-
nical experts comprised a third group. Risk
rankings from the three groups were then com-
pared and problem-area priorities were devel-
oped. It is interesting and important to note that
the problems of habitat loss and modification
were ranked as the greatest threat to the
Columbia River Estuary by all three groups.

In general, however, priority planning is usually
accomplished through a combined effort of
technical expertise and public opinion. The
approaches, which illustrate the varying combi-
nations of technical and public involvement that
F-2
Freshwater Inflow
-------
PRIORITY PLANNING
APPROACHES
Technical Expertise

" Based on available research, technical
advisors make recommendations on issues,
public opinion is considered, and regula-
tion structures are designed to address the
gaps. The priority in which the issues are
addressed is determined by the time frame
by which the regulations are enacted and
when the funds are made available to the
responsible parties.

• Technical advisors determine the technical
issues and the priority in which they will
be addressed. The Citizens Advisory
Committee works only on public
education and outreach issues.

• Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will be addressed.

• Technical advisors and representatives of
the general public meet to decide on the
technical issues and on the priority in
which they will be addressed.

• The general public presents its opinion
on the issues and the technical advisors or
members of the management committee
determine the priority in which they will be
addressed.

" Various groups living in and around the
area (land trusts and other watershed
groups) submit proposals for management
actions. The management group deter-
mines if funds are available and if the
project is appropriate to the goals of the
program.
Public Opinion
can be considered in priority planning, are
shown in the text box. Once the issues have
been prioritized, the specific NEP is responsible
for directing available funds and resources to the
highest priority action items. This is normally
accomplished through management conference
actions that define a particular project, through
the agency or groups performing the work, and
by estimates of the cost to complete the project.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. Most estuaries experience a
problem with reduced freshwater inflow to the
estuary because water is diverted for various
reasons. A decrease in freshwater inflow can
result in a decrease in the quantity of low-
salinity wetlands, changes in tidal-flow patterns,
and losses of vital habitats. In these cases, the
estuary must develop a plan to increase the flow
to acceptable levels. A few estuary programs,
such as the Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds NEP,
have problems with increased freshwater inflow
due to hurricanes, large rain storms, or the
draining of areas previously not connected to the
estuarine system. In cases where too much
freshwater inflow occurs, diversion of streams
may be used to mitigate the problem. In either
case — too much or too little inflow — a best
management practice (BMP) can be developed
for the watershed or area influenced by the
stream or river. The following are examples of
management actions that have been successfully
implemented by NEPs across the country.
These management actions have been catego-
rized under management plans or reclamation
actions.

fti/li
-------
Management Plans
The freshwater inflow management plans
cbscribed below focus mainly on finding a
solution through proper management of the
fresh water that is available throughout the
e itire system. These actions rely on state
agencies to work out an amicable solution to
providing fresh water to all parties involved.
HOLISTIC APPROACH TO
FRESHWATER MA\AGEME.\T
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program
The Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program
determined that also the management of
freshwater resources in the system needed
to be carried out within the framework of a
regional, holistic approach that also included
environmental needs. At a minimum, the
halistic management approach attempts to
address the following:

• Infrastructure for wastewater reuse
• Return flows to the estuary
• Freshwater inflow
• Watershed management
• Affordable water supply
• In-stream needs
• Wetland and other habitat preservation
* Demand management
• Urban runoff management
• Atmospheric loading
• Industrial treatment
• Municipal treatment
• Total estuarine productivity
• Conjunctive use
• Sustainable development
• Water permitting/re-allocation
• Onsite sewage facilities
• Water recreation
• Conservation
• Public education
• Data acquisition
• Meteorological studies
• Bay circulation
In the Corpus Christi Bay region, management
of freshwater inflow is currently an issue at the
local and state government levels, and requires
an agreed-upon process for decisionmaking.
The current decision-making framework is
politically and emotionally charged, and more
reactionary than proactive in nature.
FRESHWATER INFLOW MODEL
Delaware Estuary Program
The Delaware
Estuary Program
plans to develop
models to determine
optimum salinity
ranges or to establish
ecological criteria
necessary to (1) set
minimum flows; (2)
develop salinity standards; (3) integrate resource
planning by water and wastewater authorities,
water conservation rate structures/ conservation
retrofitting programs by water and wastewater
utilities, and wastewater reclamation; and (4)
provide infrastructure for wastewater reuse.
FRESHWATER INFLOW
MODEL
Delaware Estuary Program
Web: http://www.delep.org
Problem: Decrease in
amount of fresh water
entering the estuary.
Solution: Develop freshwater
inflow model to determine
minimum freshwater flows
needed to meet the
program goals.
F-4
Freshwater Inflow
-------
BEST MA.\AGEME.\T PRACTICES
TO REDUCE THE LOSS OF
FRESHWATER I\FLOW
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES TO REDUCE
me LOSS OF
FRESHWATER INFLOW
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
Web: http://www.
charlotteharbornep.com
Problem: Irregular and
inconsistent flows of fresh
water to the estuary.
Solution: Develop best
managemeni practices tc
regulate the How.
In the Charlotte
Harbor study area, a
watershed approach
to surface-water
management will be
used to form a water-
shed management
plan for each drain-
age basin, including
establishing mini-
mum flows and water levels for each water
body. Water management districts are respon-
sible for establishing minimum in-stream flows
so that permitted water withdrawals do not
adversely impact natural resources. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the
water management districts regulate groundwa-
ter withdrawal for water supply, agriculture, and
industrial purposes. Point-source discharges,
such as those from sewage treatment plants and
industrial facilities, are regulated for water
quality and monitored for flow rates. Best
management practices (BMPs) are encouraged
to decrease and retain stormwater runoff, and
water-use permits are administered to control
use. Public education is also part of the ap-
proach. Two programs that target community
education in methods to use less water for
landscaping and in improving the quality of
surface runoff are xeriscaping and the Florida
Yards & Neighborhoods Program.

Lake Okeechobee serves as the central fresh-
water supply and as a floodwater reservoir.
When the lake rises above a pre-determined
height, mandatory releases are made to the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries.
Environmental problems in these estuaries are
a direct result of their unnatural connection to
the lake and resulting changes within their
watersheds. Periodic releases of fresh water,
some as high as 10,000 cubic feet per second,
can turn these estuaries into freshwater systems.
By contrast, agricultural and municipal demands
for water during the dry season severely limit
the freshwater discharges and result in near-
marine (salt water) conditions throughout the
estuaries. Compounding the problem, and
affecting all estuaries within the South Florida
Water Management District, has been the
development of an intricate network of second-
ary canals, which drain surrounding urban and
agricultural lands. This artificial modification
of the watershed has altered freshwater dis-
charge to the estuaries without regard for the
volume, timing, frequency, duration, or water
quality necessary to maintain downstream
ecological integrity.

The Caloosahatchee Estuary faces three major
problems: (1) disruption of the natural magni-
tude and timing of freshwater discharge, (2)
increasing inputs of nutrients and other materi-
als of concern, and (3) loss of critical estuarine
habitats and species. The changing salinity and
water-quality conditions threaten the seagrass
beds and other aquatic vegetation in the estuary.

Water flows in the Peace River have generally
declined over the last 50 years. Springs and
wetland areas have run dry due to increased use
of groundwater and subsequent lowering of the
water table or aquifer pressure. Coastal commu-
nities are becoming increasingly dependent on
surface-water sources for water supply. Large
projected population increases indicate that
water demand will continue to increase while
sources of fresh water decrease. The primary
//(//<
1-5
-------
purpose of the Caloosahatchee (Charlotte
Harbor) Watershed Program, operated by the
water management district, is to protect and
enhance this critical ecosystem through the
development of a plan that addresses restoration
and water supply, while maintaining and
enhancing the estuary within the context of
continued urban, agricultural, and recreational
use of water resources.

Reclamation Actions
Freshwater inflow reclamation involves the
collection of wastewater from various sources
and purification such that the wastewater is
suitable for use by agriculture and industry.
MA\ATEE RIVER WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION PLA\
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
MANATEE RIVER
WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION PLAN
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web: http://pelican.gmpo.gov/
gulfofmex/estuarypartner/
SarasotaBay.html
Problem: Decreased flow of
fresh water to the Manatee
River.
Solution: Develop a regional
wastewater re-use plan to
reclaim wastewater.
A major component
of the Sarasota Bay
National Estuary
Program CCMP
recommends the
construction of a
multi-jurisdictional
regional wastewater
reuse system. The
overall plan is to
reclaim approxi-
mately 50 million gallons of wastewater per day
for agricultural, urban, and possibly potable use.
Most of the wastewater will be returned to the
Manatee River watershed in the Tampa Bay
area, which has historically received attention
due to the lack of freshwater inflow. A multi-
jurisdictional task force has been established,
chaired by the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), to complete
the final design of the wastewater recovery
system. Funding is being provided through
congressional appropriation, the SWFWMD,
and local governments.
F-6
Freshwater Inflow
-------
FINANCING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

The last funding source for some NEPs is
penalty money. This is generally money
received from a court settlement in which a
company has been found guilty and is required
to pay a penalty. For several NEPs, funds have
been specifically mandated by the court or state
agencies to assist them in implementing their
action items. Penalty monies vary in amount,
but the funds are always welcome and helpful.
Examples of funds obtained from penalties and
fines include (1) $4 million received by The Bay
Foundation of Morro Bay from Pacific Gas and
Electric, and (2) $40,000 received by the Dela-
ware Estuary Program from the Exxon Valdez
settlement. The latter funds were used for
upland habitat restoration and a "backyard
habitat enhancement" program for the public.
However, until the monies are actually
mandated by the courts, penalties and fines are
hi/ln\i
-------
not reliable sources of funding but, when they
iire received, they are extremely helpful to
implementation of the program.

MONITORING/RESEARCH

-------
&EFA
NUTRIENTS
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
Small amounts of nutrients, such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, are essential for healthy marine and
freshwater environments. Under certain circum-
stances, however, these nutrients may become
too abundant, leading to algal blooms, low
dissolved oxygen, and fish kills. Recent out-
breaks of the toxic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria,
for example, have been attributed to excess
concentrations of nutrients in the Gulf of
Mexico and along parts of the east coast (EPA
1998). These outbreaks or "blooms" resulted in
fish kills and also, because of their toxic compo-
nent, human health problems.

The relationships between nutrient enrichment
and environmental problems are complex. Algal
blooms, stimulated by an excess of
nutrients, block sunlight from penetrating the
water column, reducing the growth of sub-
merged vegetation, which, in turn, results in
habitat loss and decreased concentrations of
dissolved oxygen.
Nutrients that enter aquatic ecosystems come
from both point and nonpoint sources, including
sewage treatment plants, combined sewer
overflows (CSOs), urban and agricultural runoff,
faulty septic systems, animal wastes,
and atmospheric deposition.
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the following 10
of the 28 NEPs consider nutrient enrichment
a high-priority action item:

Albemarle-Pamlico (NC)
Delaware Inland Bays (MD)
Indian River Lagoon (FL)
Long Island Sound (NY, CT)
Maryland Coastal Bays (MD)
Mobile Bay (AL)
New York - New Jersey Harbor (NY, NJ)
Peconic Bay (NY)
San Juan Bay (PR)
Sarasota Bay (FL)
This section provides an overview of the
characterization/assessment, priority planning,
management actions, financing, and monitoring/
research being conducted by the NEPs to
address the issue of nutrient enrichment.
-------
CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
To determine if nutrient overloading is a
problem at a NEP site, conditions within the
estuary must first be characterized and assessed.
This process identifies the change in nutrient
concentrations over time and is generally
conducted through the comparison of historical
data with present-day conditions. If the concen-
trations of nutrients within the estuary have
increased significantly over the years and
symptomatic problems, such as algal blooms
or low dissolved oxygen, are detected, then
nutrient enrichment is probably an issue for
that estuary.

Water quality data are normally available from
universities and state agencies and, in some
instances, data are available from volunteer
monitoring groups. Several of the estuary
programs have also found that historical data
were available from various government agen-
cies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), U.S. Geological Service (USGS),
U.S. National Park Service (NPS) and U.S.
Department of Natural Resources (USDNR).

Once nutrient data have been collected, a
comparison and assessment is made of whether
existing nutrients have increased. If the results
of the assessment suggest that nutrient enrich-
ment may be an issue, the NEP will develop
expropriate actions to help correct the problem.
Before management actions are developed,
these steps are prioritized, based on various
factors, which are discussed in the following
section.
PRIORITY PLANNING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

For most estuaries, issues must be prioritized
because funds to address them are usually
limited. Priorities are often determined at the
beginning of the program through a priority
planning process, which differs among NEPs,
depending on their partnerships and available
funding. The San Francisco Estuary Project,
for example, divides the various program areas
among NEP staff and small working committees
to develop priority actions. The small working
committees normally include technical advisors
and program stakeholders. Once the priority
actions are determined, the issues are brought
to the management committee for final
prioritization. Then, about every three years
(since 1993), the San Francisco Estuary Project
invites the public to a one-day meeting to
evaluate the plan currently being implemented
and to review the results obtained over the last
three years. In support of this public meeting,
the San Francisco Estuary Project distributes
performance information — including the
Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card (San
Francisco Estuary Project 1999) — to educate
the public on die progress made as a result of
program activities. After a review of the results,
the public is invited to help direct future
program actions by commenting on priority
items, which could remain the same, be
re-prioritized or, in some cases, be removed.

« Technical advisors determine the technical
issues and the priority in which they will
be addressed. The Citizens Advisory
Committee works only on public
education and outreach issues.

• Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will be addressed.

• Technical advisors and representatives of
the general public meet to decide on the
technical issues and on the priority in
which they will be addressed.

• The general public presents its opinion
on the issues and the technical advisors or
members of the management committee
determine the priority in which they will be
addressed.

The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
approached priority planning by conducting a
consensus session, where 54 critical areas
within the estuary were ranked according to
importance by a diverse group, which included
farmers, educators, elected officials, and citi-
zens. Everyone was given the opportunity to
select 5 to 10 issues as high-priority items.
The issues in this group were then narrowed
down to the final priorities.

In general, however, priority planning is usually
accomplished through a combined effort of
technical expertise and public opinion. The
approaches, which illustrate the varying combi-
nations of technical and public involvement that
can be considered in priority planning, are
shown in the text box. Once the issues have
been prioritized, the specific NEP is responsible
for directing available funds and resources
to the highest priority action items. This is
normally accomplished through management
actions that define a particular project, through
the agency or groups performing the work, and
by estimates of the cost to complete the project.
Nmnentf
\-3
-------
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The following
-------
\ITROGE\ REDUCTION PROGRAM
Long Island Sound Study
NITROGEN REDUCTION
PROGRAM
Long Island Sound Study
Web: http://www .epa.gov/
regionOl/eco/lis
Problem: Low dissolved
oxygen due to excessive
nitrogen loading.
Solution: Freeze nitrogen
loading from sewage treatment
plants and implement low-cost
nitrogen removal technologies
at selected plants.
Within Long Island
Sound, low dissolved
oxygen is the most
serious water quality
impairment. Studies
showed that excessive
nitrogen, dis-charged
by sewage treatment
plants, was the
primary cause of
hypoxia (<2-3 mg/L dissolved oxygen). In the
deeper waters of western Long Island Sound,
this condition usually occurs during the summer
months and results in a habitat that is unable to
support aquatic life. To address this problem,
the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) has been
proceeding with a multi-phase nitrogen reduc-
tion program, which began with Phase I in 1990.
During Phase I, point and nonpoint nitrogen
loadings to Long Island Sound were frozen at
1990 levels. This action was taken to prevent
the hypoxia problem from becoming more
severe. During Phase II, adopted in 1994, the
LISS committed to reducing nitrogen discharges
from peak loadings. To meet the LISS goal, a
variety of low-cost nitrogen removal technolo-
gies have been incorporated at selected sewage
treatment plants. In addition, state agencies are
using innovative strategies and the cooperation
of local governments to implement nitrogen
control methods. As a result of these activities,
nitrogen loading to the sound, from both point
and nonpoint sources within the watershed, has
been reduced from peak loadings by 3,900 tons
per year. In February 1997, Phase III was
adopted with the release of a proposal entitled
Phase III Actions for Hypoxia Management.
This proposal includes nitrogen reduction
targets for 11 management zones that make up
the Long Island Sound watershed (Long Island
Sound Study 1994; 1998; 1999b).

Development of Management Plan
Some management actions to address nutrient
enrichment are accomplished through the
development and implementation of a manage-
ment plan that comprehensively targets all
sources of nutrient contaminants. One such
example is from the Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
National Estuary Program.
M!TRIE.\T-SE\SITIVE WATERS MA.\AGE-
ME\T STRATEGY FOR THE SEl'SE RIVER
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National
Estuary Program
The Neuse River
estuary has had a
history of nutrient-
related water quality
problems, as evi-
denced by excessive
algal blooms, low
dissolved oxygen,
and fish kills. To
curb these problems,
the State of North
Carolina has developed and is beginning to
implement a comprehensive Nutrient-Sensitive
Waters Management Strategy for the Neuse
River. This strategy is intended to reduce the
concentrations of nutrients entering the river.
For the first time in state history, the manage-
ment strategy applies mandatory controls not
only on point sources, but also on nonpoint
sources of nutrient pollution in the Neuse River
basin. For point-source dischargers, a nitrogen
limit will be allocated, based on the permitted
flow. Management of stormwater and urban
runoff have become the responsibility of local
governments of heavily populated and rapidly
NUTRIENT-SENSITIVE
WATERS MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY FOR THE
NEUSE RIVER
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
National Estuary Program
Wet): http://h2o.enr .slate.nc.
us/nep/default/htm
Problem: Nutrient-related water
quality problems in the Neuse
River estuary.
Solution: Develop and
implement a comprehensive
management plan for point- and
nonpoint-source pollution.
Nutrients
-------
growing communities. Farmers are being
required to implement best management
practices to control agricultural runoff, and
landowners (of 50 acres or more) must develop
and implement nutrient management plans.

Identification ofNonpoint Sources
Many NEP CCMPs list nonpoint sources of
pollution as contributing to much of the nitrogen
overloading that has occurred in estuaries.
Nonpoint sources vary in size and scope, but
are classified together because there is not one
specific point of entry that can be controlled and
monitored. Included in the nonpoint-source
category are malfunctioning septic systems,
agricultural runoff, and urban runoff. Through
investigative work, some nonpoint sources can
be identified and controlled, but most can not
be easily controlled.

In cases where nonpoint-source discharges can
not be identified, the NEP must develop a
program that relies on public involvement to
help reduce or eliminate the problem. The
primary implementation tools used by NEPs for
unidentified nonpoint-source controls include
best management practices (BMPs) and public
education. The main drawback with these tools
is that they rely on voluntary public involvement
with no guarantee of effectiveness or success.

If a source of contamination can be identified,
the NEPs work with state agencies to enforce
actions to abate the contamination. Several
NEPs have been successful in identifying
specific urban areas and farm runoff as sources
of nutrients. In these cases, the NEPs have
succeeded in convincing state agencies to
implement and enforce stormwater permits that
require the discharged stormwater runoff to be
treated before it enters the estuary. Examples of
programs that were initiated to address a
nonpoint-source nutrient contamination problem
include the following:
POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION GOALS
Indian River Lagoon National
Estuary Program
POLLUTANT LOAD
REDUCTION GOALS
Indian River Lagoon
National Estuary Program
Web: http://www.epa.gov/
OWOW/oceans/lagoon
Problem: Nonpoint-source
nutrient loads affecting the
health of seagrass beds.
Solution: Develop and
implement stricter stormwater
codes.
The Indian River
Lagoon NEP has
been working to
develop pollutant
load reduction goals
for nitrogen, phos-
phorus, dissolved
organic matter, and
suspended matter
loadings to the Indian River Lagoon. These
goals are directed to address nonpoint-source
nutrient contamination, which is harmful to the
seagrass beds in the Indian River Lagoon. The
goals are based on data received from a process-
based three-dimensional Pollutant Load Reduc-
tion Model being developed for the Indian River
Lagoon by the St. Johns River Water Manage-
ment District, Department of Water Resources.
Development of the model is expected to cost
approximately $2.5 million when completed.
It will provide a predictive capability for the
process of optimally setting and allocating
pollution load reduction goals that satisfy
management criteria and economic constraints
(SJRWMD 1996). Based on the pollutant load
reduction goals, local governments are expected
to implement more stringent standards for
stormwater treatment and management within
the Indian River Lagoon.
\-6
Nutrients
-------
1
ATMOSPHERIC \ITROGE\
DEPOSITION STUDY
Long Island Sound Study
PL\E BARRE\S PROGRAM
Peconic Estuary Program
ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN
DEPOSITION STUDY
Long Island Sound Study
Web: http://www.epa.gov/
reglon01/eco/lis
Problem: Excessive loading
of nitrogen that results in low
dissolved oxygen.
Solution: Determine the
loading of nitrogen from
atmospheric sources and enact
air pollution control programs to
reduce the atmospheric load.
The primary source
of atmospheric
nitrogen is the
combustion of fossil
fuels. Studies have
shown that atmo-
spheric nitrogen is
deposited to a water
body directly or
indirectly (from
upland and adjacent water bodies) through
rainfall and the settling of particles. The Long
Island Sound Study (LISS) prepared an estimate
of the direct and indirect deposition of nitrogen
from atmospheric sources. The study found that
atmospheric deposition made up 14.3 percent of
the total anthropogenic load to Long Island
Sound, making it the second most important
cause of hypoxic conditions in the sound.
Deriving estimates from computer modeling,
LISS calculated that the implementation of the
Clean Air Act would reduce the Long Island
Sound nitrogen reduction target by 5 percent.
By controlling nitrogen oxide (NO^) emissions,
an improvement in dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions, as well as ground-level ozone pollution, is
predicted (Long Island Sound Study 1997).
PINE BARRENS PROGRAM
Peconic Estuary Program
Web: http://www.co suffolk.ny
us/health/pep
Problem: Control nitrogen
loading to the estuary.
Solution: Preserve land in its
natural state to prevent
potential loading of nutrients.
One of the main
concerns of the
Peconic Estuary
Program is nutrient
overloading. One
management action
plan developed by
the NEP is the Pine
Barrens Program, which works throughout the
Peconic Estuary to preserve land in its natural
state. As of September 1999, the Pine Barrens
Program had been instrumental in preserving
more than 2,000 acres. The Peconic Estuary
Program has determined that, by keeping land
in its natural state, a substantial amount of
potential nitrogen loading has been prevented
(Peconic Estuary Program 1999).
Nntrienrs
\-7
-------
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
In addition to the management actions described above, other specific management actions for
nutrient enrichment are Included in the following table:

Management Actions Indexed by Category
National
Entuary Program
CATEGORY
Development Identification
gislative of Management of Nonpoint
Changes Plan Sources
Management Actions
A bemarte-Pamlico
Sounds
Delaware Inland Bays
Indian River Lagoon
Long Island Sound

Maryland Coastal Bays

NswYork-
Nsw Jersey Harbor

Psconic Bay
SarasotaBay
Nutrient-Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
for the Neuse River *

Reduction in the number of point sources and
septic systems, and increase in the number of
sewage systems
Requirement for builders to acquire the standard
sewage permits and pass an environmental
impact statement
Pollutant Load Reduction Goals *
Agricultural Nutrient Management Project
Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition Study *
Nitrogen Reduction Program *

Education of homeowners on requirements and
management of septic systems and fertilization
Reduction or elimination of the discharge of raw
or inadequately treated sewage due to sewage
treatment plant malfunctions and illegal
connections
Establishment of a cap on nitrogen loads
discharged from point sources, and funding
for sewage and wastewater treatment plant
upgrades
Stricter septic tank requirements for building
permits
Pine Barrens Program *
Grizzle-Figg Legislation *
Management actions marked with a * (asterisk) are described in the Management Actions section.
.Y-S
.Nutrients
-------
FINANCING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

A significant portion of the money expended
thusfar for CCMP implementation has come
from the EPA. EPA supplies the funds through
various agreements and grants to assist the
specific NEP in implementing the management
actions outlined in the CCMP. Apart from the
NEP, Federal government agencies have devel-
oped grants to encourage private organizations or
state and local governments to conduct research
in specific environmental areas. The process of
securing funding through one of these grant
programs usually involves groups writing a grant
proposal that is submitted to the governing
Federal agency, where it is then voted upon based
on the information supplied in the proposal.
Although some monetary resources are required
to write the grant proposal, these could be small
relative to the amount of money potentially
available through the specific grant. An example
of a NEP successfully implementing manage-
ment actions using grant funds is found in the
Mobile Bay Estuary Program. This Tier-V
estuary program has received $150,000 in Fed-
eral grants to study various issues of concern to
the estuary, including atmospheric deposition and
oyster-bed restoration.

The last funding source for some NEPs is penalty
money. This is generally money received from a
court settlement in which a company has been
found guilty and is required to pay a penalty.
For several NEPs, funds have been specifically
mandated by the court or state agencies to assist
them in implementing their action items. Penalty
monies vary in amount, but the funds are always
welcome and helpful. Examples of funds
obtained from penalties and fines include (1)
$4 million received by The Bay Foundation of
Morro Bay from Pacific Gas and Electric, and
(2) $40,000 received by the Delaware Estuary
Program from the Exxon Valdez settlement.
Nutrient
\ v
-------
The latter funds were used for upland habitat
restoration and a "backyard habitat enhancement"
program for the public. However, until the
monies are actually mandated by the courts,
penalties and fines are not reliable sources of
funding but, when they are received, they are
extremely helpful to implementation of the
program.

MONITORING/RESEARCH
(The information included in this section is
ptieliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

Once management actions have been funded and
implemented, the results of their implementation
nsed to be determined. This is normally accom-
plished by monitoring the ecosystem to document
aiy changes that may result from one or more
management actions.

A ji excellent example of monitoring is the Re-
gional Monitoring Program conducted for the
San Francisco Estuary Project by one of its
implementation entities — the San Francisco
Estuary Institute. The institute is the lead organi-
zation for carrying out the San Francisco Estuary
Project's CCMP research and monitoring actions
for the San Francisco Estuary. The Institute has
developed a Regional Monitoring Program
(!*MP) for Trace Substances, which includes 68
agencies and organizations that work in partner-
slip to address toxic contaminant issues. This
program collects samples at 24 stations 3 times
a year for (1) water quality and chemistry; (2)
aquatic bioassays; (3) sediment quality and
chemistry; (4) sediment bioassays; and (5)
ti'ansplanted, bagged bivalve bioaccumulation,
survival, and condition studies. The RMP is
f inded by local industry and government at a cost
cf $3 million per year, and provides a forum for
dischargers and regulators to discuss solutions to
toxic contamination problems. The RMP sup-
ports several interagency public/private coordi-
nating committees that focus on specific areas of
toxic contamination, including: (1) pesticide
toxicity in urban and agricultural runoff; (2)
contaminants in San Francisco Bay fish; (3) air
deposition of mercury, copper, and nickel; and (4)
improving regulatory decisions on the basis of
RMP results.
Y-/0.
.Nutrients
-------
FISH & WILDLIFE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES

Concern about the decline of various fish and
wildlife species has been recognized in the
United States for more than a century. The
Federal government initially took interest in this
concern during the 1870s when Congress
formed a commission to examine the disappear-
ance of important food fish species. In 1900,
the first legislation (the Lacey Act) was passed
to protect game and to prohibit interstate ship-
ping of illegally taken game (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1999). Federal intervention
and regulation to protect fish and wildlife
resources were needed because the decline in
populations was directly related to impacts
associated with human activities. Over-harvest-
ing of wildlife resources for commercial and
recreational purposes, as well as the impacts of
development and pollution, have contributed to
the overall decline in wildlife populations and
even the extinction of some species. The latter
led to enactment of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) in 1973 to expand and strengthen laws
that protect endangered and threatened species
of plants and animals.

Recognizing the importance of fish and wildlife
resources to the nation, the Federal government
established the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) to assist in their protection. Although
the USFWS maintains control over all Federal
fish and wildlife issues, other Federal agencies,
including the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), assist
the USFWS in protecting fish and wildlife
through various programs of their own. One
of these programs is EPA's National Estuary
Program (NEP).
Currently, throughout the coastal United States,
there are 28 estuaries in the NEP, all with
similar concerns. One concern common to
many of the estuary programs is loss of native
fish and wildlife species. Fish and wildlife
species are declining because of loss of habitat
and food, introduction of non-indigenous spe-
cies, and persistent pesticides and chemicals that
have altered normal reproduction cycles and
have caused various genetic mutations.

With the human population density increasing
near the coast, fish and wildlife habitat is gradu-
ally being converted to urban landscapes or is
being altered to the detriment of fish and wild-
life resources at an alarming rate. Open spaces
and large tracts of forested land are being
subdivided and developed, while wetlands,
marshes, and riparian areas are being drained or
altered to allow public access, development, or
activities that support human habitation. As
habitat diversity decreases, the concomitant loss
of native fish and wildlife species has a signifi-
cant effect on the health of the entire ecosystem.

; According to a survey of NEP directors, j
conducted™ the fall of 1999, the following |
! 7 of the 28 NEPs consider the decline and i
i loss offish and wildlife species a \
i high-priority action item: \

: Albemarle-Pamlico (NC)
| Charlotte Harbor (FL)
i Indian River Lagoon (FL)
i Puget Sound (WA)
San Francisco Bay (CA)
! Santa Monica Bay (CA)
i Tillamook Bay (OR)
Fish <& Wildlife
/•H-/
-------
This document provides an overview of the
characterization/ assessment, priority planning,
management actions, financing, and monitoring/
research being conducted by the NEPs to
address the issue of fish and wildlife loss.

CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
To determine if the loss of fish and wildlife is
of particular concern at a specific NliP site, the
populations of fish and wildlife in the estuary
must first be characterized and assessed. This
process determines how many species have been
reduced in numbers or lost over the years. The
characterization/assessment process is generally
conducted through the comparison of historical
fish and wildlife population data with recent
information or data from direct on-si.te observa-
tions. If the diversity or populations of fish and
wildlife within the estuary have greatly de-
creased over the years, decline in fish and
wildlife is most likely an issue for that particular
MEP. On the other hand, if the diversity and
populations of fish and wildlife species have
generally remained unchanged, fish and wildlife
populations are probably not a serious concern
(i.e., not a high-priority key issue).

Fish and wildlife data are normally available as
reports from various Federal and state agencies,
including USFWS stock status reports. These
cata document the amount of available habitat
for each species being evaluated, assess the
quality of the habitat, and determine if species
introduced into the estuarine ecosystem have
invaded another species' natural habitat. Data
cm fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, and
non-indigenous species also assist in determin-
ing the population status of fish and wildlife
lesources.

Once the diversity data have been collected, a
comparison and assessment is made of whether
current populations are reduced in quantity, and
if the numbers of native fish and wildlife species
-------
PRIORITY PLANNING
APPROACHES
Technical Expertise

" Government agencies involved in the
management of the estuary program
basically determine the issues and priori-
ties that they will address based on the
goals and responsibilities of their agency.
The only non-government involvement
would then be determined by the funds
raised directly by the estuary program.

• Technical advisors determine the technical
issues and the priority in which they will
be addressed. The Citizens Advisory
Committee works only on public
education and outreach issues.

" Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will be addressed.

• Technical advisors and representatives of
the general public meet to decide on the
technical issues and on the priority in
which they will be addressed.

• The general public presents its opinion
on the issues and the technical advisors or
members of the management committee
determine the priority in which they will
be addressed.

The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
approached priority planning by conducting
a consensus session, where 54 critical areas
within the estuary were ranked according to
importance by a diverse group, which included
farmers, educators, elected officials, and citizens.
Everyone was given the opportunity to select 5
to 10 issues as high-priority items. The issues in
this group were then narrowed down to the final
priorities.

A unique approach to priority planning is illus-
trated by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program, which used a formal comparative risk
assessment approach. Through newspaper sur-
veys and public meetings, the public was targeted
as one group. Then, through a series of focused
workshops, various groups of stakeholders were
targeted as a second group. Technical experts
comprised a third group. Risk rankings from the
three groups were then compared and problem-
area priorities were developed. It is interesting
and important to note that the problems of habitat
loss and modification were ranked as the greatest
threat to the Columbia River Estuary by all three
groups.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The following are examples
3f management actions to address fish and
wildlife issues that have been successfully
implemented by NEPs across the country. The
management actions presented here have been
categorized and grouped under the headings of
habitat restoration and creation, and education.
Habitat Restoration
and Creation

QUAKER SECK DAM REMOVAL PROJECT
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
National Estuary Program
QUAKER NECK DAM
REMOVAL
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
National Estuary Program
Web: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.
us/nep>default.htm
Problem: Los; of commercial
and recreatiorai fish-spawning
areas due to cam.
Solution: Rerioval of dam to
allow fish to return to the area.
In 1997, work began
on a project to re-
move the Quaker
Neck Dam, located
near Goldsboro,
North Carolina. The
dam was scheduled
for removal so that
1,054 miles of
anadromous fish-spawning habitat could be
restored along the Neuse River and its tributar-
ies. This project was significant because it
was the first dam ever removed specifically
to benefit the environment, and the project
received White House recognition and world-
wide media coverage.
The Quaker Neck Dam was constructed in 1952
to provide cooling water to a coal-fired electric-
ity generating plant. Studies by the USFWS
determined that the dam had a significant effect
on the anadromous fish population by prevent-
ing fish migration up the river. Additional
studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
showed that the installation of a weir dam,
within the plant's intake canal, would make the
present Quaker Neck Dam obsolete. Thus, with
the help of several Federal and state agencies,
work was initiated to remove the 260-foot-long
and 7-foot-high dam.

The removal of the Quaker Neck Dam is
expected to enable several major commercial
and recreational fish species — American shad,
hickory shad, shortnose sturgeon, and striped
bass — to spawn in the Neuse River and its
tributaries. There is also some hope that mus-
sels — including the endangered dwarf wedge
mussel — upstream from the dam will benefit
from its removal. In April 1999, wildlife biolo-
gists reported that striped bass had returned to
spawn in the lower half of the newly opened
portion of the river, an area between Goldsboro
and Raleigh, North Carolina. The Quaker Neck
Dam Removal Project cost approximately
$180,000, but its initial success has already
resulted in two other North Carolina dams
being removed for environmental purposes
(Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National Estuary
Program 1999).
F\\~4
Fish
-------
STO.\EY RU.\-FOX POL\T RESTORATIO^
A.\D OSPREY RECOVERY PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
The Delaware
Estuary Program
has teamed with the
Delaware Division of
Parks and Recreation
to install four osprey
platforms along
Stoney Run, a tribu-
tary of the Delaware Estuary, and at Fox Point
State Park. Volunteers cleaned up the sites by
removing trash and exotic plants. After con-
struction is completed, the sites will be moni-
tored for avian activity and maintained to
keep the platforms useable. This project
cost approximately $6000.
STONEY RUN-FOX POINT
RESTORATION AND OSPREY
RECOVERYPROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
Web: http://www .delep.org
Problem: Loss of osprey
nesting areas.
Solution: Construct osprey
platforms and monitor bird
activity.
ARTIFICIAL REEF
DE \ ELOPMEXT PROJECT
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
The Sarasota Bay
NEP has proposed
that the decline in
fish species in the
area is directly linked
to habitat destruction.
Dredging operations
and other channel
modifications in the
Sarasota area have
resulted in uncharacteristically deep areas of
the bay and an associated loss of fish habitat.
To return some of the vital habitat to the bay,
the Sarasota Bay NEP has developed a plan to
install a series of artificial reefs throughout
Sarasota Bay. Various types and sizes of
ARTIFICIAL REEF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web: http://pefican.gmpo.
gov/gulfofmex/estuarypartner/
Sarasota/SarasotaSay.html
Problem: Dredging operations
and other impacts resulted in
loss of fish habitat.
Solution: Construct and deploy
artificial reefs to serve as
juvenile fish habitat.
artificial reefs are being constructed for different
areas of the bay. Some of the reefs are small
concrete reef balls, which are being located
under docks and at the ends of larger reefs. In
areas where the bottom is too soft to support
reef balls, floating reefs are being used, PVC
reefs are being installed in areas that can accom-
modate larger reefs. Preliminary tests indicate
that all three types of artificial reefs appear to be
successful in attracting juvenile fish popula-
tions. Initial studies of the PVC reefs showed
rapid colonization; within three months of
installation, all surfaces were well covered by
barnacles, sponges, algae, and other organisms.
Fish of various sizes were also noted around the
PVC reefs, and bottlenose dolphins and manatee
were sited in the area. The Sarasota Bay NEP
estimates that the bay presently supports 100
million more fish than in 1988; some of this
increase can be attributed to the addition of
artificial reefs. The Sarasota Bay NEP has
funded this project since 1996. It is estimated
that approximately $40,000 has been spent on
various forms of artificial reefs and that an
additional $30,000 will be spent in FY2000
(Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 1999).
Fish & Wildlife
FW-5
-------
Education
A.\GLER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
DELAWARE SHORE BIRD
AMBASSADORS PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
DELAWARE SHOREBIRD
AMBASSADORS PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
Web: http:7wwAf .delep.org
Problem: Human disturbances
during spring shorebird
migration.
Solution: Shoit-term hiring of
"ambassadors" to guide visitors
and answer questions.
The Delaware
Estuary Program, in
partnership with the
IDelaware Division of
Fish and Wildlife,
has developed the
Delaware Shorebird
Ambassadors
Project. Two shorebird "ambassadors" were
liired to work in the Little Creek and Ted
Harvey Wildlife areas for five weeks during the
spring shorebird migration. The ambassadors'
primary function is to interact with visitors and
1:0 answer questions about shorebird viewing
;ireas, provide guidance for responsible viewing,
caution visitors about the birds' sensitivity to
luman disturbance, and to document responses
of shorebirds to humans. The ambassadors were
also available to answer questions about the
Dirds and to distribute brochures (Delaware
Estuary Program 1997). The Shorebird Ambas-
sadors Project cost approximately $1200 per
year (Delaware Estuary Program 1997).
As part of an action
plan to increase
Sarasota Bay fisher-
ies, the Sarasota Bay
NEP has initiated a
program to educate
anglers about catch-
and-release and other
angling practices that
favor conservation.
Educating anglers and boaters about the benefits
of catch-and-release, and about practices that
enhance fish habitat, such as limiting marine
debris, and preservation and restoration of
seagrass beds, will support other bay-area action
plans for restoring fish habitat in Sarasota Bay.
ANGLER EDUCATION
PROGRAM
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web: http://pelican.gmpo.gov/
gulfofmex/estuarypartner/
Sarasota/SarasotaBay.html
Problem: Destruction of fish
habitat by boaters and anglers.
Solution: Develop educational
materials that describe ways in
which anglers and boaters can
protect fish habitat.
FW-6
Fish & Wildlife
Two documents that have been developed by the
Sarasota Bay NEP are the "Blueways Nature-
Based Tourism Guide to Sarasota Bay" and the
"Blueways Pocket Guide." Distribution of these
documents is directly through the Sarasota Bay
NEP or indirectly through agencies and citizens'
groups that are involved in educating anglers in
the Sarasota Bay area. Various agencies and
groups currently assist the NEP in its efforts to
emphasize conservation techniques by support-
ing development and distribution of literature,
sponsoring boating classes, and other educa-
tional efforts specifically directed at the boater
and angler. The NEP documents will assist and
supplement the efforts of bay-area organizations
in educating boaters and anglers in preserving
fish habitat throughout the bay (Sarasota Bay
National Estuary Program 1999).
-------
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
In addition to the management actions described above, other specific management actions for
protection offish and wildlife are included in the following table:

Management Actions Indexed by Category
CATEGORY
National Estuary Program Restoration/Creation Education
Management Actions
Albemarle-Pamlico

Barataria-Terrebonne
Charlotte Harbor

Delaware Estuary

Galveston Bay
Long Island Sound
San Francisco Bay

Sarasota Bay

Tampa Bay
Quaker Neck Dam Removal Project *
Rains Mill Dam Removal Project
Reintroduction of the Brown Pelican and Wild Turkey
Punta Gorda Waterfront Juvenile Fisheries Habitat
Cooper River Fishway Project
Artificial Reef Program
Stoney Run-Fox Point Restoration and Osprey
Recovery Project*
Delaware Shorebird Ambassadors Project *
Bird Island Great Blue Heron Artificial Nesting Platforms
Long Island Sound Hypoxia Management
San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Clapper Rail Captive Breeding Program
Artificial Reef Development Project *
Angler Education Program *
Seagrass Habitat Restoration through Water Quality
Improvements
Management actions marked with an * (asterisk) are described in the Management Actions section.
Fisli & Wildlife
f H - 7
-------
FINANCING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

To complete the numerous management actions
i:hat each NEP develops, the NEP must secure
"unding. All NEPs are started with base funding
provided by EPA for at least three years, but
additional funding is always necessary. Addi-
i ional funding often comes from various govern-
ment and private sources, which normally assist
with the implementation of the specific action
.terns and programs. Examples of supplemental
funding sources that have been available to
>ome NEPs include Federal government agen-
cies, state government agencies, and donations.

The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds NEP, for ex-
ample, received $307,000 from EPA's annual
wetlands grant to assist with specific projects
within the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage area.
Another example of a NEP successfully imple-
menting management actions using grant funds
is found in the Mobile Bay Estuary Program.
This Tier-V estuary program has received
$150,000 in Federal grants to study various
issues of concern to the estuary, including
atmospheric deposition and oyster-bed restora-
tion. Some Federal agencies, such as the
USFWS, have developed grants specifically to
encourage private or local governmental groups
to help restore fish and wildlife habitat and
populations. Examples of this type of assistance
include the USFWS Wildlife Conservation and
Appreciation Fund and the Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration.

The last funding source for some NEPs is
penalty money. This is generally money
received from a court settlement in which a
company has been found guilty and is required
to pay a penalty. For several NEPs, funds have
been specifically mandated by the court or state
agencies to assist them in implementing their
action items. Penalty monies vary in amount,
but the funds are always welcome and helpful.
FW-8
Fish & WiUilife
-------
Examples of funds obtained from penalties and
fines include (1) $4 million received by The Bay
Foundation of Morro Bay from Pacific Gas and
Electric, and (2) $40,000 received by the
Delaware Estuary Program from the Exxon
Valdez settlement. The latter funds were used
for upland habitat restoration and a "backyard
habitat enhancement" program for the public.
However, until the monies are actually man-
dated by the courts, penalties and fines are not
reliable sources of funding but, when they are
received, they are extremely helpful to imple-
mentation of the program.

MONITORING/RESEARCH
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

An excellent example of monitoring is the
Regional Monitoring Program conducted for
the San Francisco Estuary Project by one of its
implementation entities — the San Francisco
Estuary Institute. The institute is the lead
organization for carrying out the San Francisco
Estuary Project's CCMP research and monitor-
ing actions for the San Francisco Estuary. The
Institute has developed a Regional Monitoring
Program (RMP) for Trace Substances, which
includes 68 agencies and organizations that
work in partnership to address toxic contami-
nant issues. This program collects samples at
24 stations 3 times a year for (1) water quality
and chemistry; (2) aquatic bioassays; (3) sedi-
ment quality and chemistry; (4) sediment bioas-
says; and (5) transplanted, bagged bivalve
bioaccumulation, survival, and condition stud-
ies. The RMP is funded by local industry and
government at a cost of $3 million per year, and
provides a forum for dischargers and regulators
to discuss solutions to toxic contamination
problems. The RMP supports several inter-
agency public/private coordinating committees
that focus on specific areas of toxic contamina-
tion, including: (1) pesticide toxicity in urban
and agricultural runoff; (2) contaminants in
San Francisco Bay fish; (3) air deposition of
mercury, copper, and nickel; and (4) improving
regulatory decisions on the basis of RMP
results.
Fish & WiMlitt
-------
-------
S-EPA
INTRODUCED
INTRODUCED SPECIES

Introduced species have been defined as "organ-
isms that have been transported from one place
to another, and survived and multiplied in the
wild of their new location" (Gulf of Mexico
Program 1998). These organisms include both
plant and animal species, which have been
transplanted by accident, intent, or by nature.
In many cases, introduced species are spread
through human introduction, such as animals
imported for pets or plants imported for orna-
mental use, or they can be incidental passengers
on ships entering U.S. ports. Examples of
introduced species include the nutria, a South
American rodent (Myocastor coypus) and
kudzu, a Japanese vine (Pueraria lobatd).
In most cases, introduced species cause some
damage to the ecosystem, although the extent
of damage varies with the region and type of
species introduced. Introduced species have
been known, in some cases, to displace native
species and cause damage to local habitat.
Introduced species can multiply rapidly because
they have no natural predators or little competi-
tion from other species to control their growth.
With an increasing number of foreign ships
arriving in U.S. ports daily, the potential
for introduction of new species is constantly
increasing. Several Federal agencies, including
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, are currently working to
develop transport methods and inspection
techniques that safeguard against introduction
of foreign species. Other programs, including
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) National Estuary Program (NEP), are
working to combat species that have already
been introduced.

According to a survey of NEP directors, con-
ducted in the fall of 1999, the San Francisco
Estuary Project is the only NEP that considers
introduced species a high-priority action item.
Several other estuary programs list introduced
species as a concern, but not as a top priority.
This section provides an overview of the
characterization/assessment, priority planning,
management actions, financing, and monitoring/
research being conducted by the NEPs to
address the issue of introduced species.

CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
The determination of whether introduced
species are a concern for a NEP site can nor-
mally be made during an assessment of habitat
degradation or an assessment of fish and wild-
life populations. Introduced species that have
become a problem normally invade a habitat
such that the native species populations are
adversely affected. During standard assess-
ments of habitat degradation or fish and wildlife
populations, the presence of introduced species
/s-/
-------
can usually be detected. The difficult part of
assessing the presence of an introduced species
:.s in determining whether the plant or animal is
iruly introduced, rather than a native species that
lias grown out of control due to changes in the
ecosystem. There are examples of plants and
iinimals, which have been labeled as "introduced
species," that have actually been resident in an
ecosystem for many years. However, if the
results of the characterization/assessment
: ndicate that an introduced species has become
;i problem, the NEP will develop appropriate
actions to help address the problem. Before
management actions are developed, these steps
;ire prioritized, based on various factors, which
ire discussed in the following section.
PRIORITY PLANNING
'The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

For most estuaries, issues must be prioritized
because funds to address them are usually
limited. Priorities are often determined at the
beginning of the program through a priority
planning process, which differs among NEPs,
depending on their partnerships and available
funding. The San Francisco Estuary Project, for
example, divides the various program areas
among NEP staff and small working committees
to develop priority actions. The small working
committees normally include technical advisors
and program stakeholders. Once the priority
actions are determined, the issues are brought
to the management committee for final
prioritization. Then, about every three years
(since 1993), the San Francisco Estuary Project
invites the public to a one-day meeting to
evaluate the plan currently being implemented
and to review the results obtained over the last
three years. In support of this public meeting,
the San Francisco Estuary Project distributes
performance information — including the
Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card (San
Francisco Estuary Project 1999) — to educate
the public on progress made as a result of
program activities. After a review of the results,
the public is invited to help direct future pro-
gram actions by commenting on priority items,
which could remain the same, be re-prioritized
or, in some cases, be removed.

The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
approached priority planning by conducting a
consensus session, where 54 critical areas
within the estuary were ranked according to
importance by a diverse group, which included
fanners, educators, elected officials, and
citizens. Everyone was given the opportunity
to select 5 to 10 issues as high-priority items.
The issues in this group were then narrowed
down to the final priorities.

A unique approach to priority planning is
illustrated by the Lower Columbia River Estuary
Program, which used a formal comparative risk
assessment approach. Through newspaper
surveys and public meetings, the public was
targeted as one group. Then, through a series
of focused workshops, various groups of stake-
holders were targeted as a second group. Tech-
nical experts comprised a third group. Risk
rankings from the three groups were then com-
pared and problem-area priorities were devel-
oped. It is interesting and important to note that
IS-2
Introduced Species,
-------
PRIORITY PLANNING
APPROACHES
Technical Expertise

• Technical advisors determine the technical
issues and the priority in which they will
be addressed. The Citizens Advisory
Committee works only on public
education and outreach issues.

• Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will be addressed.

• Technical advisors and representatives of
the general public meet to decide on the
technical issues and on the priority in
which they will be addressed.

" The general public presents its opinion
on the issues and the technical advisors or
members of the management committee
determine the priority in which they will
be addressed.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The key to managing
introduced species is to prevent their introduc-
tion and distribution. National awareness and
effort are needed to prevent new species from
being introduced. A similar national effort is
needed to prevent the spread and distribution of
species that have already been introduced. The
NEP management actions for introduced species
fall into four focus areas that the nation, as a
whole, needs to address: (1) regulation, (2)
prevention, (3) management, and (4) education.
Management actions from each of these areas
are presented below.
Regulation
In February 1999, President Clinton issued an
executive order on invasive species to Federal
agencies to strengthen controls against the
introduction of new species into the United
States. He requested that regulations and
controls be implemented to manage this prob-
lem by mid-year 2000. Several NEPs are now
working with government task forces to address
. lutrodii- < tt
IS-i
-------
tie issue of introduced species through the
cevelopment of Federal and state regulations.
The San Francisco Estuary Project has employ-
ees and task-force stakeholders addressing the
i >sue of introduced species on the west coast.
Other programs, such as the Barataria-
Terrebonne National Estuary Program, have
Gulf of Mexico Program stakeholders, who are
v/orking on this issue on a regional scale. Some
TJEPs have been successful in developing local
regulations for the discharge of ballast water.
Beginning as early as the year 2000, but before
2003, the Port of Oakland will mandate ocean
exchange of ballast water as a condition for
clocking (San Francisco Estuary Project 1999).
Prevention
In the past, some new species have been deliber-
ately introduced to an area. Intentional intro-
duction of new species can occur on a small
scale (e.g., a homeowner transplants vegetation
originating in a different area of the United
States) or on a larger scale (e.g., a state agency
introduces a new species to control an existing
pest species). Whether the introduction of a
new species is carried out on a small scale or
on a larger one, once the new species begins to
spread out of control, this introduced species
then often becomes a problem. Prevention of
intentionally introduced species can be a diffi-
cult task, but one that must be attempted.
Effective January 1,2000, AB 703, the State of
California's multi-agency Ballast Water Man-
igement and Control Program, became effec-
tive. This legislation on ballast water manage-
ment may be the most stringent in the country.
It specifies mandatory mid-ocean ballast water
exchange or retention of ballast water on board
the ship. The law also mandates maintenance of
a ballast water management plan, submission of
a ballast water report form to the USCG, and
submission to random sampling of the vessel
for compliance checks (California State Lands
Commission 2000).
PREVENTING INTRODUCTION OF NEW
AQUATIC SPECIES TO CALIFORNIA
San Francisco Estuary Project
The State of Califor-
nia has implemented
legislation to prevent
the introduction of
aquatic plant and fish
species. This legisla-
tion prohibits import
of fish, amphibians,
or detrimental aquatic
plants into the state
without prior approval. In addition, it is illegal,
without prior inspection and approval, to intro-
duce live fish, fresh- or salt-water animals, or
aquatic plants into waters within the jurisdiction
of the State of California. This state legislation
attempts to prevent the intentional introduction
of new species into the aquatic ecosystems of
California.
PREVENTING INTRODUC-
TION OF NEW AQUATIC
SPECIES TO CALIFORNIA
San Francisco Estuary
Project
Web: http://sfep.abag.ca.gov
Problem: Non-indigenous
species are being introduced
into the California ecosystem.
Solution: Legislation prohibit-
ing the introduction of fish,
amphibia, or aquatic plants
without prior approval.
IS-4
Introduced Species.
-------
Management
Once introduced species have been released into
an ecosystem and become a dominant compo-
nent of the population, native species will be
affected and the entire balance of the ecosystem
will change. Controls will be necessary, and the
specific type of controls will depend on the
introduced species as well as on other factors.
Animal species, such as the nutria (Myocastor
coypus) in Louisiana, can be controlled through
hunting or trapping, and plant species, such as
the kudzu vine (Pueraria lobata), may be
controlled by herbicides or manual removal.
\LTRIA HARVEST AMD WETLAM)
DEMO\ST&4TIO\ PROJECT
Barataria- Terrebonne
National Estuary Program
NUTRIA HARVEST AND
WETLAND DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
Barataria- Terrebonne
National Estuary Program
Web: http://www.btnep.org
Problem: Destruction of marsri
areas due to overpopulation of
nutria in Louisiana wetlands.
Solution: Develop a national
and international market for
nutria meal
According to studies
funded by the
Barataria-Terrebonne
National Estuary
Program, the nutria, a
voracious herbivore,
has been responsible
for the destruction of
more than 80,000
acres in the Barataria-Terrebonne estuaries of
Louisiana. This rodent was originally imported
from South America to be evaluated as a fur-
bearer. The nutria, which impact the estuaries
along the Gulf of Mexico today, are descendants
of the original introduced exotic species. Natu-
ral predators, such as the American alligator,
were unable to control the nutria populations
and recent changes in national attitudes towards
the fur industry have reduced nutria-trapping
activities. To control the number of nutria in the
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary, it was
determined that the most efficient method of
control was trapping and that other markets for
the animal needed to be developed. In 1997,
under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protec-
tion, and Restoration Act, $2 million was bud-
geted over four years to conduct the Nutria
Harvest and Wetland Demonstration Project.
This project is developing a national and inter-
national market for nutria meat for human
consumption. In addition to market develop-
ment, the project funds are being used to pay
trappers for each nutria delivered to a licensed
processor and to pay the processors for every
pound of nutria meat sold. At the end of the
four-year demonstration project, it is expected
that the nutria meat markets will be self-sustain-
ing. This project should help to maintain the
nutria populations at a non-destructive level
(Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary
Program 1998).
Education
The most important factor in preventing new
species from being introduced into an ecosystem
is public education on the problems and issues.
This can be accomplished through workshops,
distribution of fact sheets, educational programs
in schools, and other types of programs devel-
oped and organized by NEP volunteer groups.
Educating the public about introduced species
and their potential harm to the environment
will help to minimize this problem.
IS-S
-------
INTRODUCED SPECIES WORKSHOPS
San Francisco Estuary Project
INTRODUCED SPECIES
WORKSHOPS
San Francisco Estuary
Project
Web: http:.'/sfep.abag.ca.gov
Problem: Intentional introduc-
tion of non-naiive species.
Solution: Educational
workshops, public-private teams
to assist with sipecies control,
and newslette-s and articles
that focus public attention on
the problem.
The San Francisco
Estuary Project is
working with the Sea
Grant Program to
develop and conduct
workshops that bring
together people from
industry, government,
and research to
discuss the problem
of introduced species and to examine
approaches that can keep introduced species
in check. The NEP has also assisted EPA in
developing a public-private team to develop
strategies for prevention and control of the giant
cane plant (Arundo donox). The San Francisco
Bay NEP newsletter, Estuary, has already
included several articles on introduced species
and management initiatives to control invasions.
For some of its educational programs, developed
specifically for teachers and classrooms, the San
Francisco Estuary Project has included issues
about introduced species in San Francisco Bay
(San Francisco Estuary Project 1999).
"BEAUTIFUL BUT BAD"
PUBLIC EDUCATION BROCHURE
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
"BEAUTIFUL BUT BAD-
PUBLIC EDUCATION
BROCHURE
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
Web: http://www.tbep.org
Problem: Uncontrolled
spreading of Brazilian pepper
plants.
Solution: Develop brochure.
entitled "Beautiful But Bad," to
provide identification and
eradication information for
shoreline homeowners.
The Tampa Bay
Estuary Program
provided seed money
to a local homeowners
association to develop
a brochure on the
Brazilian pepper.
Entitled "Beautiful
but Bad," this educa-
tional leaflet was then
distributed to citizens with shoreline homes. It
has been one of the NEP's most popular public
outreach tools, and provides homeowners with
information about how to identify and eradicate
this species and where to obtain help. Addition-
ally, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program's habitat
restoration master plan includes efforts to
eradicate and manage exotic species on public
lands, a key issue all along the Florida coastline.
1S-6
. Introduced Species.
-------
FINANCING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds NEP, for
example, received $307,000 from EPA's annual
wetlands grant to assist with specific projects
within the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage area.
Some Federal agencies, such as the USFWS,
have developed grants specifically to encourage
private or local governmental groups to help
restore fish and wildlife habitat and populations.
Examples of this type of assistance include the
USFWS Wildlife Conservation and Apprecia-
tion Fund and the Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration.

In some cases, legislation is passed to provide
an estuary program with limited funding.
One example of legislative funding is in the
Barataria-Terrebonne NEP, which has been
partially funded by the Coastal Wetland Plan-
ning and Restoration Act (CWPRA). The
CWPRA collected $40 M in Federal and state
money to conduct several restoration projects
identified in the Barataria-Terrebonne CCMP.

In addition to Federal and state funds, some
NEPs receive on donations. Most NEPs receive
some cash donations from communities and
businesses, as well as donations of real estate
from land trusts and estates. Many NEPs have
increased donations by establishing a non-profit
organization to allow the donations to be tax
deductible. Another way that NEPs collect
funds is through the sale of a special state
license plate. The specially designed license
plate costs the operator more than the standard
plate, but the excess funds are provided to the
program. Community and business donations
and money from the sale of license plates should
be viewed as surplus funds.
IS- 7
-------
The last funding source for some NEPs is
penalty money. This is generally money
received from a court settlement in which a
company has been found guilty and is required
to pay a penalty. For several NEPs, funds have
been specifically mandated by the court or state
agencies to assist them in implementing their
a:tion items. Penalty monies vary in amount,
but the funds are always welcome and helpful.
Examples of funds obtained from penalties and
fines include (1) $4 million received by The
Bay Foundation of Morro Bay from Pacific Gas
aid Electric, and (2) $40,000 received by the
Etelaware Estuary Program from the Exxon
\aldez settlement. The latter funds were used
for upland habitat restoration and a '"backyard
habitat enhancement" program for the public.
However, until the monies are actually man-
dated by the courts, penalties and fines are not
reliable sources of funding but, when they are
received, they are extremely helpful to imple-
mentation of the program.

MONITORING/RESEARCH
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

An excellent example of monitoring is the
Regional Monitoring Program conducted for
tie San Francisco Estuary Project by one of its
i nplementation entities — the San P7rancisco
Estuary Institute. The institute is the lead
organization for carrying out the San Francisco
Estuary Project's CCMP research arid monitor-
iig actions for the San Francisco Estuary. The
Institute has developed a Regional Monitoring
Program (RMP) for Trace Substances, which
includes 68 agencies and organizations that
work in partnership to address toxic contami-
rant issues. This program collects samples at
24 stations 3 times a year for (1) water quality
and chemistry; (2) aquatic bioassays; (3) sedi-
ment quality and chemistry; (4) sediment
bioassays; and (5) transplanted, bagged bivalve
bioaccumulation, survival, and condition stud-
ies. The RMP is funded by local industry and
government at a cost of $3 million per year, and
provides a forum for dischargers and regulators
to discuss solutions to toxic contamination
problems. The RMP supports several inter-
agency public/private coordinating committees
that focus on specific areas of toxic contamina-
tion, including: (1) pesticide toxicity in urban
and agricultural runoff; (2) contaminants in
San Francisco Bay fish; (3) air deposition of
mercury, copper, and nickel; and (4) improving
regulatory decisions on the basis of RMP
results.
IS-8
Introduced Species,
-------
TOXICS
TOXIC CONTAMINATION
Toxic contaminants are natural or synthetic
compounds that can cause adverse impacts on
the estuarine ecosystem or directly on man.
Within the estuary, toxic contaminants occur in
the water, sediments, and within the tissues of
plants and animals. Toxic compounds can be
either inorganic (e.g.. metals) or organic (e.g..
hydrocarbons) in nature. These compounds may
occur in available or reactive forms in the water
column or as less available forms chemically
bound in the sediments, where they may eventu-
ally change form, react, become ingested, or be
released slowly over time.
Both point and nonpoint sources contribute
toxic materials to an estuarine ecosystem.
Point sources commonly include facilities that
discharge municipal and industrial wastes.
Chemical spills also act as point sources of
contamination. Nonpoint sources are highly
variable and more difficult to define. However,
the most common nonpoint source of contami-
nation is stormwater runoff from urban, residen-
tial, industrial, and agricultural land areas, and
from marinas and piers along the shoreline.
Parking lots and streets contribute various types
of metallic and organic pollutants. In residential
areas, chemicals and pesticides used in and
around the home find their way into groundwa-
ter and storm runoff. Industrial sites are sources
for a wide range of chemicals that are carried
away by rainwater runoff. Farms and agricul-
tural lands contribute pesticides and herbicides
to the runoff stream. Along the shore, oil and
grease, heavy metals, and petroleum hydrocar-
bons from marina activities can easily be
washed into the estuary. A variety of metal
and organic pollutants — such as mercury and
nitrogen compounds, polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons, and "acid rain" — also enter the
estuary from atmospheric deposition. Toxic
contaminants that have been tied up in the
sediments can be resuspended. released, and
available for incorporation into the food chain
through disturbances such as marine construc-
tion or dredging operations.
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the following
9 of the 28 NEPs consider toxic
contamination a high-priority action item:

Albemarie-Pamlico (NC)
Casco Bay (ME)
Corpus Christi Bay (TX)
Delaware Estuary (DE)
New York - New Jersey Harbor (NY. NJ)
Peconic Bay (NY)
Puget Sound (WA)
San Francisco Estuary (CA)
Santa Monica Bay (CA)
, Toxic Conniiuincttioa
"C-l
-------
Toxic contamination of estuaries is one of the
nation's most important environmental con-
cerns. Various government agencies and
programs, including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National Estuary
Program (NEP), are addressing this concern.
Currently, throughout the coastal United States,
there are 28 estuaries in the NEP, all with
similar environmental concerns. This section
provides an overview of the characterization/
assessment, priority planning, management
actions, financing, and monitoring/research
being conducted by the NEPs to address the
issue of toxic contamination.

CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
To determine if toxic contamination is a
problem at a NEP site, the amount and type of
contamination must first be characterized and
assessed. The first step in this process is to
measure the concentrations of suspected toxic
compounds in water, sediment, and tissue
samples collected from various locations
throughout the estuary. The concentrations of
toxic chemicals found in the samples are com-
pared to Federal and state guidelines for allow-
able concentrations of individual compounds.
If the concentrations found in the samples are
higher than the permitted concentrations, then
toxic contamination is most likely an issue for
the estuary.

Because the NEP generally does not become
directly involved in the cleanup of toxic con-
tamination, one way that the program can assist
is through development and implementation of
education programs for the public and industry.
Another way that the NEP can become involved
in this issue is by helping to develop cooperative
agreements with various dischargers to lower
the concentrations of contaminants in the dis-
charge. Whatever actions the NEP determines
to be appropriate, they are prioritized on the
basis of various factors, which are discussed in
the section below.
PRIORITY PLANNING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

For most estuaries, issues must be prioritized
because funds to address them are usually
limited. Priorities are often determined at the
beginning of the program through a priority
planning process, which differs among NEPs,
depending on their partnerships and available
funding. The San Francisco Estuary Project, for
example, divides the various program areas
among NEP staff and small working committees
to develop priority actions. The small working
committees normally include technical advisors
and program stakeholders. Once the priority
actions are determined, the issues are brought to
the management committee for final
prioritization. Then, about every three years
(since 1993), the San Francisco Estuary Project
invites the public to a one-day meeting to
evaluate the plan currently being implemented
and to review the results obtained over the last
three years. In support of this public meeting,
the San Francisco Estuary Project distributes
performance information — including the
Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card (San
Francisco Estuary Project 1999) — to educate
the public on the progress made as a result of
program activities. After a review of the results,
the public is invited to help direct future pro-
gram actions by commenting on priority items,
which could remain the same, be re-prioritized
or, in some cases, be removed.

• Based on available research, technical
advisors make recommendations on issues.
public opinion is considered, and regula-
tion structures are designed to address the
gaps. The priority in which the issues are
addressed is determined by the time frame
by which the regulations are enacted and
when the funds are made available to the
responsible parties.

" Technical advisors determine the technical
issues and the priority in which they will
be addressed. The Citizens Advisory
Committee works only on public
education and outreach issues.

" Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will be addressed.

• Technical advisors and representatives of
the general public meet to decide on the
technical issues and on the priority in
which they will be addressed.

• The general public presents its opinion
on the issues and the technical advisors or
members of the management committee
determine the priority in which they will
be addressed.

The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays
approached priority planning by conducting a
consensus session, where 54 critical areas
within the estuary were ranked according to
importance by a diverse group, which included
farmers, educators, elected officials, and citi-
zens. Everyone was given the opportunity to
select 5 to 10 issues as high-priority items.
The issues in this group were then narrowed
down to the final priorities.

DEVELOPMENT OF "STOP THROWING OUT
POLLUTANTS" (STOP) PROGRAM
Peconic Estuary Program
BOATER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Casco Bay Estuary Project
DEVELOPMENT OF "STOP"
PROGRAM
Peconic Estuary Program
Web: http^/Kvww .co.suffolk.ny.
us/health/pep
Problem: Improper disposal of
toxic household chemicals and
wastes.
Solution: Develop a program
for towns to regularly collect
household hazardous wastes
for proper disposal, and provide
public education on proper
handling of lazardous '
chemicals and suggestions
to decrease their use.
The Peconic Estuary
Program has devel-
oped "Stop Throwing
Out Pollutants"
(STOP), a program
to educate the public
on methods for the
proper disposal of
toxic chemicals.
To protect drinking
water, groundwater,
and the surrounding
environment, each town within the Peconic
Estuary organizes the STOP program. Under
the STOP program, towns regularly collect
household hazardous wastes — such as anti-
freeze, drain cleaners, and pesticides — to
ensure that they are properly disposed of.
The STOP program also distributes educational
information that (1) describes approaches for
eliminating or decreasing the use of toxic
chemicals (e.g., landscaping with plants that
do not require chemicals fertilizers) and (2)
methods to safely store chemicals (Peconic
Estuary Program 1999; Town of Hempstead
1999; Suffolk County Water Authority 1999).
BOATER EDUCATION
PROGRAM
Casco Bay Estuary Project
Web: http://www .muskie.
usm.mame.edu/cascobay
Problem: Boaters are not
informed of sensitive habitat
areas and not knowledgeable
about disposal of toxic boat
products.
Solution: Develop a nautical
chart of Casco Bay that
identifies sensitive areas and
includes useful information on
the proper disposal of toxic
boat products.
The Casco Bay
Estuary Project has
identified recreational
boating as an impor-
tant source of toxic
pollution in sensitive
habitat areas. To help
educate boaters on
the proper disposal of
toxic chemicals, the
Casco Bay Estuary
Project, the Friends
of Casco Bay, and the Wharf & Marina Opera-
tors Association have developed "A Guide to
Boating Services & Environmental Information
in Casco Bay." A nautical chart has been de-
signed to educate boaters on low-impact prac-
tices, non-toxic boat products, and the need to
protect sensitive harbors and habitat. The chart
illustrates Casco Bay on one side and presents a
myriad of boating information on the back. The
Casco Bay Estuary Project spent approximately
$10.000 to develop the chart, which was distrib-
uted to boaters during the summer of 1998. To
ensure that new boaters are informed and that
veteran boaters are reminded of these practices,
the Casco Bay Estuary Project has reserved
$3,000 to distribute additional materials and
restock any materials during the year 2000
(Casco Bay Estuary Project 1998).
TC--
Toxic Contamination
-------
SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION SAFETY
PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
PROTECTION
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Galveston Bay is
the state's largest
estuarine source of
seafood and is one
SEAFOOD CONSUMPTION
SAFETY PROGRAM FOR
PUBLIC HEALTH
PROTECTION
Galveston Bay Estuary
r , . Program
OF the major oyster- web: nttp: •gbep.tamug.
producing areas in tamu.edu
Problem: Potentially contami-
the country. Due to nated seafood poses health
toxic contamination, risks to consumers.
Solution: Develop a program
SeatOOd trom Some for routine monitoring ot toxic
areas of Galveston contaminants in fish and
... shellfish, and notify the puDiic
Bay may potentially Of associated risks.
pose a public health
risk because fish and shellfish are not routinely
sampled or assessed for toxic chemicals. The
Galveston Bay Estuary Program, in cooperation
with the Texas Department of Health, has
initiated a seafood monitoring program to
assess the current risk of consuming seafood
contaminated by toxic substances. The goals
of the program are to characterize and monitor
potential health risks to consumers of seafood
and to educate the public on the identified risks
(Galveston Bay Estuary Program 1999d). As a
result of this program, some areas of the bay
have been declared an advisory area for dioxin.
FLORIDA YARDS & NEIGHBORHOODS
PROGRAM
Sarasola Bay National Estuary Program

Modeling studies of FLORIDA YARDS & NEIGH-
Sarasota Bay indicate BORHOODS PROGRAM
. . T. Sarasota Bay National
that Significant Estuary Program
quantities of nutrients Web: httP: peiican.gmpo.gov
, . . gulfofmex estuarypartner
and pesticides enter Sarasota'SarasotaBay.mml
the estuary from Problem: Runoff from residen-
. . . . tial ano commercial areas
residential and transports nutrients and
commercial areas. pesticides to Sarasota Bay.
„ . . Solution: Promotion of
lO increase native landscaping with native plants
habitat, conserve to reciuce use of fertilizers and
, . pesticides, to conserve water.
potable water, and ar,d to create more ha&tat.
decrease the concen-
trations of toxic chemicals in stormwater runoff
that eventually enters Sarasota Bay, the Sarasota
Bay NEP is implementing the Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods Program as part of its public
outreach program. The Florida Yards & Neigh-
borhoods Program is a basin wide campaign to
improve residential landscape design and main-
tenance. The program promotes environmen-
tally sound landscaping with native plants that
require less water, fertilizers, and pesticides
(Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 1999).
Prevention

DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Delaware Estuary Program
DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAIL Y LOADS AND
WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Delaware Estuary Program
Web: http://www .delep.org
Problem: Contamination of the
estuary with toxic compounds
from point and nonpoint
sources.
Solution: Development of
more stringent water quality
criteria and wasteload alloca-
tions for point sources.
The Delaware
Estuary Program is
helping to reduce the
amount of toxic
contaminants dis-
charged into the
Delaware Estuary
through the develop-
ment of more strin-
gent and uniform
water quality criteria. The criteria, developed
by the Toxics Advisory Committee, in partner-
ship with the states of Delaware. New Jersey,
and Pennsylvania, are being used by the Dela-
ware Estuary Program to develop wasteload
allocations for point-source discharges (NPDES
permits) throughout the Delaware Estuary.
Additional studies of nonpoint sources are also
being conducted to develop load allocations and
total maximum daily loads for the entire
Delaware Estuary. As the more stringent water
quality criteria are adopted, toxic contamination
within the
Delaware Estuary
will decrease
(Delaware Estuary
Program 1999).
, Toxic Contamination
jrc-s
-------
REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
San Francisco Estuary Project
REGIONAL MONITORING
PROGRAM
San Francisca Estuary
Project
Web: http://sfep.abag.ca.gov
Problem: Tox.c contamination
from point sources throughout
the estuary.
Solution: Committees of
dischargers and regulators to
discuss indivicual problems
and develop solutions.
The San Francisco
Estuary Project has
developed a Regional
Monitoring Program,
which includes 68
agencies and organi-
zations that work in
partnership to address
issues of toxic
contamination. The
program provides a forum for dischargers and
regulators to discuss solutions to toxic contami-
nation problems. The Regional Monitoring
Program, which has a $3 million annual budget.
is financed by dischargers in the San Francisco
area. The monitoring program supports several
interagency public/private coordinating commit-
tees and partnerships that focus on specific areas
of toxic contamination, including pesticides in
urban runoff, selenium in discharges from the
oil industry, and copper pollution from automo-
bile brake pads (EPA 1999a).
HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION
PROGR.AM
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
The Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program
developed the Haz-
ardous Waste Reduc-
tion Program to
decrease the input of
toxic chemicals to
Narragansett Bay.
The program helps
businesses reduce
their use of toxic and hazardous materials, and
to dispose of these materials properly. Set up as
a partnership with the Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management and the Univer-
sity of Rhode Island, the Hazardous Waste
Reduction Program provides technical assis-
tance for pollution prevention, and has devel-
oped a system for conducting onsite hazardous
HAZARDOUS WASTE
REDUCTION PROGRAM
Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program
Web: http://home.earthlink.net/
- narrabay/nbep. html
Problem: Tox:c contamination
from small business and
industry.
Solution: Development of
technical assistance program
for local business and industry.
waste assessments for local businesses and
industries. The program has established a waste
information "hotline," and provides technical
information on source reduction, recycling, and
chemical substitution-disposal alternatives.
The Hazardous Waste Reduction Program
proved to be so successful that it has become a
state-funded, broad-based industrial pollution-
prevention program. In addition to commercial
assistance, the Hazardous Waste Reduction
Program is now also focusing on household
toxic and hazardous waste reduction. To pre-
vent illegal disposal, the program has opened a
household hazardous waste collection and
treatment facility in Providence for household
toxic wastes (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
1999; EPA 1999b).
POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Water and sediments
in Galveston Bay
have been contami-
nated with certain
toxic chemicals.
One way that the
Galveston Bay
Estuary Program is
addressing this
problem is through
the development of a
program to provide
small business with technical assistance for
waste minimization and pollution prevention.
The objective of the program, being adminis-
tered by the Galveston County Health District,
POLLUTION PREVENTION
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO
SMALL BUSINESSES
Galveston Bay Estuary
Program
Web: tittp://gbep.tamug.
tamu.edu
Problem: Toxic contamination
from small businesses and
industries.
Solution: Develop and
implement a technica.
assistance program for waste
minimization and best manage-
ment practices designed for
small business.
rc-<
T(>.\ic
-------
is to reduce loadings of pollutants to Dickinson
Bayou by implementation of waste minimiza-
tion strategies and best management practices
designed for small business. The activities of
this program are being carried out jointly by the
Small Business Technical Assistance and the
Pollution Prevention and Recycling Divisions of
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission. Elements of the program include
{1) watershed survey to define problem areas
and potential targets for the pollution prevention
program, (2) workshop focused on introducing
small businesses to the program, (3) site visits
and audits of facilities to identify specific
problem areas, (4) development of materials for
technical assistance in implementing corrective
actions, and (5) organization of a recognition
event for small business participants (Galveston
Bay Estuary Program 1999e).
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS
In addition to the management actions described above, other specific management actions for toxic
contamination are included in the following table:

Management Actions Indexed by Category
CATEGORY
National
Estuary Program Education Prevention
Casco Bay • •
•
Delaware Estuary
Galveston Bay •
• •
Long Island Sound •
•
Narragansett Bay • •
•
Peconic Estuary • «
San Francisco Bay •
Sarasota Bay • •
Management Actions
Boater Education Program *
Pollution Prevention Audits for Businesses and
Industries
Total Maximum Daily Loads and Wasteload
Allocations *
Seafood Consumption Safety Program for Public
Health Protection *
Pollution Prevention Technical Assistance to Small
Businesses *
Dredged Material Management
NPDES Permitting
Hazardous Waste Reduction Program *
NPDES Permitting
"Stop Throwing Out Pollutants" (STOP) Program*
Regional Monitoring Program *
Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program *
Management actions marked with a * (asterisk) are described in the Management Actions section.
. Toxic Contamination
"C-7
-------
FINANCING
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

Each individual NEP was established as a
partnership between EPA and a state or local
government body to work together to identify
and address the environmental issues affecting
the estuary. Along with EPA funds, the local
sponsoring partner also provides financial
resources to administer the estuary program
and to implement the management actions.
In several cases, the states supply this funding
through the involvement of various state agen-
cies (such as Department of Environmental
Protection, Department of Human Health, and
water management districts), which are man-
dated to assist the NEPs with implementing
their action plans. The Tampa Bay Estuary
Program, for example, has 15 agencies, each of
which has identified and agreed to implement
projects that meet overall NEP goals. In another
example, a local government commission
provided the Peconic Estuary Program with $50
million for mitigating open-space stormwater-
runoff programs.

The last funding source for some NEPs is
penalty money. This is generally money
received from a court settlement in which a
company has been found guilty and is required
TC-i
, Toxic Contamination
-------
to pay a penalty. For several NEPs, funds have
been specifically mandated by the court or state
agencies to assist them in implementing their
action items. Penalty monies vary in amount,
but the funds are always welcome and helpful.
Examples of funds obtained from penalties and
fines include (1) $4 million received by The
Bay Foundation of Morro Bay from Pacific Gas
and Electric, and (2) S40.000 received by the
Delaware Estuary Program from the Exxon
Valdez settlement. The latter funds were used
for upland habitat restoration and a "backyard
habitat enhancement" program for the public.
However, until the monies are actually man-
dated by the courts, penalties and fines are not
reliable sources of funding but, when they are
received, they are extremely helpful to imple-
mentation of the program.
and chemistry; (2) aquatic bioassays; (3) sedi-
ment quality and chemistry: (4) sediment bioas-
says; and (5) transplanted, bagged bivalve
bioaccumulation, survival, and condition stud-
ies. The RMP is funded by local industry and
government at a cost of S3 million per year, and
provides a forum for dischargers and regulators
to discuss solutions to toxic contamination
problems. The RMP supports several inter-
agency public/private coordinating committees
that focus on specific areas of toxic contamina-
tion, including: (1) pesticide toxicity in urban
and agricultural runoff; (2) contaminants in
San Francisco Bay fish; (3) air deposition of
mercury, copper, and nickel; and (4) improving
regulatory decisions on the basis of RMP
results.
MONITORING/RESEARCH
(The information included in this section is
preliminary. Additional information will be
added at a later date.)

Barataria-Terreborine National Estuary Program.
1998. Biennial Review Report: A Report on the
Implementation Progress to the Environmental
Protection Agency. July 1,1996 to June 30,1998.
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program.
Thibodaux, LA.

Buzzards Bay Project. 1999. Spragues Cove
Constructed Wetland System. Accessed through
the Buzzards Bay Project Website: http://
www.buzzardsbay.org/sprafact.htm

Cabelli, V.J. 1983 Health Effects Criteria for Marine
Recreational Waters. EPA Publication EPA 600/1-
80-031. August 1983.

California State Lands Commission. 2000. Ballast
Water Management and Control Program. Ac-
cessed through the California State Lands Commis-
sion Website: http://www.slc.ca.gov/BalfastWater/
default.asp

Casco Bay Estuary Project. 1998. Casco Bay
Estuary Project Biennial Review. October 5,1998.
Casco Bay Estuary Project. University of Southern
Maine. Portland, ME.

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 1999.
Punta Gorda Waterfront Juvenile Fisheries Habitat.
Harbor Happenings. Volume 3, Number 2. Summer
1999.

Delaware Estuary Program. 1996. Lake Naomi
Wetland Restoration. Accessed through the
Delaware Estuary Program Website: http://
www.delep.org/compendium/habit010.htm

Delaware Estuary Program. 1997. Biennial Review
of the Delaware Estuary Program. June 1997.
Delaware Estuary Program. Wilmington, DE.

Delaware Estuary Program. 1999. Biennial Review
of the Delaware Estuary Program. May 1999.
Delaware Estuary Program. Witmington, DE.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995.
City Island Habitat Restoration Project. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Fact
Sheet EPA842-F-95-001F. September 1995.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.
Coquina BayWalk at Leffis Key. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. Fact Sheet EPA
842-F-97-002I. June 1997.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998.
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Plan - Priorities
for the Future (Interim Final). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. Report EPA 822-
R-98-003. June 1998.

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
I999a. Toxic Management Approaches. Accessed
through the EPA Website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/
estuaries/about4.htm#toxic

EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1999b. Narragansett Bay Hazardous Waste Reduc-
tion Program. Accessed through the EPA Website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/projects/nb.htm

Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 1999a. Galveston
Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan for the Galveston Bay Ecosystem. Implemen-
tation Progress and Accomplishments of the
Galveston Bay Estuary Program 1997-1999.
Galveston Bay Estuary Program. Galveston, TX.

Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 1999b. Dickinson
Bay Oyster Reef/Wetland Restoration Demonstra-
tion Project. Accessed through the Galveston Bay
Estuary Program Website: http://
gbep.tamug.tamu.edu/projnru.html

Galveston Bay Estuary Program 1999c Clear
Creek Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material Demon-
stration Project. Accessed through the Galveston
Bay Estuary Program Website: http://
gbep.tamug.tamu.edu/projnru.html

Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 1999d Seafood
Consumption Safety Program for Public Health
Protection. Accessed through the Galveston Bay
Estuary Program Website: http://gbep.tamug.tamu.
edu/projwsq.html
Referent e\
K-l
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
Galveston Bay Estuary Program. 1999e. Pollution
Prevention Technical Assistance to Small Business.
Accessed through the Galveston Bay Estuary
Program Website: http://gbep.tamijg.tamu.edu/
p -ojwsq.htm I

Gulf of Mexico Program. 1998. Nonindigenous
Species Fact Sheet. Accessed through the Gulf of
Mexico Program Website: http://www.gmpo.gov

Long Island Sound Study. 1994. Long island
Sound Study: The Comprehensive Conservation
aid Management Plan. Long Island Sound Study.
Stamford, CT.
Island Sound Study. 1997. The Impact of
Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition on Long Island
Sound. Fact Sheet. Long Island Sound Study.
Stamford, CT.

Long Island Sound Study. 1998. Long Island
Sound Study Phase III Actions for Hypoxia
Management. Long Island Sound Study.
Stamford, CT.

Long Island Sound Study. 1999a. Marsh Restora-
tion at Saybrook Point. Long Island Sound Study
Newsletter UPDATE. Fall 1995. Accessed through
the Long Island Sound Study Website: http://
v nww.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis/fall95tx.html

Long Island Sound Study. 1999b. 1998 Tracking
Fieport January - December 1998. Long Island
Sound Study. Stamford, CT.

Massachusetts Bays Program. 1997. Shellfish Bed
Restoration Program. September 1997.
Massachusetts Bays Program. Boston, MA.

Massachusetts Bays Program. 1 999. Wetlands
Health Assessments in Massachusetts. Coastlines.
Issue 9.3. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Manage-
ment. Boston, MA.

Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. 1999. 1999
EJiennial Review, Narragansett Bay Est jary Pro-
gram. May 1999. Narragansett Bay Estuary Pro-
gram. Narragansett, Rl.
NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. 1998a. "Restoring Coastal Habitats" by Tom
Ardito and Darlene Finch. NOAA State of the Coast
Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. Silver Springs, MD. Accessed through the
NOAA Website: http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/
bulletins/htmt/chr_10/national/html

NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. 1998b. "Classified Shellfish Growing
Waters" by C.E. Alexander. NOAA State of the
Coast Report. Silver Springs, MD. Accessed
through the NOAA Website: http://state-of-
coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/html/sgw_04/national.html

NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration. 1999. E. Timbalier Barrier Island to Grow
under $8.88 Million Project. NOAA News Release
99-R116. Accessed through the Louisiana Depart-
ment of Natural Resources Website: http://
www.dnr.state.la.us/SEC/EXECDIV/PUBINFO/
NEWSR/noaa99-r116.ssi

Peconic Estuary Program. 1999. Peconic Estuary
Program Draft Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan. September 1999. Peconic
Estuary Program. Riverhead, NY.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Manage-
ment. 1999. No Discharge Zone Map of Rhode
Island. Accessed through the Rhode Island Depart-
ment of Environmental Management Website: http://
www.state.ri.us/dem

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1996. CCMP
Workbook: Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan for the Bay-Delta. Implementa-
tion Progress 1993-1996. San Francisco Estuary
Project. Oakland, CA. 68 p.

San Francisco Estuary Project. 1999. Bay-Delta
Environmental Report Card. San Francisco Estuary
Project. Oakland, CA. 28p.

Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project. 1998. Taking
the Pulse of the Bay. State of the Bay 1998 Execu-
tive Summary. Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project. Monterey Park, CA.
R-2
. References
-------
1
REFERENCES (continued)
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. 1999.
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program Biennial
Review. May 1999. Sarasota Bay National Estuary
Program. Sarasota, FL

Scheda Ecological Associates. 1998. Comprehen-
sive Habitat Restoration Progress Report. Prepared
for the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program.
September 22,1998.

SJRWMD. St. Johns River Water Management
District. 1996. The Indian River Lagoon Pollutant
Load Reduction Model and Recommendations for
Action. St. Johns River Water Management District,
Department of Water Resources. May 1996.

Suffolk County Water Authority. 1999. How Can
We Protect the Groundwater. Accessed through
the Suffolk County Water Authority Website: http://
www.scwa.com/protect.htm

Town of Hempstead. 1999. "Stop Throwing Out
Pollutants" Program. Accessed through the Town of
Hempstead Website: http://townofhempstead. org/
home/tohcs/cssanit/csstop.htm

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Information
accessed through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Website: http://www.fws.gov
References
R-3
-------
-------

NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM CONTACTS
Most of the information was obtained through interviews with NEP personnel. Questions regarding
the management actions or procedures highlighted in the modules should be directed to the NEP
directors on this contact sheet.

ALBEMARLE-PAMLICO SOUNDS
Guy Stefanski
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National
Estuary Program
North Carolina DENR, Division of Water Quality
1617 Mai! Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Phone: (919)733-5083x585
FAX: (919)715-5637
E-mail: guy.stefanski @nc.mail.net
Web site: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nep/default.htm

BARATARIA-TERREBONNE
Kerry St. Pe
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program
P.O. Box 2663
Nicholls State University
Thibodaux, LA 70310
Phone: (504)447-0868
(800) 259-0869
FAX: (504)447-0870
E-mail: kerry_s@deq.state.la.us
Web site: http://www.btnep.org

BARNEGAT BAY
Bob Scro
Bamegat Bay Estuary Program
P.O. Box 2191
Toms River, NJ 08753
or
129 Hooper Ave.
Toms River, NJ 08754
Phone: (732)506-5313
FAX: (732)244-8396
E-mail: rscro@dep.state.nj.us
Web site: http://www.bbep.org

BUZZARDS BAY
Joseph E. Costa
Buzzards Bay Project
2870 Cranberry Highway
E. Wareham, MA 02538
Phone: (508)291-3625
FAX: (508)291-3628
E-mail: joe.costa@state.ma.us
Web site: http://www.buzzardsbay.org
CASCO BAY
Katharine Groves
Casco Bay Estuary Project
University of Southern Maine
Law School Bldg., Room 408
P.O. Box 9300
Portland, ME 04104
Phone: (207)780-4820
FAX: (207)780-4913
E-mail: kgroves@usm.maine.edu
Web site: http://www.muskie.usm.maine.edu/
cascobay

CHARLOTTE HARBOR
Tiffany Lutterman
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
S.W. Florida Regional Planning Council
P O Box 3455
N. Fort Myers, FL 33918-3455
or
4980 Bayline Drive, 4th Floor
N. Fort Myers, FL 33917
Phone: (941)995-1777
FAX: (941)656-7724
E-mail: chnep-lutterman@mindspring.com
Web site: http://www.charlotteharbornep.com

CORPUS CHRISTI BAY
Ray Allen
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program
1305 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 205
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: (361)885-6202
FAX: (361)883-7801
E-mail: rallen@cbbep.org
Web site: http://www.sci.tamucc.edu/ccbnep

DELAWARE ESTUARY
Forsyth P. Kineon
Delaware Estuary Program
c/o DRBC
P.O. Box 7360
25 State Police Drive
West Trenton, NJ 08628
Phone: (609)883-9500x217
FAX: (609)883-9522
E-mail: fkineon@drbc.state.nj.us
Web site: http://www.delep.org
C-l
-------
CONTACTS (continued)
DELAWARE INLAND BAYS
Bruce Richards
Center for the Inland Bays
^67 Highway One
Lewis, DE 19958
Phone: (302)645-7325
PAX: (302)645-5765
IE-mail: brichard@udel.edu
Web site: http://www.udel.edu/CIB

GALVESTON BAY
Helen Drummond
Satveston Bay Estuary Program
Bay Plaza 1
711 West Bay Area Blvd., #210
Webster, TX 77598
=>hone: (281)332-9937
-AX: (281)332-8590
E-mail: hdrummond@tnrcc.state.tx.us
i/Veb site: http://gbep.tamug.tamu.edu

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
Martin Smrthson
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
St. John's River Water Management District
1900 S. Harbor City Blvd., Suite 107
Melbourne, FL 32901
Phone: (407)984-4950
FAX: (407)984-4937
E-mail: martin_smithson @ district.sjrwmd.state.fi.us
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/lagoon

LONG ISLAND SOUND
Mark Tedesco
Long Island Sound Study
64 Stamford Government Center
888 Washington Blvd.
Stamford, CT 06904-2152
Phone: (203)977-1541
FAX: (203)977-1546
E-mail: tedesco.mark@epa.gov
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis

LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY
Debrah Marriott
Lower Columbia River Estuary Program
811 S.W. Sixth Ave., 7th Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503)229-5279
FAX: (503)229-5214
E-mail: debrah.marriott@state.or.us
lcrep@deq.state.or.us
Web site: http://www.lcrep.org
MARYLAND COASTAL BAYS
Dave Blazer
Maryland Coastal Bays Program
9609 Stephen Decatur Highway
Berlin, MD 21811
Phone: (410)213-2297
FAX: (410)213-2574
E-mail: cblazer@dnr.state.md.us
Web site: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/mcbp

MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
Jan Smith
Massachusetts Bays Program
100 Cambridge Street
20th Floor, #2006
Boston, MA 02202
Phone: (617)626-1231
FAX: (617)626-1240
E-mail: Jan.smith ©state.ma.us
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/massbay

Note: The Mass Bays Program is moving at the end
of March. They currently do not have information
about their new address.

MOBILE BAY
Mobile Bay Estuary Program
4172 Commanders Drive
Mobile, AL 36615
Phone: (334)431-6409
FAX: (334)431-6450
Web site: http://www.mobilebaynep.com

Note: Mobile Bay currently does not have a director
or E-mail. The website is not yet operational but the
address is correct for when it will function in the near
future.

MORRO BAY
Melissa Mooney
Morro Bay National Estuary Program
1400 3rd Street
LOS OSOS, CA 93402
Phone: (805)528-8126
FAX: (805)528-3450
E-mail: mbnep@mbnep.org
Web site: http://www.mbnep.org/index.html

NARRAGANSETT BAY
Richard Ribb
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
235 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
Phone: (401)222-3165x7271
FAX: (401)521-4230
E-mail: narrabay@earthlink.net
Web site: http://home.earthlink.net/-narrabay
C2
.Contacts
-------
CO\TACTS (continued)
NEW HAMPSHIRE ESTUARIES
New Hampshire Estuaries Project
152 Court Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Phone: (603)433-7187
FAX: (603)431-1438
Web site: http://www.state.nh.us/nhep
Note: NH does not have a director or e-mail.

NEW YORK - NEW JERSEY HARBOR
Robert Nyman
Harbor Estuary Program
290 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212)637-3809
FAX: (212)637-3889
E-mail: nyman.robert@spamail.epa.gov
Web site: http://hudsonriver.org/hep

PECONIC BAY
V'rto Mine!
Peconic Estuary Program
Department of Health Services, County of Suffolk
Riverhead County Center, 2nd Floor
Riverhead, NY 11901
Phone: (613)852-2077
FAX: (613)852-2743
E-mail: vito.minei@co.suffolk.ny.us
Web site: http://www.co.suffolk.ny.us/health/pep

PUGET SOUND
Nancy McKay
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
P.O. Box 40900
Oiympia. WA 98504-0900
Phone: (360)407-7300
FAX: (360)407-7333
E-maii: nmckay@psat.wa.gov
Web site: http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/index.html

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
Marcia Brockbank
San Francisco Estuary Project
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510)622-2465
FAX: (510)622-2501
E-mail: mlb@rb2.swrcb.ca.gov
Web site: http://sfep.abag.ca.gov

SAN JUAN BAY
Edna Villanueva
San Juan Bay Estuary Program
400 Fernandez Juncos Ave., 2 piso
San Juan, PR 00901-3299
Phone: (787)725-8162
FAX: (787)725-8164
E-mail: edna.villanueva@usace.army.mil
SANTA MONICA BAY
Marianne Yamaguchi
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
320 W. 4th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213)576-6615
FAX: (213)576-6646
E-mail: smbrp@earthlink.net
Web site: http://www.smbay.org

SARASOTA BAY
Mark Alderson
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
5333 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 104
Sarasota, FL 34234
Phone: (941)359-5841
FAX: (941)359-5846
E-mail: sbnep@gte.net
Web site: http://pelican.gmpo.gov/gulfofmex/
estuarypartner/Sarasota/SarasotaBay.html

TAMPA BAY
Richard M. Eckenrod
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
MSI-1/NEP
100 8th Ave., S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Phone: (727)893-2765
FAX: (727)893-2767
E-mail: saveit@tbep.org
Web site: http://www.tbep.org

TILLAMOOK BAY
Rich Felley
Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project
613 Commercial Drive
P.O. Box 493
Garibaldi, OR 97118
Phone: (503)322-2222
FAX: (503)322-2261
E-mail: rfelley@co.tillamook.or.us
Web site: http://osu.orst.edu/dept/tbaynep/
nephome.html

ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAI
ESTUARY PROGRAMS
Dawn Volk
600 Water Street, S.W., NBU 5-16
Washington, DC 20024
Phone: (202)554-6288
E-mail: elizrose@erols.com
tS
C-3
-------
-------
INDEX
Albemarle-Pamiico vi, FI-1, FI-3, FI-10,
FW-1, FW-3, FW-10, H-l, H-9,
H-10, P-2.C-1, N-3, N-9
Artificial reef program, H-9
Assessment see characterization/assessment

B
Barataria-Terrebonne ....... vi, H-4, H-5, H-9, H-10, C-l
Barrier Islands H-4, H-9
Bay Lands Center H-9
Biofiltration P-9
Buckridge Tract Purchase H-9
Buzzards Bay vi, H-l, H-9, P-6, P-7, P-9, C-l
CALFED H-9
Casco Bay vi, H-l, C-l, P-2, P-5, P-9, P-10
Friends of P-5
Initiative P-5
CCMP .. H-2, H-3, H-10, P-5, P-6, P-10
Characterization/assessment, iii, v
of freshwater inflow FI-2
of fish and wildlife FW-3
of habitat H-2
of introduced species IS-2
of nutrients N-2
of pathogens P-2
of toxics T-2
Characterization reports v
Charlotte Harbor vi, C-l, H-7, H-8, H-9
Charlotte Harbor Reef Association H-7
Christinas Tree Marsh
Restoration Program H-4, H-9
Citizens advisory committee ...— H-3, P-2, P-3
City Island H-8, H-9
Clean Vessel Act P-7, P-10
Clean Water Act— iii, iv, P-10
Clear Creek Beneficial Uses of
Dredged Material Project H-8, H-9
Coastal Wetland Planning and Restoration Act ...H-10
Combined sewer overflows P-3, P-5
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans v, H-2
Connecticut..... ....... H-6
Constructed wetlands P-7, P-9
Contacts C-1
Cooper River Fishway Project H-9
Coquina Bay Walk— H-7, H-9
Coquina Beach H-7
Corporate Environmental Stewardship H-9
Corpus Christi Bay vi, H-l, C-l
CSO „ P-5, P-10, P-l 1
abatement P-5, P-9, P-10, P-l 1
C WPRA H-10
Davis Pond freshwater division H-9
Degradation and loss of habitat H-l,
Delaware Estuary Program vi, H-l, H-5, H-9,
H-l 1, P-10, C-l
Delaware Inland Bays vi, H-l, H-9, C-l
Dickinson Bay Oyster Reef H-5, H-9
Discharges from marine vessels P-7, P-8, P-9
Dredged material H-5, H-7, H-8
Ducks Unlimited H-5
East Galveston Bay Wetland
Restoration Project H-9
Enterococcus P-1, P-2
E. coli P-l
EPA See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Exxon Valdez H-11, P-10
Fecal coliform P-l, P-2, P-7
Fecal contamination P-9
Financing . iii, v, H-10, P-2, P-10
Fish and shellfish P-l, P-2
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection H-7, H-8
Galveston Bay vi, H-l, H-5, H-8, H-9,
P-6, P-7, P-9, C-l
Gambles Gut Marsh Habitat
Restoration Project H-9
Grants H-10
-------
-------