19–010 

Calendar No. 302 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 112–136 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION ACT 

JANUARY 26, 2012.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 97] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred a bill (S. 97) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act to establish a grant program to support the restoration of San 

Francisco Bay, having considered the same, reports favorably 

thereon and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

The San Francisco estuary is one of the largest estuaries on the 

West Coast of the United States. It is a critical nursing ground for 

many ocean species and provides important habitat for migratory 

birds along the Pacific Flyway. The estuary supports an array of 

important economic activities including commercial and sport fishing, shipping, industry, agriculture, recreation and tourism. As the 

region has grown over many years, the water quality and health 

of the San Francisco Bay estuary have declined. Restoring the San 

Francisco Bay will protect the health and vitality of this important 

region, and help it adapt to increasing pressures. 

EPA’s National Estuary Program was established by Congress in 

1987 as Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The Program’s goal 

is to improve the quality of estuaries of national importance by designating such estuaries to participate in the National Estuary Program and developing plans for their restoration. Established in 

1987, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership was one of the original national estuary programs designated by EPA following the 

creation of Section 320. The San Francisco Estuary Partnership, 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

like all other National Estuary Programs around the country, has 

developed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

(CCMP) to guide restoration activities. 

S. 97 amends the Clean Water Act to establish a grant program 

to fund restoration of the San Francisco Bay that will build on the 

decades of work carried out through the San Francisco Estuary 

Partnership under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The bill authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 

(Administrator) to provide grants to State and local agencies, and 

public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organizations, for 

ecosystem restoration projects and habitat improvement for fish, 

waterfowl, and wildlife, in accordance with the priorities described 

in the CCMP for the San Francisco Bay estuary. 

The federal grant program authorized by this bill is designed to 

help meet the need for additional federal investment to implement 

the existing CCMP. The Environmental Protection Agency has received $24 million in appropriations since Fiscal Year 2008 to provide grants for ecosystem restoration and water quality work in the 

San Francisco Bay. The authorization of this grant program provided for in S. 97 will allow the EPA to budget for and build upon 

the existing grant program for Bay restoration. 

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

This bill will establish a program to provide grants to State and 

local agencies and public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organizations for projects to restore ecosystems and improve habitat 

for fish, waterfowl and wildlife, in accordance with the comprehensive conservation and management plan for the San Francisco estuary. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 notes that this Act may be cited as the ‘‘San Francisco 

Bay Restoration Act’’. 

Section 2. San Francisco Bay Restoration Grant Program 

This section authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency (Administrator) to provide grants to State and 

local agencies and public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organizations. Grants are to be provided for projects to restore ecosystems and improve habitat for fish, waterfowl and wildlife in accordance with the comprehensive conservation and management 

plan (CCMP) for the San Francisco estuary. 

This section establishes a non-federal share of not less than 25 

percent for grants provided by the Administrator. This section, as 

amended, authorizes $5 million for each of fiscal years 2012 

through 2016 to carry out the program and limits the administrative expenses to implement the program to five percent. 

Discussion 

The selection of projects for funding must be done in accordance 

with the comprehensive conservation and management plan 

(CCMP) for the San Francisco estuary, which was developed pursuant to the requirements of the National Estuary Program under 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The Committee also expects 

that the Environmental Protection Agency will continue to consult 

with the San Francisco Estuary Partnership in administering the 

grant program to ensure that it reflects the most current priorities 

and recommendations outlined in the CCMP. 

After establishing the San Francisco Estuary Partnership in 

1987, representatives from government agencies and private and 

community groups in the twelve-county Bay-Delta region came together in a consensus-based process over a five-year period to develop the first CCMP for the San Francisco Estuary. The Governor 

of California and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator approved the Plan in 1993. The CCMP was most recently 

updated in 2007. The CCMP is a blueprint for restoring and maintaining the Estuary through recommended corrective actions in 

nine program areas. It seeks to achieve improvements in water 

quality through restoration and maintenance of fish, shellfish, and 

wildlife populations which are balances with recreational activities. 

The grant program established by this section will support implementation of this locally-driven, consensus-based plan. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The San Francisco Bay Restoration Act was introduced by Senator Feinstein (D–CA) and co-sponsored by Senator Boxer (D–CA) 

on January 25, 2011. The bill was received, read twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

On September 21, 2011, the Full Committee met to discuss a number of bills including S. 97. During this meeting, the Committee 

considered the bill and adopted an amendment that modified the 

authorization level in the bill. S. 97 was ordered to be reported favorably with an amendment by voice vote. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 97 on September 21, 2011. The bill was ordered to be reported favorably with an amendment by voice vote. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee finds that S. 97 does not create 

any additional regulatory burdens, nor will it cause any adverse 

impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the committee noted that the Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO) has found, ‘‘S. 97 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.’’ 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In accordance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following identification of congressionally directed spending items contained in the 

bill, as reported: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

Section Provision Member 

2 ............................ Authorization of appropriations ............................. Sen. Boxer and Sen. Feinstein 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2011. 

HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 97, the San Francisco 

Bay Restoration Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 97—San Francisco Bay Restoration Act 

Summary: S. 97 would authorize the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to provide grants to state, local, and nonprofit agencies to fund ecosystem restoration projects and habitat improvement in the San Francisco Estuary in California. The bill would 

authorize the appropriation of $5 million for each of fiscal years 

2012 through 2016. Assuming appropriation of those amounts, 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 97 would cost $23 million 

over the 2012–2016 period. 

Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation because 

the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 97 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and 

would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 97 is shown in the following table. The costs of 

this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012–2016 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ..................................................................................... 5 5 5 5 5 25 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................................... 3 5 5 5 5 23 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 97 will 

be enacted near the end of 2011 and that the authorized amounts 

will be appropriated for each year. Estimated outlays are based on 

historical spending patterns for similar programs. 

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 97 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

State and local governments could benefit from grants authorized 

by the bill. Any costs to state and local governments that result 

from participation in the grant program would be incurred voluntarily as conditions of federal assistance. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susanne S. Mehlman; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Ryan Miller; Impact 

on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in øblack brackets¿, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 122. WET WEATHER WATERSHED PILOT PROJECTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator, in coordination with the 

States, may provide technical assistance and grants for treatment 

works to carry out pilot projects relating to the following areas of 

wet weather discharge control: 

(1) WATERSHED MANAGEMENT OF WET WEATHER DISCHARGES.—The management of municipal combined sewer 

overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and stormwater discharges, on an integrated watershed or subwatershed basis for 

the purpose of demonstrating the effectiveness of a unified wet 

weather approach. 

(2) STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.—The control 

of pollutants from municipal separate storm sewer systems for 

the purpose of demonstrating and determining controls that 

are cost-effective and that use innovative technologies in reducing such pollutants from stormwater discharges. 

(b) ADMINISTRATION.—The Administrator, in coordination with 

the States, shall provide municipalities participating in a pilot 

project under this section the ability to engage in innovative practices, including the ability to unify separate wet weather control efforts under a single permit. 

(c) FUNDING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, 

$15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, and $20,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2004. Such funds shall remain available until expended. 

(2) STORMWATER.—The Administrator shall make available 

not less than 20 percent of amounts appropriated for a fiscal 

year pursuant to this subsection to carry out the purposes of 

subsection (a)(2). 

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—The Administrator may retain not to exceed 4 percent of any amounts appropriated for 

a fiscal year pursuant to this subsection for the reasonable and 

necessary costs of administering this section. 

(d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 5 years after the date 

of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall transmit to 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Congress a report on the results of the pilot projects conducted 

under this section and their possible application nationwide. 

(33 U.S.C. 1274) 

SEC. 123. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION GRANT PROGRAM. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) ANNUAL PRIORITY LIST.—The term ‘annual priority list’ 

means the annual priority list compiled under subsection (b). 

(2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.—The term ‘comprehensive plan’ 

means— 

(A) the comprehensive conservation and management 

plan approved under section 320 for the San Francisco Bay 

estuary; and 

(B) any amendments to that plan. 

(3) ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP.—The term ‘Estuary Partnership’ 

means the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, the entity that 

is designated as the management conference under section 320. 

(b) ANNUAL PRIORITY LIST.— (1) IN GENERAL.—After providing public notice, the Administrator shall annually compile a priority list identifying and 

prioritizing the activities, projects, and studies intended to be 

funded with the amounts made available under subsection (c). 

(2) INCLUSIONS.—The annual priority list compiled under 

paragraph (1) shall include— 

(A) activities, projects, or studies, including restoration 

projects and habitat improvement for fish, waterfowl, and 

wildlife, that advance the goals and objectives of the approved comprehensive plan; 

(B) information on the activities, projects, programs, or 

studies specified under subparagraph (A), including a description of— 

(i) the identities of the financial assistance recipients; 

and 

(ii) the communities to be served; and 

(C) the criteria and methods established by the Administrator for selection of activities, projects, and studies. 

(3) CONSULTATION.—In developing the priority list under 

paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consult with and consider the recommendations of— 

(A) the Estuary Partnership; 

(B) the State of California and affected local governments 

in the San Francisco Bay estuary watershed; and 

(C) any other relevant stakeholder involved with the protection and restoration of the San Francisco Bay estuary 

that the Administrator determines to be appropriate. 

(c) GRANT PROGRAM.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Pursuant to section 320, the Administrator 

may provide funding through cooperative agreements, grants, or 

other means to State and local agencies, special districts, and 

public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, and organizations, including the Estuary Partnership, for activities, studies, or 

projects identified on the annual priority list. 

(2) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANTS; NON-FEDERAL SHARE.— 

(A) MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF GRANTS.—Amounts provided to 

any individual or entity under this section for a fiscal year 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

shall not exceed an amount equal to 75 percent of the total 

cost of any eligible activities that are to be carried out 

using those amounts. 

(B) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share of the 

total cost of any eligible activities that are carried out using 

amounts provided under this section shall be— 

(i) not less than 25 percent; and 

(ii) provided from non-Federal sources. 

(d) FUNDING.— ø(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this 

section such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2012 

through 2021.¿ 

(1) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized 

to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this section 

$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 through 2016. 

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Of the amount made available to carry out this section for a fiscal year, the Administrator 

shall use not more than 5 percent to pay administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this section. 

(3) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER FUNDING.—Nothing in this section limits the eligibility of the Estuary Partnership to receive 

funding under section 320(g). 

(4) PROHIBITION.—No amounts made available under subsection (c) may be used for the administration of a management 

conference under section 320. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS