Protecting Our Estuaries
'• . . .. •
-------
Preparing for the annual
Swim the Bay fundraiser
sponsored by Save the Bay, a
group that is concerned with
protecting Narragansett Bay in
Rhode Island.
Protecting Our Estuaries
E
jstuaries—where rivers
.mix with the sea. The
definition of these waters
may not be widely known,
but they are one of the most
popular natural features on
earth. This issue of the EPA
Journal focuses on estuaries.
beginning with an
excerpt from Beautiful
Swimmers, a book which
describes the chain of life in
the Chesapeake Bay.
Setting a perspective for
the issue is an article by
Lawrence J. Jensen, EPA's
Assistant Administrator for
Water. An interview with
Tudor T. Davies answers
questions about EPA's role in
protecting estuaries. Davies is
Director of the Agency's
Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection.
Then a series of articles
discusses the benefits of
estuaries, the environmental
problems they face, recent
Congressional action to
protect them, and EPA's
National Estuary Program.
Changing the pace, another
article takes a look back from
an imaginary point in the
future on the outcome it we
don't act to protect our
estuaries.
Next are status reports on
environmental protection
efforts in four major U.S.
estuaries: Narragansett Bay in
Rhode Island, Puget Sound in
Washington State,
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds in
North Carolina, and
Chesapeake Bay.
Finally, an article reports
on the condition and status
of pollution control efforts in
estuarine systems
internationally, from the
Inland Sea of Japan to the
Baltic Sea.
Two articles follow on
related subjects: EPA's
wetlands protection program,
including wetlands in
estuaries, and an initiative to
control pollution in the Gulf
of Mexico, another coastal
water body confronted with
environmental problems.
Update and
Appointments—two regular
features—conclude the
issue. tJ
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 13
Number 6
July August 1987
S-EPA JOURNAL
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
Linda Wilson Reed, Director. Office of Public Affairs
John Heritage, Editor
Karen Flagstad, Assistant Editor
Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
Margherita Pryor. Assistant Editor
HP A is charged by Congress to pro-
tect the nation's land, air, and
water svstems. Undt;r a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and im-
plement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between hu-
man activities and the ability of
natural systems to support ami
nurture life.
The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the publica-
tion of this periodical is necessary
in the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
agency. Use of funds for printing
this periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget. Views
expressed by authors do not neces-
sarily reflect EPA policy. Contribu-
tions and inquiries should be ad-
dressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall. 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, DC 204I>0. No permis-
sion necessary to reproduce con-
tents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
The Treasure
of an Estuary
An Excerpt from Beautiful
Swimmers 2
Having the Vision
to Save Our Estuaries
by Lawrence ). Jensen ,'i
Answering Questions
about a Key Resource:
An Interview with
Tudor T. Davies 5
Defining the Estuary
by Anthonv 1. Calio
9
The Threat
to Estuaries
bv Howard Levenson
What Congress Has Done
by Walter 13. Jones 14
EPA's National
Estuary Program
by Mary Lou Soscia
and Karen Flagstad Hi
Looking Back
from the Future
by John D. Costlow 21
Estuary Reports:
• Narragansett Bay
by Trudy Coxe 23
• Puget Sound
by Katharine Fletcher
and Annette Frahm 24
• Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
by David \V. O\vmis 26
• Chesapeake Bay
by William M. Eichbaum 2H
An International Perspective
by Clifton Curtis 30
Wetlands: A Growing
Concern
by David G. Davis 32
Taking the Initiative
for the Gulf of Mexico
by Hagan Thompson ;
Update ;Ui
Appointments 3li
Front Cover: Ending Ihc d
-------
The Treasure of an Estuary
An Excerpt from Beautiful Swimmers
William Warner's Beautiful Swimmers is much morf than
-------
Having the Vision
to Save Our Estuaries
by Lawrence J. Jensen
Estuaries can offer quiet scenes; they can
be treasures of diverse life forms; they
can be busy with human activity.
One day, not too far in the future.
while I'm traveling along the)
Chesapeake, admiring Puget Sound in
Washington State, enjoying inlets along
the Gulf Coast, or otherwise relishing
the beauties of bays, estuaries, and
sounds wherever they are found, I hope
to hear a news report that starts like
this: "Flash: The Bay is Hack! Flash: The
Sound is Once Again Sound! "Actually,
my hope is much more than a hope. It is
a goal that EPA has been working
toward with varying degrees of success
since 1972. And it is a goal well worth
working for.
With their rolling dunes, unique
wildlife, and abundant fish, estuaries
and their surroundings provide us with
valuable economic, recreational, and
aesthetic resources. Additionally, for
countless living things, only the
estuary's unique; melding ol land and
.sea provides an environment suitable
for existence, All this together lends
estuaries a magnetism that is difficult to
describe and even more difficult to
resist.
But this very magnetism has
multiplied the number of people who
call the seaside fringes of our nation
home. And with population pressure,
come all the by-products ol modern
living—industry and sewage effluent,
grimy runoff from roads and parking
lots, fertilizers and pesticides. These
pollutants and others find their way
daily into our vital and scenic estuaries.
It's clear that estuaries cannot long
withstand such an onslaught. But what's
even more clear is that the loss of these
July August 1987
-------
We are now better armed than
ever before to bring about
headlines that proudly
proclaim the comeback of our
estuaries.
unique coastal resources, so valuable to
man and nature alike, would be a loss.
we could not easily stand, either.
The good news is that winning the
battle against destructive pressures is
possible. In different parts of the
country, estuary management programs
have been in place for several years.
These programs have put in place
institutions to deal with pollution
challenges, but an even more important
outcome has been the mobilization of
citizen concern. In fact, where I live in
Virginia, it is not uncommon to see
bumper stickers and advertisements
challenging us in bold lettering to Save
the Bay. In similar settings all around
the country, we have made progress.
To understand both the progess we've
made and the magnitude of what
remains to be done, it's important to
recognize that estuaries are imperiled
not only by nearby pollution sources
but also by pollution washed down
from streams and rivers far inland.
Estuaries literally are the sinks at the
end of the system where water cannot
be washed any further downstream.
This means that anything we do to
control pollution inland does help save
the bay or restore the sound.
Point source pollution permitting is a
good example. EPA and the states have
65,000 permits in place for point source
dischargers, specifying exactly how
much pollution can be discharged in
their wastewater. As we learn more
about various pollutants and become
better able to remove them from
wastewaters, pollution limits in these
permits are becoming more and more
strict. In fact, the Water Quality Act of
1987 places new requirements on states
that will take us far toward the
elimination of toxic point source
pollution. Such progress in point source
permitting has and will continue to
benefit our estuaries.
But even if we entirely eliminated
pollution from direct discharge points
across the country, the health and vigor
of our estuaries would not be
completely restored. Non-point source
pollution, consisting mainly of rural and
urban runoff, carries in it the
components of pollution problems
ranging from nutrient buildup to
sedimentation. Because of its diverse
and scattered nature, however, non-point
pollution is much more difficult to
control. Nevertheless, we must deal
with non-point source pollution as
quickly and efficiently as possible if the
headlines are to one day announce that
our estuaries are once again healthy.
The Water Quality Act of 1987
provides useful instruments for helping
us. For instance, EPA's Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay programs, which have
been in place for some time, have
encouraged development of basin-wide
management. The success of these
programs led Congress to call for an
Estuary Program in 1985 that widened
our focus to four additional estuaries.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 expands
on this program. It suggests that
basin-wide management focusing on
both point and non-point pollution
sources is the only way to restore and
protect our estuaries. To encourage a
comprehensive, watershed-based
approach, the Act calls for
estuary-specific management
conferences consisting of federal, state,
and local agencies. These conferences
will analyze water quality trends and
particular pollution sources, both point
and non-point, and develop
comprehensive management plans. (See
article on page 16 for additional
details.)
These efforts are augmented by at
least two additional factors. First, the
Water Quality Act's new non-point
source provisions require states to
address and control non-point source
problems within their boundaries.
Second, the Agency is stepping up its
efforts in wetlands protection through
research, education, and enforcement
initiatives.
With better tools in the toxics,
non-point source, wetlands, and
estuaries areas, we are now better armed
than ever before to bring about
headlines that proudly proclaim the
comeback of our estuaries. But even the
finest tools are but crude instruments in
the hands of the uninterested or
unskilled. In other words, people will
have to make the difference. Unless all
of us who share in the benefits of our
estuaries are willing to share the
responsibility for their welfare, better
tools will not be enough. Governments
can provide information on best
management practices for homeowners
or farmers, but they cannot put them in
place and maintain them. But you and 1
can.
That leads to the bottom line. You
and I in our roles as homeowners,
farmers, businessmen, regulators, and
citizens must make the difference.
Through our mutual efforts, programs
will work, pollution will be controlled,
and our estuaries will be restored and
revived, a
(Jensen is EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Water.J
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Answering
Questions
about a Key
Resource:
An Interview with
Tudor T. Davies
What are the answers to questions that
people ask about estuaries and KPA's
program to protect tham? KPA Journal
asked Tudor Davies, Director of the
Agency's Office of Marine and Ksliuirine
Protection, The lext of the interview
follows:
\~L What are estuaries and why are
they in trouble?
f~\ In the classical sense, estuaries
are where a river mixes with the sea.
They are also very desirable places to
live, and they are in trouble because so
many people are moving there.
V-i Why should we care?
/~\ From a strictly biological point
of view, estuaries are very important
areas for the ocean because they are
nurseries for many oceanic animals that
breed and carry out their initial life
stages there. If estuaries are significantly
degraded, this essential function is lost.
We see fundamental impacts on
fisheries and on the ecology of the
ocean. Estuaries are very difficult
environments anyway, and we are
making it significantly more difficult for
animals to live there if we add pollution
to the natural variability in these areas.
v-i But say I live in a little town off
Delaware Bay. Why should I care what
happens to the vegetation there?
r\ \ could return your question and
ask you why you chose to live there. 1
would guess that you chose to live there
because you have some aesthetic sense
that this is a very beautiful
environment, because you can enjoy the
water, the fishing, the scenery. You
have a sense of well-being from being
around the sea. I also suspect that you
feel your property values are going to
increase steadily because other people
feel as you do about the water and want
to live there, too. However, if you
degrade the essential features of an
estuary, if you can no longer fish, swim,
or enjoy the aesthetics of that
environment, then the area will no
longer be so desirable. Your propertv
values are going to decline.
\~i We already have a coastal zone
management program as well as
national pollution controls. Why do we
need a program specifically for
esluarine protection?
r\ Yes, we do have a system of
managing sources of pollution through
technological controls—that is. we
require certain specific types of
technologies to treat municipal and
industrial wastewater discharges. Hut in
some areas, particularly coastal areas,
we've found that this approach is
inadequate to protect the natural
resources. The estuary program is a way
of figuring out what we need to protect
these resources to the levels we want,
and trading off among alternative
management levels to achieve that
protection. Now. that may mean
different approaches in terms of point
and non-point pollution controls.
different levels of industrial controls,
and management of historic: loads of
pollutants entering the system. What 1
am saying is that the current.
technology-based system treats every
source the same way. But that approach
may no longer be adequate to protect
coastal resources, given the number ot
people moving to those areas. So what
we are looking for is a rational plan for
deciding the level of resource protection
that all the stake-holders—the people
who have a vested interest in the
system—can participate in.
\2 How does such an approach fit
in with EPA's traditional research
and/or regulatory focus?
r\ Well, it combines aspects of
both. We depend on the base
regulations developed by the Agency to
give us a protection "floor" in the
coastal areas. Where our research and
monitoring activities show us that the
resources are declining, however, or the
water quality standards are not being
met—in other worcis. that the regulatory
approach is inadequate—then we want
to develop a consensus among the
stake-holders to go to different levels of
protection. That may mean new
regulations, but not necessarily.
It may mean looking beyond
regulations, beyond research and
monitoring, so that we can develop
agreement among the parties — federal,
state, and local — as to the objectives we
want to achieve, and the system and
resource management we are willing to
undertake.
v-t So in some instances, you are
talking about going beyond what is in
place?
/A Yes. For example, 1 think the
Chesapeake Bay Program showed that
even with secondary wastewaler
treatment programs in place, the
resource wasn't being protected. And
the people and the state regulatory
agencies have agreed that we need
something beyond what we had because
the resource is too precious to lose.
They've agreed that we need to take
very special steps to manage the
pollution around the bay so that we do
protect it.
In practical terms, that has meant the
evolution of a consensus on what needs
to be done. The political will is really
there to institute controls that will
protect the Chesapeake.
^-f- Given this complexity, where do
you see the focus of estuarine
protection? What are your greatest
concerns — toxics, habitat preservation,
or information exchange?
/A Each estuary is different. There
are some common, recurring problems,
of course, but there are site-specific
problems, too. In North Carolina's
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, lor instance,
the focus has been on how excess
nutrients are changing the system's
ecology, while in Washington State's
Puget Sound, the emphasis has been
toxic substances. So the strategies that
need to be adopted are different in each
case. The management solutions have to
be related to the particular problems.
*— t
What's the major impediment,
then? Are the problems scientific or
institutional?
*» What is standing in our way, I
think, is the fact that we are seeing
significant demographic change around
the coasts. We have people moving
rapidly and in great numbers to those
areas, and many of the pollution-control
agencies find it difficult to keep pace
with the level of control needed to
manage the new load, not only of
July August 1987
-------
But as you say, the higher population
densities are going to require greater
levels of control to keep pollutants at a
level estuarine systems can handle.
(_} Population densities are one
new factor hurting estuaries, but what
else is new? What's the difference from
50 years ago?
A I think the difference is the sort
of society we've become. We've
increased our consumption of materials,
our generation of waste, and our uses of
bodies of water. For example, we use
estuaries much more for recreational
fishing, recreational boating, and water
contact activities. Our ports are very
different from what they used to be. We
have waterfront home developments
that we didn't have in the past. The
whole access is different, and so are the
expectations.
(j. Obviously, state and local
governments will have to play a major
role in protecting estuaries.
/\ The major role is state and local;
our role—the federal role—should be to
coordinate, to offer technical assistance,
perhaps help with technology transfer.
But when it comes to implementing the
management controls that are needed,
it's the state and local authorities who
will have to do it. It's a local
responsibility.
What we need to get at here is a true
sense of ownership of a water body by
the people who use it, live around it,
pollute it, enjoy it. That's what has to be
developed. The federal government is
not going to be the primary actor in
managing that resource, in dealing with
the issues of permitting, zoning, and
Paying-
Will people living 25 miles away, or
further, feel a responsibility, too? I think
so. The Chesapeake Bay program shows
that public education can change
attitudes so that even people outside the
immediate benefits of the bay—farmers
in Pennsylvania, for example—can
understand its importance and act to
protect its value. But it takes a strong
education campaign to make clear how
lack of action in one area can cau.se
problems somewhere else.
people, but of industry. It's also hard for
them to come to grips with the fact that
as the population densities increase, we
may need to take more stringent
measures if we want to protect the
water resources, the wetlands, and the
whole ecology ot the system.
It's an institutional problem.
Q
then?
f\ 1 think you have an institutional
problem in managing growth.
accommodating increased loads, and then
developing infrastructures to deal with
them. This is not to say that we don't
still need basic information. We still
need to understand the dynamics of
estuaries, their ecologies. But the whole
emphasis that we are trying to develop
is that there are indeed common
problems with common solutions. You
might say we are trying to create a tool
kit so that as we see similar problems
around the coast, we can pull out
effective solutions. We will still require
a certain base level of site-specific data,
but we will have the common tools.
U A lot of federal agencies have
oversight roles in marine and coastal
issues. How are these overlapping
responsibilities coordinated?
f\ There an; overlapping
responsibilities and there are also gaps.
In some ca.ses. the issue is only that
responsibilities are not well
coordinated. One ol our goals is to get
these responsibilities fully realized, get
people working together, and make sure
that things work. I am confident there
are adequate tools out there to manage
problems. What we need to do is
develop the institutional will,
particularly at the local level, to address
them.
(.J In terms of structures, how did the
recent Water Quality Act amendments
enhance protection of estuaries?
f\ It was a recognition by Congress
that there are serious problems with our
estuaries. The amendments formally set
up tin; National Kstuaries Program.
recognizing certain oslucirios for special
attention and calling for new
management plans between the states
and the federal government for
threatened resources in those estuaries.
These efforts would then provide a
model for other estuaries in the countrv.
But there are other provisions in the
act that are equally valuable, to my
mind. For instance, the new act begins
to address formally the problems of
non-point pollution. It talks about
focusing on specific problem areas, and
it also talks about dealing with toxic, hot
spots around the country. All those
have very specific; application and are
very important to estuaries. 1 think they
will help the states deal with
developing problems around the coast
in a more systematic way. So I am very
pleased with the new provisions.
vj. Does this mean that the
non-point source problem is finally
being recognized in legislation?
f\ I think we've recognized it for
years as the real culprit for many bodies
of water that don't meet their
water-quality goals. What I think the
new act recognizes is that we need a
balance between point and non-point
controls in some areas. In the
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes, for
example, we've learned that to get
nutrient levels down, we need both
point and non-point controls to achieve
a cost-effective reduction in nutrients
and sediments coming into those
waterways.
yj You've mentioned coastal
demographics as one of the great
pressure factors on estuaries. Do
you really think we can protect
estuaries in the face of such pressures?
f\ Yes. I think we can. It is going to
need great cooperation and very careful
balancing of conflicting uses, but with
careful management, I think it is
possible to do the job.
Now, that type of management will
have to be on a higher level than we've
had before, and people will have to
develop a somewhat different ethic
about these bodies of water, But it's
already developing in places like Puget
Sound and Chesapeake Bay and the
Great Lakes. There is an understanding
that individuals can actually have an
impact—first, by paying taxes that pay
for pollution controls and by supporting
the,1 necessary zoning laws, and second.
by reducing their own polluting
activities, such as not using too much
lawn fertilizer and being careful about
the waste they generate.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
V_i So you see the development of
individual awareness?
r\ Yes, but you have to build that
ethic. The citizens program for
Chesapeake Bay has put out handbooks,
particularly for school children, which
talk about individual actions that are
appropriate or inappropriate in terms of
protecting the; bay. Then; has been
enormous response to that, and it's a
very important contribution.
d Can an estuary protection
program succeed without heavy public
participation?
/A No, it's absolutely essential if
you are going to build any will to go to
higher levels of management and
control. Without that will, we can
maintain management at a
technology-based level which will
perhaps meet the law, but won't protect
the resource. Of course, developing that
will means that there be recognition that
estuaries are, in fact, important and
worth protecting.
U, You've spoken a little bit about
the unprecedented levels of cooperation
we're going to need, actions that 10
years ago would never have been
contemplated. Can you give some
specific examples?
/A One example we talk about
constantly is the Critical Areas
Commission in Maryland. The job of the
Commission is to agree on levels of
future development that will be allowed
within "1,000 feet of the Chesapeake Ray
shoreline—and that's not just the actual
bay, but the creeks and rivers and inlets
flowing into it.
This is very different from land-use
decision-making up to now. Locally, it
could mean limitations on how many
houses get built, or on how
undeveloped areas an; managed. It also
means a significant impact on future
water use and development of coastal
areas. And that's the sort of thing that
may have to happen in other water
bodies if wo decide that we want to
protect them to a very high level, and
maintain or restore the resources.
Continued to ne>
Urban development along an estuary.
Pictured is San Francisco Bay.
July August 1987
-------
Land-use controls have always
been a touchy issue. Considering the
political controversy that often
surrounds them, are we going to be able
to accomplish the sort of broad-scale
planning that you're talking about?
i* That is a question state and local
authorities will have to face when they
look at protecting their resources.
decide what their management
alternatives are, and take some action.
They represent the people who use the
resource and want to preserve it.
I think that is what happened in
Maryland with the Critical Areas
Commission. The initial proposal to
manage a 1,000 foot-wide swath of land
around the bay was followed by many
public hearings on the potential
problems and benefits, and only then
was it taken to the State House to see if
then; was the political will to carry it
out.
But this was not a federal action, nor
was it imposed by the federal
government. It was an action taken by
the state government through a political
process that showed that this was
indeed something that the state and
local people wanted to see happen to
protect the Chesapeake Bay.
^J. Are there incentives, though,
that the federal government can offer to
encourage this sort of action?
/» I think the federal government's
role is to provide technical support and
assistance, to offer research and
information from other places. However,
the people who benefit are the local
people, so it is very important that they
take the necessary actions. Our role is to
facilitate that, but not necessarily to
provide the financing and the backbone
to do it.
What we are seeing in I'ugot Sound,
in the Creat Lakes, in the Chesapeake
Hay, is that the protective ethic; does
develop—if the problems are clearly
understood and goals are set for what
needs to be done. I do believe then; is a
strong public: ethic that says that we
want to protect our natural resources,
and that we will pay the costs and
change our attitudes to do this.
vJ. As you noted, the water quality
amendments endorsed a stronger
estuarine effort. Now what? What will
EPA do with that endorsement?
r\ We've been working with the
states and cili/.ens and scientists in a
number of the named estuaries to this
point. We will also be working with the
states to designate other estuaries of
national significance that will fit within
the program. That will be our first step.
We need to develop guidance on such
questions as how to define estuaries of
national significance, how governments
should nominate, and what should be
included in comprehensive management
plans.
Then, we will be working in a
number of estuaries around the country
which we feel can be models for other
communities in terms of processes, or
application of scientific; principles, or
implementation of management plans.
That's where we would like to be going
over the next few years.
Q
What is your long-range
direction? Where will the estuarine
program be in the year 2000?
A
Given the population projections
we see, we're going to lose resources in
some areas, and some of these losses
will be reversible, some not. We're
going to have to get very serious about
our coastal waters. I think our direction
is to develop and implement
management plans that could
cost-effectively control pollutants
coming into estuary systems. At the
least, that means managing multi-media
sources.
V_2 What happens if we don't
implement estuary protection, if we let
things continue as they are now?
r\ We've documented the declines
in places over the last 15 to 20 years,
and 1 think those declines will continue
and be significant in many cases.
Once you have significant increases in
population, then; are so many pressures
that develop. You have the pollution
effects, you have the fisheries impacts,
you have the habitat loss and ecological
changes and everything that those lead
to. And it's probably fair to say that at a
certain point, the losses and declines
start to accelerate.
John Costlow of Duke University gave
a talk about Albemarle Sound that
illustrates these points. Like many
estuarine systems, Albemarle Sound is
beset by waste management problems,
indiscriminate building and
development, over/fishing, nitrification,
and ecological damage. If conditions
stay as they are. the sound will be
ruined.
So Costlow asked his audience: "Are
you going to allow development to kill
off the whole reason people want to live
here? Are you going to contaminate
your drinking water? Are you going to
rule out farming because you've ruined
the soil or caused salt water to intrude
into the fresh water aquifers? Or are you
going to manage the sound properly so
that you protect all these resources?"
The point is that the loss of ecological
viability in an estuary in many ways is
just a symptom of all the other things
you have not done right.
v-t Have we lost some estuaries
already? Are some beyond help?
r~\ Well, I can think of specific
examples where recovery time using
natural processes will be a long-term
process, certainly in the order of 10
years and more. 1 can't answer on
whether we've lost any. That's too
categorical.
U Is it a crisis?
r\ In my eyes, yes; in a lot of other
people's, probably not. It depends on
your value judgments and how
important these things are to you. There
are places around the country where
people are not concerned that they are
losing natural resources, perhaps
because they do not appreciate them, or
don't yet recognize their importance and
the consequences of losing them.
On the other hand, we are talking
really about where people live. If I live
next to a hazardous waste site, that's my
particular crisis. If I'm a city person,
perhaps I'm more concerned about the
air I breathe and vehicles around.
Perhaps 1 never see or use a bay.
But to me, the decline of a bay is a
symptom of all the other things in the
coastal environment. If the estuaries are
going downhill, then there are lots of
other things that are not working, too.
I think it is very important that we
establish a baseline and do not go below
it. that we say we are not going to allow
any further degradation of these
systems. We need them too much to
lose them. .
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Defining the
Estuary
by Anthony J. Calio
Judging by a number of demographic
and commercial indicators
(population relocation trends, real estate
values, tourist revenues, and
commercial interest in waterfront
locations), coastal areas are our
preferred settings for living, vacationing.
and working. As an example of tbe
significance of recreational uses of our
coasts, in 1982, almost $5 billion was
spent by federal, state, and local
agencies to provide recreational
opportunities in coastal areas. The 1985
National Park Service records show over
fi() million visits to lands adjacent to
marine waters, including 22 million
visits to national seashores.
Few can dispute that our coastal areas
are of immense value to society,
providing invaluable resources to tens
of millions of Americans ami
contributing billions of dollars of
revenue to tbe economy each year.
Ironically, however—despite wide
acclaim and appreciation for our shores.
coasts, bays, beaches, and harbors—we
have done too little to safeguard the
value of our estuaries, Yet these
uniquely productive coastal waters
provide us with a truly remarkable
variety of benefits. In terms of biological
productivity alone, these portions of the
coast far surpass any comparable
ecosystem—aquatic or terrestrial. Salt
marshes, for example, produce ten tons
of organic material per acre per year,
compared lo only four tons per acre per
year produced by fertile hay fields.
Clearly, a reappraisal of estuarine values
is in order so that we can continue to
enjoy these coastal areas and make more
productive use of their resources.
Estuaries are generally defined as
those parts of rivers or streams that
connect with the open sea, where
land-derived fresh water intermixes
with salt water. This saline mixture,
saturated by sunlight and continually
stirred by currents and tides, folds
humus, topsoil. and other organic:
material from the land into the ocean's
minerals and organic: products of
underwater decay. The resulting brew
feeds a chain of life from protox.oa.
plankton, small fish, shrimp, oysters.
and larger fish, to the fish-eating
mammals, including man.
In many ways, estuaries serve as the
cradles of the ocean's harvest. In
addition to being important sources of
Menhaden harvested in Chesapeake Bay.
July-August 1987
-------
nutrients for fisheries, estuaries provide
spawning and nursery grounds for at
least two-thirds of our commercial
fisheries. Shrimp, salmon, oysters,
menhaden, crabs, lobster, clams, and
haddock: all of these species depend on
estuaries for their survival. The
estuarine ecosystem also supports
additional species of value to the
recreational fishing industry.
While estuaries are critical for most
important fisheries, they also provide
essential breeding grounds and habitat
for waterfowl and other wildlife,
including a large number of endangered
species. This wildlife also draws
millions of people annually to estuarine
areas for bird or whale watching,
waterfowl hunting, or other recreational
purposes.
Estuaries serve additional valuable
functions apart from the living resources
they support. For example, estuarine
vegetation helps protect adjacent waters
from upland sediments and waterborne
pollutants by holding, filtering, or
eventually breaking down this material
before it silts into the open water. In
much the same way, the marsh-like
vegetation mitigates the erosion of
upland areas by reducing the impacts of
flood waters, storm tides, and wave
surges before they reach the land.
For these and other reasons,
increasing numbers of residents and
visitors are attracted to our coasts. As a
result, not only are estuaries among our
most productive natural systems, but
they are also among our most intensely
populated, heavily used, and highly
stressed systems. As a society, we ask
that estuaries provide cooling waters for
industry and energy production,
accommodate the needs of large ships
and tanker traffic, and accept pollutant
loads from pipelines, rivers, streams,
land drainage, and runoff. In addition,
we have sacrificed wetlands and bottom
habitat to make space for coastal
development.
Because estuaries support so many
different uses—many of which tend to
exclude other uses—and because the
demands on estuaries have increased
along with human coastal populations,
there has been a significant decline in
the quality of estuarine waters and their
resources. For example, the dramatic
increase in population and development
around the Chesapeake Bay has
drastically affected the bay's water and
sediment quality and resulted in
significant declines in submerged
aquatic vegetation and estuarine-
dependent fisheries. The value
of estuaries as transportation corridors,
as receptacles for waste, and as places
to live cannot be overestimated.
However, these uses have profoundly
affected the integrity of our estuarine
ecosystems, often resulting in long-term
environmental degradation, fisheries
loss, property value declines, and public
health and safety threats.
To meet our irrigation, energy, and
flood control needs, most of the nation's
major rivers have been diverted or
dammed, changing the flow of fresh
In 1982, almost $5 billion was
spent by federal, state, and
local agencies to provide
recreational opportunities in
coastal areas.
water into estuaries and fundamentally
modifying the estuarine ecosystem
structure. Many of our most valuable
anadromous fish are now prevented
from returning upstream to spawn, and
critical habitat has been irreversibly
altered. As an example, the Northwest
salmon fishery has suffered a severe
decline in the aftermath of large-scale
construction of hydroelectric dams in
the Columbia River combined with
intensive logging practices.
The use of our estuaries to dispose of
society's wastes has also led to
significant degradation of our estuarine
resources and benefits. New York City
and Los Angeles release 1.5 billion and
900 million gallons of sewage effluent
per day, respectively, into coastal
waters. Boston discharges 500 million
gallons per day, along with a half
million gallons of raw sludge per year.
These discharges include thousands of
tons of nutrients that disrupt inshore
ecosystems that sustain fish and
shellfish. Sewage pollution has led to
closure of one third of the 4,000 acres of
clam flats in the vicinity of Boston
Harbor, while nutrient-induced oxygen
depletion has triggered massive fish
kills off the New Jersey coast. As a
result, there has been a $60 million loss
to the commercial clam fishery alone.
Sewage disposal has also affected the
shrimp catch in Pensacola/Escambia
Bay, Florida, which declined
dramatically from 902,000 pounds in
1968 to 17,000 pounds in 1971.
Industrial waste discharges may have
an even more unsettling outcome. The
effects of industrial pollution have been
strongly felt in New Bedford Harbor,
Massachusetts, a major center for the
American fishing industry. Historically,
lobsters have been a lucrative
component of the New Bedford catch,
yet lobsters are no longer taken from the
harbor's waters. Years of dumping
wastes from neighboring electrical
industries have raised the level of PCBs
in the harbor sediments to over 200
parts per million, leading to closure of
28 square miles of commercial lobster
grounds. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
has conservatively estimated that the
resulting loss to commercial lobstermen
is $2.1 million and to recreational
fishermen, $1.9 million. Beaches in the
area have also been closed, resulting in
revenue losses estimated at $14.7
million, and residential property values
in the New Bedford area have declined
more than $30 million.
Wetlands loss is another significant
factor affecting the vitality of estuarine
and coastal resources. Research has
established that over 120,000 juvenile
shrimp per acre are sustained by
Louisiana's shallow marsh regions.
However, that state is losing 50 square
miles of coastal wetlands per year, and
it is possible that there is a
corresponding loss in shrimp
productivity. In San Francisco Bay,
diking and filling have reduced the
original 300 square miles of wetlands to
fewer than 75 square miles.
Corresponding to these California
wetland losses has been a decline of
fish and shellfish harvests. The salmon
population in the Sacramento River, for
instance, has been reduced by over 50
percent.
The evidence clearly indicates that
the health of our estuaries is declining.
While the complex food webs of
estuaries are known to provide a degree
of resiliency to cope with these stresses,
they alone cannot restore and maintain
high levels of desirable biological
productivity. It is time to re-examine
what can and should be done to
conserve our nation's estuaries.
Unfortunately, the effects of human
activities and natural changes on our
estuarine and coastal environment are
not well understood. We do not know
how to predict reliably the fate and
transport of effluent from sewage
treatment plants in Boston Harbor or
Chesapeake Bay, to determine what
organisms are exposed to its toxic
chemicals, or to anticipate where
nutrient-induced anoxia will lead to
more fish kills. We have yet to discern
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
how PCBs are transported from New
Bedford, Raritan Bay, or Elliott Bay to
other areas via the food chain. We know
that Gulf shrimp require wetlands for
survival, but we do not know precisely
how many shrimp will be lost with the
loss of each acre of wetland.
If we are to halt the deterioration of
our nation's estuaries and adjacent
coastal waters, it is essential that we act
now to correct the causes of such
deterioration and protect these valuable
bodies of water. The crucial first step is
to understand better the estuarine
ecosystem in order to predict the effects
of human activities on estuarine
resources and coastal ocean systems.
This is NOAA's role: to increase our
understanding of how estuarine
ecosystems work and improve our
predictive capabilities in order to
support the wise use and management
of the nation's estuarine resources and
coastal ocean systems. Over the years,
NOAA has built upon its base of
scientific expertise and capabilities in
estuarine assessment, research, and
management to achieve this goal.
To provide internal leadership and
coordination for its estuarine programs,
NOAA established the Estuarine
Programs Office (EPO) in 1984. Two
years later, Congress specified EPO's
responsibilities: (1) develop and
implement a national estuarine strategy
for NOAA; (2) coordinate NOAA's
various estuarine activities, including
estuarine research and assessment,
fisheries research, coastal management,
and habitat conservation; (3) coordinate
these activities with other agencies; and
(4} provide technical assistance to
NOAA, other federal agencies, and state
and local governments in estuarine
assessment, and identification and
monitoring of estuarine management
programs. In response to this mandate,
EPO has developed NOAA's Estuarine
and Coasta] Ocean Science Framework,
a strategy that will guide and coordinate
the agency's estuarine science programs
into the next decade. NOAA is
committed to its task of improving our
understanding of the estuarine
ecosystem. With the cooperation of
other agencies that are integral to
improving and maintaining the health of
our estuaries, we can build on this
knowledge towards wiser use and
management of these valuable
resources, a
(CaJio is the Under Secretary for Oceans
and Atmosphere in the U.S. Department
of Commerce.)
The Threat
to Estuaries
by Howard Levenson
Most Americans love the ocean. We
swim in it, sail on it, view its
waves, and eat its seafood. Yet few of us
realize the extent to which, or for how
long, coastal communities and
industries have used the nation's marine
waters as an answer to their waste
disposal needs.
Estuaries and coastal waters, in
particular, have borne the brunt of
marine waste disposal activities, and
many now exhibit a variety of adverse
effects. Unless additional protective
measures are taken, the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) has
concluded, many estuaries and some
coastal waters will deteriorate further or
begin to do so during the next few
decades, even in areas that previously
were improving. OTA is a non-partisan,
analytical arm of the U.S. Congress, and
it released a report on Wastes in Marine
Environments in April 1987 that
discusses the effects of waste disposal
on the environment.
This deterioration is of great concern
because these waters support
commercial and recreational fishing,
swimming and boating, and other
activities generated by the tourist trade.
They also provide critical habitat for
numerous plants and animals, including
some endangered species and many
important commercial species. For
example, commercial landings of fish
and shellfish from U.S. marine waters
had a dockside value in 1985 of $2.3
billion and a retail value several times
greater; fish and shellfish harvested
within three miles of shore accounted
for roughly half of these revenues.
The extent of coastal degradation
varies greatly around the country. Some
areas that once exhibited severe effects
have improved, but noticeable
deterioration continues to occur or is
accelerating in others. Most public
attention has focused on
well-documented problems in areas
such as the Chesapeake Bay, the New
York Bight, southern California, and
Puget Sound, but serious, less-
publicized effects are also showing
up in the Gulf of Mexico and along the
southern Atlantic coast.
The importance of any one pollution
source varies greatly from area to area.
Among disposal activities, wastewater
discharges from industrial and
municipal pipelines are at least as
culpable in causing effects as the
dumping of sewage sludge and dredged
material. Almost 2,000 major industrial
and municipal facilities discharge
wastewater directly into estuaries and
coastal waters, and thousands more
discharge into rivers that eventually
flow into estuaries. Thousands of
industries also discharge wastes into the
sewers of municipal treatment facilities
that later discharge into marine waters.
Large volumes of dredged material and
smaller volumes of sewage sludge and
some industrial wastes are dumped at
specific sites. In addition, runoff from
urban and agricultural areas, although
not classed as disposal, is a significant
source of pollution. Other activities
such as filling of wetlands and
channelling of rivers, as well as excess
commercial harvesting, also affect
marine waters and resources.
The range of adverse effects includes:
• Changes in water quality, such as
excess levels of nutrients, low levels of
dissolved oxygen, and turbidity.
• Loss of aquatic vegetation.
• Effects on fish, shellfish, birds, and
mammals, such as accumulation of toxic
chemicals, disease and abnormalities,
reproductive failure, and mortality.
• Changes in entire marine
communities, such as population
declines, and impacts on species
diversity.
• Closures of beaches and shellfish
grounds due to contamination with
microorganisms or toxic chemicals.
• Rising incidence of reported human
disease from consuming contaminated
shellfish or swimming in contaminated
marine waters.
• Accumulation of toxic pollutants in
sediments.
For example, one conspicuous and
widespread effect is eutrophication, a
process associated with excess amounts
of nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus. Excess nutrients can
contribute to massive population
July/August 1987
11
-------
A "point source" of waste discharge, one
of the pollution inputs into estuaries that
cleanup efforts are facing.
explosions (sometimes culled "blooms"]
of tiny microorganisms, L'nder extreme
conditions, these microorganisms can
deplete the level of dissolved oxygen in
the water, resulting in massive fish kills.
Seasonally low oxygen levels occur
regularly in the Chesapeake Bay and the
Now York Bight: the affected area in the
Chesapeake liav has increased
significantly during the last 30 years.
Kecenl rc.siMic !i hits reveaiod an even
larger area off the coast of Louisiana
that is subject to seasonal oxygen
depletion.
Another widespread ellect is
contamination of shellfish with
disease-causing microorganisms. In
1985, commercial harvests from about
one-third of our productive shellfish
areas were restricted because of such
contamination, and the problem is
increasing in rapidly developing areas
such as the Gulf of Mexico and
southeast Atlantic, coast. Some areas are
improving, however. For example, near
Savannah and in San Francisco Bay,
contamination with microorganisms
has declined, and shellfishing has been
allowed for the first time in decades.
Nevertheless, contamination and the
reported incidence of some human
diseases caused by microorganisms
appears to be rising. In Now York.
consumption of contaminated shellfish
caused over 100 reported outbreaks of
viral gastroenteritis in 10B2. Bathing in
contaminated waters has been linked
with increases in viral gastroenteritis
and hepatitis, particularly in New York
and Louisiana.
Another major problem in recent
years is the contamination oi fish and
shellfish with toxic; metals and organic
chemicals: in some areas, the
contamination is severe enough to
prompt government warnings or
restrictions on fishing or consumption.
The most widely pubiici/.ed problems
have been linked with pipeline
discharges of long-lasting, toxic
chemicals that accumulate in fish
tissues. Commercial striped bass tishing
in New York State, for example, has
been banned because of contamination
with polychlorinated btphenyls (or
PCBs), causing an estimated economic
impact of over $15 million annually.
Signs in Santa Monica Bay in southern
California warn against eating some fish
12
EPA JOURNAL
-------
because of contamination with DDT.
Finally, toxic pollutants have been
linked with conspicuous problems in
fish ami shellfish themselves. These
effects occur around the country:
examples include fin erosion and
cancerous lesions in winter flounder
from Huston Harbor, impaired
reproduction in striped bass and starry
flounder from San Francisco Hay. and
liver tumors in Knglish sole from I'uget
Sound.
To combat these and other problems,
the federal government has concentrated
on regulating clumping activities and
municipal and industrial pipeline
discharges; it has not been very
involved in managing runoff. Two
statutes form the basis of most federal
regulatory efforts: the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and the
Clean Water Act.
The programs and procedures
established under these acts have
significantly reduced the quantities of
pollutants entering marine waters. For
example, the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act has been
relatively successful in controlling the
dumping of sewage sludge and
industrial wastes. Under the Clean
Water Act, the construction or
upgrading of municipal sewage
treatment plants has improved SOUK;
aspects of water quality in some
estuaries and coastal waters, particularly
with respect to levels of oxygen and
nutrients. Moreover, reducing pollutants
in industrial discharges into sewers has
improved the quality of some municipal
sludge, enhancing its potential for
beneficial uses such as fertilizer and
compost.
Another major problem in
recent years is the
contamination of fish and
shellfish with toxic metals and
organic chemicals.
Unfortunately, however, these
programs will not be sufficient partly
because discharges and runoff
(particularly from urban areas) will
increase greatly as population and
industrial development expand in
coastal areas. In addition, numerous
obstacles including insufficient financial
resources already hinder full
implementation and enforcement of
current programs.
Finally, even total compliance with
today's regulations will still allow new
or continued degradation to occur:
current programs do not adequately
address all important toxic: pollutants or
industries, nor do they adequately
address runoff. In addition, federal
resources for municipal treatment plants
are declining, and it is unclear whether
sufficient alternative funding
mechanisms will be developed.
Some of these problems—for example,
weak enforcement and deficiencies in
the coverage of toxic pollutants—could
be addressed within the structure of
existing Clean Water Act programs. But
other issues, particularly the
management of runoff, simply do not fit
well within these programs and call for
additional, site-specific management
efforts. These efforts will require a great
deal of cooperation among the many
responsible local, state, and federal
agencies, as well as the intimate
involvement of the public. Recognizing
the need for more coordinated
management, the federal government
and some states have developed what
OTA calls "waterbody management"
programs. Two prominent examples are
the Chesapeake Bay Program and the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
Waterbody management programs
attempt to bring together all appropriate
parties, identify the most important
problems and their causes, and devise
management plans to alleviate the
problems. These efforts appear
promising, although most are only in
the early stages.
However, such programs have been
established for only a few of the many
estuaries and coastal waters in need of
additional management. Furthermore,
no systematic framework exists yet for
deciding which estuaries and coastal
waters need help, either to reverse
current degradation or to prevent
significant degradation from occurring.
Yet many major components for such
a framework do exist in numerous
institutional guises. At the federal level.
for example, these include:
• Section 320 of the H)87 Water Quality
Act, which authori/.es F.I'A to convene
management conferences tor individual
estuaries.
• The Coastal Zone Management Act.
• EPA's initiative on near-coastal
waters.
• Areawide and watershed plans under
Sections 208 and 3()3(e) of the Clean
Water Act.
The big issue is whether these and
other existing mechanisms at all
governmental levels will be used
effectively. Will enough waterbody
management programs be developed
and implemented? The answer will
depend to a great extent on our ability
to achieve cooperation among
responsible agencies, to involve the
public, to provide sufficient funding,
and to make difficult decisions about
land-use issues and coastal development
practices. More than anything else, in
fact, a systematic framework may
require consolidation and integration ol
sometimes disparate existing efforts. It
will also call for a great deal of
oversight. Without such etforts.
however, our estuaries and coastal
waters will continue to decline, i
(Levenson is an analyst anil jirojcct
director for the Office o/ Technology
Assessment in the U.S. Congress.)
July August 1987
13
-------
What Congress
Has Done
by Walter B. Jones
In 1970, with the release of a report by
the U.S. Department of the Interior, the
nation discovered that many estuaries
were degraded or threatened with
degradation. The National Estuary
Study presented an awesome picture of
the ongoing destruction of the nation's
estuaries. The summation was concise
and painfully clear: "Estuaries are in
jeopardy. They are being damaged,
destroyed, and reduced in size at an
accelerating rate by physical alteration
and by pollution."
In response to the discovery of this
and other environmental problems, the
Congress enacted a suite of statutory
tools, including the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, the Coastal Zone
Management Act, and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act. However, nearly 20 years later, the
Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) has found that our
estuaries are still in jeopardy.
On April 28, 1987, the OTA released
a comprehensive report entitled Wastes
in Marine Environments, which
presents the results of two years of
investigation. As explained in the
previous article, the report clearly
constitutes an indictment of our efforts
since 1970 to understand and protect
these crucial coastal ecosystems: "Many
of these waters have exhibited a variety
of adverse impacts, and their overall
health is declining or threatened. Even
with total compliance, which is
unlikely, existing regulations will not be
sufficient to maintain or improve the
health of all estuaries or coastal waters."
Thus, 17 years after The National
Estuary Study, the OTA report has
helped us, or perhaps forced us, to
rediscover our estuaries. Once again, it
is not a pleasant or gratifying discovery.
It is, plainly and simply, a tragic
discovery.
OTA's recent findings are especially
disconcerting given the increasingly
documented importance of estuaries.
Estuaries are the undisputed workhorses
of the marine environment, constituting
its biological foundation. The majority
of our highly valued fisheries are
sustained by estuaries during their most
vulnerable life stages. In fact,
estuarine-dependent species comprise
about 70 percent of the total U.S.
commercial catch.
The problems facing our estuaries are
the problems of our people and our
communities. This is evident upon
examination of demographic trends.
Today, over 70 percent of our
population lives in coastal states, and it
is predicted that by 1990, over 75
percent of the entire population will
live within 50 miles of the nation's
coasts. It has never been more obvious
that we are both the cause of and the
solution to estuarine degradation.
We have been warned a second time
that our estuaries, both great and small,
are in deep trouble. These warnings
must be heeded. The work to save them
must begin now.
We need only look to the Chesapeake
Bay to see the costs of waiting too long.
In the Chesapeake, the warning signals
were heard almost too late. Now, federal
and state governments are engaged in a
massive project to determine what went
wrong and to begin to correct the
damage. Because people waited until
the problems were critical, the costs—in
both dollars and intrusive
regulation—are staggering; the results
are only speculative at this point.
However, the Chesapeake Bay effort
does provide a template for action in
other estuaries. In fact, the OTA report
calls this site-specific, waterbody
management approach "very
promising," but also urges a more
"systematic" national framework.
The Water Quality Act of 1987
provides this national framework. In
particular, section 320 of the new
statute establishes a National Estuaries
Program within the Environmental
Protection Agency. Through this
EPA-coordinated program, federal, state,
and local governments are now joining
forces in a common effort to explore,
understand, and manage estuaries.
Section 320 of the Water Quality Act
specifically calls for the development of
comprehensive conservation and
management plans that recommend
actions to restore and maintain
individual estuaries and assure that
designated uses of these estuaries are
protected. At the completion of each
project, the communities surrounding
the estuaries will have a blueprint for
action. They will be armed with
knowledge about how the estuaries
work and with alternative solutions to
problems.
People want solutions to estuarine
degradation. Recently, on February 14,
1987, I witnessed a compelling
demonstration of public commitment to
our estuarine resources in my own
Congressional District. It was
Valentine's Day, a warm and sunny
Saturday offering a temporary respite
from winter. Although the outdoors
beckoned, nearly 600 citizens attended a
day-long workshop concerning the
Albemarle-Pamlico estuary, recently
designated as part of the National
Estuaries Program.
As I addressed this gathering, I was
encouraged. I saw some scientists, some
regulators, some managers. Mostly,
however, 1 saw just people: people who
live and work on the Albemarle-
Pamlico estuary; people who
use it and who are affected by its use;
people whose quality of life, and
sometimes their very livelihood, is
linked to the health of that great estuary
(the nation's second largest). They came
because they wanted to learn what is
being done, and more importantly, to
learn what they could contribute.
This was not a contrived political
event. It had been conceived and
announced only a few weeks
beforehand. It was a spontaneous and
genuine expression of public
enthusiasm and conviction. On that
Saturday in February, a government
project was transformed into a people's
initiative. However, it was also clear
that these same people realized that
government action is both necessary and
proper.
In my area of the country, people are
often wary of government
intervention—especially when it
involves the federal government. In this
instance, however, there was an
overriding sense of mutual interest and
shared responsibility that suppressed
institutional and political suspicions, at
U
EPA JOURNAL
-------
r
least momentarily. During such
moments, there is opportunity'. The
bottom line is that government—federal,
state, and local—must provide the
conduit for citizen community action.
A program of active cooperation
among governments at the federal, state,
and local levels is government at its
verv best. That is the kind of program in
progress for the Chesapeake Bay and the
kind of program \ve are trying to
Let's hope that this is the last
time we will need to
rediscover our estuaries. We
have been offered a rare
second chance.
accomplish for the Albemarle-Pamlico
estuary. It is difficult \vork, but if it can
be done, the benefits are enormous, it it
can be done for the Chesapeake and for
Albemarle-Pamlico, it can be done
elsewhere, anil there is hope for all ot
our estuaries.
The time ha.s come to determine
exactly what forces are crippling our
estuarine resources and then to make
the difficult choices necessary to reverse
the trends. With an ounce of prevention
we can avoid repeating the tragedy of
the Chesapeake Bay in other areas of the
country. At stake is not just our
estuaries but our way of life.
Let's hope that this is the last time wt
will need to rediscover our estuaries.
We have been offered a rare second
chance. We have new and improved
statutory tools, such as the National
Estuaries Program. We have a public
that is interested in innovative solution.1
and is willing to make personal
sacrifices to guarantee protection ot
estuaries. We recognize shared
governmental responsibilities. What is
required now is effort and commitment;
we must all be willing to ivork, to learn
ami to tend). Surely it is worth the
effort. .
(/ones. 1)-\C,. is (.'huinniin of (lit;
Committee on Merchant Marine
-------
EPA's National Estuary
Program
by Mary Lou Soscia
and Karen Flagstad
In 1985, Congress appropriated $4
million to EPA for study and
assessment of four major estuaries
around the country: Narragansett
Bay in Rhode Island, Buzzards
Bay in Massachusetts, Long
Island Sound in New York and
Connecticut, and Puget Sound in
Washington. This was the de facto
beginning of the National Estuary
Program, initiated by EPA as a
framework for addressing pollution
problems and the effects of overuse and
development in and around these and
other estuarine systems. To date—with
the additions in 198(> of
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds in North
Carolina and the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
system in California—the program is at
work in six estuary sites.
From 1985 through 1986, the National
Estuary Program was administered,
through EPA's Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection, under existing
authorities of several federal statutes
including the Clean Water Act, and state
legislative authorities. This operating
context, and the "informal" status of the
program, changed earlier this year when
Congress passed the Water Quality Act
of 1987.
The Water Quality Act of 1987
formally establishes the National
Estuary Program with the goal of
identifying nationally significant
estuaries, protecting and improving
their water quality, and enhancing their
living resources. It also identifies 11
estuaries for "priority consideration" by
EPA under the national program. These
11 priority estuary systems include the
six sites where the National Estuary
Program is already active and, in
addition, five other potential program
sites: Delaware Bay in Delaware and
New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays in
Delaware; New York-New Jersey Harbor
in New York and New Jersey; Sarasota
Bay in Florida; and Calveston Bay in
Texas.
From EPA's standpoint, the new law
is particularly important because it
embodies a new level of national
concern for estuaries while recognizing
that there can be no single solution for
problems linked tightly to specific
environmental, demographic, and
socio-economic considerations. Instead,
the act calls for EPA to develop a
framework within which local estuarine
"constituencies" can cooperate to
develop long-term protection and
management plans. The Agency will
provide the technical expertise and the
organizational umbrella for working
partnerships among state, local, and
federal interests. But the programs to
manage estuarine resources—and the
political will to protect them—must
come from the local users.
This recognition of the necessity for
local input and responsibility has grown
out of EPA's experience with the Great
Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs.
Both of these pioneering efforts
demonstrated that complex estuarine
systems can be successfully managed by
collecting scientific data about specific
problems and their solutions and by
developing the political partnerships to
put that scientific knowledge to use.
Now, in the 1987 Water Quality Act,
these key principles of problem-solving
and partnership, which work through
site-specific management coalitions
("management conferences," under the
new law), have formally become part of
the National Estuary Program. The goal
is not to provide blanket solutions to
the problems of our nation's estuaries,
but rather a framework for the
development and implementation of
long-term estuarine management plans
for particular estuaries. You might say
that the National Estuary Program is not
really one program, but several different
programs for the several estuaries where
estuarine resource management efforts
are underway.
The following summations give a flavor
for the National Estuary Program's
ongoing work at six current program
sites: Narragansett Bay, Buzzards Bay,
Long Island Sound, and Puget Sound,
which have been part of the national
program since its inception in 1985; and
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds and the San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta system, added to the program in
1986.
Narragansett Bay
The Narragansett Bay Project is jointly
administered by EPA's Region 1 office
in Boston and the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental
Management. In 1986, the state's
citizens voted to pass the Rhode Island
Management Conferer
One of the key aspects of the new
law is the requirement for
"management conferences" for
each specific estuary in the
program. These management
conferences are responsible for the
development and implementation
of site-specific "Comprehensive
Conservation and Management
Plans," and must include
representatives of such critical
constituencies as local research
institutions engaged in scientific
investigations of an estuary and its
resources; local, state, and federal
governments (including the
Administrator of EPA); and
business, agriculture, specific
municipalities, and the general
public. Management conferences
are convened for a period not to
exceed five years but may be
extended, or reconvened, as
determined appropriate by the
Administrator of EPA.
16
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Albemarl
Pamlico Sounds
ces
Under the law, the management
plans developed by each
conference must:
• Assess trends in water quality,
natural resources, and uses of the
estuary.
• Collect, characterize, and assess
data on toxics, nutrients, and
natural resources within the
estuarine zone to identify the
causes of environmental problems.
• Develop the relationship between
the inplace loads and point and
nonpoint loadings of pollutants to
the estuarine zone and the
potential uses of the zone, water
quality, and natural resources.
• 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.
• Develop plans for the
coordinated implementation of the
plan by the states as well as
federal and local agencies
participating in the conference.
• Monitor the effectiveness of
actions taken pursuant to the plan.
• Review all federal financial
assistance programs and federal
development projects ... to
determine whether such assistance
program or project would be
consistent with and further the
purposes of the plan prepared
under this section.
Map showing current areas of focus
under EPA's National Estuary Program.
Clean Water Act Trust Fund, which
contains provisions for $500,000,
allocated over two years, to help
support the development of a
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan for Narragansett Bay.
A preliminary trend assessment of
estuarine resources in Narragansett Bay
has found dramatic declines in its living
resources over the last several decades.
For example, oysters have disappeared
altogether; and crab, scallop, and fish
populations are significantly
diminished. A number of formerly
profitable quahog (hand clam) beds have
been closed as a consequence of
bacterial pollution. Recently, during the
summer of 1986, a "brown tide"
(microscopic algae bloom) reduced
water visibility to inches and killed 30
percent of the bay's cultured mussels.
To date, the Narragansett Bay Project
has identified the following
conservation and management
objectives:
• Protecting and restoring finfisb
resources.
• Restoring quahog fishery resources.
• Development of a long-term
monitoring program.
The Narragansett Bay Project will
achieve these goals through definition of
status and trends of living resources and
water/sediment quality, and
development of control strategies for
point and non-point pollution sources
and resource management plans.
The Narragansett Bay Project has
begun this work. For example, ongoing
initiatives include the development of
computer models to relate nutrient
inputs from sewage treatment plants to
water-quality trends in the bay. A
project is also underway to complete a
detailed, scientific trend
characterization of the overall ecology of
the bay, and in particular its quahog
July/August 1987
17
-------
Houseboats and other craft at a marina in
the San Francisco Bay area. The outlook
is for increasing "people pressure" on
estuaries.
population. In addition, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has boon
commissioned to develop a detailed
"atlas" of Narragansett Bay, charting
transportation routes of oil and
hazardous materials, including pollution
response strategies and
recommendations for contingency
planning,
Buzzards Bay
The Buzzards Hay Project is jointly
administered under the leadership of
EPA's Region 1 (Boston) office and the
Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs.
Trends in and around Buzzards Bay
include rapid development—particularly
in Barnstable County on the Eastern
shore, which is the fastest growing
county in New England—accompanied
by increased pollution pressures
on the estuary. In addition,
the western shores of the bay
have had a long history of industrial
discharges, resulting in contaminated
sediments along the shoreline. One of
the most disturbing trends in Buzzards
Bay is the closure of increasing numbers
of shellfish beds, due to coliform (fecal
bacteria) contamination. In 1986 alone,
11,500 acres of previously productive
shellfish beds in Buzzards Bay were
closed to harvesting.
The Buzzards Bay Project has targeted
three problem areas as immediate
priorities:
• Shellfish bed closures resulting from
pathogen contamination.
• Contamination of fish and shellfish
with residues of toxic metals and
organic compounds.
• Abnormally high nutrient levels in the
bay.
One interesting component of the
Buzzards Bay Project is an evaluation of
coliform contamination of shellfish in
Buttermilk Bay, an embayment at the
northern end of Buzzards Bay. to
identify the sources and pathways of
coliform and other bacteriological
contamination of local shellfish.
Preliminary data from this study
indicate that (1) coliform counts tend to
increase immediately following storm
events, (2) coliform levels in shellfish
appear to relate primarily to coliform
counts in surrounding sediments rather
than in the water, and (3) waterfowl and
recreational boating may be ruled out as
primary sources of coliform
contamination in Buttermilk Bay.
The study's findings so far point to
ground water as a major source of
waterborne nutrients, probably
originating from septic tanks adjacent to
Buttermilk Bay, This conclusion is
supported by recorded variations in
nitrogen levels, which are higher near
the shoreline than offshore, and higher
in summer than in winter, probably due
to increased septic flow during the
summer tourist season.
By tracing and explaining the causes
of shellfish contamination, the
Buttermilk Bay study will be in a
position to recommend specific
management initiatives to restore this
important and profitable resource in
Buzzards Bay. The study is a useful
model for other estuary systems.
Long Island Sound
The Long Island Sound Study is unique
within the National Estuary Program in
that two EPA regions, Region 1 (Boston
office) and Region 2 (New York City
office), and two states. New York and
Connecticut, share leadership
responsibility in the Long Island Sound
management coalition. The Interstate
Sanitation Commission and NOAA are
also key participants.
Five states contribute to the drainage
basin of Long Island Sound, including
New Hampshire, Vermont, and
Massachusetts as well as the key states
of New York and Connecticut. The
sound's 577 miles of coastline are heavily
populated: five million people live
with five miles of the shoreline, and
14.6 million within the drainage basin.
For these reasons, Long Island Sound
presents unusually complex estuarine
management problems.
The following priority problem areas
have been identified by the Long Island
Sound Study:
• Controlling toxic contamination ol
Long Island Sound.
• Targeting the causes of low dissolved
oxygen concentrations, which can cause
stress or death to estuarine organisms.
• Protecting and restoring living
resources adversely affected by the
presence of toxic contaminants anil an
absence of sufficient available oxygen.
Toxic: contaminants of concern in
Long Island Sound include metals such
as copper, cadmium, and mercury, as
well as organic compounds such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). Through ongoing research
efforts, the Long Island Sound Study is
working to determine (1) the scope of
the sound's toxic contamination
problems, (2) the year-to-year trends ot
toxic pollution, and (3) the specific
effects of these toxic contaminants on
the living resources of the sound.
including fish and shellfish destined
for human consumption.
The Connecticut Department of
Agriculture, the New York State
Department of Environmental
Conservation, the Interstate Sanitation
Commission, and NOAA—which
sponsors the "Mussel Watch
Program"—are actively involved in data
collection and analysis efforts focusing
on toxic contaminant problems in Long
Island Sound.
In addition, work is underway
concerning patterns of oxygen depletion
EPA JOURNAL
-------
•^ ~
{'* •
r,-
in the sound and tin: impact of low
dissolved oxygen levels on the sound's
living resources. Tht; Interstate
Sanitation Commission and \'OAA have
been extensively involved in these
efforts,
Puget Sound
The Puget Sound Estuary Program is
run by EPA's Region 10 office in Seattle.
Washington, in cooperation with several
Washington state agencies and other
participants in the program's
management coalition, including Indian
tribal governments. The program works
very closely, in particular, with the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
(created in 1985) and the Washington
State Department of Ecology.
The Puget Sound Estuary Program has
identified three pragmatic: management
objectives for the purpose of focusing its
resources:
• Prompt action to address presently
known, acute environmental problems
associated with chemical contamination
in the sound.
• A decision base that incorporates
scientific: data on estuarine processes,
current environmental conditions, and
spatial and temporal changes in those
conditions.
• A coordinated approach to estuarine
management for the effective and timely
resolution of environmental problems.
The first objective (prompt action on
known environmental problems) has
come to fruition in the I'rban Hay
Toxics Control Program, which
currently involves "action programs" in
three urban, or industrialized, bays of
Puget Sound: Elliott Hay,
Commencement Bay. and Everett
Harbor.
For example, in Elliott Bay, an
interim pollution source control plan
has been developed by EPA and the
Washington Department of Ecology with
assistance from an interagency technical
work group
-------
office in Atlanta. Ceorgia, and the North
Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development. Since its inception in
1986, the Albemarle-Pamlico
management coalition has made
outreach to the public one of its top
priorities. This has included a number
of public education initiatives, designed
to bring home the point that successful
management of estuarine resources in
the Albemarle-Parnlico system will
depend on the active cooperation of
citizens and local governments. A
public meeting held in February of this
year succeeded in drawing
internationally known speakers and
over (300 participants to define the
problems in the sound and the role of
the public iu resolving them.
The management coalition of the
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study has
adopted two pragmatic principles to
direct its work:
• The environmental problems of the
Albemarle-Pamlico system result
directly and indirectly from human
activities.
• Estuarine management initiatives
should be focused on management
problems that are likely to be solved.
Current work in Albemarle-Pamlico is
centered around 10 conflicting uses of
this estuary system. Six of these uses
directly or indirectly affect the ecology
of Albemarle-Pamlico: waste disposal,
agriculture, forestry, residential and
commercial development, mining, and
national defense. Four ot these uses are
primarily affected by the health of the
estuary system: commercial fishing.
wildlife, natural resources, and
tourism and recreation. All work
planned for Albemarle-Parnlico is
directed toward management objectives
that are specifically action-oriented. A
draft five-year workplan tor the
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study has
recently been completed.
An egret. EPA's National Estuary
Program recognizes the value to the
nation of the estuarine environment.
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta
The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Project is managed
through EPA's Region 9 office in San
Francisco, California. In convening a
management coalition for the bay/delta
project, the Region has involved the
state of California, local government,
and other federal agencies. The Region
has also brought together representatives
of diverse user groups that have strong
and often conflicting interests in
relation to the bay'delta system. The
user groups encompass the interests of
the urban communities of San Francisco
Bay as well as the agricultural
communities of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta region.
Trends in the bay/delta system
include increasing diversion of water
flow for municipal, industrial, and
agricultural uses—so that nearly 65
percent of the system's freshwater
inflow is now diverted before it reaches
San Francisco Bay—and a progressive
deterioration in the bay's water quality
since the early 1900s. Both agricultural
drainage and urban runoff contribute to
pollution in the bay/delta system.
Industrial and municipal wastes
currently enter San Francisco Bay from
over 100 locations. The effects of these
pollutants on the estuary's living
resources are just beginning to be
understood.
During initial planning stages for the
bay/delta project, there has been a
strong emphasis on consensus-building.
This consensus process has enabled the
bay/delta management coalition to agree
on four estuarine management issues for
priority consideration:
• Land uses that affect the resources of
the estuary, including wetlands.
• Waterway and channel modification,
dredging, and levees.
• Existing point and non-point sources
of pollutant loading into the estuary
system.
• Freshwater inflow and salinity.
The particular issue of freshwater
inflow and salinity will be addressed by
the California State Water Resources
Control Board through an existing
Bay-Delta Hearing System. The objective
of this process will be to achieve
revised standards to protect beneficial
uses of the estuary system. The San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta Project is currently developing an
information management system for
technical information that will be
needed during the hearing process. This
is a vital first step in integrating the
bay/delta project into state and local
government in California. ._.
fSoscin is in EPA's Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection. Flagstaff is u'rifing
for the Journal on detail from the
Agency's Office, of Pesticide Programs.]
20
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Looking Back from the Future
by John D. Costlow
Levi was uncomfortable, and it wasn't
just his 65 plus years. Maybe it was
the strong breeze with its hints of full.
He had lived on the abundance from the
shores and marshes of the sound for his
entire life, and in the good old days,
such a breeze would have been called a
"mullet blow." Hut those days wore long
gone. True, mullets or other sport tish
would occasionally break the surface of
the waves, but it had been years since;
there were enough to justify taking out
the boats or even repairing the fishing
nets.
Other riches of the sound, including
shrimp, scallops, and crabs, had
disappeared, too. The decline had been
so gradual, though, that Levi couldn't
fix any particular time or cause. It
would have been easy to blame the
same old scapegoats—industry,
corporate farms, sewage treatment
plants, and, of course, the state and
federal bureaucracies—but in reality,
just about everyone was at fault.
He remembered how his neighbors
had reacted to the passage of the Coastal
Area Management Act. The public
meeting explaining the regulations had
almost degenerated into a riot; some
folks even seemed convinced that the
rules were a communist plot to keep
those who owned the land from doing
what they wanted with it. Lots of shore
residents could trace their ownership
back to land grants from King George I;
how could the bureaucrats from the
capital assume they knew better than
the locals? Why should they have to get
a permit to dredge or fill the marshes?
There were thousands of acres of salt
marshes, and losing a few acres here or
there wouldn't make any difference.
It was the same when the developers
came in. He remembered the discussion
with his brother Billy over the sale of a
sizable stretch of waterfront property.
The offer seemed reasonable, and they
had been assured that a few
condominiums wouldn't hurt the local
fishing; they had been promised that the
shellfish beds wouldn't be affected,
either. But the sewage treatment
facilities built for the condos turned out
to be inadequate. Under strong pressure
from developers, the legislature passed a
special act to relax the water-quality
standards, allowing something called
"fecal coliform bacteria" to enter the
sound untreated. The result was that the
July/August 1987
21
-------
area was permanently closed to
shellfishing for miles around.
For a while, as part of a national
estuarine study, a few local citizens,
scientists, and politicians had actually
tried to develop a long-range
management plan. The enthusiasm was
short-lived, though, and as far as Levi
was concerned, the whole thing was just
one of those expensive studies that
never led to anything but talk and more
studies.
Levi had to admit, however, that some
of the problems came from the old-time
commercial fishermen who couldn't
seem to bury past squabbles and stick
together. More than once, he had been
involved in arguments with his neighors
over clam sites, and of course, everyone
remembered the local "shrimp wars,"
complete with shooting sprees.
As for fishing, Levi's other brother
still maintained that the shrimp trawlers
had destroyed most of the young fish
with their endless sweeps. With
hindsight, Levi admitted that they
probably should have supported the
efforts of the Marine Fisheries
Commission to start a limited entry
program. Back then, though, the idea
that he and his family could somehow
be excluded from fishing in their
"traditional" waters was just something
he couldn't go along with.
Levi sighed as he tried to catch a
glimpse of one of the few mallard ducks
he had seen this fall. When his son was
small, there had been thousands at a
time in the marshes, feeding on eel
grass and the organisms that the grass
sheltered. Even that was gone now. In
the face of public opposition, the
Commission had given up trying to
prohibit the use of clamming devices
that chewed up the eel grass, and once
the grassbeds were destroyed, all the
birds and sea animals it supported
went, too.
In fact, the whole estuary had begun
to deteriorate badly with the loss of the
marshes and their root systems. Despite
this, the commercial shippers and
recreational boaters had successfully
pressed for regular dredging to maintain
the ship channels. In the old days,
dredge spoil could not have been
dumped on prime oyster beds, but the
Some people claimed there
was no difference between
real crab cakes and those
made of processed fish and
flavorings.
few left were dwindling so rapidly from
the smothering effects of the dredging
that it hardly seemed worth worrying
about them. The clams were still there,
of course, but they were so tainted from
the oil spill of a few years ago that they
could not be sold.
Some of Levi's neighbors, on the other
hand, blamed the oyster losses on the
large mining operation up the creek. No
one could understand why the mine
was allowed to discharge millions of
gallons of fresh water every day,
especially when it was being rationed
for residential and commercial users.
Others argued that agricultural runoff
and pesticides were responsible for the
shellfish decline.
If he really wanted to blame someone,
Levi figured that the recreational boat
users and the tourists were as
responsible as anyone. He smiled as he
remembered the face of the so-called
"captain" who had run into a net stake
left in the water after the regular fishing
season. The man could easily have
repaired the hole, Levi was sure, but he
had political connections and managed
to get a bill passed that banned the use
of nets and stakes in any of the state's
estuarine waters. By that time, it didn't
matter so much anyway. Most of Levi's
friends and neighbors had already given
up trying to replace nets damaged by
fleets of overpowered, badly piloted
boats.
The hurricane of "07" had settled a
few scores, though; just as one of the
geologists at the university had
predicted, many of the summer
residences and condos had washed into
the sound with the first major storm.
Still, lobbyists for just about everybody
with money had inspired new
regulations to allow the area to be built
up again. Reflecting that it was now
October and a good month for
hurricanes, Levi almost wished that
Mother Nature would conjure up
another storm to teach this new bunch a
lesson they wouldn't forget.
The screen door slammed and his
grandson emerged with that expression
on his face that could mean only one
thing: he wanted to hear stories of the
"old days" when the sound had
produced bountiful harvests and a
distinct way of life. He wondered if he
should take his grandson out to lunch,
maybe even try some surimi. Some
people claimed there was no difference
between real crab cakes and those made
of processed fish and flavorings. Levi
knew better, but he also knew there
were no crabs left. After lunch, perhaps
he would take his grandson over to the
Maritime Museum. The plastic models
of fish and other sea life as well as the
models and photos of old fishing gear
were all that was left of the good old
days.a
(Costlow is Professor and Director of the
Duke University Marine Laboratory in
Beaufort, North Carolina.)
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Estuary Reports
Narragansett Bay
by Trudy Coxe
One hundred and twenty years ago, a
journalist from the Chicago Tribune
who had visited Rhode Island wrote
in his newspaper:
Rhode Island—land and water
combined—is not quite so large as
Cook County, and contains little
more than one half the population,
yet without consultation with any
person, I can name 15 summer
resorts within its boundaries, and
nearly all of them on the shores of
Narragansett Bay. At this moment.
these 15 places are lodging and
feeding nearly 5,000 summer
guests. This is simply owing to the
fact that this bay, which swallows
nearly half the state, is, probably,
take it all in all, the most
magnificent sheet of water in (lie
western world.
Now, more than a century later. Rhode
Islanders would still agree with that
Windy City newsman.
Narragansett Bay is Rhode; Island's
greatest natural resource. One of the
The biggest problem
now facing Narragansett Bay
is an ongoing boom in
development.
most fertile estuaries in the world, the
bay literally teems with marine life: it is
a feeding ground for schools of fighting
bluefish and striped bass during the
summer, the source of one quarter of the
shellfish eaten each year in the United
States, and a home for several months
each fall to tropical fish swept north by
the Gulf Stream.
Narragansett Bay is also the state's
most valuable economic: asset. The
tourist industry alone is valued at Si
billion annually, while the fishing and
marine trades industries also benefit to
the tune of millions of dollars each year.
Yet Narragansett Bay is under attack
from a variety of pollution sources.
Although 10 Rhode Island and
Massachusetts sewage treatment plants
that affect the bay are now in
compliance with their discharge permits
year-round, another 14 are still allowing
excess sewage to enter tin; hay and its
tributaries. In addition, with
Providence, the state's capital, serving
as one of the nation's chief jewelry
manufacturing centers, the discharge of
heavy metals and toxic chemicals has
also weighed heavily upon the hay. As a
result, tens of thousands of acres of
prime shellfishing beds are off-limits to
the 3,200 quahoggers who depend on tin-
clams for their livelihoods. Other areas
along the coastline are closed
permanently to shellfishing as a direct
result of failed septic systems, a
consequence of ill-considered
development.
In fact, the biggest problem now
facing Narragansett Bay is an ongoing
boom in development that has recently
hit Rhode Island, exacerbating our
pollution problems. State planners
estimate that one quarter more of the
state will he developed within the next
10 years. They also estimate that at tin:
current rate of growth, farmland will no
longer exist in Rhode Island by the year
2000.
This recent development boom has
outstripped the state's environmental
defenses. The Pawtuxet River, one of
the bay's largest tributaries and the
state's dirtiest river, suffers from runoff
pollution from two large shopping
On the Warren River at Barrington, R.I.
The river is a tributary of Narragansett
Bay.
malls. In fact, the mall's parking lots
contribute greater quantities of toxic
pollutants to the river than do the three
sewage plants and one pharmaceutical
company that also discharge into tin1
Pawtuxet.
On the water-quality front, the state
lags behind its New Kngland
counterparts in per capita expenditure
for water quality protection. I'ntil a S3f>
million Rhode Island Clean Water Act
bond was passed in November HUili. the
budget of "Save the Bay." the state's bay
advocacy organisation, was larger (ban
the state's water resources division
budget—the first linn uf defense i'm1 the
bay.
In terms of coastal protection, the
Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Council (CRMC) remains
understaffed and nearly powerless in its
ability to stop developers from ravaging
the coastline. The state's ability to deal
with the current building boom is
further hampered by statewide zoning
July/August 1987
-------
Estuary Reports
laws that date back to 1921, and the
lack of a long-range plan for land use.
However, with growing public
support, Rhode Island is beginning to
fend off environmental threats, As just
one indication of public; commitment,
"Save the Bay" continues to grow in
membership and political strength.
Labeled by the Providence journal as
the "state's conscience," our
organization now boasts a roll of 10,000
family members.
We are beginning to see some
measurable results. The state's sewage
treatment plants are becoming much
more efficient at treating wastewater,
and local communities have voted to
augment federal and state funds for
plant improvements with local bonds.
"Save the Bay's" annual performance
review of the facilities, titled "The
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," has
helped focus public attention on the
issue with positive results. But vigilance
by regulatory agencies will still be
necessary to keep the recent record of
improvements moving forward.
Inroads have also been made in
dealing with toxic discharges. "Save the
Bay" recently joined with the
Boston-based Conservation Law
Foundation to file a citizens' suit
against two of the worst polluters in the
Providence metropolitan region.
Government and environmentalists are
now working hand in hand to bring
home the message that anyone not
obeying the requirements of the Clean
Water Act will have to pay the price.
The issue of proper land use is also
being tackled head-on at national and
local levels. Speaking in January at
"Save the Bay's" second statewide land
use conference, U.S. Senator John
Chafee revealed his plans to propose a
$1 billion per year federal land transfer
fee program, which would provide
funds to help preserve open space.
Meanwhile, "Save the Bay" launched a
campaign to put a 365 million "open
space preservation" bond issue before
Rhode Island voters in November 1987.
If this bond is passed, it will undertake
the purchase and preservation of critical
lands in urban and rural communities.
Narragansett Bay continues to be a big
cause in a small state, and a great deal
of work is still needed to protect the
bay. But with growing public concern
and increased activity from the
grassroots to the halls of government,
there is a cautious optimism about the
future of "the most magnificent sheet of
water in the western world." a
(Coxe is Executive Director of Save (lit;
Bay. Inc.)
Puget Sound
by Katherine Fletcher and
Annette Frahm
Puget Sound. This beautiful estuary in
the far Northwest corner of the
United States is home to orca whales
and seals, salmon and steelhead, great
blue herons—and almost three million
peoplr. While it is well loved by the
people of Washington. Puget Sound has
suffered from the activities of its human
residents.
For example, "toxic: hot spots" have
been found in the sound's urban bays.
Important commercial shellfish harvest
areas have been closed because of
bacterial pollution. Over half of the
sound's original wetlands have been
filled, drained, or developed.
Responding to growing public:
concern about the sound's health, the
Washington State Legislature created the
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority in
1985. The seven members of the
Authority, appointed by Governor Booth
Gardner in July 1985, were charged with
developing a comprehensive plan for
Puget Sound water quality and
overseeing its implementation. The
initial plan was to be adopted by
January 1, 1987, followed by revised
plans in 1989 and 1991.
The task was daunting. More than 450
governmental bodies are responsible for
some aspect of the sound's water
quality. About 400 industries and
sewage treatment plants have permits to
discharge into Puget Sound. And the
routine activities of nearly three million
people contribute to pollution through
contamination in surface runoff, or
"non-point" source pollution.
During its first 18 months of
existence, the new Water Quality
Authority held dozens of public:
meetings to listen to people's concerns
and ideas. The Authority also issued
"Toxic hot spots" have been
found in the sound's urban
bays.
nine major background reports on Puget
Sound water quality issues, a "State of
the Sound" report, and draft and final
management plans.
The Authority reached several
conclusions about the state; of Puget
Sound:
• Contrary to previous assumptions,
water and pollutants recirculate within
the sound and are nut easily flushed to
the ocean.
• Most toxic: contaminants bind to
particles and settle out in the bottom of
the sound. This is especially serious in
urban bays, where high levels of
toxicants are associated with diseases in
bottom fish.
• Toxicants pose the greatest long-term
threat to the sound, yet none of the
known sources of toxicants is
adequately controlled.
• Pathogens pose a threat to human
health through shellfish consumption or
swimming in water contaminated with
pathogens. None of the sources of
pathogens is adequately controlled.
• The population of the Puget Sound
basin is expected to increase by 700,000
to one million people by the; year 2000,
dramatically increasing the potential for
pollution.
• Even though regulations have slowed
the rate of loss of the sound's wetlands,
some shoreline wetlands are still being
lost, and many inland wetlands are not
protected by any regulations.
• Existing water quality programs are
inadequately funded to accomplish
legislated goals.
,'4
EPA JOURNAL
-------
YOU lu'.t i>
Of lltt {A \ Nr.H
M ft
II I I fNft i-
/
1 05 tff/vu
MONDAY
These findings shaped the first Puget
Sound Water Quality Management Flan,
which was unanimously adopted by the
Authority in December 1986. Some
major elements of the plan include:
• Better control of toxic pollutants
through more stringent discharge
permits and increased inspection and
enforcement.
• Local government actions to control
nonpoint source pollution from farms,
failing septic systems, and other
sources. Planning will focus on
selecting priority watersheds and
controlling all sources of pollution
within these watersheds.
• Efforts to reopen closed shellfish beds
and protect existing beds from bacterial
pollution from nonpoint sources.
• Improved control of the quality and
quantity of stormwater in the sound's
cities and areas that are becoming
urbanized.
A sign of citizen concern about
environmental problems in Puget Sound.
• Acquisition of high priority wetlands
and more effective regulation to protect
other wetlands.
• Support for education on tlu: sound
and public involvement in water quality
policy-making.
The overall plan is based on the
concept of prevention and the premise
that it is cheaper to prevent pollution
now than to clean it up after the sound
is more severely damaged. Under state
law, state and local agencies must abide
by the plan.
In its first biennium, the Authority
was funded at $2.7 million to develop
the Puget Sound plan. Federal, state.
and local governments will require
about $120 million to carry out the plan
during fiscal years 1987-1992, excluding
the costs of upgrading primary sewage
treatment plants and other ongoing
water quality-related costs.
One source of funding is an increased
tax on tobacco products. The tax was
passed by the state legislature in 1986 to
provide funds for water quality
programs statewide and generates $40
million per year. However, an
additional source of revenue, a
proposed increase in permit fees for
dischargers, failed to pass the 1987
legislature. The Authority also proposed
bills related to septic systems and to
criminal penalties that were considered
but not passed. The legislature will
undoubtedly take up the failed bills and
funding issues in future sessions.
Meanwhile, some parts of tho plan will
be delayed to reflect the legislature's
actions.
The Authority is currently working
with federal, state, and local
governments to forge partnerships to
carry out the Puget Sound plan. Tho
Authority is also working with EPA to
coordinate Washington State's initiative
in Puget Sound with the National
Estuary Program. In addition, EPA's
assistance will be crucial in carrying out
activities ranging from control of
pollution from military bases to putting
in place a sound-wide water quality
monitoring program.
Since the Authority is scheduled to
exist only until 1991, it is important to
institutionalize what needs to be done
to protect Puget Sound. Management of
the sound must be an ongoing task if we
are to ensure the health and vitality of
Puget Sound for future generations. ,
(Fletcher is Chtiir of the Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority.
Frahm is Publications
for the Authority.)
July/August 1987
25
-------
Estuary Reports
Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds
by David W. Owens
A scene in Aibemarle-Pamlico Sounds.
Dominating eastern North Carolina,
tin- Allxnnarle iiiul Pamlico Sounds
comprise a huge complex of shallow
sounds, rivers, mid wetlands. With a
total water area that exceeds 2,900
square miles (an area larger than the
state of Delaware), Albemarle-Pamlico is
tht: second largest estuary system in the
United States.'
The system supports many extremely
rich and diverse uses. II produces over
90 percent of the state's fishing catch. It
is also a major nursery area for fish
caught along the entire Atlantic coast.
Shellfishing, recreational boating.
waterfowl hunting, and tourism in the
Albemarle-Pamlico area are critical to
traditional lite styles and a growing
coastal economy, and all depend on a
chum and healthy estuary.
Unlike many other major estuarine
systems in the United States, the
Albemarle-Pamlico area remains largely
rural. Although some of its major rivers
drain through the more populous
Piedmont region of the state, most of the
area's immediate watershed is farmland,
forest, and freshwater wetlands
interspersed with small towns and
resort development along the Outer
Banks.
While the area does not have graphic
environmental problems such as the
toxic; wastes in Boston Harbor or Puget
Sound, there are disturbing trends. Fish
landings are declining, particularly for
EPA JOURNAL
-------
anadromous fish like striped bass, shad,
and river herring. Fish diseases are far
more common than in the past. For
example, disease affected 90 percent of
the menhaden caught in the Pamlico
River last year. Algae blooms have
become regular events in some of the
area's rivers. Bacterial pollution is
causing the closure of important
shellfish beds. Alterations in drainage
patterns are reducing salinity levels in
vital nursery areas. Submerged grass
beds that are critical for many fisheries
are disappearing. These are the early
symptoms of an estuarine system in
trouble. These symptoms tell us that
without action now to improve how we
manage the use of the Albemarle-
Pamlico system, we may soon
do irreparable harm to one of the
country's most important natural
resources.
Clearly what is needed is a
systematically integrated
approach to the area as a
complete physical system and
all its uses.
Concern about these problems is not
new. Over the past 20 years, there have
been significant efforts to protect these
resources. Dredge and fill laws and a
coastal management program have
virtually halted the loss of salt marshes
and alteration of shallow bottom
habitats. The state has adopted permit
standards for all development along the
water's edge, and the area's local
governments are required to prepare
land use plans that meet state standards.
Controls placed on waste discharges, the
construction of municipal waste
treatment plants, and tighter regulation
of septic tanks have improved the
quality of much of the region's water. In
addition, a new $6 million-per-year
program is underway to promote
agricultural practices designed to reduce
runoff water pollution.
Despite these very substantial efforts,
the problems remain. Our combined
efforts, although extensive and well
intentioned, may only be slowing the
rate of decline—giving us a few more
years of productivity and enjoyment
before the natural health of the
Albemarle-Pamlico estuary gives out.
What must be done to halt this
decline and coming crisis? Simply
doing more of the same—more research,
planning, regulation, and
enforcement—will only buy a little
more time.
Clearly what is needed is a
systematically integrated approach to
the area as a complete physical system
and all its uses. Otherwise, we cannot
even begin to answer such basic
management questions as whether we
would be better off spending our next
$1,000,000 of management funds on
improving municipal wastewater
treatment plants, increasing enforcement
of regulation of fishing practices, or
reducing runoff from farmlands. If we
make such management choices as
isolated, ad hoc decisions, our success
at long-term resource management will
depend more on luck than rational
thought and action.
Now that there is an umbrella
management structure for
Albemarle-Pamlico being developed
under the National Estuary Program,
several key factors will be critical to our
success in designing and implementing
a systematic estuarine management
program. In this difficult undertaking,
failure to consider these factors could
result in millions of dollars expended in
a futile effort that only adds to the
considerable litter of past failed
initiatives and noble experiments at
basin-wide water quality management.
The first basic need is for better
understanding of the sounds' resources,
their uses, and the environmental
impacts of these uses. This includes the
complex scientific questions of what is
happening, why, and how it is all
related. But the question of civic
understanding is also critical—how
much the public understands these
uses, their interrelationships, and the
implications of management options.
Completing scientific studies will not,
in itself, lead to any better management,
as there are many fine studies gathering
dust on bookshelves. Nor will increased
public awareness of existing problems
be successful in the absence of adequate
technical information, since loud public
outcries to do something, anything,
without any notion of what actually
needs to be done are rarely fruitful.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop
technical knowledge in concert with
public understanding if the
Albemarle-Pamlico program is to be
successful.
Second, we need to recognize and use
existing management tools. Just as the
estuarine area is a complex, interrelated
physical web, so also is its existing
management context. Numerous federal,
state, and local agencies are already at
work with plans, studies, regulations,
investments, and acquisitions. It is no
more practical to build a new
management system and institutions
from scratch than it would be to
completely rebuild the estuary's
physical environment. This is not to say
that new tools will not be helpful or
that existing tools do not need
considerable refinement. But using the
tools we have, making them work to
maximum effect, and coordinating them
better should be the primary focus of
this program, given the physical,
cultural, and political realities in the
Albemarle-Pamlico area. A five-year
work plan has now been drafted for the
Albemarle-Pamlico program, which
attempts to address these realities.
A final need is a commitment to
action. We cannot afford to wait three to
five years before moving to
"implementation." Some of our
information needs are complex and will
require years of study and analysis.
However, there are immediate
management needs, and there are
strategic questions that can be answered
with six months of study; we must act
swiftly in these areas. We also can move
now to implement and evaluate
previously devised solutions. It is
critical to establish the credibility of
this effort as a management
improvement program, as distinguished
from just another study or research
effort. It is critical to achieve some
immediate near-term results. The
long-run success of the program must
begin with a series of smaller successes.
It is the charge of the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study to
achieve, through a comprehensive
conservation plan, an effective
management improvement program for
the sounds. This will be done in part
through the provision of money, making
the needed research and action possible.
Part will be done through initiatives to
improve public awareness of the
management needs. But the greatest
contribution, and the greatest challenge,
will be to accomplish a fully integrated
system for our various management
initiatives. For it is only by looking at
the entire Albemarle-Pamlico system
and all its uses as an integrated whole
that we will be able to protect
its future. D
(Owens is the Director of the Division of
Coastal Management in the North
Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community
Development.)
July/Augusi 1987
27
-------
Estuary Reports
Chesapeake Bay
by William M. Eichbaum
Unloading oysters in Kent Narrows,
Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the
largest and most bountiful estuaries
in North America. Its 4,400 square
miles include more than 50 rivers and a
shoreline of over 4,000 miles in
Maryland alone. Its fisheries provide 95
percent of the nation's blue crabs and
over 50 percent of its oysters.
Over 13 million people live in the
Chesapeake watershed, and that number
is growing every day. Like many
estuaries in urbanized areas of North
America, the Chesapeake must
assimilate huge pollutant loads from
both point and non-point sources daily
while serving innumerable commercial,
recreational, and aesthetic uses.
Concerns about the health of the Bay
began to translate into action in the late
1970s, when a comprehensive six-year
study of the Chesapeake was undertaken
by EPA. The Agency's findings, released
in 1983, identified significant areas of
decline, including depleted fisheries
and seagrasses, excess phosphorus and
nitrogen levels, and inadequate oxygen
for healthy aquatic life. Maryland
leaders responded vigorously to the
challenge presented by EPA's findings,
which sparked a regional cooperative
effort that has been historic in its
dimensions.
In December 1983, the Chesapeake
Bay Conference brought together leaders
from every level of government
throughout the region, and the resulting
agreement began a new era of federal
and interstate cooperation to "Save the
Bay." Cooperative efforts continue
among EPA and the member
states—Maryland. Virginia, and
Pennsylvania, as well as the District of
Columbia—in the ongoing Chesapeake
Bay Program.
Maryland responded to the
Chesapeake challenge by creating a
sweeping package of initiatives in 1984
that both enhanced its existing Bay
protection programs and created new
ones. In addition, we organized
environmental education programs and
set up a comprehensive monitoring and
research program encompassing the
Bay's main stem, tributaries, and
fall-line.
Our point source pollution control
efforts have been remarkably successful
due chiefly to upgrades at Maryland's
Concerns about the health of
the bay began to translate into
action in the late 1970s.
sewage treatment plants, a strong
enforcement posture in implementing
the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program,
and an effective industrial pretreatment
program requiring industries to
"pretreat" their wastewaters before
discharging them into municipal
systems. Our nonpoint source control
efforts are focused primarily on
storm-water management, sediment and
erosion control, and agricultural and
urban "best management practices."
Maryland's resource restoration efforts
have put priority on aquatic grasses and
"living resources," especially oysters
and striped bass. In addition to our
restoration efforts where harm has been
done, we have also taken a preventive
approach through land resource
protection initiatives focusing on
conservation easements, nontidal
wetlands, and forestry efforts.
The centerpiece of Maryland's land
resource protection efforts has been the
"Critical Area Program," designed to
protect water quality and wildlife
habitat in the Chesapeake by regulating
the uses of the 1,000 foot strip of land
around the Bay and its tidal marshes,
known as the "Critical Area." The
program represents a breakthrough in
state and local land-use partnership.
What lessons can we draw from our
participation in the Chesapeake Bay
effort that others might find useful?
• Build a broad-based, cooperative effort
from the outset, when you are just
beginning to define problems and
articulate possible solutions. Bring
together the full range of players,
including state legislators, local
officials, and citizen groups such as
farmers, businessmen, and developers.
Drive home the fact that problems of
estuary management are everyone's
responsibility. Hold seminars for these
groups, attend and contribute to their
meetings, and schedule private briefings
where you can communicate your
message. For this effort, find technical
people who can make the scientific
issues comprehensible to these groups.
• Determine what level of effort can be
sustained over the long haul. Build the
expectation of a long-term effort into
your program. Plan realistic, affordable
solutions, and then prepare for progress
to be slow and not readily apparent. In
the Chesapeake Program, our
watchword has been that centuries of
abuse to the Chesapeake cannot be
reversed in three years—or even 10 or
20.
• Take the time to create a strong
scientific basis for the management
actions you undertake. Collect, organize,
and analyze the existing data before
spending time and funds on new data
collection efforts. Missing this step runs
the risk of setting priorities too early
and wasting valuable resources. On the
other hand, don't allow scientific
uncertainties to be used as an excuse for
inaction. In Maryland, we have
undertaken a number of initiatives in
light of this balance, such as a
phosphorus ban in the Upper Bay and a
moratorium on the taking of striped
bass.
28
EPA JOURNAL
-------
v
• Concentrate your limited resources
where they can do the most good. For
example, the Chesapeake experience has
shown that tributaries—where the direct
stresses of pollution are concentrated
and where the key life stages of fisheries
take place—are where significant
research and management resources
need to be targeted. Avoid the
temptation to single mil a perceived
technical problem—such as toxics—too
early in the effort. Before defining your
technical problems, give pragmatic
consideration to intended uses and
expectations of users, and frame your
programs accordingly.
• Fiscal incentives and technical
assistance tor local governments and
special groups such a.s farmers are
crucial, not just from a technical
pollution control standpoint, but also
for generating momentum in public
education and involvement. Maryland's
stormwater management, industrial
pretreatment, and agricultural cost-share
programs have all been particularly
effective in this regard. By finding new
ways to "sell" pollution control, we
have helped tanners to see nutrient
management as good economics,
business to see that resource recovery
can be affordable and cost-effective,
and local governments to begin to
accept water quality as an important
target of their stormwater management
efforts.
These are some of the most important
lessons we have learned so far in our
effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Our successful beginning—and it is only
a beginning—steins from effectively
balancing the range of issues we face.
We built strong political momentum
while carefully defining problems and
planning programs. Even now, we,
constantly weigh our management
objectives against our ongoing scientific
and technical efforts. The true basis of
our success, however, is the
enormous—and growing—number of
peoplt) in the region who are willing to
work for the survival of the Chesapeake
Bay.
(Eichbuum is n sltiff member of (lie
Deportment of (lie: Knvironmenl of the
State of Maryland.]
July/August 1987
29
-------
An International Perspective
by Clifton Curtis
The Inland Sea of Japan.
uses and computing
users summarizes the problems
facing those charged with the
preservation and wise management c»i
the world's estuarine resources. The
interests of maritime commerce, coastal
fisheries, commercial coastal
development, recreation, and special
sanctuaries often appear too divergenl to
reconcile. The problems are further
complicated by multi-jurisdictional
governance of coastal resources—from
local to international levels.
To study these problems and
recommend workable .solutions, a
project called "Coastal Seas
Governance" is underway as a
cooperative effort of the Oceanic:
Society, the University of Maryland's
Center for Environmental and Estuarine
Studies. Washington College, and the
Chesapeake Publishing Corporation.
This three-year project is international
in scope and concerns the fate ot
estuarine systems in developing nations
as well as developed, industrialized
countries. Research conducted by
project participants has included visits
in the past year to seven countries and
four estuarine systems—the Chesapeake
Bay, Baltic Sea. North Sea. and Inland
Sea of Japan—to meet with senior
policy makers and leading coastal
scientists. This fall. we will release a
report presenting our preliminary
findings and recommendations. All of
us involved in the project hope that the
forthcoming report will stimulate
scientists, managers, and policy-makers
to better understand and govern the
world's "coastal seas" in the lace of
competing demands on estuarine
resources.
The ongoing decline in the
environmental health of estuaries, one
of humankind's most important
environmental assets, is indeed a
worldwide problem. Throughout the
world, estuaries are being forced to
assimilate growing amounts of pollution
from offshore activity; from onshore
industry, residences, and farms; and
from rapidly increasing populations in
coastal areas. These kinds of pressures
are not restricted to estuaries in
industrialized nations.
In much of the Third World.
overfishing threatens the major supply
In Japan, that pressure came
from fishermen who took dead
fish to government offices.
of protein for people. At the same time.
fish resources depend on healthy
estuaries. In Third World countries,
development centers on coastal harbors
and surrounding environments—placing
new demands on previously unstressed
coastal seas as they become waste
disposal and petroleum trans-shipment
sites, and cruise ship ports. As one
example, there are coastal areas in
Ghana where entire fisheries have been
lost mainly as a result of human waste
disposal. The plight of fish resources in
Ghana is typical of problems elsewhere
in West and Central Africa.
As marine scientists now recognize,
estuaries are complex ecological systems
that are significantly different from
ecologies in the open ocean. Compared
to ocean depths, the majority of
estuaries are shallow both the
Chesapeake and the Inland Sea, for
example, average less than 30 feet—and
the bottom has a tremendous influence
on the biological processes taking place
in the waters. Estuaries act as filters that
trap plant nutrients, toxic wastes,
pesticides, and other pollutants;
conserve them in bottom sediments; and
release them at a later time—often in
chemicallv altered states. In other
words, estuaries do not transport
pollutants rapidly to the open sea but
tend to retain and concentrate them. As
a result, living resources are exposed to
increasing levels of contamination.
But pollution isn't the only hazard.
Changes in the physical character of an
estuary can cause significant problems.
Shipping, more often than not, demands
that mud and sand be dredged to form
the deep channels required for large
vessels to maneuver—as in the approach
to the Netherlands Port of Rotterdam.
Such dredging destroys bottom habitat
needed for feeding and laying eggs.
Marshes are filled in to make way for
homes and factories—as in the case of
the Inland Sea of Japan, where less than
23 percent of the 6,000-plus kilometers
of coastline remains in its natural state.
Marshes and mangroves are also
converted to ponds for aquaculture.
again reducing the naturally functioning
ecosystem. Construction on high
surrounding land results in large
amounts of soil washing into the water.
Add natural catastrophes such as floods
and hurricanes to the scenario, ami it is
easy to understand the concern of many
communities for the health of ilieir local
estuaries,
The complex environment of estuaries
can be understood only by taking a
rnultidisciplinary approach, and the
regulatory problems that estuaries pose
will be solved only through
rnultidisciplinary solutions. Whenever
one listens to the diverse array of
experts discussing estuaries, this
message comes through loud and clear.
However, it is also clear that scientific
and technical considerations are not
being effective!)' translated into policy
decisions. This is partly an issue of
communication—or the lack
thereof—and it has been one of the
more disturbing findings that is
emerging from the Coastal Seas
Governance project.
30
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Many estuary managers are
challenged by the unknown
socio-economic: consequences of their
decisions. Unfortunately, these
decisions are typically made in a
crisis-response atmosphere without
adequate input from the "human"
sciences like economics, sociology, and
demography. This is often tin; case in
developing nations, where coastal
fisheries alone may account for
significant portions of their gross
national product. But there is also
compelling evidence that the human
sciences are not being given adequate
attention in the estuaries of developed
nations. If socio-economic issues are
not adequately addressed and
communicated—as is all too often tin:
case—managers are far more likely to he
faced with irreversible degradation of
estuarine assets.
Even when significant ecosystem
alterations occur in estuarine
systems—like the red tides that caused
large fish kills in the Inland Sea in the
early 1970s or the loss of submerged
aquatic vegetation in the
Chesapeake—corrective action is
unlikely unless there is substantial
pressure from individuals, user groups.
or the public for changes, In Japan, that
pressure came from fishermen who took
dead fish to government offices. In
Holland, it came from conservationists
determined to ensure that the last large
remaining nature preserve in their
country—the Wadden Sea—would not
be destroyed by yet another set of dikes
and landfills. But where there is no
concerted pressure on government to
address marine ecosystem degradation,
as is true in Poland, action in response
to the serious problem of municipal
waste discharge is not receiving the
attention it deserves.
Where estuaries link several nation
states, regional transnational entities
like the Helsinki Commission (for the
Baltic Sea) and the Oslo or Rhine
Commissions (for the North Sea) take on
particular importance. Despite the
lingering view that transnational bodies
typically reflect a "lowest common
denominator" ol agreement, this
skepticism is giving way to a growing
belief that these types of
decision-making bodies need to be; used
more rather than less. In part, this new
sense derives from successes achieved
under the United Nations Environment
Programme's "Regional Seas"
management structures, which now
involve over 120 countries in 11 regions
of the globe.
In addition, less formal mechanisms
are gaining prominence and hold
promise for the future. In the North Sea
region, for example, a series of informal
regional meetings occurred in 1984, and
a second round began late last year. To
begin with, environmental and other
citizen group leaders meet to articulate
their concerns for the North Sea.
Subsequently, there is a special
gathering of scientists, most of whom
work for governments of the nation
states in the region. Finally, high-level
ministers meet on both science and
policy issues to hammer out agreements
for future action. There have been few
tangible results so far, but these efforts
have received high marks for
substantially increasing the dialogue
among key participants in the N'orth Sea
decision-making process.
In the United States, and in other
developed and developing countries,
there is now a near consensus that
estuaries are facing serious
problems—problems that, with few
exceptions, an? getting worse rather than
better. We've reached the stage of
grappling with decisions on what
strategies can best protect these precious
resources, and of exercising the political
will to commit the resources (money,
time, and energy) to reverse their
decline. Other problems may seem more
immediate, but few are as pervasive in
their implications for the future quality
of life on our "blue planet."a
(Curtis is President o/the Oceanic
Society in Washington, DC,}
July/August 1987
31
-------
Wetlands:
A Growing
Concern
by David G. Davis
Kdilor's note: The following
-------
higher consumers like commercial and
recreational fisheries.
Wetlands also help to improve and
maintain water quality in adjacent water
bodies. In effect, wetlands serve as
natural treatment plants by improving
the quality of the waters that pass
through them. They remove nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus, thus
helping to prevent eutrophication or
overenrichment of natural waters, they
filter harmful chemicals such as
pesticides and heavy metals, and they
trap suspended sediments that produce
turbidity.
Moreover, wetlands have
socioeconomic values. They play an
important role in flood control by
absorbing peak flows and releasing
water slowly. Along the coast, they
buffer land from storm surges resulting
from hurricanes and tropical storms.
Wetlands vegetation can reduce
shoreline erosion by absorbing and
dissipating wave energy, binding the
soil, and encouraging the deposition of
suspended sediments. In addition, they
contribute $20 billion So $40 billion
annually to the nation's economy.
The new OWP will pursue a number
of opportunities for protecting our
wetland resources. The most important
regulatory mechanism is the dredge and
fill permit program implemented jointly
by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Other federal programs that
help to protect wetlands include:
permitting of effluent discharges into
wetlands under CWA Section 402;
withholding, under the "Swampbuster"
provision of the 1985 Farm Bill, various
agricultural benefits to farmers who
convert wetlands to cropland; and
federal land management and
acquisition programs.
Many state legislatures have enacted
wetland acquisition or protective
statutes that complement federal
programs. States also administer a
variety of land use and water quality
management programs that can serve to
protect wetlands. Local zoning and land
use planning, if done wisely, can also
be an important protection mechanism.
Also, private organizations, industry,
and landowners contribute in significant
ways through education, acquisition,
and wise resource management.
With the creation of OWP, EPA's
wetlands program will benefit from the
technical expertise, permitting strengths,
enforcement capabilities, and state
program development experience
existing in other Agency water
programs. Emphasis is being placed on
integrating EPA's wetland efforts into
the Agency's overall water resource
protection activities, such as
ground-water protection, estuaries and
near coastal waters, and non-point
source management. An integrated
"Clean Water Strategy" is being
emphasized by the Office of Water in its
implementation of the Water Quality
Act Amendments of 1987. For wetlands,
such integration can mean:
• Enhanced protection of wetlands due
to increased recognition of their
important role in improving water
quality.
• Enhanced protection of wetlands from
water pollution impacts other than
discharges of fill.
• Encouraging a reorientation of Clean
Water Act programs from a
discharge-site or discharge-type basis
toward a larger landscape basis such as
a watershed.
The new Office is expanding EPA's
wetland activities beyond the traditional
Clean Water Act Section 404 authorities
with six areas of emphasis:
• Vigorous implementation of the
Section 404 responsibilities.
• Assistance to states and localities to
strengthen existing wetland protection
programs or, where lacking, to create
new programs.
• Anticipatory approaches to wetlands
protection such as the Advanced
Identification process under Section
230.80 of the EPA Section 404(b)(l)
guidelines.
• Increased coordination with and
consistency of federal and state policies.
• Enhanced public awareness of
wetland values.
• Expanded scientific knowledge of
wetland functions.
The Section 404 regulatory
responsibilities will continue to serve
as the cornerstone for EPA's
wetland protection activities. In
particular, OWP will concentrate on
expediting related policy development
in such areas as mitigation,
enforcement, and delineation of wetland
boundaries.
At the same time, OWP will be
looking beyond the Section 404 program
to a variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory protective approaches
aimed at increasing public
understanding of and support for
wetlands protection and enhancing
complementary or related nonregulatory
programs. One approach io increased
public awareness is through a National
Wetlands Policy Forum, convened by
the Conservation Foundation at the
request of the EPA Administrator and
chaired by Governor Thomas Kean of
New jersey. The Forum is bringing
together leaders representing federal,
state, and local governments, industry
and agriculture, environmental and
public interest groups, and academia to
identify and analyze major issues
confronting wetlands protection and
make recommendations in the spring of
1988.
EPA also recognizes the importance of
the state and local government role in
wetlands protection. In the context of
the Section 404 program, OWP expects
final promulgation of the revised state
program regulations in the near future.
These regulations will streamline the
requirements for state assumption of the
Section 404 program. Also, in
conjunction with other EPA offices,
OWP will begin to work with the states
to strengthen the existing water quality
certification process under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act to protect
wetlands. Beyond Section 404, OWP
will strengthen communications and
technical assistance to state wetland
programs through a more active EPA
role as an information clearinghouse on
state initiatives.
Since wetlands ecology is a relatively
young science with major information
gaps, another area of emphasis will be
expanding scientific knowledge of
wetland systems. EPA's Office of
Research and Development, in
conjunction with OWP, is implementing
a Wetlands Research Plan, which was
adopted in 1986 and addresses three
key topics: the contribution of wetlands
to water quality; prediction of the
cumulative impacts of wetlands loss
and the relation of individual permit
decisions to that loss; and techniques
for creating and restoring wetlands.
However, with such actions as a
starting point, OWP is committed to
expanding its focus beyond the
regulatory program and towards state
and local regulatory efforts as well as
nonregulatory protection initiatives
involving the public and private sectors.
In the final analysis, better protection of
our vulnerable wetlands requires
employing a variety of approaches in a
coordinated, thoughtful, and effective
manner, o
(Davis is the Director of the Office of
Wetlands Protection in EPA's O//ice o/
Water.)
July/August 1987
33
-------
Taking the Initiative for the
Gulf of Mexico
by Hagan Thompson
Editor's note: The following article
reports on the status of efforts to protect
another coastaf water body, the Gulf of
Mexico.
It's easy to get saturated by statistics
when discussing the Gulf of Mexico.
The gulf generates some 2.5 billion
pounds of harvested fish and shellfish
annually. Most of the nation's offshore
gas comes from the area, and substantial
supplies remain in the Outer
Continental Shelf. Nearly half of the
United States' export and import
tonnage passes through gulf ports. And
one-sixth of the United States'
population now lives in states bordering
the gulf.
By any standard, the gulf is
remarkable for its fish, wildlife, energy
resources, ports, and shoreline. The
gulf's coastal estuaries, wetlands, and
barrier islands provide important habitat
for large populations of wildlife,
including waterfowl, shorebirds, and
colonies of nesting seabirds. In fact, it
provides habitat for most of the
migratory waterfowl traversing the
United States.
That's the good news. The bad news
is that the Gulf of Mexico is affected
adversely by the rest of the nation, with
a continent's nutrients, wastes, and soils
eventually washing down to it.
In short, the Gulf of Mexico provides
an impressive wealth of resources, but it
also presents great responsibilities. The
continued health and productivity of
the gulf should be a national priority.
During the past few decades, the gulf
has begun to show signs of deteriorating
environmental quality, with serious
deterioration already apparent in some
places.
Gulf estuaries, and the gulf itself, are
becoming enriched with plant nutrients
in the form of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Enrichment results from agricultural
runoff and waste contributions to the
vast drainage network feeding the gulf,
as well as direct discharges from coastal
population centers. Although local
nutrient discharges from wastewater
treatment plants and industrial sources
are significant throughout the gulf,
nearly 10 times more nutrients come
into the region from upstream sources.
Although the contribution of river-
borne nutrients is partly responsible for
the gulf's exceptionally high
productivity, excess nutrients cause
blooms of microscopic plant life that
then decompose and deplete dissolved
Today, serious conflicts are
emerging among users of the
gulf, its coastal environments,
and its resources.
oxygen levels. Marine organisms may be
killed if the dissolved oxygen supply is
inadequate to sustain them. Excess
nutrients may also cause blooms of
noxious phytoplankton that have toxic
effects on other marine organisms or
humans consuming tainted seafood.
Oxygen depletion is an increasing
problem for many gulf estuaries,
including Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay,
Pensacola Bay, Mobile Bay, Lake
Pontchartrain, Barataria Bay, Calcasieu
Lake, Galveston Bay, and Corpus Christi
Bay. In addition, nitrogen
concentrations in the Mississippi River
have apparently increased twofold,
probably as a result of fertilizer runoff
from the nation's farm belt.
The economy of the gulf coast states
depends heavily on agriculture and the
petroleum and chemical industries.
With these activities, however, comes
an increase in toxic materials that are
products or byproducts. Approximately
48 percent of the total wastewater
discharged to the gulf from point
sources is from petrochemical and
chemical facilities.
For example, the extraction and
transport of oil from coastal and
offshore regions of Louisiana and Texas
introduce large quantities of petroleum
hydrocarbons and other organic and
inorganic contaminants resulting from
drilling and production. The use of
pesticides and herbicides in agriculture
also produces lingering contamination.
Twenty-two million pounds of
pesticides were applied in gulf coastal
counties in 1978. A dramatic effect of
previous, careless release of large
quantities of pesticides was the local
extinction of the brown pelican—the
symbol of Louisiana—from the northern
gulf coast as a result of pesticide-related
reproductive failures.
There have been rapid losses of
marine habitats such as marshes,
mangroves, and seagrass beds. In
Louisiana, coastal wetlands are being
lost at a rate of approximately 50 square
miles per year as a result of canal
dredging and reduction of the sediment
supply to wetlands from the Mississippi
River. In Florida, which has 96 percent
of the nation's mangroves,
approximately 22,000 acres have been
lost to urban and residential
development, and more than 75,000
acres of submerged lands have been
filled with dredged materials in Texas,
Louisiana, and Florida.
The Gulf of Mexico produces more
than half of this country's oyster
harvest. With this bounty, though,
comes the risk of disease from eating
raw or poorly cooked shellfish.
Compounding the risk is the nature of
the gulf estuaries where oysters are
produced. Typically, these estuaries are
confined, shallow waters with small
tidal ranges and warm temperatures,
and the low flushing rates and warm
temperatures are ideal for incubating
human pathogens from sewage
treatment plants or malfunctioning
septic systems.
Not surprisingly, then, the incidence
of gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and cholera
contracted by consuming shellfish is
higher on the gulf coast than elsewhere
in the nation. Precautions taken to
minimize the risk of these diseases have
resulted in the permanent or conditional
closure of 1.6 million acres of shellfish
growing areas along the gulf coast.
For a long time, the Gulf of Mexico
was perceived as having boundless
resources. There was as much there for
the taking as one wanted. But increased
seafood consumption and the startling
statistics concerning the rate of loss of
natural habitats have finally combined
to produce the stark realization that
what the gulf can supply us is indeed
finite. Today, serious conflicts are
34
EPA JOURNAL
-------
emerging among users of the gulf, its
coastal environments, and its resources.
A notable example is the conflict over
fish and shellfish resources between
recreational and commercial fishermen.
These conflicts began to develop in
Texas and Florida a decade ago and
now have converged in Louisiana,
when; the philosophy of boundless
resources is perhaps most prevalent.
There, the conflict is over the
commercial harvest of redfish (or red
drum). The nationwide craze for Cajun
blackened redfish greatly increased the
demand for it while reducing its
availability to sport fishermen.
However, many other conflicts ;niiong
users of the gulf are apparent: between
land developers and conservationists;
between oil and gas extractors and
Processing the shrimp harvest in the Gulf
of Mexico.
fishermen; between those who use;
coastal waters to disperse wastes and
those downstream or lower in the
estuary who use those waters for other
purposes, such as drinking water or
oyster production.
Perhaps eclipsing all of these conflicts
is the one between the users within the
drainage system (two-thirds of the
contiguous United Stales) and (hose
who are directly affected In1 these
upstream contributions as they reach
the gulf estuarine system and the gulf
itself.
Clearly, the health and ecological
integrity of the Gulf of Mexico are
threatened. The time is now for
concerted action to stop the
deterioration of the gulf and its coastal
areas and, where possible, to restore
damaged environments.
Recognizing the need for immediate
action. Region 4 is developing an
institutional structure that will provide
a comprehensive, systematic approach
to assessing and implementing
regionally based solutions to these
problems. This effort is called "the Gulf
Initiative."
The overall approach embodied in the
Gulf Initiative is similar to those
conceived and successfully
implemented in other areas where
regional solutions were sought (i.e.. the
Great Lakes and Chesapeake May
programs). Although the geographic
scale of the Gulf Initiative is larger than
that of any single estuarine program, the
institutional scale (five participating
states and the Republic of Mexico) is
not so large that the problem of scale
becomes intractable.
Already there has been a considerable
amount of activity. An initial workshop
held in Gulf Shores, Alabama, last
summer attracted over fit)
people—representing federal, state, and
local organizations, industry and citizen
associations, and academia—to discuss
means of pursuing the initiative.
Obviously, a program of this size and
range goes far beyond the ability or the
mandate of KI'A. Since the initial
workshop, two Task Force meetings
have been held in Atlanta. Georgia, with
participation from state regulating
agencies, other fedora! regulators active
in the Gulf of Mexico, and other
interested parties. And, while there is a
predictable degree of skepticism,
virtually all agree thai the initiative is
an idea whose time has come. This
support comes from Kl'A's Region (i and
the gulf states of Louisiana and Texas;
and numerous resolutions of support
have been received from stain
legislators, governors, and oilier
important players necessary to bring
about a national appreciation of the
importance of the Gulf of Mexico as a
vital, valuable resource. The ultimate
goal of the Gulf Initiative is to provide a
comprehensive strategy fur managing
and protecting this valuable resource, c
[Thompson is Chief of (he Puhlic AHuirs
Brunch in h'PA's Hrginn -1 office.)
July/August 1987
35
-------
Update
A review of recent major KFA activities and developments in the pollution control program areas
HAZARDOUS WASTE WATER
AIR
Land Disposal Restricted
EPA completed the second
step in its ban on the land
disposal of untreated
hazardous waste. The Agency
is prohibiting the land
disposal of 12 classes of
hazardous wastes, including
liquid wastes containing
cyanides, metals,
poly chlorinated biphenyls
(PCBS), liquid and solid
wastes containing
halogenated organic
compounds (HOCs), and all
corrosive wastes.
]. Winston Porter, EPA's
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste; and Emergency
Response, stated. "This is the
second group of chemicals
prohibited in our five-year
program to end the land
disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes. Last year
we prohibited the land
disposal of untreated dioxin
and solvent wastes."
The prohibition on land
disposal for these wastes is
effective immediately.
However, as provided for
under KCKA, certain HOCs
are being given a two-year
extension due to lack of
incineration capacity. Liquid
PCB wastes are not being
granted an extension, as was
initially proposed, since most
PCB wastes an; already being
incinerated.
Carcinogens in Drinking
Water
The Agency has adopted
final national drinking-water
standards for eight volatile
synthetic organic chemicals,
most of which art? probable
human carcinogens.
This rule applies to both:
1) community water-supply
systems serving at least 15
connections used by
year-round residents or
regularly serving at least 25
year-around residents and 2)
to a new category of water
supplier: non-transient.
non-community systems.
These are suppliers that
regularly serve at least 25 of
the same persons over six
months per year, such as at
rural schools and factories
with their own water
supplies.
Volatile synthetic: organic
chemicals (VOCs) are
man-made carbon-based
chemicals that vaporize when
they come in contact with
air.
Clean Air Plans
EPA Administrator Lee \1.
Thomas announced proposals
to disapprove state clean air
plans for 14 metropolitan
areas that have not shown
they can achieve EPA's ozone
or carbon monoxide air
quality standards by the end
of this year or in the near
term. The Agency is also
proposing bans on
construction in those 14
areas.
The construction buns
would go into effect upon a
final determination by EPA
and would prevent the
approval of permits for
building major new sources
or modifications of existing
sources of volatile organic:
compounds (VOC) or carbon
monoxide (CO), depending
on the pollutant for which
the area is not attaining the
standard.
A few of the major
metropolitan areas affected
are: Chicago, IL; Cleveland,
OH; and Denver, CO. for
carbon monoxide; and
Atlanta, GA; and Dallas-Ft.
Worth, TX, for ozone.
Municipal Waste
Incinerators
EPA announced that it is
requiring controls on air
emissions from municipal
waste incinerators in light of
findings that show that
available technologies can
substantially reduce risks
associated with such
emissions.
The Agency reported that
existing facilities can emit
dioxins and other organic
chemicals, metals, and acid
gases, which, if left
unregulated, could pose
health and environmental
risks, based on lifetime
exposure.
The findings came in a
report to Congress on
municipal waste combustion
and in an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking for new
facilities under the federal
Clean Air Act.
Appointments
Paul R. Thomson, Jr. has
been appointed as EPA's first
Senior Enforcement Counsel
for managing criminal
enforcement in the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring (OECM).
Thomson brings to this
position a broad background
in criminal enforcement. He
has served as Genera!
Counsel for Natural
Resources for Pittston Coal
Company in Lebanon.
Virginia, and Assistant U.S.
Attorney, First Assistant U.S.
Attorney, and U.S. Attorney
for the Western District of
Virginia. He has also worked
in private practice with the
Clement and Wheatley firm
of Danville, Virginia.
Thomson received his
bachelor's degree iti history
from the Virginia Military
Institute and his LLH from
Washington and Lee
University.
36
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Back Cover: Aerial view of Chesapeake Bay. Photo by
Cameron A. Davidson, Folio, Inc.
An insider's look at life in an estuary.
-------
------- |