United Slates Office of Marine September 1988
Environmental Protection and Estuarine Protection
Agency Washington DC 20460
Office of Water/National Estuary Program
<>EPA Estuary Program draft
Primer
-------
Estuary Program Primer
National Estuary Program
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Draft: for Review Only
October 1987
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
(copy to come)
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword (copy to come)
I The National Estuary Program: An Overview 1
Unique Resources 1
What Is the National Estuary Program? 1
Historical Perspective 2
Great Lakes Program 2
Chesapeake Bay Program 3
Roots of the National Estuary Program 4
Water Quality Act of 1987 5
The National Estuary Program's Approach 6
Management Conference 6
Characterization and Problem Definition 7
Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan 7
Estuary Program Primer 7
II The Planning Initiative: Building a Management
Framework 11
Collaboration and Flexibility: Essential Ingredients .... 11
Building a Constituency 11
A Local-State-Federal Partnership 12
Management Conference: The Umbrella for Action ... 12
Management Conference Process 12
Starting in the Right Direction 13
Who Are the Members of the Management
Conference? 13
Policy Committee 14
What Does the Policy Committee Do? 17
Who Are the Members of the Policy Committee? . . 17
Management Committee 18
What Does the Management Committee Do? .... 18
Who Are the Members of the Management
Committee? 19
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committe 19
What Does the Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee Do? 20
Who Are the Members of the Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee? 20
Citizens Advisory Committee 21
What Does the Citizens Advisory Committee Do? . . 21
Who Are the Members of the Citizens Advisory
Committee? 22
Staff Support for the Management Conference 22
III Characterization and Problem Definition 25
Setting the Course 25
Scientific Characterization 26
Characterization Steps 27
Identification and Ranking of Priority
Problems for Study 27
-------
Collection of Priority Data Sets 29
Identification of Data Management Support 30
Screening Priority Data Sets 31
Estuary Segmentation 31
Data Analysis 32
Consideration of Incomplete Data 35
Reporting of Results 37
Evaluation of Institutional and Management Programs . 38
Characterization Report 39
IV The Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan 41
A Blueprint for Action 41
Developing a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan 41
Components of a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan 42
A Summary of the Characterization Findings 43
Priority Problems Addressed in the CCMP 44
Environmental Quality Goals and Objectives for
the Estuary 45
Setting Goals 45
Setting Objectives 45
Action Plans for Controlling Pollution and Managing
Resources 46
Water and Sediment Quality 48
Living Resources Management 49
Land Use and Water Resources Management 54
Supporting Components 55
A Plan for Public Information and Involvement .... 56
Provisions for Program Integration and
Coordination 57
Provisions for Periodic Review, Evaluation, and
Redirection 58
Provisions for Implementation 59
APPENDIXES
A. Federal Financial Assistance Under the National Estuary
Program
B. Building an Effective Public Participation Program
C. Using Finfish As Indicators of Toxic Contamination
D. Summary of the Guidance Manual for Health Risk
Assessment for Consumption of Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish
-------
FOREWORD
(copy to come)
-------
GLOSSARY
(copy to come)
Anadromous fish
Benthic invertebrates
Basinwide
Carcinogenic potency factor
Data sets
Designated uses
Dissolved oxygen
Estuarine zone
Estuary
Estuary characterization
Estuary segmentation
Eutrophication
Gradients
Marine biota
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
Nonpoint source
Nutrients
Organic carbon
Pathogenic organisms
PH
Pharmacokinetic
Phytoplankton
Plankton
Point source
Pollutant loading
Pristine area
Risk assessment
Risk management
-------
Tidal flushing
Tidal head
Tissue residue
Turbidity
Wasteload allocation
Water quality management plans (Section 208)
Watershed
Watershed geomorphology
Zooplankton
-------
Chapter I
The National Estuary Program:
An Overview
Unique Resources
Estuaries are unique waterways where fresh water drained from
the land mixes with salt water from the ocean This blend of salt
and fresh water makes estuaries biologically productive, sustain-
ing certain finfish, shellfish, marshes, underwater grasses, and
microscopic marine life Because of their economic, aesthetic, and
recreational value, estuaries are increasingly attracting both
people and commerce to their shores Aquatic life is affected by
these growing populations, which need and use water for services
as well as for commercial and industrial activity
In establishing the National Estuary Program under the Water
Quality Act of 1987, Congress recognized the special need to
protect an important but endangered resource our nation's estu-
aries
According to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, "the term 'estuary' means all or part of the
mouth of a river or stream or other body of water
having unimpaired natural connection with the open
sea and within which sea water is measurably
diluted with fresh water derived from land drain-
age " The 1987 amendments, known as the Water
Quality Act of 1987, expand the definition to include
"associated aquatic ecosystems and those portions
of tributaries draining into the estuary up to the his-
toric height of migration of anadromous fish or the
historic head of tidal influence, whichever is higher"
The National Estuary Program is managed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to identify nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse, and to promote
the preparation of comprehensive management plans to ensure
their ecological integnty The program's goals are protection
What Is the National
Estuary Program?
-------
Historical Perspective
Great Lakes Program
and improvement of water quality, and enhancement of living
resources.
To achieve these goals, the National Estuary Program conducts
activities to help:
. Establish working partnerships among federal, state, and
local governments;
. Transfer scientific and management experience and
expertise to program participants;
. Increase public awareness of pollution problems and
ensure public participation in consensus building;
. Promote basinwide planning to control pollution and
manage living resources; and
. Oversee development and implementation of pollution
abatement and control programs.
The National Estuary Program has roots in earlier efforts and legis-
lation. The experiences of the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake
Bay provide useful models and lessons for the new program.
. The first is the phased program approach used to identify
and define priority problems, establish their probable
causes, and devise alternative strategies to address them.
. The second is the collaborative problem-solving process
that involves all concerned parties in each phase of the
program and secures commitments to carry out
recommended actions.
Launched in 1970, the Great Lakes Program is the oldest estuary
program in this country. A cooperative effort between the United
States and Canada, the program fulfills the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreements of 1972 and 1978 between the U.S. and
Canadian governments. Waters of the Great Lakes were burdened
with too many nutrients. The resulting eutrophication problems
were depleting the supply of oxygen dissolved in the water, thus
killing fish. Excessive phosphorus discharges were cited as the
probable cause.
The program initially tackled control of pollution from individual,
identifiable sources Major municipal treatment plants were re-
quired to reduce phosphorus in effluents, and phosphate
detergent was banned in many of the Great Lakes states. These
efforts to reduce point-source pollution, which successfully
reduced nutrients, resulted in elevated oxygen levels and restora-
tion of some fish in Lake Erie and elsewhere.
The Great Lakes Program then turned to nonpoint sources of
pollution. The principal nonpoint source of excess nutrients was
the runoff of surface water from agricultural land. This water car-
ries topsoil laden with nutrients (including fertilizers) to the
estuary. To demonstrate the value of nonpoint source controls,
the Great Lakes Program Office, working with the Department of
-------
Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service, funded projects with indi-
vidual farmers. These projects were aimed at controlling nonpoint
source pollution in several states The program illustrated how
voluntary best management practices could reduce phosphorus
loadings from agricultural sources, especially into Lake Erie and
Lake Ontario Today the states have their own phosphorus control
programs as part of the implementation agreement with Canada.
After adopting measures to control point and nonpoint sources of
nutrients, the Great Lakes Program focused on methods to abate
pollution caused by nonpoint sources of toxics Toxic pollution is
the result of activities that have occurred in the watershed for
many years The Great Lakes Program is also studying the effects
of airborne toxics
One lesson from the Great Lakes Program is that all the pollution
controls evolved from a phased process- identifying pollution
problems, evaluating alternative solutions, and making recom-
mendations to state and local governments
A second lesson is recognition of the need for continuous
monitoring of water quality and living resources. Without monitor-
ing, there is no way to know whether the actions taken have
worked The Great Lakes Program is carrying out a monitoring
plan that surveys the lakes to determine the levels of and trends in
concentrations of nutrients, metals, and toxics The results will
enable the United States and Canada to assess compliance with
the objectives of the agreement, evaluate the effects of the control
program, and identify emerging problems
The Chesapeake Bay Program, which was mandated by Con-
gress, began in 1977 as a federal-state partnership. From 1978 to
1982, scientists examined the bay They found that phosphorus
and nitrogen loads from both point and nonpoint sources were the
chief causes of the bay's declining water quality and resources. As
a result, specific recommendations were made in 1983 to reduce
sources of the nutrients and to clean up the bay.
The findings and recommendations of the study spurred the states
to action In 1983, the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Penn-
sylvania, and the mayor of the District of Columbia, signed the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement with EPA's Administrator. The agree-
ment commits the states and the District to prepare plans that will
improve and protect the bay's water quality and living resources
The following actions are being implemented successfully
Institution of land-use controls at or near the bay shoreline;
Development of nonpoint source control programs for
agricultural and urban sources,
Acceleration of tighter controls of point sources, particularly
municipal treatment plants; and
Strengthening of wetlands protection laws and programs.
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Roots of the National
Estuary Program
In an ongoing effort to carry out these plans, the state legislatures
and the District of Columbia have appropriated money to effect
the program's recommendations. The federal government con-
tinues to provide resources to assist in bay cleanup. The
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes programs are both continued
under the 1987 Water Quality Act
The lessons learned and the precedents set by the Chesapeake
and Great Lakes programs, along with federal legislation, helped
lay the foundation for the National Estuary Program. This program
employs collaborative problem-solving approaches to balance
conflicting uses while restoring or maintaining the estuary's
environmental quality. Further, the program follows the basic
problem identification, characterization, and phased management
process learned from the preceding efforts. The steps in this
process are to:
. Define the environmental problems and explore their
probable causes;
Assess existing laws, regulations, and control programs,
revising or expanding them if necessary;
. Review and revise current designated uses of portions of
the estuary and freshwater tributaries;
. Identify and recommend alternative management
strategies to improve the estuary; and
Develop specific action plans, with resource commitments
and compliance schedules, for implementing the selected
strategies.
Through the experiences of the Great Lakes and and Chesapeake
Bay programs, EPA and program participants also learned how to
get results with less money. The National Estuary Program
achieves this by focusing on the most significant problems, using
existing data, emphasizing applied research, funding specifically
targeted basic research, and employing demonstrated manage-
ment strategies. These techniques save both time and money, but
more importantly, lead to earlier corrective actions.
In 1985, the Congress directed EPA to conduct programs in four
estuaries: Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island, Buzzards Bay in
Massachusetts, Long Island Sound in New York and Connecticut,
and Puget Sound in Washington. In 1986, EPA added San Fran-
cisco Bay in California and Albemarle/ Pamlico Sounds in North
Carolina to the program.
The two estuaries were added because EPA believed it was appro-
priate to extend the program to new coastal areas. The Agency
also wanted to expand the types of pollution problems being
addressed, while making certain they were issues of national con-
cern. EPA was further persuaded by the obvious commitment
state and local governments and the public in these estuaries had
already made to pollution abatement. However, it was clear they
-------
could still benefit from the expertise available through EPA's
national program
The types of environmental problems the national program ad-
dressed were, and remain, complex They include loss of habitat
and living resources, contamination of sediments by toxics, eleva-
tion of nutrient levels, contamination by bacteria, and depletion of
oxygen These problems can affect human health through contact
with the water and by mgestion of contaminated shellfish and
fmfish More frequently, pollution problems limit desirable uses of
the estuary like recreational and commercial linfishing and
shellfishmg. and may even close beaches to swimming Other
important uses, such as shipping, municipal and industrial water
use, and disposal, may not be affected by environmental
problems Nevertheless, the program assumes that these conflict-
ing use demands can be met through collaborative planning
Through 1986, program activities were supported by broad legis-
lative authorities and funding appropriations Despite the
complexity and pressing nature of the problems, the Congress
had yet to enact legislation aimed specifically at these fragile
bodies of water This situation was about to change
Passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987 signaled recognition by
Congress that the health of the nation's estuaries had to be
protected The new law amends and extends the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 and its 1977 amendments, known as
the Clean Water Act The Water Quality Act formally establishes
the National Estuary Program Section 317 declares that the in-
crease in coastal population, demands for development, and other
direct and indirect uses of the estuaries threaten these unique
bodies of water The law Further states that it is in the national inter-
est to maintain the ecological integrity of the nation's estuaries
through long-term planning and management
An estuary program is woven together by
two themes: progressive phases for
identifying and solving problems and
collaborative decision making.
Section 320 authorizes the EPA Administrator to convene
Management Conferences to develop comprehensive plans for
estuaries of national significance The conferees are charged with
balancing the conflicting uses in the estuary while restoring or
maintaining its natural character
The law acknowledges the importance of collaboration by requir-
ing Management Conferences; it also requires implementation by
the conferees Furthermore, it reflects the phased process used in
the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs Through this
process, each estuary program examines changes in water quality
Water Quality Act
of 1987
-------
The National Estuary
Program's Approach
Management Conference
and natural resources, evaluates point and nonpoint pollutant
loading, and determines their relationship to pollution problems.
The Conference then devises a management plan to address
these problems. The law supports the notion that, through colla-
borative planning, disputes about uses of water can be resolved It
also endorses the value of education and research as essential
components of longer term efforts to restore and maintain estu-
aries.
Section 320(b) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 states the purposes of
Management Conferences as follows:
(b) PURPOSES OF CONFERENCE The purposes of any
management conference convened with respect to an estuary
under this subsection shall be to -
(1) assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and
uses of the estuary;
(2) colled, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients,
and natural resources within the estuarme zone to identify the
causes of environmental problems,
(3) develop the relationship between the inplace loads and
point and nonpoint loadings of pollutants to the estuarme zone
and the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural
resources,
(4) develop a comprehensive conservation and management
plan that recommends priority corrective actions and com-
pliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of
pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the estuary, including restoration and
maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities in the es-
tuary, and assure that the designated uses of the estuary are
protected;
(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the
plan by the States as well as Federal and local agencies par-
ticipating in the conference,
(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the
plan; and
(7) review all Federal financial assistance program and
Federal development project in accordance with the require-
ments of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17,
1983, to determine whether such assistance program or project
would be consisted with and further the purposes and objec-
tives of the plan prepared under this section
The National Estuary Program's approach is to convene a
Management Conference, characterize the estuary, define the
estuary's problems, and develop the Comprehensive Conserva-
tion and Management Plan (CCMP).
After the EPA Administrator selects an estuary for the National
Estuary Program, the Administrator convenes a Management
Conference to oversee activities. The Conference consists of
representatives of EPA, state and foreign governments, appro-
priate interstate or regional agencies and other appropriate federal
agencies, local governments, affected industries, public and
private educational institutions, and the general public.
-------
The Conference defines the problems of the estuary and, from a
broad array of concerns, selects specific areas to investigate Nar-
rowing the field, establishing priorities, and selecting which
problems to tackle is a challenge To meet that challenge, the
Management Conference addresses the following questions.
Is the environmental problem systemwide and pervasive, or
is it local, affecting small areas only''
If the problem is local, is it nevertheless significant enough to
adversely affect the entire estuary or its resources7
Does the problem reduce the estuary's ability to support
beneficial uses7
What information can be used to identify the causes of the
problem7
What actions can be taken to abate the problem or its
causes7
The Conference then performs an objective, technical assessment
of the state of the estuary It also evaluates the management
programs in place to protect the estuary This phase, called
characterization, is the basis for identifying and selecting .the
problems to be addressed in the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan A blueprint for achieving environmental
protection in the estuary, the CCMP requires a commitment to
action by the conferees
A CCMP summarizes the estuary's problems and indicates which
ones will be addressed Through a collaborative process, the
Management Conference establishes program goals and objec-
tives, determining desirable and allowable uses for the estuary and
its various segments Specific pollution control and resource
management strategies, designed to meet each objective, are the
core of the CCMP After evaluating the strategies carefully, the
conferees select those producing the greatest environmental
benefit - at the least cost and in the most timely manner - for
action Strong public support and subsequent political commit-
ments are required to carry out the actions agreed to in the CCMP.
Each estuary program must establish its own objectives and
operating methods, which will depend on the character and
problems indigenous to its body of water The interests and values
of its public are also a paramount concern With flexibility to
respond to the uniqueness of each estuary, all programs will entail
the same four phases These phases will be highlighted here and
Characterization and
Problem Definition
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
Estuary Program
Primer
-------
discussed thoroughly in the following chapters. Figure 1.1 gives
an overview of the process.
National Estuary Program
Section 320 of the Water Quality Act
Governor's
nomination
EPA
Administrator
convenes
Management
Conference
I
Estuary
Characterization
Assess trends,
collect and analyze
data, and evaluate
pollutant loads
Review, evaluate,
and redirect existing
programs
6 Years
Management
Conference develops,
and Administrator
approves,
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
(CCMP)
I
Implementation
plans
-i
Monitoring to assess
environmental results;
simultaneous with
implementation
-6-16 Years-
Figure 1.1
Phase 1, the Planning Initiative, consists of building a manage-
ment organization for identifying and solving problems. This
includes setting up the Management Conference and committee
structure (Chapter II). During Phase 2, Characterization and
Problem Definition, the state of the estuary and its problems are
defined (Chapter III). The chief task of Phase 3 is to create a Com-
prehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The CCMP is
designed, developed, and adopted by the Management Con-
ference (Chapter IV).
-------
Implementation of the CCMP and reassessment of needs occur
during Phase 4. Specific guidance for this phase will be«provided
in 1988. Implementation will be the responsibility of the Manage-
ment Conference using the resources provided under the Water
Quality Act of 1987 and other federal, state, and local auspices.
Management Process
Phase 1 Planning Initiative: Building a Management
Framework
Phase 2 Characterization and Problem Definition
Phase 3 Creation of a Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan
Phase 4 Implementation of the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan
-------
Chapter II
The Planning Initiative: Building a
Management Framework
The management framework is essentially a vehicle for decision
making. Conflicting needs and uses must be balanced without
compromising the environmental goal of maintenance and restor-
ation of the estuary. Not surprisingly, these decisions are often
fraught with tensions. Therefore, each Management Conference
must serve as a forum for open discussion, cooperation, and com-
promise among disparate interests, resulting in consensus. Such
a forum is the instrument for collaborative decision making that
leads to acceptance and support for implementation actions.
When creating its committee structure, the Conference targets
four constituencies: elected and appointed policy-making officials
from all governmental levels; environmental managers from
federal, state, and local agencies; local scientific and academic
communities; and private citizens and representatives from public
and user interest groups businesses, industries, and com-
munity and environmental organizations. These constituents are
all key members of the Conference.
A Management Conference is a forum for open
discussion, cooperation, and compromise that
results in consensus.
Because each estuary is a unique body of water, its problems,
citizens' concerns and preferences, state and local governments,
and institutions are also unique. So flexibility Is the key to organiz-
ing and managing an effective estuary program. Local needs and
Collaboration and
Flexibility: Essential
Ingredients
Building a Constituency
11
-------
A Local-State-Federal
Partnership
Management
Conference: The
Umbrella for Action
Management Conference
Process
values are among the important forces driving the creation of a
specific management organization - a framework that will deter-
mine program goals and objectives and how to achieve them
As a local-state-federal partnership, the framework must also take
into account differences in how state and local governments are
organized. The division of responsibilities among resource, water,
and commerce agencies, and the degree of centralization in
environmental planning, are equally important considerations.
Therefore, program planning and management for each estuary
will probably involve a somewhat different mix of public agencies
and different levels of representation. Flexibility ensures a dynamic
program that allows both structure and strategy to be modified in
response to successes, failures, political realities, and unforeseen
problems.
Many of the strategies considered in the estuary program will re-
quire new laws, regulations, and policies. It may be necessary to
create institutions or to modify the mission of existing ones. Each
state and local government has its own rulemaking process. It is,
therefore, essential to understand how the systems work in the
jurisdictions participating in an estuary program.
The recommendations in this chapter stem from EPA's experience
with other estuary programs and the suggestions of their parti-
cipants. They are offered only as guidelines, since the character of
each program will be different.
As Chapter I described, the Water Quality Act established the
National Estuary Program to promote comprehensive planning for
estuaries of "national significance" that are threatened by pollu-
tion, development, or overuse. The EPA Administrator, who
decides which estuaries will be part of the program in response to
nominations submitted by state governors, assumes significant
responsibility. The Administrator may convene Management Con-
ferences for estuaries with boundaries in more than one state. The
Act relies on state implementation of its programs. Accordingly,
the states are responsible for most estuary program activities.
The Management Conference, authorized by Section 320 of the
Act, is the organizational umbrella under which each estuary
program is conducted. Initially convened for up to five years, the
Conference may be extended or reconvened to oversee imple-
mentation and to redirect or adopt new strategies.
12
-------
The Conference's first major task is to build the management
framework for identifying and solving problems in the estuary.
Remembering the two themes driving an estuary program -
progressive phases for identifying and solving problems and
collaborative decision making - the Conference initiators begin
to identify or build a constituency for the estuary.
A kickoff meeting is a good way to start because it serves a
number of purposes As a media event, it can make the public
aware that all is not well in the estuary. And as an educational plat-
form, it is a forum for identifying estuary problems and public
concerns The kickoff meeting is also an opportunity to involve all
interested people and groups concerned about and affected by
the estuary program Furthermore, it is a chance to include in-
fluential officials in the earliest deliberations.
As an outgrowth of the kickoff meeting, a committee structure is
set up and assigned responsibilities by the Management Con-
ference Each estuary program will design a committee structure
to meet its particular needs The Conference must strive to under-
stand the community of the estuary, how decisions are reached,
what perceptions are prevalent, and who or what institutions are
influential The size of the community will also make a difference.
For instance, a comparatively small area like Buzzards Bay,
located within a single state, requires a simpler committee struc-
ture than the much larger interstate estuary. Long Island Sound.
Generally, the structure consists of a policy-making committee, a
management committee, and work groups or subcommittees,
including a scientific and technical advisory committee (STAC)
and a citizens advisory committee (CAC)
The organizational structures of several existing programs are
depicted in Figures 2.1 through 2.6.
The Conference members include the EPA Administrator (or his or
her designee), representatives of state, local, and foreign govern-
ments; and other appropriate interstate or regional agencies and
entities. Affected industries, public and private educational institu-
tions, and the general public are also represented Collectively, all
participants constitute the Management Conference.
EPA may act as the lead agency or serve as a cooperating or
sponsoring agency for each program. EPA's role is primarily to
facilitate and provide scientific and management expertise. The
Conference may involve other federal agencies, such as the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
Corps of Engineers, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Starting in the Right
Direction
Who Are the Members of
the Management
Conference?
13
-------
Management Conference
EPA Administrator
State Governor
Policy
Committee
Appointed by EPA
Administrator and State
Governor
Management
Committee
Environmental managers
from participating
agenciesfederal,
state, local; other
representatives
Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Scientific and Technical
Advisory Committee
(STAC)
Represented by policy and management committees, by CAC
and STAC, but also participating as part of the Management
Conference:
Elected officials
Civic organizations
Educators
Businesses
Boaters
Environmental groups
Scientists
Industries
Recreational fishing groups
General public
Figure 2.1
Policy Committee
Generally, estuary programs have identified a need for a high-level
committee composed of federal, state, and local governmental
decision makers. The policy committee (usually called a policy,
lead, or sponsoring agencies committee) directs all Management
Conference activities. Committee members are key officials, or
their designees, who are in a position to ensure the resources
and funding needed to support the program They usually are
appointed by the EPA Administrator or a state governor. Highly
sensitive to both the special interests and needs of constituent
groups, they are also well aware of the realities of time and
resource constraints that confront environmental management
agencies. Therefore, they routinely make decisions after weighing
costs, benefits, and public opinion Within the Management Con-
ference, their positions require them to make such decisions on
behalf of their respective governments or agencies.
14
-------
Management Conference
Policy Committee
Two EPA Regional Administrators
Two states' environmental
commissioners
1
Management Committee
Environmental managers from
participating federal, state, and
interstate agencies
Chairs of TAC and CAC
Technical Advisory
Committee
(TAC)
Scientists from federal, state,
and local agencies; universities
Citizens Advisory
Committee
(CAC)
Representatives from all
interested groups, including
user and environmental groups
Figure 2.2
Management Conference
EPA Administrator
State Governor
Policy Committee
Management
Committee
Local Governments
Committee
Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC)
Figure 2.3
15
-------
Management Conference
Sponsoring Agencies
Committee
Appointees of EPA Regional
Administrator. State Governor (s),
and Project Office
1
Management
Committee
Figure 2.4
Technical Advisory
Committee
(TAC)
Management Conference
Policy Committee
EPA Region(s)
State(s)
Management Committee
Federal, state, local agency
representatives; CAC and
TAC chairs
Technical Advisory
Committee
(TAC)
Federal, state, and local
agencies; community
representatives
Citizens Advisory
Steering Committee
Citizens Advisory
Committee
(CAC)
Figure 2.5
16
-------
Management Conference
Sponsoring Agency
Committee
Management
Conference
Technical
Advisory Committee
(TAC)
Public
Advisory Committee
(PAC)
Figure 2.6
The policy committee sets program goals and objectives and
establishes priorities and direction for the estuary program Its
members decide on recommendations from all committees
Although the policy committee guides, reviews, and evaluates the
program, it leaves the operational duties to other working commit-
tees
The EPA Regional Administrator and the governors of involved
states or their designees are members of the key policy commit-
tee Other political appointees, such as state secretaries of natural
resources or environmental protection, may sit on the committee.
A local mayor or other elected officials may serve; so may senior
regional EPA managers (the Deputy Regional Administrator or the
Water Management Division Director) One or more senior
regional agency officials may be appointed by the governor of
each participating state Additional state and local representatives
may also be members These include appointees from the water
department or water quality board, the public health department,
or the department of natural resources In some programs, STAC
and CAC chairpersons also sit on the policy committee
What Does the Policy
Committee Do?
Who Are the Members of
the Policy Committee?
17
-------
Management
Committee
What Does the
Management Committee
Do?
An effective management committee communicates and colla-
borates among its members to build consensus for recommended
actions. Members represent water quality, resource management,
and other important environmental perspectives. They understand
the estuary, what needs fixing, and what mechanisms are available
or needed to fix it. The management committee members serve as
the focal point for consensus building among Conference partici-
pants and all other committees. Their recommendations reflect
this process.
Weighing differences and negotiating compromises can be diffi-
cult. Assume, for example, an estuary program has a $100,000
budget. The STAC believes this budget must support research to
find out what is causing a decline in oyster reproduction. The user
groups within the CAC want to establish oyster farming to offset
the decline. The state environmental agency wants to manage
septic systems in certain shore communities, because bacterial
contamination is closing oyster beds. Opening such beds can off-
set the decline in production.
In these negotiations, members recognize that scientific studies to
determine the cause of the decline may take several years. Never-
theless, the management committee may negotiate an agreement
that allows for all three approaches in a phased program. The
committee also understands that oyster farming may not succeed
if the same problem affects new oysters. The committee may seek
professional negotiators to facilitate consensus. In fact, failure to
settle disputes amicably and early can lead to serious polarization,
thus impeding later progress.
When setting up this committee, several pitfalls should be avoided.
These include spending too much on a scientific study that will not
yield results for years; committing resources to address a symp-
tom, but neglecting its cause; and failing to keep lawmakers and
other influential citizen leaders informed and involved.
It is in the management committee that the tough day-to-day work
gets done Advised by staff, work groups, and other committees,
the management committee defines and ranks the problems of the
estuary, produces characterization reports, develops manage-
ment strategies, and designs the CCMP. All management
committee activities, including implementation, occur under the
general guidance and direction of the policy committee.
In conjunction with the STAC, CAC, and work groups or subcom-
mittees, the management committee develops the annual and
five-year work plans and budgets required by EPA, and approves
all resource and funding allocations. (Appendix A describes the
federal financial assistance process.) Planning to meet congres-
sional deadlines, develop budgets and schedules, and meet work
18
-------
plan commitments is essential. The consensus-building process
must account for this need.
The committee also oversees and supports the activities of the
STAC. CAC, and the work groups or subcommittees. It is respon-
sible for informing the public and providing for public involvement
during each program phase To ensure this, the management
committee, working with the CAC, develops and funds a public
participation program It recommends key members for the STAC
and CAC, and establishes clear roles and responsibilities for them
When the management committee fails to give both the STAC and
the CAC a job to do, these key elements of the program founder.
The management committee may include the EPA regional Water
Management Division Director and representatives of state and
local agencies from each participating state. Mid-level agency
managers and technical staff usually serve on this committee
Naturally, the number of representatives depends on the number
of agencies involved Nevertheless, the areas that should be repre-
sented include natural resources, pollution control, and planning
Representatives of the STAC and the CAC are also management
committee members Other members may include representatives
of local academic and scientific communities, environmental
groups, industry, and user organizations like receational and com-
mercial fishery associations
Each estuary program should determine the specific role and
responsibilities of the scientific and technical advisory committee.
It is especially important for the management committee to deter-
mine how the STAC is to function It is equally important for the
STAC to understand that the estuary program is fundamentally a
planning and management program, rather than a research
program
At the same time, program managers must recognize the impor-
tance of basing the management strategies on sound scientific
information The STAC provides the science in estuary programs,
identifying and defining the estuary's environmental problems The
STAC also recommends scientific studies, investigations, samp-
ling, and monitoring programs that are necessary to determine the
causes of environmental problems
Who Are the Members of
the Management
Committee?
Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee
19
-------
What Does the Scientific
and Technical Advisory
Committee Do?
Who Are the Members of
the Scientific and
Technical Advisory
Committee?
The STAC reports to the management committee, and its chair-
person may sit on that committee or on the policy committee. The
STAC provides advice and guidance related to research, data
management, modeling, and sampling and monitoring efforts,
which affect the scientific adequacy of the estuary program
activities. Depending on the problem, STAC members suggest
the specific scientific activities necessary to meet program objec-
tives established by the Management Conference. The STAC also
conducts peer review of studies, reports on the status and trends
in the estuary, and alerts the management committee to emerging
environmental problems. In addition, it oversees the assembly and
analysis of historical data bases for characterizing the estuary. To
ensure scientific rigor and quality, the STAC also reviews the
development of any requests for proposals and the actual
proposals submitted.
In carrying out its responsibilities, the STAC may create work
groups and subcommittees. It may also advise the management
committee on the selection of work group members. The STAC
may help provide initial direction for each work group or subcom-
mittee. In addition, it may determine objectives and likely sources
of scientific, technical, and logistical support required to perform
assigned tasks.
Members are nominated by the management committee and
appointed by the policy committee. They are selected with advice
from local, state, and federal agencies; regional scientists; and
public or private institutions conducting scientific studies in the
water basin.
STAC members, who should represent a balance of scientific dis-
ciplines, may be noted local experts or outside scientists. An EPA
regional representative from the Office of Research and Develop-
ment should be included as well. Typically, members should have
expertise in the following areas:
Sources of nutrients/toxics;
Transport and fate, including modeling;
Ecological and human health effects; and
. Living resources.
20
-------
Citizens Advisory
Committee
Because public funds are used, the success of any estuary
program will ultimately depend on citizen support. To generate
that support the citizenry, persuaded that it has a vested interest in
the outcome, must be involved in the entire program The citizens
advisory committee is germane to the estuary program because it
ensures representation of the public voice during all program
phases An educated, informed, and involved citizenry is the estu-
ary program's most valuable ally. In the long run, many people
and corporations will be affected by measures taken to maintain
and restore the estuary. These include, for example, levying addi-
tional taxes to pay for sewage treatment and sediment controls,
imposing changes in lawn care and agricultural practices, restrict-
ing some waterfront land uses, and placing stricter regulations on
dischargers
Although the CAC is the formal mechanism for public involvement,
it does not preclude the necessity for a general public participation
program The CAC's role must be clearly defined by the manage-
ment committee (For specific guidance on setting up a public
participation program, see Appendix B.)
The CAC reports to the management committee. CAC repre-
sentatives may sit on that committee and on the policy committee
The CAC helps to ensure that the management committee and
estuary program staff include the public in the decision-making
process, and integrate public opinion and expertise into each
program phase The CAC recommends the most effective ways to
inform the public and solicit its participation It also identifies key
people and organizations that can help bring estuary-related
issues to the public's attention and build support for program ac-
tivities
The CAC ensures representation of public concerns while options
are fluid, rather than after data collection and analyses have been
completed and final decisions made. Public support for imple-
mentation is more likely if the public has been involved throughout
program evolution The CAC engages in the following activities to
fulfill its role-
Helps to establish program goals and objectives;
Participates in determining funding levels for program
activities,
Comments on research priorities.
Reviews technical findings and analyses;
Helps develop implementation plans;
Assists with public participation activities; and
Educates user groups concerning the purpose and benefit of
proposed programs
What Does the Citizens
Advisory Committee Do?
21
-------
Who Are the Members of
the Citizens Advisory
Committee?
Staff Support for the
Management
Conference
The CAC may conduct some activities to obtain input from a cross
section of interest groups about their goals, objectives, and
preferences related to environmental quality. Public meetings are
one vehicle. Other activities may be designed to disseminate infor-
mation and secure comments from various representative
individuals and groups about the scope, goal, and progress of the
program. The numerous methods for this purpose include press
releases, newsletters, and questionnaires. To accomplish specific
objectives, the CAC may also establish special work groups, sub-
committees, or task forces.
Citizens are nominated by the management committee and
appointed by the policy committee. The CAC should represent a
broad spectrum of major resource groups, for example, fishing
interests, farmers, and recreational users. It should also include
representatives from various environmental organizations and
citizens councils. Equally important are representatives from
business and industry, such as lumberers, shippers, and steel and
petrochemical manufacturers. Of course, representation will vary
with the type of users prevalent in the estuary basin.
Although each program will need to establish the specific criteria
for appointees, nominees generally should meet the following
criteria:
. Serve as a spokesperson for a major user or interest group;
. Have experience in the development of water quality and
resource management policy;
. Understand the technical and economic feasibility of the
pollution control options under consideration; and
. Represent a group that is affected by the recommendations
and proposed programs
Funds to support the Management Conference and to develop the
CCMP are provided through Water Quality Act appropriations.
Portions of these funds should be earmarked for staff support to
the Conference. It is up to the Management Conference, however,
to determine the composition of the staff, how it will be hired, and
who will direct its activities. Various options are available.
A state project office may provide this support. The Conference
may contract with a nonprofit organization, educational institution,
or state/local entity to assume staff responsibilities on its behalf.
By using the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), support can
also be secured from EPA and other federal agencies, such as
NOAA.
22
-------
The Conference ultimately should try to have staff with the follow-
ing expertise:
A program manager or staff director experienced in planning,
operating, and budgeting, and sensitive to public concerns;
Experienced public participation specialists to serve as staff
to the citizens advisory committee and as liaison with the
public (Appendix B);
A staff member experienced in the development and
evaluation of management strategies and with an In-depth
understanding of major federal and state statutes and
implementing regulations affecting water quality, coastal land
use, and protection of living resources;
Biologists knowledgeable about marine or estuarine systems
to help characterize the estuary and recommend corrective
actions;
A chemist, toxicologist. or general environmentalist to
support In the characterization phase; and
A statistician familiar with environmental modeling to help in
the characterization phase.
The Management Conference - its committees, elected officials,
and the general public - form the management structure under
which problems and concerns related to the estuary are
addressed and, over time, resolved
23
-------
Chapter
Characterization and
Problem Definition
Once the Management Conference has built a framework for iden-
tifying, negotiating, and solving problems, it is ready to embark on
other tasks. The Conference begins to "take the pulse" of the
estuary, determining the state of its health and the reasons for its
decline. The process entails examining symptoms for probable
causes, testing hypotheses for actual causes, and defining the
most pressing problems. Known as "characterization and problem
definition," this phase provides the objective basis used to
develop management strategies for the estuary's Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan
Characterization is .. .(copy to come)
Generally, a Management Conference is convened because there
are obvious problems in the estuary. These may include, for
instance, decline in a popular recreational or commercial fish
species, contamination of beaches, kills of fish, or extensive
bloom of algae. Although these occurrences are often referred to
as "perceived problems," they actually are symptoms of water
pollution The challenge to the Conference, working with the
STAC, is to separate these symptoms from their causes or
sources Frequently, some symptoms may be addressed by
regulatory agency actions while scientists examine data to deter-
mine the exact cause All participants, expressing their different
economic, aesthetic, health, and recreational concerns, will help
determine which problems will be addressed during characteriza-
tion.
The scientific investigations and reports resulting from charac-
terization must be translated into plain English, telling a story
about the estuary that the public can understand. The importance
of this step cannot be stressed strongly enough. The success of
an estuary program depends on public understanding of the
estuary's problems and public support for enacting prescribed
remedies.
Setting the Course
25
-------
Scientific
Characterization
Scientific data are used during the characterization phase as the
basis for an integrated, systemwide assessment of each estuary.
The assessment addresses historical trends, present conditions,
and probable future trends if current practices are not modified. It
is analogous to telling a story about the past, present, and poten-
tial future of each estuary. The results are used to substantiate
environmental problems, evaluate their causes, recommend future
remedial and management strategies, and develop long-term
monitoring plans.
Estuary characterization relies primarily on existing scientific infor-
mation, particularly historical data. Such information, which can
be collected and analyzed relatively efficiently and cost-effectively,
provides the most direct way to evaluate trends in estuarine condi-
tions. The kinds of information commonly used for estuary
characterization appear in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1-Common Kinds of Historical Information Used for Estuary
Characterization
Pollutant Sources to the Estuary
Watershed geomorphology
Land use patterns
Freshwater input
Pollutant loadings
- Direct discharges
- Riverine discharges
- Nonpoint source runoff
Circulation of Material in the Estuary
Weather patterns
Tides/currents
Salinity
Temperature
Sediment grain size
Distribution of Chemicals in Estuarine Waters and Sediments
Organic carbon
Nutrients
Dissolved oxygen
Chemical contaminants
Distribution of Biological Organisms in the Estuary
Plankton
Benthic invertebrates
. Rsh
Aquatic vegetation
Endangered species
Rates of Biological Processes
Primary production
Secondary production
Respiration
Commercial fishery catches
Recreational fishery catches
Factors Important to Human and Environmental Health
Distribution of bacteria and pathogenic organisms
Prevalence of disease m fish and shellfish
Tissue contaminants
Geographic Areas of Special Importance
Critical spawning or nursery habitats
Recreational areas
Beach closures
Shellfish harvesting areas
26
-------
However, readily available historical data, which consists of infor-
mation already computerized or collected by local, state, and
federal agencies, may not address the specific problems being
investigated in each estuary. Historical data are also incomplete
and limited to specific regulatory programs. To overcome these
limitations, new sources of data are identified and information is
collected from virtually all possible sources-scientists, academic
and research institutions, and public health and living resource
agencies.
The data are screened for as much useful information as possible.
Within limits set by the investigating scientists, information is
extracted from the data to create new data sets for analysis.
Because collecting new scientific information is generally quite
costly, historical data are used to set priorities for the kinds of new
information needed for the characterization effort. These data are
also used to shape new sampling and monitoring programs
needed to define specific problems.
Characterization, which occurs over two to three years, proceeds
through the following major steps:
Identifying the most significant problems for investigation;
Collecting priority data sets;
Identifying data management support;
Screening priority data sets;
Determining estuary segments;
Analyzing data;
Considering significant gaps in available data;
Reporting results in both peer-reviewed technical
publications and public documents; and
Preparing a characterization report.
The relationship among these steps is presented in Figure 3.1.
The first step in the characterization process is identifying the
most important environmental problems in the estuary. This
activity is conducted by the Management Conference and, there-
fore, cannot begin until a management framework is set up.
Because all the problems cannot be addressed, it is critical to rank
them so that effort and funding levels are allocated effectively. The
following key questions are addressed when the Management
Conference defines and ranks environmental problems.
Is the perception of the problem accurate?
Does the problem influence a large part of the estuary?
Can the probable cause of the problem be identified''
Is it feasible to correct the problem?
Characterization
Steps
Identification and Ranking
of Priority Problems for
Study
27
-------
Steps In Characterization
Identify Priority
Problems
Estuary Management I
Committee
Collect Priority
Data Sets
Identify Data
Management Support
Screen Priority
Data Sets
Determine
Estuary Segments
Analyze
Data
Report
Results
Address Priority
Data Gaps
Public Synthesis
Documents
Peer-Reviewed
Technical Publications
Characterization
Report
Figure 3.1 Relationships among characterization steps.
Overestimating the severity or significance of certain problems
can divert attention from those that actually deserve greater con-
cern The presence of toxic contaminants in the tissue of fish, for
example, may capture widespread publicity and interest because
of its potential effect on human health. However, the incidence of
such contamination may be limited to specific sites On the other
hand, nutrient enrichment, eutrophication, and resulting dis-
solved oxygen depletion may have far greater systemwide
impacts, affecting not only finfish species but shellfish and crab
populations
Problems with a systemwide impact generally are ranked higher
than those with localized effects Furthermore, problems that
significantly curtail the designated uses of an estuary may be
ranked high Some problems may receive a high ranking because
corrective mechanisms, such as regulatory programs and
authorities, are already in place
28
-------
From a management perspective, simply knowing that a problem
exists is not sufficient reason to study it. It is also necessary to be
able to identify the likely cause, and to ascertain whether correc-
tive actions are feasible within reasonable cost and other limits.
Tractable, or manageable, problems generally should be ranked
higher than those with no apparent solution or those requiring an
inordinate amount of effort to correct.
After the four key questions for the known environmental problems
in an estuary have been addressed, the problems are ranked to
identify which warrant highest priority. These are considered in the
remaining characterization steps.
The second step In the characterization process is the collection
of "priority data sets" that are
Relevant to defining the nature and extent of a priority
problem;
Pertinent to specific parameters needed to define the
problem;
Broad in temporal and spatial coverage;
Good quality, as indicated by a preliminary assessment; and
In a usable format.
Although extensive information may be available for a particular
estuary, the initial selection criterion (relevance) ensures that
collection efforts focus only on data sets directly related to the
priority problems The second criterion (pertinence) further con-
fines collection efforts to data sets containing information
important for characterization, such as specific variables and
sampling periods. The third criterion (breadth of temporal and
spatial coverage) emphasizes data sets with broad temporal or
spatial scales as opposed to data sets that represent a narrow
time frame or those that are highly site-specific. The fourth
criterion focuses on quality assurance to prevent questionable
data from influencing the analyses. Finally, the data must be
formatted for computer use.
The goal of the data collection and selection
process is to identify what combination of data
sets best provides the information needed for
estuary characterization.
Rarely will any single data set rank highly with respect to all selec-
tion criteria. Instead, the goal of the data collection and selection
process is to identify what combination of data sets best provides
the information needed for estuary characterization.
Collection of Priority
Data Sets
29
-------
To help identify the most important data sets, questionnaires fre-
quently are sent to investigators and organizations. A sample data
request form used to obtain information related to a priority
problem in Long Island Sound appears in Figure 3.2
Long Itland Sound Data Characterization Oxygen
Depletion In Wattarn Long leland Sound
1 LIS Document Reference Number
2 Organization Contacted
3 Principal Investigator
4 Contact
5 Telephone Number
6 Address of Contact
7 Citation
al Aulhor(s)
bIYear
c) Title
d) Journal/Rept
e) Volume Number
0 Pages
8 Sample. Survey Type
a) Station(a)
b) Synoptic Survey
c) Vertical Resolution
9. Measurement
a) Dissolved Oxygen
b) % Oxygen Saturation
c) Temperature
d) Salinity
e) Phytoplankton Pigments
f) Phytoplankton Counts
g) Inorganic Nutrients (Ammonium,
Nitrate, Phosphate, Silicate)
h) Organic Nutrients (DOC, TOC. DON,
TON. OOP. TOP)
i) BOD. COD
l) Biological Rates (Primary
Productivity, Water Respiration.
Sediment Respiration, etc I
10 Data. Study Area
11 Time Span of Data
12 Status of Data
a) Ran
b) Reprint
c) Computerized
d) Database Name
e) Data Products
13 Comments
Y/N
Frequency/Resolution
Y/N
Units
Cost
Figure 3.2 Example of a form used to identify priority data sets for
use in estuary characterization.
Identification of Data
Management Support
While key data sets are being identified, collected, and reviewed,
each estuary program should find a data management system
that can store large amounts of historical and future information
related to the estuary's conditions The data management system
supports two primary functions. First, it enhances the charac-
terization process by providing extensive data storage and
analytical capabilities. It is thus a free-standing data base access-
ible to the scientific community conducting characterization
studies. Second, it serves as a long-term archive that can be con-
tinuously updated. The data base will be expanded with
information from sampling and monitoring efforts to determine
whether the abatement and control programs improve water
quality and living resources
30
-------
In developing data management support for each estuary
program, existing systems are evaluated. Evaluation criteria in-
clude the following:
Ease of access and use;
Use of relatively standard hardware and software;
Capability of storing diverse kinds of information, such as
physical, chemical and biological data; land use statistics;
and point and nonpoint source records;
Data analysis features, including analyzing statistics and
generating presentations like tables, graphs, charts, and
maps;
Flexibility to adapt to changing needs; and
Cost of usage and maintenance.
The state agency responsible for implementing the estuary
program's findings should use an in-house existing data manage-
ment system. If an appropriate system is not available, however, a
new one may be developed. Sometimes the new system will com-
bine the best features of two or more existing systems.
After priority data sets have been collected and entered into the
data management system, they can be accessed as needed.
Before data sets are analyzed, however, they must be screened
(Figure 3.1).
The screening procedure is designed to review the quality of the
data and to identify unusual values or missing information. For
example, nonexistent observations from important time periods or
sampling stations should be identified, in addition, unusually high
or low data values can be isolated for closer Inspection.
Screening can be conducted by combining computerized checks
with experts' technical reviews. The results of the screening proce-
dure are included in each data set. They help determine which
data sets are appropriate for the various evaluations conducted
during data analysis. Screening also helps identify insufficient or
missing information that may need to be addressed later in the
characterization process.
Estuary segmentation - partitioning an estuary into a series of
spatial units or segments - is a useful analytical tool. It permits
integrating an extensive amount of environmental information
when certain conditions, such as water temperature and salinity,
are relatively homogeneous within a segment. During data
analysis, historical information collected for each segment is com-
bined to represent the average set of conditions encountered in
the segment. In this manner, a data base consisting of hundreds
of stations can be reduced to a description of conditions based on
a relatively smaller number of segments (Figure 3.3). Besides
Screening Priority
Data Sets
Estuary Segmentation
31
-------
Estuary Segmentation
Data Analysis
Concentration
Figure 3.3 Estuary segmentation permits reducing the variability
from hundreds of data points to a simplified picture of
estuary trends.
facilitating data integration, segmentation also allows researchers
to examine data based on station locations of uncertain origin.
This is particularly useful because the lack of information on exact
station locations is a limitation frequently encountered with histori-
cal data sets.
In addition to providing a means for summarizing data for geo-
graphic stretches of the estuary, segmentation is important for the
development of water quality models and the subsequent alloca-
tion of waste discharges into the estuary. Future management
actions will most likely set pollution load reduction goals segment
by segment. The impact of this scheme on the affected dis-
chargers may be significant. Therefore, a segmentation scheme
will need to consider political boundaries and the locations of the
dischargers, as well as physical features and hydrography of the
estuary.
Once the data are screened, they can be analyzed by scientists to
answer specific questions about the relationships among pollu-
tants, pollutant loadings, and their effects on water, sediment, and
living resources. The general objectives of these analyses are to:
. Determine the temporal trends and spatial patterns related
to the most pressing problems of each estuary;
Determine possible causes of these problems;
. Provide an integrated description of the conditions
encountered in each estuary; and
» Identify significant, missing data that warrant additional
monitoring or sampling.
32
-------
The identification of temporal trends-or changes over time-is
important for recognizing problems and suggesting potential
causes. The landings of a particular species of fish in an estuary,
for example, may continuously decline over a 40-year period
(Figure 3.4). This trend suggests that the species may be adverse-
ly affected within the estuary, but it does not suggest the potential
cause. Nevertheless, the temporal trend of interrelated, suspected
causes, such as overfishing, pollution, or habitat loss, can be
compared with the overall trend in fish landings. If there are
similarities between a suspected cause and the decline in land-
ings, the cause may be further evaluated to determine whether it
was the actual reason for the observed problem. Generally,
characterization efforts do not establish cause-effect relation-
ships. Absolutes or certainties are replaced with a philosophy that
accepts a preponderance of evidence.
Temporal Trend
§
1
1950 1960
1970
Year
1960 19SO
Possible Causal Factors
Overfishing Habitat Loss
i
.0
*- at
01
Pollution
(A
1960
\_
Yaars
1990
Yaais
19SO 1960
Year*
1990
Determine If Further Confirming Information Is Available
Figure 3.4 To suggest problem areas, temporal trends in
important resources may be correlated with
possible causal factors. Blue zone indicates
comparison of possible causal factors to
temporal trend in fish landings.
Spatial patterns - relative locations can also be used to iden-
tity problems and suggest possible causes. A gradient (that is, a
continuous increase or decrease) in the distribution of copper
concentrations in bottom sediments found near the head of an es-
tuary is illustrative (Figure 3.5). Close inspection of the gradient
might show that concentrations are highest immediately
downstream from a city, but that they decline both up- and
downstream as one moves farther away. Such a pattern suggests
33
-------
that the copper contamination originates in the city, and that
subsequent analyses should attempt to identify the exact source.
Spatial Pattern
River
Copper Concentration
High
Figure 3.5 Example of a spatial pattern for copper concentrations in
sediments found near the head of an estuary.
Another analytical technique to determine the potential causes of
environmental problems is an evaluation of relationships among
environmental variables. The reduction of aquatic vegetation may,
for instance, be cited as a priority problem in an estuary. The
association between declining vegetation and a second estuarine
variable, such as the presence of nitrogen in the water column,
could be examined (Figure 3.6). If there is a positive correlation,
nitrogen could be the culprit.
Cause-Effect Relationship
50
40
Percent 30
Vegetated
Stations 20
10
I
I
0.5 1.0 1.5
Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L)
2.0
Figure 3.6 Example of a potential cause-effect relationship: The
association between declining vegetation and the presence
of nitrogen in the water.
34
-------
In all these examples, the potential cause of a problem is identi-
fied through association. Although this kind of circumstantial
evidence is valuable, it does not conclusively prove a cause-effect
relationship. The problem and potential cause could be associ-
ated purely by chance; both could be the result of yet another
variable. Confirmation of cause-effect relationships usually re-
quires conducting field or laboratory experiments under carefully
controlled conditions.
Historical data sets for most estuaries differ in terms of factors like
temporal and spatial coverage, kinds of measurements, and level
of detail. Therefore, the analytical methods used for characteriza-
tion generally include various quantitative and qualitative
techniques. Nevertheless, the goal is to integrate a wealth of
diverse information into a unified description of the past, present,
and probable future conditions in each estuary (without, of course,
exceeding inherent data limitations).
As historical data are being analyzed during estuary characteriza-
tion, various gaps in the historical data base are uncovered. Some
of these data gaps substantially influence data analysis and there-
fore must be addressed. It is not feasible to address every missing
link in the historical data base. Scientists must therefore rank this
missing information in terms of its importance to accurate
analysis and interpretation. Once they have determined which
information is required, they can overcome the deficiency by
reevaluating existing data or by collecting new information.
There may be significant gaps in data on temporal trends.
Although a decline in landings of a species of fish may have been
documented between 1950 and 1980, for instance, similar infor-
mation may not have been summarized since 1980 (Figure 3.7).
Without these data, it would be difficult to estimate whether land-
ings continued to decline after 1980. This would be especially true
if the number of landings remained relatively constant between
1970 and 1980. To determine whether the problem still exists,
Historical Data Gaps
(O
CD
1 '
1
.C
.2
IL.
' Newly Summarized
4 Historical Information
.
:.
1950 1960 1970
Year
V
o 'o " \
. I'-O
1 1
New sampling
conducted during
estuary program
may show
continuation or
reversal of
trend
1980 1990
Consideration of
Incomplete Data
Figure 3.7 Missing information on the trend of parameters through
time can be supplied by newly funded synthesis of
previously collected data or new sampling.
35
-------
scientists would have to identify and collect additional existing
information on landings from 1980 to the present. If a source of
information cannot be identified, the estuary program may have
to undertake its own sampling program to determine current
conditions and any trends.
Data for spatial patterns may also be incomplete. The presence of
high concentrations of copper in bottom sediments downstream
from a city again provides an illustration (Figure 3.8). Assume that
information on concentrations upstream from the city and down-
stream from the area of high concentrations is not available.
Without it, scientists cannot characterize the spatial extent of con-
tamination or determine whether the source of contamination is in
the city. Such information is essential to determine the magnitude
and likely cause of the problem. Accordingly, the acquisition of
these data probably would be given a high priority. New data
could be collected at a series of sampling stations located at
increasing distances from the city and the area of high concentra-
tions.
Use of New Sampling Stations
To Fill Spatial Data Gaps
Pollutant Concentration
High
Low
New Stations
Sampling New Stations Yields Following Results
Upstream source with
little dilution in estuary,
or strong source in all
areas (e.g., atmosphere
or runoff).
Source is city
Source is city but
pollutant is degraded,
diluted, or sedimented
by the time it reaches
estuary.
Figure 3.8 New sampling to fill in missing spatial data can yield
important information about the source and extent of a
problem.
Insufficient evidence about a suspected cause-effect relationship
can lead to a pressing need to obtain missing data. Again, the
relationship between declining aquatic vegetation and increased
nitrogen concentration provides an illustration. This relationship
could be due to the stimulative effect of the nutrient nitrogen on
36
-------
Correlation Shown by
Historical Data
Analysis
s.1
Is
f£
§I
Nitrogen Concentration
Correlation Tested by
Fertilization Experiment
Water Surface
-------
Evaluation of
Institutional and
Management
Programs
The reports provide evidence useful for:
. Summarizing major environmental problems within each
estuary;
. Identifying suspected causes of as many of the problems
as possible;
. Recommending future remedial and managerial strategies
to correct the problems; and
Developing a long-term monitoring program to evaluate the
effectiveness of these strategies and to identify emerging
environmental problems at an early stage.
The scientific evaluation of the physical, chemical, and biological
state of the estuary does not proceed in isolation While it is under
way, a simultaneous evaluation of the institutional structures, in-
cluding laws, regulations, and management programs, is
conducted This evaluation addresses federal, state, and local
laws, regulations, policies, and other institutional efforts It looks at
how regulations are being enforced, whether programs are being
coordinated, and if resources are allocated and used effectively.
A simultaneous evaluation of the institutional
structures, including laws, regulations, and
management programs, is conducted.
Despite the likelihood of some overlap, it may be best to organize
the evaluation in three parts:
. Water and sediment quality management, both point and
nonpoint source pollution abatement and control;
Living resources management, including special protection
activities; and
Land and water resources management
Then, in examining each of the three management areas, considei
the following
Federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are in
effect;
. Existing criteria, standards, and regulatory control
programs, along with their compliance and enforcement
records;
. Presence of needed regulatory authorities;
Support from management institutions, such as planning
and natural resource agencies and their policies;
38
-------
For each management area, it would be helpful to develop an
extensive list of laws, regulations, policies, control programs, and
resources at federal, state, and local levels. Identify gaps and
inconsistencies. Most of the existing regulatory programs are
directed toward point source management. Therefore, determine
how well these programs are working. Specifically, assess
whether issued permits are of good quality, inspections are being
conducted, and enforcement actions are taken when violations
occur.
Next, evaluate nonpoint sources of pollution. Find out whether an
adequate nonpoint source program is in effect. Are other
authorities to control nonpoint source pollution needed?
To improve management of living resources, inventory available
and operational statutory, regulatory, and zoning ordinances.
Sediment control or other point and nonpoint source require-
ments may need strengthening to ensure that water and sediment
quality can sustain living resources. Initiatives to protect these
resources and their habitats may be advisable. Such protections
may include providing for minimum fresh water flows during
drought conditions or establishing antidegradation policies for
habitats critical to spawning, nursery, and forage areas.
Finally, examine how the various control programs are integrated;
be sure that existing programs are not working at cross-purposes
Resources from each governmental level and program should be
brought to bear on the most serious problems. Find out if
programs are cooperating in this effort. Determine whether
citizens are involved so they can help to ensure intergovernmental
and interagency coordination. Some state and local governments
may consider reorganizing their agencies to foster program inte-
gration and appropriate targeting of efforts.
During this phase, it is vital to understand what actions are already
being taken within the current institutional framework. Further,
environmental degradation can occur when existing authorities
are not being exercised, or activities and resources are not
focused on the right problem. It is also important to determine
whether existing environmental regulatory programs are keeping
pace with a growing population and its needs.
Once this evaluation has been completed, the Management Con-
ference summarizes the findings. These findings will help form the
base of information needed to develop additional control
strategies and to recommend initiatives.
The characterization report is a public education tool. Because it
describes the estuary's problems objectively and lays out a range
of potential solutions, the report must be widely read and under-
stood. Scientific and technical findings and reports must be
summarized in lay terms and presented clearly, using fact sheets
and visual aids The citizens advisory committee and public partic-
ipation staff should be enlisted to help make the characterization
Characterization
Report
39
-------
report meaningful to the citizenry The report's findings should
also be presented at meetings and workshops for the public and
for the mass media
The characterization report tells the story of the state of the estu-
ary. It describes both spatial and temporal changes that have
been caused by human activity; natural climatic, biological, and
physical changes, and occasional major natural events The
report highlights the way the estuary used to be, the way it is
today, and the way it might become if current trends continue
Population trends are an important part of the report.
Significant population growth usually leads to increased
withdrawal of fresh water. Population growth also results in addi-
tional needs for sewage treatment; greater runoff from paved
surfaces, construction, and agricultural activity; and more pollu-
tion from commerce and industry.
The characterization report is a public
education tool... that sets the stage for the
formulation of the CCMP and its action
strategies.
The characterization report describes changes in land-use pat-
terns, such as reductions in cropland, pastures, and forested
areas Water quantity and flow levels needed to sustain important
resources may also be addressed in the report. Hydrological infor-
mation will be included There may no longer be a free exchange
of fresh and ocean waters Pollutants may be trapped in the estu-
ary, accumulating and changing the balance and function of the
ecosystem The report describes the estuary's major problems
and suggests possible solutions based on objective evidence.
Besides depicting the physical, chemical, and biological state of
the estuary, the characterization report assesses whether existing
institutional mechanisms are appropriate in light of the estuarine
system. The report addresses current laws, regulatory programs,
and governmental and nongovernmental institutions, pointing to
gaps and needs for new authorities and efforts It may suggest a
more strenuous set of standards and criteria, stepped up enforce-
ment actions, or even a new regulatory agency
The characterization report sets the stage for formulating the
CCMP and its action strategies Therefore, all participants in
the Management Conference must be fully informed. They must
understand the story the report tells and its implications for the
future
40
-------
Chapter IV
The Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan
A Blueprint for Action
The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan,
developed by the Management Conference, Is a blueprint for re-
storing and maintaining an estuary. It identifies the most pressing
problems in an estuary, and establishes goals and objectives for
resolving them. The CCMP prescribes specific actions to protect
and enhance water and sediment quality, living resources, and
land and water resources. Designated uses of the estuary are
protected by the plan's actions.
Section 320(b) of the Water Quality Act of 1987
directs Management Conferences to develop "a
comprehensive conservation and management plan
that recommends priority corrective actions and
compliance schedules addressing point and non-
point sources of pollution to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
estuary, including restoration and maintenance of
water quality, a balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities
in the estuary, and assure that the designated uses
of the estuary are protected "
The first task of the Management Conference is to summarize the
characterization findings in "plain English." The conferees then
debate the merits of each problem and determine which problems
will be the focus of the CCMP. These are called priority problems.
Characterization findings also form the basis for developing the
environmental quality goals and objectives that each Conference
establishes for the estuary. Once these goals and objectives have
been set, the Conference develops specific action plans to
achieve them.
Developing a
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
41
-------
Components of a
Comprehensive
Conservation and
Management Plan
The action plans, which are the core of the CCMP, address three
management areas, water and sediment quality, living resources,
and land and water resources. Implementation activities in each of
these areas stem from the action plans.
Implementing action plans is the key to estuary cleanup. To help
ensure implementation, therefore, the following steps are recom-
mended:
. Disseminate and discuss the characterization findings with
affected parties in the watershed.
Continue public information and involvement efforts to
ensure support for the CCMP.
Integrate and coordinate all activities for CCMP
development and implementation; work with affected
jurisdictions, agencies, and programs.
. Select, by Conference consensus, priority problems to be
addressed in the CCMP.
. Establish, by Conference consensus, environmental quality
goals and objectives for the estuary.
Evaluate and select management activities.
. Prepare action plans for controlling pollution and managing
resources.
Secure commitments to implement action plans.
Periodically review, evaluate, and redirect efforts as
necessary while action plans are being carried out.
The centerpiece of the CCMP consists of action plans for attaining
the goals and objectives set by the Management Conference.
Supporting components are vital parts of the plan as well. Figure
4.1 depicts the relationship among the CCMP components and
the process the Management Conference should use to conduct
an estuary program. Table 4.1 presents the essential components
in a CCMP
Table 4.1 -CCMP Components
"Plain English" summary of the characterization findings
Statement of priority problems to be addressed in the CCMP
Environmental quality goals and objectives for the estuary
Actions plans for the management areas water and sediment
quality, living resources, and land and water resources
Supporting components
- A plan for public information and involvement
- Provisions for program integration and coordination
- Provisions for periodic review, evaluation, and redirection
- Provisions for the development of implementation plans
42
-------
(Management Conference
Program
Integration
Provide for
coordinating
other existing
public and
private
activities
Phase 1 - Planning Initiative
Establish Framework
for Decision Making
Phase 2 Characterization and
Problem Definition
Public
Information and
Involvement
Establish
ongoing
program
Monitoring
Initiate
short-term
and provide
for long-term
activities
Phase 3 - COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT PLAN (CCMPI
COMPONENTS
Summery of Characterization Findings
Priority Problems
Environmental Quality
Goals and Objectives
Action Plans for Pollution Control
and Resource Management
Supporting Components provide for
Public Information and Involvement
Program Integration
Periodic Review. Evaluation,
and Redirection
Development of Implementation Plans
Phase 4 Implementation of
the CCMP
Figure 4 1 Relationship Among the CCMP Components
and the Management Conference Process
The characterization report developed during Phase 2 describes
the estuary's current condition, historical trends, and projected
future conditions (Chapter III). A summary of the report's findings
is an important part of the CCMP. The summary highlights the
most significant chemical, physical, biological, and institutional
problems in an estuary. It should address the three management
areas water and sediment quality, living resources, and land
and water resources. Each action plan is directed toward abating
problems in one or several of these areas. The summary is also an
important tool for public education and participation. It is a
springboard or building consensus for the CCMP and its imple-
mentation
A Summary of the
Characterization
Findings
43
-------
Priority Problems
Addressed in the
CCMP
Although the characterization report includes all the problems that
were identified in the estuary, the Conference must select those
that the CCMP will actually address. This selection process entails
considering costs and benefits It also requires assessing the
length of time for problem resolution and the likely success of
efforts. Using the criteria in Table 4.2, the conferees then rank
priority problems. (The list of selection criteria is an expansion of
those used during characterization.) After conferees have
developed and recommended a remedial course of action for the
highest ranked problems, other problems can be addressed.
Table 4.2-Selection Criteria for Priority Problems
Does the problem affect a number of resources and/or uses of the
estuary?
Does the problem adversely affect public health?
Does the problem have a systemwide impact?
Does the problem have a number of major local impacts of high
priority to the general public?
Is the problem of great concern to the public, major users, and
political leaders?
Can the problem be corrected through timely institutional or regula-
tory mechanisms?
Can the problem be controlled at reasonable cost with existing
technology?
Does the problem require further research, thereby precluding im-
mediate action?
Certain problems may be so complex that abatement or cleanup
could consume all of an estuary program's resources In these
cases, the Conference should explore other funding sources
Some estuary programs may rely on creative financing, while
others may redirect existing resources to a priority problem or tap
funds held by Conference members (EPA is developing guidance
on how to finance estuary programs, which will include informa-
tion on funding alternatives)
Setting priorities requires great effort. After the characterization
report has been released, the Conference holds workshops, meet-
ings, and media briefings to educate all affected publics. The CAC
and the STAC explain the characterization findings, and the
management committee hears the concerns of citizens groups,
users, and the regulatory community. Based on this feedback and
other considerations, the management committee then recom-
mends which priority problems should be the focus of the CCMP.
The policy committee is responsible for adopting management
committee recommendations and for securing commitments of
state and federal resources to solve the problems
44
-------
When Congress established the National Estuary Program under
the Water Quality Act, it mandated the restoration and main-
tenance of the nation's estuaries The law provides that
productivity is to be assured, and the needs of an array of users
are to be accommodated. The Management Conference is
charged with achieving this intricate balance by setting broad
environmental quality goals that comply with the mandate of the
Act and the will of the people.
Goals, Objectives, and Action Plans
Goals are broad, long-term aims the Management
Conference sets for the estuary.
Objectives are more specific, shorter-term targets for
attaining goals.
Action plans are detailed programs for meeting goals and
objectives, indicating who, what, where, when, and how the
plans will be carried out.
Environmental
Quality Goals and
Objectives for the
Estuary
Setting Goals
Goals are usually long term and broad in scope The Conference
establishes overall goals related to the desired condition for the
estuary and its segments. To determine what goals the public
wants to attain and will support, the Management Conference
presents options for public discussion. These may range from
maintaining current conditions to restoring the estuary to a past
condition, or to restoring or maintaining pristine quality.
In one tributary where Whitewater sports are popular, for example,
the goal might be to maintain a pristine condition In an industrial-
ized segment, it might be to maintain the current condition by
preventing further degradation. In yet another segment, the goal
might be to restore wetlands to a previous, healthier condition.
Setting goals requires the public to understand the effects of
population growth. Everyone must be aware that the needs of a
growing population increase pollutant loads, foster industrial and
commercial development, and create additional demands on
water use. The consequences of population growth may be
habitat modification and further environmental degradation
Environmental quality objectives, unlike goals, are specific and
shorter term. They are aimed at achieving broader, longer-term
goals. Achievable through the implementation of specific action
plans, objectives generally reflect the environmental criteria or the
preferred uses that the Conference considers appropriate and
desirable for various estuarine segments. Objectives undoubtedly
Setting Objectives
45
-------
Action Plans for
Controlling Pollution
and Managing
Resources
will vary from one segment to another Typically, they are estab-
lished on the basis of preferred uses, standards, and permit
activities to improve water quality Objectives may also be set for
the other management areas sediment quality, living resources,
and land and water resources
One of the goals in the Chesapeake Bay Program, for example, is
to reduce point and nonpoint sources of pollution to improve
water quality, thus sustaining the bay's living resources. Some 16
objectives have been set to reach that goal Included is a commit-
ment from Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia to develop, adopt, and implement a basinwide plan
that would reduce, by 40 percent, the nutrients entering the bay.
Actions to meet this objective by the year 2000 will begin in 1988
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority provides another illu-
stration of setting goals and objectives One of the Authority's
long-term goals is to protect consumers of shellfish from conta-
minants, maintain and enhance the abundance of shellfish, and
control pollution so that, by 1990, closed shellfish beds can be
reopened and additional closures prevented
To safeguard consumers and shellfish, the Authority has set
specific objectives and taken action to achieve them. Besides
instituting pollution control programs to protect and restore
shellfish, it is testing for toxicants in certain shellfish beds The
Authority is also extending monitoring and certification efforts. In
addition, it is attempting to further public education and involve-
ment in the protection of shellfish, and to identify funding sources
for shellfish protection programs
To help achieve environmental goals and objectives, the Manage-
ment Conference develops action plans directed toward specific
priority problems Action plans should address the three manage-
ment areas, as shown in Table 4 3 Each action plan should focus
on a priority problem in one or more of the management areas
Table 4.3-Focus of Action Plans by Management Area
Water and sediment quality pollution abatement and control
Action plans focus on point and nonpoint sources
Living resources management, including specially protected areas
Action plans focus on protection and restoration
Land use and water resources management Action plans focus on
set asides as well as special protective legislation and initiatives
46
-------
As the Management Conference designs the CCMP, it will con-
sider available management activities to meet its goals and
objectives. Because water management problems are
widespread, programs around the country have tried various
measures to tackle specific problems. Many of these measures
have worked successfully. The National Estuary Program intends
to publish "Management Approaches for Estuaries," a handbook
that will describe various methods other estuary programs have
used to manage specific environmental problems. This handbook
should provide assistance to Conferences as they assess and
select management activities.
The steps to follow in preparing an action plan appear in Table 4.4.
At least one specific action plan should be developed for each
problem the Conference elects to address. Examples of action
plans addressing typical problems are presented throughout this
chapter.
Table 4.4-Actlon Plan Steps
1. State the problem, identifying the probable causes and sources
2 State the program goals related to the problem, source, or cause
3 Set specific objectives to attain the goals.
4. Evaluate available management activities.
5 Select the activity that will work, that the public will support, and
that can be implemented within reasonable time and resources.
6 Establish specific action plans needed to abate and control the
problem or protect the resource. Each action plan addresses:
WHO. Identify who will act, pay, and enforce; spell out roles
and resource commitments for each participating agency,
institution, and enterprise.
WHAT: Describe what will be done For example, specify
numerically based load reductions and use designations in
this location; describe what specific activities are necessary to
reach them.
. WHERE: Describe the location this action will affect.
WHEN: Include schedules.
HOW: Outline the procedure used to perform this activity
7. Implement and monitor results.
8 Report on progress, costs, and results
9 Review, reevaluate, and redirect as needed
Although action plans should focus on the three management
areas, there is likely to be considerable overlap among them. To
protect a living resource, for instance, a nonpoint source action
plan may be called for.
47
-------
Water and Sediment Quality
Improvements in water and sediment quality usually require con-
trolling point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Table 4.5 outlines
the steps to follow in addressing this problem.
Table 4.5-Steps in Addressing Water and Sediment Quality
Identify pollutant loads and sources > Set target load reductions
Assess point and nonpoint source control programs > Improve
programs through additional actions
Review designated uses > Revise to protect human health, water
and sediment quality, and living resources.
Consider available management activities > Select highest
ranking activities
Develop action plans > Set schedules, commit resources
Implement > Monitor, review, revise, refine, and redirect if
necessary
Point sources of pollution, which expel nutrients, toxics,
suspended solids, and microorganisms, usually are abated by
limiting the discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. This program re-
quires pretreating effluents, upgrading treatment technology,
reducing concentrations of pollutants in the effluent, and properly
maintaining and operating all equipment at both municipal and
industrial plants. Improved management and enforcement of per-
mit programs will most likely be important for controlling point
source loadings in an estuary.
Like point sources, nonpoint sources consist of nutrients, toxics,
sediments, and bacteria. Instead of being discharged from an out-
flow pipe of an industrial or sewage treatment plant, however,
these pollutants run off the land Nutrients and toxics usually come
from agricultural land and from urban streets. Sediment is eroded
from agricultural and urban sources and from construction sites.
Animal and poorly treated human wastes contribute to high bac-
terial levels.
Many management practices can be used to control nonpoint
sources of pollution. They range from planting cover vegetation
and forests to reducing the use of lawn fertilizer in urban and sub-
urban neighborhoods and cleaning city streets. They may also
include issuing NPDES permits for sources not traditionally con-
sidered point sources. Construction activities, animal feedlols.
storm drains, car washes, and laundry facilities, for instance, may
be issued permits. For each one, however, the Conference should
develop a specific action plan as part of the CCMP. Tables 4.6 and
4.7 contain sample action plans that include point and nonpoint
source controls.
48
-------
Table 4.6-CCMP Action Plan for Toxic Hot Spots
PROBLEM
PROGRAM GOALS
OBJECTIVES
COMPACTIONS
Within One Year-
Toxic hot spots: Defined areas of sediments
contaminated with toxic pollutants with
associated effects on living resources.
Eliminate, within three years, current sources of
the identified toxic pollutants of concern.
Implement programs to mitigate effects of
historical loadings to restore biological
productivity
Identify and control both point and nonpoint
sources of the pollutants of concern.
Evaluate and implement cost-effective mitigation
methods for each site, including dredging,
capping, and stabilization.
Identify all industrial and municipal facilities that
may discharge, use, or store the pollutants of
concern Review NPDES permit status, daily
monitoring report data, and compliance history
Develop baseline monitoring program for
sediment chemistry and appropriate biological
indicators of toxicity
Within Two Years Issue permits or revise and reissue permits where
appropriate.
Inspect facilities for NPDES permit compliance,
including proper operation and maintenance, and
best management practices Ensure compliance
with other federal and state laws for disposal
Implement baseline monitoring program
Complete feasibility studies of mitigation
measures and cleanup options
Within Three Years Implement mitigation measures.
Beyond Three Years: Continue monitoring program to determine the
effectiveness of the point source control program
to reduce current loadings and the effectiveness
of mitigation measures.
LEAD State departments of the environment and public
RESPONSIBILITY health.
COOPERATING Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug
AGENCIES Administration, and National Marine Rsheries
Service
RESOURCES Redirection of existing resources and additional
funding for NPDES permit program New
program for sediment monitoring, $2 million
annually Special funding for mitigation measures
under other appropriate federal legislation.
Living Resources
Management
An estuary's living resources range from fish and their spawning
habitat to microscopic phyto- and zooplankton at the bottom of
the food chain. Waterfowl and marshlands adjacent to the estuary
are also estuarine resources. Through the citizens program and
the scientific characterization effort, the Management Conference
49
-------
Table 4.7-CCMP Action Plan for Loss of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
PROBLEM
PROGRAM GOAL
OBJECTIVES
COMPACTIONS
Within One Year.
Within Two Years
Within Three
Years
LEAD
RESPONSIBILITY
COOPERATING
AGENCIES
RESOURCES
Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation in two major
tributaries due to increased turbidity and
sedimentation from nonpoint sources
Restore submerged aquatic vegetation beds to
1950 levels in identified tributaries
Reduce nonpoint source nutrient and sediment
loadings to each tributary
Reestablish submerged aquatic vegetation where
water quality and clarity are sufficient to support it.
Survey tributaries and identify areas where water
and sediment quality is sufficient to support
submerged aquatic vegetation
Identify tributary segments with highest nonpoint
source loadings of nutrients and sediments
Develop a nonpoint source control program for
each segment, setting targets for load reductions.
Develop and implement revegetation programs for
selected segments
Develop and implement systemwide survey
methodology for submerged aquatic vegetation
Conduct annual surveys
Full implementation of nonpoint source control
program for selected segments.
Monitor segments for improvements in water
quality
State department of natural resources and water
pollution control agency.
Environmental Protection Agency, Soil
Conservation Service, and Rsh and Wildlife Service
Public and private organizations to conduct annual
surveys of submerged aquatic vegetation to
supplement aerial surveys
$500,000 annually for revegetation program.
Redirection of existing resources and new funding
of nonpoint source abatement and control
programs in selected tributaries.
determines which natural resources the public values most. It will
also determine which ones are critical to maintaining and restoring
the stability and diversity of the ecosystem.
The public often measures an estuary's health by the state of its
living resources. Citizens may voice concern, for example, if a
particular living resource like striped bass, oysters, or waterfowl is
declining. Because such declines usually connote a greater
problem, the cause must be determined
Poor water quality is often the reason. Destruction of habitat or
modification of spawning, nursery, and forage areas also stress
fish and wildlife. Overfishing and overharvesting, along with
natural climatic changes and disease, may further affect living
resources.
50
-------
Generally, the causes of a declining species or altered habitat are
complex. Although some causes may have been identified during
characterization, others may require additional study. In any case,
because the recovery period for living resources is prolonged,
interim steps aimed at suspected causes may be in order Addi-
tional actions can follow once the actual causes have been
discovered.
The preservation of living resources may require using an array of
protective strategies It may be necessary, for example, to control
commercial and recreational catches. Wildlife and wetlands or
other habitats may also need immediate protection
Enhancement strategies may be considered to supplement
protective strateges. These include stocking hatcheries, planting
wetlands or underwater grasses, and initiating aquacultural
programs Obviously, such enhancements will require water and
sediment of acceptable quality. After the Conference has reviewed
and selected management activities, it designs, writes, and enacts
action plans. Sample action plans to mitigate typical problems and
protect living resources and shellfish appear in Tables 4 8 and 4 9.
In its plans to protect and restore living resources, the Conference
should also consider special protection areas, such as those set
aside under federal, state, regional, and local programs. Some of
these programs are mentioned in the following section on land use
and water resources management.
Some waters that have exceptionally significant recreational or
ecological features may warrant special protection. Antldegrada-
tion policies may be developed for these waters Other measures
to protect exceptional areas include setting higher standards,
severely restricting waste inputs, designating no-discharge areas,
or limiting shoreline development. Such areas may be slated as
high priorities for study and monitoring.
Protection and enhancement of living resources require public
understanding not only of what is happening to the resource and
why, but of the time necessary for recovery, the ecosystem's
response to improvements will not occur overnight. Organisms
will need time to reestablish themselves through natural propaga-
tion or through human intervention like developing aquaculture or
hatcheries. The quality of the estuary will, however, have to be
able to sustain living resources.
Suggested steps for managing living resources appear in Table
4.10.
51
-------
Table 4.8-CCMP Action Plan for Disease and Contamination in Finfish
PROBLEM Observed liver lesions and mercury contamination
in flounder
PROGRAM GOAL Reduce mercury levels in commercial and
recreational finfish to meet all federal and state
standards
By the year 2000, reduce all sources of mercury by
80 percent
OBJECTIVES Review and revise water and sediment quality
standards for mercury to ensure adequate
protection of fish and wildlife in the estuary
Identify and rank all sources of mercury, and
develop management strategies to reduce source
loadings
CCMP ACTIONS
Within One Year
Review NPDES permits for all industrial sources of
mercury
Complete a basmwide analysis of all sources of
mercury and determine relative loadings from all
sources
Establish water and sediment quality standards for
mercury for each segment of the estuary Develop
wasteload allocations for each segment
Within Three Review and evaluate existing water quality
Years monitoring programs
Revise to include sampling for monitoring and
sampling stations to correspond with fishery catch
data
Establish reporting network for commercial
fishermen
Reissue or revise all NPDES permits to reflect best
available technology and water quality-based
effluent limitations for mercury Where mercury
comes from noneffluent sources, develop and
implement best management practices, conduct
quarterly inspections
Develop permitting strategies or best management
practices for all storm drains, combined sewer
overflows, and nonpomt sources of mercury
Implement strategy
Review monitoring and fishery data to determine if
mitigation and/or control activities are needed in
additional segments
LEAD State departments of natural resources, water
RESPONSIBILITY pollution control, and health and public services
COOPERATING Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug
AGENCIES Administration, and National Marine Fisheries
Service
RESOURCES Redirection of existing resources for NPDES
permitting
Supplemental funding for establishing new
standards, $500,000 New funding for nonpomt
sources of mercury, $800,000 Annual funding of
fishery reporting network, $80,000
52
-------
Table 4.9-CCMP Action Plan for Bacterial Contamination of Shellfish
PROBLEM Some 30 percent of commercial and recreational
shellfish beds are closed due to bacterial
contamination from septic tank systems.
PROGRAM GOAL To reopen 50 percent of the closed shellfish beds
within three years.
OBJECTIVES Establish local ordinances on proper operation
and maintenance of septic tanks.
Plan for regular septic tank inspections.
Assess the need for, identify funding sources,
and develop a ten-year construction plan for
sewer extensions and wastewater treatment.
CCMP ACTIONS
Within One Year:
Develop and implement a public education
program on the proper operation and
maintenance of septic tanks, emphasizing water
quality effects.
Develop local inspection programs for septic
tanks
Develop and implement a routine monitoring
program for contaminated shellfish beds. Reopen
any uncontaminated beds.
Assess the need for sewer extensions to support
future development.
Assess monitoring data to determine whether
bacterial loadings havo been reduced Reopen
any uncontaminated beds.
Implement local septic tank inspection programs.
Assess monitoring data to determine whether any
further reduction in bacterial loadings has been
achieved. Assess effectiveness of control actions
taken to date Reopen any uncontaminated beds.
Develop a ten-year construction plan, and identify
funding sources for the construction of sewer
extensions and/or wastewater treatment facilities.
LEAD Departments of public health and water quality
RESPONSIBILITY control
COOPERATING Environmental Protection Agency, and Food and
AGENCIES Drug Administration
RESOURCES New funding of $300,000 per year for three years
to conduct monitoring program. Redirection of
existing programs to cover remainder of program
Obtain federal, state, and local funding for
construction of wastewater treatment plants and
sewer extensions.
Within Two Years-
Within Three Years:
Table 4.10-Steps In Addressing Living Resources Management
Identify living resources of concern and determine causes of
decline > Set objectives to address causes
Assess control programs > Improve programs through
additional actions
Assess land acquisition programs > Integrate federal,
state, local, and private-sector plans
Review the estuary's designated uses > Revise to protect
living resources (fish, wildlife, habitat, and so forth)
Evaluate available management activities > Select highest
ranking activities for protecting or enhancing a resource
Develop action plans > Set schedules and commit
resources
Implement > Monitor, review, revise, refine, and redirect as
needed
53
-------
Land Use and Water
Resources Management
To manage the use of land and water in the watershed, the Con-
ference must determine why these resources are being adversely
affected and how to prevent further major loss. Natural causes
may be responsible for some of the loss Other forces beyond the
Conference's control, such- as overwhelming demands from
dramatic growth, in population, may be the cause. A serious
drought in a watershed's already overextended supply of surface
water may take many years to overcome. Planning ahead may
help to reduce additional losses of land and water resources.
Table 4 11 outlines the steps that should be taken in this manage-
ment area.
Table 4.11 -Steps in Addressing Land Use and Water Resources
Management
Identify problems and causes > Set objectives to deal with them
"Assess existing laws and'programs > Improve or initiate new
ones
Consider available management activities > Select highest
ranking activities for managing land and water resources
Develop action plans for short- and long-term objectives and goals
> Set schedules, commit resources
Implement > Monitor, review, revise, and, if necessary, redirect
The Management Conference can use existing .regulatory
programs and other mechanisms to control land and water uses.
Among those worth considering are federal, state, and local
special protective laws and set aside programs that employ
provisions of the following legislation and programs
Section 208 designated use authority;
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act;
. Endangered Species Act;
. Estuarine and Marine Sanctuaries;
. Historic Preservation Act;
. Private and public land banks, including agricultural
easements, conservation easements, wildlife refuges, and
parks;
. Critical, exceptional, or sensitive areas protective legislation;
Local zoning ordinances, and
. EPA and state antidegradation policies for water quality.
If, for example, freshwater inflow has been identified as a problem
in the estuary, initiating conservation measures,' developing
reservoirs, or dredging to maintain minimum flows may be useful.
Estuaries must often compete for fresh water. Needs for municipal
water, hydroelectric power, and agricultural irrigation projects
must be balanced against the needs of an estuary. Table 4.12
shows an action plan aimed at managing water resources when
freshwater inflow is insufficient.
54
-------
Table 4.12-CCMP Action Plan for Freshwater Flow
PROBLEM
PROGRAM GOAL
OBJECTIVE
COMPACTIONS
Within One Year.
Within Two Years
Within Three Years
Within Rve Years:
LEAD
RESPONSIBILITY
COOPERATING
AGENCIES
RESOURCES
Insufficient flow of fresh water to the estuary.
To manage water uses in the watershed so that
estuarine resources are protected and
recreational needs can be met.
Develop a state water allocation scheme that
includes providing for sufficient fresh water flow
to the estuary
Develop a public policy that recognizes and
provides for estuarine uses as a "beneficial use."
Initiate research to determine the amount of
freshwater inflow needed annually and seasonally
for the estuary.
Develop a statewide water resources plan that
identifies sources of fresh water that could be
reserved for the estuary
Provide for upstream reservoir projects for
estuarine maintenance.
State departments of water resources and
environment, and state and private research and
educational institutions
U.S Water Resources Council, Department of the
Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and
Corps of Engineers.
State legislative and private funding for research
and development ol water resources plan; federal
and state funding for reservoir construction and
maintenance.
Because the nation's population Is growing rapidly in coastal
areas, it has become increasingly necessary to plan to protect
land and water resources. Unless protective measures are
adopted, population pressure and changing land use patterns un-
doubtedly will lead to further degradation of these resources.
Table 4.13 is a sample action plan aimed at stemming loss of wet-
lands.
The stated purposes of a CCMP are to restore and maintain the in-
tegrity of an estuary. To ensure this end, approval for the CCMP
and its implementation is crucial. Supporting components are
directed toward garnering support and commitments for carrying
out the CCMP, and keeping the effort on course. These com-
ponents are.
A plan for public information and involvement;
Provisions for program integration and coordination;
Provisions for periodic review, evaluation, and redirection;
and
Provisions for implementation.
Supporting
Components
55
-------
Table 4.13-CCMP Action Plan for Wetlands Protection
PROBLEM
PROGRAM GOALS
OBJECTIVES
COMPACTIONS
Within One Year.
Within Two Years
Within Rve Years
LEAD
RESPONSIBILITY
COOPERATING
AGENCIES
RESOURCES
Average annual wetlands loss of GO acres per year
To reduce the average annual rate of wetlands loss
to zero by the year 2000
Reduce the number of acres of wetlands lost per
year by more stringent application of existing
federal and state laws
Develop and establish programs to maintain and
restore wetlands
Develop a statewide wetlands management plan
that identifies wetlands priorities and management
actions
Identify wetlands critical to living resources or water
inflow control
Establish state, federal, or private acquisition efforts
Identify wetlands areas subject to intense
development pressure
Review local and state land use management plans
and permit applications
Develop and implement mitigation plans
Identify seasonal wetlands for restoration
Develop and implement mitigation plans to ensure
return of adequate freshwater inflow
State departments of natural resources and coastal
zone management
Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection
Agency, and Corps of Engineers
State legislative funding of land acquisition
program, $4 million
Local, state, and federal parks and wildlife refuge
acquisition programs, $10 million
Private sources, $5 million
A Plan for Public
Information and
Involvement
A public participation strategy should be designed to mobilize
support for the CCMP and its implementation. This primer has
stressed the importance of informing and involving the public.
Soliciting the concerns and opinions of affected persons and
organized groups is essential to the collaborative problem-solving
and decision-making processes.
The Water Quality Act, in fact, specifically mandates that public
participation must be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by
EPA and the states Opportunities to inform and involve the
citizenry occur through the CAC and are broadened by educa-
tional materials, conferences, workshops, and public meetings
Public acceptance, or informed consent, is necessary for CCMP
implementation. The public, after all, pays for cleanup. Public
pressure helps to ensure that federal, state, and local commit-
ments for program implementation are met. Moreover, restoration
56
-------
and maintenance of an estuary is a long and arduous task. It re-
quires public appreciation of the estuary's value for the citizens of
today and tomorrow. (For guidance on how to develop a public
participation program, see Appendix B.)
The key to successful implementation of the CCMP may well
be the influence of the EPA Administrator and affected state
governors. Through their efforts, the expertise and resources of
other governmental programs - at federal, state, and local levels
- can be applied to this effort. But these officials cannot carry the
burden alone.
During all four phases of an estuary program, coordination among
jurisdictions, agencies, and programs is vital. This is particu-
larly important when responsibility for devising action plans is
assigned. The Water Quality Act, specifically, requires that plans
be drawn for coordinated CCMP implementation by the states as
well as by federal and local agencies participating in the Con-
ference Each action plan, therefore, not only delineates roles and
responsibilities for Conference participants, but also provides for
the resource commitments to carry out the plan.
A specific role has been assigned under the Act to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). At the EPA
Administrator's request, NOAA is authorized to conduct monitor-
ing and research activities. Although the Act does not specify roles
for other federal agencies, they may also be involved in estuarine
protection.
In addition, many federal statutes address this concern. Among
them are the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act;
the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Fisheries Conservation
and Management Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act; and the Comprehensive Environmental, Reclamation, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (known as Superfund).
State laws and regulatory programs also affect the restoration and
maintenance of estuaries. Many counties and other local sub-
divisions are engaged in similar efforts as well. Each estuary
program identifies and includes local, state, federal, and non-
governmental programs that are or could be involved in this effort.
Each Management Conference evaluates all the existing environ-
mental control programs affecting the estuary to be sure they are
consistent with the goals and objectives set for the estuary. This
evaluation, which begins during the characterization phase, leads
to the identification of mechanisms that may enhance each
program's effectiveness. On the other hand, an assessment of
existing programs may indicate that environmental quality can-
not be achieved without supplementary actions. An evaluation
assumes the cooperation of all agencies; its results may depend
upon It.
Provisions for Program
Integration and
Coordination
57
-------
Provisions for Periodic
Review, Evaluation, and
Redirection
As implementation of each action plan proceeds, each activity is
reviewed, evaluated, and redirected as necessary. Therefore, a
schedule for Management Conference review, evaluation, and
redirection of action plans is another important component of the
CCMP. Crucial guidance for this process also comes from the
results of scientific research and monitoring. Research and
monitoring may be initiated during the characterization phase,
since additional data may be required to identify problems and
their causes. Usually, however, the CCMP provides for any neces-
sary long-term research and monitoring. The Act, in fact, requires
monitoring all management actions to determine their effec-
tiveness. As components of the CCMP, plans for research and
monitoring should address: why, who, what, where, when, and
how.
Providing for Research. As noted earlier, research efforts in an
estuary generally consist of applied science. Research may be
short or long term Some problems identified through charac-
terization may require long-term research, while others can be
alleviated through more immediate abatement activities. As
research results clarify a problem, the Conference may initiate a
new program or modify an existing effort. EPA, NOAA, other
federal agencies, state and local governments, educational institu-
tions, and various private- and public-sector groups may sponsor
research
Establishing a Monitoring Program. Monitoring needs are iden-
tified as part of each action plan. As actions are implemented,
monitoring begins. Monitoring, which is an essential part of the
review and evaluation process, continues throughout the imple-
mentation phase to measure effects of actions and indicate any
new trends Results of monitoring many demonstrate a need to
redirect efforts
Although the states are primarily responsible for monitoring results
of actions, the Management Conference may ask for EPA's assis-
tance. EPA may, in turn, enlist NOAA's support as provided under
the Act.
Modifying the CCMP. Because the CCMP is a flexible manage-
ment tool, it permits an estuary program to adapt to changing
circumstances and to apply the lessons learned by experience.
Some CCMP actions may be unsuccessful. New data may reveal
unforeseen problems Earlier assumptions may have been incor-
rect, and technological advances may enhance cleanup
capabilities The resolution of some problems will free resources
to tackle others.
Furthermore, even though the CCMP is a document reflecting
consensus, conflicts among jurisdictions, agencies at various
governmental levels, and the public are inevitable. These will need
to be resolved, possibly by modifying the plan
58
-------
Provisions for
Implementation
Scientific evidence and public backing are vital for estuary
cleanup. Developing a comprehensive series of actions aimed at
cleanup is also essential. But it takes money and political will to
make cleanup a reality. As part of the CCMP, the Management
Conference ensures that funding sources are identified and that
participating parties commit their moral support, political muscle,
and financial resources to implementation. Agreements to this
effect are required. The Administrator's approval and the
governor's concurrence lend additional importance to the CCMP.
Funds authorized under the Act, along with state and local
resources, further support CCMP implementation.
Implementation has been a recurrent theme throughout the dis-
cussion of the CCMP. Action plans are essentially implementation
activities, and some of these activities may be initiated before the
CCMP receives formal approval. In such cases, funding may come
from the National Estuary Program or from Management Con-
ference participants.
Implementation of the CCMP will certainly take longer than the five
years the Water Quality Act allocates for a Management Con-
ference. Therefore, the Act provides that the Management
Conference may be extended or reconvened to oversee imple-
mentation, redress problems, and address additional concerns. In
reality, it may take decades to restore and maintain those unique
and fragile resources, the nation's estuaries.
59
-------
Appendix A
Federal Financial Assistance Under the
National Estuary Program
This appendix of the Estuary Program Primer
provides guidance on how to apply for and process
federal assistance agreements. The primer, which
describes the National Estuary Program's origins,
statutory provisions, and approach, is designed for
EPA's programs and regional offices, coastal states,
and other interested parties. For more information,
contact the EPA regional office.
Section 320(g) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 authorizes EPA to
award federal financial assistance to develop Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) under the National
Estuary Program Projects geared to formulating CCMPs are
described in five-year work plans and in more specific annual work
plans developed by Management Conferences, which the EPA
Administrator convenes. This appendix outlines guidance for
eligible applicants and estuary program managers. It provides
information on the following application and review procedures1
Estuary work plans,
Types of projects,
Who is eligible,
Types of assistance,
Selection criteria;
How to apply;
Review process,
Timeframes; and
How to get more information.
Applying for
Assistance
-------
Estuary Work Plans
Five-Year Work Plans
Annual Work Plans
Types of Projects
Who Is Eligible
Establishing long-term and annual estuary work plans ensures the
efficiency and coordination essential to the collaborative problem-
solving process of the National Estuary Program. This work
planning mechanism encourages annual evaluations of current
and projected activities so that long-term plans can be modified or
redirected as necessary
One of an estuary Management Conference's first tasks is to
develop and approve a five-year work plan that identifies and
ranks priority actions required to complete the CCMP. Essentially
a flexible planning tool, the five-year plan defines the scope of the
overall estuary project and establishes the timeframe and budget
for carrying out specific actions.
Each year when the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(OMEP) allocates the estuary's fiscal year funds, the Conference
committees develop an annual work plan. The plan reflects what
can realistically be accomplished within that year's budget. It con-
tains priority actions selected from the five-year plan and, for each
action, details specific tasks or projects to be carried out during
the year.
Among the projects eligible for federal financial assistance under
Section 320(g) are research efforts, surveys, studies, modeling.
and other technical work needed to develop the CCMP.
A variety of tasks will be required as part of developing the
management framework, characterization report, and CCMP. It
will be necessary, for example, to gather and analyze existing
historical data from information previously collected in the estuary.
Identifying the need for. and conducting, research to acquire new
or additional data to address priority problems may also be rele-
vant. Perhaps the task will be to increase regional public
understanding about the problems and complexities of the estuary
and to solicit public involvement during the decision-making and
management processes. A review and evaluation of new initiatives
in water and sediment quality programs and in living resource
programs may be called for. All these types of projects are eligible
for federal financial assistance.
Eligible applicants include state, interstate, and regional water
pollution control agencies and entities; state coastal zone
management agencies; interstate agencies; other public or non-
profit private agencies; and institutions, organizations, and
individuals. For-profit organizations are not eligible for direct
grants or cooperative agreements under Section 320 (g).
-------
Where Management Conferences have been convened for a
particular estuary, the responsible EPA regional office can provide
preapplication assistance As a rule, all proposals or work state-
ments respond to the priority tasks identified in the estuary's
approved annual work plan, which the Management Conference
develops Each estuary program handles its own request for
proposals. Proposals are submitted to the EPA regional estuary
coordinator or to a state project coordinator, if one has been
identified by the program. Appropriate advisory committees within
the estuary management organization and the EPA regional
program will review and approve each proposal
Federal financial assistance is awarded under two categories
cooperative agreements and grants They differ only in the degree
of federal involvement during the project. Cooperative agreements
require substantial federal involvement. Grants do not. The appli-
cation form must clearly indicate which type of assistance is being
requested
Matching funds are required The statute limits the federal share,
which is the amount of EPA funds awarded to a recipient for a
fiscal year, to 75 percent The recipient's minimum 25 percent
match must come from other sources, such as a recipient's funds,
in-kind services or donations, or a combination of these Imple-
mentation procedures for these match requirements will be
established in Section 320 (g) grant regulations, to be proposed in
late 1988
Although National Estuary Program grants usually are funded on a
12-month basis, project periods may extend to 36 months. EPA's
award of assistance under the National Estuary Program depends
on annual congressional appropriations and annual work plans
developed by the EPA regional program Therefore, EPA will con-
tinue making awards for one-year budget periods Applications for
assistance must be submitted annually during EPA's designated
application period.
The EPA Grants Administration Division has determined that the
National Estuary Program projects are eligible for review under
Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs" For more information on the review process, appli-
cants should consult their state's office or the official designated
as the single point of contact Because this is a 60-day review
period, all applicants should seek such review well before EPA's
required dates for final applications
To ensure substantial EPA participation and oversight, assistance
under the National Estuary Program generally will be awarded in
cooperative agreements. Therefore, the scopes of work in
cooperative agreements must describe what EPA's involvement
Types of Assistance
Review Under Executive
Order 12372
Cooperative Agreements
-------
Grants
Selection Criteria
How to Apply
Review Process
will be, when and how it will be performed, and the person respon-
sible for carrying out EPA's part of the work. These provisions
should be negotiated between EPA and the applicant during
preapplication assistance, before the formal application is sub-
mitted
During the final application review process, EPA may also deter-
mine that further involvement is necessary. If so, these provisions
will be added as "special conditions" before EPA offers the award.
Usually, awards under $10,000 may be made in the form of grants.
Such grants still require products or deliverables or both.
Schedules must be clearly established in the statement of work.
Each Management Conference will approve preapplication
proposals in accordance with the proposal's technical merit and
relevance to the objectives, projects, and tasks identified in the
estuary program's annual work plan
Applicants should obtain an application kit from their EPA regional
office. The kit contains the application form and other relevant
documents, including pertinent regulations EPA's regional
estuary coordinator will provide preapplication assistance. The
completed application should be submitted to the appropriate
EPA regional program office for approval and award.
Statements of work in the final application must contain schedules
for progress reports and products (including workshops and
educational materials) that will contribute findings and recom-
mendations for management decisions. They must provide for the
presentation of project data and information in EPA prescribed for-
mats as well as specify methods to ensure ongoing project
coordination and problem resolution.
Because an informed public is so critical to the estuary programs'
success, the National Estuary Program has established policy that
requires presenting all products and information in a form and for-
mat the public can readily understand. In addition, applicants must
demonstrate that they have adequate resources to complete the
tasks described to meet work plan objectives
The regional program will review final applications, with approved
scopes of work, for funding. Basically, there are two levels of
review. First, the estuary management and advisory commit-
tees, along with the EPA regional office, review proposals
submitted in response to the annual work plan. If a proposal is
approved, the applicant submits a formal, more complete applica-
tion to the EPA regional office. The regional office has the authority
to approve the application for EPA funding. As early as fiscal years
1988 and 1989, EPA regional programs entering Phase 2, Charac-
terization and Problem Definition, will have authority to award
financial assistance.
-------
Regional Review
After the appropriate estuary management and advisory commit-
tees have approved the proposal, the EPA project officer reviews
the final application, making sure it is complete and meets pro-
gram requirements
The EPA regional program office must make certain that.
Applications forwarded to the Grants Administration Division
are complete,
Statements of work are consistent with the elements in the
work plan and the program objectives,
EPA, advisory committee, and scientific peer reviews are
adequate,
Schedules, progress reports, products and deliverables, and
requirements for submitting project data are adequate, in
National Ocean Data Center format, and in machine-readable
form.
Products will contribute to the findings needed to develop
management strategies, and
Stipulations for substantial federal involvement are included
Before OMEP approves funds for projects under the National
Estuary Program, it will review proposals to determine whether the
project meets national program goals and objectives. (Although
OMEP may ask to see certain proposals, it generally will not
review applications after the regions have recommended approval
and award.) OMEP will also evaluate whether the application
meets the criteria specified for regional review
OMEP is also responsible for
Coordinating the estuary program projects with affected EPA
program offices and other federal agencies, such as the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
Fish and Wildlife Service;
Ensuring that program activities are consistent with EPA
policies, guidance, and regulations as well as with pending
legislation and rules,
Identifying and ensuring scientific peer review within and
outside EPA in areas that require special expertise, and
Identifying and providing state-of-1he-art techniques and
methods for laboratory, field, and research investigations.
Concurrence by the EPA Office of Research and Development
(ORD) will be required at the regional level for all projects involving
laboratory and field studies. Concurrence should be secured by
the ORD representative on the scientific and technical advisory
Headquarters Program
Review
Office of Research and
Development Concurrence
-------
Quality Assurance/Quality
Control Requirements
Checklist
Timeframe
committee. An ORD concurrence form is available from the
regional office. The ORD representative will:
Make certain the project does not duplicate current
EPA/ORD research projects or activities;
. Evaluate whether the quality of science in the proposal is
adequate; and
. Determine whether the research protocols in the proposal
are consistent with those ORD and EPA have established.
The "General Regulations for Assistance Agreements" (30 CFR
Sec. 30.302 [d]) stipulate that quality assurance/quality control
plans are required for any projects containing environmental
measurements Therefore, where appropriate, each application
must include a quality assurance plan certification. Valid quality
assurance/quality control plans must be in place and certified by
the regional quality assurance officer before EPA will fund the
project. (For further guidance, see the EPA report, "Guidance for
Preparation of Combined Work/Quality Assurance Project Plans
for Bay Program Studies.")
The EPA regional estuary coordinator should identify which
projects require quality assurance/quality control plans and refer
them to the regional quality assurance officer before the region
approves the application for funding. Some projects, like historical
data collection or public participation, may not require a plan. In
these cases, the regional quality assurance officer will prepare a
negative statement and submit it with the application.
A checklist identifying the critical elements of a complete applica-
tion appears in Figure A.1. The final application form should
contain an original signature. In addition, it should include a
detailed breakdown of budget categories and the applicant's
procurement system certification (EPA 5700-48). The application
kit provides further information.
Completed applications usually must reach the EPA regional
program office by June 1 to be considered for fiscal year funding.
However, earlier deadlines may be established by the estuary
program's Management Conference. Check with the regional
program office for this information.
-------
Figure A.1 -National Estuary Program Application Checklist for Assistance
Agreements
YES NO NA
Preapplication assistance provided by regional office
Proposal approved for funding by the management
committee (date)
Proposal reviewed and approved by the scientific and
technical advisory committee or designated work group
(date)
EPA application form (Standard Form 4245700-33) (state
and local agencies) or
EPA application form 5700-12 (educational institutions
and others)
Agency/organization name, address, and contact
person, including phone number
Correct budget and project periods
Proposed funding dollars correct appropiate
federal cost share (75 pecent) and non-federal cost
share (25 percent)
Executive Order 12372 (replaces OMB Or A-95)
requirements acknowledged
Official signature - original enclosed
Budget
All budget categories properly identified and
correctly totaled
Indirect cost rate and base shown, if previously
negotiated, a statement of when and with what
federal agency
Completed Procurement System Certification (EPA
5700-48) attached
Statement of Work
Clearly written statement of work attached, contains
schedule for products and deliverables,including
periodic progress reports to the region, state project
officer, and management committee
Statement of work discussion describes relationship
between proposal and approved fiscal year work
plan elements
Statement of work contains requirements that newly
generated data is in NODC format and
machine-readable form
Separate pages of detailed project budget, project
dollars justified with statement of work and reflected
in total budget categories
Statement of work contains "substantial federal
involvement- required for cooperative agreement(s)
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality assurance certification attached
Project officer's negative quality assurance
statement attached
Special Conditions
Separate list of conditions of substantial federal
involvement identified in statement of work and/or
other negotiated special conditions
Distribution of Form Application
Original plus three copies to Technical Guidance
Branch coordinator
Project Officer/Reviewer Date
-------
For More Information
EPA Contacts by
Estuary Program
Any questions? If so, please consult the EPA regional contact.
Additional guidance is also available in the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance, 66.456, "Comprehensive Estuarine Manage-
ment." The catalog is available from the Government Printing
Office, SSOM, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Program FTS/Commercial
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds 257-2126
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds Study (404)347-2126
EPA Region 4
4345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Buzzards Bay 835-3514
Buzzards Bay Project (617)565-3514
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Long Island Sound 835-3550
Long Island Sound Study (617)565-3550
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Long Island Sound Study 264-2514
EPA Region 2 (212)264-2514
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Narragansett Bay 835-3523
Narragansett Bay Project (617)565-3523
EPA Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
Puget Sound 399-0966
Puget Sound Estuary Program (206) 442-0966
EPA Region 10
Office of Puget Sound
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
San Francisco Bay/Delta 454-0960
San Francisco Bay/Delta Project (415)974-0960
EPA Region 9
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. CA 94105
New Programs Contact
National Estuary Program 475-7102
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(WH556F) (202)475-7102
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Appendix B
Building An Effective Public
Participation Program
This appendix of the Estuary Program Primer
provides guidance on how to establish and manage
a public participation program. The primer, which
describes the National Estuary Program's origins,
statutory provisions, and approach, is designed for
EPA's programs and regional offices, coastal states,
and other interested parties. For more information,
contact the EPA regional office.
Informing and involving the public and getting its support can be
the most difficult aspect of an estuary program, yet it is the
cornerstone of a successful program. An effective public participa-
tion effort will help ensure implementation of the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). This plan is the
product of a collaborative problem-solving process in which key
members of the public have been fully engaged. The desired long-
term improvements in the estuary will affect daily life through
better septic systems, water conservation, additional taxes, or
limits on some property uses. Everyone in the water basin needs
to understand his or her role as a user of the estuary Because so
much is at stake, it is important to put the best talent, adequate
resources, and full program commitment into designing and
executing an effective process for full public participation.
This appendix provides guidance on what constitutes effective
public participation, how to design and structure a program, how
to carry it out, and what kinds of resources should be devoted to
it It will help programs meet the statutory requirement that public
participation "be provided for, encouraged and assisted . ..." as
well as the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR Part 25, "Public
Participation Under the... dean Water Act."
A Cornerstone of
Success
-------
What Is Public
Participation?
Designing the Public
Participation Program
Section 101 (e) Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Public participation in the development, revision, and en-
forcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation,
plan, or program established by the Administrator or any
State under this Act shall be provided for, encouraged,
and assisted by the Administrator and the States.
Public participation in the context of the National Estuary Program
means involving citizens in the decision-making process that the
Management Conference oversees.
Recognizing estuaries as commonly held treasures - productive,
fragile, and enormously appealing places to live, recreate, and do
business - the National Estuary Program has stressed the politi-
cal and social ramifications of estuary management. This
emphasis is expressed through requirements for an effective
public participation program. EPA believes that estuary programs
will reach the implementation phase only with public support. The
Agency's conviction is validated by experiences in other
programs.
The goal of public participation is to establish the public consen-
sus that will ensure long-term support and implementation of the
CCMP. As the Management Conference proceeds and the colla-
borative process evolves, public consensus must be achieved at
least during two phases: first, when priority problems are identified
and, second, when solutions and action strategies for implementa-
tion are selected and adopted.
Consensus signifies substantial agreement among the four key
constituent groups: elected officials, environmental managers,
scientists, and the public. These groups must concur that a partic-
ular course of action is technically well-founded, feasible, fair, and
most likely to succeed. Consensus also implies the willingness of
program participants to work together and to compromise.
Sometimes participants will be unable to reach consensus. At
other times - when enforcing regulations, for instance -
agencies will have to carry out their legal responsibilities
regardless of consensus. Nevertheless, agreement among these
four groups is essential for general program direction and the
development of long-range courses of action.
To achieve consensus, the public must have accurate, timely, and
relevant information. It must be well-informed to participate intelli-
gently in the decision making process.
The Management Conference should develop a public participa-
tion work plan to ensure orderly, informed, and balanced
participation. Planning for public participation activities should
occur simultaneously with planning other aspects of the
-------
program - at the very beginning. Two steps should be taken to
design the work plan:
Assess issues and politics.
Determine information and participation techniques.
After this, a public participation work plan should be designed to
meet identified needs. The Conference may ask its citizens advi-
sory committee (CAC) to develop the work plan, or it may engage
a trained professional to complete this effort.
An assessment of policy issues and politics undoubtedly occurred
before the estuary was placed in or nominated for the national
program. Staff should review the materials gathered during the
nomination process to develop a profile of the social, technical,
and political issues related to the estuary.
There are various ways to do this. By answering the following
questions, the Conference can begin to identify the organizations
that are interested in the estuary.
Are there major conservation groups, fishing associations,
boating clubs, or businesses that regularly interact with EPA
and state agencies on water quality issues?
Do local newspapers consider the problems in the estuary an
issue?
Do citizen organizations or universities conduct public
meetings or conferences on subjects related to the estuary?
Have elected officials used the health of the estuary as a
campaign issue7
What do local environmental groups think about how the
EPA and state agencies are implementating environmental
protection laws?
The best and quickest way to assess whether the public under-
stands the issues is through informal discussion. First, talk to
interested people. Ask how they would rate the estuary's condi-
tion Solicit their views on its major problems and their perceptions
about how government (at all levels) is addressing them. Keep
notes on conversations.
Determine which groups are influential, and assess public atti-
tudes about issues.
Do groups seem polarized on one or more issues?
Is there substantial agreement on a particular issue?
Is any environmental advocacy group recognized as
especially effective?
Is there a coalition group that appears capable of getting
other groups together?
Assessing Issues and
Politics
-------
Determining Information
and Participation
Techniques
The answers to these questions will help in planning a public parti-
cipation program after issues and political ramifications have been
assessed. The interviewees will form the nucleus of a mailing list.
The kickoff meeting, described in Chapter II of the primer, is a par-
ticularly effective vehicle to answer these questions. Another
option is to assign, through a grant or cooperative agreement, an
organization to answer them.
Evaluation of information tools and participation mechanisms is
the second step in designing the public participation work plan.
For example, it makes no sense to produce another newsletter if
several good ones are circulating Research the existing public
documents of agencies such as Sea Grant, Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, Corps of Engineers, state water quality and resource
agencies, Soil Conservation Service, Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice and, of course, EPA. Find out about their distribution
channels and mailing lists. In addition, examine the publications
private groups are distributing.
When planning the public information part of the estuary program,
take advantage of these and other existing communications chan-
nels; design the program to complement, supplement, and
expand current efforts. New programs frequently are criticized be-
cause they are duplicative; with a little research, an estuary
program will not make this mistake. Financial considerations are
even more compelling reasons to determine what is already being
done. There simply will not be enough money to do everything on
the agenda. Smart choices require understanding the total picture.
To determine the most effective ways to involve the estuary's
citizenry, its trust and confidence in EPA and other agencies must
be assessed. Trust must be built.
Find out how the active citizens and interest groups in the area
make themselves heard in the policy arena Some groups attend
public hearings; others prefer informal meetings. Some citizens
prefer direct access to the EPA Regional Administrator, the
governor, and other decision makers. So far, most estuary
programs have developed informal participation programs. Find
out whether constituents are comfortable with this approach or
would prefer more structured, formal arrangements. Consider the
size of the area and the number of governments, citizens, and
interest groups that should be involved
-------
Preparing a Public
Participation Work Plan
To prepare a simple and flexible work plan:
Define objectives;
Foster both the information and participation activities
necessary to meet them;
Identify staff and budget resources; and
Develop a schedule of activities.
Because the public participation program must respond to and
support the overall estuary program, including each of its phases,
this process will be relatively fluid. As the program changes in
response to scientific findings, political issues, or funding restric-
tions, the public participation plan must be modified. The work
plan should be simple and flexible - a means to an end, not an
end in itself.
When designing the work plan, bear in mind that the public not
only must have adequate, timely information, but also must be in-
volved in the decision-making process. Every activity should be
clearly linked to the goal of achieving the consensus needed for
long-term support of the estuary program. Many expensive activi-
ties have been conducted in the name of public participation.
These activities include educational films, exhibits, fancy publica-
tions, and programs for school children, which sap limited
resources and do not immediately or directly contribute to the
program goals. For instance, if a budget for public participation is
$100,000 or less annually, it will pay only for a basic program.
The following components are essential for a basic program:
An excellent experienced staff person;
A comprehensive mailing list;
A general program slide show;
One written information piece: newsletter, newsbulletin, or
fact sheet series,
Public meetings; and
A defined role for the citizens advisory committee.
A credible public participation program with these six components
can be conducted for a reasonable sum.
Depending on the size of the geographic area, more staff may be
necessary. If additional resources are available, the basic program
can be expanded. Nevertheless, these six elements are neither
expendable nor interchangeable; they form the foundation for a
public participation program.
Making Public
Participation Work
-------
An Expert Staff Person
A Comprehensive Mailing
List
While in no way usurping the need for management, policy, other
committee members, or the staff director as spokespersons, the
person responsible for the public participation program serves as
the linchpin. Because this staff member will interact with all kinds
of citizens and their organizations, public speaking and writing
skills are vital. He or she must understand technical material and
be able to translate it into lay language for a variety of interest
groups. A good listener as well, this expert must be able to convey
citizens' concerns to the Conference. Sensitivity to the biases of
various interest groups and an ability to put those biases in
perspective, while maintaining a neutral stance, are essential
qualities. Understanding the workings of government as well as
the problems of the estuary will help. Further, the public participa-
tion expert supports other estuary managers, helping them deal
effectively with public groups and the media.
There are several ways to organize and staff a public participation
program. EPA or a state agency could provide for the public parti-
cipation function, including an expert coordinator. The work could
also be performed under contract. A grant or cooperative agree-
ment can be arranged with an agency like Sea Grant or with a
nonprofit organization. All these arrangements have been tested,
with varying success, in the National Estuary Program.
Knowing who constitutes the public for an estuary is essential to
conducting an effective public participation program Identifying
target audiences and creating a representative, accurate mailing
list of organizations and people will lay the groundwork for the
information and participation activities. The mailing list will start to
form as plans develop for the kickoff meeting. Although the groups
undoubtedly will vary in each estuary, the following should be
included:
. Conservation and environmental organizations;
Service, civic, and good-government groups;
Recreational boating clubs;
. Commercial and recreational fishing associations;
. Real estate firms and developers;
. Agricultural businesses and farm groups;
Seafood packers and marketers;
. Chambers of commerce, business, and industry;
Shippers and port-related groups;
. Local government elected officials;
Federal and state legislators;
Federal, state, and local agency officials;
. Scientists and educators; and
. Media - print, radio, and television.
-------
The mailing list may contain as many as 10,000 names. To main-
tain a list this large and to exploit its potential, the list should be
computerized. Coding and software that permit sorting by both
geographic area and interest group will multiply the uses of the
list.
It is not enough, however, to have assembled a list of names. The
importance of maintaining personal contact with interest group
leaders, media representatives, and key legislators and officials
cannot be overstated Sometimes the job of the public participa-
tion staff will be to initiate contacts and create opportunities for
communication between these people and other program person-
nel. Public participation staff will also need to keep participants
informed about work progress during the entire program. A slide
show, basic program information paper, and public meetings are
essential tools for initiating and maintaining contact with the target
audiences
Capitalizing on the old adage that a picture is worth a thousand
words, you may find that a good, straightforward slide snow is an
effective educational tool. It can translate technical, scientific, and
regulatory information into an intelligent and convincing explana-
tion of the need for an estuary program, its components, and how
the program may change the future course of the estuary.
Photographs depicting the state of the estuary, how it is used, and
the sources of pollution - along with a pithy script - can help
introduce the estuary program to the public.
Remember that technical slides and slides cluttered with words
are inappropriate for a basic public presentation. On the other
hand, maps are an effective way to translate technical material for
a lay audience. A basic estuary map, color-coded or used with
overlays to show which areas need protection, or where pollution
problems have been pinpointed, is particularly useful if readily
identifiable reference points are included. Although tables and
charts with technical data should be reserved for scientific
symposia, scientific findings summarized in bar and pie charts can
be very effective. The slide show should create a visual image of
the estuary and convey a few significant concepts about the
program.
A basic slide show has several advantages It will help ensure con-
sistency in the delivery of the message, regardless of the
presenter or the audience. It precludes the need to prepare a
speech for every meeting, and anyone affiliated with the estuary
program can use it easily. If the presentation is informal, it can
be tailored to the specific audience boaters and farmers, for
instance - by adding a few slides
The presentation can also evolve during the course of the estuary
program. Initially, it probably will deal with broad issues and the
intent of the program. Later on, it can include basic summaries of
scientific findings and suggested management actions. It should
contain up to 80 slides, which can be presented in 10 to 15
minutes. A script can be read by the presenter, or a taped,
automated presentation can be used. A question-and-answer
period should be built into every presentation.
General Program
Slide Show
-------
One Written Information
Paper
Public Meetings
Information fuels the public participation program; people who are
uninformed or misinformed cannot participate effectively. The
estuary program has an obligation to provide information about
why the program is being conducted, what its goals are, what
problems it is trying to address, the progress it is making and,
ultimately, what sorts of solutions it is proposing.
Generally, the public will be less interested in organizational
details than in what substantive issues are being examined, how
much money is being spent, and who may be affected. Citizens
will be interested, for example, in the causes of the problem and
possible solutions. But details about which federal or state
agencies and departments are involved will not engage them.
Relevance to the audience should be the guide.
Capturing public attention is the goal. If the estuary's problems are
interesting, pertinent, and controversial, the media will cover them.
Most organizations have their own information pieces, such as
newsletters, and they often sponsor conferences. Take advantage
of all these. Contacting the media regularly, preparing short arti-
cles for organizational newsletters, and speaking at conferences
and workshops are effective communications tools.
In addition, the estuary program needs a vehicle to deliver its mes-
sage directly to its target audiences. Newsletters, bulletins, fact
sheets, and issue papers are commonly used. The logo and for-
mat should be distinctive and identifiable with the estuary
program. Newsletters should be nontechnical and fairly short. Six
or eight pages .of well-written material every two or three months
can be extremely effective. Printing and mailing are costly, so
careful planning is essential. Do not allow newsletters, bulletins, or
fact sheets to substitute for personal contact.
Opportunities to provide information and interact personally with
interested citizens occur frequently at organizational meetings,
special workshops, and conferences. Exploit these opportunities
fully. The slide presentation can become the core of a traveling
road show to publicize the estuary program.
Public meetings fall under two categories: regularly scheduled
meetings of organized groups, to which Conference repre-
sentatives are invited to speak, and meetings that the Conference
organizes. The former are, by far, the wiser use of time. Dozens of
organization meetings can be attended in the same time it takes to
organize a Conference-sponsored meeting. Other organizations'
meetings have another advantage. Conference representation
conveys how important It is for the group to participate in the
estuary program. The Conference substantially expands its out-
reach potential by meeting people on their turf.
-------
A mailing list should indicate when the group meets and who
chairs the organization. A public participation strategy should in-
clude meeting with at least two or three affected organizations
within each of the categories o1 interest groups in the estuary.
The Management Conference will create a citizens advisory com-
mittee to ensure direct citizen involvement in the policy-making
process At explicit junctures in the estuary program, direct inter-
action among the various affected interest groups and between
those groups and program managers needs to occur. A formally
constituted advisory committee is an important way to facilitate
this interaction
There are many ways to operate a CAC The chairperson or other
CAC representative serves on the management committee or, in
some cases, on the policy committee. Some estuary programs are
experimenting with management committees that represent both
public and private interests, in contrast to those composed solely
of government agencies
CAC members should be appointed by the Management Con-
ference The CAC should consist of about 20 people who broadly
represent the estuary's user and interest groups It is advisable to
develop criteria for appointees. Usually, each member should.
Serve as a spokesperson for a major user or interest group;
Have experience in the development of water quality and
resource management policy;
Be knowledgeable about the technical and economic
feasibility of some of the pollution control options being
considered,
Be potentially affected by the management
recommendations of the Management Conference, and
Be able to provide constructive advice and work with varying
points of view in a committee setting
The Conference must establish a clear charge for the CAC - what
its purpose is and how it functions. The CAC's primary role is to
help see that the public participation goal is met and that, through
public consensus, long-term support for CCMP implementation is
assured It is critical that the committee's charge reflects this.
Other specific functions of the CAC include-
Helping establish program goals and objectives;
Helping set funding levels,
Assisting with public participation activities;
Helping to communicate program activities to user groups;
Commenting on research priorities,
Reviewing technical findings and analyses; and
Helping to develop implementation plans
A Citizens Advisory
Committee
-------
Making advisory committees work well takes both planning and
skill. With committees composed of diverse interests, the potential
for conflict is great. Committee members and staff may benefit
from some training in meeting facilitation and agenda-planning.
Further, having by-laws and adopting Robert's Rules of Order
generally help the committee function in a businesslike way.
An essential step in creating an effective advisory committee is
taking the time for members to become acquainted. Every busi-
ness meeting should include some time to converse informally.
Meetings must be organized so that all committee members are
encouraged to participate, but no one dominates.
Staffing .a citizens advisory committee is a time-consuming, full-
time job. If the committee meets four to six times annually, for
example, providing direct support will require one to two days a
week. Staff work will include organizing meetings, developing
agendas, communicating with committee members, preparing
background materials, and doing follow-up work.
Although the committee chairperson can be expected to take
some responsibility for these tasks, the staff will need to do much
of the work. Volunteer committees can accomplish more useful
work if they are supported by strong staff and believe their con-
tribution is worthwhile. People who serve on advisory committees
generally have many commitments. If they think their time is being
wasted, they will quickly lose interest. A clear charge for the com-
mittee and good staffing are, therefore, extremely important.
Providing direct advice to the program is not the CAC's only role,
however. As leaders of a wide variety of interest groups, advisory
committee members are the hub of a network that may become
an estuary coalition. If one of the public participation program's
goals is to help ensure long-term support and implementation of
recommendations, the advisory committee should be an integral
part of the management framework Selecting members carefully
and meeting their needs will increase the likelihood that they and
their organizations will remain involved.
To supplement CAC's formal advice, the groups they represent
will probably want to provide their own input. Moreover, program
managers need to recognize that a small committee, regardless of
its quality, can never represent every viewpoint. So program
managers should be open to input from other citizens. Encourag-
ing broad public involvement means going beyond the CAC. If this
is done well, it will facilitate the development of permanent
networks and coalitions that are essential to sustained implemen-
tation of resource management programs.
10
-------
Resources
A commitment to effective public participation requires dollars as
well as staff. A typical program budget may be broken down as fol-
lows:
Item(s)
Percent of Budget
Staff salary and fringe benefits 30
Secretarial support (half-time) 10
Writer (half-time) - 14
Slide show graphics and production 4
Newsletter (quarterly) . 15
CAC meeting support and travel 10
Stafftravel 4
Mailings, copying, office support, postage,
and other miscellaneous expenses 8
Percent Total 95%
This leaves 5 percent for additional activities, such as a program
kickoff event or a boat ride, press conference, workshops, a
program logo and brochure, or a professionally produced public
service announcement The budget assumes that one of the parti-
cipating agencies can provide support services like computer time
for the mailing list More elaborate activities, such as films, publica-
tions, citizen monitoring programs, and educational programs for
school children, clearly exceed this budget.
Additional activities may be funded and conducted by participat-
ing agencies, private organizations, and foundations A key
responsibility of the Management Conference is to identify and ob-
tain new and innovative sources of funding for work plan
elements. For public participation, members of the CAC should
place this objective on their agenda All agencies have some
money budgeted for public information materials Many private
groups conduct excellent educational activities. Coordination with
these programs can expand the outreach capability of the estuary
program.
In summary, the goal of the estuary program is to develop viable
management strategies that will ensure protection of the estuary's
resources. Legislatures, executive agencies, and public interest
groups must cooperate to define policy priorities, initiate legisla-
tion, appropriate funds, and implement actions. Given the
complexity of the issues related to estuarine management, it will
not be easy. The guidance provided here will, however, help
program managers design an estuary program with a high prob-
ability of success.
11
-------
Appendix C
Using Finfish As Indicators of
Toxic Contamination
This appendix of the Estuary Program Primer
provides guidance on using finfish to indicate health
or stress in an estuary and to monitor changes or
trends in the estuary The primer, which describes
the National Estuary Program's origins, statutory
provisions, and approach, is designed for EPA's
programs and regional offices, coastal states, and
other interested parties. For more information, con-
tact the EPA regional office.
Since 1985, the public has voiced strong concern about the high
incidence of diseased finfish in the nation's estuaries. When EPA
tried to determine the environmental significance of this
phenomenon, it found no consensus within the scientific com-
munity Consequently, in July 1966, EPA's Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection convened a workshop to determine if a set of
scientifically appropriate, cost-effective finfish indicators could be
identified and used to assess whether toxic contamination in
estuaries significantly affected human health and ecology.
Workshop findings led EPA to develop guidance for using finfish
as indicators of estuarine health or stress and for monitoring the
estuary. The workshop's report, "Proceedings and Summary of
the Workshop on Finfish As Indicators of Toxic Contamination," is
available from the National Estuary Program.
The first task for workshop participants was to develop, evaluate,
and rank criteria related to finfish indicators so that the criteria
would be useful in estuary programs The recommended criteria
appear in Table C 1
EPA's Workshop
On Finfish As
Indicators of
Toxic Contamination
Setting Criteria
-------
Table C.1 -Criteria for Using Finflsh As Indicators of Toxic Contamination
The following criteria are essential
Causality There must be an unequivocal cause and effect
relationship between toxic pollution and the indicator
Cost-effectiveness The indicator must be affordable and provide
enough data to warrant the amount of money spent
Useability Laboratories throughout the country must be able to use
the indicator
The following criteria would also be helpful
Specificity
- The method should be pollutant-specific That is, its use should
indicate the effects of a specific pollutant or class of pollutants
- The method should be species-specific That is, it should be
applicable only to one or a limited number of fish species
Applicability to small or large spatial scales
- The method should permit identification of small areas of
contamination within the estuary
OR
- The method should also permit locating the effect of
contamination in large areas of the estuary
Usefulness as an early or late indicator
- The method should be usable as an early indicator of toxic
contamination That is, it should be sensitive enough to
demonstrate an effect after brief exposure to low concentrations
of pollutants
OR
- The method should be usable as a late indicator That is, it
should have a low degree of sensitivity and be capable of
demonstrating an effect after prolonged exposure to high
concentrations of pollutants
Highlights of
Conclusions About
The Usefulness of
Finfish as Indicators
Screening Across Estuaries
Human Health Indicaiors
The following discussion highlights workshop conclusions regard-
ing the usefulness fmfish as indicators of toxic contamination
Historical data on the abundance and distribution of fish popula-
tions and the concentration of contaminants in fish generally are
readily available Therefore, these parameters are the most useful
early screening tools The use of other indicators is more limited
because historical data are usually unavailable Furthermore, cost
and time considerations preclude collecting large amounts of field
data during the screening phase
Concentrations of contaminants in tissues, or tissue residues, are
useful indicators of human health effects Lesions, tumors, and
other histopathological changes are not useful for this purpose
-------
Scientists participating in the workshop were reluctant to con-
clude that any single measure of fish health could be used as a
definitive indicator of an ecosystem's health. However, if several
indicators demonstrate change in a fish population, it is general-
ly safe to assume that the ecosystem has been affected. This
assumption should be strengthened by considering effects on
organisms at other trophic levels, and by directly measuring
contaminant levels in the environment.
In a trend monitoring program, the use of finfish as indicators of
toxic contamination is limited for three reasons: (1) some methods
still need to be verified in the field; (2) fish move around; and (3)
fish are very active as they undergo detoxification. Other or-
ganisms, such as bivalve mollusks, are better indicators on a small
spatial scale because they are less subject to these constraints.
Finfish may, however, be more suitable for future studies in which
the objective is to assess toxic stress over relatively large areas,
such as an entire estuary.
Enzyme and immunological tests are especially useful as early
warning signs of toxic stress. They can also be employed to indi-
cate the recovery of fish from toxic stress. Unlike lesions, death, or
population changes, the effects of toxic contamination measure-
able by these tests appear sooner, and at lower levels and Shorter
lengths of exposure to pollutants. These effects are reversible as
the fish recover from stress. Recovery can be measured in the field
in less time than the life cycle of the species being observed. The
effects of stress must, however, be measured at appropriate times
during the species' life cycle.
Gross pathological and population changes appear over the
longer term. Such effects indicate a highly disturbed ecosystem
and suggest that fish have been exposed to high levels of pollu-
tants for relatively long periods.
In order to use indicators in developing regulations or permit re-
quirements, EPA must establish a causal relationship between
finfish indicators and toxic contamination. This will require further
research because finfish indicators are not yet refined enough to
prove such relationships. Therefore, it is too early to conclude
that a particular finfish disease or population effect was caused by
a particular environmental pollutant. Standard laboratory testing
for toxicity is still needed.
Fish Health Versus
Ecosystem Health
Indicators
Trend Monitoring
Early and Late Indicators
Of Toxic Stress
Establishing Causal
Relationships As a Basis
For Regulatory Action
-------
Recommendations
For the Use of Finfish
Indicators in Estuary
Programs
Using only field data, EPA cannot expect to establish causal
relationships between a specific pollutant and a specific adverse
effect for any type of organism. Finfish indicators are, neverthe-
less, a useful monitoring tool. If estuary managers use several
indicators that lead to the same conclusion, they can gather
enough evidence to warrant some type of action, although it may
not be regulatory action.
Using historical data, program managers whose estuaries are
known or believed to be stressed by toxic contamination should
attempt to establish baseline conditions. Baselines should be set
for water and sediment concentrations of toxic pollutants, the
abundance and distribution of finfish, and the levels of tissue
residue.
The use of a single finfish indicator is insufficient
to evaluate the ecological significance of toxic
contamination .... several indicators should be
used simultaneously.
Monitoring should be conducted to determine the current loca-
tions and spatial extent of severe effects, and to identify the
specific pollutants. The use of a single finfish indicator is insuffi-
cient to evaluate the ecological significance of toxic
contamination. The workshop's scientists recommend using
several indicators simultaneously. They also recommend that,
depending on the stage of the program and the resources avail-
able, managers should select indicators from high- or low-level
suites, discussed below.
A suite is a group of indicators that should be used to evaluate the
significance of toxic contamination. Low-level suites employ
methods that rely on historical data. These suites are useful for
problem identification and assessment. High-level suites require
collecting new information in the laboratory or in the field. Useful
monitoring tools, high-level suites not only indicate the nature of
the problem but also enable managers to select methods for
resolving it.
-------
Indicators in the
Low-Level Suite
Finfish indicators in the low-level suite are useful primarily for
making nationwide comparisons of estuaries, and for identifying
regional problems. The objective is to assess, on a preliminary
basis, the extent and severity of ecological effects caused by toxic
contamination. Because these indicators can be applied to
analyze existing information, they are particularly appropriate for
the early stages of estuary programs. During Phase 1, the Plan-
ning Initiative, they can be used as evidence in defining and
ranking problems to be addressed by the Management Con-
ference. During Phase 2, Characterization and Problem Definition,
they can be used to establish status and trends.
The following indicators are from the low-level suite.
Sources of information. Information about problems related to
toxic contamination, such as fishery closures, is compiled from
various sources. These include newspaper articles, anecdotes,
published reports, and newsletters.
Gross pathology. Reports of obvious anatomical abnormalities
like fin erosion, skeletal deformities, and tumors help to identify the
presence of a problem.
Behavioral abnormalities. Changes in behavior, such as
avoidance or attraction of fish to contaminants, can be measured
by comparing the reactions of fish before and after they are ex-
posed to the test material. Other behavioral changes, for example
erratic swimming or lethargy, may indicate specific modes of
toxicity like neurological or metabolic dysfunction.
Distribution and abundance. Profiles of the spatial distribution
and abundance of a species may be directly related to mortality
caused by exposure to toxics, or to behavioral changes like
avoidance and attraction cited above.
Tissue residues, especially in commercial species. Fish tissue
should be analyzed for the concentration of some or all of the 129
priority pollutants. Bioaccumulation of certain substances in fish
indicates not only that the contaminant is in the environment, but
that it may potentially threaten the environment and human health.
Finfish indicators in the high-level suite are useful primarily for
longer term monitoring studies. Monitoring is conducted in tar-
geted studies to answer specific scientific or managerial questions
raised during the problem definition and characterization phase.
These indicators are also useful biological monitors of health or
stress in the estuary. Because of their sensitivity, they may be
used to determine the effectiveness of management actions.
Methods in the high-level suite require collecting specific
laboratory or field data.
Indicators in the
High-Level Suite
-------
Establishing Baselines and
Reference Areas
In addition to the high-level indicators discussed below, certain
low-level indicators - tissue residues and fish distribution and
abundance, for example - should also be considered for use in
monitoring studies
Macrophage triad. The macrophage triad is a useful early warn-
ing of general stress. Macrophage cells exhibit three behaviors, or
responses, that have demonstrated a direct relationship to the
presence of toxics.
Enzymes (mixed function oxidases, metallothionein). Certain
enzymes or proteins may be produced by an animal as a result of
exposure to various classes of pollutants. Immunological methods
measure the presence and amounts of the enzymes or proteins
produced
Hematology. Routine clinical tests of blood components can
provide information about the physiological condition of the
animal. They can also detect general stress.
Cytogenetics. Cytogenetics examines the relationship between
changes in the chromosomal structure and pathological condi-
tions. These changes can be linked to exposure to specific
pollutants.
Histopathology. Finfish disease can be exhibited through struc-
tural change in tissues or organs during the course of an animal's
exposure to pollutants. Tissue and organ abnormalities are ob-
served using standard light microscopy techniques. Although
these studies are more expensive, they can detect specific lesions
that develop shortly after pollutant exposure, and long before
gross abnormalities develop.
Egg and larval development and viability. Eggs and larvae are
sensitive stages in the life cycle of fish Problems with egg or larval
development, such as death or deformity, indicate an ecological
effect that may be due to toxic contamination
Estuary program managers should establish baseline and/or con-
trol data for the species and indicator methods under
consideration. Where historical data are inadequate, a reference
area should be established NOAA's Status and Trends Program
has already set up reference areas in or near most of the estuaries
in the National Estuary Program Reference areas, which should
be representative of the entire estuary under study, should be rela-
tively free from toxic effects. If such an area cannot be found,
estuary program managers should look for nearby areas with
comparable hydrographic and faunal conditions.
-------
HowtoUseFinfish
Indicators in an
Estuary Program
Years One and Two
During the characterization phase, a preliminary list of priority
problems should be proposed. If there is a decrease in the abun-
dance of fish, a high incidence of diseased fish, or a potential
threat to human health due to toxins in fish, the following steps are
warranted.
Use the low-level suite of indicators; and
Synthesize historical data on the abundance of fish, the
amount and type of tissue residues, and the incidence of
disease.
At the same time, collect and analyze data on toxic contamination,
sources, and pollutant loads. If the analysis shows a correlation
between toxic contamination and changes in fish, the program
may choose to:
Conduct field sampling to define further the nature and
extent of the problem;
Conduct laboratory toxicity studies to identify the pollutants
of most concern; and
Identify any probable current sources of those pollutants and
reduce current loadings.
Furthermore, if toxic contamination is the cause, follow-up
activities should be conducted. The program should identify pris-
tine reference areas and summarize all available data on these
areas.
After the contaminant problem has been characterized and neces-
sary critical information Identified, a focused monitoring program
should be designed to assess correlations between specific
toxicants, or groups of toxicants, and the effects on fish. Indicators
from the high-level suites should be used during this phase. To
design the monitoring program, first select the appropriate
species. Follow the guidelines developed in the workshop
A relatively nonmotile, nonmigratory species should be used.
Commercially or recreationally important species are
preferable.
Species for which baseline data are available are preferable.
Provisions for making an archive of tissue samples for future
use in assaying additional indicators should be included.
Vears Three and Four
-------
After Year Two
Then consider which pollutants are of concern. Determine
whether species-specific methods, scientific expertise, laboratory
facilities, and background data are available. Be sure costs are
reasonable. Technical staff and STAC members should consult
and become familiar with the entire workshop proceedings. A
summary report contains detailed information on the utility of the
various indicator methods.
After an activity has begun, implement the monitoring plan.
Analyze and synthesize monitoring data, comparing new data with
historical data from the characterization report. Review and
evaluate the data periodically to determine whether there has been
any improvement in estuarine conditions. Management strategies
may have to be redirected or supplemented to achieve a system
response.
-------
Appendix D
Summary of the Guidance Manual for
Health Risk Assessment for
Consumption of Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish
This appendix of the Estuary Program Primer
provides guidance for understanding the health risk
assessment process for seafood consumption. The
primer, which describes the National Estuary Pro-
gram's origins, statutory provisions, and approach,
is designed for EPA's programs and regional offices,
coastal states, and other interested parties. For
more information, contact the EPA regional office.
One of the National Estuary Program's goals is to protect human
health by helping state and local agencies identify the potential
risks of eating aquatic organisms from chemically contaminated
areas. This goal will be met, in part, by developing information on
the relative health risks associated with consumption of fish and
shellfish from a number of contaminated estuarine locations
throughout the United States. A systematic risk assessment pro-
cedure to estimate health risks, with clear statements of
assumptions and uncertainties, will be used.
This appendix summarizes a guidance manual that the National
Estuary Program has developed. The manual facilitates stand-
ardization of procedures used to assess the human health risks of
ingesting chemically contaminated fish and shellfish. As of 1987,
the manual constitutes technical guidance under the National
Estuary Program. It will probably be issued in 1988 as final EPA
guidance applicable to all freshwater, estuarine, and marine fish
and shellfish.
The Guidance
Manual: An Overview
-------
Contents of the
Guidance Manual
What Is Risk
Assessment?
The risk analysis process consists of two distinct phases, risk
assessment and risk management Risk assessment involves esti-
mating the scientific probability that an adverse health effect will
result from exposure to a toxic agent. Risk management entails
interpreting risk assessment results-scientific results-to formu-
late public policy. The National Estuary Program manual provides
technical guidance on risk assessment procedures; risk manage-
ment approaches, which involve policy decisions, are only briefly
discussed. Selecting policy alternatives is left to state and local
regulatory authorities Public policy decisions based on risk
management could be any of the following:
Identifying locations as high-priority areas for
environmental cleanup;
Issuing public fish consumption advisories for certain
areas; and
. Banning fishing in certain areas
The National Estuary Program health risk assessment guidance
manual provides the following information:
A description of the risk assessment procedure for
chemically contaminated fish and shellfish;
. Guidance on presenting and interpreting risk assessment
results,
. A summary of assumptions and uncertainties of the
recommended procedure for risk assessment; and
. An explanation of the dose-response values that are
available for individual chemicals, and of information
sources for updating these values
The document does not provide guidance on the risk manage-
ment issue of which level of risk is small enough to be acceptable,
given counterbalancing economic factors like consumer prefer-
ence or economic impacts on recreational and commercial
fisheries. State or local regulatory authorities will make case-by-
case judgments concerning restricting sportsfishing or issuing
informational health advisories even when fishing is not legally
prohibited or limited.
Risk assessments are limited by rudimentary scientific knowledge
of the effects of toxic chemicals on humans. Most of the present
information is developed by interpreting results of laboratory tests
on experimental animals like rats, mice, and primates for applica-
tion to humans. Although this extrapolation carries many
uncertainties, estimates of health risk can be used to formulate
decisions about actions to reduce risk
-------
Many investigators and state and local regulatory agencies
evaluate the significance of toxic contamination in fish and
shellfish relative to human health concerns simply by comparing
tissue concentrations of selected chemicals to Action Levels or
tolerances established by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). ( An Action Level is a restriction on chemical contamina-
tion. Foodstuffs with concentrations of a chemical exceeding the
Action Level are required by federal law to be confiscated and
destroyed.) Action Levels do not provide a sufficient basis for all
local risk assessments because they are available only for chemi-
cals likely to be at levels of concern to commercial fisheries on a
national basis. They do not, therefore, include some chemicals
highly suspected of causing cancer or other adverse effects that
might be of concern in some local areas due to higher-than-
average local fish consumption and high, localized contamination
levels.
Action Levels are national protective levels set by
FDA. Tolerance levels indicate the ability of an
organism to fend off an adverse effect.
FDA is authorized to develop Action Levels or tolerances for
specific localities if it is in the national interest. Tolerances have
legal enforcement status, whereas Action Levels have less formal
regulatory limits. To date, however, all Action Levels and toler-
ances have been developed to be protective on a national basis,
rather than regionally or locally.
The procedure for determining these national protective levels
involves assessing the health risks to the average national con-
sumer of a foodstuff. It presumes the consumer eats foods from a
typical "national market basket," and weighs the resulting average
national health risks against the likely national economic impacts
of setting particular levels as Action Levels or tolerances. There-
fore, FDA has stated that Action Levels and tolerances are not
intended to protect local consumers of fish and shellfish, like
sports-fishermen, who may eat more of a given fish than the
average national consumer.
Risk Assessment
Estimation, using best available scientific methods,
of the probable health risks of a given activity.
Risk Management
The use of regulatory tools to protect against levels
of risk deemed unacceptable based on risk assess-
ment and socioeconomic considerations.
FDA has the lead responsibility for managing risks related to con-
sumption of foods distributed in interstate commerce. For some
chemicals in foods, EPA assists FDA in its risk management
responsibilities by helping conduct the technical risk assessments
-------
What Is Risk
Management?
that are the starting point of risk management. FDA then incor-
porates economic considerations and develops Action Levels and
tolerances. Foods not distributed through interstate commerce
are primarily a state responsibility, not FDA's. Previously, proce-
dures for assessing risks from the consumption of contaminated
fish and shellfish have not been standardized among agencies -
or sometimes, even among programs within a single agency. In
addition, risk assessment procedures for other problems, such as
contamination of drinking water, have been better developed than
those for consumption of contaminated aquatic organisms. The
1987 National Estuary Program guidance manual explains how to
apply general EPA risk assessment policies to the particular
"exposure route" (mechanism of human exposure) of eating fish
and shellfish.
The EPA risk assessment process is based on estimating the
highest probability, given uncertain technical information, of risks
to humans. The process uses a combination of empirical data
(observational data) on the long-term, chronic effects of toxic
chemicals, and models for extrapolating from high doses to low
doses and from animals to humans. In most cases, empirical data
are available only for animal test species. This is primarily because
it is hard to obtain long-term (a generation or lifetime) observa-
tions of human health effects like cancer, and human data are
only rarely available, in cases where accidental exposures have
occurred.
Risk management is the application of the results of risk assess-
ment by regulatory agencies to formulate public policy. For
example, regulatory agencies may use the results of risk assess-
ment studies to develop public health advisories to limit
consumption of particular fish species where contaminant levets
are relatively low, or to ban such consumption where levels are
higher. In general, the process and outcomes of risk management
are case-specific because technical, socioeconomic, and political
issues must be considered, and these factors are case-specific.
Risk management requires policy makers at federal, state, and
local levels to balance these public concerns.
In the National Estuary Program and other EPA or state programs
for fresh, estuarine or marine waters, the results of health risk
assessment for fish or shellfish consumption generally may be
used in risk management to'
. Identify problem areas, problem pollutants, and problem
fish or shellfish species (and problem weight or length
classes within species, if relevant),
. Develop guidelines and criteria for contaminant
concentrations that would be used to develop fish and
shellfish consumption advisories in cooperation with FDA
and state governments; and
Provide public information in cooperation with FDA or state
governments.
-------
Risk management is important in areas other than public policy
making. It also provides the public with information on which to
base individual decisions regarding where to harvest aquatic food
organisms, which species to harvest, and how much to consume.
In other words, where to fish, what to fish, and whether to eat what
one catches.
The guidance manual discusses the four major components of the
risk assessment process: hazard identification, dose-response
assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization.
Hazard identification involves defining the lexicological hazards
(toxicity profiles) posed by each chemical contaminant. Toxicity
profiles are based on each chemical's physical, chemical, and
metabolic properties, and on lexicological effects (also called
"dose-response effects"). Noncarcinogenic effects (that is, all
harmful effects other than causation of cancer, including birth
defects) are summarized in the toxicity profile for each chemical of
concern. The guidance manual also describes the "weight-of-
evidence" approach used by EPA to classify chemicals according
to their carcinogenic (cancer-causing) potential.
Dose-response assessment is one factor in hazard identification.
Data on the relationship between the contaminant dose and the
observed "response" (effect on the test organism) are used to
determine the lexicological potency of a substance. For car-
cinogens, there is presumably a finite risk of cancer, even at low
doses. For noncarcinogens, chemicals that induce effects other
than cancer, such as nervous system damage, liver effects, skin
disorders, and birth defects, there is usually a dose below which
adverse biological effects are not observed. This is called the
"no-observed-adverse-effects level" or NOAEL. The EPA risk
assessment approach is based on the use of dose-response data
from epidemiological (human disease) studies or from bioassays
of the animal species that are most appropriate for estimating a
response in humans. Lacking this information, a measure of
toxicological polency is derived from the dose-response relation-
ship for the most sensitive species tested (usually a laboratory
strain of rats or mice). Results of laboratory experiments are then
extrapolated to humans.
A standardized set of dose-response data then takes into account
all the appropriate laboratory animal and epidemiological studies
available for each of approximately 200 chemicals provided by
EPA in a computerized data base. The data base is called the Inte-
grated Risk Information System (IRIS, EPA 1987). Periodically
updated versions of the IRIS data base are also available in docu-
ment format from EPA or from the National Technical Information
Components of the
Risk Assessment
Process
Hazard Identification
Dose-Response
Assessment
-------
Service. Data on new chemicals are continually added as they
become available.
Exposure Assessment
Exposure assessment is the process of determining what human
populations are exposed to chemicals of concern; the pathways
by which they are exposed, and the magnitude, frequency, and
duration of the exposure. An exposure assessment for con-
taminated fish and shellfish involves-
Analysis of tissue concentrations of contaminants in
aquatic organisms;
Analysis of the exposed human population, including
fisheries harvest activities, rates of consumption of fish and
shellfish, diet composition, and other population-related
factors; and
. Estimation of the ingested dose of each food species by
subgroup within the exposed population (for example, age
groups, ethnic groups, and fishermen versus
nonfishermen) and by geographic location.
This analysis of a subgroup's overall exposure is called "integrated
exposure analysis"
Tissue Concentration Analysis. Studies to determine concentra-
tions of contaminants in tissues of aquatic biota must be designed
carefully. Features to consider include study objectives, species of
concern, sampling locations, and sampling times Examples of the
relationship between possible objectives and various sampling
strategies are provided in the guidance manual. The manual also
provides guidance on selecting species for the study and on per-
forming statistical analyses of the resulting data.
Exposed Population Analysis. The analysis of exposed popula-
tions Includes four steps
. Identify the potentially exposed population by fishery
harvest area,
. Describe the demographic and aquatic harvesting activities
of the population;
. Characterize catch and consumption patterns, and
Estimate average consumption rates
The first three steps typically involve conducting surveys of the
potentially exposed population. The guidance manual discusses
survey methods, data analyses, and data reporting formats. The
summary exposure variable for use in subsequent steps of risk
assessment is the average consumption rate. The manual pro-
vides guidance for calculating average consumption rates for
each harvested species and, if data are available, for each seg-
ment within the human population
The manual also shows how to us>e alternative consumption rams
derived by other investigators. Decision makers in each state or
locality may choose whether to collect site- specific data on human
consumption patterns, or to use typical values derived from other
-------
studies. Individuals can also be given the opportunity to determine
their own personal consumption patterns if risk assessment site
results are presented on the basis of "risk per meal of fish per
week" or a similar approach.
Integrated Exposure Analysis. The integrated exposure analysis
results in an estimate of ingested dose by species. The ingested
dose is calculated for specific segments of the human population
(for example, a certain age group along a certain stretch of river).
For a given segment of the exposed population, the ingested dose
is calculated as shown:
Ingested dose = concentration of a chemical in the
edible portion of an organism x
a number representing the relative
amount of chemical absorbed by the
digestive system -f by the
average body weight of all in-
dividuals in the population segment.
In the risk characterization stage, the preceding steps are brought
together to estimate the probability and extent of adverse effects
associated with consumption of contaminated fish or shellfish
from a given water body. Numerical estimates of risk can be
presented on an individual basis. Risk to an individual is expressed
as a probability (for example, a one in 10,000 increased lifetime
chance of getting cancer or other effects). Risk to a population is
expressed as the excess number of cancers or other adverse ef-
fects produced within the specific population over one generation.
The results of risk assessment may be presented In both tabular
and graphic format. All risk estimates should be interpreted as
plausibte-upper-limit values for the stated assumptions and expo-
sure conditions, in keeping with EPA's national guidelines for risk
assessment (EPA 1986). Risk estimates for a given area and
aquatic food species vary with consumption rates, and consump-
tion rates vary greatly among individuals. Therefore, graphs
showing plausible-upper-limit risks versus consumption rates are
recommended as the primary means of presenting results. Using
the tables to compare the pattern shown on the graphs with per-
sonal consumption rates of various fish and shellfish, consumers
can determine any extra risk to which they might be exposed.
Risk assessment results should include a summary of assump-
tions and an uncertainty analysis. The summary should note
general assumptions inherent in all health risk assessments, and
specific assumptions adopted for the risk analysis in question.
By using EPA's 1986 policy for risk assessments and estimating
the plausible-upper-limit to risk, it is highly unlikely that risk will be
underestimated. The "upper bound estimate" of the risk is not like-
ly to be exceeded. The actual risk is likely to be below this level,
and may'be close to zero in some instances. Therefore, the esti-
mate provides a consistent basis for relative risk comparisons
Risk Characterization
-------
References
and is a very conservative (that is, a "protective") approach to
determining whether there are any significant public health risks
posed by specific chemicals' contamination of fish or shellfish in a
given area. In instances of contamination by multiple chemicals,
EPA's 1986 guidance recommends that the risk estimates from the
individual chemicals be added together to obtain the overall risk
assessment. This additive approach is neither conservative nor
non-conservative because in a few instances effects could cancel
one another out, while in others, effects could enhance one
another. But the overall risk assessment will remain conservative
because each of the underlying individual risk estimates was con-
servative.
United States Environmental Program Agreement 1987. Draft
guidance manual for health risk assessment of chemically
contaminated fish and shellfish. Prepared for U.S. EPA,
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, DC,
by Battelle Memorial Institute, Duxbury, MA, and PTl Environ-
mental Services, Seattle, WA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Guidelines for
health risk assessment, Parts II-VI. U.S. EPA, Washington,
DC. Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 185. pp. 33992-34054.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Integrated Risk
Information System Supportive Documentation, Volumes I
and II. EPA 160018-861032a, March 1987. U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC.
------- |