THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM:
FINAL GUIDANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF A
GOVERNOR'S NOMINATION
January 1990
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 3
¦ PURPOSE
¦ OVERVIEW
2. CONTENTS OF THE GOVERNOR'S NOMINATION 8
¦ INTRODUCTION 8
¦ NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE: NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 9
¦ THE NEED FOR A CONFERENCE 12
¦ LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS 16
¦ FORMAT 20
3. APPENDICES
¦ APPENDIX A: LIST OF MEASURES
¦ APPENDIX B: EPA NOAA AGREEMENT
¦ APPENDIX C: CHECKLIST
¦ APPENDIX D: AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES
4. LIST OF FIGURES
H FIG. 2-1 NEP PROBLEMS/CAUSES MATRIX
¦ FIG. 2-2 NEP BIOGEOGRAPHIC PROVINCES AND REPRESENTATION
2
-------
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 (the Act) formally establishes the
National Estuary Program (NEP) to promote long-term planning and management in nationally significant
estuaries threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. This guidance describes the NEP, explains how the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to implement Sections 317 and 320 of the Act, and defines the
information and format required for a Governor to nominate an estuary for the program. Special attention is
paid to the term "National Significance" and how Governors may develop nominations to address this factor.
Each nomination must answer the following key questions:
H Why should EPA and the state promote comprehensive planning for this estuary?
¦ What are state and local governments, and public and private institutions already doing for the
estuary?
H What goals and objectives are proposed for the estuary and how will they be met?
¦ Is there public and political will, as well as financial capability, to support implementation of
a comprehensive management plan?
Relationship to State Clean Water Strategies
This guidance is part of EPA's overall plan to implement the Act, and integrate all aspects of water quality
management into State Clean Water Strategies (SCWS). Where a state is developing a SCWS, individual
estuary programs should be integral parts of these strategies, and should follow the steps of the strategies;
assess environmental problems, target certain programs or geographic areas for action, and develop and
implement multi-year plans of action.
National Estuary Program Overview
Section 1 of this paper presents an overview of the NEP, including the history, philosophy, goals, and
objectives of the program. It also explains the requirements of the Act and the three-stage process being used
to evaluate estuaries for inclusion in the program.
Contents of a Governor's Nomination
Section 2 of this guidance defines the contents of a Governor's nomination and the factors EPA considers in
reviewing nominations. The NEP is optional and states are not required to participate; however, any state that
chooses to participate must follow inc formal and meet the requirements defined in Section 2. Governors may
nominate estuaries at any time.
OVERVIEW
Estuaries are unique waterways where fresh water drained from the land mixes with salt water from the
ocean. This blend of salt and fresh water makes estuaries biologically productive, sustaining certain finfish,
shell fish, marshes, underwater grasses, and microscopic marine life. Because of their economic, aesthetic, and
recreational value, estuaries are increasingly attracting both people and commerce to their shores. Aquatic life
is affected by these growing populations, which need and use water for services as well as for commercial and
industrial activity.
3
-------
The National Estuary Program is managed by EPA to identify nationally significant estuaries threatened by
pollution, development, or overuse, and to promote the preparation of comprehensive management plans to
ensure their ecological integrity. The program's goals are protection and improvement of water and sediment
quality, and enhancement of living resources. To achieve these goals, NEP conducts activities to help:
¦ Establish working partnerships among federal, state, and local governments;
¦ Transfer scientific and management experience and expertise to program participants;
I Provide technical assistance and outreach from program participants to other estuary managers;
H Increase public awareness of pollution problems and ensure public participation in consensus
building;
¦ Promote basin wide planning to control pollution and manage living resources; and
¦ Oversee the development and track the progress of the implementation of estuary pollution
control programs.
Roots of the National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program has roots in earlier efforts and legislation. The experiences of the Great Lakes
Program and the Chesapeake Bay Program provide useful models for the NEP. One lesson from both of these
programs is that their successes in controlling pollution evolved from a phased process: identifying pollution
problems, evaluating alternative solutions, and recommending and implementing cost-effective plans to
alleviate the problems. A second key point is that a collaborative problem-solving process that involves all
concerned parties in each phase of the program is crucial to the success of an estuary program. This
collaboration secures commitments to carry out recommended actions.
Through the experiences of the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs, EPA and program participants also
learned how to get results with limited money. The National Estuary Program achieves this by focusing on the
most significant problems, using existing and readily available data, emphasizing applied research, funding
specifically targeted basic research, and employing demonstrated management strategies. These techniques save
both time and money, and, just as importantly, lead to earlier protective and corrective actions.
In 1985, the Congress directed EPA to conduct programs in four estuaries: Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts;
Long Island Sound in New York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island; and Puget Sound in
Washington. In 1986, EPA added Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds in North Carolina and San Francisco Bay in
California to the Program.
These two estuaries were added because EPA believed it was appropriate to extend the program to new coastal
areas. The Agency also wanted to expand the types of pollution problems being addressed, while making
certain they were representative of pollution problems nationally. EPA was further persuaded by the obvious
commitments State and local governments and the public had already made to pollution abatement in these
estuaries.
EPA thus began to develop a national "demonstration program." Such a program is viewed as critical to
developing state and local expertise nation wide in estuary management. What is learned in any estuary should
be applicable to other estuaries with the same or similar problems. The transfer of lessons learned about
common problems between estuaries is essential because there will never be enough federal resources to address
all 192 estuaries in the country. If we are to reach the goals Congress established in the Act, EPA must focus
on a group of estuaries that cover a range of environmental problems and then through technical assistance and
outreach, share experiences with other state and local resource managers.
4
-------
Water Quality Act of 1987
Until 1987, program activities were supported by broad legislative authorities and funding appropriations.
There was no legislation aimed specifically at these fragile bodies of water.
Passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987 signaled recognition by Congress that additional measures were
needed to protect the health of the nation's estuaries. The new law amends and extends the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 and its 1977 amendments, known as the Clean Water Act. The Water Quality
Act formally establishes the National Estuary Program. Section 317 declares that the increase in coastal
population, demands for development, and other direct and indirect uses of the estuaries threaten these unique
bodies of water. The law further states that it is in the national interest to maintain the ecological integrity of
the nation's estuaries through long-term planning and management.
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 provides that "the Governor of any State may nominate to the
Administrator an estuary lying in whole or in part within the State as an estuary of national significance and
request a management conference to develop a comprehensive management plan for the estuary."
Once an estuary has been nominated and selected for inclusion in NEP, the Administrator convenes a
Management Conference to oversee activities. The WQA defines seven purposes for the Management
Conference:
1. Assess the trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary.
2. Identify the causes of environmental problems.
3. Evaluate relationships between pollutant loads and environmental effects.
4. Develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
5. Develop plans with states and other agencies to coordinate implementation of the CCMP.
6. Monitor the effectiveness of actions.
7. Review federal financial assistance programs and development projects for consistency with the
CCMP.
The WQA acknowledges the importance of collaboration by requiring that a Management Conference consist
of Federal, State, and interstate agencies having jurisdiction over the estuary, as well as interested academic
institutions, industries, and citizen groups. EPA may act as the lead agency or serve as a cooperating or
sponsoring agency for each program. EPA's role is primarily to facilitate and provide scientific and
management expertise. The Conference may involve other federal agencies, such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Corps of Engineers (COE), the Soil Conservation Service (SCS),
and the Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS). Approaches for establishing an organizational framework to
coordinate the efforts of program participants are discussed in the Estuary Program Primer (the Primer).
The Management Conference performs an objective, technical assessment of the state of the estuary, including
an evaluation of existing management programs designed to protect the estuary. This phase, called
characterization, is the basis for identifying and selecting the problems to be addressed in the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
A CCMP summarizes the estuary's problems and indicates which of them will be addressed. Through a
collaborative process, the Management Conference establishes program goals and objectives, determining
desirable and allowable uses for the estuary and its various segments. These goals may range from maintaining
current conditions, or restoring the estuary to a past condition, to restoring or maintaining pristine quality.
Action plans describing specific pollution control and resource management strategies, designed to meet each
objective, are the core of the CCMP. After carefully evaluating the strategies, the conferees select those
strategies that will produce the greatest environmental benefit—at the least cost and in the most timely
manner—for action.
5
-------
The CCMP, which must be approved by the Agency and the Governor, should cover three management areas:
I Water and sediment quality management; pollution abatement and control. Action plans focus
on point and nonpoint sources.
I Living resources management, including specially protected areas. Action plans focus on
protection and restoration.
I Land use and water resources management. Action plans may include conservation areas as well
as special protective legislation and initiatives.
The final phase consists of the implementation of the CCMP. Strong public support and subsequent political
commitments are required to accomplish the actions agreed upon in the CCMP. Information on
implementation of the CCMP, and the required elements of the CCMP, including the method for developing
action plans to address specific priority problems, appear in the Primer.
Priority Consideration
The Act directs the Administrator of EPA to give priority consideration to Long Island Sound, New York and
, Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Puget Sound, Washington; New
York-New Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; Delaware
Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay,
California; and Galveston Bay, Texas. The Conference Report for the Act states that these estuaries are of
national importance. Santa Monica Bay, California, was added to this list in the Fiscal Year 1988
Appropriations Act. Priority consideration of this list of estuaries led EPA to develop a process for
addressing evaluating estuaries in three tiers:
H Tier 1 estuaries are the estuary programs existing before the WQA of 1987. Management
conferences for these estuaries were convened early in Fiscal Year 1988.
H Tier 2 estuaries include the five new estuaries named in the WQA plus Santa Monica Bay.
Management Conferences for these estuaries were convened on July 18, 1988.
I Tier 3 estuaries are all other estuaries.
The purpose of this guidance is to assist Governors in the development of nominations for these "other
estuaries", including the four (Massachusetts Bay, the Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Indian River
Lagoon, and Peconic Bay) that Congress added to the priority list in October 1988. In achieving this purpose,
the guidance remains virtually intact from the April 1988 Interim Final Guidance, (see Federal Register Vol.
53, No. 76, 12989) with minimal changes providing additional guidance on the demonstration of national
significance.
A Governor's nomination submitted for any new estuary must address national significance. The interim final
guidance briefly discussed how EPA proposed to address national significance. This guidance addresses the
contents of the Governor's nomination and the factors EPA will use in reviewing nominations. A nomination
must first identify the estuarine values that make the estuary nationally significant. The concept of national
significance is discussed in detail in Section 2. In addition, the WQA mandates that the nomination must
demonstrate the need for a management conference and the likelihood that the conference will succeed.
Tier 3 Review Process
EPA representatives will visit those states interested in nominating estuaries to the NEP to discuss the NEP
and the responsibilities and commitments involved in establishing an estuary program. Just as in Tier 2, EPA
will provide assistance to States interested in nominating estuaries. Again, this assistance may include
conference calls, workshops, and direct technical assistance.
6
-------
Upon receipt of nominations, EPA will begin a review process similar to that conducted for Tier 2 estuaries.
The review will evaluate the nomination's consistency with this guidance. Review comments will be
transmitted to the respective State officials. After receiving a revised nomination, if one is required, EPA will
conduct a second review. Comments to the State(s) will address the results of the evaluation and the realistic
chances of being able to convene a management conference. The following section addresses how EPA will
evaluate the degree to which an estuary meets national demonstration needs and priorities.
7
-------
CONTENTS OF THE GOVERNOR'S NOMINATION
INTRODUCTION
This guidance provides a description of what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires in a
Governor's nomination under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act as amended by the Water Quality Act (the
Act) of 1987. A Governor's nomination is a State's proposal for an estuary program. If a Management
Conference is convened, the contents of the nomination (problem statements, goals, objectives, etc.) would be
subject to review, evaluation, and redirection by consensus of the convened Management Conference. It is
expected that some of what is proposed by the State in the nomination will be modified or changed by a
management committee once a Management Conference is convened. EPA will evaluate how well nominations
address three factors defined by the statute and other considerations important to the success of the National
Estuary Program (NEP).
The relationship between the key questions to be addressed and three factors defined by the Act is shown below:
¦ National Significance
¦ - How can the lessons learned from this estuary be applied to other coastal areas or
within the state or to other states? What problems, causes of those problems, and
biogeographic area represented by this estuary are not already addressed by existing
programs in the NEP?
H - Why is the csiuary important to the nation?
B - Whai is the geographic scope of the estuary?
H The Need for a Conference
I - What is the importance of the estuary on a local or regional scale?
I - What are the major environmental problems facing the estuary?
H - What arc the most likely causes of these problems?
¦ - How are the causes of each problem to be identified?
I - What are the current institutional arrangements for environmental management of
the estuary and how are they working?
¦ Likelihood of Success
¦ - What are state and local governments, and public and private institutions already
doing for the estuary?
I - What goals and objectives are proposed for the estuary and how will they be met?
I - Who will participate in the Management Conference and how will it be organized?
I - Is there public and political will, as well as financial capability, to support
implementation of the CCMP?
8
-------
The nominations should completely and concisely discuss these factors and questions. Although quantitative
information is not required, such information provides a more concise and forceful presentation. Thus, if
quantitative information is readily available, such information should be provided. States are encouraged to
build on work already done in the continuous process of water quality and natural resource monitoring. Other
sources of readily available data include 305(b) reports, fishery catch statistics, and university studies (see
Appendix D). However, the nomination should use existing and readily available information (see Appendix
A); preparation of the nomination should not entail new research. Charts, graphs, maps, and other forms of
graphical presentation should also be included.
Section 2 describes methods and measures that may be employed to describe the estuary's national significance
and to demonstrate both the need for the conference and the likelihood of success. The presentation order does
not signify that greater importance is assigned to any one of these three factors; all factors must be addressed
in the nomination and will be reviewed. The remainder of this section describes methods by which Governors
should address each of the factors defined by the statute in the contents of a nomination. It also describes the
rationale that led to EPA's addition of other considerations into the review process.
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE: NATIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
A discussion of national significance should demonstrate why EPA should promote comprehensive planning
for the estuary being nominated. The following factors need to be addressed in this section:
¦ How can the lessons learned from this estuary be applied to other coastal areas within the State
or to other states? What problems, causes of those problems, and biogeographic area are
represented by this estuary are not already addressed by existing programs in the NEP?
U Why is the estuary important to the nation?
¦ What is the geographic scope of the estuary?
The intent of the national significance section is to demonstrate the value of the estuary on a national scale. In
the near term, EPA believes that it is of highest importance to build the NEP as a national demonstration
program. It is our goal to develop estuary management expertise throughout the country, and to focus on a
wide range of important environmental problems.
With limited resources in a limited number of estuaries, the NEP will develop and implement successful
estuary management tools and strategies. The program will also attempt to develop by 1991 a quantitative
ranking scheme that evaluates economic value and threats to the estuaries. The NEP will share the results of
its demonstration programs with managers working on all other estuaries nationwide, and will attempt to
implement successful strategies in the lop ranked estuaries to the extent that fiscal resources allow.
Of the three factors addressing national significance, EPA is giving priority to the first. The rationale for this
is as follows. Congress authorized the NEP through 1991. EPA needs to demonstrate measurable programs
toward results, involving either the protection, maintenance, or improvement of water quality, sediment
quality and/or living resources, from the NEP by that time. Moreover, those results should have demonstrated
applicability to other estuarine settings. In the absence of results that may be applied to other estuaries, the
value of the program to the nation's estuaries is severely limited. Thus, the nomination must explain what
aspect(s) of the program are applicable to other coastal/estuarine waters.
9
-------
EPA is placing major importance on "applicability", consistent with long-term program objectives. Both San
Francisco Bay and Albemarle/Pamlico were added to the NEP based on a perceived need to increase the
geographic scope of the program. Congress then defined six more estuaries as "nationally significant." These
six provide the program with additional geographic diversity as well as additional coverage of certain problem
areas and associated causes. Figure 2-1 portrays the diversity of environmental problems and causes now being
addressed the NEP.
Many of these estuarine areas are large, e.g., Galveston Bay, or present a wide variety of problems, e.g.,
NY/NJ Harbor. Consequently, achieving near-term results where a clear cause/effect relationship can be drawn
will be extremely difficult. As a partial response to this problem, OMEP is funding priority action plan
demonstration projects to address well identified problems for which remedial actions can be developed and
results expected in the short term. Management Conferences may submit proposals to EPA for matching
grants to conduct pilot projects to maintain, restore, or enhance estuarine quality. The projects must lead to
progress toward achievement of a Conference objective such as reduced toxic contamination from combined
sewer overflows.
Applicability of Results to Other Estuary Programs
As discussed briefly in Section 1, the NEP will focus on a group of estuaries that covers a range of
environmental problems, and will provide technical outreach to environmental resource managers in the rest of
the country. EPA must, therefore, evaluate how inclusion of a nominated estuary in the NEP will enhance
such a national demonstration program.
Nominations should pay special attention to demonstrating that the problems to be addressed by a management
conference will yield results that could be applied to other coastal areas within the state or in other states.
State managers should be able to look at the statement of environmental problems and the statement of the
goals and objectives and predict, in a broad sense, some possible results of the management conference. EPA, in
its evaluation of the nomination, will then examine potential applications for such results outside the
boundaries of the estuary.
EPA will first be looking for nominations of estuaries that will focus on major problems that are unaddressed
thus far by the NEP. Nominations should indicate which of the unaddressed problems would be addressed in
the nominated estuary. The problem/cause matrix in figure 2-1 shows the major problems and causes now being
addressed by the existing programs. Gaps in program coverage are indicated by empty cells in the matrix.
Some cells, however, are empty because of a lack of a relationship between the cause and effect (e.g. toxic
contamination and septic tanks).
EPA in its evaluation must also determine that the problems to be addressed are broadly shared, and not just
unique to the nominated estuary. For example, some potentially important sources of nonpoint pollution
(mining and silviculture) have not been widely addressed to date. Another problem not currently being
addressed is threats to pristine environments.
Another aspect of the applicability scheme is the geographic (including biogeographic and hydrographic)
location of the estuary. EPA encourages nominations that address problems/causes similar to those in existing
programs but in a different geographic setting. Figure 2-2 is a map of the United States that notes nine
biogeographic provinces. Figure 2-2 also lists existing NEP estuaries in each province. This province
classification scheme is very similar to that used by NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve Program.
If the nomination does not address empty cells and/or geographic considerations, EPA will consider further
demonstration of applicability. This analysis will consider whether the nominated estuary would increase the
comprehensiveness of the various cells. For example, most of the habitat problems addressed to date involve
changes to wetlands or submerged aquatic vegetation. Examples of a different slant on the topic would
include concerns associated with dredging and loss of soft bottom sediment habitats, bulkheading and the loss
of natural shorelines, and water resource projects that alter salinity patterns in the estuary.
10
-------
Figure 2-1
National Estuary Program
Problems/Causes Matrix
POINT SOURCES
CAUSES-
PROBLEMS
InduttW
Sourca*
Direct
IndurtM
Source*
Indirect
POTWi
cso«
Slonn
W«er
Anfeiai
F- - .11-.-
rwwBii
Toxicants
: awjv
ausai
SF.SUB
8T.CJ5,;
aiRM.
¦ Sf.SMB
. PS3F ¦
; BUift
wr»-
W. •
.
Habitat
loss* Modification
APJ1J.G.
M,SF,T
aSF.T.
•
1
APAt
U.SF
APA
SF. "
. apai.
• SFJ ..
Change* in
Living Rmoufcm
AP.CA
LKLKH
NY,PS,
SF.T
O.LS.U
I Kirf,
' PSSv;:>
!¦ t
WSMG
DJJS.
WWt
ps^f
o,db.g.
1- W.
S.SF; •
T
| DC
1
Othtr
mb
NONPOINT SOURCES
CAUSES-
PROBLEMS
Agri-
culture
Suburban
and
Urban
Mining
SIW-
cufture
Construe-
tion
Septic
Landfllla
livplaca
Sadlmants
At/no*-
ph*(«
Ground
Wattf
Toiicanti
AP.BJT.
! C.GPS.
SF.T
USMM.
M?SSFt
StKT
81(3)
PS
A
¦ US
AP^C.O.
Giism
N*^9JSF,
8M&T
AP.G.M.
PS
C.G
Pathogens
BT.DB,
BTAt
. usm
, .stIK^v
iv
£/•; ''
• '
OB
MB3T.
-Mj. :
- G.MA
SU8
ORN
Habitat Loss/Modification
APAPS;
SF,T
exsx
¦.
BT{31
tm
.-, ps .
*px>m
cxn
P&S
• • • •
•/ ;
. •••;/•"/
Change* in
Uving Resources
AP.OB.G,
SF.T
OilXfy
&SFJ-?
v.-
ft • %
: MHJi.
•;v S
.. .PS ...
.,,x;, ,
'* t ••• !%,'",v ^ •
rzRsm-
DC
Other
w»;'
¦¦ -
11
-------
Figure 2-1 Continued
OTHER
CAUSES -
PROBLEMS
Shipping'
Uannaa
Dfvdging
Shorallna
D«v*iopm»nt
Fft*hwai*r
Inflow
Saalavtt
ni*«
Otlw
Toi leant*
CD,DIB.
aw.
PS.Slffl.
' T
G.KNY,
SF
8TMSF
SMBft
Paihogins
C.0I8.Q,
US.U
WB.M,
S
SW.9}
Eutrophication
C.DI8.G
ar
OBJAtt
t
SMm
Habitat Lota/ Modification
8TrC.QX
M.PS3,
T
apabb.
at*
P&S.SF,
T
AP&C.O.
Dfi.fi.LK
nmus,
M.S,SfPS.T
APJT.6J,
Sf.T
AP.8TA
am
W.
8(10)
Clung at in
Living Rmouicm
c^mt
SP.T
HS.SF,
r
8MB.
-------
Province Description
A. North of Cape Cod
B. Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras
C. Cape Hatteras to Cape Canaveral, FL
D. Cape Canaveral, FL to Tampa Bay, FL
E. Gulf of Mexico
F. Southwestern
G. Humboldt Bay to Canadian Border
H. Alaska
I. Hawaii to Pacific Islands
EPA Region
I
i-m
Current NEP Programs
IV
IV
IV, VI
IX
DC, X
X
IX
Buzzards Bay,
Nanagansett Bay, New Yoik-
New Jersey Harbor, Long Island
Sound,
Delaware Bay,
Delaware Inland Bays
Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
Sarasota Bay
Galveston Bay
Santa Monica Bay,
San Francisco Bay
Puget Sound
Figure 2-2. NEP Biogeographic Provinces and Representation
12
-------
Beyond the demonstration of a "new" aspect of applicability, EPA will be looking for a demonstration that
the state(s), through the Management Conference, can address the problems and their probable causes within a
relatively short time frame. The focus is on results, not problem lists and plans, to ensure that successful
efforts and cost-effective results in demonstration program estuaries can be quickly spread to other estuaries.
A discussion of cause/effect relationships follows.
Recreational and Commercial Values
The nomination should describe the known recreational values of the estuary to the nation including aesthetic
values, such as water clarity, breathtaking scenery, or unique physical features. Other recreational values of the
estuary may include such activities as fishing, shellfishing, boating, hunting, water skiing, beachcombing,
swimming, and diving.
The commercial value of the estuary to the nation can include many different types of activities, not all of
them dependent on the ecological integrity of the estuary. For example, the economic health of a commercial
fishery is, in part, dependent on the ecological health of the estuary. Other commercial values of the estuary,
for example shipping, are not dependent on ecological health.
Living Resources
Many of the nation's estuaries are of national significance in that they provide critical habitat for living
resources that spend part of their life cycle in the estuary. The loss or impairment of this habitat results in a
loss to the nation, to countries in the western hemisphere, and in the case of endangered species, a loss to
mankind. Some examples might include the following:
I The estuary or its tributaries serve as a spawning, nursery, or feeding ground for a fish species
that is an offshore recreational or commercial species important to the entire coast or nation.
B The estuary or its associated wetlands are part of a flyway for migratory waterfowl.
I The estuary or its watershed represent unique habitats that are threatened by population and
coastal development. The loss of these might represent, for example, a loss of a unique habitat
for scientific studies, research, or education.
Definition of the Estuary's Boundaries
The nomination should address how the estuary meets the statutory definition of an estuary. The CWA defined
estuary to mean "...all or part of the mouth of a river or stream or other body of water having unimpaired
natural connection with the open sea and within which sea water is measurably diluted with the fresh water
from land drainage." The Act expanded this definition to include "associated aquatic ecosystems and those
portions of tributaries draining into the estuary up to the historic height of migration of an anadromous fish or
the historic head of tidal influence, which ever is higher." The nomination package should define the boundaries
of the estuary, and should include a map to illustrate these boundaries.
In addition, the nomination should include a general description of the estuary, including such geographical
features as the estuary boundaries, surface drainage area and major tributaries, land use, wetland acreage, and
aquifer boundaries. Other physical factors such as salinity gradients also may be described. Political boundaries
may be noted on maps and/or described in text. The nomination should address whether the estuary's drainage
area crosses state lines and how many local jurisdictions are affected.
13
-------
THE NEED FOR A CONFERENCE
A discussion of the need for a conference must demonstrate that the estuary is important on a local level, that
it has problems, that the causes of these problems can be discerned, and that changes are needed in programs to
solve the problem. The questions that need to be addressed in this section are:
H What is the importance of the estuary on a local or regional scale?
H What are the major environmental problems facing the estuary?
M What is known about cause/effect relationships and how will the causes of environmental
problems be better identified?
H What are the current institutional arrangements for the estuary and how are they working?
Documentation of Estuary Importance
While Section 2 describes how to demonstrate that an estuary is of national significance, the nomination
should also include a demonstration of the estuary's value on a local or regional scale. As outlined in this
section, the demonstration should discuss the economic/ecologic relationship; the value of the estuary to the
local economy; the value of living resources within the estuary; and how the economy and ecology are affected
by changes in the estuary. This demonstration should be provided based on readily available data, such as
dockside value of fish catches.
The difference between the demonstration of the estuary's importance on a local/regional scale versus a national
scale is a matter of degree. For instance, if a certain fishery provides many jobs and generates much of the
income near the estuary, it should be discussed here. If, however, the estuary is a critical spawning or nursery
ground for a large proportion of the shrimp (or some other important commercial or recreational species)
caught in the U.S., it should be discussed above in Section 2.
Economic Importance
The economic values of an estuary are categorized as recreational and commercial. Although economic values
can be measured in dollars, other non-monetary measures of economic activity also may be used. These
measurements should be related to water and sediment quality and living resources. Recreational value may be
measured, for example, by providing counts of users (e.g., number of hunters, charter boats, fishing licenses,
employees in tourism industry) or the number of dollars generated by recreational activities (e.g., tax revenues
from hotels, restaurant receipts). The commercial values of the estuary can include many different types of
activities. To demonstrate the commercial value of the estuary, the applicant might summarize quantitative
data that would include (1) the size and/or value of fish catches; and (2) the number arid/or economic value of
commercial shellfish beds. Appendix A presents examples of measures that may be used to identify the
ecological and economic values of an estuary based on readily available information.
Living Resources
Quantitative information on the known living resources value within the estuary should be presented under this
section to demonstrate the ecological value on a local scale. The following types of information might be
included:
¦ The number of species, their diversity and distribution;
¦ The number of resident versus migratory species;
I The number of species critical to the food chain; and
H Species identified by state wildlife officials as being endangered or threatened.
14
-------
The Problem Statement
The types of problems that may exist in an estuary are both diverse and complex. However, they are all
problems if they detract from the estuary's potential value. As part of a recent survey EPA conducted under
the Near Coastal Waters Initiative, five priority threats were identified: (1) toxicants, (2) pathogen
contamination, (3) eutrophication, (4) habitat loss/modification, and (5) changes in living resources. The
problems that can be caused by these priority threats have been widely documented and are discussed below.
These examples are provided as a tool to organize the "threat" or problem statement; this organization is not
required.
I Toxicants may enter an estuary from a variety of sources, including industrial effluents and
other point sources, runoff from urban areas and agricultural lands, atmospheric inputs, and the
disposal of contaminated dredge spoils. Pollutants from these sources may include organics
(such as pesticides, herbicides and petroleum products), heavy metals, and other inorganic
compounds. Although some of these materials are biodegradable, others may accumulate in
sediments, in the water column, or in the tissue of biota. Toxicants are a threat to both the
integrity of the estuary ecosystems and to human health if they accumulate in the tissues of
food organisms. In some instances the problems from toxicants may be manifested by the
closure of fisheries and by public health advisories on the consumption of fish.
I Pathogen contamination may result from the discharge of domestic wastes from wastewater
treatment plants and combined sewer overflows, and runoff from agricultural areas.
Contamination could cause beach closings, changes to the classification of shellfish beds under
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, and increases in the reported cases of human
gastrointestinal disorders or other diseases.
H Eutrophication may result from increased nitrogen and phosphorus loadings to the estuary
from the discharges of sewage treatment plants and industries, and runoff from forests and
farmland. Increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus can allow excessive phytoplankton
growth (and shifts in the dominant phytoplankton species), which may contribute to the
depletion of dissolved oxygen levels.
I Habitat loss/modification may result from changes in siltation, nutrient loading, development
activities in wetlands and other critical habitats, channels, dredging, diversion of water, sea-
level rise, and other direct or indirect disturbances. The problem statement might include
information on acreage lost; type of habitat (i.e., coastal marsh, tidal flat, submerged aquatic
vegetation, etc.); and activities altering habitat. Loss of wetlands adjacent to the estuary and
those adjacent to tributaries feeding into the estuary are both critical to the heath of the
estuarine system.
I Changes in living resources may result from one or more of the pollution threats above or can
reflect the impacts of overfishing or other human activities in the estuary. A problem statement
in this topic area could address changes in species composition or distribution, or a severe
reduction in species number that is not fully understood.
B Other problems may include oil spills, aesthetic degradation caused by floating debris, or any
problems that may be unique to the estuary. The five threats listed above are examples and are
not meant to be all-inclusive.
The concept of demonstrating threats to estuarine values extends to threats to pristine, or partially pristine,
estuaries. The CWA and associated regulations mandate that each state establish water quality standards.
These water quality standards must consist of a use designation (e.g., shellfishery, cold water fish habitat),
water quality criteria to protect that use (e.g., dissolved oxygen, cadmium concentration), and an
antidegradation standard. Estuaries with good water quality supporting healthy biota may be the subject of a
nomination if it is demonstrated that one or more of the priority threats may result in water quality
degradation.
15
-------
Cause/Effect Relationship
The ability to establish cause/effect relationships quickly will enable an estuaiy program to focus resources
and to take actions to solve problems as rapidly as possible. Because one major purpose of the Managemeni
Conferences will be to refine and establish cause and effect relationships, EPA does not expect the nomination
to demonstrate cause and effect relationships in great detail for all problems identified in the nomination. The
nomination should, however, discuss the causes and effects of the major problems listed in the problem
statement and the appropriate cells of Figure 2-1. Other potential causal relationships should be discussed
briefly.
EPA recognizes that a perfect causal relationship cannot be drawn easily. Therefore, the nomination should
demonstrate, to the extent possible, that a relationship is likely. This can be demonstrated by showing that the
problem is in an area where the number of potential sources are limited or that the problem can be attributed
to a single or few causes. Further evidence may include relative loadings information from various sources.
Other evidence, such as bioassays conducted for certain discharges, may also be available. For example, the
estuary as a whole may be subject to pathogen contamination due to nonpoint and point sources which, as yet,
have not been quantified. However, perhaps shellfish beds in an isolated embayment have been closed due to
pathogen contamination and the only potential source is a local pleasure boat harbor. In this case, reasonable
evidence of a cause/effect relationship exists.
A thorough discussion of cause/effect relationships for major problems is a key piece of a strong nomination.
If quantitative evidence of causal relationship is lacking, the nomination should outline what steps will be
necessary to determine quickly the most likely cause of the problem.
Moreover, because EPA is interested in identifying successful control strategies and sharing that information
among estuary managers, the nomination should list the variable or variables that will be used to measure
success (e.g., decreases in pollutant concentrations, greater species diversity). The nomination should discuss
how much background information is now available to allow for a pre/post measurement of the effects of the
control action. Returning to the previous example, ambient measurements or fish tissue concentrations may be
taken, as well as a measurement of the prevalence of disease. The nomination need also address the time period
in which system recovery may be expected.
The nomination could include tables to illustrate cause/effect relationships. The nomination could summarize
problems, observed changes, and probable causes in a tabular form similar to the following example:
Livina Resource
Observed Chanaes
Probable Cause
Submerged aquatic vegetation
Reduced numbers resulting in
reduced cover for fish, limited
food supply for waterfowl
Nutrient loads from nonpoint
source runoff
Benthic invertebrates
Changes in diversity; increase in
pollution-tolerant species
Contaminated sediments from past
sources of pollution
Commercial shellfish
Contamination from pathogens
Leaking and faulty septic systems
Finfish
Reduced reproduction of game fish
Diverted freshwater flow
resulting in changed salinity
16
-------
Institutional Arrangements
Along with an assessment of environmental problems and their causes, an evaluation of institutional
structures, including laws, regulations, and management programs is needed.
The nomination should list laws, regulations, policies, and control programs at federal, state, and local levels,
identify gaps and inconsistencies, and assess how well regulations are being enforced and whether programs are
being coordinated. This assessment should highlight activities required under the Clean Water Act but must
also address other applicable authorities such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
and the Marine Protection, Resources and Sanctuaries Act.
This institutional problem statement will help form the base of information needed to develop additional
control strategies and to recommend new initiatives. The assessment should establish whether existing
institutional mechanisms are appropriate for the estuarine system. It should also help determine whether
existing programs are keeping pace with growing populations and increasing demands on the estuary and
suggest programs in need of improvement.
The Administrators of NOAA and EPA signed an agreement in September 1988 (see appendix B) that spells
out the need for coordinated actions between the NEP and the CZMP. The institutional arrangements between
these organizations will be especially important. Under the agreement, one of the criteria for selection of new
estuaries for the NEP is the existence of a federally approved coastal zone management program.
Further discussions of institutional structures need to be linked to the nomination's environmental problem
statement.
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS
The success of a management conference will ultimately be measured by its ability to develop and implement a
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) leading to the greatest improvements in water
and sediment quality and living resources at the least cost and in the most timely manner. A nomination must
demonstrate the likelihood of success of the program by addressing the following questions:
¦ What are slate and local governments, and public and private institutions already doing for the
estuary?
I What goals and objectives are proposed for the estuary and how will they be met?
¦ Who will participate in the Management Conference and how will it be organized?
I Is there public and political will, as well as financial capability, to support implementation of
the CCMP?
History of Environmental Management
Prior involvement in an estuary provides a base on which a Management Conference can build. A discussion on
what is already being done in the estuary should focus on Clean Water Act programs, new federal activities
under the WQA, activities conducted under other federal programs, and state and local programs.
Existing Federal Programs
The Clean Water Act mandates a number of programs directed toward the improvement and maintenance of
water quality. They include a spectrum of water quality control programs—from monitoring, to setting water
quality standards, to imposing effluent limitations on point source dischargers to controlling disposal of
dredged or fill material in wetlands. In addition, monies have been provided by EPA to states and areawide
agencies for nonpoint source control planning. The nomination should address the state's effort to maintain and
improve these CWA programs.
17
-------
Past efforts that catalogued estuarine values and the impairment of those values include water quality standard
reviews, 208 areawide management plans, 303 basin plans, 201 facility plans (especially those involving
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) seeking advanced wastewater treatment funding), environmental
impact statements, and 305(b) reports. The proposed plan of action in the nomination should enhance the
overall objective of meeting designated uses and should distinguish the CCMP as a plan of action, different
from those planning efforts above.
For example, if point sources of nutrients and toxics have been identified as probable causes of problems, the
nomination should address how well the state has implemented the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). Are all POTWs secondary treatment? Are water quality based permits in effect? What is
the status of pretreatment programs? How well are compliance monitoring and enforcement activities
targeted on coastal dischargers?
In a case where loss of wetlands is a major threat to the estuary, the nomination should explain how the 404
permit review program has functioned, how advanced identification of critical habitats has helped or could help
maintain the integrity of the estuary, or whether 401 water quality certification for federal permits has been
used.
New Federal Activities - WQA of 1987
In addition, the WQA provides for several new or enhanced activities that further estuarine protection efforts.
Coordinating activities across program areas to avoid redundant efforts, promote environmental results, and
facilitate the efficient, effective use of resources is a principle outlined in the State Clean Water Strategies
Guidance (SCWS). This is a voluntary effort. If the state is participating and is developing a SCWS, the
nomination should describe how the SCWS and the estuary program are linked.
Whether or not a state is developing a SCWS, the state should indicate how it plans to coordinate the
following WQA activities with the proposed estuary program:
H Toxics Control Strategies - Identification of waters affected by toxics and implementation of
individual control strategies to assure water quality standards are attained. Does the nomination
suggest how this activity may be factored into the proposed program?
H Nonpoint Source Pollution - The WQA provides for a state assessment of use impairment
caused by nonpoint sources and funds to prepare management plans. Does the nomination suggest
how these activities may be factored in the proposed program?
I State Revolving Fund - The WQA provides for funds to capitalize state revolving funds.
From the state Revolving Fund, States can provide loans to local governments and
intermunicipal and interstate agencies for the construction of publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) and related implementation projects, including the NEP. Does the nomination suggest
how the state plans to use the State Revolving Fund to benefit the estuary?
The proposed estuary program should entail studies and control efforts beyond those already required in the
core programs above.
Other Federal Authority
In addition to activities conducted under the Clean Water Act and WQA programs, many states have taken
steps in estuary management under the authority of other federal statutes. Among them are the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the Marine Protection, Resources and Sanctuaries Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This section of the nomination provides the state an opportunity to highlight how these programs have been
used to maintain or improve the estuary. Examples of subjects that could be addressed here are:
18
-------
¦ CZMA - Are there Special Area Management Plans for sections of the estuary? How has the
state applied federal consistency requirements to protect the estuary? Have grants been issued
under CZMA for studies or management action in the estuary?
¦ MPRSA - How have reviews of dredging and ocean disposal permit applications helped maintain
the quality of the estuary? Were studies done to support an application for Estuarine Research
Reserve status?
¦ SDWA - Are ground water classification and wellhead protection part of the integrated
management plans for the estuarine watershed?
State and Local Programs
The three management areas of the CCMP (water and sediment quality management, living resources
management, and land use and water resources management) go beyond CWA mandates. EPA recognizes that
state and local programs often provide more extensive authorities than the CWA to address water pollution
control concerns. Special state or local efforts may have been initiated to protect the estuary. For example,
land use planning to mitigate construction runoff, or to preserve wetlands, often appears in municipal
ordinances. In addition, EPA recognizes that many states have embarked on ambitious monitoring and research
programs, often in concert with state universities or private research foundations, to more fully characterize
estuarine values, the threat to those values, and potential solutions.
Environmental Quality Goals and Action Plans
When Congress established the National Estuary Program under the Water Quality Act, it mandated the
development of plans to restore and maintain the nation's estuaries. The law provides that the needs of an array
of users are to be accommodated. The Management Conference is charged with achieving this intricate balance
by setting broad environmental quality goals that comply with the mandate of the Act and the will of the
people.
Goals are usually long term and broad in scope. The Conference establishes overall goals related to the desired
condition for the estuary and its segments. To determine what goals the public wants to attain and will
support, the Management Conference presents options for public discussion. These may range from maintaining
current conditions to restoring the estuary to a past condition to restoring or maintaining pristine quality. The
nomination should list the overall goals the state plans to propose to a management conference.
Environmental quality objectives, unlike goals, are specific and shorter term. They are aimed at achieving
broader, longer term goals. Achievable through the implementation of specific action plans, objectives
generally reflect the environmental criteria or the preferred uses that the Conference considers appropriate and
desirable for various estuarine segments. Objectives undoubtedly will vary from one segment to another.
Typically, they are established on the basis of preferred uses, standards, and permit activities to improve water
quality. Objectives may also be set for the other management areas: sediment quality, living resources, and
land and water resources. Examples of some of the types of objectives the management conference might
propose should be included in the nomination.
To achieve environmental goals and objectives, action plans should be proposed to address the environmental
and institutional problems identified in the problem statement. Action plans should address the three
management areas. Action plans are detailed programs for meeting goals and objectives, indicating who, what,
where, when, and how the plans will be carried out.
The description of goals, objectives, and actions in the nomination should demonstrate an understanding of the
work that will be needed to mitigate various causes of environmental problems. The examples should include
the goals of the program (maintaining current conditions, restoring the estuary to a past condition, or
restoring or maintaining pristine quality), objectives to reach those goals, and sample action plans that will
produce the greatest environmental benefit at the least cost and in the most timely manner.
19
-------
Management Conference Participants
The WQA establishes conference membership as the EPA Administrator (or his designee); representatives of
state, local, and foreign governments, and other appropriate interstate or regional agencies and entities; and
affected industries, educational institutions, and the general public. Where appropriate, the conference may also
involve federal agencies other than EPA. Although each nomination may propose a conference structure
designed to meet the specific environmental, institutional, and political needs, each proposal must include
scientific and technical and citizen advisory committees. This management support may be demonstrated
through the use of organizational charts and expressions of interest from the respective organization. The
Estuarv Program Primer provides additional guidance on establishing a workable conference structure.
Public Support
The nomination must document the existence of, and/or potential for generating, public concern and support.
The term "public" includes the public at large, environmental interest groups, special interest groups, and
industry groups. Documentation may include newspaper clippings (articles and editorials) discussing estuarine
problems; listings of the number of interest groups and membership; attendance at past public meetings; and
referenda on state or local elections for additional funding for parkland, wetland protection, and/or recent
industrial contributions of funds or expertise to estuarine quality protection or restoration.
Informing and involving the public and getting its support can be the most difficult aspect of an estuary
program, yet it is the cornerstone of a successful program. An effective public participation effort will help
ensure implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). This plan is the
product of a collaborative problem-solving process in which key members of the public have been fully
engaged. Everyone in the water basin needs to understand his or her role as a user of the estuary because the
desired long-term improvements in the estuary will affect daily life through better septic systems, water
conservation, additional taxes, or limits on some property uses. Because so much is at stake, it is important to
put the best talent, adequate resources, and full program commitment into designing and executing an effective
process for public participation.
Public participation in the context of the National Estuary Program means involving citizens in the decision-
making process that the Management Conference oversees. The goal of public participation is to establish the
public consensus that will ensure long-term support and implementation of the CCMP. As the Management
Conference proceeds and the collaborative process evolves, public consensus must be achieved at least during
two phases: first, when priority problems are identified; and second, when solutions and action strategies for
implementation are selected and adopted. Additional information on processes to effectively involve the public
in the Management Conference appears in Appendix B of the National Estuary Program Primer.
Political Commitment
Another public entity is that of political jurisdictions other than the state, including city governments, county
governments, or other jurisdictions such as sewer use districts or harbor authorities. These jurisdictions also
have an interest in the estuary. Their interest in and commitment to protecting or restoring estuarine water
quality should be discussed. Some possible examples of political commitment include the establishment of an
Estuary Management Commission and the passage of legislation or ordinances addressing the estuary.
Financial Capability
The WQA and program policy require that the state provide at least 25 percent of the funds toward the costs
of the Conference. The Govcrnor(s) must sign a commitment with the nomination that the state will provide
the 25 percent match. These funds must come from non-federal sources and must be redirected from existing
programs or new allocations. A detailed explanation of the matching fund requirement is found in regulation
(40 CFR Part 35, Subpart P) and in the Federal Register (Vol. 54, No. 190, p. 40799).
20
-------
In addition to the 25 percent match of funds, the state should demonstrate that it will be able to meet the
expense of implementing action plans. Implementation costs could run as high as several million dollars,
depending on the type and severity of the problems in the estuary. The nomination should include a
commitment to develop a financial strategy within two years that will demonstrate how the management
conference plans to pay for implementation costs.
A document prepared by EPA entitled Financing Marine and Estuarine Programs: A Guide to Revenues
discusses several tools that could be used to access revenues, manage finances, and creatively build institutional
arrangements. This primer includes several examples of how municipalities or states have successfully used
these tools to fund water quality improvement projects.
FORMAT
The Governor's nomination should follow the basic structure of this document, and must provide answers to
the questions listed as topic headings. The checklist provided in Appendix C may serve as an organizing
framework for developing the nomination.
The nomination should be short and concise, and generally should not exceed 50 pages. In designing the
document, emphasis on charts, tables, graphs, and lists will allow more concise presentation of complicated
ideas. Tables presenting raw data should not be included. EPA has found, based on the review of Phase II
nominations, that discussions of estuary problems, causes, and resolutions to those problems can be best
described on a segment-specific basis rather than in more general terms. The segment-specific approach allows
for a clearer definition of cause-effect relationships and what actions may be taken to ameliorate problems.
Moreover, such an organization is consistent with the manner in which states establish water quality standards
and prepare state 305(b) reports.
The nomination should use data that federal agencies have collected. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency (NOAA) maintains, among other information, data on land use; the classification of shellfish beds
according to water quality and productivity (including historical data for some areas); dredging activities; and
a comprehensive database of pollutants entering estuarine waters. Other sources of information might include
studies and reports prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on dredge and fill activities under Section
404 of the CWA; the National Marine Fisheries reports on landings; university studies and research
conducted on the estuary; studies completed by private groups (e.g., the Nature Conservancy); and private
consultant reports. More details on the type of data available from other groups, and points of contact for
receipt of that information, appears in Appendix D.
In addition, the nomination need not detail existing reports on the state of the estuary, cause-and-effect
relationships, or other material that may support the statements made in the nomination. For the most part,
providing major conclusions and the data summaries supporting such conclusions are all that is necessary. It is
better to indicate the types and number of studies that exist than to cite to each one individually.
The end result should be a concisely written document that best establishes an estuary's case for inclusion in
the National Estuary Program. Well organized summary tables, charts, and graphs, and the use of interpreted
data and information that arc linked to program goals will add to the persuasiveness of the nomination.
21
-------
APPENDIX A: LIST OF MEASURES
-------
LIST OF MEASURES
Measures of Problems in Estuaries
Fish and shellfish
Declining fish catches
(Fish landings, creel census, catch and effort, catch value, number of complaints
about declining fish catches}
Consumption advisories for fish
(Number of local (state) health authorities issuing warnings, number of species
covered by warnings, area covered by warnings, frequency of warnings being issued,
extent to which fish exceed action levels}
Fish kills
{Frequency of fish kills, number of species affected, number of fish killed, mass of
fish killed, number of reports of fish kills]
Fish tumors/diseases/structural abnormalities/parasites
[Percent of fish caught with tumors, diseases, or structural abnormalities
/parasites}
Fish tastes/odors
(Number of complaints/questions about organoleptic problems}
Closed shellfish beds
(Area of closures, frequency of closures, length of time bed closed, number of species
covered by closures, shellfish harvest}
Abundance of "trash" fish
(Percentage of undesirable fish in catch,number of complaints)
Loss of habitat (e.g., decline in submerged aquatic vegetation)
(Area of specific habitats, number of areas of habitats}
Decline in fishing license sales
(Number of licenses sold, dollar value of licenses}
Wildlife
Declining hunting bags
(Number of birds/mammals shot, hunter bags, species quality}
Decline in duck stamps sold
(Number of stamps sold, dollar value of duck stamps sold}
Consumption advisories on birds
(Number of health authorities issuing warnings, number of species covered, area
covered, extent to which concentrations exceed action levels)
Mass bird mortalities
(Frequency of occurrence, number of species involved, area over which mortalities
occurs}
Decrease in migratory waterfowl/waders/etc
(Christmas counts, bird censuses, area of habitat used}
Abnormalities/tumors/diseases in wildlife
(Frequency of occurrence in one species, number of species affected}
Decrease in resident waders
(Bird census, areal extent of occurrence}
Decrease in nesting birds/colonies
(Census, areal extent of occurrence)
Loss of wetlands
(Area of wetlands, number of wetland areas in region, bird use of wetlands, hunter
use of wetlands}
Decline in hatching success
(Clutch size, clutch size versus brood size, hatching success}
Abundance of "trash" birds
(Relative numbers from census)
A-l
-------
LIST OF MEASURES (cont)
Recreational use
Decline in fishing/hunting success (see fish/wildlife)
Beach closures (bacteria, floatables, other contamination)
{Number of beach closures, frequency of beach closures, total length or percent of
estuary beaches closed, total time of beach closures]
Decline in enjoyment of wildlife (see wildlife)
Silting up
{Areal extent of decreased depth, volume or mass of sediments deposited, number of
vessel groundings)
Increased fouling of vessels
{Time between vessel drydocks, mass of material accumulated, type of material
accumulated)
Decrease in recreational use/interest
{Number of user days, polls of recreational interest, launching ramp use, number of
berths, use of available berths, number or use of swing moorings, use of anchorages,
number of charter vessels and charters, number of party boats)
Economic potential
Reduction in residential/commercial property values
(Individual property values, time on market, number of abandoned properties)
Decline in commercial fishing catch/catch sale due to contaminants
{Landed catch weight, landed catch numbers, diversity of catch, dollar value of
catch sold)
Decline in recreationally-based retail outlets
{Number of stores, number of patrons, dollar value of sales, store profits)
Loss of commercial navigation/shipping
(Number of vessels, tonnage, value added by shipping, amount of channel dredging
required)
Decline in hotel/motel/restaurant/car and boat rental/sightseeing trade/charters
(Number of establishments, dollar value of sales, number of patrons, profits)
Decline in souvenir trade (tourist traps)
{Number of establishments, dollar value of sales, number of patrons, profits)
Decline in aquaculture/agriculture/other enterprise relying on natural estuarine
processes
{Number of establishments, dollar value of sales, weight of product)
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B: EPA/NO A A AGREEMENT
-------
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
In order to avoid duplication of effort, unnecessary expenditures
of Federal funds, and the development of conflicting regulatory
mechanisms, involving the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP)
and the National Estuary Program (NEP), the enclosed coordination
paper, which we endorse, has been prepared to address NOAA and
EPA responsibilities.
This paper serves as guidance to NOAA and EPA program managers in
carrying out their respective responsibilities under these two
programs. Steps will be undertaken to begin implementation of
the specific actions called for under Section V, including the
establishment of a mechanism at the national level for
coordination and oversight of individual estuary programs under
the NEP and to ensure continued integration of the NEP and CZMP.
Coordination of NOAA and EPA activities related to this agreement
will be handled by John J. Carey, Deputy Assistant Administrator,
NOAA, National Ocean Service and Tudor T. Davies, Director,
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, EPA.
Enclosure
(signed bv William E. Evans)
William E. Evans
Under Secretary for
Oceans and Atmosphere
Department of Commerce
(signed bv Lee M. Thomas)
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
Environmental Protection
Agency
DATE (signed Sept. 12. 1988)
DATE (signed Aug. 18, 1988)
-------
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
AND THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
I. GOALS OF THE TWO PROGRAMS
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was enacted by
Congress to create a comprehensive management umbrella for the
beneficial use, protection, and development of the resources of
the nation's coastal zone. Coastal management was conceived as a
voluntary program that States would undertake in partnership with
the Federal government. To achieve comprehensive management of
coastal resources, States wishing to participate were required to
develop programs that addressed protection of coastal development
in coastal areas to avoid loss of life and property, priority
consideration of water dependent uses, improved access to and
enjoyment of the coastal zone, conservation and management of
living marine resources, and increased coordination of
governmental activities. Wetlands and water quality in estuaries
are important elements of State coastal management programs.
States are required to weigh the concerns of different
levels of government, various interest groups, and the general
public in both the development and implementation of coastal
management programs. There are 29 approved State CZM programs.
Coastal zone programs encompass, through the application of
program policies, interagency and Federal coordination and a wide
range of management issues throughout the State's entire coastal
zone.
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in the
Water Quality Act of 1987 to develop and implement plans to
protect the integrity of nationally significant estuaries
threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. In some
estuaries, the water pollution control requirements have been
shown to be inadequate to protect the environment from
degradation. The main direction of the NEP is to strengthen
these requirements.
Some nationally significant estuaries will be selected for
inclusion in the program. In the estuaries selected, the
participants of a Management Conference are responsible for
defining the environmental problems, investigating and
determining the causes of system-wide problems, and developing
and implementing plans of action to address the problems.
Sources of point and non-point pollution are the focus, although
the management of living resources, water resources, and land use
in the watershed may also be identified causes of some
environmental problems.
The conference membership consists of representatives of
EPA, each affected State and foreign nation, international,
interstate, or regional agencies, each interested Federal agency,
local governments, affected industries, public and private
educational institutions, and the general public.
-------
II.
A MUTUAL GOAL
Although the CZMA is broader in scope, both the NEP and CZMA
are focused on the protection of coastal resources and share a
common environmental goal: to maintain and enhance or protect the
health of the nation's coastal resources. In achieving this goal
both EPA's an NOAA's programs seek to ensure that population
growth and corresponding development occur in an environmentally
sound manner.
III. POINTS OF INTERSECT OF: NEP AND CZM
Both NEP and CZM are dependent on the political will
and institutions of State and local government to take
action. These Federal programs depend on the
establishment and implementation of effective programs
through State and local government.
Both NEP and CZM have a strong orientation for public
education, awareness, and involvement.
Both NEP and CZM programs require the development of
comprehensive plans but also have a strong action
orientation.
Both NEP and CZM are designed to comprehensively
address pollution abatement, living resources, and land
and water resource management.
IV. TOOLS
There are several distinct tools available within the two
programs to integrate these programs and work toward the same
environmental goal:
A NEP Management Conference is convened under Section
32 0 of the Clean Water Act to provide a forum for
consensus building and problem solving.
A NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) is developed by the Management Conference. The
plan specifies goals and objectives for restoring and
maintaining the estuary, and identifies actions,
schedules, and resources to meet the goals.
A Special Area Management Plan is developed by CZM
States which create a comprehensive program providing
special protection for a designated geographic area.
A CZM Section 312 evaluation is a biennial review of a
CZM program which recommends future actions.
Section 307(c)(1) of the CZMA requires Federal agencies
conducting or supporting activities directly affecting
the coastal zone to do so in a manner which is
-------
consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with
Federally approved State coastal zone management
programs.
A CZM implementation grant is made to States with
approved CZMPs requiring "significant improvements"
ensured in part by Section 312 evaluations.
A CZM Section 309 grant is a competitive grant to
States to integrate coastal programs and solve problems
in Coastal Zones affecting more than one State.
V. EPA/NOAA CONCEPTS TO INTEGRATION OF NEPs AND CZMPs
NOAA
To the extent permitted by law, States will be required to
submit CCMPs developed under the NEP for incorporation into
approved State CZM programs after approval by the
Governor(s) and the EPA Administrator. CZMA Section 312
biennial evaluations will be used to ensure compliance.
CZMA Section 312 biennial evaluations will stress activities
identified by Management Conferences convened under the NEP,
including activities outlined in a CCMP, or activities to
support the overall objectives of the national demonstration
program as defined under the NEP. As appropriate, an EPA
representative would be invited to participate on the
evaluations.
CZM guidance governing the allocation of Section 309 grants
for interstate coastal waters will give priority
consideration to interstate estuaries and seek opportunities
to coordinate activities where Management Conferences have
been convened under the NEP.
NOAA will provide scientific support and technical
assistance to EPA for the development of national guidance
on the management of pollution abatement and control
programs to better address the survival and health of living
estuarine and marine resources.
EPA
CCMPs developed under the NEP will voluntarily, as a matter
of policy, be submitted for review under the Federal
consistency provisions of Section 307(c)(1) of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.
NEP guidance and/or regulations will provide that CCMPs
should be incorporated into approved CZMPs and will stress
the use of existing CZMA tools, including the designation of
areas of special concern and public participation and
education programs, for implementation activities identified
by the Management Conference.
-------
Decision criteria for the selection of new estuaries for the
National Estuary Program will include the existence of
Federally approved CZMPs.
In order to facilitate the development of CCMPs such that
they are consistent, to the maximum extent practicable with
the state CZMPs, NEP guidance and/or regulations will
require a state coastal zone management liaison to
participate on the management committee of the conferences
convened pursuant to the NEP and in the development of the
CCMP.
EPA/NOAA Joint Activities
NOAA and EPA will jointly sponsor a national workshop for
estuary and coastal zone management program staff,
headquarters, regional, and state participants, to further
explore avenues and mechanisms for coordination between and
integration of these programs at the national, regional, and
state level.
NOAA and EPA will conduct, where appropriate, joint reviews
of state programs to facilitate the coordination of the
Management Conference with state CZM programs, sharing of
information sources, and the use of existing CZM programs,
sharing of information sources, and the use of existing CZM
tools to solve problems.
EPA/OMEP and NOAA/OCRM will establish a mechanism at the
national level for coordination and oversight of individual
estuary programs under the NEP and to ensure continued
integration of the NEP and CZMP.
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The National Estuary Program and Coastal Zone
Management Program are being coordinated between NOAA
and EPA.
2. The CZMA provides the broad umbrella for state
management actions in the entire coastal zone; the NEP
focuses on estuaries and supports the overall
achievement of CZMA goals.
3. NEP is a demonstration program to show how
Federal/State/local agencies can develop effective
programs for dealing with environmental problems.
4. CZM/NEP program efforts are aimed at encouraging state
initiative and implementation through guidance and
cooperative planning—not unilateral Federal regulation
or direction.
-------
5. Mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that
Management Conferences convened under the NEP will be
coordinated with applicable State CZM planning
processes and administration of CZM plans. Similarly,
CZM program reviews and grant decisions will seek
opportunities to coordinate activities where Management
Conferences have been convened, or where objectives of
the national demonstration program have been defined,
under the NEP.
-------
APPENDIX C: GOVERNORS NOMINATION PACKAGE
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM CHECKLIST
-------
This checklist may be used for two distinct purposes. First, it can be used to aid those preparing nominations in
organizing information for use in the nomination. It also may be used to develop a listing of reference documents used
in preparing the nomination. Second, EPA may use the checklist in reviewing the nomination, documenting issues for
future discussions with the applicant.
The checklist is not meant to be a stand-alone document; it should be used in conjunction with the guidance.
It does not list all possible measures that could be used to identify the estuary's natural significance or document the
need for the conference or its likelihood of success. On the other hand, not all of the items that are listed in the
checklist need to appear in a nomination. The applicant may choose to document "other" measures for any particular
factor. Thus, an "other" category is provided throughout the checklist. Applicants are not required to submit
completed checklists with their nomination.
-------
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE 1 of 18
ESTUARY: DATE SUBMITTED: SIGNED BY:
PRINCIPAL REVIEWKR: PHONE:
QUESTIONS: • What is the Geographic scope of the estuary?
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Required
Adequate
Infor-
mation
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
"The nomination should address how the
estuary meets the statutory definition."
"The nomination should include a general
description of the estuary."
The water body is open to the sea
and measurably diluted by fresh water.
The boundaries of the estuary go to
the historic height of anadromous
fish migration or the historic height
of tidal Influence, whichever is
greater.
• Drainage area, wetland acreage,
tributaries, and land use are
described.
• A map showing the estuary's
geographical features is included.
-------
NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
2 of IB
QUESTIONS: • Why is the estuary important to the Nation?
ESTUARINE VALUES
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Roquired
Adequate
Infor-
mation
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
"The nomination should describe the
recreational value of the estuary to the
nation."
The nomination should describe "the
commercial value of the estuary to the
nation."
The nomination should describe habitats
or living resources of national
importance.
• Quantitative information on recrea-
tional uses is present.
• Major recreational features (scenery,
water clarity) are described.
• Quantitative information on commercial
uses is presented for uses that rely
on ecological health and those uses
do not rely on ecological health.
• Unique or significant species are
identified.
• Nursery or spawning areas for
important commercial or recreational
fish are identified.
• Threatened or endangered species
living in estuary are Identified.
Habitat of threatened or endangered
species described.
-------
HATIONAI. SIGNIFICANCE
3 of IB
QUF.r.TIONS: • Mow c«n the leasons learned from this estuary bo applied to other coastal areas?
LB9SONS LKARNKD
Required Information
Infor-
matIon
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Requ1r ed
Adequate
Infor-
vnat i on
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary!
"A nomination should demonstrate the
value of the estuary on a national scale
and the aspects of the program applicable
to other coast al /est uar I ne waters."
Estuary problems, and goals and
objectives and likely results of the
management conference are Identified.
(Review 305(b) reports, PCS com-
pliance to assess accuracy of
problem identification.)
Applicability of likely results to
other estuaries Is discussed.
Problems and probable causes
previously unaddressed In the
NEP are Identified.
Inclusion of estuary would increase
comprehensive understanding of
problems/causes.
Results can be expected in
a short time frame.
-------
NKEI) FOR THE CONFERENCE
4 of IB
Ql/ESTTONS:
What Is the Importance of the estuary on a Jocal or regional scale?
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
ReqiJ 1 red
Adequate
Infor-
mation
< Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
"The nomination should also Include a
demonstration of the estuary's value on
a local or regional scale."
• Nomination documented value of:
- recreational activities
- commercial fishery
- ecological value of living resources
- tourism
This demonstration should include the
value of the estuary to the local
economy..."
• The nomination documented how
chanoea In estuarine quality may
affect economic values.
-------
NEKD FOR TIIF CONKF.RFNCF. of Ifl
QIJF.STIONS: • What is the inportance of the estuary or a loca] or regional scale?
LIVING RESOURCES
Required InfoimatIon
Infor-
matIon
Included?
Y/N/HA
f'.PA Conclusions
Requlred
Adequate
1nfor-
matIon
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach HtLei la)}
as Necessar V>
"This demonstration should Include ...
the value of living resources within the
estuary ..."
• The value of the estuary's living
resources was demonstrated by
considering species diversity,
distribution, endangered species,
etc.
• The nomination documented how
changes in estuarlne quality may
affect living resources. Trends
were addressed as applicable.
-------
NEED TOR TIIF. CONFERENCE
6 of 18
QUESTIONS:
What are the major environmental problems facing the estuary?
LIVING RESOURCES
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Pequi rod
Adequate
Infor-
mat ion
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
Problem statement providing listing of all
value. Potential problems Include:
• toxicants
• pathogens
• eutrophlcatlon
• habitat/modification
• changes in living resources
• other (including concern or
ant idegradation)
• All problems were sufficiently
addressed and some demonstration was
made to how these problems detract
from the estuary's values.
-------
MXD ran TUT CONFERENCE
7 of lfl
QUESTIONS • What is known about cause/effect relationships and ho* do you prcpose to better identify the causes of environmental problems?
LIVING resources
Required Information
Infor-
matIon
Included?
Y/N/NA
F.PA Conclusions
Requlred
Adequate
Infor-
nation
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
The nomination should address the cause/
effect relationships "... to the extent
they are Vnown."
A cause/effect relationship Mas
Identified, a probable relationship
was Identified, or methods to explore
relationships were Included for each
problem facing the estuary. (Review
305(b) to assure consistency of
cause/effect relationships defined.)
Reasonable evidence of a cause/effect
relationship must hp presented. Summary
of problems, observed changes and
probable causes could he arranqed In
tabular form.
Evidence may limit the number of
potential sources and link the effects
to a single or few causes. Evidence
such as bloassays, relative loadings
or Isolated areas of contamlnatIon
can be used demonstrate these
relatlonshlps.
A strategy for measuring t he effects
of control (s) Is Identified, In order
to share t.hls Information with other
estuary managers.
• Background Information and a list of
variables used (l.e, pollutant concen-
trations, species diversity) to measure
success of control strategies Is provided.
-------
NEED FOR T1IE CONFERENCE B of If!
QUESTIONS: • What are the institutional arrangements for the estuary and how are they working?
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
F.PA Conclusions
Requlred
Adequate
Infor-
mat Ion
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
"An evaluation of Institutional
structures, Including laws, regulations,
and management programs Is needed."
"The nomination should list laws,
regulations, policies, and control
programs at Federal, State and local
levels, identify gaps and inconsis-
tencies, and assess how well regulations
are being enforced and whether programs
are being coordinated."
• A listing of all Institutional
structures affecting the estuary,
and roles of each, appeared.
• A listing of all major laws, regs,
policies, and control programs
appeared along with a short descrip-
tion of roles and limits of each.
• Gaps in the laws/institutions that
fall to address estuarine problems
were identified.
• Where multiple organizations are
Involved, coordination schemes were
discussed (including Interstate
coordinat ion) .
• The success of the programs In place
was demonstrated by compliance
statistics, vlqor of enforcement
actions.
-------
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS
9 of IB
QUESTIONS:
• What goals and objectives do you propose to set for the estuary and how do you propose to meet them?
G0A1.S, OBJECTIVES, ACTION PLANS
Required Information
Infor-
mat1 on
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
RequI red
Adequate
1nfor-
mat1 on
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
O
l
I—1
o
"The nomination should list the overall
goals the State plans to propose to a
management conference."
Objectives "... are established on the
basis of preferred uses, standards, and
permit activities ... sediment quality,
living resources, and land and water
resources."
• A listing of goals is provided.
• Goals are long-term/broad in scope.
• Goals relate to desired condition of
entire estuary or estuarlne segments.
Stated as maintenance, restoration,
etc.
• Objectives are aimed at achieving
goals.
• Objectives may be segment-specific.
• Objectives are specific and short-
term compared to goals.
• Objectives are consistent with WQ
standards or planned modifications
of standards (review State Wqs and
305 (b) reports) .
"Action plans should be proposed to
afldress the environmental and institu-
tional problems identified in the problem
si atement."
• Action plans should address sediment
quality, living resources, and land/
water resources.
• Action plans indicate who, what,
when, where and how plans will l>e
carried o
-------
LIKKI.IItOOO Of SUCCESS
10 of 18
QUESTIONS:
Who will participate In the management conference and how will It be organized?
CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Requi red
Adequate
Infor-
mat1 on
-------
LIKKl.IIKXM Of SUCCESS 11 of 1 8
QUESTIONS: • What are the State and local governments and public and private Institutions already doing for the estuary?
TRADITIONAL" FEDERAL PROGRAMS: STATE ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Requ1 red
Adequate
Infor-
matIon
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
"The nomination should address the State's
effort to maintain and improve ther.e
(traditional) CWA programs."
Problems associated with existing Federal
programs, their current status and projected
improvements should be discussed.
• Explanation of past efforts that
catalogued or identified estaurlne
values should be Included (e.g.,
areawide, basin plans or 305(b) reports).
• Status of following Federal programs
should be documented:
- NPDES
- Pretreatment
- WQS/WQ Monitoring
- 404 Dredqe and Fill.
Estuary management pursuant to other
Federal statutes should be highlighted.
• Efforts to maintain or improve water quality
in the estuary under the Coastal Zone
Management Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and the Marine Protection, Resources and
Sanctuaries Act are addressed. Plans for
integrating these activities are included.
New Federal water quality initiatives should • Nomination demonstrates how WQA activities
also discussed. If the State has are coordinated regarding
dev« a State Clean Water Strategy (SCWS),
desc on of coordination of activities - toxic .rol strategies
' 1 - ' ' ~ - •... i- _ rofi'.fsi nl '•nu-'-n -wj 1 ill I nn
-------
LIKFMHOOO OF SUCCESS 12 of 1
QUESTIONS: • What are the State and local governments and pubJ Ic and private institutions already doing for the estuary?
ADDITIONAL" STATE PROGRAMS
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
El'A f onc I usi ons
Requi red
Adequate
Infor-
mati on
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
"EPA recognizes that ... Stnte programs
often provide more extensive authorities
than the CWA to address wator pollution
control i o'lcerns." Any problems issued in
the Problem St atement should be addressed.
Water quality
Sediment quality
Living resources management
- Land use management
- Water resources management
(i.e., water quantity programs)
• The nomination documented additional
programs directed at Improved water
quality, e.g., NPS control require-
ments .
• The nomination documented State
efforts In living resources manage-
ment .
• The nomination addressed State
efforts in land use management.
• The nomination addressed State
efforts in water resources
management.
-------
LIKKI.IIKXX) OF SUCCESS
13 of 18
QUESTIONS:
What, are the State and local governments and public and private institutions already doing for the estuary?
"Tradltional" CWA programs
POTWs
LOCAL PROGRAMS - "TRADrTIONAL" PROGRAM
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
RequI red
Adequate
T n for -
mation
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
Operation/maintenance of
existing facilities
Pretreatment compliance
• The status of operating/maintaining
existing facilities was accurately
represented. Needed Improvements
were identified.
• The status of local pretreatment
programs were accurately represented.
Needed improvements were identified
(check PCS reports) .
-------
LIKELIHOOD OK SUCCESS
14 of 18
OURnrrONS:
What are the State and ioca 1 governments and public and private institutions already doing for the estuary?
LOCAI, PROGRAMS - "EXTRA EFFORTS"
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Requlred
Adequate
Infor-
mation
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
'Extra" efforts
POTWs
Upgrades to the facility are being
made to improve performance to meet
w.q.s. or sludge quality objectives.
• More stringent effluent standards
for Indirect dischargers are being
established.
Land use planning
Municipal/county governments have
considered/developed land use
cont rols.
Monitor! ng/research programs
Municipality/County have worked
alone, or in concert, to monitor/
research the ecosystem's values,
threat to those values, and
potential solutions.
-------
I.IKFI.IIIOOO OK SUCCESS 15 of 18
QUESTIONS: • What are the State and local governments and public and private Institutions already doing for the estuary?
PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
KPA Conclusions
Pequi red
Adequate
1nfor-
mation
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Material";
as Necessary)
Description of efforts being made by State • Documented efforts by these institu-
unlverslties and private Institutions tlons to characterIze:
Values
Threat to
Solution
values
-------
QUESTIONS:
• Is there public and political
Infor-
mat i on
Included
Required Information Y/N/NA
Demonstration of political commitment
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS 16 or 1
as well as financial capability, to support Implementation of the CCMP?
POLITICAL WILL
Adequate
I n f or-
h.P A Conclusions mat ion Comments (Attach Materials
Required (Y/N) as Necessary)
Nomination speaks to involvement of
city, county, and other jurisdictions
(e.g., sewer district, harbor
authorit y) .
Nomination speaks to actions these
jurisdictions have taken/plan to
take.
Other, e.g., legislative activity.
-------
QUESTIONS:
• Is there public and political
Infor-
mation
Included
Required Information Y/N/NA
"The nomination must document the existence
of, and/or potential for generating, public
concern and support."
I.IKEI.I IKTOO OF SUCCESS 17 of 18
II, as well as financial capability, to support implementation of the CCMP?
PUBLIC SUPPORT
Adequate
In(or-
M'A Conclusions mation Comments (Attach Materials
Required (Y/N) as Necessary)
• Evidence exists that public supports
actions to protect/restore the
estuary.
• A plan is provided for developing/
maintaining public participation.
•.The nomination discusses the need to
maintain public involvement In
problem Identification and In
solution development.
-------
LIKFMHOOD Of SOCCKSS 18 of 1 8
QUESTIONS: • Is there public and political will, as well as financial capability, to support implementation of the CCMP?
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
Required Information
Infor-
mation
Included?
Y/N/NA
EPA Conclusions
Required
Adequate
Infor-
mation
(Y/N)
Comments (Attach Materials
as Necessary)
"Governor(s) must sign a commitment ...
that the State will provide at least
25 percent toward the cost of the
Conference."
• Governor's signed Commitment appears
with package.
"State should demonstrate that it will be
¦>ble to meet the expense of implementing
.ictlon plans."
• (Rough) Estimates of Action Plans
are provided. Methods to raise
dollars to meet expenditures are
discussed.
"Nomination should include a commitment to
develop a strategy within two years ... to
pay for implementation costs."
• Either a strategy has been developed
or the nomination Includes the types
of alternative financing plans it
will consider.
-------
APPENDIX D: AVAILABLE DATA SOURCES
-------
DATA SOURCES APPLICABLE TO ASSESSMENT AMD
TARGETING OF WATER BODIES
I. EPA DATA SOURCES
A. Computerized Data Systems
EPA maintains the following water quality-related data bases,
containing state and EPA data. Most of this information is linked
together for access using the reach file coding structure under
STORET. Permit compliance System (PCS) data is available directly
through PCS coordinators (located in regions and states) or through
Reach File Systems in related pilot project regions (Regions I, II,
III, IV, and V).
These data bases, individually and through linkages that have been
and are being developed, can be very useful in assessing water
quality. For instance, ambient water quality data in the STORET
system's Water Body File can be compared with state water quality
standards or EPA water quality criteria quickly to identify those
water bodies where standards have been exceeded.
Reach File
o Nation's major water bodies divided into some 70,000
individual segments (reaches).
o Reaches assigned numbers/names
o Locational data includes latitude/longitude, state and county
codes
o Associated Reach Characteristics File contains physical
characteristics for segments in Reach File—slope, elevations,
width, depth, velocity, etc.
o Associated Gauge File contains annual mean and low flow and
monthly mean flow estimates
o Linked to Drinking Water Supply File, giving location of water
supply sources/intakes
Contact: Office of Science and Technology
Office of Water
EPA Headquarters
Phone: (FTS)2 60-54 00/(202)260-5400
Water Quality File
o Water quality data from about 200,000 stations
o Locational data for each station—ID No., reach assignment
latitude/longitude, state/county
o Data on hundreds of parameters, most common of each includes
pH, temperature, DO, solids, nitrogen, metals
o Info on use impairment from ASWIPCA State's Evaluation of
Progress (STEP) and NPS reports
o National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) study data
D-l
-------
Water Quality File (continued)
Contact: STORET Customer Support
Office of Information Resources Management
EPA Headquarters
Phone: (FTS)883-8683 or (703)883-8683
(Note: Until recently, STORET and the Water Quality File were
synonymous, but STORET is now becoming a much broader
system linking a number of EPA data bases.)
Industrial Facilities Discharge File (IFD)
o Data on 60,000 industrial and municipal discharges
o Industrial SIC codes, reach assignments, effluent data
o Information on indirect discharges to POTWs
Contact: Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
EPA Headquarters
(FTS)260-5350 or (202)260-5850
Permit Compliance System
o Records on 65,000 NPDES permits
o Locational data on permitted facilities, including link to
Reach File
o Pollutant-specific discharge limits
o Data from Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
o Automatic detection of violations of effluent limits
o Special feature of link to STORET provides estimates of
effluent dilution rations (average or low stream flow)
Contact: Permits Division
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-8304 or (202) 260-8304
PCS/STORET link
— see IFD File listing for phone number
BIOS
o Data on the distribution, abundance, and condition of aquatic
organisms, including fish tissue analysis
o Descriptions of habitat at sampled sites—substrata type,
streambank stability, canopy type
o Generates diversity indices/community structure analyses
o Will incorporate CETIS (see below)
D-2
-------
BIOS (continued)
Contact: Monitoring Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-7028 or (202) 260-7028
Complex Effluent Toxicity Information System fCETIS)
o Data from whole effluent toxicity tests
Contact: Permits Division
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-9545 or (202) 260-9545
Water Body File (under development)
o Computerized system of recording information needed to prepare
305(b) reports
o Correlated with Reach File segments
o To contain assessment data, including type(s) and magnitude of
impairment, categories of point and nonpoint sources
Contact: Watershed Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-7074 or (202) 260-7040
STORET Nonpoint Source Stream Station File
o Data on 700 stations from 22 states estimated to be primarily
impacted by NPS
o STORET number, river reach number, state, county
o Relative contribution of NPS in wet and low flow conditions of
nine general pollutant types
Contact: Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-7085 or (202) 260-7085
D-3
-------
Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS)
o Inventory of public water supply systems in the U.S.
o Listing of exceedences of national drinking water standards in
treated water (non in raw water supply)
o Some information on location of raw water supplies for some
systems
Contact: Enforcement and Program Implementation Division
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
EPA Headguarters
FTS 260-5522 or (202) 260-5522
Needs Survey File
o Data from the 1S86 Needs Survey covering approximately 24,000
existing and proposed POTWs in need of construction
o Approximately 200 data elements including facility
characteristics and and location, construction costs,
population served, effluent characteristics, and more
o Linked to the Reach file, PCS
Contact: Municipal Support Division
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
EPA Headguarters
Phone: FTS 260-5859 or (202) 260-5859
Grants Information Control System (GICS)
o Data on all EPA construction grants projects for POTWs
o Contains administrative, financial, technical, and project
status information on each EPA grant
o Linked to the Needs Survey and PCS
Contact: Municipal Support Division
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-5859 or (202) 260-5859
D-4
-------
B. Other EPA Data Sources
Regional Priority Wetlands Lists
o Lists of most valuable (productive, unique) and vulnerable
wetlands in each EPA Region
o Prepared by EPA Regional Offices
Contact: Wetlands Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-1915 or (202)260-1915
(also contact Regional wetlands staff)
Other Program-Specific Guidance (e.g.. 304(1). 319. 314)
o under 304(1), reach-by-reach listing of toxic pollutants and
discharges
Contact: Monitoring Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
EPA Headquarters
FTS 260-7040 or (202)260-7040
D-5
-------
II. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR DATA SOURCES
Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE)
o Managed'by USGS
o Water quality data for 5,000 sampling stations
o Data on peak and daily flows from some 8,000 stations
o Incorporates data from usgs's nasqan system
(Note: all water quality data from WATSTORE included in STORET)
contact: Water Resources Division
U.S.G.S.
Reston, VA
(703) 648-5684
National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX^
o Managed by USGS
o Listing of all organizations nationwide collecting water data
o Master Water Index provides information on about 400,000 data
collection sites
Contact: Water Resources Division
U.S.G.S.
Reston, VA
(703) 648-5684
National Wetlands Inventory (partially completed)
o Managed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
o Computerized mapping scheme for entire country
o Vegetation data—3500 wetlands species
o Ecological community types
o Classification according to wetlands types
Contact: Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 653-8726
Nationwide Rivers Inventory
o Developed by National Park Service
o List of over 1,500 river segments (around 62,000 miles)
thought to have sufficient natural or cultural attributes to
qualify for National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; excludes
rivers in the System and official candidate rivers
D-6
-------
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (continued)
Contact: Division of Park and Resource Planning
National Parks Service
Philadelphia, PA
(215) 597-7386
Endangered Species Information System (ESIS^
o Covers species listed under federal Endangered Species Act
o Official status (endangered, threatened)
o Factors contributing to present status
o Habitat types with which species associated
o Present/past location by county/state
o Watersheds/subunits where found
o Counties/states with designated critical habitat
Contact: Office of Endangered Species
Department of Interior
Washington, D.C. 209240
(703) 235-2760
Annual Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
o List of all National Wildlife Refuges and other lands under
the control of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Contact: Division of Realty
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Washington, DC 20240
(202) 653-7650
National Natural Landmarks Program (National Park Service)
o A register of significant natural areas which illustrate the
diversity of the natural heritage of the U.S.
o Maps of areas
o Info on ecological and geological characteristics
o Info on threats
Coptact: National Register Division
National Park Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-9525
D-7
-------
Land Use and Data Analysis (USGS)
o Reports land use by 40 different land use types for entire USA
o Most data is from middle 1970's
o Data based on LANDSAT satellite imagery
Contact: National Cartographic Information Center
USGS
Reston, VA
(703) 648-6045
Inventory of Private Recreation Facilities
o Inventory of private recreation facilities
o Data reported by state, county and town
Contact: National Park Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
National Survey of Fishing. Hunting and Wildlife Associated
Recreation
o Includes fishing and hunting information on expenditures,
times use, location and socio-economic characteristics
o Covers non-consumptive wildlife recreation
Contact: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
(202) 343-4902
D-8
-------
III. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADIMINISTRATION (NOAA)
National Estuarine Inventory
o Covers 92 major estuaries
o Data on estuary dimensions, drainage area, stratification
classification, freshwater inflow rates, flow rations, and
tides
o Land use information for 25 categories of land use
o Computerized data base
Contact: NOAA
Washington, D.C.
(202) 443-8843
National Coastal Wetlands Data Base
o Type and extent of coastal wetlands by estuary
o Based on statistical sample of 3,000 National Wetlands
Contact: NOAA
Washington, DC
(202) 443-8843
National Shellfish Register
o Classifies shellfish beds according to water quality and
productivity
o Historical data available for some areas
Contact: NOAA
Washington, DC
(202) 443-8843
Shoreline Characterization
o Characterizes estuarine shoreline according to eight shoreline
types, and dredging activities
o Shoreline type is reported on color coded NOAA nautical charts
Contact: NOAA
Washington, DC
(202) 443-8843
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
o Comprehensive data base of pollutant discharges entering
estuarine waters
o Source categories include point sources, nonpoint sources,
upstream sources, oil and gas operations, dredging operations
and accidental spills
o Computerized data base
Contact: NOAA
Washington, DC
(202) 443-8843
D-9
-------
IV. OTHER FEDERAL DATA SOURCES
National Resources Inventory
o National survey based on 160 acre units
o Data on land use, conservation practices, soil type, erosion
Contact: Soil Conservation Service
U.S.D.A.
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 447-4530
Land Areas of the National Forest System (U.S. Forest Service)
o Organized by state and county
o Includes info on designated wilderness areas, primitive areas,
recreation areas, wildlife preserves
Contact: Forest Service
Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C. 20013
(202) 235-6105
Recreation Information Management System
o Recreational facilities and areas in National Forest System
o Data on types of recreation, visitor days, participation by
activity
Contact: Recreation Management Division
U. S. Forest Service
Washington, D.C. 20250
(202) 447-2311
D-10
-------
IV. OTHER DATA SOURCES
State Natural Heritage Programs
o Designated to identify elements essential to preservation of
biological diversity
o Inventories on existence and location of rare and endangered
plants and animals
o Inventories on unique plant communities, aquatic systems
o Over half the states have such programs, developed in
cooperation with The Nature Conservancy
Contact: State Natural Heritage Program Office in your state
Listing of state Heritage Program contacts:
The Nature Conservancy
1800 North Kent St.
Arlington, VA 22209
(202) 841-5300
Priority Aquatic Sites For Biological Diversity Conservation
o Listing, by state, of waters containing key elements of
biological diversity
o Developed with assistance of state heritage programs
Contact: The Nature Conservancy
18 00 North Kent St.
Arlington, VA 22209
(202) 841-5300
Breeding Bird Survey
o Census of 200 species by country
o Historical data available
Contact: Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Ithica, N.Y.
(607) 255-4999
Socio-Economic Environmental Demograhic Info. System
o Collection of socio-economic, environmental, demographic and
health related data bases
o Covers geographic regions ranging from nation to minor civil
divisions
o Computerized data base updated annually
Contact: Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Department of Energy
Berkeley, CA
(415) 486-5063
D-ll
-------
<3 d 5"L' I
' 5
. £ %
N 3^
i m°
EPA Library Region 4
030
07
DATE DUE
------- |