Unitedstates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Successful Coastal
Management Solutions
-------
&EPA
United States National Estuary Program
Environmental Protection February 2003
Agency
Successful Coastal
Management Solutions
-------
The information in this document was obtained through interviews and correspondence with the National Estuary
Programs, websites, and other materials between 1999 and 2002. For more recent information and contacts
please access the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program website at: http://
www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries or websites of individual programs (listed in the Contacts section of this document).
Except where noted, all photos are from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program.
-------
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 estuar-
ies of national significance; and enhance the
coordination 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 and watershed approach are adaptable to
a variety of environmental management situa-
tions because, unlike traditional regulatory
approaches to environmental protection, they
target a broad range of issues and engage local
communities in the process.
Although each of the 28 estuaries in the National
Estuary Program is unique, many face common
environmental problems and challenges. The
seven key environmental issues most commonly
faced by the NEPs are:
• Habitat loss and degradation
• Pathogen contamination
• Alteration of Freshwater Inflow
• Nutrient overloading
• Declines in Fish and Wildlife populations
• Introduced Species
• Toxic contamination
Some or all of these seven issues are experi-
enced by almost all of the coastal watersheds in
the United States. The impacts of these prob-
lems are serious and generally quite visible.
Pathogen contamination leads to the closing of
large numbers of shellfish beds and beaches
across the nation. Nutrient overloading contrib-
utes to lower dissolved oxygen levels—a pri-
mary cause of fish kills, harmful algal blooms,
and loss of seagrasses. Introduced non-native
plants and animals disrupt native species
through predation and competition. Changes in
land use and the introduction of pollutants and
toxic chemicals result in habitat loss, declines in
water quality, and degradation of the health of
entire ecosystems.
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 solu-
tions that have been adopted in response to
specific environmental goals within the context
of the political, regulatory, and economic frame-
works of each NEP. It is hoped that this docu-
ment will facilitate the transfer of technical
information and encourage the adoption of this
type of integrated approach for both coastal and
inland watershed planning initiatives.
Summary
-------
This document contains an introductory section, easily referenced by NEP program participants
with information on important phases of the and other resource managers. A separate section
NEP process: characterization/assessment, On financing follows the individual environmen-
priority planning, and monitoring/research. Key tal issue sections. A glossary, an index to the
management approaches are highlighted in the document, and a list of contacts for all the NEPs
following sections, which are organized by the are also included at the end.
seven key environmental issues that can be
Executive Summary
-------
•7 :/}]<('. \RY200i
CONTENTS
P,U;E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /
INTRODUCTION 1-1
Key Issues 1-3
-3
-4
-4
-4
-4
Introduced Species -5
Toxics 1-5
Characterization/Assessment 1-6
Habitat 1-6
Pathogens 1-6
Freshwater Inflow 1-6
Nutrients .. ..1-7
Habitat
Pathogens
Freshwater Inflow.
Nutrients
Fish and Wildlife ..
Fish and Wildlife ...
Introduced Species
Toxics ....................
Priority Planning
Monitoring/Research .
-7
-7
-7
-8
-9
HABITAT H-l
Degradation and Loss of Habitat H-l
Management Actions H-2
Habitat Restoration H-2
Habitat Creation H-8
Public Education and Outreach H-9
PATHOGENS P-l
Pathogen Contamination P-l
Management Actions P-2
Legislative Changes P-2
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Abatement Programs P-3
Identification of Nonpoint Sources P-4
Control of Discharges from Marine Vessels P-7
Public Education and Outreach P-8
FRESHWATER INFLOW F-l
Freshwater Inflow F-l
Management Actions F-l
Management Plans F-2
Reclamation Actions F-4
Public Education and Outreach F-4
Yah If oj Content^ m
-------
FEBRUARY 2003
NUTRIENTS N-l
Nutrient Enrichment N-l
Management Actions N-2
Legislative Changes N-2
Development of Management Plan N-3
Identification of Nonpoint Sources N-4
Public Education and Outreach N-6
FISH AND WILDLIFE FW-1
Fish and Wildlife Species FW-1
Management Actions FW-2
Habitat Restoration and Creation FW-2
Public Education and Outreach FW-3
INTRODUCED SPECIES IS-1
Introduced Species IS-1
Management Actions IS-1
Regulation IS-2
Prevention IS-2
Management IS-3
Public Education and Outreach IS-3
TOXICS T-l
Toxic Contamination T-l
Management Actions T-2
Prevention T-2
Public Education and Outreach T-4
FINANCING FN-1
Financing FN-1
Federal Grants FN-1
State and Local Support FN-2
Donations FN-3
Penalty Funds FN-4
REFERENCES R-l
GLOSSARY G-l
CONTACTS C-l
INDEX INDEX-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Watersheds of the National Estuary Program 1-1
Figure 2: "No Discharge Zone" in Rhode Island P-8
Figure 3: Effects of Excessive Nitrogen N-3
iv Table of Contents.
-------
FEBRUARY 2003
wEPA INTRODUCTION
Established under Section 320 of the Clean
Water Act in 1987, the National Estuary Pro-
gram (NEP) identifies nationally significant
estuaries threatened by pollution, development,
or overuse, and promotes the preparation of
comprehensive management plans to ensure
their ecological integrity. Section 320 outlines
an approach to estuarine protection and manage-
ment that emphasizes the importance of collabo-
ration among multiple users and stakeholders.
This approach supports the notion that, through
collaborative planning, disputes about uses of
environmental resources 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 Figure 1) have been
designated as estuaries of national significance
and are classified in tiers, based on the year that
they were accepted into the program. Most of
the MEPs were formed in response to chronic
environmental problems stemming from increas-
ing 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 Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). The Management
Puget Sound
Lower Columbia River
Tillamook Bay«
San Francisco1
Morro Bay'
Santa Monica
The National Estuary Program
2002
Year Programs Accepted into NEP
•Tier I 1987 .Tier IV 1993
Her II 1988 Tier V 1995
•Her III 1990
, Mobile Bay
Galves- Baratarla- /
ton Bay Terrebonne / /
Coastal Bend _ , / /
Bays Tampa Ba//
Sarasota Bay
Charlotte Harbc
, Casco Bay
New Hampshire
Massachusetts Bay
- Buzzards Bay
. ^ ^ Narragansett Bay
vOx^ Peconlc Bay
V\ Long Island Sound
X. V New York/New Jersey
>\ Barnegat Bay
V \ Delaware Bay
\ Delaware Inland Bays
\ Maryland Coastal Bays
Albermarle-Pamlico
Indian River Lagoon
San Juan Bay
Figure 1: Watersheds of the National Estuary Program
Introduction.
1-1
-------
IRY2W3
Conference is charged with balancing conflict-
ing uses in the estuary while restoring or main-
taining 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,
and many aspects of the NEP approach can be
adapted to a variety of community-based envi-
ronmental protection programs.
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 inte-
grated and interconnected nature of the ecosys-
tem. The watershed approach also considers the
sociological and ecological characteristics of the
system together, ensuring that decisions take
into account the integrated nature of the ecosys-
tem and addressing problems instead of mere
symptoms. When planning initiatives incorpo-
rate the entire watershed or basin, cumulative
The Watershed Protection Approach is a
strategy for effectively protecting and
restoring aquatic ecosystems and protect-
ing human health. This strategy has as its
premise that many water quality and eco-
system problems 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 prob-
lems, promoting a high level of stakeholder
involvement, formulating integrated solu-
tions that make use of the expertise and
authority of multiple agencies, and measur-
ing success through monitoring and other
forms of data gathering.
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, with due regard for the
economic viability of the local community. To
achieve these goals, one of the primary activities
that the NEP performs is the transfer of scien-
tific 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 activi-
ties: characterizing environmental problems;
establishing working partnerships among fed-
eral, state, and local governments; increasing
public awareness of pollution problems and
ensuring public participation in consensus
building; promoting basin-wide planning to
control pollution and to manage living re-
sources; 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 among program participants and
non-NEP resource managers, the Coastal Man-
agement Branch of EPA fosters innovative
methods to facilitate this exchange of informa-
tion. As part of that mission, this document
serves to record and transfer the lessons, meth-
odologies, experience, and progress of the NEPs
across the United States.
In addition to telephone interviews with a
representative from each of the NEPs, the
development of these modules included the
collection, review, and synthesis of the follow-
ing information;
• Characterization reports
• CCMPs
• Status and trends reports
• Nomination documents
• State of the Estuary reports
• Framework for characterization reports
• Monitoring reports
• Biennial Reviews
7-2
, Introduction.
-------
/ /;/)'R(: IRY2003
The objective of this document is to illustrate
the diversity of NEP management approaches
that are implemented in seven key issue areas:
(1) habitat; (2) pathogens; (3) freshwater inflow;
(4) nutrients; (5) fish and wildlife; (6) intro-
duced species; and (7) toxics. The organization
of this document facilitates easy referencing for
specific environmental concerns by NEP pro-
gram participants and other resource managers.
This Introduction section provides overview
information on the seven key issues and impor-
tant phases of the NEP process:
• Key Issues - describes the seven environmen-
tal problems and challenges common to the 28
NEPs.
• Characterization/Assessment - describes the
approaches used to determine the extent of the
problem, and identifies data gaps and research
needs.
• Priority Planning - outlines approaches used
to develop action plans, form partnerships, and
gain consensus.
• Monitoring/Research - describes methods
used to measure the effectiveness of manage-
ment actions, including the development of
indicators, long-term monitoring strategies,
technologies, and ongoing research.
The following seven Environmental Issue
sections are organized by environmental issue
and provide background information and man-
agement approaches specific to each issue:
• Overview of the Issue - provides a general
description and relates the national signifi-
cance of the issue, including sources and
impacts.
• Management Actions - highlights manage-
ment actions being implemented by the NEPs.
A separate section on Financing discusses
sources of funding for implementing manage-
ment actions and creative financing strategies.
A section of Contacts lists the current NEP
staff to contact for additional information re-
garding specific technical issues and a section of
References includes documents used in prepar-
ing the modules. An Index to the document is
also provided at the end.
The NEP process is adaptable to a variety of
environmental management situations because,
unlike traditional regulatory approaches to
environmental protection, it targets a broad
range of issues. A Glossary provides defini-
tions of key terms and engages local communi-
ties in the process. The program focuses not just
on improving water quality in an estuary, but on
maintaining the integrity of the whole system —
its chemical, physical, and biological properties,
as well as its economic, recreational, and aes-
thetic values. It is hoped that this document will
facilitate the transfer of this type of integrated
approach for both coastal and inland watershed
planning initiatives.
KEY ISSUES
Habitat
High quality habitat is critical to the continued
health and biodiversity of marine and estuarine
systems. However, coastal habitats, which
provide essential food, shelter, migratory corri-
dors, and breeding and nursery areas for a broad
array of coastal and marine plants and animals,
are often the same areas that attract human
development. In addition, these habitats pcr-
Introduction.
1-3
-------
RY2Q03
form other important functions, which benefit
humans, such as water quality improvement,
flood protection, and water storage. Ecosystems
can be degraded through loss of habitat; a
change or degradation in structure, function,
composition, or biodiversity of habitats; and
increased flood damage during storms.
Human population density is steadily increasing
in coastal areas, resulting in the gradual conver-
sion of habitat to urban landscapes. Threats to
habitat include conversion of open land and
forest to other uses, dredging and filling, dam-
ming, and bulkheading of the water's edge.
Activities such as these generally increase the
level of sediment, nutrients, and chemicals in
runoff and can increase flood damage during
storms.
Pathogens
Based on state reports, pathogens are the most
common pollutant affecting estuaries. Patho-
gens are disease-causing organisms, including
certain viruses, bacteria, and fungi. Pathogens
found in marine waters can pose a health threat
to swimmers, surfers, and divers. Fish and
filter-feeding organisms, such as shellfish,
concentrate pathogens in their tissues, creating
public health risks for consumers of contami-
nated fish. Many shellfishing areas and bathing
beaches are closed due to the presence of high
concentrations of pathogens.
Sources of pathogens include urban and agricul-
tural runoff, boat and marina waste, faulty or
leaky septic systems, sewage treatment plant
discharges, combined sewer overflows (systems
wherein sewer lines are linked to stormwater
drains and discharge untreated sewage during
periods of heavy rainfall), recreational vehicles
or campers, illegal sewer connections, and waste
from pets and wildlife.
Freshwater Inflow
In many areas of the country, freshwater is an
increasingly limited resource. Human manage-
ment of freshwater has altered the timing and
volume of flow to some bays and estuaries,
which can have significant effects on water
quality and the health and distribution of living
resources. Too much or too little freshwater can
adversely affect fish spawning, shellfish surviv-
ability, bird nesting, shellfish seed propagation,
or other seasonal activities offish and wildlife.
In addition, salinity levels are moderated by
freshwater flowing into bays and estuaries.
Freshwater inflows to coastal areas provide
nutrients and sediments that are, in moderate
arnounts, important forDverall productivity but
which can have adverse impacts at high levels.
Nutrients
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 concen-
trations of nutrients in the Gulf of Mexico and
parts of the east coast. These outbreaks or
"blooms" resulted in fish kills and also, because
of their toxic component, human health prob-
lems.
The relationships between nutrient enrichment
and environmental problems are complex. Algal
blooms, stimulated by an excess of nutrients,
block sunlight from penetrating the water col-
umn, reducing the growth of submerged vegeta-
tion, 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, storm sewer overflows, urban and
agricultural runoff, faulty septic systems, animal
wastes, and atmospheric deposition.
Fish and Wildlife
The decline of various fish and wildlife species
has been a concern for over a century. Fragmen-
1-4
. Introduction.
-------
FERRl'.
tation or loss of habitats, pollution and decreased
water quality, over-exploitation of resources,
and introduced species have resulted in declines
in fish and wildlife populations. The distribu-
tion and abundance offish and wildlife depend
on factors such as light, water turbidity, nutrient
availability, temperature, salinity, and habitat
and food availability, as well as natural and
human-induced events that disturb or change
environmental conditions.
Decreases in sport and commercial fish and
shellfish populations, changes in fur-bearing and
waterfowl populations, and decreased habitat for
neotropical migratory birds and other species
have occurred as a result of habitat loss and
degradation. Pollutants such as herbicides,
pesticides, and other chemicals pose a threat to
living resources by contaminating the food
chain—eliminating food sources and introducing
physiological and reproductive impacts. Sport
or commercial fishermen, trappers, hunters, or
collectors have over-exploited the resources by
taking too many young and/or breeding adults of
a species, thereby reducing its ability to maintain
population levels. Agricultural and logging
activities, trawling and fishery bycatch, boat
disturbances, entanglement from marine debris,
and changes in freshwater inflow have also
contributed to declines in fish and wildlife
populations.
Introduced Species
Unexpected ecological, economic, and social
impacts to the estuarine environment often result
from the intentional or accidental introduction of
non-native species. Introduced species, through
predation and successful competition, have
contributed to the eradication or decline of many
native populations and have fundamentally
altered the food web in many ecosystems.
Overgrazing of wetland vegetation and a result-
ant degradation and loss of marsh habitat have
resulted from over-population of some intro-
duced species. Other impacts of introduced
species include: alteration of water tables;
modification of nutrient cycles or soil fertility;
increased erosion; interference with navigation,
agricultural irrigation, sport and commercial
fishing, recreational boating, and beach use; and
possible introduction of pathogens. Sources of
introduced species include ship ballast water,
mariculture operations, and the aquarium trade.
Toxics
Harmful to both wildlife and humans, sub-
stances, such as heavy metals, polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlonnated
biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides, are of concern
whenever they are found in the coastal environ-
ment. These toxic contaminants enter water-
ways through storm drains; industrial dis-
charges; runoff from lawns, streets, and farm-
lands; sewage treatment plants; and atmospheric
deposition. Many historically contaminated
sediments contain toxic substances, which can
be re-suspended into the water column by
storms, dredging, and boating activities. Bottom
dwelling organisms are directly exposed to these
Introduction.
1-5
-------
IKY2003
chemicals, which may lead to bioaccumulation
at higher levels of the food chain, possibly
resulting in fish and shellfish closures and
consumption advisories to protect public health.
CHARACTERIZATION/
ASSESSMENT
With respect to the NEP, Section 320 of the
Clean Water Act requires an objective assess-
ment of the state of the estuary. This assess-
ment, referred to as technical characterization, is
a scientific evaluation of the conditions of the
resources and uses of the estuary, the priority
problems being experienced by those resources
and uses, and the causes of the priority problems
that exist. The fundamental goal of the technical
characterization is to identify the problems
facing the estuary and present this information
in a way that supports the selection of actions
for inclusion in the management plan.
To determine if an environmental issue is a
problem at a NEP site, the existing conditions
within the estuary must first be characterized
and assessed. This process is generally con-
ducted through the comparison of historical data
with present-day conditions, determined by
evaluating more recent data or by direct on-site
observations.
Habitat
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
historical data were available from universities
and various government agencies, such as the
National Wetland Inventory, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and U.S. Geological Survey. 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
populations 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 NEP. Habitat degradation
and loss is generally considered an issue at a
NEP site if there has been a significant decrease
or change over the years.
Pathogens
Measuring the concentration of pathogens from
various locations around the estuary helps to
determine whether contamination has increased
or decreased over the years. Pathogen monitor-
ing 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, de-
pending on whether the area is used for drinking
water, recreation (i.e., swimming), and/or fish
and shellfish harvesting. The levels of pathogen
contamination that can be tolerated vary with the
designated use of the site. Whenever the patho-
gen 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.
Freshwater Inflow
Changes in freshwater inflow are monitored
over an extended period of time to determine
1-6
, Introduction.
-------
i'LHRl IRY200]
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 NEP. This
process is generally conducted through the
comparison of historical data with present-day
conditions by agencies, such as the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey and state resource agencies.
Nutrients
If the concentrations 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 EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Geological Service, and U.S.
National Park Service. Once nutrient data have
been collected, a comparison and assessment is
made to determine whether nutrients have
increased.
Fish and Wildlife
The populations offish and wildlife in the
estuary must be characterized and assessed to
determine if the diversity or populations offish
and wildlife within the estuary have greatly
decreased over the years. If the numbers of
native fish and wildlife species have signifi-
cantly declined, then fish and wildlife is most
likely an issue for that particular NEP.
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-site
observations. Fish and wildlife data are nor-
mally available as reports from various federal
and state agencies, including U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service stock status reports. These data
document the amount of available habitat for
each species being evaluated, assess the quality
of the habitat, and determine if species intro-
duced into the estuarine ecosystem have invaded
another species' natural habitat. Data on fish
and wildlife habitat, water quality, and nonindig-
enous species also assist in determining the
population status offish and wildlife resources.
Introduced Species
The determination of whether introduced spe-
cies are a concern for a NEP site can normally
be made during an assessment of habitat degra-
dation or an assessment offish and wildlife
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
can usually be detected. The difficult part of
assessing the presence of an introduced species
is in determining whether the plant or animal is
truly introduced, rather than a native species that
has grown out of control due to changes in the
ecosystem. There are examples of plants and
animals, which have been labeled as "introduced
species," that have actually been resident in an
ecosystem for many years.
Toxics
To determine if toxic contamination is a problem
at a NEP site, the amount and type of contami-
nation 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 compared to federal and state
guidelines for allowable concentrations of
individual compounds. If the concentrations
found in the samples are higher than the permit-
ted concentrations, then toxic contamination is
most likely an issue for the estuary.
Introduction.
1-7
-------
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.
• 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 arc made available to the
responsible parties.
1 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.
1 Technical advisors develop the technical
issues, then the public votes on the
priority in which they will be addressed.
1 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.
1 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
PRIORITY PLANNING
If the results of the characterization/assessment
suggest that an environmental issue may be a
problem, the NEP will develop appropriate
actions to help correct the problem. Whatever
actions the NEP determines to be appropriate are
prioritized on the basis of various factors, which
are discussed below.
For most estuaries, issues must be prioriti/ed
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 evalu-
ate 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 perfor-
mance 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 Long Island Sound Study ranks potential
restoration sites 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
1-8
Introduction.
-------
IRY2001
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 ap-
proached 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, [•very-
one was given the opportunity to select five 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-
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 important to note that the problems
of habitat loss and modification were ranked as
the greatest threat to the Columbia River Estu-
ary 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
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.
MONITORING/RESEARCH
Once management actions have been funded and
implemented, the results of their implementation
need to be determined. This is normally accom-
plished by monitoring the ecosystem to docu-
ment any changes that may result from one or
more management actions.
Monitoring/research that documents the changes
in habitat is not clearly defined by most NEPs.
The San Francisco Estuary Project, however, is
particularly well organized for monitoring
habitats. This NEP monitors changes in habitat
by tracking the numerous projects being con-
ducted within the system. The program docu-
ments the location, number of acres, type of
habitat, and type of change (i.e., creation, resto-
ration, loss, and enhancement). This informa-
tion is then reported in the Bay - Delta Environ-
mental Report Card every three years (San
Francisco Estuary Project 1999).
Routine monitoring for pathogen contamination
in estuaries that contain shellfish habitat is
required by federal law. Monitoring is generally
conducted after every rain event to determine if
shellfish have been contaminated with fecal
coliforms above the levels determined accept-
able for shellfish consumption. Routine moni-
Introduction.
1-9
-------
toring for pathogens is generally required at
sewage treatment facilities and at some com-
bined sewer overflows. 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 concentra-
tions as management actions are implemented.
The Casco Bay Estuary Project intends to
implement a plan-wide tracking system that
will include monitoring of significant habitat
and development of a map of protected wet-
lands.
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 Management Plan's research
and monitoring actions for the San Francisco
Estuary. The Institute has developed a Re-
gional Monitoring Program for Trace Sub-
stances, which includes 68 agencies and organi-
/.ations that work in partnership to address toxic
contaminant issues. This program collects
samples at 24 stations three times a year for:
(1) water quality and chemistry; (2) aquatic
bioassays; (3) sediment quality and chemistry;
(4) sediment bioassays; and (5) transplanted,
bagged bivalve bioaccumula-tion, survival, and
condition studies. The Program 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 Program
supports several interagency public/private
coordinating 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 regulator} decisions
on the basis of monitoring results.
1-10
-------
1-liHRl 1R) 200)
«EPA
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 restoration
activities (NOAA 1998a). One of these pro-
grams is the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Estuary Program
(NEP).
One concern common to many of the 28 NEPs
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 population demands. Open spaces
and large tracts of forested land are being
subdivided and developed, while wetlands,
marshes, and riparian areas are being drained to
allow for public access, development, or activi-
ties that support human habitation. As habitat
diversity decreases, the concomitant loss of
wetlands, riparian, marsh, open, and forested
areas has a significant effect on the health of the
entire ecosystem.
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)
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries (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 Estuary (NY)
Puget Sound (WA)
San Francisco Estuary (CA)
San Juan Bay (PR)
Santa Monica Bay (CA)
Sarasota Bay (FL)
Tampa Bay (FL)
Tillamook Bay (OR)
.Hahi/ctl.
H-l
-------
This section highlights management approaches
and public education and outreach activities
implemented by the NEPs to address the issue
of habitat degradation and loss.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The following are examples
of management actions to address habitat loss
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 habitat creation.
Habitat Restoration
The restoration activities described in the
following 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
circumstances 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.
CRITICAL NATURAL RESOURCE AREAS
Peconic Estuary Program
The Peconic Estuary Program (PEP) has applied
the concept of "critical natural resource areas"
as a management strategy for the variety of
species and natural communities that exist
within the PEP study area. Critical Natural
Resource Areas (CNRAs) are geographically
specific locations that currently have significant
Natural Resource Areas"
strategy to identify lands in need
biodiversity and may CRmCAL NATURAL
require an extra level RESOURCE AREAS
of protection ( reuula- Pecon'c Estuary Pr°9ram
11 UCJ-.U1 Web: http://www.epa.gov/owow/
tion and/or manage- estuaries/pb.htm
ment^ to nreserve Problem: Threatened critical
mem; to preser\ e natura| areas requinng additi0nai
their unique charac- protection
fprictirs IVIanv of Solution: Implement "Critical
teriStlCS. Many Ot
these areas are
presently threatened
by development or
uses that could degrade their quality. The
CNRA designations have already been used in
developing the Critical Lands Protection Strat-
egy, a watershed-wide approach to systemati-
cally evaluating and identifying lands in need of
protection, and evaluating the funding needed
and available for that protection.
FISH FRIENDL Y TIDE GA TE REPLA CEMENT
Tilltimook Estuaries Partnership
Tide gates were originally installed to drain
pasturelands after heavy rains or high tides as
part of the levee FISH FRIENDLy T>DE QATE
system along the five REPLACEMENT
rivers that enter wiamook Estuaries
Partnership
Tillamook Bay. web: http://
While the old tide www.co.tHlamook.or.us/gov/
estuary /tbnep/nephome. html
gates effectively Problem: Blockage of fish
prevented salt water passage to critical habitat b*
r existing tide gates.
from encroaching On Solution: Design a 'fish
dairv pastures the friendly" tide gate to restore and
1 protect native salmonid habitat,
exchange Of Salt and improve water quality, and
freshwater behind the protect valuable farmland
gates in the minor waterways running through
the pastures was poor. These low-lying chan-
nels potentially provide high quality off-channel
habitat for juvenile salmonids and much of this
habitat was blocked to fish passage by the
nature of how the old tide gates operated. The
Tillamook County Performance Partnership,
through partnership with private landowners,
sought to design a "fish friendly" tide gate to
restore and protect native salmonid habitat,
improve water quality, protect valuable farm-
land from the negative effects of flooding, and
improve overall floodwater dispersal across the
landscape. Seventeen of the old tide gates have
been replaced since 1998, eight of which are
H-2
. Habitat.
-------
"fish friendly." The new tide gates, along with
better pasture drainage, provide a win-win
situation for landowners and for fish. In addi-
tion, dissolved oxygen and temperature, priority
water quality concerns of the Tillamook Estuar-
ies Partnership have been improved through
more complete exchange of farmland drainage
with river and estuary flows.
CHRISTMAS TREE MARSH
RESTORA TION PROGRAM
Sanitaria- Terrebonne National
Estuary Program
Over the last seven years, several Louisiana
parishes have participated in the state's Christ-
mas Tree Marsh CHRISTMAS TREE MARSH
Restoration Program. RESTORATION PROGRAM
TT- , Barataria-Terrebonne
This program makes National Estuary Program
Use of post-holiday Web: http://wwwbtnep.org
p,, • Problem: Wetlands loss due
L nnstmas trees to to sediment removai by wave
protect eroding shore- action and sediment removal
,. j ~ , for oil exploration canal
lines and restore the construction
natural hydrology of Solution: Rebuild wetlands
, 0. using post-holiday Christmas
the marshes. Since trees to protect shorelines and
1991, more than fill canals by trapping and
A T\ nnrv ^ holding suspended sediments
4 :> 0,000 trees have
been recycled to fill in abandoned canals,
construct shoreline, and 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 Louisi-
ana Army National Guard, who also volunteers
time, resources, and aircraft. Additional volun-
teers, 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
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, eight Louisiana
parishes participated in the program, benefiting
more than 12 acres of marshes at a construction
cost of approximately $273,000 ($23,000/acre)
(Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Pro-
gram 1998).
BARRIER ISLANDS
Barataria- Terrebonne National
Estuary Program
Louisiana's barrier islands are deteriorating
because of hurricanes, global sea-level rise,
subsidence, inad- BARRIERISLANDS
equate Sediment Barataria-Terrebonne
Supply, and human ^a«of!a' ^tuary Program
^ J Web http://www.btnep.org
disturbances. Problem: Barrier island
These islands are deterioration by various natural and
human disturbances.
essential habitats Solution: Rebuild or repair barrier
for neotropical islands using dredged material
migrant birds, and serve to protect inland
wetlands and coastal communities from hurri-
cane storm surges. The State of Louisiana and a
federal task force, formed under the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration
Act (CWPPRA), are reconstructing these
important islands. Federal agencies comprising
the CWPPRA task force include the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, EPA, Department of Com-
merce, Department of the Interior, and Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
.Habitat.
H-3
-------
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 ($21,000/acre).
In addition, vegetative plantings and, for some
shoreline applications, rocks were used to
stabilize the barrier island restoration projects
(Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Pro-
gram 1998;NOAA 1999).
LA KE NA OMI f \E TLA A'0
RESTORATION PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
The Lake Naomi Wetland Restoration Project
was performed as part of the habitat restoration
for the Delaware Estuary Program. The project,
conducted in the middle
LAKE NAOMI WETLAND
Delaware sub-basin, RESTORATION PROJECT
Created 7.5 acres Of Delaware Estuary Program
Web http //www.delep.org
Wetlands, which provide Problem Loss of wetlands
food and habitat for habitat from the Lake NaorT"
.... -, area
Winter birds. 1 he Solution Create a wetland
restoration was COn- mosaic from an abandoned
sand and gravel mine
ducted by the Pennsyl-
vania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), in conjunction with the Lake Naomi
Club, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and Ducks Unlimited. The project
converted an abandoned sand and gravel mine
to a wetland mosaic, which provides habitat for
several species of wildlife. The site is 80
percent standing water, with islands for nesting
habitat and rest areas. The remaining 20 per-
cent was vegetated with winterberry. which
transitions 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 shallows
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, USFWS provided
technical assistance, and the Pennsylvania DEP
Wetland Restoration Project paid for the equip-
ment and construction (Delaware Estuary
Program 1996).
ENHANCEMENT OF FISH HABITAT AND
WATER QL ALITY WITH ROCK BARBS
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
In Tillamook Bay, both sedimentation and loss
of salmonid habitat can be traced, in part, to
excessive stream ENHANCEMENT OF F,SH
bank erosion, lack of HABITAT AND WATER
stream type diversity,
and limited riparian Partnership
vegetation. The ^Siamook or,us/gov/
Biotechnical Barb estuary/tbnep/nephome html
Structure and Gravel
Bar Stabi 1 ization erosion lack of stream type
Project was designed diversity and "mitecl riparian
vegetation
Solution: Implement a low-cost.
fish friendly method of stream
to be a low-cost,
easily implemented, restorgtlon wh|Ch |essens
fish friendly method erosion and sedimentation while
of stream restoration,
which lessens erosion and sedimentation while
improving fish habitat. By strategically point-
ing rock structures known as barbs into the
stream channel and following up with tree
planting, this effort fosters channel structure
diversity and increased riparian vegetation. In
1996 the Tillamook County Soil and Water
Conservation District began by constructing
seven barbs in the Kilchis River. After the first
two years, which included several significant
winter flood events, the barbs produced notice-
able benefits. The barbs have continued to
achieve their stated goals of stabilizing stream
banks, improving stream channel structure, and
adding salmonid habitat. Riparian plantings
have withstood high water levels due to the
H-4
-------
/ EBRV. IRY200}
DICKINSON BAY OYSTER REEF/
WETLAND RESTORATION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Web http://gbep.tarnug.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 alterniflora
barb's flow diversion and are expected to
flourish in newly stabilized banks. Adult
Chinook salmon were seen using the newly
created scour pools for refuge while smolts used
the slack water behind the barbs for cover.
DICKINSON BA Y O YSTER REEF/
WETLAND RESTORATION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Gulveston Buy Estuary Program
One goal of the Galveston Bay Estuary Program
is to restore, create, or protect the diverse
habitats throughout
its system. In-
cluded in these
habitats are oyster
reefs and wetlands.
The Dickinson Bay
Oyster Reef/
Wetland Restora-
tion Demonstration
Project was created to develop innovative ways
to stabilize shorelines and, at the same time, to
create oyster and fish habitat.
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 riprap. 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).
MARSH RESTORA TION A T
SAYBROOKPOINT, CONNECTICUT
Long Island Sound Study
In 1994, the Connecticut Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection Wetlands Restoration Unit
began reviving the Saybrook Marsh on the
grounds of Fort
Saybrook Monu-
ment Park in Old
Saybrook. Over
time, the marsh
area had been cut
off from its
source of brack-
ish water and
Phragmites had
spread over the area. Using special heavy
construction equipment 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
MARSH RESTORATION AT
SAYBROOK 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
of shallow ponds along with
the removal of invasive Phragmites.
Solution Reconnect the marsh to a
brackish water source
.Habitat.
H-5
-------
II.HIU IRY20H1
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 as well (Long Island Sound Study
1999a).
COQUINA BA WALK A T LEFFIS KE Y
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
The Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program -
with assistance from Manatee County, the
Florida Department of
Environmental Protec-
tion, and the EPA -
has created 30 acres of
native habitat near
Coquina Beach in
Manatee County. The
area had previously
been a small mangrove wetlands> thr°ugh removal of
& exotic species, and excavation
island before being of intertidal pools and tidal
covered by dredged inlets
material in the 1950s. The objectives 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.
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
COQUINA BAYWALK AT
LEFFIS KEY
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web: http://
www.sarasotabay.org
Problem Loss of small
mangrove Island due to
dredged material disposal
Solution Restore native
habitat, including mangrove
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.
The overall project cost $350.000, which was
funded through a wide range of sources (Scheda
Ecological Associates 1998; EPA 1997).
WETLANDS HEALTH
ASSESSMENT PROGRA M
Massachusetts Bays Program
The Massachusetts Bays Program, in collabora-
tion with Coastal Zone Management and the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, has
spearheaded a unique WETLANDS HEALTH
approach to assess ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
wetland quality and
ecological health to
better protect the
overall condition of
critical areas. Con-
sidered a cornerstone
of the Massachusetts
Bays Program work
plan, the Wetlands
Health Assessment Program is teaching citizens
how to determine wetland health by evaluating
the condition of a variety of biological, chemi-
cal, and ecological indicators, such as tidal
influence, vegetation, aquatic macro-inverte-
brates, 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 im-
proved tidal flow. Concurrent with the citizen
monitoring program, scientists are collecting
data to validate citizen efforts, and are develop-
ing an easy-to-use manual for the future. The
long term goals of the program are to use citizen
help to monitor wetland health, to promote
ecological stewardship, and to advocate a
comprehensive biological approach to wetland
protection (Massachusetts Bays Program 1999).
Massachusetts Bays Program
Web: http://wwwstate.ma.us/
massbays/
Problem: Protection and
conservation of newly restored
wetlands habitat require
monitoring and assessing
their health.
Solution: Utilize citizen help in
monitoring wetland health and
promote ecological stewardship
as an approach to habitat
protection.
H-6
. Habitat.
-------
IR) 2003
SAN FRANCISCO BA Y JOINT VENTURE
WETLANDS RESTORATION PROJECT
San Francisco Estuary Project
The San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Wetlands
Restoration Project, established in 1995, is a
partnership among 28
government agencies,
environmental organi-
zations, 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 leverag-
ing existing public and private resources, devel-
oping new funding sources, and creating public-
private partnerships. Since its establishment,
the Venture has acquired 3,175 acres of wet-
lands and has restored 871 acres. It has assisted
with at least 30 public-private wetland projects
and has approximately 90 additional acquisi-
tions or restorations (San Francisco Estuary
Project 1996).
SAN FRANCISCO BAY JOINT
VENTURE WETLANDS
RESTORATION PROJECT
San Francisco Estuary
Project
Web http //www abag ca gov/
bayarea/sfep/sfep.html
Problem Habitat loss due to
various human disturbances
Solution Acquire and
preserve various types of
habitat by a NEP-directed
partnership.
HABITAT RESTORATION WORK GROUP
Peconic Estuary Program
The Peconic Estuary Program has convened a
Habitat Restoration Work Group to address the
enhancement of existing resources and the
restoration of habitats that have been lost or
degraded. The purpose of this group is to
identify and prioritize the significant natural
habitats of the system, develop overall habitat
restoration goals, identify locations where these
HABITAT RESTORATION WORK
GROUP
Peconic Estuary Program
Web: http://www.epa.gov/owow/
estuaries/pb.htm
Problem: Enhancement of existing
resources and restoration of
degraded habitats
Solution: Identify and prioritize
habitats, develop goals, and develop.
in conjunction with landowners.
specific restoration projects.
habitats can be
restored, and
develop, in con-
junction with
public and private
landowners,
specific restora-
tion projects.
Priority restora-
tion needs, based on degree of loss and threats,
include restoration of eelgrass beds and terres-
trial habitats, such as coastal grasslands and
forests. The estimated cost for implementing
the 18 highest priority restoration projects
identified by the Group—the ten-year goal of
the Peconic Estuary Program—is $4 million.
The cost of implementing the 72 projects evalu-
ated to date is $42 million.
REGION A L HABITAT RESTORA TION AND
PROTECTION MASTERPLAN
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program's Masterplan
includes restoration and protection goals based
on the needs of
key wildlife guilds
that share common
REGIONAL HABITAT
RESTORATION AND PROTEC-
TION MASTERPLAN
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
habitat and feeding Web: http://www.tbep.org/
preferences. This
Masterplan in-
Problem: Loss of coastal habitats in
varying proportions that are critical
for specific wildlife guilds.
Solution: Develop and implement
eludes a Strategy to Masterplan to restore the historic
balance of key emergent wetland
plant communities and protect
habitat through land acquisition and
conservation easements.
"restore the his-
toric balance" of
the key emergent
wetland plant communities that recognizes that
some coastal habitats have been lost in greater
proportion than others, and that those habitats
may be critical for specific guilds of bay-
dependent species. An overall minimum goal is
to restore roughly 100 acres of low-salinity tidal
marsh habitat every five years, while maintain-
ing and enhancing salt marshes and mangroves
at existing levels. The long-term aim is to
recover more than 1,600 acres of these habitats
over time, either through habitat restoration or
enhancement of existing areas that have been
severely degraded.
/ lubifal.
H-7
-------
Habitat protection, through public land acquisi-
tion and conservation easements on private
property, is the other focal point of the Habitat
Masterplan, with identifies 28 specific sites as
priorities for protection. The majority of these
sites have been incorporated into the 1996 Save
Our Rivers/Preservation 2000 acquisition
priorities of the Southwest Florida Water Man-
agement District, greatly improving the changes
that these important coastal lands will be ac-
quired and protected.
ECOSYSTEM FEASIBILITY STUDY
Barnegat Buy Estuary Program
The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, in conjunc-
tion with the New Jersey Department of Envi-
ronmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, are ECOSYSTEM FEASIBILITY
involved in various STUDY
ecosystem restoration JJJJJfBay Estuary
Construction projects Web http.//www bbep.org
,i i Problem: Degraded or lost
throughout the water- habitat
shed, which will help Solution Preserve or improve
. • habitat for plants and animals.
preserve and improve
habitats for numerous species of plants and
animals. These projects include the restoration
offish passageways past dams and high quality
habitat in dredged areas which are demonstrat-
ing low viability as habitat, as well as the resto-
ration of freshwater wetlands, salt marsh, aban-
doned lagoons, submerged aquatic vegetation,
and waterfowl habitat.
\
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 con-
ducted to determine if this is the appropriate
action. Once it is determined that habitat creation
WATERFRONT JUVENILE
FISHERIES HABITAT
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
Web http://charlotteharbomep.
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.
is the appropriate action, then a multi-step
process — including site survey to final design
to installation — is implemented.
PUNTA GORDA WATERFRONT
JUVENILE FISHERIES HABITAT
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
is partially funding a project to create artificial
fish habitat throughout PUNTA GORDA
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 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 USES
OF DREDGED MATERIAL
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Galvesfon Bay Estuary Program
Over the years, the Clear Creek area has lost
many acres of wetlands to subsidence or ero-
sion. 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
H-8
-------
/•/:/}R(
project used material ^ CR££K BENEFICIAL
dredged from the USES OF DREDGED
channel of Clear MATERIAL DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
Creek to build a berm Gaiveston Bay
around a 14-acre area E*tuafy Pro^ram
Web http://
that had previously gbep tamug.tamu.edu
been wetlands, but Problem Loss of wetland
due to subsidence
which had since Solution Use dredged
experienced subsid- material to build a smooth
cordgrass wetland
ence. The contain-
ment 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 Estuary Program 1999b).
SARASOTA BAY WALK AT CITY ISLAND
Sarasotu Bay National Estuary Program
In 1990, the City of Sarasota, with assistance
from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection 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, inter-
tidal shoreline; inter-
tidal 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 inter-
SARASOTA BAY WALK
AT CITY ISLAND
Sarasota Bay
National Estuary Program
Web: http://
wwwsarasotabay.org
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
tidal pools were excavated, natural land eleva-
tions were restored, 25,000 native plants were
transplanted to the site, and a public boardwalk
was constructed. The project took about three
years and $200,000 to complete, and now has
more than 20,000 visitors each year. In addi-
tion, 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 wet-
lands (Scheda Ecological Associates 1998; EPA
1995).
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH
HIGH SCHOOL WETLAND
NURSER Y PROGR.4M
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program's wetland
nursery program involves middle and high
school students in constructing and maintaining
a nursery on their school HIGH SCHOOL WETLAND
grounds to grow Spartina NURSERY PROGRAM
, „ . Tampa Bay Estuary
and mangroves for use in Program
publicly financed habitat Web: http://www.tbep.org/
Problem: Need to foster
restoration projects. stewardship and commit-
Students build and ment to bay protection
among students
operate the nursery, solution: Construct and
incorporate the experi- maintain nursery on school
. . . grounds to grow Spartina
ence into their science and mangroves for use in
and math Curriculum, habitat restoration projects
and harvest the plants at the appropriate time.
Usually, students participate in habitat restora-
tion projects utilizing the plants they have
grown. Costs for the program include funds for
a nursery setup, power supply, and maintenance.
What started as a pilot project at one school is
now a permanent program currently involving
fifteen area schools, both public and private.
Hundreds of students have helped to raise the
wetland plants and transplant them to approved
restoration sites, fostering a sense of steward-
ship and commitment to bay protection among
these young people. The project has also saved
\\ubititl H-9
-------
public agencies more than $60,000 over the last
six years by providing wetland plants for
projects free of charge.
MASSA CHL'SE TTS BA YS ED UCA TION
ALLIANCE TEACHER TRAINING
Massachusetts Bays Program
The Massachusetts
Bays Education
Alliance (MBEA)
was formed in 1993
as a subcommittee of
the Massachusetts
Bays Program to
bring together on-
going efforts in
marine education.
This strong, united
community of educators is teaching the many
values of Massachusetts bays, shores, and water-
MASSACHUSETTS BAYS
EDUCATION ALLIANCE
TEACHER TRAINING
Massachusetts Bays Program
Web: http://www.state.ma.us/
massbays/
Problem: Need to coordinate
and increase ongoing efforts in
marine and coastal education
programs
Solution: Develop training and
network for teaching community
focused on the value of the
coastal environment to ensure its
responsible use and protection.
sheds to help ensure their responsible use and
appropriate protection.
Two types of training are offered by MBEA to
further its mission: Watershed Education Train-
ing and Watershed Stewardship Training. Wa-
tershed Education brings together teams of
educators, grades 4-9, to attend the workshop
series and share the way they adapt the curricu-
lum materials in their classrooms.
Watershed Stewardship builds upon prior educa-
tion training to introduce concepts and activities
from the Massachusetts Bays Watershed Stew-
ardship Guide, which is a companion to the
management plan. This workshop is offered to
upper elementary to high school teachers. Both
types of training emphasize problem-solving,
hands-on activity, and stewardship actions.
H-10.
. / labitat.
-------
\RY2003
xvEPA
PATHOGENS
PATHOGEN CONTAMINATION
Pathogens are microorganisms that cause
disease. Human pathogens in estuarine environ-
ments consist of both pollution-related bacteria
and viruses, such as hepatitis and Norwalk
viruses, and naturally occurring marine organ-
isms, Vibrio vulni/icus, for example. The
primary routes of human exposure are through
the consumption of raw molluscan shellfish, and
recreational or occupational contact with sur-
face waters. Diseases associated with these
pathogens include gastroenteritis, hepatitis,
typhoid fever, cholera, and poliomyelitis; 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, patho-
gens 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 — ap-
proved, 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 classi-
fications are enforced through patrols, inspec-
tions, and harvest tagging.
Pathogens.
P-l
-------
There is a direct correlation between the con-
centration 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 fisher-
men. 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 Entero-
coccus monitoring data, or a combination of
both, to establish bathing restrictions or prohibi-
tions 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), have
determined that pathogen contamination is a
priority problem that must be addressed and
corrected.
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the following
13 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 Estuary (NY)
Santa Monica Bay (CA)
San Juan Bay (PR)
Tampa Bay (FL)
Tillamook Bay (WA)
This section highlights key management ap-
proaches and public education and outreach
activities implemented by the NEPs to address
the issue of pathogen contamination.
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 con-
tamination 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, identification 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.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
New Hampshire Estuaries Project
Pathogen contamination is the highest priority
issue for the New Hampshire Estuaries Project
because contamination 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
P-2
Pathogens
-------
Great Bay Coast Watch
— a local volunteer
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 Hamp-
, . „. . , NEW HAMPSHIRE
shire Fish and Game LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Department (F&G), the New Hampshire
,, . . , Estuaries Project
University OI New Web; http://www.epa.gov/
Hampshire Jackson owow/estuanes/nhe.htm
„ . T Problem: Shellfish bed
Estuanne Laboratory closures due to pathogen
(UNHJEL), and the contamination.
Solution New legislation
changing the state agency
responsible for shellfish
sanitation
monitoring group.
Some of the data collected were used for classi-
fication of shellfish-growing waters while other
data were collected for baseline monitoring or
to answer specific questions regarding contami-
nant loading or sources. To help improve
shellfish sanitation management, the New
Hampshire Estuaries Project established a
Shellfish Project Team, comprised of represen-
tatives from the New Hampshire DHH, DES,
F&G, and Office of State Planning; UNHJEL;
volunteer monitoring groups; and recreational
shellfishers. The Shellfish Project Team pro-
posed several solutions for improving shellfish
management and developing a sustainable
vehicle for estuary wide water-quality monitor-
ing in New Hampshire. One of these solutions
was to transfer legislative authority for classifi-
cation of shellfish-growing waters from the
New Hampshire DHH to DES. The state
government incorporated this action and legisla-
tion was enacted.
RHODE ISLAND LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program has
helped to enact legislation that addresses mitiga-
tion of pathogen contamination 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 criteria, and (3) revised
regulations for on-site sewage disposal systems.
In the meantime, the RHODE ISLAND
Narragansett Bay LEGISLATIVE CHANGES
Narragansett Bay Estuary
Estuary Program is Program
implementing a non- Web: http://www.nbep.org
Problem: Inadequate
regulatory approach, legislation for on-site sewage
which provides disposal
. . Solution: Revision of
technical assistance legislation for on-site sewage
and grants to COmmu- dlsP°sal that requires licensing
of designers/installers and
nities to Study the change in design criteria
wastewater manage-
ment district association (Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program 1999).
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Abatement Programs
In most cases, the NEPs have reported that
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), including
storm sewer overflows, represent the largest
source of pathogens into estuaries. Several
NEPs have listed CSO abatement as the most
important action for mitigating pathogen con-
tamination. The NEPs have worked with EPA
and state agencies to develop CSO upgrades and
inspection programs to prevent illegal dumping
of raw sewage into the environment.
CSO ABA TEMENT PROJECTS
Long Island Sound Study
In its management plan, the Long Island Sound
Study listed several million-dollar CSO abate-
ment projects being
conducted in New
York and Connecti-
cut locations. The
New York and
Connecticut CSO
projects will not be
completed until 2006
(Long Island Sound
Study 1994).
CSO ABATEMENT
PROJECTS
Long Island Sound Study
Web: http://www.epa.gov/
region01/eco/lis/
Problem: CSO contamination
throughout the New York and
Connecticut area.
Solution: CSO abatement
projects costing several million
dollars and implementation over
several years.
CASCO BA Y INITIATIVE
Cusco Bay Estuary Project
Fifty-nine active CSOs discharge pathogens,
toxic chemicals, nutrients, and sediments into
the Casco Bay estuary. The CSOs are located in
the cities of Portland, South Portland, and
Westbrook. In 1991, EPA and the Maine De-
Pathogens
P-3
-------
ll.l'.Rl IRY2003
partment of Environmental Protection (DEP)
began an aggressive campaign — called the
Casco Bay Initiative — that imposed on com-
munities an ambitious schedule to develop and
implement CSO
abatement programs. CASCO BAY iNmATivE
Casco Bay Estuary Project
The Casco Bay
Initiative required
Web: http://
www.cascobay usm.maine.edu
Problem: 59 CSOs dumping
each city to develop pathogens and toxics into
and submit a plan to £a?c° BayD
1 Solution: Partnership
the Maine DEP for between EPA, ME DEP. and
approval. Once f'f resP°"slble ^the CSOs
to design and implement
approved, the cities abatement projects
were required to
submit 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 initia-
tive was successful in getting the plans written
and approved, they were not always imple-
mented. 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 Portland, with assistance from the
Casco Bay Estuary Project, formed a partner-
ship to develop a revised five-year schedule for
CSO abatement. The partnership was success-
ful 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 rela-
tionship among EPA. DEP, Friends of Casco
Bay, board members, and the Mayor of Portland
(Casco Bay Estuary Project 1998).
Identification of Nonpoint Sources
Many NEP management plans list nonpoint
sources of pollution as contributing much of the
pathogen 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, a
few nonpoint sources can be identified and
controlled.
In cases where nonpoint source discharges
cannot be specifically identified, the NEP must
develop a program that relies on public involve-
ment to help reduce or eliminate the problem.
1 he primary implementation tools used by
NEPs for unidentified nonpoint source controls
include best management practice changes in
building codes, consent agreements, and educa-
tion (Long Island Sound Study 1994). The main
drawback with these tools is that they rely on
voluntary public involvement with no guarantee
of effectiveness.
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 pathogens. In these cases, the NEPs have
succeeded in convincing state agencies to
implement stormwater permits that require the
discharged stormwater runoff to be treated
before it enters the estuary. Successful abate-
ment of pathogen contamination has been
accomplished in several ways, including con-
struction of wetlands to filter runoff and to
remove sediment (Buzzards Bay Project 1999).
Some NEPs have successfully accessed Clean
Water Act Section 319 funds to control erosion
and to implement sediment-retention practices
on farmland.
Sometimes, after an extensive investigation,
pathogen contamination can be linked to a
specific malfunctioning septic system or a series
P-4
. Pathogens
-------
RY2003
of systems. When a malfunctioning system is
located, the state requires the landowner to
upgrade or replace the failing system. If re-
placement 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 prob-
lem are listed below.
SANTA MONICA BAY
EPIDEM1OLOGICAL STUDY
Santa Monica Bay 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 of Santa Monica Bay beaches is safe
for swimming during the summer months, bay
waters are still periodically contaminated by
sewage spills and urban runoff. High concen-
trations of bacteria in urban runoff are the
primary cause of health risks to the bay's swim-
mers and surfers. The most notable action taken
to protect public health is the epidemiological
study conducted by the Santa Monica Bay
Restoration Project in
1995. This landmark SANTA MONICA BAY
health-effects study EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY
. . Santa Monica Bay
Conclusively demon- Restoration Project
strated a link between Web: http://www.smbay.org
Problem: Urban runoff and dry
illness (e.g., lever, weather flows from storm drains
vomiting ear infec- are contaminated with patho-
gens and pose health risks to
tions, gastrointestinal swjmmers and surfers.
illness and Other Solution: Conduct of a health-
effects study that conclusively
health problems) and demonstrated a link between
swimming in the
ocean near some
health risks and pathogen-
contaminated water. Study
results led to improved posted
piers and dry weather warnings, monitoring, and
funding for mitigation projects.
storm drain flows.
Results of the study led to improvements in
beach warning signs, improved monitoring, and
financing for capital projects to divert dry
weather flows that might otherwise impact
popular beach sites. The County of Los Ange-
les Department of Health Services (DHS)
revised its 1987 beach warning and closure
policy based on the results of the 1995 epide-
miological study. The DHS now directs life-
guards to close a beach for a minimum of 48
hours after a known discharge of untreated or
partially treated sewage. Warning signs must be
posted permanently at all continually flowing
storm drains, storm drains flowing intermit-
tently during dry weather, and discharge points
from Malibu Lagoon. Warning signs must also
be posted at any 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
RES TORA TION PROGRAM
Massachusetts Bays Program
Approximately 40 percent of the shellfish beds
in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays are either
closed or variously restricted due to contamina-
tion. Nonpoint source pollution, especially
stormwater runoff, has been identified as the
most important
source of contamina-
tion to the shellfish Massachusetts Bays
beds. In accordance wS^/wwwstatema us/
with an action plan massbays/
•f. j • -, Problem: Shellfish bed
specified in its impacted by nonpoint.source
management plan, the pollution, specifically stormwater
Massachusetts Bays ^°ffsand dlscharge from storm
Program has COOrdi- Solution: Targeting a single
an pffnrt tn specific category of pollution,
an ettOIt to
discharge from storm drains,
restore and protect 1 3 and the use of innovative
Shellfish beds in remediation technologies are
11 ucub proving to be successful in
these bays. Using a restoring contaminated
coordinated "institu-
_ Pathogens
P-5
-------
1 EBRI IR) 2003
tional" approach, the project participants be-
lieved that remediation and restoration of the
shellfish beds would be more successful if a
single, specific category of pollution sources
was targeted. The Shellfish Bed Restoration
Program presented opportunities for some
program participants to demonstrate the effec-
tiveness of innovative technologies, which
specifically target remediation of contaminants
in storm water. One such technology, which
employs a sedimentation basin, a series of filter
screens, and a constructed wetland to mitigate
pollution associated 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 successes in restoration and opening of
shellfish beds Massachusetts Bays Program
(1997).
VOL UNTAR Y INSPECTION AND
INFORMATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
FOR HOMEWOWNERS
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
In response to pathogen contamination, sus-
pected to be originating from failing septic
systems, the Galveston Bay Estuary Program
initiated the Voluntary Inspection and Informa-
tion Assistance Program to Reduce Bacterial
Pollution Caused by Malfunctioning Septic
Systems. This program conducted door-to-door
voluntary inspections of on-site septic systems
at homes along the Galveston Bay shoreline to
determine potential malfunctions. Of the 102
septic systems surveyed in the Dickinson Bayou
Watershed, 46 were found to be failing. As a
VOLUNTARY INSPECTION
AND INFORMATION
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Galveston Bay Estuary
Program
Web: http://gbep.tamug.
tamu.edu
Problem: Pathogen
contamination from suspected
on-site septic systems.
Solution: Voluntary inspection
and information assistance
program to educate the
result of this volun-
tary survey, some of
the residents were
given technical
assistance and infor-
mation regarding
septic system prob-
lems; several
homeowners have
voluntarily corrected homeowners about their
failing septic systems.
the problem. Addi-
tional technical assistance, in the form of an
assessment 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).
CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS SYSTEM
Buzzards Bay Project
The Buzzards Bay Project assisted in develop-
ing a constructed wetlands system to abate
pathogen contamina-
tion from a moderately CONSTRUCTED
„. . WETLANDS SYSTEM
settled area. 1 his area Buzzards Bay Project
was contaminating the Web: h"P://
-. wwwbuzzardsbay.org
western Section 01 Problem: Pathogen contami-
Sippican Harbor, nation from 3 moderately
,, , _, _ settled urban area that closed
called Spragues Cove, bathing areas and shellfish
a valuable shellfish beds
Solution: Constructed
harvesting Site and the wetlands to filter stormwater
Town of Marion's only runoff
bathing area. The
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF) and the Town of 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 contamina-
tion.
The Town of Marion submitted a proposal to the
Buzzards Bay Project to reduce bacteria and
P-6
, Pathogens
-------
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).
PARTNERSHIP BUILDING
FOR SEWER EXTENSION
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
Failing septic systems are a significant contribu-
tor to elevated bacterial concentrations through-
out the Tillamook Bay
basin. Expanding the PARTNERSHIP BUILDING
° FOR SEWER EXTENSION
sewer network offers
the best solution to
widespread septic
failures, and the City estuary/tbnep/nephome.html
. . . Problem: Elevated bacterial
of Tillamook IS taking concentrations in Tillamook
steps to extend lines Ba*due to failin9 seP'ic
. systems
tO the city's "hot Solution: Partnership building
Spots." There are to expand sewer network to
"hot spot" areas.
many obstacles to
overcome, including existing city policy, limited
city staff, landowner resistance, existing sewer
infiltration and inflow, and existing sewer plant
capacity. The Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
is working with the city to overcome these
obstacles by providing technical and organiza-
tional skills and resources in the form of
strategizing with city and community leaders,
working with potential project funders, writing
loan applications, and facilitating meetings.
SHELLFISH WATERS RESTORATION
Burnegat Bay Estuary Program
The hard clam harvest in Barnegat Bay has
experienced a steady decline over the pat 50
years due in large part to nonpoint sources of
pollution. The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program
has been working with the New Jersey Depart-
Tillamook Estuaries
Partnership
Web: http://
www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/
ment of Environmental Protection to conduct a
coordinated and comprehensive approach to
pollution source identification. This Sanitary
Survey, in conjunction
with an intensive, SHELLFISH WATERS
, , . RESTORATION
land-based survey, Barnegat Bay
includes a Watershed Estuary Program
. . . Web: http://www.bbep.org
assessment and land Problem: Closure of polluted
use analysis to deter- hard clam waters
Solution: Identify pollution
mine potential point sources and implement BMPS
and nonpoint sources
of pollution. This information is being used to
implement a comprehensive shellfish water
quality planning and management strategy to
control sources of bacterial contamination,
including the implementation of Best Manage-
ment Practices (BMPs). As a result, as of
March 2001, more than 5,000 acres of shellfish
waters were opened for unrestricted harvesting
for the first time in 30 years.
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 govern-
ment enacted Section 312 of the Clean Water
Act, which mandates the use of marine sanita-
tion devices on vessels and provides procedures
for establishing "No Discharge Zones" by EPA
or the state, for sewage from vessels, both
commercial and recreational. The Clean Vessel
Act is a grant program administered by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for construction,
renovation, operation, and maintenance of
pumpout stations for vessel sewage. Several
NEPs have assisted state agencies with planning
the locations of pumpout facilities and designat-
ing additional areas as "No Discharge Zones."
MARINA PUMPOUT SITING PLAN
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program devel-
oped and assisted in implementing a bay-wide
pumpout facility plan, called the Narragansett
Paf/jq»en.( P-7
-------
FEBRUARY 2003
Application for Federal No Discharge Area Designation
The Proposed No Discharge Area lor Rhode Island Waters
r" :^'
.
~~~i "'' -1 T" »"v
M-^idSn
-^Tc^rfe]
<3 Cj^Vv-J'
??^\B "
-~t I /JU 7/r r-
y fCTM^
( v -; , **»[/'
G Extent of th»Propo»ed
No Discharge Area
• fcUJor Suites Witon
U Town Boundaries
U'l Points Describing tfie Seaward
Boundary of th» Proposed No
Dlscrarg* Zona
4-
Submitted u KM 1>S. &vfronment»i Prtjfcctfcn Aomcy Mtfafl One
by tne Rhode tehawl Oopatottnt. 1MT
Figure 2: "No Discharge Zone" in Rhode Island
Island Department of Environmental Management 1999)
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 Narragansett Bay
Rhode Island coast so
that Rhode Island Problem: Dumping of sewage
cc • \ u j from vessels into area waters.
Officials COUld desig- Solution. |nstal|ation of vessel ;
nate the entire COaSt pumpout stations at marinas
*-nu j T i A and designation of a "No
of Rhode Island as a Djschargye Zone.
"No Discharge Zone"
(see Figure 2). The Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program also instituted a boater education
program on the proper disposal of waste. The
educational materials included information on
the operation and maintenance of marine sanita-
tion devices, and the identification of "No
Discharge Zones" and local pumpout stations
(Narragansett Bay Estuary Program 1999).
SHELLFISH CHALLENGE INITIATIVE
Baraturia-Terrebonne National Estuary Program
From April 1997 to June 1998, the EPA Gulf of
Mexico Program, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Strategic Envi-
ronmental Assess-
ments Division, and SHELLFISH CHALLENGE
the Barataria- Baratana-Terrebonne National
Teirebonne NEP CO- Estuary Program
, , Web: http://www.btnep.org
Sponsored me Problem: Need to increase
Barataria-Terrebonne shellfish beds available for safe
01 ii-c- i /~n 11 harvest by 10 percent.
Shellfish Challenge Solution^Implement shellfish
Initiative, the goal of bed restoration projects, including
i • i 4t, new pumpout stations at marinas
Wmcn was to gnd connectjng individual sewage
increase shellfish systems to existing WWTP.
beds in the Barataria-
Terrebonne estuary available for safe harvest by
ten percent." The partners strategically ana-
lyzed the type and severity of fecal coliform
bacteria pollution problems and resource man-
agement issues causing shellfish harvest limita-
tions. Using this preliminary analysis, a series
of four stakeholders workshops for regional
shellfish experts, water quality officials, scien-
tists, and local stakeholders were held, where 61
candidate oyster growing water restoration
projects in the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary
were identified, described, and mapped using
GIS. Through an additional consensus-based
workshop using feasibility and funding opportu-
nity criteria, this list was refined to four priority
projects for immediate implementation, three of
which contribute to the implementation of the
Management Plan. The priority projects in-
cluded installing new pumpout/dump stations at
marinas throughout the estuary and connecting
poorly operating individual wastewater treat-
ment systems to an existing wastewater treat-
ment plant at selected sites. More than
$250,000 has been leveraged by Barataria-
Terrebonne NEP to implement the Shellfish
Challenge Initiative.
P-8
, Pathogens
-------
-I:HIU
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH
VOLUNTEER WATER QUALITY
MONITORING
Morro Bay National Estuary Program
The Friends of the Estuary/Morro Bay National
Estuary Program's Volunteer Monitoring Pro-
gram has successfully recruited and trained
volunteers to help collect water quality samples
to provide much needed scientific data. The
Volunteer Monitoring Program has developed as
a partnership be-
tween many agen-
cies, organizations,
and citizens. The
Bay Foundation and
the Central Coast
Regional Water
Quality Control
Board, through the
NEP, provide support for volunteer coordina-
tion, program management, and laboratory
funds for monitoring activities. The Friends of
the Estuary provided funds for water quality
equipment and volunteer recognition. Partner-
ships are continually forming to expand the
watershed-wide Volunteer Monitoring Program.
Hundreds of volunteers of all ages have gotten
their feet wet in the creeks and bay.
VOLUNTEER WATER QUALITY
MONITORING
Morro Bay
National Estuary Program
Web: http://www mbnep-org/
Problem: Need to conduct
regular water quality monitoring.
Solution: Recruit and train
volunteers to collect water quality
samples and promote steward-
ship of Morro Bay.
On-going monitoring activities include: Benthic
Invaders, volunteers who each spring venture
into the creeks using kicknets to gather benthic
macroinvertebrates from the stream bottom
gravels; Bac Attackers, volunteers who rou-
tinely gather samples for E.coli, total coliform,
and nitrates on a bi-weekly basis at the freshwa-
ter seeps at the edge of the bay; Stream Profiles,
volunteers who conduct habitat assessments and
stream channel profiles once a year; SLO Float-
ers, volunteers who every other week measure
creek flows in the tributaries that flow into
Morro Bay; the Dawn Patrol, volunteers who
ride in kayaks, at dawn once a month, to mea-
sure dissolved oxygen; Bay Nitrate Monitoring.
volunteers who ride in boats, canoes and kayaks
to collect nitrate and salinity samples; the Drain
Rangers, "on-call" volunteers who collect
storm water runoff samples from culverts and
drains during the winter season.
Through training in proper sample collection
techniques, instrument operation, and quality
control, volunteers collect sound scientific data.
The information gathered through the program
is being incorporated into the Morro Bay NEP's
management plan. The involvement of volun-
teers in the monitoring program has successfully
promoted stewardship and increased awareness
of need to protect the resources of Morro Bay.
Pathogens
P-9
-------
FEBRUARY 2003
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
Pathogens
-------
1-iiHRl 'ARY2003
SEPA
FRESHWATER
INFLOW
FRESHWATER INFLOW
The availability of freshwater has been an issue
in the United States for a long time. When the
population of the United States initially in-
creased, settlers moved west across the plains in
search of fertile areas with a good supply of
freshwater. The availability of freshwater 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 freshwater is
still an issue and most original water rights
deeded to landowners are still in effect.
As the population continues to grow, the domes-
tic demand for freshwater 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 freshwater can be obtained is
through stream or river diversions. 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 origi-
nally 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 flow 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. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) National Estuary Program
(NEP), consider freshwater inflow a priority
problem that must be addressed.
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999,
two of the 28 NEPs consider freshwater
inflow a high-priority action item:
Albemarle-Pamlico (NC)
San Francisco (CA)
Note: Several other NEPs list freshwater inflow as a
concern, but not as a top priority.
This section highlights key management ap-
proaches and public education and outreach
activities implemented by the NEPs to address
the alteration of freshwater inflow.
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
Freshwater Inflow.
F-l
-------
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 imple-
mented by NEPs across the country. These
management actions have been categorized
under management plans or reclamation actions.
Management Plans
The freshwater inflow management plans
described below focus mainly on finding a
solution through proper management of the
freshwater that is available throughout the entire
system. These actions rely on state agencies to
work out an amicable solution to providing
freshwater to all parties involved.
HOLISTIC APPROACH TO
FRESHWA TER MA NA CEMENT
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program
In the Corpus
HOLISTIC APPROACH TO
FRESHWATER MANAGEMENT
Coastal Bend Bays and
Estuaries Program
Web http://www.cbbep.org/
Problem: Current management
framework for freshwater is
reactionary.
Solution: Develop holistic
proactive management approach
for freshwater.
ti Bay region,
management of
freshwater inflow is
currently an issue at
the local and state
government levels,
and requires an
agreed-upon pro-
cess for decision-making. The current decision-
making framework is politically and emotion-
ally charged, and more reactionary than proac-
tive in nature.
The Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program
determined that 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 holistic 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
FRESHWATER INFLOW MODEL
Delaware Estuary Program
The Delaware River Basin Commission is
developing models to determine optimum
salinity ranges or to establish ecological criteria
necessary to: (1) set minimum flows; (2) de-
F-2
freshwater Inflow
-------
— l-l-.KRl 'ARY2003
FRESHWATER INFLOW MODEL
Delaware Estuary Program
Web: http://www.delep.org
Problem Decrease in
amount of freshwater
entering the estuary.
Solution: Develop freshwater
inflow model to determine minimum
freshwater flows needed to meet
the program goals
velop salinity standards; (3) integrate resource
planning by water and wastewater authorities,
water conservation
rate structures/
conservation
retrofitting pro-
grams by water and
wastewater utili-
ties, and wastewa-
ter reclamation;
and (4) provide infrastructure for wastewater
reuse. This program will assure adequate
freshwater flows into the estuary.
BEST MAN A CEMENT PRA CTICES
TO REDUCE THE LOSS OF
FRESH WA TER INFL O W
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
111 the Charlotte Harbor study area, a watershed
approach to surface-water management will be
used to form a
watershed manage-
ment plan for each
drainage basin,
including establish-
BESTMANAGEMENT
PRACTICES TO REDUCE THE
LOSS OF FRESHWATER INFLOW
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
ing minimum flows Problem Irregular and inconsis-
j i i f tent flows of fresh water to the
and water levels for estuary
each Water body. Solution Develop best manage-
Water management ment practlces to regulate the flow
districts are responsible for establishing mini-
mum in-stream flows so that permitted water
withdrawals do not adversely impact natural
resources. The Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection and the water management
districts regulate groundwater withdrawal for
water supply, agriculture, and industrial pur-
poses. 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.
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. Envi-
ronmental problems in these estuaries are a
direct result of their unnatural connection to the
lake and resulting changes within their water-
sheds. Periodic releases of freshwater, 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 Man-
agement District, has been the development of
an intricate network of secondary canals, which
drain surrounding urban and agricultural lands.
This artificial modification of the watershed has
altered freshwater discharge to the estuaries
without regard for the volume, timing, fre-
quency, 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
materials 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
freshwater Inflow.
F-3
-------
of groundwater and subsequent lowering of the
water table or aquifer pressure. Coastal com-
munities 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 freshwater decrease. The
primary purpose of the Caloosahatchee (Char-
lotte 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 en-
hancing the estuary within the context of contin-
ued urban, agricultural, and recreational use of
water resources.
Reclamation Actions
Freshwater inflow reclamation involves the
collection of wastewater from various sources,
and purification so that the wastewater is suit-
able for use by agriculture and industry.
MANATEE RIVER WASTEWATER
RECLAMA TION PLAN
Sarasota Buy National Estuary Program
A major component of the Sarasota Bay NEP
management plan recommends the construction
of a multi-jurisdictional regional wastewater
reuse system. The overall plan is to reclaim
approximately 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
WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION PLAN
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web http://www.sarasotabay.org
Problem: Decreased flow of
fresh water to the Manatee River.
Solution Develop a regional
wastewater re-use plan to
reclaim wastewater.
attention due to the lack of freshwater inflow. A
multi-jurisdictional task force has been estab-
lished, chaired by MANATEE RIVER
the Southwest
Florida Water Man-
agement District, to
complete the final
design of the waste-
water recovery
system. Funding is
being provided through congressional appro-
priation, the Water Management District, and
local governments.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH
COMMUNITY ED UCA TION
TO DECREASE WATER USE
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
The Charlotte Harbor NEP, Florida, recognized
very early in its process that alterations in
freshwater flows
into the estuary had
resulted in signifi-
cant changes in the
harbor's environ-
ment. After identi-
fying the problem,
the NEP is assisting
in the development of water management plans
for each drainage basin throughout the entire
watershed, including the establishment of
minimum flows and water levels for each water
body, as well as the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Public educa-
tion is also part of the approach. Two programs
that target community education in methods to
use less water for landscaping and in improving
the quality of surface water runoff are the
Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program and
Xeriscaping. In addition, both programs use
plants that are native to the area and that grow
well in local conditions.
COMMUNITY EDUCATION TO
DECREASE WATER USE
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
Web: http://
www.charlotteharbornep.com
Problem Alterations in freshwa-
ter flows.
Solution: Educate the community
to reduce water use and improve
water quality.
F-4
freshwater Inflow.
-------
&EPA
NUTRIENTS
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, are
essential for the growth of plants and animals
and to support healthy marine and freshwater
ecosystems. However, excessive levels of
nutrients can lead to algal blooms, low dis-
solved oxygen, and fish kills. The relationships
between high levels of nutrients and environ-
mental problems are complex.
Nutrients stimulate the growth of algae which
blocks sunlight from the water column and.
which when decomposing, draws oxygen out of
the water leading to hypoxic (low dissolved
oxygen) or even anoxic (no dissolved oxygen)
conditions. These conditions can lead to fish
kills and loss of seagrass habitat. The loss of
seagrass habitat results in animals that depend
on seagrasses for food or shelter either leaving
the area or dying. In addition, decaying algae
often produce foul smells resulting lower
aesthetic values for coastal resources.
The links are being studied between nutrient
overloading and harmful algal blooms, such as
red and brown tides and toxic Pfiesteria out-
breaks. Pfiesteria outbreaks have occurred in
several tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay and in
North Carolina rivers in recent years, resulting
in fish kills, fish lesions, and suspected human
health impacts.
Other harmful algal blooms have been linked to
fish kills, manatee deaths, and declines in
scallop populations. Some of these algal
blooms emit toxins that can contaminate fish or
shellfish, making them unfit for human con-
sumption.
According to a survey ofNEP 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 Estuary (NY)
San Juan Bay (PR)
Sarasota Bay (FL)
Nutrients that enter aquatic ecosystems come
from both point sources, such as sewage treat-
ment plant discharges, and nonpoint sources,
such as stormwater runoff of fertilizers from
lawns and agricultural lands, combined sewer
overflows, faulty or leaking septic systems.
animal wastes, atmospheric deposition originat-
ing from power plants or vehicles, and ground-
water discharges.
Nutnenis
N-l
-------
This section highlights key management ap-
proaches and public education and outreach
activities implemented by the NEPs to address
the issue of nutrient enrichment.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The following are examples
of management actions to address nutrient
enrichment that have been successfully imple-
mented by NEPs across the country. The
management actions presented below include
legislative changes, development of a compre-
hensive management plan, and identification of
nonpoint-source discharges.
Legislative Changes
Nutrient overloading normally results from the
discharge of human or animal wastes through
inadequately treated wastewaters, failing septic
systems, or runoff. In most cases, legislative
action is required to correct these problems.
Once proper legislation is in place, municipali-
ties and state agencies have the authority to
correct the problems responsible for nutrient
enrichment. Several NEPs have assisted states
in developing legislation, which gives state
agencies the authority to implement corrective
measures. The Sarasota Bay NEP and the Long
Island Sound Study are two programs that have
helped to pass legislation to mitigate nutrient
contamination.
GRIZZLE FIGG LEGISLATION
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
The principle pollutant of concern in Sarasota
Bay is nitrogen. Since the 1940s and 1950s,
about 30 percent of the seagrass beds in
Sarasota Bay have been lost, due primarily to
excessive nitrogen
GRIZZLE FIGG LEGISLATION
from wastewater and Sarasota Bay National
Stormwater Rinoff. Estuary Program
Web: http://
The Sarasota Bay www.sarasotabay.org
NEP helped to enact Problem: Loss of seagrasses
•i i i r,™ /-. • i due to nutrient enrichment
Florida S 1 990 OriZZle solution: New legislation
Fl£U legislation requiring advanced treatment
'. of discharged wastewater
aimed at controlling
the amount of nutrients entering the bay. The
Grizzle Figg legislation requires that wastewa-
ter, discharged directly to surface waters, meets
advanced wastewater treatment standards (i.e.,
<3 mg/L total nitrogen, <1 mg/L total phospho-
rus). To meet these requirements, counties
upgraded wastewater treatment plants, ex-
panded agricultural reuse programs, and devel-
oped deep-well injection and aquifer storage
and recover}' systems. As a result of this legis-
lation, nitrogen loads to Sarasota Bay have
decreased by 28 to 38 percent, and seagrass
coverage has increased by seven percent (about
614 acres) since 1988 (Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program 1999).
NITROGEN REDUCTION PROGRAM
Long Island Sound Study
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) identified
low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia) as the most
significant water quality problem in Long Island
Sound. Studies
NITROGEN REDUCTION
showed that excessive PROGRAM
nitrogen, discharged Lon9lsland Sound Study
Web: http://www.epa.gov/
by sewage treatment regionoi/eco/ns/
plants, Was the pri- Problem: Low dissolved
oxygen due to excessive
mary Cause of hypoxia nitrogen loading
(<2-3 mg/L dissolved Solution: Freeze nitrogen
loading from sewage treatment
oxygen), m the plants and implement low-cost
deeper waters of nitrogen removal technologies
at selected plants.
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 LISS has been proceeding with a
multi-phase nitrogen reduction program, which
began with Phase I in 1990. During Phase I,
point and nonpoint nitrogen loadings to Long
Island Sound were kept 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 reduc-
ing nitrogen discharges from peak loadings. To
meet the LISS goal, a variety of low-cost nitro-
gen removal technologies have been incorpo-
rated at selected sewage treatment plants. In
addition, state agencies are using innovative
strategies and the cooperation of local govern-
yv-2
A iitnt nts.
-------
FEBRUARY 2003
merits 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 1998, EPA, and the states of Connecti-
cut and New York adopted the plan entitled
Phase III Actions for Hypoxia Management,
which includes nitrogen reduction targets for 11
management zones that make up the Long
Island Sound watershed. This bi-state agree-
ment calls for a 58.5 percent reduction in hu-
man-caused nitrogen loads to the Sound over a
15 year period beginning in 1999. To meet this
goal, the states of New York and Connecticut
Aquatic
M*nt
Growth
Inhibited
Fish, Shellfish and Other
Organisms Stressed
Figure 3: Effects of Excessive Nitrogen
(Source: Long Island Sound Study, 1998)
have developed a final Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) for nitrogen, which EPA has
approved. The estimated nitrogen load from
sewage treatment plants in the drainage basin
that entered Long Island Sound in 2000 is
approximately 158,676 Ibs/day, a decrease of
nearly 28,000 Ibs/day from 1990 levels. Both
states are continuing to prioritize funding for
nonpoint source pollution control projects
benefiting the Sound. (Long Island Sound
Study 1994; 1998;! 999b).
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.
NUTRIENT-SENSITIVE WATERS
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE
NEUSE RIVER
Alhemarle-Pamlico Sounds National
Estuary Program
The Neuse River estuary has had a history of
nutrient-related water quality problems, as
evidenced by excessive algal blooms, low
dissolved oxygen, and NUTRIENT-SENSITJVE
fish kills. To curb
these problems, the
State of North Caro-
lina has developed
and is beginning to
implement a compre-
hensive Nutrient-
Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy
for the Neuse River.
This strategy is intended to reduce the concen-
trations of nutrients entering the river. For the
first time in state history, the management
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
has become the responsibility of local govern-
WATERS MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY FOR THE
NEUSE RIVER
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
National Estuary Program
Web: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
nep/
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
N-3
-------
i'UDRl ' IRVJYWJ
ments of heavily populated and rapidly 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.
NUTRIENT MAN A CEMENT STRA TEG Y:
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
TO RESTORE SEAGRASSES
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
To address the long-term management of this
disparate mixture of nitrogen sources, the
Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium,
consisting of local
electric utilities,
industries and
agricultural inter-
ests, as well as local
governments and
regulatory agency
representatives
participating in the Tampa Bay Estuary Pro-
gram, has been established to develop a Consor-
tium Action Plan to address the target load
reduction needed to '"hold the line" at 1992-
1994 levels (a total reduction of 17 tons of
nitrogen per year each year through the year
2010). To date, implemented and planned
projects collated in the Consortium Action Plan
are expected to reduce existing nitrogen loads
by 140 tons/year by 2000, which meets and
exceeds the agreed-upon reduction goal.
Seagrass extent, the environmental indicator of
"success" for this program, is expanding at the
rate of about 350 acres per year, a rate which, if
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY: PUBLIC - PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP TO RESTORE
SEAGRASSES
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
Web: http://www.tbep org
Problem: Long-term manage-
ment of many nitrogen sources
Solution: Convene consortium to
address target load reduction.
Peconic Estuary Program
Web: http://www.epa.gov/owow/
estuaries/pb.htm
Problem: Nitrogen levels in the
Peconic Estuary.
Solution: Implement a point
source nitrogen freeze, upgrade
VWVTPs. implement TMDL. and
implement nonpoint source
management plan.
maintained, will meet the long-term restoration
target of restoring seagrass acreage to that
observed in 1950 in about 25 years.
NUTRIENT MAN A CEMENT
Peconic Estuary Program
Nitrogen is the primary nutrient of concern in
the Peconic Estuary system. The Peconic
Estuary Program (PEP) has implemented a point
source nitrogen freeze NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
and SPDES permits
have been modified to
reflect this change.
As a result of the
comprehensive work
done by the PEP,
major sewage treat-
ment plants in the area are being upgraded using
New York State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond
Act monies. The PEP has also made significant
progress towards the development and imple-
mentation of a nitrogen Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) for the entire estuary, using
extensive monitoring and state-of-the-art char-
acterization and assessment tools, including a
three-dimensional hydrodynamic and water
quality model with a predictive sediment
submodel. Nonpoint source management plans
are underway including expanding the and land
use planning. County and town sources have
already committed millions of dollars for open
space acquisitions.
Identification of Nonpoint Sources
Many NEP management plans list nonpoint
sources of pollution as contributing 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 con-
trolled.
TV- 4
. Nutrients
-------
\R}'200)
In cases where nonpoint-source discharges
cannot be specifically identified, the NEP must
develop a program that relies on public involve-
ment to help reduce or eliminate the problem.
The primary implementation tools used by
NEPs for unidentified nonpoint-source controls
include best management practices and public
education. The main drawback with these tools
is that they rely on voluntary public involve-
ment 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.
POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION GOALS
Indian River Lagoon National
Estuary Program
The Indian River Lagoon NEP has been work-
ing to develop pollutant load reduction goals for
nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved organic matter,
and suspended POLLUTANT LOAD
matter loadings to REDUCTION GOALS
Indian River Lagoon
the Indian River National Estuary Program
Web: http://www.epa.gov/owow/
oceans/lagoon/
goals are directed to problem: Nonpoint-source
nutrient loads affecting the health
of seagrass beds.
Source nutrient Solution: Develop and implement
contamination, stricter stormwater codes
Lagoon. These
goals are direct
address nonpoint
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 Reduction Model
being developed for the Indian River Lagoon by
the St. Johns River Water Management 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 opti-
mally 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 treat-
ment and management within the Indian River
Lagoon.
ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN
DEPOSITION STUD Y
Long Island Sound Study
The primary source of atmospheric nitrogen is
the combustion of fossil fuels. Studies have
shown that atmospheric 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 atmo-
spheric sources. The study found that atmo-
spheric 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 loads by five percent. By controlling
nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions, an improve-
ment in dissolved oxygen concentrations, as
ATMOSPHERIC NITROGEN
DEPOSITION STUDY
Long Island Sound Study
Web: http://www.epa.gov/
region01/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
Nutrients
N-5
-------
well as ground-level ozone pollution, is pre-
dicted (Long Island Sound Study 1997).
A CRICUL TURAL ENVIRONMENTAL
MA NA CEMENT STRA TEG Y
Peconic Estuary Program
The Peconic Estuary Program's Agricultural
Nitrogen Management Committee has devel-
oped, with the region's AGRICULTURAL
agricultural community. ENVIRONMENTAL
, MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
a strategy to lower Peconic Estuary Program
nutrient and pesticide Web: http://wwwepa.gov/
. . owow/estuaries/pb.htm
inputs into the environ- Problem. Agncultura,
nient. A 20-30 percent nitrogen loadings
.... , Solution: Implement
reduction in agncul- strategy to lower agncultural
tLiral fertilizer inputs is nitrogen loadings
targeted over a five-year period, and may be
measured by voluntary reporting, surveys,
fertilizer sales data, and groundwater monitor-
ing. The Agricultural Nitrogen Management
Committee already has produced agricultural
use GIS maps for the towns in the Peconic study
area and has determined the nitrogen loading
rates and estimates of potential reductions for
specific crops.
The Agricultural Nitrogen Management Com-
mittee is currently developing Long Island
component to the New York State Agricultural
Environmental Management (AEM) Program
wherein whole farm management plans are
undertaken with farm operators to reduce
environmental impacts. Until now, the AEM
Program has focused on the livestock farmers in
upstate New York, with an emphasis on phos-
phorus reduction and little emphasis on nitrogen
reduction (Long Island's primary issue). In a
high cost area like Long Island, AEM must be
enhanced with incentives to be viewed as a
viable working option to reduce nitrogen and
pesticides. The tax credits, cost sharing, and the
program itself should be enticing enough so that
90 percent of the fanners working the remaining
agricultural acres within the watershed are
participating by 2005.
An ambitious AEM Initiative has already been
piloted in the Peconic Estuary. Using the AEM
/V-6 ]^\ ntlienls
approach, a comprehensive inventory and
analysis was conducted for most farms within
one subwatershed to assess the potential impact
the farms may have had on that part of the
Peconic Estuary and shallow aquifer. Plans
were developed for high priority farms and best
management practices were implemented. A
total of 13 farms within the watershed imple-
mented the high priority Best Management
Practices (BMPs).
Other tasks for the Peconic Estuary Program's
Agricultural Nitrogen Management Committee
include: investigating the creation of a farm
insurance plan; providing funding for increased
local AEM development implementation;
investigating and implementing innovative/
alternative finance mechanisms for education
and outreach and other tasks; and gathering and
analyzing economic data on a regular basis and
continuing to promote and integrate economic
analyses and support mechanisms into the AEM
initiatives.
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH
NONPOINT ED UCA TION
FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
Long Island Sound Study
The Long Island Sound Study supported Uni-
versity of Connecticut's Cooperative Extension-
sponsored Nonpoinl NONPOINT EDUCATION
Education for Munici- FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
pal Officials (NEMO) £"!?'**"?SoundStud?
Web: http//www epa gov/
project that Continues region01/eco/lis/
tO Conduct a Series of Problem: Need to access
opportunities to train and
presentations On educate the environmental
nonpoint SOUrce pollu- decision-making community
Solution: Conduct presenta-
tion prevention and the tion on nonpoint source
link between land use P0""1™ Preven^n and the
link between land use and
and water quality to water quality to municipal
municipal officials. officials
This project helps to fulfill a Long Island Sound
management plan action item to access opportu-
nities to train and educate the environmental
decision-making community.
-------
Methodologies were presented to local officials
in Westchester and Fairfield counties on the
effects of impervious surfaces, innovative land
development techniques, conserving open
space, and geographic information systems.
NEMO conducted 33 workshops with more than
900 persons in attendance during 1999. Munici-
pal representatives included town selectmen/
women, planning and zoning boards, health
departments, conservation and environment
commissions, highways and parks and recre-
ation departments. Since its inception in Sep-
tember 1997, the NEMO project has provided
more than 50 workshops in New York and
Connecticut Long Island Sound watershed
communities.
PER TIL IZER REDUCTION ED UCA 770. V
Peconic Estuary Program
In the eastern part of the Peconic Estuary, a
''water quality preservation" policy is being
developed to include
Best Management
Practices (BMPs), land
use controls, and site-
specific mitigation in
key sub-watersheds to
keep nitrogen from
reaching levels that
could become harmful. Education and outreach
programs are vital to the success of these ef-
forts. These programs focus on teaching
homeowners and farmers to reduce the amount
of fertilizer applied to their yards and farmland.
FERTILIZER REDUCTION
EDUCATION
Peconic Estuary Program
Web: http://www.epa.gov/
owow/estuaries/pb htm
Problem: Adverse impacts
from nitrogen.
Solution: Educate
homeowners and farmers to
reduce fertilizer use
Nufrients
N-7
-------
7EBRUARY2003
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
N-8 Nutrients.
-------
i/o 200 i
wEPA FISH & WILDLIFE
FISH AND WILDLIFE SPECIES
Concern about the decline of various fish and
wildlife species populations has been recog-
nized 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
disappearance of important food fish species. In
1900, the first legislation (the Lacey Act) was
passed to protect game and to prohibit interstate
shipping 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
in 1973 to expand and strengthen laws that
protect endangered and threatened species of
plants and animals. In addition, the increase in
introductions of non-indigenous species is
directly contributing to the decline and potential
extinction of indigenous species populations.
Recognizing the importance offish 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
species, 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
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the following
9 of the 28 NEPs consider the decline and
loss offish and wildlife species a
high-priority action item:
Albemarle-Pamlico (NC)
Charlotte Harbor (FL)
Indian River Lagoon (FL)
Long Island Sound (NY, CT)
Peconic Estuary (NY)
Puget Sound (WA)
San Francisco Estuary (CA)
Santa Monica Bay (CA)
Tillamook Bay (OR)
ish & Wildlife.
.FW-1
-------
[RV2003
of native fish and wildlife species has a signifi-
cant effect on the health of the entire ecosystem.
This section highlights key management ap-
proaches and public education and outreach
activities implemented by the NEPs to address
the issue offish and wildlife loss.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The following are examples
of 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.
Habitat Restoration and Creation
STONE Y R UN-FOX POINT RESTORA TION
AND OSPREY RECOVER Y PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
The Delaware Estuary Program has teamed with
the Delaware Division of Parks and Recreation
to install four osprey
STONEY RUN-FOX POINT
plattorms along RESTORATION AND OSPREY
Stoney Run, a tribu- RECOVERY PROJECT
... . Delaware Estuary Program
tary of the Delaware Web: http://www.deiep.org
Estuary, and at FOX Problem: Loss of osprey
. . nesting areas.
Point State Park. Solution: Construct osprey
Volunteers cleaned Up Platforms and monitor bird
. . activity.
the sites by removing
trash and exotic plants. After construction is
completed, the sites will be monitored for avian
activity and maintained to keep the platforms
useable. This project cost approximately
$6,000.
QUAKER NECK DAM REMOVAL PROJECT
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
National Estuary Program
In 1997, work began on a project to remove the
Quaker Neck Dam, located near Goldsboro,
North Carolina. The dam was scheduled for
removal so that 1,054
., e , QUAKER NECK DAM
miles of anadromous REMOVAL
fish-spawning habitat Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
could be restored ££$£*"'' ^^
along the Neuse h2o.enr.statenc.us/nep/
n- j -. , -i Problem: Loss of commercial
River and its tnbutar- and recreational fisn_spawning
ies. This project was areas due to dam
• r- ,i -. Solution: Removal of dam to
significant because it allow f|Sh to return to the area
was the first dam
ever removed specifically to benefit the envi-
ronment, and the project received White House
recognition and worldwide 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 seven-foot-high dam.
The removal of the Quaker Neck Dam is ex-
pected 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
biologists reported that striped bass had re-
turned 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 ap-
proximately $ 180,000, but its initial success has
FW-2.
Fish <^ Wildlife
-------
IK) _
already resulted in two other North Carolina
dams being removed for environmental pur-
poses (Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National
Estuary Program 1999).
ARTIFICIAL REEF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Sarasota Buy 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 opera-
tions and other channel modifications in the
Sarasota area have resulted in uncharacteristi-
cally deep areas of the bay and an associated
loss offish 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
reefs are being con-
structed 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
ARTIFICIAL REEF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web: http://
www. sarasotabay.org
Problem: Dredging operations
and other impacts resulted in
loss of fish habitat.
Solution: Construct and deploy
artificial reefs to serve as
juvenile fish habitat-
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 was spent in FY2000
(Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 1999).
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH
DELA WARE SHOREBIRD
AMBASSADORS PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
The Delaware Estuary Program, in partnership
with the Delaware Division of Fish and Wild-
life, has developed the
Delaware Shorebird
Ambassadors Project.
Two shorebird "am-
bassadors" were hired
to work in the Little
Creek and Ted Harvey
Wildlife Areas for
five weeks during the spring shorebird migra-
tion. The ambassadors' primary function is to
interact with visitors and to answer questions
about shorebird viewing areas, provide guidance
DELAWARE SHOREBIRD
AMBASSADORS PROJECT
Delaware Estuary Program
Web: http://www.delep.org
Problem: Human disturbances
during spring shorebird
migration.
Solution: Short-term hiring of
'ambassadors" to guide visitors
and answer questions
Fish
.FW-3
-------
for responsible viewing, caution visitors about
the birds" sensitivity to human disturbance, and
to document responses of shorebirds to humans.
The ambassadors were also available to answer
questions about the birds and to distribute
brochures. The Shorebird Ambassadors Project
cost approximately $1,200 per year (Delaware
Estuary Program 1997).
ANGLER EDUCATION PROGRAM
Surasuta Buy National Estimry Program
As part of an action plan to increase Sarasota
Bay fisheries, the Sarasota Bay NEP has initi-
ated a program to
educate anglers about
catch-and-release and
other angling practices
that favor conserva-
tion. 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. Two documents that have been
developed by the Sarasota Bay NEP are the
"Blueways Nature-Based Tourism Guide to
ANGLER EDUCATION
PROGRAM
Sarasota Bay National
Estuary Program
Web: http://
www.sarasotabay.org
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.
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 empha-
size conservation techniques by supporting
development and distribution of literature,
sponsoring boating classes, and other educa-
tional efforts specifically directed at the boater
and angler. These NEP documents will assist
and supplement the efforts of bay-area organiza-
tions in educating boaters and anglers in pre-
serving fish habitat throughout the bay (Sarasota
Bay National Estuary Program 1999).
FW-4.
F/S/J & Wildtye
-------
l'L:KRl '
xvEPA
INTRODUCED
INTRODUCED SPECIES
Introduced species are defined as organisms that
have been transported from one place to an-
other, 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 ornamental use, or they
can be incidental passengers on ships entering
U.S. ports. Examples of introduced species
include the Asian clam, brown mussel, Brazilian
pepper, European green crab, and Asian mitten
crab.
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 been removed from their natural
predators or have little competition 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 in-
creasing because the ballast water on ships carry
many of these species. Several federal agencies,
including the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, are currently working to
develop transport methods and inspection tech-
niques 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,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the following
NEP considers introduced species
a high-priority action item:
San Francisco (CA)
Note: Several other NEPs list introduced species as a
concern, but not as a top priority.
This section highlights key management ap-
proaches and public education and outreach
activities implemented by the NEPs to address
the issue of introduced species.
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The key to managing intro-
duced species is to prevent their introduction and
distribution. National awareness and effort are
needed to prevent new species from being intro-
duced. A similar national effort is needed to
prevent the spread and distribution of species that
have already been introduced. The NEP manage-
ment actions for introduced species fall into three
focus areas that the Nation, as a whole, needs to
address: (I) regulation. (2) prevention, and (3)
management. Management actions for each of
these areas are presented below.
li/n'd Species IS-1
-------
[RY2(H)3
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
the issue of introduced species through the
development of federal and state regulations.
The San Francisco Estuary Project has employ-
ees and task-force stakeholders addressing the
issue 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
working on this issue on a regional scale. Some
NEPs 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
docking (San Francisco Estuary Project 1999).
Effective January 1, 2000, AB 703. the State of
California's multi-agency Ballast Water Man-
agement and Control Program became effective.
This legislation on ballast water management
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 U.S. Coast
Guard, 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 Estuury Project
The State of California has implemented legisla-
tion to prevent the introduction of aquatic plant
and fish species.
This legislation
prohibits import of
fish, amphibians, or
detrimental aquatic
plants into the state
without prior ap-
proval. In addition, it
is illegal, without
prior inspection and
approval, to intro-
PREVENTING
INTRODUCTION OF NEW
AQUATIC SPECIES TO
CALIFORNIA
San Francisco Estuary
Project
Web: http://www.abag.ca.gov/
bayarea/sfep/sfep html
Problem: Non-indigenous
species are being introduced
into the California ecosystem
Solution: Legislation prohibit-
ing the introduction offish.
amphibia, or aquatic plants
without prior approval.
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 Califor-
nia.
Prevention
In the past, some new species have been delib-
erately introduced to an area. Intentional
introduction 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.
BALLAST WATER WORKSHOP
TO PROMOTE DIALOGUE
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
The primary mission of the workshop on aquatic
invasive species, held in Tampa in November
IS-2
.Introduced
-------
1999, was to promote a dialogue between the
shipping and scientific communities about
issues associated
with ballast water BALLAST WATER WORKSHOP
TO PROMOTE DIALOGUE
discharge, and to Tampa Bay Estuary Program
explore methods Web: http://www tbep org
. Problem: Introductions of aquatic
and technologies invasive species from ballast water
available (or on the releases
Solution: Promote dialogue
horizon) to prevent between shipping and scientific
Unwanted DlantS communities and explore methods
available for prevention
and animals trom
entering the bay in ballast water. A unique
feature of the Tampa workshop was the use of
round table discussions at lunch to promote idea
exchange and open discussion of key issues
surrounding ballast water management. A
somewhat surprising response from all partici-
pants was that a regulatory mechanism was
needed to drive both public and private partici-
pation in ballast water management and treat-
ment strategies.
Management
Once introduced species have been released into
an ecosystem and become a significant 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.
NUTRIA HARVEST AND WETLAND
DEMONSTRA TION PROJECT
Barataria- Terrebonne
National Estuary Program
According to studies funded by the Barataria-
Terrebonne NEP, the nutria, a voracious herbi-
vore, 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 furbearer. The nutria, which
impact the estuaries along the Gulf of Mexico
nutria in Louisiana wetlands
Solution: Develop a national
and international market for
nutria meat
today, are descendants of the original introduced
exotic species. Natural predators, such as the
American alligator, were unable to control the
nutria populations and recent changes in na-
tional attitudes
tnwarrk thp fur NUTRIA HARVEST AND
towards the tur WETLAND DEMONSTRATION
industry have re- PROJECT
duced nutria-trapping Barataria-Jerrebonne
c National Estuary Program
activities. To Control Web: http.//www.btnep org
the number Of nutria Proble!T1: Destruction of marsh
areas due to overpopulation of
in the Barataria-
Terrebonne 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,
Protection, and Restoration Act, $2 million was
budgeted 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 Pro-
gram 1998).
Introduced Sped?!.
75-3
-------
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH
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.
INTRODUCED SPECIES WORKSHOPS
Sun Francisco Estuary Project
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
INTRODUCED SPECIES
WORKSHOPS
San Francisco Estuary Project
Web: http://www.abag.ca.gov/
bayarea/sfep/sfep.html
Problem. Intentional introduction
of non-native species
Species in check. The Solution: Educational work-
NFP W akn f^isterl shops' Public-private teams to
JNtf nas also assisted assist with species control and
EPA in developing a newsletters and articles that focus
public-private team to public attentlon on the problem
develop strategies for prevention and control of
the giant cane plant (Arundo donox). The San
Francisco Bay NEP newsletter, Estuaty, 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 class-
rooms, 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
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program has initiated a
comprehensive campaign to educate citizens
about ecological problems associated with inva-
sive species and enlist their support in reporting
any invasive species they encounter in the bay.
"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 campaign in-
cludes posters dis-
played at area boat
ramps, bait shops,
and waterfront parks;
public service an-
nouncements; posting
of potential invasive
species pictures on
websites; and the
creation of a hotline or clearinghouse where
people could learn more about invasive species
and report sightings of unusual plants and animals.
"EYES ON THE BAY"
A CITIZEN MONITORING EFFORT FOR DE-
TECTING INVASIVE SPECIES
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program's "Eyes on the
Bay" provides for a comprehensive campaign to
educate citizens about ecological problems associ-
ated with invasive species and enlist their support
in reporting any inva-
sive species they
encounter in the bay.
The campaign includes
posters displayed at
area boat ramps, bait
shops and waterfront
parks; public service
announcements; posting of potential invasive
species pictures on websites; and the creation of a
hotline or clearinghouse where people could learn
more about invasive species and report sightings
of unusual plants and animals.
"EYES ON THE BAY"
A CITIZEN MONITORING
EFFORT FOR DETECTING
INVASIVE SPECIES
Tampa Bay Estuary Project
Web: http://www.tbep.org
Problem Invasive species in
Tampa Bay.
Solution: Educate and enlist
citizen support to identify and
prevent invasive species.
IS-4
. Introduced Species
-------
2(M)i
6EPA
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 chemi-
cally bound in the sediments, where they may
eventually 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 dis-
charge municipal and industrial wastes. Chemi-
cal spills also act as point sources of contamina-
tion. Nonpoint sources are highly variable and
more difficult to define. However, the most
common nonpoint source of contamination is
stormwater runoff from urban, residential,
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 estuaries. A variety of metal and
organic pollutants, such as mercury and nitrogen
compounds, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
"acid rain," also enter estuaries from atmo-
spheric deposition. Toxic contaminants that
have been tied up in the sediments can be
resuspended, released, and available for incor-
poration into the food chain through distur-
bances such as marine construction or dredging
operations.
Toxic contamination of estuaries is one of the
nation's most important environmental con-
cerns. Various government agencies and pro-
grams, including the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's (EPA) National Estuary
Program (NEP), are addressing this concern.
This section highlights key management ap-
proaches and public education and outreach
activities implemented by the NEPs to address
the issue of toxic contamination.
According to a survey of NEP directors,
conducted in the fall of 1999, the following
10 of the 28 NEPs consider toxic contami-
nation a high-priority action item:
Albemarle-Pamlico (NC)
Casco Bay (ME)
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries (TX)
Delaware Estuary (DE)
Long Island Sound (NY, CT)
New York - New Jersey Harbor (NY, NJ)
Peconic Estuary (NY)
Puget Sound (WA)
San Francisco Estuary (CA)
Santa Monica Bay (CA)
, Toxics
T-l
-------
MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
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 coopera-
tive agreements with various dischargers to
lower the concentrations of contaminants in the
discharge.
After the issues have been prioritized, the NEP
develops a number of management actions to
address each issue. The following are examples
of management actions to address toxic con-
tamination that have been successfully imple-
mented by NEPs across the country. The
management actions for toxic contamination
presented all fall within the category of pollu-
tion prevention.
Prevention
DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Delaware Estuary Program
The Delaware Estuary Program is helping to
reduce the amount of toxic contaminants dis-
charged into the DEVELOPMENT OF TOTAL
Delaware Estuary MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS AND
through the develop- WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
0 . Delaware Estuary Program
ment of more Stnn- Web: http://www.delep.org
Sent and Uniform Problem: Toxic contaminants
discharged int Delaware Estuary
water quality crite- from point and nonpoint
ria. The criteria,
developed by the
Toxics Advisory
Committee (of the
Delaware River Basin Commission, and the
Delaware Estuary Program in cooperation with
the states of Delaware, New Jersey, and Penn-
sylvania) are being used 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 Dela-
sources.
Solution: Develop stringent
and uniform water quality
standards (TMDLs and
wasteload allocations)
ware Estuary. As the more stringent water
quality controls are established, toxic contami-
nation within the Delaware Estuary will de-
crease (Delaware Estuary Program 1999). Total
Maximum Daily Loads are being established for
PCBs, volatile organic chemicals, and whole
effluent toxicity.
REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
San Francisco Estuary Project
The San Francisco Estuary Project has devel-
oped a Regional Monitoring Program, which
includes 68 agencies R£G/Q^L MON,TORING
and organizations that PROGRAM
work in partnership to San Francisc° Estuary
f Project
address ISSUeS Ot Web: http://www.abag.ca.gov/
toxic contamination. bayarea/sfep/sfep.html
Problem: Toxic contamination
The program provides and uncoordinated monitoring
a forum for discharg- efforts
Solution: Implement inter-
ers and regulators to agency, coordinated monitoring
disCUSS solutions to Program and provide forum to
develop solutions.
toxic contamination
problems. The Regional Monitoring Program,
which has a $3 million annual budget, is fi-
nanced 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 pesti-
cides in urban runoff, selenium in discharges
from the oil industry, and copper pollution from
automobile brake pads (EPA 1999a).
HAZARDOUS WASTE REDUCTION PROGRAM
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program devel-
oped the Hazardous Waste Reduction 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
HAZARDOUS WASTE
REDUCTION PROGRAM
Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program
Web: http://www.nbep.org
Problem: Toxic contamination
from small businesses and
industry.
Solution: Technical assistance
to businesses to reduce use
and properly dispose of toxic
materials
these materials
properly. Set up as a partnership with the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
7-2
-------
Management and the University of Rhode Island,
the Hazardous Waste Reduction Program pro-
vides technical assistance for pollution preven-
tion, and has developed a system for conducting
onsite hazardous waste assessments for local
businesses and industries. The program has
established a waste information "hotline," and
provides technical information on source reduc-
tion, recycling, and chemical substitution-dis-
posal alternatives. The Hazardous Waste Reduc-
tion Program proved to be so successful that it
has become a state-funded, broad-based indus-
trial 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 prevent illegal disposal, the program has
opened a household hazardous waste collection
and treatment facility in Providence for house-
hold toxic wastes (Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program 1999).
POLLUTION PREVENTION
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
TO SMALL BUSINESS
Galveston Bay Estuary
Program
Web: http://
gbep.tamug tamu.edu
Problem: Toxic contamination
from small businesses and
industries
Solution: Develop and
implement a technical
assistance program for waste
minimization and best
management practices
designed for small business.
POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNICAL
ASSISTANCE TO SMALL BUSINESSES
Galveston Buy Estuary Program
Water and sediments in Galveston Bay have
been contaminated 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 preven-
tion. The objective of
the program, being
administered by the Galveston County Health
District, is to reduce loadings of pollutants to
Dickinson Bayou by implementation of waste
minimization strategies and best management
practices designed for small business. The
activities of this program are being carried out
jointly by the Small Business Technical Assis-
tance and the Pollution Prevention and Recy-
cling 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 imple-
menting corrective actions, and (5) organization
of a recognition event for small business partici-
pants (Galveston Bay Estuary Program 1999e).
DE VEL OPMENT OF SEDIMENT
QUA LITYINDICA TORS
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
While much of Tampa Bay is relatively uncon-
taminated, several "hot spots" of sediment
contamination exist, which are associated with
urban/industrial runoff and/or large marinas or
ports. Contaminants of concern (COCs) have
been identified using a combination of sediment
quality guidelines and risk assessment methods.
, Toxics
T-3
-------
and consist primarily of metals, PAIIs, PCBs
and pesticides. Local, state and federal partners
working through the DEVELOPMENT OF
Tampa Bay Estuary SEDIMENT QUALITY
Program have 1^1°^,,, ^,,m
adopted the use of Web: http://www tbep org
sediment rhemktrv Problem: 'Hot spots" of
Sediment CnemiStry sediment contamination
and bcnthic inverte- Solution: Use sediment quality
hrntp rnmn-mnitv indicators to estimate risks to
brate community benthjc community and human
structure as the health
primary tools to provide a means of estimating
the relative risks to the benthic community and
to human health of contamination levels in "hot
spot" areas. Specific numeric sediment con-
centration targets (identified as "clean") have
been recommended for some COCs (i.e., con-
centration
-------
to protect sensitive harbors and habitat. The
guide illustrates a nautical chart of Casco Bay
on one side and presents a myriad of boating
information on the back. The Casco Bay Estu-
ary Project spent approximately $10,000 to
develop the chart, which was distributed 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 funding
to distribute and restock materials (Casco Bay
Estuary Project 1998).
FLORIDA YARDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
PROGRAM
Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program
Modeling studies of Sarasota Bay indicate that
significant quantities of nutrients and pesticides
enter the estuary from
residential and com-
mercial areas. To
increase native habi-
tat, conserve potable
water, and decrease
the concentrations of
toxic chemicals in
stormwater runoff that
eventually enters
Sarasota Bay, the
Sarasota Bay NEP is
implementing the Florida Yards and Neighbor-
hoods Program as part of its public outreach
program. The Florida Yards and Neighbor-
FLORIDA YARDS AND
NEIGHBORHOODS
PROGRAM
Sarasota Bay Estuary
Program
Web: http://
wwwsarasotabay.org
Problem: Runoff from
residential and commercial
areas transports nutrients and
pesticides to Sarasota Bay
Solution: Promotion of
landdscaping with native plants
to reduce use of fertilizers and
pesticides, to conserve water,
and to create more habitat
hoods Program is a basinwide campaign to
improve residential landscape design and
maintenance. The program promotes environ-
mentally sound landscaping with native plants
that require less water, fertilizers, and pesticides
(Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program 1999).
PARTNERSHIP TO CLEAN UP
ILLEGAL DUMP SITES
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
Charlotte Harbor NEP volunteers have worked
together to help solve the problem of illegal
dumps sites. Working with the Polk County
Solid Waste Office,
Charlotte Harbor
NEP volunteers are
cleaning up illegal
dump sites found
along the Peace
River. Polk County
provided funds and
made community
service workers
available to clean the sites of concern. Two
deputy sheriffs also gathered samples to deter-
mine if the trash collected was from businesses
or individuals. Criminal charges will be levied
against any businesses found to have been the
source of the trash. To promote public aware-
ness and prevent future dumping, Channel 9, a
Lakeland, Florida, area cable station, covered
the issue.
PARTNERSHIP TO CLEAN UP
ILLEGAL DUMP SITES
Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program
Web: http://
www.charlotteharbornep.com/
Problem: Illegal dump sites
along the Peace River.
Solution: Build partnership and
coordinate volunteers to clean
up dump sites and promote
public awareness for future
prevention.
r-5
-------
IBRUARY2003
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
T-6 Toxics
-------
/•7-BKI IK) 200)
«EPA
FINANCING
FINANCING
To complete the numerous management actions
that each National Estuary Program (NEP)
develops, funding must be secured. All NEPs
are started with base funding provided by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
for at least three years, but additional funding is
always necessary. Additional funding often
conies from various government and private
sources, which normally assist with the imple-
mentation of the specific action items and
programs. Examples of supplemental funding
sources that have been available to some NEPs
include federal government agencies, state
government agencies, and donations.
Federal Grants
A significant portion of the money expended
thus far for Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) development has
come from the EPA. EPA supplies the base
funds for CCMP implementation through
various agreements and grants to assist the
specific NEP in implementing their management
actions. Apart from the NEP, federal govern-
ment agencies have developed grants to encour-
age 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 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 U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (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.
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 funds
from Section 312 of the Clean Water Act have
been used 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 farmland, which helps to control the number
of pathogens that can contaminate the water.
Financing.
FN-1
-------
NATIONAL COASTAL WETLANDS
CON'SER VA TION GRANT PROGR.4M
Delaware Estuary, Long Island Sound,
and Tillanmok Bay
The National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant Program (USFWS) has provided funds to
the Delaware Estuary for the restoration of 964
acres of marsh, Delaware Inland Bays for the
purchase of 26 acres of contiguous wetlands and
upland forest buffer. Long Island Sound for the
restoration of 350 acres of habitat, and
Tillamook Bay for the restoration and protection
of 300 acres of estuarine wetlands.
NOA.A 'S COMMUNITY-BASED
RESTORATION PROGRAM
Delaware Inland Bays, Indian River Lagoon,
and Tampa Bay
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration has provided funds through their
Community-Based Restoration Program to
Delaware Inland Bays for the restoration of
submerged aquatic vegetation, Indian River
Lagoon for the eradication of invasive plant
species to protect mangrove habitat, and Tampa
Bay for a high school wetland nursery program.
State and Local Support
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 NEP and to imple-
ment the management actions. In several cases,
the states supply this funding through the
involvement of various state agencies (such as
Department of Environmental Protection,
Department of Human Health, and water man-
agement districts), which are mandated to assist
the NEPs with implementing their action plans.
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program has 15 in-
volved agencies, each of which has identified
and agreed to implement projects that meet the
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.
In some cases, legislation is passed to provide a
NEP with limited funding. The Texas Legisla-
ture has provided $900,000 to the Galveston
Bay NEP and $1 million to the Coastal Bend
Bays and Estuaries Program. Another option
for state funding is for the NEP to be identified
through a specific line item in the participating
state's General Fund, as in the case of the
Delaware Center for Inland Bays. This funding
from the Delaware Legislature supports the
outreach and research efforts of the NEP and
has been extremely useful in leveraging other
funding sources.
While the Barataria-Terrebonne NEP has not
been a direct recipient of legislative funding,
projects funded under the Coastal Wetland
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act have
implemented actions plans in the Barataria-
Terrebonne Management Plan. The
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program has been
successful in accessing over $200,000 in funds
from Rhode Island's Oil Spill Prevention and
Response Fund.
NEW YORK CLEAN WATER/CLEAN AIR
BOND ACT
Peconic Estuary Program
The voters of New York, in 1996, passed the
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, which has as
one of its goals the restoration of aquatic habi-
tats. This Act provides $30 million jointly for
the Peconic Estuary and the South Shore Estua-
rine Reserve. A portion of these funds will be
used for aquatic habitat restoration projects.
FN-2
Financing.
-------
STATE-FUNDED INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Casco Bay Estuary Project
For mitigating pathogen contamination, funds
are generally distributed directly to state and
local agencies responsible for upgrading com-
bined sewer overflow facilities. However,
pathogen contamination can also be success-
fully 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 that works with homeowners
to remove sand filter septic 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, as well as
some funds to the Casco Bay Estuary Project for
managing the program in Casco Bay.
SUFFOLK COUNTY GENERAL SALES TAX
Peconic Estuary Program
The Peconic Estuary Program will receive
funding from a general % percent sales tax in
Suffolk County, New York. These sales tax
revenues, approximately $260 million over 13
years (beginning December 1, 2000), will be
used for three distinct categories: open space
acquisition ($100 million), farmland easements
($60 million), and water quality improvement
projects ($100 million), including nonpoint
source abatement and control, pollution preven-
tion initiatives, and aquatic habitat restoration
projects recommended by the Peconic Estuary
Program.
RHODE ISLAND'S OIL SPILL PREVENTION
AND RESPONSE FUND
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program has
been successful in accessing over $200,000 in
funds from Rhode Island's Oil Spill Prevention
and Response Fund (OSPAR) to inventory and
analyze sites for restoration feasibility. The
OSPAR fund, derived from a $0.05/barrel tax on
petroleum products that are shipped through
Narragansett Bay, includes language that allows
funds to be used for habitat inventory and
assessment.
SARASOTA COUNTY STORMWATER
ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITY
Sarasotu Bay National Estuary Program
The Sarasota County Stormwater Environmen-
tal Utility generates funds annually to finance
watershed planning and projects. Stormwater
runoff accounts for 56 percent of the nitrogen
input to Sarasota Bay, so the utility provides a
long term funding source for addressing a high
priority issue in Sarasota Bay. Residential fees
are being assessed by watershed as designs are
unveiled. For example, a $30 million retrofit
project on Phillippi Creek (a NEP priority area)
has recently been completed. Funds are also
being used to support environmental education
and the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods
Program.
Donations
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 plate costs the opera-
tor 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.
Financing.
FN-3
-------
LICENSE PLATE PROGRAM
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
The Indian River Lagoon License Plate Pro-
gram was established as a means to protect and
restore lagoon habitat and to provide the public
with information on environmental issues
impacting the Indian River Lagoon. Eighty
percent of the proceeds from the License Plate
Program fund a variety of projects, including
reconnection of impounded salt marshes,
shoreline stabilization, spoil island and man-
grove restoration, and stormwater treatment.
The remaining twenty percent funds exhibits,
videos, and learning centers. Since its incep-
tion, the License Plate program has seen rev-
enue growth from an initial level of $150,000 to
around $400,000. Total sales of license plates
are now well over $2 million.
Penalty Funds
The last funding source for some NEPs is
penalty money. This is generally money re-
ceived from a court settlement in which a
company has been found responsible 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 imple-
menting 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 re-
ceived by The Bay Foundation of Morro Bay
from Pacific Gas and Electric, (2) $1.5 million
received by the Coastal Bend Bays and Estuar-
ies Program in 2000 from a settlement between
EPA/Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission and Koch Petroleum, and
(3) $40,000 received by the Delaware Estuary
Program from the Exxon Valdez settlement. The
latter funds were used for upland habitat resto-
ration 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.
EXXON VALDEZ SETTLEMENT
Delaware Estuary Program
The Delaware Estuary Program received
$40,000 from the Exxon Valdez settlement.
These funds were used for upland habitat
restoration and a "backyard habitat enhance-
ment" program for the public.
FUNDING FROM LEGAL SETTLEMENT
Morro Bay National Estuary Program
The Bay Foundation of Morro Bay is a
501(c)(3) corporation established to manage and
disperse funds for the implementation of the
Morro Bay NEP Management Plan. Substantial
funds were received from a legal settlement that
involving a private industry that violated permit
conditions of the Regional Water Quality Con-
trol Board. Those funds have thus far been used
toward the purchase of sensitive habitats and
conservation easements within the watershed,
and the design of sedimentation traps, among
other projects. In all cases, the settlement funds
are used to leverage larger amounts of money
targeted to the action plans.
MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST
Buzzards Bay Project and
Massacltusetts Bays Program
The Buzzards Bay Project and Massachusetts
Bays Program have collaborated with the
Massachusetts Environmental Trust, a quasi-
public environmental philanthropy established
by the Massachusetts Legislature through the
settlement of a federal lawsuit over the pollution
of Boston Harbor, to establish a challenge fund
to provide match funding for federal grants
pursued by the NEPs for implementation activi-
ties.
FN-4
-------
•1-RRl AR}'2()03
SELENIUM MITIGATION LITIGA TION
San Francisco Estuary Project
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Qual-
ity Control Board received penalty funds from
Unocal through the Selenium Mitigation
Litigation. The San Francisco Bay Estuary
Project managed the education and outreach
portion of the settlement, which amounted to
$500,000. In addition. Friends of the Estu-
ary—a nonprofit arm of the San Francisco
Estuary Project—has received several hundred
thousand dollars in penalty funds through the
State of California's Supplemental Environmen-
tal Project Program. Through this program, a
fine is levied and in lieu of paying the fine, the
discharger is allowed to fund an education or
restoration project.
F/.
ni line/n^.
FN-5
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
FN-6 Financing
-------
«EPA REFERENCES
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National Estuary Program.
1999. FY 1999 Biennial Review Document. April 30,
1999. Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National Estuary
Program. Raleigh, NC.
Barataria-Terrebonne 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. Accessed through the
California State Lands Commission Website: http://
www.slc.ca.gov/Ballast Water/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. Wilmington, DE.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. City
Island Habitat Restoration Project. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. Fact Sheet EPA 842-
F-95-001F. September 1995.
EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997.
Coquina Bay Walk at Leffis Key. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. Fact Sheet EPA 842-
F-97-0021. 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 Reduction Program.
Accessed through the EPA Website: http://www.epa.gov/
owow/estuaries/projects/nb.htm
Galveston Bay Estuary Program. I999a. Galveston Bay
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
the Galveston Bay Ecosystem. Implementation 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 Demonstration 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 Protec-
tion. Accessed through the Galveston Bay Estuary
Program Website: http://gbep.tamug.tamu.edu/
projwsq.html
Galveston Bay Estuary Program. I999e. Pollution
Prevention Technical Assistance to Small Business.
Accessed through the Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Website: http://gbep.tamug.tamu.edu/projwsq.html
References
R-l
-------
f;HBRl ' IRY2003
Gulf of Mexico Program, 1998. Nonindigenous Species
Fact Sheet. Accessed through the Gulf of Mexico
Program Website: http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/
Long Island Sound Study. 1994. Long Island Sound
Study: The Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan. Long Island Sound Study. Stamford. CT.
Long Island Sound Study. 1997. The Impact of Atmo-
spheric Nitrogen Deposition on Long Island Sound. Fact
Sheet. Long Island Sound Study. Stamford, CT.
Long Island Sound Study. 1998. Long Island Sound
Study Phase 111 Actions for Hypoxia Management.
EPA902-R-98-002. Long Island Sound Study. Stamford,
CT.
Long Island Sound Study. 1999a. Marsh Restoration at
Saybrook Point. Long Island Sound Study Newsletter
UPDATE. Fall 1995. Accessed through the Long Island
Sound Study Website: http:// www.epa.gov/region01/eco/
Iis/fall95tx.html
Long Island Sound Study. 1999b. 1998 Tracking Report
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. 1999. Wetlands Health
Assessments in Massachusetts. Coastlines. Issue 9.3.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. Boston, MA.
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. 1999. 1999 Biennial
Review, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. May 1999.
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. Narragansett, RI.
NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion. 1998a. "Restoring Coastal Habitats" by Tom Ardito
and Darlene Finch. NOAA State of the Coast Report.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Silver Springs, MD. Accessed through the NOAA
Website: http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/ bulletins/html/
chr_10/national/html
NOAA. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion. 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 Administra-
tion. 1999. E. Timbalier Barrier Island to Grow under
$8.88 Million Project. NOAA News Release 99-R116.
Accessed through the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources Website: http://www.dnr.state.la.us/SEC/
EXECDIV/PUBINFO/NEWSR/noaa99-rll6.ssi
Peconic Estuary Program. 1999. Peconic Estuary
Program Draft Comprehensive Conservation and Manage-
ment Plan. September 1999. Peconic Estuary Program.
Riverhead, NY.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.
1999. No Discharge Zone Map of Rhode Island. Ac-
cessed through the Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management Website: http://www.state.ri.us/dem
San Francisco Estuary Project. 1996. CCMP Workbook:
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
the Bay-Delta. Implementation Progress 1993-1996. San
Francisco Estuary Project. Oakland, CA. 68 p.
San Francisco Estuary Project. 1999. Bay-Delta Envi-
ronmental 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 Executive
Summary. Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project.
Monterey Park, CA.
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. Comprehensive
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 Pollut-
ants" Program. Accessed through the Town of
Hempstead Website: http://townofhempstead.org/home/
tohcs/cssan it/csstop.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Information
accessed through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Website: http://www.fws.gov
R-2
References
-------
no _
GLOSSARY
action plan: Specific strategy to addresses a
management area or priority issue (e.g., water and
sediment quality; living resources management; land use
and water resources management) or problems and
sources (e.g., toxics, pathogens, habitat loss).
Action Plan Demonstration Project: A small-scale
project designed to address one of the major problems in
the estuary. Successful projects will be considered for
large-scale implementation.
Citizens' Advisory Committee: The major role of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC) is to provide a
structured mechanism for citizens' input to the NEP and
assist in the disseminating relevant information to the
public. This committee works closely with the project
director and public information coordinator in developing
and promoting the public education and participation
program.
Clean Water Act: A piece of legislation passed by
Congress in 1972; its goal is to "allow for protection, and
propagation offish, shellfish, and wildlife and to allow
for recreation in and on the water" (known as the
fishable/swimmable goal). Its objective is to "restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the nation's waters."
Finance Committee: Considers matters of finance in
regards to actions proposed by the Management
Conference.
implementation: Simple term that represents a complex
process consisting of interconnected responsibilities. In
addition to carrying out multiple environmental
restoration and protection actions, implementation
involves coordinating the ongoing efforts of a number of
entities, monitoring the effectiveness of actions as they
are implemented, and modification or enhancement of the
management plan as new information arises.
Management Conference: The collection of individuals
responsible for developing action plans for the
Management Plan.
National Estuary Program (NEP): A voluntary
watershed protection program established by Congress in
1987, under amendments to the Clean Water Act, in
response to the threat posed by deteriorating coastal
environments. By establishing the NEP, the intent of
Congress was to identify nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse and to
promote the preparation of comprehensive management
plans to protect and improve water quality and enhance
living resources.
Policy Committee: Appointed to establish general
policies and goals for the National Estuary Program and
to execute ultimate authority in Program administration.
This committee reviews and approves all substantial
expenditures of funds under the Program; appoints
members of the various Management Conference
committees and subcommittees and the Program's staff;
approves the work plans and evaluates progress of the
Program towards established goals; and provides broad-
based support for the Program and its implementation in
policy and political matters. The Policy Committee has
developed and adopted bylaws to govern its activities and
will modify those bylaws should it become necessary.
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee: The
major role is to provide technical support to Program
staff during the planning and interpretive phases of the
NEP. It is the scientific voice of the estuary program,
identifying and defining the estuary's problems; assists in
developing annual and three-year workplans, reviews
draft documents and makes recommendations to the
Management Committee on the document's technical
merit, designing and evaluating an effective information
management system; developing requests for proposals;
and reviewing and evaluating proposals received and
making recommendations on projects to be funded.
Additional duties may be assigned at the direction of the
Policy Committee and Management Committee.
Membership is open-ended and includes representatives
from federal, state, and local government as well as
universities, industry, and environmental interests.
status and trends: Description of the past and current
conditions of the estuary, and predictions about the future
conditions of the estuary should current trends continue.
study area: Sampling location within the estuary.
watershed management: Holistic approach that targets
hydrologically defined basins (i.e., watersheds) where
pollution poses the greatest risk to human health and/or
ecological resources, or where especially valuable areas
are under threat, and manages these watersheds as
ecological systems.
. Glossary
G-l
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank.
G-2 CJ/ossary
-------
&EPA
CONTACTS
For more information on the National Estuary Program, visit their website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries.
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds NEP
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1617
phone: 919-733-5083 ext.585
fax: 919-715-5637
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nep/
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary Program
P.O. Box 2663
Nicholas State University Campus
Thibodaux, LA 70310
phone: 504-447-0868 or 800-259-0869
fax: 504-447-0870
http://www.btnep.org/
Barnegat Bay Estuary Program
Ocean County Planning Board
P.O. Box2191
Toms River, NJ 08754-2191
phone: 732-286-7877
fax: 732-244-8396
http://www.bbep.org/
Buzzards Bay Project
2870 Cranberry Highway
E. Wareham, MA 02538
phone: 508-291-3625
fax: 508-291-3628
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/
Casco Bay Estuary Project
University of Southern Maine
P.O. Box9300
49 Exeter Street
Portland, ME 04104
phone: 207-780-4820
fax:207-780-4317
http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/
Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program
SW Florida Regional Planning Council
P.O. Box 3455
4980 Bayline Dr4th Fl.
North Fort Myers, FL 33917-3455
Phone:941-995-1777
fax:941-656-7724
http://www.charlotteharbornep.com/
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program
1305 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 205
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
phone: 361-885-6204
fax: 361-883-7801
http://www.cbbep.org/
(Lower) Columbia River Estuary Partnership
811 SWIMaito Parkway, Suite 120
Portland, OR 97204
phone: 503-226-1565 ext. 227
fax: 503-226-1580
http://www.lcrep.org
Delaware Estuary Program
Delaware River 6asin Commission
P.O. Box 7360
25 State Police Drive
West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360
phone: 609-883-9500 ext.217
fax: 609-883-9522
http://www.delep.org/
Delaware Inland Bays Estuary Program
Center for the Inland Bays
P.O. Box 297
467 Highway 1
Lewes, DE 19958
phone: 302-645-7325
fax: 302-645-5765
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/dib.htm
Galveston Bay Estuary Program
Bay Plaza 1
711 West Bay Area Boulevard, #210
Webster, TX 77598
Phone:281-332-9937
fax:281-332-8590
http://gbep.tamug.tamu.edu/
Indian River Lagoon NEP
Indian River Lagoon NEP
SJRWMD
525 Community College Parkway SE
Palm Bay, FL 32909 ~
phone: 321-984-4950
fax: 321-984-4937
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/lagoon/
Long Island Sound Study
EPA Long Island Sound Office
Government Center
888 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06904-2152
Phone:203-9777-1541
fax:203-977-1546
http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/lis
Contacts
C-l
-------
FEBRUARY 2003
Maryland Coastal Bays Program
9609 Stephen Decatur Highway
Berlin, MD 21811
Phone:410-213-2297
fax:410-213-2574
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/coastalbays/
Massachusetts Bays Program
251 Causeway Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Phone:617-626-1231
fax: 617-626-1240
http://www.state.ma.us/massbays/
Mobile Bay Estuary Program
4172 Commanders Drive
Mobile, AL 36615
phone: 251-431-6409
fax:251-431-6450
http://www.mobilebaynep.com/
Morro Bay NEP
601 Embarcadero, Ste. 11
Morro Bay, CA 93442
phone: 805-772-3834
fax: 805-772-4162
http://www.mbnep.org
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
Rl DEM
235 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
phone: 401-222^4700
fax:401-222-3564
e -mail: narrabay@earthlink.net
http://www.nbep.org/
New Hampshire Estuaries
152 Court Street, Ste.2
Portsmouth, NH 03801
Phone:603-433-7187
fax:603-431-1438
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nhe.htm
New York - New Jersey Harbor
Harbor Estuary Program
U.S. EPA Region 2
290 Broadway, 24th floor
New York, NY 10007
phone: 212-637-3809
fax: 212-637-3889
http://www.harborestuary.org/
Peconic Estuary Program
Department of Health Services
County of Suffolk
Riverhead County Center, 2nd floor
Riverhead, NY 11901
phone: 631-853-3082
fax:631-853-3075
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pb.htm
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team
P.O. Box40900
Olympia, WA 98504-0900
phone: 360-407-7300
fax: 360-407-7333
http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound
San Francisco Estuary Project
do RWQCB
1515 Clay St., Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612
phone: 510-622-2465 (Public)
fax:510-622-2501
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep/sfep.html
San Juan Bay NEP
400 Fernandez Juncos Ave. 2nd floor
San Juan, PR 00901-3299
phone: 787-725-8162
fax: 787-725-8164
http://www.estuariosanjuan.org/
Sanfa Monica Bay Restoration Project
320 W. Fourth St., 4th St., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA90013
phone: 213-576-6615
fax:213-576-6646
http://www.smbay.org/
Sarasota Bay Project
5333 N. Tamiami Trail, Suite 104
Sarasota, FL 34234
phone: 941-359-5841
fax:941-359-5846
http ://www. sa rasotabay.org/
Tampa Bay Estuary Program
100 8th Avenue, SE, MS 1-1/NEP
St. Peterburg, FL 33701
phone: 727-893-2765, X-15
fax: 727-893-2767
e-mail: saveit@tbep.org
http://www.tbep.org/
Tillamook Estuaries Partnership
P.O. Box 493
613 Commercial Dr.
Garibaldi, OR 97118
phone: 503-322-2222
fax: 503-322-2261
http://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/estuary/tbnep/
nephome.html
C-2
. Contacts
-------
IK) 200)
wEPA
/A/DEX
A
acid rain: T-l
Agricultural Nitrogen Management Committee: N-6
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds: H-l, P-2, F-l, N-l, N-3,
FW-l,FW-2, FW-3, T-1,FN-I
algal blooms: i, 1-4, 1-7, N-3. N-8
anadromous fish: FW-2
Angler Education Program: FW-4
artificial reef: FW-3
B
Bac Attackers: P-9
ballast water: 1-5. IS-1, IS-2, IS-3
Ballast Water Management and Control Program: IS-2
Barataria-Terrebonne: 1-8, H-l, H-3, IS-2, IS-3, FN-2
Barataria-Terrebonne Shellfish Challenge Initiative: P-8
Bamegat Bay: H-8, P-7
Bay Nitrate Monitoring: P-9
Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card: 1-8,1-9
Beautiful But Bad: IS-4
Benthic Invaders: P-9
Biotechnical Barb Structure and Gravel Bar Stabilization
Project: H-4
Blueways Nature-Based Tourism Guide: FW-4
Blueways Pocket Guide: FW-4
boater education: P-7, T-4
brown tide: N-l
Buzzards Bay: H-l, P-2, P-4, P-6, FN-4
Casco Bay: I-10, H-l, P-2, P-3, P-4, T-l, T-4, FN-3
Casco Bay Initiative: P-3, P-4
Charlotte Harbor: H-l, H-8, F-4, FW-1, T-5, F-3
Charlotte Harbor Reef Association: H-8
Chesapeake Bay: N-1
Christmas Tree Marsh Restoration Program: H-3
Clean Air Act: N-5
Clean Vessel Act: P-7, FN-1
Clean Water Act: i, 1-1, 1-6, P-4, P-7, FN-1
Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act: N-4, FN-2
Coastal America Partnership Awards: H-9
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries: H-l, F-2, T-l, FN-2,
FN-4
Coastal Management Branch: i, 1-2
Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration
Act: FN-2
Community-Based Restoration Program: FN-2
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan: 1-1,
FN-1
conservation easements: H-7, H-8, FN-4
constructed wetlands: P-6
contaminants of concern: T-3
copper: 1-10, T-2
Critical Lands Protection Strategy: H-2
Critical Natural Resource Areas: H-2
D
Dawn Patrol: P-9
Delaware Estuary: H-l, H-4, F-2, F-3, FW-2, FW-3. T-l,
T-2, FN-2, FN-4
Delaware Inland Bays: H-l, N-l, FN-2
Delaware River Basin Commission: F-2, T-2
Department of Agriculture: H-3, H-9, IS-1
Department of Commerce: H-3
Department of the Interior: H-3
Department of Water Resources: N-5
Dickinson Bay Oyster Reef Wetland Restoration
Demonstration Project: H-5
dioxin: T-4
dissolved oxygen: i, 1-4, 1-7, H-3, P-9, N-l, N-2, N-3, N-5
Drain Rangers: P-9
dredged material: H-3, H-6, H-8
Ducks Unlimited: H-4
E
E. coli: P-I.P-9
Endangered Species Act: FW-1
Enterococcus: P-l
Environmental Excellence Award: H-6
Exxon Valdez: FN-4
Eyes on the Bay: IS-4
fecal coliform: P-l, P-9
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration: FN-1
fish kills: i, 1-4, N-l, N-3
fish passageways: H-8
floating reefs: FW-3
Florida Yards and Neighborhoods: F-4, T-5, FN-3
Friends of Casco Bay: P-4, T-4
Friends of the Estuary: P-8, FN-5
INDEX-]
-------
FEBRUARY 2003
Galveston Bay: H-l, H-5, H-8, H-9, P-6, T-3, T-4, FN-2
Geographic Information System: N-7
Great Bay Coast Watch: P-3
Grizzle Figg legislation: N-2
Gulf of Mexico Program: P-8, IS-1, IS-2
H
Habitat Restoration and Protection Masterplan: H-7
Hazardous Waste Reduction Program: T-2
heavy metals: 1-5, T-l
hepatitis: P-l
household hazardous waste: T-3
household toxic waste: T-3
Indian River Lagoon: H-l,N-l,N-5, FW-1, FN-2, FN-4
industrial waste: T-I
K
Koch Petroleum: FN-4
National Shellfish Sanitation Program: P-l, P-2, P-3
National Wetland Inventory: 1-6
Natural Resources Conservation Service: H-5
New Hampshire Estuaries: P-2
New York-New Jersey Harbor: 1-8, H-l, P-2, N-l, T-l
No Discharge Zones: P-7, FN-1
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials: N-6
Norwalk viruses: P-l
NPDES permits: T-2
Nutria Harvest and Wetland Demonstration Project: IS-3
Nutrient-Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: N-3
o
Oil Spill Prevention and Response Fund: FN-2, FN-3
on-site sewage disposal system: P-3
on site sewage facilities: F-2
open space acquisition: N-4, FN-3
optimum salinity ranges: F-2
OSPAR: FN-3
osprey: FW-2
ozone pollution: N-6
Lacey Act: FW-1
Lake Naomi Wetland Restoration Project: H-4
land acquisition: H-7, H-8
license plate: FN-3, FN-4
License Plate Program: FN-4
Long Island Sound: 1-8, H-l, H-5, P-2, P-3, P-4, N-l,
N-2, N-3, N-5, N-6, FW-1, T-l, FN-2
Louisiana Coastal Restoration Program: H-3
Lower Columbia River: 1-9, H-l
M
mangrove: H-6, H-7, H-9, FN-2
Marine Contracting Group: H-8
marine sanitation device: P-7
Maryland Coastal Bays: N-1
Massachusetts Bays: H-6, H-10, P-2, P-5, P-6, FN-4
Massachusetts Bays Education Alliance: H-10
Massachusetts Bays Watershed Stewardship Guide: H-10
Massachusetts Environmental Trust: FN-4
mercury: I-10, T-l
Mobile Bay: H-l, N-l, FN-1
Morro Bay: H-l, P-2, P-8, P-9, FN-4
Most Probable Number: P-1
N
Narragansett Bay: H-l, P-3, P-7, T-2, T-3, FN-2, PN-3
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program Marina Pumpout
Siting Plan: P-7
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant Program:
FN-2
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: P-8,
FN-2
Pacific Gas and Electric: FN-4
PAHs:I-5,T-l,T-4
PCBs:I-5, T-l, T-2, T-4
Peconic Estuary: H-l, H-2, H-7, P-2, N-l, N-4, N-6, N-7,
FW-1, T-l, FN-2, FN-3
penalty funds: FN-4, FN-5
petroleum hydrocarbons: T-l
Pfiesteria:I-4,N-l
Pollutant Load Reduction Model: N-5
Preservation 2000: H-8
Puget Sound: H-l, FW-1, T-l
pumpout facility: P-7, FN-1
PVC reefs: FW-3
Q
Quaker Neck Dam: FW-2
R
recycling: T-3
red tide: N-l
reef balls: H-8, FW-3
Reef Balls Foundation: H-8
reef berms: H-5
Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances: 1-10
residential fees: FN-3
riparian vegetation: H-4
salinity: 1-4,1-5, H-7, P-9, F-l, F-2, F-3
salinity standards: F-3
San Francisco Bay: 1-8,1-9,1-10, H-l, H-7, F-l, FW-1,
IS-1, IS-2, IS-4, T-l, T-2, FN-5
INDEX-2
-------
San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Wetlands Restoration
Project: H-7
San Francisco Estuary Institute: I-10
San Juan Bay: H-l,-2, N-l
sand filter septic system: FN-3
Sanitary Survey: P-l, P-7
Santa Monica Bay: H-l, P-l, P-2, P-5, FW-1
Santa Monica Bay Epidemiological Study: P-5
Sarasota Bay: H-l, H-6, H-9, F-4, M-l, M-2, FW-3, FW-4,
T-5, FN-3
Save Our Rivers: H-8
Sea Grant Program: IS-4
seafood consumption safety program: T-4
seafood monitoring program: T-4
sea-level rise: H-3
sediment chemistry: T-4
sediment concentration targets: T-4
sediment contamination: T-3, T-4
sediment fences: H-3
sediment quality guidelines: T-3, T-4
sediment quality indicators: T-4
sediment supply: H-3
selenium: T-2, FN-5
Selenium Mitigation Litigation: FN-5
septic systems: 1-4, P-l, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-6, P-7, N-l, N-2,
N-4, FN-3
sewage pollution indicators: P-l
sewage treatment plant: 1-4,1-5, P-l, F-3, N-l, N-2, N-3,
N-4
sewage treatment system: FN-3
sewer extension: P-6, P-7
Shellfish Bed Restoration Program: P-5
Shellfish Project Team: P-3
Shorebird Ambassadors Project: FW-3, FW-4
shoreline stabilization: H-5, FN-4
Small Business Technical Assistance: T-3
South Shore Estuarine Reserve: FN-2
State-Funded Incentive Program: FN-3
Stoney Run-Fox Point Restoration and Osprey Recovery
Project: FW-2
Stormwater Environmental Utility: FN-3
Stream Profiles: P-9
stream restoration: H-4
subsidence: H-3, H-8, H-9
Supplemental Environmental Project Program: FN-5
sustainable development: F-2
Tillamook Bay: H-l, H-2, H-4, P-2, P-6, FW-1, FN-2
Tillamook County Performance Partnership: H-2
Total Maximum Daily Load: N-3, N-4, T-2
Toxics Advisory Committee: T-2
u
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 1-6, H-3, H-8, FW-2
U.S. Coast Guard: FW-1, IS-1, IS-2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: i, 1-1, H-l, P-2,
F-l, FW-1, IS-1, T-UFN-1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: 1-6,1-7, H-4, P-7, FW-1,
FN-1
U.S. Geological Survey: 1-6, 1-7
U.S. National Park Service: 1-7
Unocal: FN-5
urban runoff: P-4, P-5, F-2, N-3, N-4, T-2
urban runoff management: F-2, N-3
V
Vibrio vulnificus: P-l
Voluntary Inspection and Information Assistance
Program: P-6
Volunteer Monitoring Program: P-8
w
waste minimization: T-3
wasteload allocations: T-2
wastewater reclamation: F-3
wastewater reuse: F-2, F-3, F-4
water conservation rate structure: F-3
water rights: F-1
Watershed Education Training: H-10
Watershed Stewardship Training: H-10
wetland mosaic: H-4
wetland nursery program: H-9, FN-2
Wetlands Health Assessment Program: H-6
Wetlands Restoration Unit: H-5
Wharf and Marina Operators Association: T-4
Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund: FN-1
wildlife guilds: H-7
X
Xeriscaping: F-4
Tampa Bay: H-l, H-7, H-9, P-2, F-4, N-4,1S-2, IS-3,
IS-4, T-3, T-4, FN-2
Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium: N-4
tax credit: N-6
tax revenues: FN-3
Ted Harvey Wildlife Area: FW-3
The Bay Foundation: P-8, FN-4
Tide gates: H-2, H-3
INDEX-3
------- |