EPA United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

WATERSHED 

MANAGEMENT 

COMMUNITY-BASED 

LESSONS FROM THE 

NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 
February, 2005 

EPA-842-B-05-003 

Acknowledgments 

This handbook was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) Coastal Management Branch. The content of this handbook is the 

result of a collaborative effort among the directors and staff of the 28 National 

Estuary Programs and the EPA’s National Estuary Program Regional 

Coordinators. The EPA Work Assignment Manager was Tim Jones, who 

provided overall project coordination. 

Special thanks to the following people who reviewed and provided useful 

suggestions in the preparation of this document: Ashley Allen, Dick 

Eckenrod, Diane Gould, Doug Jacobson, Stuart Lehman, Macara Lousberg, 

Debrah Marriott, Fred McManus, Tracie Nadeau, Amy Owsley, Margherita 

Pryor, Kimberley Roy, Gustavo Rubio, Roger Taylor, and Thomas Webler. 
Environmental protection programs in the United States have significantly improved water 

assessed in the United States, about 40% of streams, 45% of lakes, and 50% of estuaries remain 

priority water quality and habitat problems within hydrologically-defined areas—is essential to 

Through this handbook, we describe the highly successful approaches to watershed 

management implemented by the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs). The NEPs, unique 

describes how the NEPs: 

• protect and restore estuaries by developing and implementing comprehensive 

management plans; 

• foster consensus on difficult issues by establishing effective governance structures; 

• conduct vigorous education and outreach by involving the public; 

• obtain significant funding by leveraging scarce resources; 

• 

• 

The principles and lessons learned contained in this document are relevant not only to NEPs, 

but to other watershed organizations who are working to implement watershed protection and 

can learn from the NEPs about innovative approaches to integrating science and management, 

fostering collaborative decision-making, and involving the public. While coastal estuaries may be 

home to certain elements that are not found in non-coastal areas, this handbook provides 

examples that do not require the presence of coastal elements to be successfully applied. 

I hope this document will be useful for all practitioners involved in watershed management, 

the development of this report. 

Diane Regas, Director 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Message from the Office Director 

quality during the last quarter century. Nonetheless, many challenges remain. Of the waters 

too polluted for fishing, swimming, and other uses. The watershed approach—targeting high 

address these issues. 

partnerships of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and numerous federal, state, 

and local organizations, work together to address coastal watershed management challenges. 

This document presents new information from nearly 20 years of the NEP experience and 

establish credibility by using science to inform decision making; and 

sustain their efforts by measuring and communicating results. 

restoration efforts. Whether working in coastal or non-coastal areas, watershed organizations 

including the staff of the NEP and EPA. Thank you to all of the 28 NEPs who contributed to 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 
COMMUNITY-BASED

WATERSHED

MANAGEMENT

Lessons from the

National Estuary

Program

FEBRUARY, 2005

Oceans and Coastal Protection Division 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

Office of Water 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 20460 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 
ix 

Chapter 1: 

Origin 

Chapter 2: 

Establishing a Governance Structure: 

Chapter 3: 

Base Program Analysis: 

Identifying Problems and Solutions: 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 

The National Estuary Program (NEP) ............................................................................................. 1 

NEP Principles in Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 

................................................................................................................................................................. 2 

The Cornerstones of the NEP ......................................................................................................................... 3 

Applicability of the NEP Approach ............................................................................................................... 5 

Establishing a Governance Structure ................................................................................................. 7 

NEP Principles in Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................. 7 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 

The NEP Governance Structure ...................................................................................................................... 8 

Setting the Direction for the Program ..................................................................................................... 8 

Directing Day-to-Day Program Activities .............................................................................................. 9 

Involving Stakeholder Groups and the General Public ........................................................................ 11 

Conducting Scientific Investigations to Support Management Plan Actions .................................... 14 

Working with Local Government ............................................................................................................ 15 

Ensuring Long-Term Financial, Political, and Community Support .................................................. 15 

Providing Support to the Governance Structure .......................................................................................... 16 

Staffing the Program Office ...................................................................................................................... 16 

Selecting an Institutional Setting ................................................................................................................ 18 

Preparing to Assess the Estuary and Its Institutions ...................................................................................... 19 

Examples .......................................................................................... 19 

Identifying Problems and Solutions ................................................................................................... 21 

NEP Principles in Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................. 21 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 

Technical Characterization ................................................................................................................................. 22 

Task 1: Identify and Describe the Resources and Uses of the Estuary ............................................ 23 

Task 2: Determine the Condition of the Resources ............................................................................ 23 

Task 3: Identify the Priority Problems .................................................................................................... 25 

Task 4: Identify Likely Causes of the Priority Problems ..................................................................... 26 

Task 5: Provide Input to the Management Plan ................................................................................... 30 

Understanding the Institutional Challenges ......................................................... 32 

Task 1: Identify Relevant Local, State, and Federal Organizations .................................................... 32 

Task 2: Assess Effectiveness of Existing Programs ............................................................................. 33 

Task 3: Identify Changes Needed to Improve Program Effectiveness ........................................... 33 

From Characterization to Plan Development ................................................................................................ 35 

Examples ............................................................................................ 35 

Table of Contents 

v
Chapter 4: 

Developing the Management Plan: 

Chapter 5: 

Implementing the Management Plan: 

Chapter 6: 

Appendix A: 

Appendix B: 

Appendix C: 

Appendix D: 

Appendix E: 

Appendix F: 

Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action ..................................................... 39 

NEP Principles in Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................. 39 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 39 

Components of a Management Plan .............................................................................................................. 40 

Statement of Priority Problems ................................................................................................................ 40 

Mission Statements, Goals, and Objectives ............................................................................................ 40 

Action Plans .................................................................................................................................................. 41 

Monitoring Strategy .................................................................................................................................... 43 

Finance Strategy ........................................................................................................................................... 44 

Developing the Management Plan ................................................................................................................... 45 

From Management Plan Development to Implementation ........................................................................ 47 

Examples .............................................................................................. 48 

Implementing the Management Plan ................................................................................................. 51 

NEP Principles in Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................. 51 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 51 

Maintaining Momentum from Planning Through Implementation ........................................................... 52 

Revisiting the Governance Structure ........................................................................................................ 52 

Sustaining Stakeholder Involvement and Partner Support ................................................................... 53 

Obtaining Funds .................................................................................................................................................. 56 

Funding Operating Costs ........................................................................................................................... 57 

Funding Implementation Projects ............................................................................................................ 59 

Monitoring and Communicating Results ........................................................................................................ 62 

Environmental Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 62 

Programmatic Monitoring ......................................................................................................................... 63 

Communicating Results .............................................................................................................................. 63 

Updating the Management Plan ....................................................................................................................... 65 

Examples .......................................................................................... 66 

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 75 

Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended ................................................................................. 77 

NEP at a Glance ............................................................................................................................... 83 

Components of Action Plans for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership ............ 91 

Pros and Cons of Becoming a Tax-Exempt Nonprofit .......................................................... 93 

Excerpt from an NEP Finance Plan ............................................................................................. 95 

Reference Material ............................................................................................................................. 97 

vi
List of Figures 

Figure 1.1: 

Figure 2.1: 

Figure 2.2: 

Figure 3.1: 

Figure 3.2:

Figure 3.3: 

Figure 5.1: 

Figure 5.2: 

Figure 5.3: 

List of Tables 

Table 2.1: Examples of Public Participation in the NEP .................................................................................. 12 

Table 3.1: Examples of Historical Information Used for Estuary Characterization .................................... 24 

Table 3.2: Galveston Bay Ecosystem Impact Matrix .......................................................................................... 27 

Table 3.3: Basic Information Collected for Each Program in the Management Framework ..................... 33 

Table 3.4: Question Guide for Institutional Analysis ........................................................................................... 34 

Table 4.1: Basic Steps for Action Plan Development ......................................................................................... 42 

Table 5.1: Excerpt from one of the Charlotte Harbor NEP’s Quarterly Environmental Reports ............ 63 

The 28 National Estuary Programs, their Study Areas, and Surrounding Watersheds ............. 3 

Typical NEP Management Conference Organizational Structure ................................................ 9 

Organizational Structure for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership .......................... 10 

Relationships Among Technical Characterization Tasks ................................................................. 23 

 Interconnections Among Priority Problems in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary .................... 29 

Worksheet Used to Establish Relative Importance of an Estuary’s Resources .......................... 35 

Resources Leveraged by the NEPs .................................................................................................... 56 

Sources of NEP Leveraged Dollars (Percent Total) ...................................................................... 57 

Habitat Restored or Protected by the NEPs ................................................................................... 65 

vii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 

viii
is 

designed for all individuals and organizations involved in watershed management, 

document describes innovative approaches to watershed management implemented by 

the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs). The NEPs are community-based watershed 

nearly 20 years of experience, readers will learn how the NEPs organize and maintain 

effective citizen involvement efforts, collect and analyze data, assess and prioritize 

problems, develop and implement management plans, and communicate results of 

NEPs, the estuary program experience can also be adapted to non-coastal watershed 

Each chapter begins with the key management principles from the NEP experience. 

These broad principles are described and illustrated with examples from the 28 

Six 

Chapter 1 discusses the origin of the NEP and presents the four cornerstones or 

principles of the NEP: (1) focus on the watershed; (2) integrate science into the 

decision-making process; (3) foster collaborative problem solving; and (4) include the 

public. The chapter also describes the four phases of the NEP process—establishing a 

Plan, and implementing the Management Plan—and discusses the applicability of the 

for their programs, direct day-to-day operations, coordinate with local governments, 

Executive Summary 

Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program (NEP) 

including states, tribes, local governments, and nongovernmental organizations. This 

management organizations that restore and protect coastal watersheds. Drawing on 

program activities. While estuaries and their coastal watersheds are the focus of the 

initiatives. 

individual NEPs. The examples show how the NEPs address specific problems within 

identified priority problem areas, such as loss of habitat, polluted runoff, and invasive 

species. In many cases, actions address multiple problems simultaneously, such as land 

acquisition to reduce polluted runoff and increase habitat. The examples are found 

throughout the text and in sidebars, as well as at the end of each chapter. 

appendices provide additional information regarding the NEP watershed approach, 

including a brief summary of each NEP that includes their Web site address. The 

following paragraphs summarize the contents of each chapter. 

governance structure, identifying problems and solutions, developing the Management 

NEP model to other watershed management efforts. 

Chapter 2 explains how the NEPs develop a governance structure and support the 

work of stakeholder committees. The chapter describes how the NEPs provide a 

forum for open discussion, cooperation, and compromise that results in consensus. 

Examples of governance structures are provided that show how the NEPs set a course 

and ensure long-term financial support. 

ix
NEPs conduct the Base Program Analysis—an evaluation of the institutional 

and translated into plain English, telling a story about the estuary and its watershed. 

and Base Program Analysis to develop management plans that address the problems of 

agencies, and other organizations and individuals in the writing of the plan to ensure 

stakeholder support and a commitment to implement the plan. The chapter also shows 

how the NEPs use demonstration projects during plan development to showcase 

innovative management strategies, involve the public, and demonstrate the types of 

changes that full implementation can bring about. 

Chapter 5 describes how the NEPs maintain the momentum of their watershed 

programs as they shift from planning to implementation. The chapter explains how the 

NEPs adopt bylaws and other agreements that define participant roles and provide a 

mechanism for resolving conflicts; articulate a clear and realistic definition of success 

that includes measurable indicators; seek a variety of funding sources to avoid overreliance on a single entity; and involve citizens in environmental monitoring and 

building public support for implementation. 

approach to watershed management and highlights how they are applied to achieve 

Chapter 3 describes how each NEP assesses an estuary to determine its health and the 

effectiveness of existing management efforts. The chapter outlines how the NEPs 

conduct a Technical Characterization that describes the quality of the estuary, defines 

its problems, and suggests possible solutions. The chapter also describes how the 

structures that affect the estuary. Finally, the chapter discusses how the findings 

resulting from the Technical Characterization and Base Program Analysis are combined 

Chapter 4 explains how the NEPs use the results of the Technical Characterization 

the estuary. The chapter discusses how the NEPs involve affected jurisdictions, 

Chapter 6 summarizes the key principles that run throughout this unique and creative 

success. 

x
The National Estuary Program (NEP)

INTRODUCTION 

Estuaries are unique areas where freshwater from rivers mixes with saltwater from the 

ocean. These bays, sounds, lagoons, and other waterbodies are among the most 

biologically productive places on earth, 

In 

addition to providing habitat for a wide variety 

of fish and wildlife, including many endangered 

and threatened species, estuaries provide 

substantial economic benefits to the nation. Our 

ability to sustain commercial fisheries, 

recreational fisheries, tourism, and related 

activities depends upon healthy estuary 

commercial fisheries supported by estuaries is at 1 

Estuarine and coastal watersheds (areas of land 

that drain into a coastal body of water, such as 

an estuary or bay) are among the most 

aesthetically appealing areas in the nation. They 

are also among the most densely developed. 

This narrow fringe of land, which comprises 17 

percent of the land area of the United States, is 

population.

grow to more than 127 million people by 2010— 

an increase of more than 60 percent in only fifty 2 

This preference for the coasts has created 

pressures that threaten the very resources that 

Chapter 1: 

NEP PRINCIPLES 

IN CHAPTER 1 

• The NEP is built on four cornerstones: 

1) a focus on watersheds as the basic 

management units, 

2) sound decision-making is based 

on good science, 

3) a collaborative approach to 

problem solving, and 

4) the inclusion of the public. 

• 

approach can be adapted for a variety 

of environmental management situations, 

including both coastal and non-coastal 

• The four phases of the NEP process— 

establishing a governance structure, linking 

good science and sound management, 

developing the Management Plan, and 

implementing the Management Plan— 

are flexible and need not occur 

1 

Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base.

Department of Commerce, 1990. 

2 Fifty Years of Population Change Along the 

Nation’s Coast: 1960-2010. 

comparable to rainforests and coral reefs. 

ecosystems. For example, the economic value of 

least $19 billion annually.

home to more than 53 percent of the nation’s 

 America’s coastal population will 

years.

The National Estuary Program (NEP) 

The NEP’s community-based watershed 

watershed initiatives. 

sequentially. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean 

Service. Washington: U.S. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Service. 

Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990. 

1 
Chapter 1

toxic chemicals, and pathogens that strain the assimilative capacity of our estuaries and 

coastal areas and cause the degradation and loss of critical habitats and species that 

make these areas precious and economically valuable. This chapter discusses the origin 

NEP process, and discusses the applicability of the NEP approach to other watershed 

ORIGIN 

Chesapeake Bay programs, the NEP was designed to restore and maintain the integrity 

that contribute to the deterioration of estuaries, such as increasing development along 

(See Appendix A

commercial activities, would benefit greatly from comprehensive planning and 

(See Appendix B

Conference is a collection of committees that guides the program. The Management 

Conference typically includes local governments, affected businesses and industries, 

public and private institutions, nongovernmental organizations, the general public, and 

environmental problems, and designs actions to protect and restore habitats and living 

a three to five year process that involves convening stakeholders and reaching 

attract people to these areas. These pressures include increased loadings of nutrients, 

of the NEP, describes the four cornerstones or principles of the NEP, outlines the 

management efforts. 

Modeled after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Great Lakes and 

of estuaries and their watersheds. As called for in Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, 

the NEPs conduct long-term planning and management to address the complex factors 

our coasts. for the Clean Water Act, Section 320.) 

EPA periodically calls for nominations into the NEP from state governors. If an 

estuary faces significant risks to its ecological integrity, contributes substantially to 

management, and meets several other criteria, EPA may include it in the program. 

EPA has accepted 28 estuaries into the NEP since 1987 and all of these NEPs have 

completed their Management Plans. Figure 1.1 shows the 28 NEPs, their watersheds, 

and their study areas. for summary information on each of the 28 

NEPs, including each program’s Web site address.) 

Once an estuary is accepted into the NEP, a Management Conference is formed by 

EPA to provide the local decision-making framework for the estuary. The Management 

representatives from EPA, other federal agencies, state governments, and interstate or 

regional agencies. In addition to being a Management Conference participant, EPA 

provides financial and technical assistance, and reviews program performance. The 

Management Conference defines program goals, identifies the causes of the estuary’s 

resources. These action plans come together in a Management Plan which serves as a 

blueprint for protecting and restoring the estuary. Developing the Management Plan is 

consensus on solutions. 

2
The National Estuary Program (NEP)

Puget Sound 

Tillamook Bay 

Santa Monica Bay 

Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Bay 

Sarasota Bay 

Buzzards Bay 

Massachusetts Bays

Casco Bay 

Long Island Sound Study 

Mobile Bay 

 

 

THE CORNERSTONES OF THE NEP 

The fundamental principles that guide the NEP evolved from its place-based 

environmental management predecessors such as the Chesapeake Bay Program. The 

four cornerstones of the NEP are to: 

• focus on watersheds, 

• integrate science into the decision-making process, 

• foster collaborative problem solving, and 

• involve the public. 

define their management areas according to watershed boundaries and the ecosystems 

within them. 

are better able to set priorities and concentrate on those activities necessary to produce 

results in more effective and efficient coordination among stakeholders working to 

San Francisco 

Estuary 

Lower Columbia River 

Morro Bay 

Barataria-Terrebonne 

Estuary 

Albermarle-Pamlico Sounds 

Galveston 

Tampa Bay 

Charlotte Harbor 

Indian River Lagoon 

San Juan Bay 

Delaware Inland Bays 

Delaware Estuary 

Maryland Coastal Bays 

Narrangansett Bay 

New Hampshire Estuaries 

Barnegat Bay 

New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Peconic Bay 

Study Area location where NEPs focus their restoration efforts 

Watershed land area that drains into an estuary 

Figure 1.1: The 28 National Estuary Programs, their study areas, and 

surrounding watersheds 

Cornerstone 1: Focus on watersheds. 

Because environmental problems do not conform to political jurisdictions, the NEPs 

Focusing on these hydrologically-defined geographic areas helps the 

NEPs achieve an effective mix of point source pollution and polluted runoff controls, 

as well as land preservation and other measures to protect and restore water and other 

natural resources. By considering all sources of pollution in the watershed, the NEPs 

tangible improvements in water quality and habitat. Focusing on watersheds also 

improve water quality. 

3 
Chapter 1

Photo: Steve Delaney 

natural resources and the communities that depend upon them and to set goals and 

management options and action plans, implement solutions, evaluate the effectiveness 

By 

basing decisions on sound science, the NEPs 

As an environmental management approach, 

collaboration involves creating a shared vision 

and joint strategies to address concerns that 

go beyond any particular interest or 

responsible for and interested in the 

management and use of the estuary are 

involved in the process, the NEPs have achieved successful collaboration. The NEP 

without compromising the environmental goals of restoration and protection of the 

for bringing together diverse stakeholders to identify issues, develop management 

collaborative decision-making and reflects the unique problems, citizen concerns, and 

other characteristics of the watershed. The NEPs have found that this collaborative 

approach helps overcome the obstacles to cooperation, such as different statutory and 

Cornerstone 2: Integrate science into the decision-making process. 

Decision-making should be based on the best information and science available. 

Sound science provides objective information that informs debate, produces data on 

the status and trends of the estuary, and furnishes a basis for policies and programmatic 

decisions. The NEPs employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques to assess the 

identify environmental objectives. Science is also used by the NEPs to develop 

of actions, and revise plans. NEP stakeholders and partners play a key role in 

identifying problems to be assessed and collecting the scientific data needed to form 

conclusions. The NEPs apply science in an iterative fashion to encourage partners to 

set goals and targets and to make maximum progress based on available information, 

while continuing analysis and verification in areas where information is incomplete. 

are viewed as credible sources of information. 

Cornerstone 3: Foster collaborative 

problem solving. 

stakeholder. By ensuring that stakeholders 

director and staff serve as facilitators that balance conflicting estuary needs and uses 

estuary. The NEP ensures that decisions are made with the input of stakeholders and 

that all options, suggestions, and opinions are treated as worthy of consideration. 

Decisions are made through the NEP governance structure which provides the forum 

actions, and resolve conflicts. The governance structure provides the platform for 

budgetary responsibilities and the costs of sharing information and coordinating 

program efforts. 

4
The National Estuary Program (NEP)

The NEPs are guided by the principle that stakeholders in the watershed ought to have 

a meaningful role in shaping the program and substantive opportunities to participate in 

stakeholders in the watershed are given opportunities to help define estuary problems, 

set priorities, and implement solutions that they feel are relevant. This means that the 

NEPs seek to engage not only governmental entities, but the general public, nonprofits, 

businesses, and universities as well. This community-based approach has a high 

community members who must play a role in achieving them. Strong citizen 

involvement programs result in support for the funding of implementation projects and 

and involved public is often the NEPs’ most valuable asset for mustering the critical 

support needed to implement such actions as sewage treatment upgrades, sediment 

controls, and habitat restoration. 

These basic principles—focusing on watersheds as the basic management unit, linking 

approach to watershed management. 

APPLICABILITY OF THE 

The principles, examples, and lessons learned contained in this handbook are relevant 

not only to the NEPs but to other watershed organizations, including local 

governments, nonprofits, and others who are working to establish, implement, and 

While the NEPs are home to 

certain elements not found in non-coastal areas, such as the presence of salt water 

checklists and other methods used by NEPs to assess the effectiveness of existing 

nonprofits, and other organizations just as other watershed organizations are found in a 

watershed organizations can learn from the NEPs’ innovative approaches to integrating 

science and management, fostering collaborative decision-making, and involving the 

public. 

Cornerstone 4: Involve the public. 

its activities. The NEPs strive to facilitate a constructive dialog in which the range of 

likelihood of long-term success because ownership of the solutions extends to 

changes in day-to-day behaviors in the watershed that affect the estuary. An informed 

good science with sound decision-making, solving problems collaboratively, and 

involving the public—are themes that underpin the NEP and guide the NEP’s 

NEP APPROACH 

evaluate watershed protection and restoration efforts.

ecosystems, and receive funding and organizational support from EPA, this handbook 

can be successfully applied without the presence of these elements. For example, the 

institutions to manage water quality problems can be used by inland watersheds. 

Similarly, the governance structures of the NEPs can be applied to other watershed 

organizations. The NEPs are located in federal and state agencies, local governments, 

variety of institutional settings. Whether working in coastal or non-coastal areas, 

5 
Chapter 1

The remainder of this document is organized according to the following four phases of 

the NEP approach: 

— 

(Chapter 2) 

Identifying Problems and Solutions— Assessing the condition of the 

future conditions, and the priority problems to be addressed, as well as 

assessing the effectiveness of existing management efforts to protect 

(Chapter 3) 

Developing the Management Plan—A Blueprint for Action— 

(Chapter 4) 

Implementing the Management Plan— Carrying out actions, 

monitoring estuary conditions, reviewing progress, and redirecting 

priorities or efforts where appropriate. (Chapter 5) 

Each chapter includes specific examples that demonstrate how the 28 NEPs have 

Phase 1: Establishing a Governance Structure Convening the Management 

Conference and establishing a structure of committees and procedures 

for conducting the group’s work. 

Phase 2: 

estuary to determine its health, problems facing the estuary, trends for 

the estuary.

Phase 3: 

Describing the state of the estuary, developing detailed strategies for 

actions to address the problems of the estuary, monitoring and funding 

Management Plan implementation, and assessing environmental results. 

Phase 4: 

applied this community-based approach since the program’s inception in 1987. 

6
Establishing a Governance Structure

NEP PRINCIPLES 

IN CHAPTER 2 

• The Management Conference is a forum 

for open discussion, cooperation, and 

• The Management Conference promotes 

sharing of

participants to make efficient use of 

• The committees that comprise the 

Management Conference should remain 

open to new members as the community 

learns about the program and wishes to 

participate. 

• 

perceptions about the program. An NEP 

example, must work to demonstrate that 

it is committed to the entire range of 

• An NEP office, regardless of its 

institutional setting, should have some 

Autonomy shows that the office is 

committed to the entire range of 

stakeholders and visibility builds support 

for future funding of the program. 

Chapter 2: 

INTRODUCTION 

bringing together diverse stakeholders to identify issues and develop the Management 

Plan. 

the Management Conference, is composed of 

the NEP Program Office and various 

under which each program is conducted. 

The NEP office can be located in a variety of 

institutional settings, from state or local 

Its 

collaborative decision-making and reflects 

citizen concerns and the unique problems and 

characteristics of the watershed. A 

comparatively small area located within a 

single state generally requires a simpler 

interstate watershed. Most programs target 

five general constituencies as key members of 

appointed policymaking officials from all 

governmental levels; environmental managers 

from federal, state, regional, and local agencies; 

local scientific and academic communities; 

private citizens; and representatives from 

public and user interest groups—businesses, 

industries, and community and environmental 

This chapter explains how the NEPs develop a 

compromise that results in consensus. 

 infor mation and allows 

limited staff resources. 

An NEP’s institutional affiliations affect 

based in a g overnment ag ency, for 

stakeholders, not just its host agency. 

deg ree of autonomy and visibility. 

Establishing a Governance Structure 

Each estuary program develops a governance structure that serves as the forum for 

This governance structure, referred to as 

stakeholder committees. The governance 

structure acts as the organizational umbrella 

agencies to universities or nonprofits. 

committee structure provides the platform for 

committee structure than a much larger, 

the governance structure: elected and 

organizations. 

governance structure and support the work of 

stakeholder committees. The chapter describes 

how the NEPs provide a forum for open 

7 
Chapter 2

Examples of 

support. 

All Management Conferences establish several core committees to carry out their work. 

These generally include a policy and management committee and advisory committees 

for technical and citizen input. Some NEPs also have committees dealing with finance 

and local government. A director and program staff coordinate these committees and 

are accountable to the Management Conference. The NEP director and staff are also 

responsible for facilitating the development of the Management Plan, supporting its 

implementations, and producing documents, 

Figure 2.1 depicts the organizational 

Conference. Figure 2.2 (on page 10) shows 

The following sections describe how the 

NEPs are involved in: 

• setting the direction for the program; 

• directing day-to-day program activities; 

• involving stakeholder groups and the 

general public; 

• conducting scientific investigations to 

support Management Plan actions; 

• working with local governments; and 

• 

community support. 

SETTING THE DIRECTION FOR THE PROGRAM 

composed of high-level federal, state, and local government decision-makers that set 

the general tone and direction for the program and help ensure that resources needed to 

K

A kickoff meeting is a good first step in 

developing a governance structure. As a 

media event, such a meeting can make the 

public aware that all is not well in the 

provides a forum for identifying problems 

an opportunity to involve all interested 

people and groups concerned about and 

As an outgrowth of the meeting, project 

participants can be organized into 

committees and workgroups and assigned 

discussion, cooperation, and compromise that results in consensus. 

governance structures show how the NEPs set a course for their programs, direct dayto-day operations, coordinate with local governments, and ensure long-term financial 

THE NEP GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 

such as annual budgets and work plans. 

structure of a typical NEP Management 

the organizational structure from the Lower 

Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 

ensuring long-term financial, political, and 

Policy Committee. Most NEPs establish a Policy Committee to create a long-term vision, 

set priorities, and provide overall direction. The Policy Committee is typically 

support the program are available. The EPA Regional Administrator or state governor 

often appoints Policy Committee members. Additional state and local representatives 

ICKOFF MEETINGS 

watershed. As an educational platform, it 

and concerns. The kickoff meeting is also 

affected by the watershed’s problems. 

Furthermore, it is a chance to include 

influential officials in the earliest deliberations. 

responsibilities. 

8
Establishing a Governance Structure

EPA Regional Administrator and

state environmental agency directors

Policy Committee

Figure 2.1: Typical NEP Management Conference organizational 

structure 

Scientific and Technical echnicalechnical

Advisory Committee

(STAC)

Scientists from universities and

federal, state, and local agencies

Citizens Advisory Committee

(CAC)

Representatives from all interested

groups, including user and environ- groups, including user and environ- groups, including user and environmental groups

Management Committee

Environmental managers from participating

federal, state, and interstate agencies

Chairs of ST Chairs of STChairs of STAC and CA C and CAC and CAC

may also be members. These members may include appointees from the water 

department or water quality board, the public health department, or the department 

of natural resources. In some programs, chairpersons from other committees also sit 

on the Policy Committee. 

The members of the Policy Committee frequently make decisions on 

recommendations from all of the other committees. While this committee guides, 

reviews, and evaluates the program, it usually leaves the operational duties to the 

Management Committee. 

DIRECTING DAY-TO-DAY PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 

Management Committee. A core group is needed to ensure that the day-to-day work of 

the committees gets done. This group, often referred to as the Management 

Committee, is responsible for the nuts and bolts of the planning and implementation 

9 
Chapter 2

Figure 2.2: Organizational structure for the Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Partnership 

Note: In addition to standing committees, the board may also form additional committees or work groups to assist with specific 

activities. Standing committees may also form subcommittees. 

Board of Directors Board of Directors

Executive Committee

Development Committee Executive Director and Staff ector and Staff

Public Funds Public Funds Private Funds Private Funds Education EducationEducation Science Science

Habitat Habitat Monitoring MonitoringMonitoring Data Manag Data ManagData Management

process. Management Committee representatives usually include mid-level agency 

managers and technical staff from the involved federal, state, regional, and local 

government agencies. Advised by staff, work groups, and other committees, the 

Management Committee defines and ranks the problems of the watershed, develops 

management strategies, and oversees development of the Management Plan and its 

components. Management Committee activities typically occur under the general 

guidance and direction of the Policy Committee. 

The Management Committee makes recommendations on who should serve as 

members of the various advisory committees, and chairpersons from each of these 

committees typically sit on the Management Committee. This facilitates clear 

communication about the program’s goals and objectives to the program staff and 

committees. Clear communication allows the committee members to gain a better 

understanding of their roles and responsibilities as well as the activities needed to meet 

program goals. 

The Management Committee develops and oversees annual work plans and budgets, 

approves all resource and funding allocations, oversees program implementation, and 

monitors environmental results. In addition to defining specific tasks necessary to 

achieve conference goals, the annual work plan provides an opportunity to integrate 

10
Establishing a Governance Structure

the influence of the NEP by providing a vehicle for requesting and obtaining matching 

program activities and providing public involvement during each phase of the 

coordination with the Management Committee, develops a public participation 

program. 

INVOLVING STAKEHOLDER GROUPS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC 

the watershed; creating a Management Plan; implementing the plan; and monitoring 

Committee and program staff include the public in the decision-making process and 

integrate the public into each program phase. The Citizens Advisory Committee 

recommends the most effective 

solicit its participation. It also 

identifies key people and 

organizations that can help bring 

watershed-related issues to the 

successfully incorporate the public 

into these processes, the Citizens 

Advisory Committee must work 

closely with other committees, such 

By 

fluid, rather than after data collection and analyses have been completed and final 

decisions made. 

W ? 

Public participation is a two-way process consisting of 

outreach—and eliciting participation in program activities 

and the decision-making process—public involvement. 

measured by increased awareness of the watershed, 

enhanced support for management actions, and greater 

planning and resources of key Management Committee members and develop synergy 

among various organizations. If developed properly, the work plan process can expand 

funding at the state and local levels. 

The Management Committee is also responsible for informing the public about 

management process. To ensure this, the Citizens Advisory Committee, typically in 

Citizens Advisory Committee. To generate public support for the program, citizens must 

have a vested interest in the outcome of its activities. For this to occur, the public 

must participate in each phase of the planning and implementation process—forming a 

management structure for the program; identifying and prioritizing the problems facing 

progress and program success. Examples of how the public can be involved in each of 

these steps are shown in T a ble 2.1 (on page 12). 

Most NEPs form a Citizens Advisory Committee to ensure that the Management 

ways to inform the public and 

public’s attention and build support 

for program activities. To 

as the Scientific and Technical 

Advisory Committee. For example, the Citizens Advisory Committee can work with 

the program’s outreach coordinator to present scientific findings to the public. 

forming a Citizens Advisory Committee as part of the program’s management 

structure, the program ensures representation of public concerns while options are 

HAT IS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

informing stakeholders about the watershed—public 

The success of a public participation strategy can be 

participation in the planning and implementation processes. 

11 
12

Based on EPA RESOLVE Workshop, June 1997, and Integrating Technical Analysis with Deliberation in Regional Watershed

Management Planning: Applying the National Research Council Approach. [1999] by Thomas Webler and Seth Tuler.

Table 2.1: Examples of public participation in the NEP

Public Participation Program Components Results/Outcomes

Establishing a

Governance

Structure

Linking

Good Science

and Sound

Management

Developing

the

Management

Plan—

A Blueprint

for Action

• Identify stakeholders—potentially interested and

affected parties.

• Develop a process for public input and

participation.

• Develop a vision, preliminary goals, and objectives

for the program.

• Conduct public opinion surveys to identify those

issues of greatest concern and measure public

understanding of watershed issues.

• Hold workshops to gather information from local

residents and disseminate scientific findings.

• Use resource valuation/comparative risk ranking to

prioritize problems.

• Refine program visions, goals, and objectives

through public meetings and workshops.

• Utilize charettes, constituent focus groups,

workshops, etc., to identify all possible options for

addressing problems.

• Utilize focus groups and public and technical input

to develop criteria, narrow the range of options, and

refine actions.

• Obtain commitments and widespread community

support for actions.

• Conduct a public review of the draft management

plan.

• Distribute the management plan and/or public

summary documents to stakeholders.

• Educate new residents and participants about the

mission, goals, and progress of the program.

• Utilize tools such as environmental report cards to

update constituents on implementation progress

and program successes.

• Encourage citizens to implement “good

housekeeping” best management practices.

• Conduct volunteer monitoring and other ways to

use volunteers.

• Conduct public opinion surveys to determine

behavior changes and trends in public perception of

NEP progress.

• Involve the public when plan redirection or

reformulation is needed.

• Add to or modify participating entities as needed.

• Form institution oversight organizations—public

watchdog.

• Agreement on Management

Conference.

• Involvement of individuals and

groups with expertise and interest

in subject area as well as those who

are potentially impacted.

• Build constituencies.

• Watershed users help determine the

focus of the program.

• The public decision-making process

is guided by science.

• Controversial issues are identified.

• Participants develop a shared

understanding of the problems.

• A plan is created and built that all

parties support.

• Strong public support helps to

secure governmental agency

commitments for implementation.

• Recommended actions are created

that are measurable and achievable

and take into account social impacts

and impacts on quality of life.

• Interest in conservation and

management is sustained/

enhanced.

• New participants and their interests

are brought into the process.

• Residents are actively involved in

management plan implementation

and monitoring.

• Information on public attitudes

and behaviors is used to evaluate

success of public participation

efforts.

Phase

Implementing

the

Management

Plan

Chapter 2
Establishing a Governance Structure

CITIZENS ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE 

OUTREACH 

ACTIVITIES 

The Long Island 

Sound Study 

developed membership evaluation guidelines 

an 

applicant for membership on the Citizens 

Advisory Committee. These guidelines 

include a member composition requirement 

various membership categories including 

associations; user community groups; regional 

and local government agencies; and 

environmental education or academic 

organizations) and specific membership 

minimal knowledge or interest in water 

quality and resource management issues, and 

an ability to attend meetings regularly). The 

Citizens Advisory Committee application 

process requires potential members to 

submit a letter of interest and undergo a 

www.longislandsoundstudy.net. 

It also includes 

Also 

stakeholders present in the watershed. Some programs, particularly in populous areas 

with numerous established stakeholder groups, focus membership on individuals that 

assigned. 

Citizens Advisory Committee. Members of the general public who will work with the 

often make a contribution that is as valuable as that of a seasoned community leader or 

should remain open to new members to ensure 

widespread representation as more members of 

the community learn about the program and as 

new interests and issues arise. In very large 

watersheds, such as the Long Island Sound 

drainage basin with a population of 8.4 million, 

it may be necessary to establish guidelines for 

Citizens Advisory Committee membership 

Committee. Although each program establishes 

its own criteria for appointees, nominees 

generally meet one or more of the following 

criteria. 

• 

• Are well-respected leaders in the 

• Have experience in the development of 

water quality and resource management 

• Have experience with volunteer 

nonprofit groups, the general public, 

outreach and education activities, and 

the media. 

to determine the basic eligibility of

(e.g., a fair distribution of members from 

New York and Connecticut and among 

environmental, conservation, and watershed 

criteria (e.g., evaluation of potential bias, 

for mal evaluation by the membership 

committee. For additional information, see 

A typical Citizens Advisory Committee represents a broad spectrum of major resource 

groups, such as fishing interests, farmers, and recreational users.

representatives from various environmental organizations and citizen councils. 

important are representatives from business and industry, such as lumber, shipping, and 

petrochemical manufacturing. Of course, representation will vary with the type of 

can represent a given constituency and serve as liaisons to that group. In these cases, 

if the individuals lose their connection to their constituency, new representatives are 

Other programs encourage individual citizens to serve directly on the 

program constructively and effectively, and who care about the issues and the program, 

environmental resource manager. Regardless of 

the makeup, the Citizens Advisory Committee 

membership. 

should reflect the program’s purposes for the 

Serve as spokespersons for a major user 

or interest group and bring information 

back to that group. 

community. 

policy. 

13 
Chapter 2

• Understand the technical and economic feasibility of the pollution control 

• 

• 

public involvement, this does not preclude the need for general public participation. 

CONDUCTING SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS TO SUPPORT 

management program rather than a basic research program, the importance of 

responsible for implementing recommended management strategies need actions that 

are based on fi

recommend scientific studies, investigations, sampling, and monitoring programs to the 

group is integral to the characterization 

phase, discussed in Chapter 3: Identifying 

Problems and Solutions. Depending on the 

Committee members recommend the specific 

scientific activities necessary to meet 

objectives established by the program. The 

may also conduct peer reviews of studies, 

report on the status and trends (description 

of the past and current conditions of the 

the future conditions) in the watershed and 

Committee to emerging environmental 

options under consideration. 

Understand the consensus-building process. 

Are energetic and motivated individuals. 

Although many NEPs use a Citizens Advisory Committee as a formal mechanism for 

The Citizens Advisory Committee often creates a strategy that outlines when and how 

to involve groups and individuals in the community. 

MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTIONS 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Although the program is fundamentally a 

obtaining sound scientific information cannot be overstated. Stakeholders and those 

rm scientific findings. To ensure that recommended actions are tied to 

good science, most NEPs form a Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee to 

Management Committee that are necessary to determine the causes of observed or 

perceived environmental problems. This 

problem, Scientific and Technical Advisory 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee 

watershed and estuary, and predictions about 

estuary, and alert the Management 

problems. In addition, the Scientific and 

Technical Advisory Committee may develop 

the monitoring strategy, a “State of the Bays 

Report,” and the Technical Characterization 

study. To ensure scientific rigor and quality, 

the Scientific and Technical Advisory 

14
Establishing a Governance Structure

LOCAL 

GOVERNMENT 

INVOLVEMENT 

In the Barnegat Bay 

Estuary Program, the Management 

Conference includes a Local 

Government Committee represented by 

the Ocean County Mayors’ Association. 

The Committee meets monthly and 

provides the Barnegat Bay Estuary 

representatives with a forum to interact 

with 33 municipalities in Ocean County 

additional see 

www.bbep.org. 

Committee may also review the development of requests for proposals for technical 

studies as well as the actual proposals submitted. 

scientific disciplines that address the key issues of the watershed. They may be noted 

local experts, nationally recognized scientists, or resource management agency 

personnel.

selected with advice from the Management Committee; local, state, and federal 

agencies; regional scientists; and public or private 

institutions conducting scientific studies within 

the watershed. 

in a Management Plan affect local jurisdictions 

and require the support and commitment of local 

governments are part of the decision-making 

Committee. Other programs include local 

government representatives on their Management 

representatives can assist the program by 

providing practical advice on local planning 

Government Committee can also provide the 

political analyses that are needed for effective 

decision-making and implementation. 

Members may come from municipalities, counties, or townships representing town 

ENSURING LONG-TERM FINANCIAL, POLITICAL, AND 

COMMUNITY SUPPORT 

Finance Planning Committee. 

Implementation and 

Whether financing is readily available or new funding mechanisms are needed, a 

Management Plan implementation. 

Program’s Director and other program 

on environmental issues of concern. For 

infor mation, 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee members should represent a balance of 

 Members of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee can be 

WORKING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

Local Government Committee. Many of the actions 

government agencies. To ensure that local 

process, some NEPs form a Local Government 

and/or Policy Committees. Local government 

needs, issues, and existing projects. The Local 

In many programs, the Policy Committee nominates local government representatives. 

boards, sewer districts, conservation districts, or agencies such as health or planning 

departments. 

Watershed programs require long-term funding to support 

both Management Plan implementation and staff operations.

operations may be supported with federal, state, local, and private sector funds. 

Financial Planning Committee can be used to develop a funding strategy to support 

15 
Chapter 2

assessments; managing the flow of funds; and recommending institutions to oversee 

financial planning and management. The Financial Planning Committee may also 

It 

could also recommend a partnership or alliance with an outside agency or nonprofit 

While 

some programs choose to establish and maintain a separate Financial Planning 

Committee, other programs assign those responsibilities to members of the 

Management Committee. 

The careful consensus-building required of the committees to define program goals and 

other activities presents several potential challenges, including conflicting agendas, 

expertise. Most NEPs have found that while the decision-making process produces 

STAFFING THE PROGRAM OFFICE 

Program Office consists of a director and a small staff—usually three to five 

The funding strategy can include accessing revenues such as taxes, fees, and 

identify new sources of funding, such as municipal debt or private foundations. 

group to assist with fundraising. Committee members should be knowledgeable about 

financing public projects and should represent key interest areas or jurisdictions. 

PROVIDING SUPPORT TO THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 

institutional constraints, and differing work styles. Effective group leaders can help 

address these challenges. Some NEPs hire professional facilitators to assist in conflict 

resolution and consensus-based decision-making. Others train committee chairs in 

group leadership and group dynamics. Still others rely on NEP staff with this 

some degree of conflict, there are few, if any, conflicts that cannot be resolved. 

Each NEP has a Program Office that facilitates the work of the committees. The 

professionals. 

16
Establishing a Governance Structure

technical support to the committees, conduct public outreach and education activities, 

and coordinate and integrate program activities with existing efforts in the watershed. 

The NEP directors must have a broad range of 

Maintaining 

local support, securing funds, and facilitating 

partner actions requires both interpersonal and 

collaborating with partners and addressing 

complex environmental issues provides access to 

additional resources and authorities, helps avoid 

duplication, reduces turf battles, and combats 

the perception of the NEP creating a new layer 

of government. 

behalf of the committees and is accountable to 

them. Because the director can be pivotal in 

bringing stakeholders to the table, the director 

should not be perceived as representing a 

director to work in collaboration with the 

stakeholders and to better represent the 

program. 

Most NEPs also have a communication or 

outreach coordinator and a science or technical 

Staff that provide technical input for restoration efforts and other projects implement 

key goals in the Management Plan and build the credibility of the program. Staff with 

achieve the environmental education goals of the Management Plan and heighten the 

government agencies with jurisdiction over the watershed. Therefore, office location 

can impact the overall visibility of the program as well as perceptions about the 

program. Visibility and awareness of the program are greatly enhanced when the 

Program Office is located within the study area, rather than in a far away state capital 

or other non-estuarine location. 

The NEP director and staff serve many functions. They provide administrative and 

This collaboration promotes sharing of information and allows programs to make 

efficient use of limited staff resources. The director and staff usually are hired by the 

Policy or Management Committee; however, the director and staff work in support of, 

and with direction from, all of the committees. 

knowledge, skills, and abilities. 

technical skills. A director adept at 

The NEP director speaks on 

particular entity or stakeholder. This allows the 

coordinator. Some NEPs hire staff with fundraising and business management skills. 

communication skills produce independent newsletters, Web sites, and events that help 

NEP’s visibility without jeopardizing productive partnering. 

The NEP office typically serves as the focal point of planning and coordination among 

17 
Chapter 2

SELECTING AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING 

Each NEP is initially assigned a host organization or sponsor, such as a state or local 

federal grant funds that support the NEP and provides a physical location for the 

director and staff. However, individual NEPs are envisioned to be inherently 

The director and staff of an individual NEP must be, and must be perceived to be, 

While the NEP sponsor 

the NEP as an administrative and 

financial manager, among many 

other things, NEP directors and 

staff are directed not by their 

administrative sponsors but by the 

NEP committees (which typically 

include the sponsors as members). 

Funding awarded to the sponsor or 

grantee is intended to be used for 

purposes and activities developed 

and approved through consensus by 

committees, a safeguard is built into the NEP framework to prevent individual 

After NEPs complete their Management Plans, many consider establishing separate 

employees, and physical office space; and coordination between the work of the host 

agency and the work of the program. The advantages of a separate Program Office 

Chapter 5

Photo: Steve Delaney 

government agency, university, or nonprofit. The host organization administers the 

autonomous. 

independent of any particular interest group or agency.

provides an invaluable service to 

all members of the committees. By requiring approval and oversight by the 

interests from steering an NEP. To this end, many NEPs have developed and adopted 

operating procedures, agreements, or bylaws which outline roles and responsibilities. 

institutions. The advantages of remaining with the original host include access to the 

technical resources of the host agency’s employees; ability to maximize funds for 

programs and minimize funds for administration; access to payroll services, benefits for 

can include a location more accessible to the public, greater visibility, and increased 

fundraising opportunities. provides examples of NEP governance 

structures. 

18
Establishing a Governance Structure Photo: Steve Delaney 

PREP ARING T O ASSESS THE ESTU AR Y AND ITS 

INSTITUTIONS 

Once the Program Office has convened and established a structure of committees and 

procedures for conducting the group’s work, steps can be taken in moving toward the 

next phase of the NEP process—assessing the conditions of the estuary and 

evaluating the effectiveness of institutions that affect the estuary. This 

“characterization” process identifies priority problems, their likely causes, and how to 

coordinate existing programs to better protect and restore the estuary and its 

watershed. 

EST ABLISHING A GO VERN ANCE 

STRUCTURE: EXAMPLES 

X Example 1: Initiating the program through a kickoff meeting 

The Charlotte Harbor NEP organized a Public Conference and Technical Symposium 

as a kickoff event for their estuary program. The two-day gathering focused attention 

on Charlotte Harbor’s large watershed by bringing together much of the knowledge and 

expertise of Southwest Florida. The event was an important first step in the program’s 

process of bringing together public and private stakeholders to discuss critical 

environmental issues facing the region. Hundreds of people attended the forum, 

which featured more than 60 presentations on technical issues, covering Southwest 

Florida’s history, geography, and geology, as well 

as topics more specific to the water quality and 

living resources of the Charlotte Harbor region. 

The Public Conference featured discussions on 

economic activity, resource management efforts, 

environmental education, recreational boating 

concerns, and citizen groups. For additional 

information, see www.charlotteharbornep.com. 

X Example 2: Creation of an advisory 

committee to assess atmospheric deposition 

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program was one of the first NEPs to assess nitrogen 

deposition to a coastal ecosystem. Since the Program had no experience assessing 

atmospheric deposition and no atmospheric scientist on staff, the senior scientist 

created a national advisory group to help develop the Program. The advisory group 

now includes nationally recognized experts in wet and dry deposition methodologies 

for nitrate and ammonia (and more recently mercury), national atmospheric program 

managers, experts with technical knowledge of modeling, and local stakeholders 

including several counties and the Tampa Electric Company. Since the Program does 

19 
Chapter 2

Photo: Steve Delaney 

not do most of the monitoring or modeling work itself, the county and university 

scientists doing the work also sit on the committee. The committee meets periodically 

to answer specific complex questions that require group discussion and consensus. The 

committee responds to other questions on an as-needed basis through individual 

telephone calls, conference calls, or written recommendations. For additional 

information, see www.tbep.org. 

X Example 3: Puget Sound’s Finance Committee and Local Government 

Finance Working Group 

The Puget Sound Finance Committee was responsible for identifying funding 

mechanisms that could be used to meet the projected shortfalls in Management Plan 

implementation funding. In order to ensure that a broad range of options would be 

considered and that these options would get the benefit of close scrutiny, a concerted 

effort was made to have competing interests and key stakeholders serve on the 

Committee. As such, the Committee included representatives from state and local 

governments, members of the business 

community, members of the state legislature, 

local elected officials, and tribal and citizen 

groups. The Puget Sound Water Authority, a 

partner of the NEP, assigned several of its staff 

to provide technical and administrative 

assistance to the Committee. In addition, the 

program hired an applied financial and economic 

analysis firm to undertake the technical 

evaluations needed to generate fiscally sound 

and defensible funding options. 

A six-member Local Government Finance Working Group was established to work 

independently on local financing issues. Joint staffing of the Finance Committee and 

Local Government Finance Working Group provided for continuity between the two 

groups and ensured that the work of the Finance Committee integrated the needs, 

fiscal constraints, authority limitations, and general concerns of local governments. 

Through its work, the Financial Planning Committee identified a number of possible 

state funding sources to support Management Plan actions such as taxes on watercraft, 

litter, fish and shellfish, pesticides, gasoline, and toilet paper. The group also identified 

projects that could be funded with local revenue or implemented as EPA 

demonstration projects. For additional information, see www.psat.wa.gov. 

20
Identifying Problems and Solutions

NEP PRINCIPLES IN CHAPTER 3 

• 

• 

• The Base Program Analysis is an evaluation of 

Characterization. 

• 

and Base Program Analysis must be translated 

into plain English, telling a story about the 

estuary that the public can understand. 

• 

Program Analysis findings set the stage for the 

Chapter 3: 

Identifying Problems and Solutions 

INTRODUCTION 

Once the estuary programs have built a framework for identifying, negotiating, and 

their decline, and take early corrective action if possible. This process, referred to as 

objective evidence. 

mechanisms are effectively addressing 

Program Analysis provides an assessment of 

existing federal, state, and local resource 

programs to identify gaps in estuary 

management and how they might be filled. 

It includes a review of public and private 

and Base Program Analysis are the basis for 

defining and selecting the problems to be 

addressed in the Management Plan. This 

chapter outlines how the NEPs conduct the 

discusses how the findings resulting from 

Program Analysis are combined and 

translated into plain English, telling a story 

about the estuary and its watershed that the 

public and local decision-makers can 

understand. 

Technical Characterization describes the 

estuary’s water quality and habitat problems and 

identifies likely causes of the problems. 

Technical Characterization relies primarily on 

existing scientific information. 

the institutional structures that affect the estuary. 

It is conducted in conjunction with the Technical 

The results from the Technical Characterization 

The Technical Characterization and Base 

formulation of the Management Plan. 

solving problems, they are ready to embark on other tasks. The NEPs begin to “take 

the pulse” of their estuaries, determining the state of their health and the reasons for 

Technical Characterization, defines the most pressing problems in the estuary, identifies 

the probable causes for these problems, and suggests possible solutions based on 

Each NEP also conducts a Base Program Analysis. The Base Program Analysis 

determines whether existing institutional 

problems occurring in the estuary. The Base 

funding opportunities. 

Together, the Technical Characterization 

Technical Characterization and the Base 

Program Analysis. The chapter also 

the Technical Characterization and Base 

21
Chapter 3

TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION 

through the following tasks: 

Identify the priority problems that exist in the study area. 

Provide input to the Management Plan. 

The relationships among these tasks are presented graphically in Figure 3.1. 

characterization. These data are also used to shape new sampling and monitoring 

Characterization process, the NEPs also rely on public input to provide additional 

conditions, and probable future trends if current practices are not modified. It is 

analogous to telling a story about the past, present, and potential future of each 

Program Analysis, is discussed further on pages 32 through 34. 

The fundamental goal of Technical Characterization is to identify the problems facing 

the estuary and present this information in a way that supports the selection of actions 

for inclusion in the Management Plan. To satisfy this goal, characterization proceeds 

Task 1: Identify and describe the resources and uses of the estuary. 

Task 2: Determine the condition of the resources. 

Task 3: 

Task 4: Identify the likely causes of the priority problems. 

Task 5: 

Technical Characterization of problems facing the estuary relies primarily on existing 

scientific information already collected by federal, state, and local agencies. Such 

information, which can be obtained and analyzed relatively efficiently and costeffectively, provides the most direct way to evaluate trends in estuary conditions. 

Table 3.1 (on page 24) lists the types of historical information used for 

programs needed to define specific problems. 

In addition to gathering scientific information to assist during the Technical 

direction and focus. Gathering public input at the early stages of the Technical 

Characterization process is essential for building a long-term commitment to achieving 

the estuary’s goals. This is often accomplished through public workshops and 

conferences. 

As a whole, the Technical Characterization process addresses historical trends, present 

estuary. Results are used to substantiate environmental problems, evaluate their 

causes, recommend future remedial and management strategies, and develop long-term 

monitoring plans. Once this process is complete, the NEPs assess the effectiveness of 

existing efforts to manage the identified problems. This process, referred to as the Base 

The following sections describe the tasks of the Technical Characterization process 

more fully. 

22
Identifying Problems and Solutions

(1994) 

Review existing information 

Review existing information 

Other Decisions 

TASK 1: IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE RESOURCES AND USES OF THE 

The first step in the characterization process is to describe the resources and uses of 

TASK 2: DETERMINE THE CONDITION OF THE RESOURCES 

Once the highest priority resources and uses of an estuary have been identified, the 

of the past and current conditions of the estuary and forecasts the future conditions of 

the estuary should current trends continue. The NEPs include changes in 

demographics, land use, census, and other data that may influence the environmental 

From EPA’s National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterization in the National Estuary Program 

Figure 3.1: Relationships among Technical Characterization tasks 

Address data gaps 

Task 1: Identify Resource/Uses 

Task 4: Identify Likely Causes 

and Possible Solutions 

Address data gaps 

- Action Plan Demonstration Projects 

- "Action Now" Agenda 

Task 3: Identify Priority Problems 

Task 2: Determine Conditions 

Task 5: Provide Input to 

Management Characterization 

Management Plan 

Technical characterization Relationship to other parts of Management Plan development process 

ESTUARY 

the estuary and to identify the values it holds. Opinion surveys, public workshops, 

interviews, conferences, and other methods have been used by the NEPs to identify 

public perceptions concerning the resources and uses of an estuary. 

NEPs assess the condition of each of these resources. This involves a status and 

trends analysis of each of the resources. The status and trends analysis is a description 

conditions in the analysis. 

23
Chapter 3

• 

• Land use patterns 

• 

• 

discharges, nonpoint source runoff 

Circulation of Material in the Estuary 

• 

• Tides/currents 

• Salinity 

• 

• Sediment grain size 

and Sediments 

• Organic carbon 

• Nutrients 

• Dissolved oxygen 

• Chemical contaminants 

Distribution of Biological Organisms in the

Estuary 

• Plankton 

• Benthic Invertebrates 

• Fish 

• Aquatic vegetation 

• Endangered species 

• Invasive species 

Biological Indicators 

• Primary production 

• Secondary production 

• Respiration 

• Commercial fishery catches 

• Recreational fishery catches 

Factors Important to Human and

Environmental Health 

• Distribution of bacteria and pathogenic

organisms 

• 

• Tissue contaminants 

Geographic Areas of Special Importance 

• Critical spawning or nursery habitats 

• Recreational areas 

• Beach closures 

• 

Examples of 

characterization direct future characterization work, such as 

constant, has the health and productivity of 

the seagrass beds been altered?” and “What 

is the optimal level of seagrass habitat 

necessary to support the sea trout fisheries?” 

The NEPs collect data from virtually all 

possible sources—scientists, academic and 

research institutions, and public health and 

Because collecting 

ensure the quality and validity of all data 

procedures to follow when collecting and 

Quality Assessment, www.epa.gov/ 

quality1/qs-docs/g9-final.pdf). 

Detection of subtle changes over time 

requires more detailed analyses and 

among factors) should be explored to 

for detecting changes in environmental 

Data collected during this task 

can help in designing sampling protocols 

(detailed plans of a scientific experiment, 

treatment, or procedure for dealing with a 

be entered into STORET (short for 

that is used by state environmental agencies, 

Pollutant Sources to the Estuary 

Watershed geomorphology 

Freshwater input 

Pollutant loadings: direct discharges, riverine 

Weather patterns 

Temperature 

Distribution of Chemicals in Estuarine Waters 

Prevalence of disease in fish and shellfish 

Shellfish harvesting areas 

Table 3.1: 

historical information 

used for estuary 

The status and trends analysis can highlight 

gaps in information concerning the 

condition of the estuary, identify the need to 

collect new data, and suggest questions that 

“Although seagrass acreage has remained 

living resource agencies.

new scientific information is generally quite 

costly, historical data are used to set 

priorities for the kinds of new information 

needed for the characterization effort. To 

collected, the EPA has developed a set of 

analyzing data (see EPA Guidance for Data 

statistical tests. For these analyses, several 

attributes of the data (e.g., distributional 

characteristics, seasonality, and correlation 

determine the applicability of available tests 

conditions. 

sample) for monitoring plans. This data can 

STOrage and RETrieval), a repository for 

water quality, biological, and physical data 

24
Identifying Problems and Solutions Photo: Steve Delaney 

www.epa.gov/storet/). 

scheme. Segmentation refers to the division of an estuary into sub-areas based on 

homogeneous conditions such as bottom type or water temperature. Physical, 

the physical detail of an entire estuary and the expediency of dealing with a small 

From a statistical perspective, 

trends of estuarine resources 

has inherent uncertainty 

associated with it due to a 

number of factors including 

measurement errors, precision 

limits, and statistical 

variability of the analytical 

the data often leads to a set 

of hypotheses concerning 

cause-effect relationships, 

rather than a definitive 

conclusion. The uncertainty 

in cause-effect relationships 

and trends in estuary health 

should be made clear to the 

public. 

TASK 3: IDENTIFY THE PRIORITY PROBLEMS 

Once the assessment is complete, the Management Conference must reach consensus 

the Management Plan, where it is often necessary to make choices from the universe of 

Because all the problems cannot be addressed at once, it is critical to rank them so that 

must establish criteria by which it will define and rank environmental problems for 

characterization. 

EPA and other federal agencies, universities, private citizens, and many others (see 

In evaluating the conditions of an estuary, it is often useful to adopt a segmentation 

chemical, and/or biological data for the estuary are then aggregated based on these 

segments. Segmentation represents a compromise between the difficulty of resolving 

number of geographical units. Analysis of the status and trends of the resources for 

estuary segments may also provide direction for individual actions in these segments. 

determining the status and 

methods. This uncertainty in 

on the priority problems. These priorities form the foundation for the development of 

management options. 

effort and funding levels can be allocated effectively. The Management Conference 

25
Chapter 3

Photo: Steve Delaney

The NEPs establish criteria for 

identifying priority problems to avoid 

overestimating the severity of certain 

problems which can divert attention from 

concern. The presence of seasonal 

example, may capture widespread public 

interest because of its potential effects 

incidence of HABs may be limited to 

specific sites and may be the result of 

Problems with a system-wide impact 

generally rank higher than those with 

of an estuary may be ranked high. Some problems may receive a high ranking because 

corrective measures, such as regulatory programs and authorities, are available but have 

not been implemented. 

The Galveston Bay Estuary Program, for example, developed an assessment matrix to 

subsequently reviewed and revised by the Management Committee through a series of 

reviewed by the Management Conference and technical experts, resulting in the final 

matrix presented in .

estuarine resources and sources of perturbation. The Galveston Bay Ecosystem 

Impact Matrix also identified relationships that were previously poorly understood, and 

TASK 4: 

are: 

• relevant to defining the nature and extent of the priority problems; 

• broad in temporal and spatial coverage; 

• good quality; and 

• 

those that actually deserve greater 

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs), for 

on fish populations. However, the 

natural causes. 

localized effects. Furthermore, problems that significantly curtail the designated uses 

assist in establishing priorities among the estuary’s problems. The Scientific and 

Technical Advisory Committee drafted an initial priority problem list. This list was 

public meetings. Based on this review, a draft assessment matrix was developed and 

Table 3.2 This matrix presents the essential information about 

was used by the Management Conference throughout the characterization process. 

IDENTIFY LIKELY CAUSES OF THE PRIORITY PROBLEMS 

To identify the likely causes of the priority problems, NEPs strive to collect data that 

available in a usable format. 

26
Identifying Problems and Solutions

Table 3.2: Galveston Bay Ecosystem Impact Matrix 

Valued Ecosystem Components 

Sources of Water Sedi- Phyto- Zoo- Other Marine Sea Human Submerged Aesthetic

Perturbation Quality Circulation ment plankton plankton Oysters Shellfish Benthos Finfish Birds Mammals Turtles Health Wetlands Plants (SAV) Shoreline Appeal 

Northers ** * ** * ? ?

Hurricanes *** *** * ? * ** ? ** * ? * ?

Inflow * ** *** *** *** ***   ** * ** ? ? ? 

ModificationSubsidence/ * **** ** ** * **** * *** 

Sea LevelShoreline ** * * * ** **   ** * ** **  

Development

Dredging ** * ? *** *** *** ** ? ?   ** ** * ** ** ?  

Shipping **  ** ** ? *

Point * ****   ? **  ** ?   ** ** ***   ** * **

Sources

  **  Nonpoint ***   ? ** * ** *** **   **  ? ? **

Sources

Commercial *** ** ? ** **** ? ? ? ? 

Fishing

Recreational * * ? *** *

Fishing

Boating/ *** ? ** * * * ? *** ? * 

Marinas

Petroleum *** ** * ? * *** ** * * * ? ? ? ? ** 

Activity

Oil/Chemical *** ***   **  ? *** ? ? *** ? ? ? ? ? 

Spills

Marine * *** ** ? * 

Debris

* - Slight influence ** - Moderate influence *** - Significant influence **** - Major influence ? - Unknown relationship - Possible management priority 

From EPA’s National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterization in the National Estuary Program (1994) 

27 
Chapter 3

Photo: Steve Delaney 

Sound Study NEP collaborated with academic and not-for-profit institutions, as well as 

state and local governments to study hypoxia, examine the role of sea level rise in 

wetland losses, develop ecological indicators, and assess sources of nutrients and 

innovative technologies for their control. 

Once the data are collected, the NEPs begin to answer specific questions about the 

relationships among pollutants, pollutant loadings, and their effects on water, sediment, 

• 

problems of the estuary; 

• 

• 

• identify significant, missing data that warrant additional monitoring or 

described the interconnections among seven 

priority problems (Figure 3.2): hydrological 

modification, habitat loss, sediment loss, changes 

in living resources, eutrophication, pathogens, 

identified hydrological modification as the “lynch 

pin” problem that influences all six of the other 

Once likely cause-effect relationships of the 

priority problems have been established, the 

regression and correlation analyses, have been 

used by the NEPs to explore the nature of these 

Although existing information concerning a particular problem is first examined, the 

NEPs also conduct new research to illuminate possible causes. The NEPs work with 

many organizations that sponsor research including federal agencies such as EPA and 

NOAA, state and local government, and universities. For example, the Long Island 

and living resources. The general objectives of these analyses are to: 

determine the temporal trends and spatial patterns related to the most pressing 

determine possible causes of these problems; 

provide an integrated description of the estuary’s conditions; and 

sampling. 

For example, the Barataria-Terrebonne NEP 

and toxic substances. Barataria-Terrebonne NEP 

priority problems. 

NEPs determine the strength of those 

relationships. Statistical techniques, such as 

relationships. 

28
Identifying Problems and Solutions

Figure 3.2: Interconnections among priority problems in the 

Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary 

Hydrologic modification

Direct Effects Indirect Effects

Sediment loss

Habitat Loss

Changes in Living es in Livinges in Living

Resources ResourcesResources

Socio-Economic Impacts

Eutrophication

Pathogens

Toxics

If time and resources permit, the NEP can take these findings one step further by 

developing mathematical functions to summarize the observed relationships. These 

functions can form the basis for the use of predictive tools, such as water quality and 

hydrologic models. 

It is important to emphasize the distinction between identifying likely causes of priority 

problems and establishing absolute cause-effect relationships. The former involves the 

development of hypotheses using the best available evidence concerning cause-effect 

relationships. The latter typically requires the collection of field or laboratory data 

under controlled conditions; an effort that is often beyond the resources available to an 

NEP. 

In characterizing an estuary, it is important to consider the links among the priority 

problems in addition to considering them in isolation. These links can dramatically 

influence conclusions concerning cause-effect relationships and subsequent 

recommendations for action. 

29
Chapter 3

Photo: Steve Delaney

TASK 5: PROVIDE INPUT TO THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

After data analyses are complete for each estuary problem, the NEPs synthesize results 

into reports that provide input to the Management Plan. These reports may be a series 

of findings on several identified problem areas and may be issued separately as they 

become available. To increase the pool of information and to encourage further 

research on the estuary, many NEPs publish their findings. These findings also help the 

NEPs design monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of their actions. 

The NEPs have used various methods to communicate the results of the 

characterization effort, ranging from narrative descriptions to conceptual models that 

describe estuarine processes and functions and determine likely causes of the priority 

problems. The NEPs develop characterization reports that: 

• summarize major environmental problems within each estuary; 

• identify suspected causes of the problems; 

• recommend early actions and future remedial and managerial strategies; and 

• suggest long-term monitoring efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of these 

strategies. 

Most reports feature a narrative description 

that takes the form of a qualitative, nontechnical summary of existing information 

explaining the relationships between human 

activities and impacts on resources. A 

narrative description may also include 

considerable quantitative and technical 

information to provide a more 

comprehensive assessment of these 

relationships. 

Many reports include a conceptual model to present the current understanding of 

estuarine structure and function. Good conceptual models clearly and succinctly 

represent the best understanding of ecosystem resources (e.g., wetlands, fish, 

sediments), processes (e.g., predation, turbulent mixing), and factors controlling their 

interactions. A well-constructed conceptual model can plainly represent and 

communicate the estuary’s complex interactions and processes in a form that is more 

concise than most narrative descriptions. 

30
Identifying Problems and Solutions

G

REPORT 

The Mobile Bay NEP 

produced an award-winning stakeholders 

preparation for the release of the 

Management Plan. This document 

environmental issues, and resources, and was 

developed in a sequence of text, graphics, 

links for more 

level, the document appeals to audiences of 

all ages and remains in high demand. The 

document won a 1999/2000 American 

See 

www.mobilebaynep

products that vary in their level of detail depending on the audience: 

• 

• Characterization reports furnish a comprehensive description of the 

• Public outreach summaries provide a 

condensed version of the characterization 

provide a baseline for monitoring and a basic 

understanding of important physical, 

chemical, and biological processes in the 

set of variables and ecological processes that 

can be used to detect changes in the estuary in 

taken to ensure that high quality data results 

from the monitoring program should follow 

the same procedures used in the data 

collection and analysis activities during 

as a tool to track the progress of the 

Management Plan and evaluate the relevance 

ensures that the Management Plan stays on 

target and can provide feedback for future 

monitoring is addressed in greater detail in 

Chapter 5 . 

ETTING THE WORD 

OUT THROUGH A 

STAKEHOLDERS 

repor t, “Our Water Our Future,” in 

highlighted the Mobile Bay area’s history, 

and photos with Web site 

information. Designed at an eighth grade 

Advertising Federation Award. 

.com for additional 

information. 

In general, the NEP Technical Characterization process culminates in three types of 

Individual project reports provide technical information on the outcomes of discrete 

studies. 

estuary, including a summary of the results 

of individual project reports. 

reports. 

The Technical Characterization results 

estuary. This information helps to specify a 

response to management actions. The steps 

Technical Characterization. 

With a baseline provided by Technical 

Characterization, ongoing monitoring serves 

of management goals. Ongoing monitoring 

revisions. The subject of environmental 

31
Chapter 3

INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES 

Program Analysis describes the institutional environment. The Base Program Analysis 

proceeds through the following tasks: 

TASK 1: 

ORGANIZATIONS 

The first step in conducting a Base Program Analysis involves the development of an 

inventory of existing organizations that have the potential for affecting the problems 

conducted in the NEP quite often go beyond basic statutes, codes, and legal authorities 

mechanisms include influences on behavior, such as economic incentives, and 

technical assistance and education programs, factors not typically considered part of a 

The NEPs inventory existing organizations and mechanisms that may influence the 

• regulatory programs; 

• public and private resource management programs; 

• incentive programs and voluntary initiatives; 

• planning efforts; and 

• 

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS: UNDERSTANDING THE 

While the Technical Characterization describes the natural environment, the Base 

Task 1: Identify relevant local, state, and federal organizations. 

Task 2: Assess effectiveness of existing programs. 

Task 3: Identify changes needed to improve program effectiveness. 

As with the Technical Characterization, it is wise to gather and review the results of 

previous programmatic analyses that have been conducted for the estuary. The use of 

valid existing information can speed up the Base Program Analysis process 

considerably. The following sections describe the tasks of the Base Program Analysis 

process. 

IDENTIFY RELEVANT LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL 

being assessed under the Technical Characterization. Base Program Analyses 

to identify the array of mechanisms available to protect the estuary. These 

resource management infrastructure. 

estuary, including: 

public education and technical assistance programs. 

Once the existing organizations have been identified, the basic information shown in 

Table 3.3 can be collected for each of the programs. 

32
Identifying Problems and Solutions

Source: 

Name of Program 

Priority Problem Addressed 

Implementing Organization 

Program Authorities (laws and ordinances) 

Program Description: 

Purpose 

Planning 

III. Geographic Jurisdiction 

VI. Administration 

collected from organizations 

during the Base Program 

Analysis 

TASK 2: ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS 

The organizations and their programs 

identified by the institutional inventory 

are analyzed to assess their potential 

effectiveness for addressing the problems 

and weaknesses are identified, allowing 

an array of enhancements or alternatives 

to be considered during development of 

the Management Plan. The focus of this 

assessment is on how the framework and 

individual programs or activities within it 

particularly with regard to addressing the 

priority problems discussed in the 

Management Plan, and not on the 

effectiveness of the programs 

of questions that are often considered 

when conducting the programmatic 

assessment. 

assessment will result in as much 

possible, including data on resources 

invested (staff, funding, etc.) and 

TASK 3: IDENTIFY CHANGES 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The results of the Base Program Analysis 

present findings on the overall 

analysis of management changes that are necessary to improve the coordination and 

NEP Guidance, Base Program Analysis. EPA, 1993. 

I. 

II. Functions 

A. Regulatory 

B. Resource Management 

C. Finance Mechanisms 

D. Voluntary Initiatives/Economic Incentives 

E. Public Education/Technical Assistance 

F. 

IV. Resource or Activity Managed 

V. Funding 

A. Source of Funding 

B. Funding Rationale 

C. Allocation of Funding 

D. Proposed Budget and Actual Funding 

E. Other Resources Available 

A. Organizational Structure 

B. Decision-Making Process 

C. Linkages to Cooperating Agencies 

D. Total Staff 

Table 3.3: Information 

of the estuary. Programmatic strengths 

are able to protect the estuary, 

themselves. 

Table 3.4 (on page 34) provides a range 

Ideally, the programmatic 

objective, quantitative information as 

environmental results. 

NEEDED TO IMPROVE PROGRAM 

management framework for the estuary, based on a synthesis of the institutional 

analysis and consideration of crosscutting issues. The heart of this synthesis is an 

application of existing programs. 

33
Chapter 3

(1994) 

• 

jurisdiction or influence? 

• What are the most successful aspects of this organization—things that work well and should 

be capitalized upon in the future? 

• 

models for future activities? 

• 

take action on one or more of the priority problems? 

• 

– unclear goals, responsibilities, or procedures? 

– conflicting efforts by other programs? 

– difficulties in coordinating with other organizations? 

– drastically insufficient resources? 

• 

• 

• 

• How much support does the organization enjoy from the public and the legislature? 

• What specific actions could improve the effectiveness of the institutional framework? 

– What current activities should be accelerated or expanded? 

– What new efforts should be instituted? Are new authorities or entities required? 

– What obstacles to effectiveness must be overcome? 

– 

• 

• What are the potential barriers to redirection? How can support be generated? 

Based on EPA’s National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterization in the National Estuary Program

Table 3.4: Question guide for institutional analysis 

What is the organization’s mandate, resource trends, and scope of 

What innovative aspects of this organization’s programs or approaches could serve as 

Are there any gaps in existing resources or authorities that limit the organization’s ability to 

What kinds of problems has this organization experienced? For example: 

Do other activities duplicate any of this organization’s efforts? 

Are there complementary organizations that could enhance this organization’s effectiveness? 

Are there organizations that impede this organization’s effectiveness? 

What should be the Management Conference’s action priorities? 

For each action suggested, what are the appropriate tasks, actors, and timing? 

34
Identifying Problems and Solutions

Figure 3.3: Worksheet used to establish relative importance 

of an estuary’s resources 

X

X

X

X

X

High 

Economic/Public 

Value 

High 

Ecological 

Value 

Low 

Economic/Public 

Value 

Low 

Ecological 

Value 

Human Health 

Fish 

Wetlands 

Zooplankton 

Benthos 

From EPA’s National Estuary Program Guidance: Technical Characterization in the National Estuary Program (1994) 

FROM CHARACTERIZATION TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 

The ultimate goal of the Technical Characterization and Base Program Analysis is to 

establish the status and trends of estuarine resources, identify impacts being 

experienced, determine the likely causes of those impacts, and describe and evaluate 

the institutional environment. However, the Technical Characterization and Base 

Program Analysis are not an endpoint. The Technical Characterization combined with 

the results of the Base Program Analysis set the stage for the formulation of the 

Management Plan. To be useful, they must lead to the development of an effective 

Management Plan. 

IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS: EXAMPLES 

X Example 1: Use of worksheets to determine relative importance of estuary 

resources 

Worksheets, like the one shown below (Figure 3.3), can be used to develop a graphical 

representation of the overall relative importance of the estuary’s resources. The Santa 

Monica Bay Restoration Commission used forms of this worksheet as workshop tools 

to stimulate discussion among participating managers and technical experts. 

35
Chapter 3

Photo: Steve Delaney 

Environmental managers and regulators were asked to position the valued resources 

along the Public Value axis while technical and scientific participants were asked to 

position the resources along the Ecological Value axis. The results were combined and 

resources were then positioned on a master worksheet. Valued resources in the upper 

right quadrant had the highest overall value, while those positioned in the lower left 

quadrant had the lowest value. For additional information, see 

www.santamonicabay.org. 

X Example 2: Data collection to identify priority problems and develop 

monitoring protocols 

The Sarasota Bay NEP used 

continuous monitors to evaluate 

diurnal fluctuations in dissolved 

oxygen levels. Previous sampling in 

Sarasota Bay was conducted during 

the mid-morning to early afternoon, 

thus eliminating data collection in 

early morning—the lowest dissolved 

oxygen period. The Sarasota Bay 

NEP used the continuous datasets 

to evaluate the extent of hypoxia 

(low oxygen), the potential impact 

of hypoxia on fisheries, and to 

reevaluate monitoring programs. Based on the results of this monitoring effort, it was 

determined that elevated hypoxia levels did not have an adverse impact on juvenile fish 

counts. Because temperature was not an important driver in the system, Sarasota Bay’s 

monitoring program focuses on nutrients and light-related parameters. For additional 

information, see www.sarasotabay.org. 

X Example 3: Narrative description of estuarine processes 

The Puget Sound Action Team used a narrative approach to describe the estuary in its 

“State of the Sound Report.” Qualitative and thorough descriptions of the estuarine 

processes were combined with simple diagrams illustrating circulation patterns, marine, 

freshwater, and terrestrial habitats, and living resource information, relating how 

various factors influence the estuarine processes and resources. This report also made 

use of easy-to-read qualitative narrative matrices to describe: 1) the possible causes, 

current status, and outlook for each problem indicator; 2) pollutants, possible sources, 

and associated impacts; 3) sources, effects, and trends; and 4) the distribution of 

certain contaminants in the Sound. These concise, simple matrices helped illuminate 

potential management solutions. For additional information, see www.psat.wa.gov. 

36
Identifying Problems and Solutions Photo: Steve Delaney

X Example 4: Relationships of 

priority problems 

Nitrogen is the limiting nutrient 

for algal productivity in Sarasota 

Bay. Studies conducted showed a 

correlation between seagrass 

coverage and nitrogen loads in 

Sarasota Bay. The Sarasota Bay 

NEP found that reductions in 

nitrogen inputs (47 percent) 

significantly increased seagrass 

coverage. Examined together, 

water clarity, light, and seagrass 

coverage appear to be good 

indicators of system health. Through these efforts, it was demonstrated that significant 

increases in seagrass habitat can be achieved with relatively small increases in water 

clarity of 1.5 feet in shallow water systems like Sarasota Bay. For additional 

information, see www.sarasotabay.org. 

X Example 5: Identification of data gaps through Technical Characterization 

The Technical Characterization report developed by the Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Partnership stated that the development of long-term solutions to the problems 

identified in the Lower Columbia River would require ongoing data collection and 

analysis. The characterization report identified four basic problems: toxics in sediment 

and fish tissue; decline in species; threats to wildlife and fish; and loss of habitat. The 

report also recommended the following studies and long-term monitoring and 

evaluation to address data and information gaps: 

• Problem confirmation and source identification; 

• Fate and transport assessment; 

• Criteria and standards development; 

• Ambient monitoring and assessment; 

• Fish and wildlife monitoring and assessment; and 

• Human health monitoring and assessment. 

For additional information, see www.lcrep.org. 

37
Chapter 3

Photo: Steve Delaney 

X Example 6: Data gathering and action formulation 

In addition to developing technical issue papers and offering advice and guidance on 

scientific issues affecting the estuary, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership’s 

Science and Technical Work Group helped bridge the gap between data gathering and 

action formation. Members of the Technical Work Group played a key role assisting 

the Management Committee in the comparative risk ranking of potential actions. The 

ranking was used to select actions based on the most significant problems in the 

estuary, including perceived risks to public health, 

ecological health, and quality of life. The 

program’s risk ranking exercises are described in 

Chapter 4 of its Management Plan. For additional 

information, see www.lcrep.org. 

X Example 7: Contribution of Base Program 

Analysis to Management Plan action plans 

The purpose of the Base Program Analysis 

conducted by the Barataria-Terrebonne NEP was 

to provide members of the Management 

Conference with information they could use to 

develop actions for the Management Plan. The 

seven priority problems identified in the BaratariaTerrebonne Conference Agreement were used to 

provide information about the types of program 

changes needed in the future. A database was 

developed containing programs, monitoring 

stations, laws, and the research and reports 

relevant to the project area. The report lists 84 

federal programs and 63 state programs according 

to their primary management tools and their 

relation to the seven priority problems. An 

analysis identified the types of strategies and regulations that lead to program 

effectiveness and prototypes were recommended for the action plans in the 

Management Plan. In addition, some strategies were identified that could be 

implemented prior to final Management Plan approval. For additional information, see 

www.btnep.org. 

38
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action

NEP PRINCIPLES IN CHAPTER 4 

• The Management Plan identifies the most 

pressing problems in an estuary and establishes 

goals, objectives, and actions for resolving 

them. 

• Implementation of demonstration projects 

during Management Plan development can 

showcase innovative management strategies, 

involve the public, and demonstrate the types 

of changes that full implementation of the 

Management Plan can bring about. 

• The Management Plan must be developed 

in conjunction with affected jurisdictions, 

agencies, and programs to ensure continued 

stakeholder support and future 

• The Management Plan is a living document 

every five years) to ensure that the goals, 

objectives, and specific actions continue to 

as effective tools for restoring and 

Chapter 4: 

A Blueprint for Action 

INTRODUCTION 

the estuary program office, with substantial input from stakeholder committees, it 

identifies the most pressing problems in an estuary and establishes goals, objectives, 

and actions for resolving them. The Management Plan also contains strategies for 

monitoring progress and financing implementation. The plans are living documents 

that are reexamined and revised by the 

estuary programs on a regular basis to 

ensure that the goals, objectives, and 

specific actions continue to address the 

During plan 

development, the NEPs implement 

demonstration projects to test possible 

actions and show the results that full plan 

execution can bring about. 

This chapter explains how the NEPs use 

Characterization and Base Program 

Analysis discussed in Chapter 3 to develop 

Management Plans that address the 

outlines how the NEPs involve affected 

jurisdictions, agencies, and other 

organizations and individuals in the writing 

of the plan to ensure stakeholder support 

and a commitment to implement the plan. 

The chapter also shows how the NEPs use 

demonstration projects during plan 

development to showcase innovative 

management strategies, involve the public, 

and demonstrate the types of changes that 

full implementation can bring about. 

implementation commitments. 

and should be revised on a regular basis (e.g., 

address the most pressing problems and serve 

maintaining the integrity of the estuary. 

Developing the Management Plan— 

The Management Plan is a blueprint for restoring and protecting an estuary. Written by 

most pressing problems. 

the results of the Technical 

problems of each estuary. The chapter 

39 
Chapter 4

SAN FRANCISCO 

E P

MISSION 

treasure and that our ongoing stewardship is 

hancement. Acknowledging the importance 

maintain an ecologically diverse and productive natural estuarine system.” 

see 

www.abag.ca.g ov/bayarea/sfe p/ 

sfep.html. 

COMPONENTS OF A 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The Management Plan contains five basic components: 

• Statement of priority problems to be addressed in the Management Plan 

• Mission statement, goals, and objectives for the estuary 

• Action plans for achieving goals and objectives 

• 

• 

STATEMENT OF PRIORITY PROBLEMS 

Prioritizing the problems that will be addressed in the Management Plan is an 

important early step in Management Plan development. No Management Plan can 

tackle all of the issues affecting an estuary at one time. Therefore, problems must be 

prioritized to ensure that limited resources can be applied wisely during implementation 

As discussed in Chapter 3 

within the Management Plan should be clearly 

OBJECTIVES 

Most NEPs develop a mission statement, goals, 

and objectives to help ensure that stakeholders 

work toward the same end. This approach focuses 

participants on the desired end product rather than 

a problem-based approach that tackles individual 

problems one-by-one. A clear mission statement 

with specific goals and objectives leads to the 

development of integrated action plans that 

address multiple problems simultaneously in order 

to work toward achieving the desired end. This 

approach takes into consideration social as well as 

ecological factors and allows the NEPs to maintain 

direction in the dynamic environment in which they 

operate. 

STUARY ROJECT 

STATEMENT 

“WE, THE PEOPLE of California and 

the San Francisco Bay-Delta region, believe 

the San Francisco Estuary is an international 

critical to its preservation, restoration, and enof the estuary to our environmental and economic well-being, we pledge to achieve and 

For additional infor mation,

Monitoring strategy 

Finance strategy 

The following sections describe these five basic components. 

of action plans. , there are many strategies used to prioritize 

identified problems in the estuary, including 

opinion surveys, stakeholder workshops, and 

various resource valuation techniques. The actions 

linked to the priority problems. 

MISSION STATEMENTS, GOALS, AND 

40
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action

C

SUCCESSFUL 

Measuring success can be 

simplified by defining goals and objectives in readily 

minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh 

every five years and a total of 1,800 acres over the 

measures of

provides a clear endpoint to gauge when the goal 

has been achieved. The Interlocal Agreement through 

implemented specifies that when the policy board 

will be restructured to provide ongoing maintenance 

www.tbep.org. 

After 

Program Analysis are complete, the NEP 

revisits and refines the goals and 

asked to identify the most important uses 

Overall program goals focus on desired 

All program goals should be 

environmentally meaningful and resonate 

with the public. Goals may range from 

maintaining current conditions to 

restoring the estuary to a past condition. 

Objectives, unlike goals, are specific and 

more clearly defined, and are aimed at 

le 

estuary program participants consider appropriate and desirable for various estuarine 

ACTION PLANS 

begin on developing specific actions to achieve them. These action plans—discrete 

activities to address a priority problem or issue and its impacts—are at the heart of the 

LEAR GOALS AND 

OBJECTIVES HELP DEFINE 

IMPLEMENTATION 

measured, unambiguous terms. One of the goals 

of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program is to restore a 

long-term. The goal is stated in measurable terms 

and provides both long-term and intermediate-term 

 success. The goal statement also 

which the Tampa Bay Management Plan is being 

determines that a goal has been achieved, the goal 

of the resource. For additional information, see 

An NEP formulates the mission 

statement early in the program’s 

development and may also formulate 

preliminary goals and objectives.

the Technical Characterization and Base 

objectives. Frequently, stakeholders are 

and resources of the estuary. This 

stakeholder input serves as an important 

basis for an NEP’s program goals and 

objectives. 

end products or results for the estuary. 

achieving the broader, long-term goals. Objectives must be measurable and achievab

through the implementation of specific action plans. They may reflect the 

environmental criteria, the preferred uses, or the elimination of impairments that the 

segments. Objectives undoubtedly will vary from one segment of the estuary to 

another, but in each case are used to determine if the program goals are being met. 

Once the Management Conference has formulated goals and objectives, work can 

Management Plan. T a ble 4.1 (on page 42) summarizes the basic steps involved in 

developing action plans. Each action plan typically addresses a priority issue such as 

environmental education or a priority problem such as habitat loss. 

41 
Chapter 4

new and existing, for consideration. 

problem or to protect the resource. 

Each action plan should address the following: 

• WHO: Identify who will take the lead in carrying out the action; define roles 

and resource commitments for each participating organization. 

• 

targets and use designations for a location; describe which specific activities are 

necessary to reach them. 

• WHERE: Describe the location where the action will take place and the area 

that will be affected. 

• WHEN: Include schedules for action implementation and completion. 

• 

• 

• SOURCE OF FUNDS: Identify funding sources that can be used to carry out 

the action. 

meetings, convened work groups, used comparative risk ranking, conducted 

constituent focus groups, and then developed final criteria to narrow down a list of 180 

actions to 43 (see Appendix C). 

Table 4.1: Basic steps for action plan development 

1. State the problem, identifying the probable causes and sources. 

2. State the program goals related to the problem and its source. 

3. Set specific, measurable objectives to attain the goals. 

4. Determine the universe of possible management activities, both 

5. Select the activity that will work, that the public will support, and 

that can be implemented within reasonable time and resources. 

6. Establish specific action plans needed to abate and control the 

7. Implement and monitor results, collecting data on measurable 

indicators of progress. 

8. Report on progress, costs, and results. 

9. Review, reevaluate, and redirect efforts as needed. 

WHAT: Describe what will be done. For example, set numeric load reduction 

HOW: Outline the procedures or steps that will be used to carry out the action. 

HOW MUCH: Estimate the cost of implementing the action. 

A range of techniques has been used by the NEPs to develop management actions. 

For example, the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership held multiple public 

42
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action

MONITORING STRATEGY 

In order to track both programmatic and environmental results, the NEPs develop a 

Considered 

in total, the achievement of these goals and objectives equates to the yardstick that 

Second, the NEPs select appropriate and measurable indicators that track with this 

definition. Indicators are tools that are used to assess progress toward a particular goal 

stakeholders, the NEPs integrate programmatic indicators with environmental 

Third, the NEPs develop a communication plan. The plan identifies goals, objectives, 

and target audiences, as well as how the NEPs will create, package, and distribute their 

(PIVOT), a tool developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Estuaries Partnership to present local environmental issues 

and how the NEP is addressing them. Additional 

www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pivot/overview/intro.htm. 

Next, the NEPs identify the roles environmental agencies 

agencies bring substantial monitoring resources to the table, 

and volunteers can collect data in remote areas and help a 

convene the agencies that collect, analyze, and store estuary 

data to create a well coordinated monitoring program that 

By combining local, 

regional, and national monitoring systems, the NEPs create 

a comprehensive network. 

monitoring strategy. The NEPs include several basic elements in their monitoring 

strategies. 

First, they include a clear and realistic definition of success. This definition is typically 

driven by the goals and objectives developed during the planning process. 

the stakeholders will use to determine if progress is being made during the 

implementation process. 

or objective. The NEPs’ indicators measure progress toward enhancing and preserving 

their diverse estuarine ecosystems. To reconcile the long-term nature of 

environmental improvements and the need to demonstrate short-term results to 

indicators. 

messages. One eye-catching way the NEPs use to reach a wide audience is Web-based 

interactive maps. This medium is a user-friendly way to track indicators and progress 

toward goals. For example, Performance Indicators Visualization and Outreach Tool 

Coastal Services Center, has been used by the Tillamook 

information on PIVOT can be found on the Web site: 

and volunteers will play in monitoring. Environmental 

program’s outreach and education efforts. The NEPs 

eliminates redundancies and fills gaps. 

43 
Chapter 4

The Guidance provides examples and details related to identifying monitoring 

objectives, establishing testable hypotheses, selecting statistical methods, choosing 

analytical methods and alternative sampling designs, evaluating expected monitoring 

http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/water/ 

owrccatalog

FINANCE STRATEGY 

seed money into substantial sums, 

the NEPs develop finance plans 

to obtain a variety of federal, 

Finance plans allow the NEPs to 

funding sources: public and 

private, direct and indirect, to 

funding before seeking a particular source. NEPs attract additional funding from 

fees, municipal bond funding, fines and settlements, tax abatements and incentives, 

Finance planning involves four steps: (1) establish program priorities; (2) identify 

funding options; (3) evaluate funding options; and (4) develop a plan to pursue the 

The resulting plan identifies sources of funding to support priority activities, such as 

organization on how the NEP program goals will support their mission. Other 

organizations, such as foundations, local governments, and businesses, may also be 

develop the funding mechanisms, how this will be done, and when the mechanisms will 

be in place. Appendix E provides an excerpt from one NEP finance plan. Photo: Steve Delaney 

Finally, the NEPs outline the technical components of the strategy. The NEPs consult 

technical documents such as EPA’s National Estuary Program Monitoring Guidance. 

study performance, and conducting monitoring and data analysis. The Guidance can 

be found on the Web site: 

.nsf. 

To successfully leverage federal 

state, local, and private funding. 

tap into a broad spectrum of 

achieve their goals and control the pace of their programs. Rather than pursue a new 

grant each month, the NEPs identify and evaluate a broad spectrum of potential 

various sources and through partnerships with other organizations. For example, the 

NEPs have tapped the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, stormwater utility 

and sales fees. The following paragraphs describe the finance planning process and the 

time it takes to see financial results. 

most promising funding sources. To accomplish these steps, the NEPs may retain a 

consultant to facilitate a series of meetings, interviews, and follow-up sessions to 

determine a reasonable list of priority actions and identify potential funding sources. 

operating costs, outreach, and habitat protection. For example, the NEPs may seek 

funding from an individual state Environmental Trust by first educating the 

approached to fund additional project-related costs. A finance plan identifies who will 

44
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action Photo: Steve Delaney 

example, the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary's first direct mail appeal yielded 

developed support among local residents, and found advocates within state and local 

bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars from a variety of sources and is in a better 

took several years with small returns from early appeals blossoming into substantial 

support. 

DEVELOPING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Management Plan development is a multi-year process that seeks to involve all of the 

First, the NEPs disseminate and discuss the characterization findings with affected 

public awareness and support for the estuary program. The meetings also provide an 

opportunity to solicit citizen knowledge and opinions regarding the problems of the 

By ensuring that the public is involved, a plan is 

created that all parties support. Actions are 

created that are measurable, achievable, and 

public support of the Management Plan helps to 

secure commitments from implementing entities, 

as well as funding for implementation. 

Next, the NEPs integrate and coordinate their 

activities with affected jurisdictions, agencies, and 

It may take time to see positive results from finance planning and resulting actions. For 

only a handful of responses. Yet as this NEP became more active in the community, 

government, its reputation grew. With this stronger reputation, the NEP is now 

position to argue for more significant resources. The process of building this support 

watershed’s stakeholders. The NEPs take a number of steps to develop their 

management plans. 

parties in the watershed. These findings, which describe the estuary’s problems and 

link problems to causes, form the basis for developing the goals and objectives for the 

estuary. To ensure that stakeholders have equal access to this information, it should be 

widely shared in a format that all participants can understand. 

Second, the NEPs gather information through public input, technical studies and 

demonstration projects. The stakeholders debate the merits of each problem and 

determine which ones will be the focus of the Management Plan. Some programs 

begin the prioritization process by holding a series of public workshops. These 

meetings serve to disseminate information on the state of the estuary and to increase 

estuary. The Management Conference uses this 

information to draft, evaluate, and select actions 

for controlling pollution and managing resources. 

sensitive to social and cultural factors. Strong 

45 
Chapter 4

Photo: Steve Delaney 

by other agencies, as well as initiatives that may be planned or underway that could 

impact the estuarine system. Continued involvement by resource agencies and affected 

jurisdictions also helps to ensure that commitments to implement the actions can be 

secured. Most NEPs include federal and state resource agency personnel on their 

actions prior to completing the Management 

Plan. These early actions, referred to as 

Action Plan Demonstration Projects, are 

used by the NEPs to showcase innovative 

management strategies, to involve the public 

in hands-on estuarine resource management, 

and to demonstrate the types of changes that 

full implementation of the Management Plan 

can bring about. Early implementation 

activities can help to legitimize program 

activities and maintain a high level of stakeholder interest. The following are examples 

• The Indian River Lagoon NEP worked with state agencies and utilized volunteers to 

help protect natural habitat by planting mangroves in areas where there was habitat 

loss due to development or where the mangroves have been crowded out by the 

Lagoon Program planted more than 100,000 mangrove trees along causeways and 

Management Plan. 

•

Projects during Management Plan development to test the feasibility of new 

technologies prior to large-scale implementation. They included: 1) oil canal 

conversion; 2) seagrass best management practices; 3) seafood processing plant 

wastewater improvement; 4) small-flow wastewater treatment; and 5) alternative 

reports on the results of each demonstration project. 

programs. Coordination with affected jurisdictions and agencies ensures that the 

estuary program is informed about the results of studies and research efforts conducted 

Policy and/or Management Committees to ensure their participation throughout the 

process. 

Finally, the NEPs begin implementing 

of Action Plan Demonstration Projects. 

invasive species Brazilian pepper. Volunteers and contractors of the Indian River 

shorelines of the lagoon. Young mangrove sprouts are planted in vertically split PVC 

pipes filled with native soils. This allows the roots to stabilize along the waveturbulent shoreline. As the plants grow, the protective pipes fall away allowing the 

plant to survive without further support. This Action Plan Demonstration Project 

provided a useful technology and approach that was used by the NEP in the 

 The Barataria-Terrebonne NEP implemented several Action Plan Demonstration 

dredging and soil deposition. Following implementation, the program prepared 

46
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action

S

POSSIBLEMANAGEMENT PLAN 

ACTIONS 

The Partnership for the Delaware 

Estuary utilized straw voting 

exercises at stakeholder group 

a facilitator led a discussion about those actions 

with the highest level of support as well as those 

actions with the least support. These 

discussions not only helped to identify 

stakeholder priority actions, but also brought 

to light controversial issues, opinions on the 

see www.delawareestuary.org. 

• The Mobile Bay NEP funded an Action 

Plan Demonstration Project that was 

collectively implemented by the Alabama 

partners addressed the priority issue of 

habitat loss by placing discarded Christmas 

trees in fencing along an eroding shoreline. 

The trees absorbed wave action and 

reduced siltation. 

fence and shoreline. The marsh planting 

increases the rate of sediment entrapment, 

protects the shoreline from erosion, and 

augments wildlife habitat along the 

shoreline. 

FROM MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT 

problems, specifies actions to address the problems, and outlines monitoring and 

concentrated work, it is only the first step toward cleaning up and protecting the 

to: 

• raise funds, 

• secure partner commitments, 

• monitor progress, 

• document and communicate results, 

• provide public education and involvement opportunities, and 

• revise the program to maintain momentum. 

TRAW VOTING TO IDENTIFY 

meetings to determine levels of support for 

proposed actions. Following the voting exercise, 

feasibility of implementing actions, suggestions 

for action reformulation, and suggestions for 

additional actions. For additional information, 

Coastal Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, McDavid Christmas Tree Farm, 

Cam Beckwith, and Alabama Power. The 

The Youth 

Conservation Corps planted black-needle 

rush (Juncus roemerianus) between the brush 

TO IMPLEMENTATION 

The Management Plan articulates a vision and goals for the estuary, identifies priority 

finance strategies. While completion of the Management Plan requires many years of 

estuary. Implementation of the Management Plan becomes the focus of NEP efforts 

once it is approved by the Management Conference, state government, and EPA. 

To successfully implement the plan, the NEPs need the skills, knowledge, and abilities 

The next chapter discusses how the NEPs address these challenges. 

47 
Chapter 4

DEVELOPING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN: EXAMPLES 

X Example 1: Stakeholder involvement in development of the program vision 

The Partnership for the Delaware Estuary conducted a series of facilitated workshops 

to form a “vision of the Delaware Estuary for the year 2020 which was shared by the 

users of the estuary.” During facilitated discussions, workshop participants, 

representing a variety of stakeholder interests, were asked to identify the most 

important uses and resources of the estuary, based on their perspective as a user (e.g., 

fishing, recreational boating, land development, manufacturing, etc.). These 

workshops resulted in a collective list focusing on fisheries, wildlife, recreation, water 

supply, and commerce as the most important uses of the estuary. These uses and 

values became the basis for goals and objectives endorsed by the program. For 

additional information, see www.delawareestuary.org. 

X Example 2: Public involvement and community outreach demonstration 

projects 

The San Juan Bay Estuary Program conducted 

several community efforts to enhance education, 

health, and the environment. The Program 

delivered numerous presentations focusing on 

themes such as water quality. Demonstration 

Projects in Loiza, San Juan, and Catano 

communities included: 

• A solid waste management project in 

Loiza that has reduced floatable debris 

through recycling and improved the 

overall environmental quality of the 

coastal community of Pinones. 

• A series of 10 presentations and home visits, supplemented by the installation 

of warning signs, to alert Peninsula de Canteras Community to fish advisories. 

• A 10-week series of workshops on Las Cucharills Marshland ecology, including 

sessions on community organizing and environmental restoration, that gave 

participants a coherent vision and ideas about how they could achieve it. 

For additional information, see www.estuariosanjuan.org. 

48
Developing the Management Plan — A Blueprint for Action Photo: Steve Delaney 

X Example 3: Development of environmental education goals and objectives to 

help focus outreach efforts 

The Public Education Strategy of the Charlotte Harbor NEP is to educate and to 

motivate the people within the greater Charlotte Harbor watershed to understand, to 

participate in, and to implement their Management Plan. To achieve this strategy, the 

Charlotte Harbor NEP developed four public education goals and four quantifiable 

objectives to support the goals. 

Public Education Goals: 

1. Increase public awareness, understanding, and support of the action items in 

the Management Plan through involvement in educational programs, resourcebased activities, and special events. 

2. Establish and maintain environmental education efforts with organizations, 

educational centers, and government agencies. 

3. Increase awareness and understanding of the natural and cultural resources of 

the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed. 

4. Develop stewardship and a sense of shared responsibility for estuaries, rivers, 

tributaries, and their watersheds. 

Public Education Objectives: 

1. Maintain a core staff, including a Public 

Affairs Specialist, at the Charlotte 

Harbor NEP office to ensure 

implementation of the Management 

Plan. 

2. Support and further the educational 

action items of the Management Plan. 

3. Assess annually the progress of the 

Public Education Strategy. 

4. Develop future directions based on the annual assessment. 

Following the development of these objectives, priority actions were developed by the 

Program to define the management activities needed to attain the quantifiable 

objectives. For additional information, see www.charlotteharbornep.com/. 

49 
Chapter 4

Photo: Steve Delaney 

X Example 4: Use of resource valuation to gain public and political support 

The Peconic Estuary Program conducted a resource valuation study assessing the 

public’s assessment of the estuary’s values. The Program felt that a credible picture of 

the monetary worth of the natural resources and environmental amenities of the area 

would better substantiate the value of the actions in the Management Plan and broker 

more support from public officials and the general public. By documenting market and 

non-market resource benefits, decisions on resource allocation for implementation 

could be made at least in part on cost-benefit considerations. The multifaceted study 

responded to the needs of the Peconic 

Estuary Program by identifying estuarinedependent economic sectors and their 

impacts on the local economy and 

assessing the largely non-market values 

of natural amenities, and the recreational 

services provided by those amenities. 

The second part of the study was 

comprised of (1) a recreation study, (2) a 

resource valuation analysis, (3) a property 

value study, and (4) a wetlands 

productivity analysis. 

The results of the resource valuation study indicated that the public has a strong 

attachment to the environmental and amenity resources of the Peconic Estuary system, 

even if they do not use the resources directly. The resource valuation survey identified 

the public’s priorities for enhancing or preserving local natural resources. The relative 

priorities of respondents, in order, were farmland, eelgrass, wetlands, shellfishing 

grounds, and undeveloped land. The estimated per acre dollar values were about 

$74,500 for farmland, $70,000 for eelgrass, $56,700 for saltmarsh, $30,000 for 

unpolluted shellfishing grounds, and $14,000 for undeveloped land, using a 25-year 

time horizon and a seven percent discount rate. 

The economics information generated was extremely useful to the Program, presenting 

a credible picture of the market and non-market worth of the services provided by 

Peconic Bay and its environs. The results of the various studies conducted (the impact 

assessment, travel cost, and contingent choice) influenced several initiatives within the 

region and helped generate over $100 million at the state, county, and local levels to 

support environmental preservation. For additional information, see 

www.peconicestuary.org. 

50
Implementing the Management Plan

NEP PRINCIPLES IN CHAPTER 5 

• 

from derailing the program, the NEPs adopt bylaws 

and other agreements that define participant roles and 

• Several different institutional structures or 

arrangements have been effective for various NEPs 

as they move into implementation. 

• 

reliance on a single entity since implementation occurs 

• 

measurable indicators, should be developed and 

• Environmental results should be communicated in 

• Citizens can play an important role in environmental 

monitoring and building public support for 

implementation. 

Chapter 5: 

INTRODUCTION 

The focus of this chapter is on how to move from studying problems plaguing our 

success, the NEPs work with their partners to see that they follow through with their 

commitments to support Management Plan implementation. The NEPs invigorate 

local involvement by addressing local problems and developing finance mechanisms to 

tracked, and communicated by the NEPs to build additional support for 

implementation. 

successes and lessons learned at events, such as national conferences and workshops, 

NEPs organize effective institutional 

stable and diverse sources of funding, 

monitor results and communicate them 

to the public, and update the 

The NEPs have learned that the 

following actions can help lead to 

successful implementation: 

• Organize effective institutional 

arrangements that ensure long-

• Obtain stable and diverse sources 

• Monitor results and communicate 

them to the public. 

• Update the Management Plan 

The following sections describe how the 

NEPs successfully implement their 

To prevent conflicting agendas and individual interests 

provide a mechanism for resolving conflicts. 

A variety of funding sources are needed to avoid overover many years and is costly. 

A clear and realistic definition of success, including 

communicated to all stakeholders. 

terms that are meaningful to all stakeholders. 

Implementing the Management Plan 

estuaries to implementing management measures to solve those problems. To ensure 

raise money to pay for implementation activities. Indicators of success are developed, 

The NEPs improve their implementation performance by sharing 

and by updating their Management Plans periodically. This chapter discusses how the 

arrangements that ensure long-term 

oversight and accountability, obtain 

Management Plan periodically. 

term oversight and accountability. 

of funding. 

periodically. 

Management Plans. 

51 
Chapter 5

With the Management Plan complete, the NEPs increase their focus on 

implementation: obtaining funds, building partner support, and measuring and 

effectively implement the Management Plan. The NEP asks itself whether it should 

remain within its current institutional host, become a nonprofit, or establish a nonprofit 

NEPs also intensify their efforts to involve stakeholders and build partner support. 

The NEPs engage stakeholders in applied activities, such as volunteer monitoring and 

implementing mini-grants, and create an environment that respects all voices, gives real 

power to participants, clearly states objectives and timetables, and makes clear progress 

In deciding whether to remain in its original institutional location, an NEP investigates 

a variety of different alternatives and identifies the place that best suits its specific 

what perceptions are prevalent, and who or what institutions are influential. Several 

Coastal Bend 

and Delaware Bay NEPs remained in their state government institutions but created 

representatives from the public and private sectors to provide overall direction for the 

office. While locating the NEP within a government agency can allow the NEP to 

more easily coordinate with other government programs and have greater access to data 

Appendix D

and disadvantages of becoming a nonprofit. 

MAINTAINING MOMENTUM FROM PLANNING THROUGH 

IMPLEMENTATION 

communicating results. To sustain the momentum gathered during plan development, 

the NEPs revisit their governance structure to ensure that it is appropriate to 

arm. Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages in regards to 

fundraising, building partner support, and measuring and communicating results. The 

on those objectives. 

REVISITING THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE 

needs. The NEPs examine the community of the estuary: how decisions are reached, 

different institutional locations have been effective for different NEPs. 

Bays and Estuaries (Texas) and Tillamook Bay (Oregon) moved from state and local 

government institutions to become independent nonprofit organizations. San Francisco 

nonprofit arms to conduct outreach and fundraising activities. The San Juan Bay NEP 

established a trust fund to conduct fundraising and a board of directors with 

program. And, the New York-New Jersey Harbor NEP remained in the EPA Region II 

and certain regulatory functions, locating the NEP outside a government agency, in a 

satellite office or nonprofit, has advantages including greater autonomy, visibility, and 

certain funding opportunities. presents a one-page list of the advantages 

52
Implementing the Management Plan

L NEP 

INSTITUTION 

In 1997, the Casco Bay Estuary Project moved from 

the Maine Department of Environmental Protection 

to the University of Southern Maine. The Muskie 

the Project. The Casco Bay board of directors went 

through a request for proposals process to find a host 

to an academic institution that exemplifies environmental 

an office on campus and the use of the institutional 

infrastructure. Benefits the Project has received from 

being located at the University include: 

• 

• Credibility as an academic institution that is 

viewed as neutral without associations with 

• Many opportunities for graduate and 

• Opportunities to guest lecture in courses at the 

University and to get students involved in 

projects that benefit the Estuary Project. 

www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu. 

SUSTAINING STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND PARTNER SUPPORT 

The NEPs reinforce the partners’ commitment by continuing to hold stakeholder 

meetings, managing the NEP committee process, and working to sustain the consensus 

and common vision reached among 

the partners during plan 

development. While the NEPs 

implement some actions 

coordinate, and in other ways 

seed money or the initial 

organization for implementing 

partners that do have the legal 

authority or resources to implement 

The NEPs, however, are sometimes 

participation after the Management 

Plan is completed. Without the 

focus of plan development, 

stakeholders may lose interest in the 

program. “Lack of time” is 

question of why they don’t remain 

involved. But research from the 

more a matter of setting priorities 

than the availability of time itself.3 

People free up time for things that 

are most important to them. The 

challenge for NEPs and other 

community-based watershed efforts 

is to invigorate local support by 

addressing local problems, but doing 

so in a coordinated manner that 

3 

.” Coastlines 10.2 (2002). 

OCATING THE

WITHIN AN ACADEMIC 

School for Public Service, a graduate school at the 

University, and the Marine Law Institute act as hosts to 

site. The University’s successful bid brought the Project 

stewardship. With the University, the Project receives 

Convenient location for meetings and outreach 

efforts. 

enforcement agencies or advocacy groups. 

undergraduate assistantships/internships. 

For additional information, see 

independently, they oversee, 

influence many more partner actions. 

For example, the NEP may provide 

actions. 

frustrated by a decline in stakeholder 

everyone’s first response to the 

NEP experience suggests that it is 

enhances mutual benefits and makes progress on regional problems. The mechanisms 

for involving the public vary from NEP to NEP. Some programs hire staff to focus on 

Webler, Thomas. “Why Do (or Don’t) Local Government Officials Participate in Watershed Planning 

Efforts Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

53
Chapter 5

A 

COMMUNITY 

Understanding community social 

systems is key to successful 

Management Plan implementation. 

to Understanding a Sense of Place is a toolbox for 

understanding the social dynamics involved in 

flexible, step-by-step process for building a picture 

of community cultural preferences and priorities by 

identifying local values, beliefs, and behaviors as they 

relate to community life and the surrounding natural 

environment. Easy-to-use worksheets and 

community assessment stories from around the 

country provide methods that can be used to: 

• 

• engage volunteers and other stakeholders, 

• enhance education and outreach efforts, and 

• 

Guide

9198, ncepiwo@one.net. 

nonprofit.

Alliance. Through this Alliance, 

member organizations cooperatively 

work to meet common goals and 

complete joint projects to enhance 

How can coastal managers and 

watershed organizations like the NEP 

entice local government officials and 

other stakeholders to participate in 

the implementation process? 

• First, focus attention on producing a 

working environment that respects all 

voices, builds a sense of camaraderie, 

gives real power to the participants, 

clearly states the objectives and 

timetable, and makes clear progress 

more likely to participate if the 

watershed project stays abreast of 

local problems and incorporates these 

Going 

out into the communities, listening to 

concerns, and inviting local 

participation are much more 

productive ways to secure 

involvement than merely sending a 

example, Massachusetts Bays NEP 

covers a specific region of the coast and staff visit each community in order to 

• 

collaboratively with peers, are able to take a regional perspective, and who pursue 

include announcements listing existing participants and provide opportunities for 

GUIDEBOOK TO HELP ENGAGE THE 

EPA’s Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide 

community-based efforts. Readers learn about a 

identify a community’s vision and goals, 

build and strengthen partnerships. 

To order the (EPA 842-B-01-003), contact the 

National Service Center for Environmental 

Publications, U.S. EPA Publication Clearinghouse, 

P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242, 1-800-490-

this activity, while others delegate this task to a separate entity, such as a local 

 For example, the Morro Bay NEP has partnered with nonprofit 

organizations working in and near the estuary to create the Estero Conservation 

Morro Bay and surrounding areas. 

on these objectives. Stakeholders are 

into the program’s objectives.

form letter to the town clerk, mayor’s 

office, or county commissioners. For 

created five Local Governance Committees that function like mini-NEPs. Each 

secure its commitment to implement Management Plan actions. 

Second, recruit people who have a strong environmental ethic, enjoy working 

goals linked to the project’s objectives. Invitations to new participants should 

networking and learning. 

54
Implementing the Management Plan

U

INVOLVEMENT 

Advisory Committee created the Bay Opinion 

perceptions of the bay and identifies major 

community concerns related to bay protection. 

www.tbep.org. 

• Third, use mini-grants, segmentation schemes, and other mechanisms that enable 

stakeholder groups to make progress on their local agenda while remaining connected 

to the watershed project. The Maryland Coastal Bays Program awards an average of 

$100,000 per year for local stakeholders to conduct projects in the watershed. 

Recipients provided many times the amount of their grants in matching funds which 

and management actions to achieve them for each segment. Achieving the 

chlorophyll targets will provide sufficient water clarity to allow recolonization of 

• 

broaden public involvement throughout 

Some NEPs 

have developed volunteer water quality 

monitoring programs while others enlist 

volunteers to deliver education and 

for active involvement allow the public 

to become engaged in tangible efforts, 

build stewardship for the resource, and 

create public and private interest in 

providing financial support for 

implementation. 

• 

local government organizations and other stakeholder groups as individuals with 

participation, it may be wise to design a process that contains a variety of ways and 

levels for stakeholders to become involved. 

SE OF THE INTERNET TO 

STIMULATE PUBLIC 

The Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program’s Community 

Poll to stimulate continued public involvement 

and communication. This informal poll assesses 

The poll is available on the Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program Web site: 

attracted more money to the watershed. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program subdivides 

the bay into seven segments. The program established nitrogen load reduction goals 

12,350 acres of seagrasses and tangible results for local stakeholders. 

Fourth, use volunteer programs to 

the implementation process. 

outreach activities. These opportunities 

Finally, avoid approaching any 

stakeholder group as an homogenous body. Watershed managers need to approach 

different experiences, needs, values, and beliefs. To maximize stakeholder 

55
Chapter 5

Figure 5.1: Resources leveraged by the NEPs 

$200,000,000 

$180,000,000 

$160,000,000 

$140,000,000 

$120,000,000 

$100,000,000 

$80,000,000 

$60,000,000 

$40,000,000 

$20,000,000 

$0 

$190 million 

Support from Other Sources 

$220,000,000 

$17 million 

Source: 

NEPs attract funding and support to administer these funds from various sources and 

).

manage this additional funding, the NEPs obtained substantial support through 

Bend Bays and Estuaries Program (CBBEP) directly administered only about one-third 

of their leveraged funding, with the remaining two-thirds administered by local 

in the watershed. 

How do the NEPs leverage these resources? First, the NEPs develop finance plans 

funding plans enable the NEPs to sift through potential sources and decide where to 

invest limited time and personnel. Rather than focus on a new grant each month, the 

Leveraging Ratio = 11:1 

EPA §320 Funds 

NEP Annual Workplans, June, 2003. 

OBTAINING FUNDS 

through strategic partnerships with other organizations. For example, the NEPs raised 

$11 for every $1 provided by EPA in 2003. This additional funding comes from a 

variety of federal, state, local, and private sources (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2 To help 

partnerships with the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. For example, the Coastal 

governments, universities, state agencies, and nonprofits. The CBBEP also created a 

land trust that has proved successful in acquiring and managing funds to protect habitat 

that identify and evaluate funding sources to implement their priority actions. The 

56
Implementing the Management Plan

Figure 5.2: Sources of NEP 

leveraged dollars (percent total) 

Private

3%

State

77%

Local

9%

Federal

NEPs pursue funding that supports 

(See Appendix E for 

an excerpt from an NEP finance plan.) 

Second, the NEPs develop strategic 

alliances with implementing partners 

to obtain their financial support. The 

NEPs reinforce the partners’ 

commitment by continuing to hold 

stakeholder meetings, managing the 

NEP committee process, and working 

to sustain the consensus and common 

vision reached among their partners 

during plan development. While the 

NEPs implement some actions 

coordinate, and in other ways 

Third, the NEPs demonstrate results that convince stakeholders that the NEPs are 

The following sections provide examples of the types of funding NEPs have secured 

Most NEP activities are funded by more than one source and involve extensive 

FUNDING OPERATING COSTS 

the NEPs have developed several creative approaches to address this challenge. 

County general budget. The Peconic Estuary Program Office is part of the Office of 

budget covers most of the operating costs of the estuary program. Suffolk County has 

a long-standing commitment to environmental management. It pushed for Peconic 

Source: NEP Annual Workplans, June, 2003. 

11%

their priorities. 

independently, they oversee, 

influence many more partner actions. 

effective, can be trusted with their resources, and will give them credit for their 

contributions. The NEPs work closely with the media and produce independent 

newsletters, Web sites, and events that promote the achievements of the program and 

heighten the visibility of the NEP and its implementing partners. 

Finally, the NEPs provide seed money or staff to initate and develop new funding 

sources. For example, the NEP may lead meetings with local governments to develop 

stormwater utilities or obtain resources from the State Revolving Loan Fund. 

from federal, state, local, and private sources to finance their operations and projects. 

partnering. 

Covering operating costs remains a perennial challenge for most NEPs. Nonetheless, 

Ecology in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the county general 

57
Chapter 5

F

EXPENSES 

The experience of several of the NEPs 

to $2.0 million is needed for initial program 

implementation. Basic staffing and 

program operations—to support outreach, 

monitoring, and other activities—account 

for approximately $400,000 to $600,000 

of this total. Grant programs, contracts, 

and seed money—to implement other 

Management Plan actions—account for 

$200,000 to $1.4 million that are directly 

controlled by the Program itself. 

Estuary to be recognized as a National Estuary Program, and with the success of that 

effort, it has offered continued support. The Peconic Estuary Program presents its 

budgets as an investment with a greater return, not just as money to be expended. 

State line-item funding. The Galveston Bay Program and the Coastal Bend Bays and 

Estuaries Program each receive state line-item funding of about $1 million per year 

operation. The Galveston Bay Program and the Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries 

programs worked with local representatives to develop language for a bill in the state 

legislature, and the estuary programs enlisted local governments, nonprofit 

organizations, and individual citizens to support this measure. These NEPs also 

educated legislators statewide about the National Estuary Program and the estuary 

in 1999. 

The Delaware Center for the Inland Bays used a series of breakfast presentations and 

individual meetings with state legislators to articulate current environmental problems 

such as Pfiesteria. Made aware of these problems, the Legislature provided specific 

establishes local “tributary teams” to develop consensus-based plans to implement best 

for Inland Bays has successfully used the line-item funding to leverage additional 

Annual giving program. The Partnership for the 

Delaware Estuary (a nonprofit organization that 

was created to implement actions in the Delaware 

Estuary Plan) generates some of its operations 

the Partnership used a mail house to send out an 

appeal to the 25,000 people on the program's 

mailing list. Later, the Partnership sent out 

personalized appeals and an annual report to 

previous donors and a select group from the 

mailing list (less than 1,000 people) which 

resulted in a significant increase in the amount of 

UNDING NEEDED TO SUPPORT OPERATING 

suggests that annual funding of $600,000 

from the Texas legislature; the estuary programs use some of these funds for program 

Program worked together to gain support for this state line-item funding. The estuary 

programs’ role in Texas coastal protection. The bill received strong support and passed 

monies for the NEP project to restore and preserve the Rehoboth, Indian River, and 

Little Assawoman Bays. The funding supports NEP outreach and research efforts and 

management practices near the rivers and streams feeding into these bays. The Center 

funding sources. 

funding with an annual giving program. Initially, 

donations. 

58
Implementing the Management Plan

C

The costs of the Puget Sound Ambient 

Monitoring Program were calculated by a 

technical costing subcommittee of the 

monitoring management committee. The 

estimates provided by this subcommittee 

demonstrate that the costs of comprehensive 

monitoring programs can be substantial. In 

addition to the $200,000 in staff and consultant 

time required to develop the monitoring 

program design, the calculated costs of full 

implementation of the monitoring program 

initial sampling program was reduced in scope 

due to resource constraints, and costs for the 

program were $250,000 to $350,000 over the 

see www.psat.wa.gov. 

$20,000 to $150,000 per year, requires a moderate amount of extra development and 

management. The Buzzards Bay Project communicates with grant makers to 

see the specific needs and costs associated with completing tasks under the grant. 

FUNDING IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS 

examples show how the NEPs have used specialty license plate fees, foundation grants, 

interest loans to fund land acquisition, habitat protection, pathogen controls, and other 

Affinity credit card. The Long Island Sound 

Study NEP worked with the Connecticut 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(CTDEP), to develop a Long Island Sound 

affinity credit card. The CTDEP developed 

the proposal for the Long Island Sound 

affinity credit card and fronted the operating 

costs until the program started to generate 

continues to donate $5 to the Long Island 

Sound account of Connecticut's 

"Environmental Quality Fund" for every 

Long Island Sound credit card application it 

percent of the interest on all purchases made 

with the card. Revenues from the Long 

Island Sound affinity credit card program 

support grants for education, research, public 

Specialty license plate fees. These fees generate 

$400,000 per year for the Indian River 

Lagoon Estuary Program and at least 80 percent of these funds support habitat 

signature petitions stating that registered vehicle owners intended to purchase the 

specialty plate. The NEP paid a $15,000 administration fee to the state and developed 

OST OF 

MONITORING PLAN 

IMPLEMENTATION 

were estimated at $3.2 million per year. The 

first two years. For additional information, 

Technical assistance fees. Buzzards Bay includes technical assistance fees on partner grant 

applications. The estuary program requests a 10 to 30 percent overhead charge for its 

grants to cover staff, printing, and outreach expenses. This charge, which generates 

determine where staff expenditures and support costs are allowed under their grant 

programs. The estuary program thoroughly itemizes its expenses so that the grantor can 

The NEPs use a variety of sources to fund implementation activities. The following 

capital giving campaigns, stormwater utility fees, state bond acts, tax credits, and lowactivities. 

revenues. People's Bank won the award and 

receives. The bank also donates half of one 

access, and habitat restoration projects. 

protection projects. The NEP proposed the idea to the state legislature with 12,000 

59
Chapter 5

Corporation donated $15,000 to help pay for more than 70 billboard advertisements 

and the Florida Outdoor Advertising Association donated $60,000 worth of billboard 

to support habitat restoration. Recognizing the overlap in their interests, the two 

was available to partners in the Restore America's Estuaries coalition. The 

Narragansett Bay National Estuary Program leveraged these resources by using them as 

dredging project. 

financial support to research the issue and to design and implement a plan to protect 

staff and volunteers from the Casco Bay Estuary Project and Friends of Casco Bay 

lobsters to help evaluate the project's success and keep the dredging project on 

schedule. 

in revenue to fund planning, maintenance, and capital improvements, such as canal 

State bond act. The Long Island Sound NEP Citizen Advisory Committee facilitated a 

memorandum of understanding signed by the governor and legislative leaders that 

a marketing strategy. The NEP is responsible for promotion of the license plate and 

management of the grant program supported by these revenues. The Anheuser-Busch 

advertising space. For three months, a local car dealership provided all new car buyers 

with Indian River Lagoon license plates. 

Foundation grants. The Narragansett Bay National Estuary Program partnered with a 

local nonprofit organization, Save The Bay, and received $200,000 in foundation grants 

organizations successfully applied to the Pew Charitable Trusts for grant funding that 

matching funds for a variety of other grant funding. 

Capital giving campaign. In Casco Bay, a capital giving campaign raised more than 

$56,000 from local businesses to relocate juvenile lobsters prior to a Portland Harbor 

As the Portland Harbor dredging project was moving forward, local 

lobstermen raised concerns that dredging would disrupt lobster habitat. The Chair of 

the Board for the Casco Bay NEP, a city manager, wrote letters to harborfront property 

owners and businesses and the cities of Portland and South Portland asking for 

the lobsters. Before dredging began, a coalition of lobstermen, state regulators, and 

moved 34,012 small lobsters from the dredge area. This group also tagged 4,000 

Stormwater utility fee. This fee funds a stormwater management program in Sarasota 

County, Florida that addresses priority actions in the Sarasota Bay NEP's Management 

Plan, such as encouraging property management that minimizes stormwater runoff. 

The Sarasota Stormwater Environmental Utility has generated more than $100 million 

cleaning, mowing, and low-cost construction projects. The staff of the Sarasota Bay 

NEP served as an information source and members of the NEP's Citizen Advisory 

Committee provided public testimony during the utility development process. 

committed over $100 million of New York State Clean Air/Clean Water Bond Act 

funds to wastewater treatment, stormwater control, nonpoint source pollution control, 

and wetlands restoration projects in the watershed. New York State guidelines favor 

60
Implementing the Management Plan Photo: Steve Delaney

projects that address the highest priorities 

recommendations to the NEP Management 

Conferences for consultation regarding 

consistency with the NEP Management Plan 

supported water quality improvement projects 

new property tax of 1.2 cents per $100 of valuation. The measure is expected to raise 

Program encourage citizens in their watersheds to take advantage of programs in 

Massachusetts that offer tax credits and low-interest loans to individuals that remediate 

Real estate transfer tax. The Peconic Bay NEP worked with a nonprofit partner to 

implement a two percent real estate transfer tax, an assessment made by the county on 

the estuary have raised nearly $70 million in less than three years with the tax. 

identified in NEP Management Plans. New 

York State also forwards funding 

priorities. Over $200 million of this total has 

in the New York-New Jersey Harbor, Long 

Island Sound, and Peconic Bay NEPs. 

Taxes. Ocean County, New Jersey voters approved a Natural Lands Trust financed by a 

nearly $4 million annually for the protection of the Barnegat Bay’s watershed and 

agricultural lands. The new tax received broad support and was based on the results of 

public opinion surveys. Only natural lands or easements on natural lands will be 

purchased by the Trust, and public access will be guaranteed. No development will be 

allowed on the purchased properties. 

Tax credits and low-interest loans. The Buzzards Bay Project and the Massachusetts Bays 

failing septic systems. Under this program, the state's Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund makes interest-free loans to communities. The communities in turn lend money 

to homeowners that repair failing septic systems. Homeowners repay the loans with 

real estate taxes. 

land and deed transfers based on the sales price of property. Five towns surrounding 

61 
Chapter 5

MONITORING AND COMMUNICATING RESULTS 

The NEPs’ Management Plans present goals, objectives, and actions designed to 

effective their actions have been in achieving Management Plan goals, the NEPs 

environmental indicators to help communicate results to stakeholders and the general 

public that show how well management efforts are progressing and what changes in the 

estuary are taking place. 

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 

Environmental monitoring measures changes in the biophysical conditions of the 

estuary and answers questions such as: 

• Is the ecological integrity of the estuary changing? 

• Is water quality improving or getting worse? 

• Is the area of wildlife habitat increasing or decreasing? 

monitoring programs provide the NEP with both a large, committed, and voluntary 

workforce, and a venue for public education and outreach. The direct involvement of 

individual citizens provides a strong base for continued support—from planning 

through implementation. 

l

(www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ monitor/). 

l

watershed. Over two hundred citizen monitors, ranging in age from school children to 

Program increases public awareness and also assists the NEP in recording trends in 

improve and protect estuaries and the quality of their waters. To evaluate how 

conduct environmental and programmatic monitoring. The NEPs develop and track 

Table 5.1 presents an excerpt from one of the Charlotte Harbor NEP’s quarterly 

environmental reports. These reports are posted on their Internet Web site and present 

information on trends in water quality and the health of the surrounding habitat. 

To supplement their own environmental monitoring programs, the NEPs often 

establish volunteer programs that can provide high-quality, reliable data. Volunteer 

Extensive information on how to develop volunteer 

monitoring programs and use volunteer data effective y can be found in EPA’s Volunteer 

Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual 

For example, the Morro Bay NEP, in conjunction with Friends of the Estuary and the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board, administers a volunteer monitoring program. 

Volunteers collect samples and record f ow, nitrates, coliforms, dissolved oxygen, water 

temperature, turbidity, phosphates, and macroinvertebrates. In addition, 

geomorphology, vegetation cover, and stormwater runoff are assessed yearly within the 

retirees, have participated in this very successful program. The Volunteer Monitoring 

environmental resources and water quality. The data are used to strengthen the 

mathematical models used by the NEP for management decisions. 

62
Implementing the Management Plan

www.charlotteharbornep.com/ProgramReports/reports.htm. 

l Issues of 

particular concern this quarter included higher than normal water flows from the Myakka, higher than normal 

fishing in East Pine Island Sound, and chronic water quality impairments of water bodies identified within 

the study area. 

Slightly higher than normal 

Charlotte Harbor Proper/Lemon Bay 

Slightly higher than normal 

Normal 

Normal 

High in January 

Slightly higher than normal Phosphorous 

Dissolved Oxygen Normal to very good

Secchi Depth Normal to very good

Parameter 

Salinity 

Color 

Chlorophyll a 

Assessment Parameter Assessment 

Near Bottom Normal to very good

Dissolved Oxygen 

Better than normal 

PROGRAMMATIC MONITORING 

Programmatic monitoring measures how well management efforts are progressing and 

answers questions such as: 

• Are milestones being met? 

• How much funding is being spent? 

• Are partners following through on their commitments? 

summarize the research, restoration, funding, and outreach activities completed during 

the month. 

The NEPs use environmental indicators to track and communicate how well 

management efforts are progressing and what changes in the estuary are taking place. 

the estuary and the resulting effects on ecological and human health. These indicators 

help gauge how effective NEP management efforts have been in achieving measurable 

For additional information, see 

Table 5.1: Excerpt from one of the Charlotte Harbor 

NEP’s quarterly environmental reports 

Through the last quarter, water f ows, water quality, and habitat were in generally good shape. 

excess nutrients in Charlotte Harbor and Lemon Bay, a sewage spill in the Estero Bay basin, closed shell 

Temperature 

Total Nitrogen 

Turbidity 

For example, the Charlotte Harbor NEP communicates their programmatic progress 

through monthly progress reports posted on their Internet Web site. These reports 

COMMUNICATING RESULTS 

These indicators measure the estuary’s conditions over time and show the pressures on 

results. For example, several NEPs use the area in which shellfish can be safely 

harvested as an indicator. This indicator shows the extent to which contamination 

63
Chapter 5

E

The San Francisco Estuary Project 

produced the “Bay-Delta 

Environmental Report Card” to 

communicate the progress of the NEP 

to the public. The report card documented progress 

addressing the top 10 critical issues, such as invasive species, 

facing the Bay-Delta users, managers, watchdogs, and 

of these issues, changes in public awareness of the issues 

over the three years, including ecosystem politics, funding, 

www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/ 

sfep/sfep.html. 

questions: 

• Is the condition of the estuary changing? 

• Are the goals and objectives of the Management Plan being met? 

On an individual level, the NEPs 

report on a suite of indictors 

example, the Puget Sound NEP 

tracks and reports on 19 indicators 

to assess the successes and 

shortcomings of its efforts to 

protect and restore Puget Sound. 

The NEPs communicate these 

results through such means as State 

the Long Island Sound Study 

developed their Sound Health 

2003—A Report on Status and Trends 

in the Health of Long Island Sound 

report to communicate their results 

to a broad audience. This easy-toread document (in newspaper 

print and distribute. It was inserted in the Sunday editions of more than 400,000 area 

newspapers and distributed to area libraries, nature centers, the state marine trades 

(See 

NVIRONMENTAL REPORT CARD 

communities. The report card communicated the status 

and effectiveness of efforts to address the issues. The 

report card also served to educate the public about 

emerging issues and new priorities for the future. For 

additional information, see 

restricts shellfish harvesting and can reflect problems related to how land is used and 

cared for in the nearby watersheds. NEPs use these indicators to help answer two key 

To communicate their monitoring results, the NEPs report their indicators on both an 

individual and aggregate level. 

tailored to their estuary. For 

of the Bay reports, Web sites, and 

newspaper inserts. For example, 

format) required $10,000 and four months of staff time to produce, and $65,000 to 

associations, and schools. 

On a national scale, EPA uses a more limited number of indicators to assess the 

progress of the NEP as a whole. For example, the EPA tracks the number of acres 

and types of habitat restored and protected by the 28 NEPs. The EPA communicates 

these results through its Web site and other mechanisms. Figur e 5.3.) 

64
Implementing the Management Plan

the NEPs 

Source: NEP Government Performance Results Act reports, October, 2001. 

wetlands 

beaches and dunes 

barrier island 

instream 

mangroves 

other 

uplands 

estuarine

riparian 

l

to changing circumstances and to apply the lessons learned by experience. Some 

Earlier 

assumptions may have been incorrect and technological advances may enhance cleanup 

conflicts among jurisdictions, agencies at various government levels, and the public are 

inevitable. These conflicts will need to be resolved, possibly by modifying the plan. 

many NEPs have provisions in their bylaws or operating plans that require periodic 

Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program updates their Management Plan every five 

Figure 5.3: Habitat restored or protected by 

SAV 

UPDATING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Because the Management Plan is a f exible tool, it permits an estuary program to adapt 

actions may be unsuccessful. New data may reveal unforeseen problems.

capabilities. The resolution of some problems will free resources to tackle others. 

Furthermore, even though the Management Plan is a document reflecting consensus, 

To help ensure the relevance of their Management Plans to ongoing project activity, 

reviews of their plans. The updating of Management Plans has been used by estuary 

programs to celebrate progress and reaffirm commitments to their estuaries. The 

65
Chapter 5

Photo: Steve Delaney 

years. The update includes measurable environmental goals and targets as well as 

timeframes for implementation over the next five to ten years. The Indian River 

Lagoon, Long Island Sound and New York-New Jersey Harbor estuary programs also 

periodically update their goals and implementation schedules. For example, to renew 

the commitment of stakeholders to the implementation of their Management Plan, the 

Long Island Sound Study developed a Long Island Sound 2003 Agreement. The 2003 

Agreement was an update to the 1996 Agreement on implementing the Management 

Plan, and was approved by the Policy Committee. The 2003 Agreement was developed 

using a consensus-based process coordinated through the Management Conference and 

was subject to public review and comment. 

IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN: 

EXAMPLES 

X Example 1: Development and implementation of a bi-state total maximum 

daily load (TMDL) 

The Long Island Sound Study’s (LISS) close partnership with the states of New York 

and Connecticut fostered an innovative TMDL approach that can serve as a model for 

how flexibility and market forces achieve efficient waste load allocations. The LISS 

Management Plan called for reductions in point and nonpoint source nitrogen loading 

to the Sound to improve water quality and reduce hypoxia. The LISS worked with the 

states and local governments to adopt aggressive nitrogen reduction targets in 1998 

and then to adopt a nitrogen TMDL for the Sound in 

2001. This TMDL, arguably the most comprehensive 

and complex one developed in the nation to date, 

establishes an enforceable schedule for point and 

nonpoint nitrogen reduction to the Sound over a 15-year 

period ending in 2014. The LISS helped Connecticut 

develop a general permit to incorporate nitrogen load 

limits for participating publicly-owned treatment works 

in the watershed. The LISS also fostered New York's 

bubble permit proposal for dischargers to the Sound. 

The Connecticut general permit scheme incorporates a 

nitrogen credit trading program that, in concert with the 

TMDL limits, sets a historic precedent in finding new 

ways of meeting water quality standards and protection, 

while keeping costs down for taxpayers. The TMDL is 

posted on the LISS Web site. For more information, see 

www.longislandsoundstudy.net. 

66
Implementing the Management Plan Photo: Steve Delaney 

Photo: Steve Delaney 

X Example 2: Wetland construction to filter pathogens from stormwater runoff 

The Buzzards Bay Project assisted the Town of Marion, Massachusetts in developing a 

constructed wetlands system to abate pathogen contamination at Spragues Cove, a 

shellfish harvesting site regularly closed due to high concentrations of fecal coliforms. 

The discharge also adjoined a bathing area. A three-acre constructed wetland was 

designed to collect and treat stormwater runoff and 

associated nonpoint source pollutants from a 64-acre 

drainage area. Within the first year following construction, 

sampling indicated a reduction of fecal coliform bacteria in 

the cove. As additional plants become established in the 

wetlands, it is expected that fecal coliform counts will 

continue to decrease. For more information, see 

www.buzzardsbay.org. 

X Example 3: Development of a technical assistance 

program to address toxic contamination 

The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program set up the Hazardous 

Waste Reduction Program as a partnership with the Rhode 

Island Department of Environmental Management and the 

University of Rhode Island. The Program focuses on both 

education and prevention. The Program provides technical 

assistance to businesses for pollution prevention through a 

waste information hotline and distributes information on source reduction, recycling, 

and chemical substitution-disposal alternatives. The Program also has developed a 

system for conducting onsite hazardous waste assessments for local businesses and 

industries. The Hazardous Waste Reduction Program has been so successful that it is 

now a state-funded, broad-based industrial pollution prevention program. The Program 

has been expanded to include information on, and a collection and treatment facility 

(the Eco-Depot) for, household toxic and hazardous wastes. For more information, see 

www.nbep.org. 

X Example 4: Dam removal to allow fish to return to historic spawning areas 

The Management Plan for the Albemarle-Pamlico 

Sounds National Estuary Program calls for the 

restoration of vital fisheries habitats by means such as 

replanting vegetation, repairing hydrological systems, 

and improving water quality. The removal of the 

Quaker Neck Dam successfully restored 1,054 miles 

of anadromous fish spawning habitat along the Neuse 

River and its tributaries. This project was significant 

because it was the first dam ever removed specifically 

to benefit the environment. Biologists reported that 

67
Chapter 5

Photo: Steve Delaney 

striped bass had returned to spawn in the lower half of the newly opened portion of 

the river. Other species expected to benefit include several major commercial and 

recreational fish species, such as American shad, hickory shad, and shortnose sturgeon. 

The success of the Quaker Neck Dam removal project resulted in the removal of two 

additional North Carolina dams for environmental purposes. For more information, see 

www.apnep.org. 

X Example 5: Outreach to homeowners to combat an invasive plant 

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program provided seed money to a local homeowners 

association to develop a brochure on the Brazilian pepper plant. This plant threatens 

native species and poses health threats including skin irritation and respiratory 

problems. This educational leaflet provides homeowners with information on how to 

identify and eradicate the Brazilian pepper and where to obtain help. The brochure was 

distributed to citizens with shoreline homes and has been one of the Program’s most 

popular public outreach tools. For more information, see www.tbep.org. 

X Example 6: Development of best management practices to improve 

freshwater flows to the estuary 

The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program’s Management Plan 

(www.charlotteharbornep.com/) calls for a watershed approach to surface water 

management. Under this approach, a plan is created for each drainage basin that 

establishes minimum flows and water levels for each water body and determines the 

maximum cumulative withdrawals. One such plan is the Peace River Comprehensive 

Watershed Management Plan, developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District and a team of stakeholders, which helps serve as a framework for future water 

use decisions. This plan seeks to provide a holistic method of protecting water quality 

in the basin and also ensuring adequate water supply for urban areas, agriculture, and 

the environment. Activities in the Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and 

related efforts by the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and the state include: 

additional research of surface and groundwater flow conditions within the study area; 

regulation of surface and groundwater withdrawals 

for water supply, agriculture, and industrial 

purposes; regulation and monitoring of flow rates 

of point source discharges from sewage treatment 

plants and industrial facilities; use of best 

management practices to decrease and retain 

stormwater runoff; issuance of water use permits; 

and public education programs. Two community 

education programs related to water use for 

landscaping are xeriscaping and the Florida Yards 

and Neighborhoods Program (http://hort.ufl.edu/ 

fyn/). 

68
Implementing the Management Plan

PRIORITY ACQUISITION SITE 

PRIORITY RESTORATION SITE 

Source: New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary 

Program Habitat Workgroup, July 31, 2002 

New Y o r k - New J e r s ey Harbor 

X Example 7: Development of a priority list and a GIS map of habitat sites for 

restoration and acquisition 

Through an ongoing process, the New YorkNew Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Habitat 

Work Group (www.harborestuary.org/) 

developed a list and Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) map (see figure to the right) of 

priority habitat sites for restoration and 

acquisition. This information is being used by 

the states, federal partners, and others to 

identify appropriate restoration and acquisition 

projects. The map and the tireless activity of 

the workgroup have resulted in the funding of 

millions of dollars worth of restoration 

projects. One of the major sources of funding 

has been the multimillion dollar New York 

State Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act. The 

map has also been used by the Corps of 

Engineers to refine its list of sites to be 

included in the Hudson-Raritan Reconnaissance 

Study, an effort that may ultimately result in the 

restoration of hundreds of acres of habitat. 

X Example 8: Replacement of failing septic tanks 

The Casco Bay Estuary Project and the Maine State Department of Environmental 

Protection entered into an innovative cooperative agreement to target the specific 

problem of overboard discharges (i.e., sand filter septic systems from homes on islands 

or other areas where conventional septic systems are difficult to install). The 

Department was understaffed, making statewide coordination of their Overboard 

Discharge Program and remediation of overboard discharges throughout the state 

difficult. The Estuary Project, working on a project to open closed clamflats to 

harvesting by removing known sources of pollution, arranged with the Department to 

manage the overboard discharge program in Casco Bay. With a clear understanding of 

the shared desire to accomplish this environmental goal, the Department agreed to 

provide the Estuary Project $1,000 for every overboard discharge system that is 

replaced with an acceptable alternative system. This cooperative agreement is 

mutually beneficial to the stakeholders, effectively addresses a serious environmental 

threat, provides measurable results, and furnishes revenue to the Estuary Project. For 

more information, see www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu. 

69
Chapter 5

Photo: Steve Delaney 

X Example 9: Clam beds reopened through water quality improvements due to 

increased municipal sewerage coverage 

In November 2000, the Seabrook Middle Ground was reopened to clamming for the 

first time in nearly 10 years. This reopening points to marked water quality 

improvements largely due to increased municipal sewerage coverage in the Town of 

Seabrook and other smaller scale pollution control measures. The pollution source 

identification and reduction work that made this possible was a cooperative effort by 

the New Hampshire Estuaries Project; New Hampshire Department of Health and 

Human Services; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department; New Hampshire Office 

of State Planning; New 

Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services; the 

Towns of Seabrook, Hampton, 

and Hampton Falls; and a 

number of dedicated volunteers 

from Great Bay Watch and area 

towns. The reopening of the 

Seabrook Middle Ground 

represents a significant increase 

in the area and number of 

shellfish available for 

recreational harvest by New 

Hampshire residents. For 

additional information, see 

www.state.nh.us/nhep. 

X Example 10: Innovative partnerships to implement the Management Plan 

Innovative partnerships are being created for implementation of The Galveston Bay Plan, 

developed through the Galveston Bay Estuary Program. The goal of the Program’s 

Natural Resource Uses Subcommittee was to implement a project that would address 

the highest priority actions in the Plan—restoring wetlands and using dredged material 

in wetlands restoration. The objectives of the Clear Creek Wetland Restoration Project 

are: 

• Demonstrate a cost-effective way to use dredged material in a beneficial manner. 

• Test innovative seeding techniques that allow planting in very loose sediment. 

• Form a partnership of agencies, businesses, and interest groups to serve as a model 

for restoration efforts throughout the Bay and in other coastal areas. 

70
Implementing the Management Plan

The project proved successful and demonstrated the benefits of agency-industry 

partnerships in leveraging resources and expertise including: 

• Galveston Bay Estuary Program administered the grant and facilitated the project 

coordination. 

• Reliant Energy, Inc. provided the site for the project, 

dredged the intake canal, and transported the 

material to the wetland site. Their expert staff 

provided project coordination. 

• EPA Region VI provided a major source of funding, 

technical review, and facilitated the quality assurance 

process. 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service tested the 

innovative treatment and distribution of seeds. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contributed the air boat 

for seed distribution. 

• Padgett Shoreline Construction, Inc. built the levee 

and donated about half of its billable equipment 

time. 

• Novus Systems, Inc., tested a variety of wave action barriers to protect the levee. 

For more information, see www.gbep.state.tx.us. 

X Example 11: Environmental stewardship awards illustrate community 

involvement 

To sustain stakeholder involvement and partner support, the Mobile Bay NEP created 

annual Stewardship Awards to recognize individuals, businesses, and local governments 

that “maintain and promote the wise stewardship of the water quality and living 

resources of the Mobile Bay and Delta.” Presented at the Bay Area Earth Day 

celebration, a recent round of recipients included the City of Mobile Urban Planning 

Department for its smart growth work, a local ecotourism business for its commitment 

to protecting the Bay, and a man who led the effort to sponsor a specialty license plate 

issue that will raise money for land conservation in Alabama. Additional awards went 

to those who helped educate the public about the Mobile Bay ecosystem. The awards 

generate publicity for the program and strengthen ties with the recipients. For more 

information, see www.mobilebaynep.com. 

71 
Chapter 5

Photo: Steve Delaney 

X Example 12: Regional volunteer monitoring programs 

The Buzzards Bay Water Quality Monitoring Program and Massachusetts Bay Program 

have successfully built networks of citizen volunteers who contribute to key 

monitoring efforts. To document and evaluate nitrogen-related water quality and longterm ecological trends in Buzzards Bay’s important embayments (more than onequarter of the Massachusetts coast), the Coalition for Buzzards Bay recruited over 300 

Baywatchers to monitor 180 stations. Baywatchers measure early morning oxygen 

levels, temperature, salinity, and water clarity on a set schedule once a week from May 

to September. The volunteers also collect samples on four dates in July and August for 

analysis of nutrients by a university laboratory. These basic parameters provide an 

immediate snapshot of the health of the Bay and are an excellent first warning system. 

The data are also being used to develop recommended limits and TMDLs for Buzzards 

Bay embayments and sewage treatment facilities. For more information, see 

www.buzzardsbay.org. 

Massachusetts Bays’ volunteer program is 

similar, but focuses on wetlands. The 

Wetland Health Assessment Program was 

developed out of the need to better assess 

the overall quality of wetlands in order to 

enhance protection, preservation, and 

restoration efforts. Both programs have the 

dual benefit of collecting comprehensive 

water quality data while educating and 

empowering people to get involved and 

make a difference in the sound management 

and restoration of their estuarial 

watersheds. For more information, see 

www.mass.gov/envir/massbays. 

X Example 13: Developing environmental indicators: lessons learned 

The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) developed approximately 50 environmental 

indicators of the health of Long Island Sound and the progress being made in 

protecting and restoring it. 

The LISS reported the following lessons learned from development of their 

environmental indicators: 

• Many environmental databases are not designed to provide watershed or ecosystemspecific information. The authors required additional time and effort to organize the 

data for Long Island Sound. 

72
Implementing the Management Plan

• Even when relying on existing monitoring programs and data, developing 

from Management Conference partners requires persistence and patience, however 

the investment needed to maintain and revise the indicators is less than the 

investment needed to develop them. The indicators can then provide an ongoing 

• 

• Environmental indicators used in state-of-the-estuary reports can provide a powerful 

communication tool. Specific products tailored to different audiences can make the 

overall effort more effective. 

www.longislandsoundstudy

environmental indicators is a significant undertaking. Achieving initial agreement 

tool for assessing and reporting on progress. 

Information sharing among NEPs undertaking development of environmental 

indicators and state-of-the-estuary reports would benefit these efforts. 

For more information, see .net. 

73
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 

74
Conclusion

Much has been learned from the NEPs’ experience. The NEPs have succeeded 

emphasize collaborative problem solving, and involve the public. The combination of 

only as strong as its weakest link;” tells us that successful watershed management 

NEPs realize the core elements include: 

areas and management committees according to watershed boundaries and the 

ecosystems within them. Where watersheds cross political jurisdictions, the NEPs 

establish partnerships that enable them to draw upon the full range of available 

allows the NEPs to better understand and address the complex environmental 

Using science to develop and implement the Management Plan. The NEPs use science to assess 

estuary conditions, develop solutions to estuary problems, and adapt management 

findings to develop the Management Plan. Science is also employed during 

implementation to monitor water quality and habitat and guide restoration and 

as charters, bylaws, or memoranda of agreement to provide a framework for resolving 

skills to work in collaboration with the stakeholders and prevent conflicting agendas 

from derailing the program. 

Informing and involving stakeholders to sustain commitment. The NEPs involve affected 

jurisdictions, agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and individuals in the writing 

Chapter 6: 

Conclusion 

because they focus on the watershed, use science to inform decision-making, 

these four elements has produced many positive results. The age-old adage: “A chain is 

depends on fulfilling all of the core elements. Some of the key ways in which the 

Establishing governance structures according to watershed boundaries. Because environmental 

problems do not conform to political jurisdictions, the NEPs define their management 

management resources and tools. This watershed and ecosystem-based approach 

problems found in estuaries. 

efforts. They conduct a Technical Characterization that describes the quality of the 

estuary, defines its problems, and links problems to causes. The NEPs use these 

protection decisions. By basing decisions on sound science, stakeholders see the NEPs 

as credible sources of information. 

Fostering collaborative problem solving. The NEPs invest a considerable amount of time to 

facilitate consensus on complex environmental issues. They develop mechanisms such 

conflicts. The NEP directors strive to be neutral parties to avoid being viewed as 

representing a particular entity or stakeholder. The NEPs use these mechanisms and 

and implementation of the Management Plan. The NEPs inform stakeholders about 

75
Chapter 6

the estuary and their mission, goals, objectives, and progress to ensure their sustained 

commitment. The NEPs involve stakeholders through such mechanisms as opinion 

funding sources are critical. The NEPs develop finance plans and strategic alliances 

NEPs to sift through potential funding sources and identify a variety of sources to 

pursue. The strategic alliances enable the NEP to cultivate partners who bring 

resources to the table for collaboration over long periods of time. 

Measuring and communicating results to build support. The NEPs develop clear and realistic 

measures of success and use a variety of media to communicate them to all 

English, telling a story about the estuary and its watershed that the public and local 

officials can understand. 

by the 28 NEPs can be adapted for use in a variety of watershed management 

guide, what you liked or disliked, and the lessons you learned while conducting your 

www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/contact.htm. 

surveys and small group meetings as well as formal participation on citizen advisory 

and other committees. 

Leveraging limited funding resources to ensure implementation. A diversity of long-term 

with implementing partners to attract funds from various sources. The plans enable the 

stakeholders. The NEPs translate environmental and programmatic results into plain 

We hope that the wealth of knowledge, experience, and tools presented here can help 

you to further watershed protection and restoration in your area. The NEP can serve 

as a model for future watershed protection and restoration efforts. The lessons learned 

situations, both coastal and non-coastal. We also would like to hear how you used this 

watershed projects. Please send us your comments through EPA’s feedback link at 

76
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended

Appendix A: 

as Amended 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. 

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 

conference, the likelihood of success, and information relating to the factors in paragraph 

(2). 

CONVENING OF CONFERENCE. 

A. IN GENERAL. In any case where the Administrator determines, on his own 

initiative or upon nomination of a State under paragraph (1), that the 

attainment or maintenance of that water quality in an estuary which assures 

protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a 

balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows 

recreational activities, in and on water, requires that control of point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of pollution in 

more than one State, the Administrator shall select such estuary and convene a 

management conference. 

States passes through an estuary and such boundary is disputed and is the subject of an 

action in any court, the Administrator shall not convene a management conference with 

respect to such estuary before a final adjudication has been made of such dispute. 

Clean Water Act, Section 320, 

NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 

a. 

1. NOMINATION OF ESTUARIES. The Governor of any State may nominate to the 

management plan for the estuary. The nomination shall document the need for the 

2. 

B. PRIORITY CONSIDERATION. The Administrator shall give priority 

consideration under this section to Long Island Sound, New York and 

Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; 

Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston 

Harbor); 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; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; 

Barataria Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, 

Florida; Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana and Mississippi; and Peconic Bay, 

New York. 

3. BOUNDARY DISPUTE EXCEPTION. In any case in which a boundary between two 

77 
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended

PURPOSES OF CONFERENCE. The purposes of any management conference convened with 

respect to an estuary under this subsection shall be to – 

collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, and natural resources within the 

estuarine zone to identify the causes of environmental problems; 

develop the relationship between the inplace loads and point and nonpoint loadings of 

natural resources; 

corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of 

pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 

assure that the designated uses of the estuary are protected; 

develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the plan by the States as well as 

federal and local agencies participating in the conference; 

monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the plan; and 

accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 

17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent 

with and further the purposes and objectives of the plan prepared under this section. 

For purposes of paragraph (7), such programs and projects shall not be limited to the assistance 

programs and development projects subject to Executive Order 12372, but may include any 

effect on the purposes and objectives of the plan developed under this section. 

MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE. The members of a management conference convened under 

this section shall include, at a minimum, the Administrator and representatives of – 

each State and foreign nation located in whole or in part in the estuarine zone of the 

estuary for which the conference is convened; 

international, interstate, or regional agencies or entities having jurisdiction over all or a 

significant part of the estuary; 

local governments having jurisdiction over any land or water within the estuarine zone, 

as determined appropriate by the Administrator; and 

affected industries, public and private educational institutions, and the general public, as 

determined appropriate by the Administrator. 

b. 

1. assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of the estuary; 

2. 

3. 

pollutants to the estuarine zone and the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and 

4. develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan that recommends priority 

estuary, including restoration and maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous 

population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and recreational activities in the estuary, and 

5. 

6. 

7. review all Federal financial assistance programs and Federal development projects in 

programs listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which may have an 

c. 

1. 

2. 

3. each interested Federal agency, as determined appropriate by the Administrator; 

4. 

5. 

78 
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended

State, and local agencies. 

PERIOD OF CONFERENCE. A management conference convened under this section shall be 

convened for a period not to exceed 5 years. Such conference may be extended by the 

Administrator, and if terminated after the initial period, may be reconvened by the Administrator 

at any time thereafter, as may be necessary to meet the requirements of this section. 

management plan and after providing for public review and comment, the Administrator 

shall approve such plan if the plan meets the requirements of this section and the 

affected Governor or Governors concur. 

this section, such plan shall be implemented. Funds authorized to be appropriated under 

with the applicable requirements of this chapter to assist States with the implementation 

of such plan. 

GRANTS. 

RECIPIENTS. The Administrator is authorized to make grants to State, interstate, and 

regional water pollution control agencies and entities, State coastal zone management 

agencies, interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, 

organizations, and individuals. 

PURPOSES. Grants under this subsection shall be made to pay for activities necessary 

management plan under this section. 

FEDERAL SHARE. 

interstate, or regional agency or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year – 

A. shall not exceed – 

(i) 

(ii) 

of the plan; and 

receives a grant under subsection (g) of this section shall report to the Administrator not later than 

18 months after receipt of such grant and biennially thereafter on the progress being made under 

this section. 

d. UTILIZATION OF EXISTING DATA. In developing a conservation and management plan 

under this section, the management conference shall survey and utilize existing reports, data, and 

studies relating to the estuary that have been developed by or made available to Federal, interstate, 

e. 

f. APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS. 

1. APPROVAL. Not later than 120 days after the completion of a conservation and 

2. IMPLEMENTATION. Upon approval of a conservation and management plan under 

titles II and VI of this chapter and CWA § 319 of this title may be used in accordance 

g. 

1. 

2. 

for the development and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and 

3. The Federal share of a grant to any person (including a State, 

75 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the development of a 

comprehensive conservation and management plan; and 

50 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the implementation 

B. shall be made on condition that the non-Federal share of the costs are provided 

from non-Federal sources. 

h. GRANT REPORTING. Any person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency or entity) that 

79 
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended

i. 

Administrator not to exceed $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for – 

expenses related to the administration of management conferences under this section, 

not to exceed 10 percent of the amount appropriated under this subsection; 

making grants under subsection (g) of this section; and 

management conference or by the Administrator, in any case in which the conference has 

been terminated. 

The Administrator shall provide up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year of the sums authorized to be 

appropriated under this subsection to the Administrator or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration to carry out subsection (j) of this section. 

j. RESEARCH. 

PROGRAMS. In order to determine the need to convene a management conference 

under this section or at the request of such a management conference, the Administrator 

shall coordinate and implement, through the National Marine Pollution Program Office 

Administration, as appropriate, for one or more estuarine zonesA. a long-term program of trend assessment monitoring measuring variations in 

environmental parameters which may affect estuarine zones, to provide the 

Administrator the capacity to determine the potential and actual effects of 

alternative management strategies and measures; 

a program of ecosystem assessment assisting in the development of (i) baseline 

studies which determine the state of estuarine zones and the effects of natural 

and anthropogenic changes, and (ii) predictive models capable of translating 

information on specific discharges or general pollutant loadings within estuarine 

zones into a set of probable effects on such zones into a set of probable effects 

on such zones; 

a comprehensive water quality sampling program for the continuous monitoring of nutrients, chlorine, acid precipitation dissolved oxygen, and potentially 

toxic pollutants (including organic chemicals and metals) in estuarine zones, 

after consultation with interested State, local, interstate, or international agencies 

and review and analysis of all environmental sampling data presently collected 

from estuarine zones; and 

a program of research to identify the movements of nutrients, sediments and 

pollutants through estuarine zones and the impact of nutrients, sediments, 

of the estuarine zones. 

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated to the 

1. 

2. 

3. monitoring the implementation of a conservation and management plan by the 

1. 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

pollutant concentrations, marine ecology, and other physical or biological 

B. 

C. 

D. 

and pollutants on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or potential uses 

80 
Appendix A: Clean Water Act, Section 320, as Amended

REPORTS. The Administrator, in cooperation with the Administrator of the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, shall submit to the Congress no less often 

than biennially a comprehensive report on the activities authorized under this subsection 

including – 

A. a listing of priority monitoring and research needs; 

extent evaluated under this subsection; 

a discussion of pollution problems and trends in pollutant concentrations 

potential uses of each estuarine zone, to the extent evaluated under this 

subsection; and 

an evaluation of pollution abatement activities and management measures so 

far implemented to determine the degree of improvement toward the objectives expressed in subsection (b)(4) of this section. 

DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this section, the terms “estuary” and “estuarine zone” 

“estuarine zone” shall also include associated aquatic ecosystems and those portions of 

tributaries draining into the estuary up to the historic height of migration of anadromous 

fish or the historic head of tidal influence, whichever is higher. 

2. 

B. an assessment of the state and health of the Nation’s estuarine zones, to the 

C. 

with a direct or indirect effect on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or 

D. 

k. 

have the meanings such terms have in CWA § 104 (n)(3) of this title, except that the term 

81 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 

82
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

Appendix B: 

NEP at a Glance 

Source: 

Estuaries

Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, 

Key management issues: 

habitat protection, and fisheries 

The Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds 

closely with local councils, the 

Albemarle-Pamlico NEP is 

implementing cost-effective 

solutions for the top 

environmental priorities in the river basin. The NEP 

has spearheaded a number of significant restoration 

and protection projects, including identifying and 

acquiring over 27,000 acres of habitat; opening over 

1,000 miles of blocked fish spawning areas; and 

developing more than 50 geospacial datasets as a 

component of the North Carolina Corporate 

Geographical Database. Several commercial and 

recreational fisheries have also been improved. 

www.apnep.org 

Complex, Louisiana 

Key management issues: water flow alterations, 

sediment reductions, habitat loss/alteration, 

nutrients, pathogens, toxic chemicals, 

and changes in living resources 

The confinement 

of the Mississippi 

River by manmade levees along with extensive channel 

construction through adjacent wetlands has changed 

the natural flow of water and sediments, increasing 

the impacts of subsidence and allowing the intrusion 

of salt water. Restoration projects implemented over 

a two-year span, however, have improved over 5,700 

acres of wetlands at a cost of over $58 million. 

Nearly 2,500 sewage treatment systems have also 

been installed, eliminating the discharge of almost 

one million gallons of raw or partially treated sewage 

acres of agricultural lands have reduced runoff 

containing nutrients, bacteria, and toxic chemicals. 

www.btnep.org/ 

Key management issues: nonpoint source 

pollution (pathogens, nutrients, sediments), 

and habitat loss/alteration 

Over 450,000 people live 

Barnegat Bay watershed, 

and that number doubles 

in the summer when 

people flock to the shore. 

balance suburban growth with ecosystem protection, 

all 33 municipalities in Ocean County approved a 

referendum in 1997 to purchase critical land areas. 

This land acquisition will help protect stream 

corridors, water supply areas, natural lands, 

agricultural land, buffer areas, and aquifer recharge 

areas. A growing network of private and public 

partners are working together to ensure the success 

of this project. 

www.bbep.org/ 

Appendix B contains summary information for each of the 28 NEPs, including each 

program’s Web site address. The National Estuary Program: Protecting Our Nation’s 

 (EPA842-F-99-001). 

North Carolina 

water quality, 

system is the nation’s second 

largest estuarine system. Working 

W e b site: 

Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine 

each day. Conservation projects on more than 4,000 

W e b site: 

Barnegat Bay, New Jersey 

within New Jersey’s 

The estuary is not only vital to the state’s tourism 

industry, but also supports commercial and 

recreational fish populations and rare species. To 

W e b site: 

83
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

Key management issues: nutrients, pathogens, 

contaminated seafood, and habitat loss/alteration 

The diverse habitat of Buzzards 

Bay includes sandy beaches, salt 

marshes, eelgrass beds, and urban 

ports. The waters of the Bay are 

l

smaller embayments are 

threatened by increasing amounts 

of pollution from residential 

development, industrial wastes, 

address these issues, the Buzzards Bay Project has 

assisted in the construction of a test center to 

promote advanced septic treatment solutions and 

established limits on the amount of nitrogen that 

can enter the embayments. In addition, the program 

more than 4,000 acres of shellfish beds. 

www.buzzardsbay.org/ 

Key management issues: habitat protection, toxic 

chemicals, stormwater and combined sewer 

overflows, water quality in shellfish and 

swimming areas, and community stewardship 

Casco Bay is a 

picturesque New 

England Bay covering 

578 miles of shoreline. 

The Bay supports recreational activities, tourism, and 

industries, such as shipping, commercial fishing, and 

Estuary Project include promoting the adoption of 

plan; organizing efforts to eliminate pollution 

sources to 360 acres of clam flats and reopen closed 

clamming areas; assisting in the relocation of 37,000 

juvenile lobsters during the dredging of Portland 

Harbor; assisting with state shellfish advisories by 

conducting annual toxicity testing in the Bay; and 

www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/ 

Key management issues: nutrients, pathogens, 

habitat loss/degradation, introduced species, 

and water flow alterations 

The Charlotte Harbor 

coast is home to more 

than 2,300 animal species, 

including manatees, sea 

turtles, and dolphins. 

Over 2,100 species of plants—from grasses to 

mangroves to oaks—are also found in the region. 

Rapid growth, however, is changing the character and 

environment, this program is sponsoring 32 varied 

projects, ranging from removing exotic plants that 

threaten native species to erecting educational signs 

on visitor trails. The program also has created an 

information center, synthesized existing scientific 

knowledge of the watershed, completed a regional 

monitoring plan, and assessed the economic value of 

www.charlotteharbornep.com/ 

Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries, 

Key management issues: habitat loss/alteration, 

nutrients, stormwater runoff, debris, pathogens, and 

drinking water quality/supply 

Located in a semiarid region, 

this estuary faces pressures 

from agriculture, tourism, 

maritime commerce, and the 

large and growing City of 

Corpus Christi. The Coastal Bend Bays and 

water needs while protecting the estuaries’ rich plant 

and animal life. The program is focusing on three 

key actions: shoreline management, nonpoint source 

management, and freshwater resources. The 

streamlined, community-based process with an 

unprecedented diversity of stakeholder involvement. 

over two years for the program. 

www.cbbep.org/ 

Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts 

relative y healthy, but some of the 

and sewage contamination. To 

has acquired lands for preservation and reopened 

W e b site: 

Casco Bay, Maine 

shellfishing. Accomplishments of the Casco Bay 

Portland’s combined sewer overflow management 

helping to produce an award-winning public service 

announcement on the protection of the Bay. 

W e b site: 

Charlotte Harbor, Florida 

Estuary on Florida’s west 

ecology of the watershed. To preserve the estuarine 

the area’s natural resources. 

W e b site: 

Texas 

Estuaries Program is working to meet the area’s 

program’s Management Plan was completed in a 

The Texas Legislature also has designated $900,000 

W e b site: 

84
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

Key management issues: population growth, urban 

sprawl, habitat fragmentation, and toxic chemicals 

The Delaware Estuary watershed 

spans three states. Bringing 

stakeholders together in such a 

large and complex watershed 

poses daily challenges. The 

Partnership for the Delaware 

Estuary coordinates resources, 

draws on the expertise of its many stakeholders, and 

inspires large numbers of residents in its watershed 

to become involved. Through these actions, the 

Partnership works to support environmentally 

sound land use practices, enhance important habitats, 

reduce polluted runoff, and reduce toxic and bacterial 

contamination. These efforts help ensure that 

contact recreation and fishing are permitted 

www.delawareestuary.org 

Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware 

Key management issues: nutrients and habitat loss 

Development 

and intensive 

agriculture in a 

burgeoning coastal resort area threaten the Inland 

these issues, the Delaware Center for the Inland Bays 

outdoor living and recreation area. The program is 

also investigating harmful algal blooms and 

recommending pollution control strategies to 

address nutrient levels in the Bays. In addition, the 

program is restoring seagrasses; strengthening 

and shrubs to buffer stream banks from pollution; 

and examining the amount of nutrients entering the 

watershed through precipitation. 

www.inlandbays.org/ 

Key management issues: habitat loss, nonpoint source 

pollution, and water flow alterations 

Galveston Bay has lost 30,000 

acres of wetland habitat and 90 

percent of its seagrasses since the 

1950s. Contaminated runoff has 

degraded water quality and 

and some near-shore areas. In 

addition, altered freshwater 

circulation patterns, which can severely stress wetlands 

and oyster reefs. In an effort to address these 

problems, industry and various levels of government 

are working together to leverage funding, save 

This diversified partnership has, for example, 

implemented an innovative seeding technique and 

used dredged material in wetland restoration efforts. 

www.gbep.state.tx.us 

Indian River Lagoon, Florida 

Key management issues: habitat loss/alteration, 

increased freshwater flows, nutrients, sedimentation, and 

“muck” deposits 

The location of the Indian 

eastern coast—between the 

temperate climate of the north 

and the subtropical climate of 

the south—combined with its 

large size make it an estuary of 

program is partnering with numerous municipalities 

and counties to reduce stormwater runoff, which 

carries excess nutrients and sediments into the 

recreation lands project has acquired approximately 

8,800 acres of land in the watershed, and mangrove 

replanting is helping to restore critical habitat. Sales 

across Florida have raised more than $1.6 million 

dollars for estuary restoration. 

http://www.sjrwmd.com/programs/ 

outreach/irlnep/index.html 

Delaware Estuary, 

Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania 

throughout the estuary. 

W e b site: 

Bay’s habitat and natural resources. To help address 

established the James Farm Ecological Preserve, a 

150-acre county-owned property, which is leased as an 

scallop, clam, and oyster populations; planting trees 

W e b site: 

Galveston Bay, Texas 

sediments in the Bay’s tributaries 

inflows have changed the water’s salinity and 

money, and develop creative restoration solutions. 

W e b site: 

River Lagoon on Florida’s 

high biological productivity. To 

ensure the health and diversity of the estuary, this 

lagoon. The program’s blueway/conservation and 

and renewals of the program’s license plate initiative 

W e b site: 

85
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

Long Island Sound, 

Key management issues: nutrients, habitat loss 

and degradation, toxic chemicals, and pathogens 

More than 8 million 

people live within the 

16,000 square-mile Long 

Island Sound watershed. 

Boating, fishing, 

swimming, and beachgoing generate more than $5 billion annually for the 

Island Sound Study is to reduce nutrients that are 

impairing fish and shellfish habitat by depleting 

oxygen levels in many areas of the Sound. The 

program has set an ambitious goal to reduce 

nitrogen loads by almost 60 percent over 15 years 

and to restore 2,000 acres and 100 river miles of 

upgrading sewage treatment plants to treat nitrogen; 

restoring wetlands, beaches, dunes, coastal 

grasslands, forests, and shellfish reefs; and involving 

local communities in developing watershed-based 

approaches to control polluted runoff. 

www.longislandsoundstudy.net 

Key management issues: 

impacts of human activity and growth, habitat loss/ 

alteration, conventional pollutants, toxic 

contaminants, institutional constraints, 

and public awareness/stewardship 

The Columbia River is 

premiere natural 

resources. It supports a 

billion dollar economy with impacts far beyond the 

Pacific Northwest. The lower Columbia River and 

Estuary are in trouble, however, and its problems are 

manifested in the numerous threatened and 

maintain the ecological integrity and economic health 

of the watershed, the Lower Columbia River Estuary 

Partnership developed a comprehensive, wellsupported Management Plan with extensive public 

involvement. The plan makes use of a number of 

innovative tools, including a system to compare and 

rank the problems in each of the seven priority 

management areas. The plan also brings a 

coordinated approach to environmental monitoring 

on the lower Columbia River. 

www.lcrep.org/ 

Key management issues: nutrients, population growth, 

toxic chemicals, habitat/wildlife loss, sediments, and 

fisheries 

During the summer, the population 

of the Coastal Bays swells to more 

than 250,000 people each week. 

Population growth is one of the 

with excess nutrients, habitat loss, 

sedimentation, and toxic chemicals. 

As a result, species diversity has 

instill a stewardship ethic among citizens and 

visitors, the Maryland Coastal Bays Program has 

sponsored more than 50 events, including free boat 

tours, cleanups, fundraisers, and land management 

workshops to allow residents to create their vision 

growth scenarios. The program also helped secure a 

natural land. 

www.mdcoastalbays.org 

Massachusetts Bays, Massachusetts 

Key management issues: contaminated shellfish, habitat 

loss, stormwater pollution, municipal wastewater 

management, local land use, and growth 

The Massachusetts Bays region 

encompasses all of the coastal 

waters from the tip of Cape Cod 

to the New Hampshire border. 

other factors—it hosts a wide range of 

environmental problems. In light of these 

challenges, the Massachusetts Bay Program has 

spearheaded an interagency program to reopen 

contaminated shellfish beds by identifying sources of 

pollution and implementing solutions for 

remediation. 

Connecticut, New York 

regional economy. The top propriety of the Long 

habitat by 2008. To meet these goals, the program is 

W e b site: 

Lower Columbia River Estuary, 

Oregon, Washington 

biological integrity, 

one of the nation’s 

endangered species of salmon and steelhead. To 

W e b site: 

Maryland Coastal Bays, Maryland 

major threats to the estuary, along 

declined in the northern bays. To 

workshops. It also has held “Alternative Futures” 

for the watershed’s future and to produce different 

grant to preserve nearly 10 percent of the watershed’s 

W e b site: 

Because of the region’s 

diversity—in terms of its land use, ecology, and 

To address habitat loss and 

86
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

degradation, the Program has piloted a unique, 

holistic approach to assess wetland quality that may 

include conducting a workshop series to prepare 

municipal officials for upcoming stormwater 

regulations and helping towns with growth planning 

www.mass.gov/envir/massbays 

Key management issues: 

hydrologic modifications, habitat loss, living resources, 

human uses, and public involvement/education 

The Mobile Bay watershed covers 

more than 71,500 square miles 

include shoreline erosion control, 

habitat restoration, and wetland 

stormwater management. It has 

enhanced public awareness of key management 

challenges through community meetings and 

encouraged volunteer monitoring by citizens. Local 

governments and businesses have also been active 

participants in supporting watershed activities. The 

program has completed an economic valuation of 

studies for each of the key management issues. 

www.mobilebaynep.com/ 

Key management issues: erosion and sedimentation, 

pathogen contamination of shellfish operations, 

nutrients, freshwater flow reductions, 

heavy metals, and habitat loss. 

This estuary 

encompasses roughly 

2,300 acres of 

mudflats, eelgrass 

beds, tidal wetland, 

and open water 

habitat—making it the most significant wetland 

the estuary include erosion and sedimentation, as 

well as water diversion, urban and agricultural runoff, 

and changing land uses that threaten water quality 

and wildlife habitat. Faced with these challenges, the 

program has held workshops and established multistakeholder issue groups to focus on priority 

awarded the program $3.6 million to carry out its 

gas and electric utility penalty funds. 

www.mbnep.org/index.html 

Key management issues: nonpoint source pollution 

(nutrients), pathogens, habitat loss/degradation, 

For hundreds of years, 

Narragansett Bay has 

supported a remarkably 

diverse set of resource 

uses. The densely 

recreational resource of regional importance and 

international renown. The Bay is home to 

important fisheries and supports a wide variety of 

migratory fish and wildlife. The Narragansett Bay 

Estuary Program is working collaboratively to better 

ecological degradation, and improve planning for the 

promoting habitat restoration; monitoring water 

quality and advocating nutrient controls; and helping 

to develop watershed-based approaches toward 

www.nbep.org/ 

New Hampshire Estuaries, 

New Hampshire 

Key management issues: pathogens, habitat loss/ 

alteration, nutrients, and toxic chemicals 

The New Hampshire 

Estuaries Project is 

using the health of 

population as an indicator of water quality and a 

measure of overall estuarine health. For the first 

time in more than 10 years, the Hampton/Seabrook 

Estuary—the most productive recreational clam flat 

in coastal New Hampshire—was opened, and more 

serve as a model in New England. Other initiatives 

and open space preservation. 

W e b site: 

Mobile Bay, Alabama 

water quality, physical and 

along the Gulf of Mexico. The 

program’s successful projects 

Mobile Bay, along with preliminary characterization 

W e b site: 

Morro Bay, California 

system on California’s south central coast. Threats to 

problems. In addition, the U.S. District Court 

conservation and Management Plan, drawing from 

W e b site: 

Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island 

monitoring, and local land use/growth 

populated upper Bay watershed has served as a cradle 

of American industry, while the lower Bay provides a 

assess the ecological health of the Bay, reverse 

Bay’s future. Specifically, the Bay Program is 

mapping Rhode Island’s estuarine habitats and 

sustainable use of the Bay’s natural resources. 

W e b site: 

the state’s shellfish 

87
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

than 800 shellfishers participated in the opening day 

worked together to identify and eliminate pollution 

sources and reopen shellfish beds. Their work has 

resulted in the opening of an additional 550 acres of 

www.state.nh.us/nhep/ 

Key management issues: toxic chemicals, dredged 

material management, pathogens, nutrients, and habitat 

loss/alteration 

For over 300 years, the Harbor 

economic center in the midst 

of a densely populated area. 

These factors have contributed 

stresses to the estuarine 

system. Many areas of the 

Harbor contain elevated levels of toxic chemicals. 

Pathogenic contamination results in beach and 

issues, the program is identifying sources of loadings 

of toxics, pathogens, and nutrients to the Harbor 

and is reducing them by cleaning up sources of 

toxics, controlling discharges from combined sewer 

overflows, and improving nitrogen removal at 

treatment plants. A protocol now allows managers 

to quickly assess potential impacts of accidental 

sewage discharges and to take action to protect the 

public. The program also developed a map of 

priority habitat sites and helped direct millions of 

dollars to their acquisition and restoration. 

www.harborestuary.org/ 

Key management issues: nutrients, pathogens, toxic 

chemicals, brown tide, and natural resource threats 

One of The Nature 

Hemisphere,” the Peconic 

Estuary is a high-quality 

resource, vital to the 

economy of Long Island. 

However, brown tides have decimated the once 

contamination has closed many shellfishing areas, 

and nutrient inputs have depressed dissolved oxygen 

integrated economics with habitat and water quality 

management, establishing specific policies to control 

nitrogen inputs. More than 50 early implementation 

projects deal with stormwater management, 

wetlands, and eelgrass restoration. Public support 

and nonfederal resources have been critical, resulting 

pollution control, and resource management. 

www.peconicestuary.org 

Key management issues: habitat loss, declining fish 

stocks, stormwater runoff, onsite septic systems, 

introduced species, and shellfish protection 

Puget sound encompasses 

2,300 miles of shoreline 

and is home to more than 

200 species of fish and 14 

species of marine 

irst 

sediment standards. More than a third of the 140 

local governments in the basin have adopted the 

been passed to require certification of professionals 

who work with onsite septic systems. Commercial 

shellfish acreage has been reopened after years of 

closures. And an award-winning public education 

program has involved more than 1.5 million people. 

The program also works with British Columbia on 

harvest. Many organizations within the state have 

shellfish waters in the Great Bay Estuary. 

W e b site: 

New York-New Jersey Harbor, 

New York, New Jersey 

has served as a critical port and 

shellfish bed closures. To address these and other 

W e b site: 

Peconic Bay, New York 

Conservancy’s “Last Great 

Places in the Western 

nationally significant bay scallop industry, bacterial 

locally. In response, the Peconic Estuary Program has 

wastewater treatment upgrades, and scallop, 

in tens of millions of dollars for land preservation, 

W e b site: 

Puget Sound, Washington 

mammals. The Puget Sound Action Team has 

helped protect this critical resource. The program’s 

plan led to the development of the nation’s f

plan’s basic stormwater program. Further, laws have 

88
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

common issues including marine protected areas, 

toxics, and the introduction and spread of aquatic 

nuisance species. 

www.psat.wa.gov/ 

Key management issues: aquatic resource 

degradation, wetlands loss, decline of wildlife species, 

altered flow regimes, introduced 

species, increased pollution, and lack of 

integrated planning and management 

Facing a variety of challenges— 

from the loss of wetlands to a 

lack of economic incentives to 

promote public/private habitat 

protection—the San Francisco 

Estuary Project has made great 

strides by strengthening and 

providing support for local 

planning efforts. The project worked cooperatively 

with local, state, and federal agencies, and private 

organizations to develop the Baylands Ecosystem 

Habitat Goals Report—a scientific guide for restoring 

and improving the baylands and adjacent habitats of 

working to implement the report by developing a 

regional wetlands Management Plan that will include 

identifying restoration projects and their costs, 

establishing a wetland monitoring framework, and 

reaching agreements among funding, regulation, and 

implementing parties. 

www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep/sfep.html 

Key management issues: 

water circulation, nutrient-toxic contamination, 

living resource degradation, aquatic debris, 

and lack of public awareness/involvement 

The San Juan Bay Estuary 

is one of many tropical 

areas trying to harmonize 

economic development 

with resource protection. 

Urban development during the past 40 years has led 

to considerable changes in freshwater inflows and 

degradation of many habitats and living resources. 

improving water and sediment quality and enhancing 

and protecting habitat and living resources. The 

program is restoring the Martin Pena Channel, and 

promoting active participation of all associated 

communities. The program helped establish a solid 

waste management and recycling program and 

conducted environmental education demonstration 

and development. In addition, it has created fences 

to reduce illegal dumping, cleaned up beaches, 

planted mangrove seedlings, and reforested 

tributaries. 

www.estuariosanjuan.org/ 

Key management issues: stormwater/urban 

runoff, habitat restoration, toxic chemicals, 

pathogens, sediment contamination, 

contaminated seafood, and bay plan financing 

As home to more than 5,000 

species of flora and fauna, Santa 

Monica Bay provides a rich natural 

resource immediately adjacent to 

the second largest metropolitan 

area in the nation. With more 

than 45 million visitors per year, 

the Bay faces many challenges 

address concerns about health risks to Bay 

swimmers, the Santa Monica Bay Restoration 

Commission completed the first west coast study to 

assess human health risks of swimming in waters 

contaminated by urban runoff. Other 

accomplishments include developing a 

comprehensive Bay monitoring program; leading 

efforts to establish a stormwater permit for Los 

Angeles County and its 85 cities; conducting 

groundbreaking research on urban runoff sources, 

habitats; and funding public outreach programs to 

www.santamonicabay.org 

W e b site: 

San Francisco Estuary, California 

the San Francisco Estuary. The project is now 

W e b site: 

San Juan Bay Estuary, Puerto Rico 

sewage discharges, reduced 

To address these challenges, the program focuses on 

projects directed at community-based conservation 

W e b site: 

Santa Monica Bay, California 

regarding water quality and habitat protection. To 

toxicity, and impacts; restoring coastal wetland 

encourage Bay stewardship. 

W e b site: 

89
Appendix B: NEP at a Glance

Key management issues: population growth and 

development, nutrients, habitat loss/degradation, and 

Nearly 50 years of urban 

growth and development 

have taken a toll on Sarasota 

enters the Bay through 

wastewater, stormwater, 

rainfall, and the 

Sarasota Bay NEP has helped to reduce the amount 

of nitrogen entering the Bay by 47 percent, resulting 

in an 18 percent increase in seagrass coverage. The 

program has embarked on a series of projects to 

enhance habitat related to seagrasses, wetlands, and 

artificial reefs. As compared with 1998, the Bay now 

supports an additional 110 million fish, 71 million 

also enhanced more than 130 acres of wetlands since 

1990—about eight percent of those lost since 1950. 

www.sarasotabay.org/ 

Key management issues: 

habitat loss/alteration, species loss/decline, 

and spill prevention/response 

open water estuary—stretches 

398 square miles at high tide. 

After decades of pollution, the 

Bay is coming back to life, 

Estuary Program. In particular, 

the program has focused on controlling nitrogen 

loadings to the Bay to restore vital underwater 

Management Consortium, an innovative publicachieve nitrogen reduction goals. The consortium is 

long-term goal of recovering 12,350 acres of 

seagrasses baywide. The program is also providing 

national leadership in addressing air deposition of 

nitrogen and other pollutants to coastal waters. 

www.tbep.org/ 

Key management issues: habitat loss/degradation, 

bacterial contamination, altered flow regimes, 

sedimentation, and erosion 

mountains with a 

narrow coastal plain, 

Tillamook Bay faces a 

challenging combination of environmental concerns. 

In particular, past land use practices and flooding 

have impacted critical habitats for salmon spawning 

houses a 150-layer GIS database and posts 

environmental data and watershed enhancement 

updates online. Other projects include streamside 

fencing and riparian re-vegetation to keep livestock 

out of streams and to restore riparian areas; adding 

large rocks and woody debris to improve in-stream 

habitat; and purchasing ecologically valuable land to 

agencies, industries, and stakeholders is responsible 

for implementing the programs Comprehensive 

www.tbnep.org 

Sarasota Bay, Florida 

stormwater runoff/sewage discharges 

Bay. Excess nitrogen—which 

atmosphere—poses the biggest threat to the health 

of the estuary. Working with the community, the 

crabs, and 330 million shrimp. The program has 

W e b site: 

Tampa Bay, Florida 

water and sediment quality, 

Tampa Bay—Florida’s largest 

thanks in part the Tampa Bay 

seagrass beds. The Tampa Bay Nitrogen 

private partnership, developed an action plan to 

making impressive progress toward the program’s 

W e b site: 

Tillamook Bay, Oregon 

Dominated by rugged 

and rearing. To address these challenges, the 

Tillamook Coastal Watershed Resource Center 

be preserved in land trusts. A consortium of 

Conservation and Management Plan. 

W e b site: 

90
Appendix C: Components in Developing Action Plans

Appendix C: 

1. Public meetings. Public meetings were held throughout the study area at key program junctures to 

present the priority issues, discuss the preliminary goals and objectives for each issue, ask what possible 

actions could be taken to address the issues, and discuss how implementation should occur. At each series 

of meetings, the Program did two things: asked for reaction to specific ideas and sought guidance for the 

comparative risk ranking, and the final set reviewed the draft Management Plan and discussed 

implementation ideas. 

2. Charrette. A charrette—an interactive meeting between various groups of people in a community and 

experts designed to produce a tangible outcome—was held which involved management committee 

economics, and other disciplines. The day-long “From Issues to Action” charette explored possible actions, 

based on the participants’ technical expertise and input from the earlier public meetings. The experts’ input 

helped refine the overall goal, or vision, for each priority issue and helped identify objectives for each. A 

preliminary list of 180 actions was developed, providing a full range of options to consider. 

3. Compar a ti v e Risk R 

utilize comparative risk ranking in the development of its Management Plan. The risk ranking allowed the 

estuary program to explore how citizens and technical experts perceive the relative risk posed by 

Committee identified 21 problems (such as loss of wetlands and habitat, contaminated sediment, 

stormwater runoff, and altered streamflow). Participants were asked to rank the problems against each other 

according to their perceived risk to public health, ecological health, and quality of life. A set of criteria was 

“How widespread is the problem?” “What are the consequences of delay?” “Is this a fundamental or 

underlying issue—one that is the cause of other problems on the list?” and “Does the problem result in lost 

jobs, increased health care costs, or lowered incomes?” Three separate rankings were completed: 

• 

newspapers or by attending one of eight public meetings. 

• Constituent focus group ranking – 267 participants ranked risks at 27 focus group meetings hosted 

by individual management committee members for their constituents. 

• 

The results of the rankings were used to identify actions to address the priority issues, define the role of the 

education efforts. 

Components in Developing Action 

Plans for the Lower Columbia River 

Estuary Partnership 

next step. The first set of meetings encouraged a brainstorm of actions, the second conducted the 

members, workgroup members, and scientific and technical experts in biology, ecology, land use planning, 

anking . The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership was the first NEP to 

environmental problems in the estuary. Using the Program’s priority issues as a basis, the Management 

developed to assist the focus groups and technical group in their ranking. Criteria included questions, such as 

Public ranking – more than 1,100 citizens ranked risks by completing a survey published in 14 area 

Technical ranking – the 31-member management committee ranked risks with the help of the 

program’s science and technical workgroup experts. 

estuary program in implementing actions, and design objectives and components of the estuary program’s 

91 
Appendix C: Components in Developing Action Plans

4. Like public meetings, constituent focus group meetings were held at three junctures in 

developing the Management Plan. Each Management Committee member hosted a meeting with their 

constituents to get reaction to Committee ideas and to seek guidance on next steps. In one series of focus 

groups, 17 meetings were held to ask participants to help refine the list of 180 actions. Another series of 

reviewed and commented on the draft Management Plan and asked questions about implementation: “Of 

the long list, what are the top five or ten actions? Which ones should stay in the Management Plan? Which 

ones should be dropped?” “Which actions could citizens help implement?” 

5. Management Committee Action Selection. Using the results of the public and technical input, the 

Management Committee used a three-step process to determine which actions to include in the Management 

Plan and how they would be implemented. 

• 

actions to determine which actions were SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, 

R T

• Refining the List of Actions. SMART actions were screened further, using a set of criteria 

that focused on factors such as social impact and impact on quality of life, technical basis 

for the action, linkage to estuary program goals, and effectiveness in protecting and 

defined, action-oriented, specific actions. 

• 

implementation plan to specify who would implement each action, how much it would 

cost, and how it would be funded. Several interdependent actions were combined, 

resulting impacts, and timeframe for implementation were applied to each action. 

6. Research Groups. For the final series of public meetings reviewing the draft Management Plan, the 

Program conducted a series of research groups. The same questions were asked as in the public meetings; 

however, in the research groups, the participants were randomly selected and paid a small stipend to help 

Focus Groups. 

meetings with constituents was held to complete the risk ranking. At the final series of meetings, participants 

Determining SMART Actions. The Management Committee screened each of the 180 

esponsive, and rackable. 

restoring the river and estuary. The process involved considerable discussion of policy and 

consistency. This process narrowed the list of actions from 125 to 92 and resulted in wellDeveloping an Implementation Plan for Each Action. The last step was to develop an 

narrowing the list of actions down to 43. Criteria such as feasibility, probability of success, 

ensure that they reflected a cross-section of the community. 

92 
Appendix D: Pros and Cons of Becoming a Tax-Exempt Nonprofit

Appendix D: 

NEP-Specific Benefits 

• Receive donations/Ability to fundraise 

• Quicker decision-making for grants and contracts 

• Flexibility 

• Can be proactive 

• Independence 

• Visibility 

• Ability to support or challenge agency partners 

• Support from citizens 

• Less encumbered by bureaucracy 

General Benefits 

• 

• Can apply for public or private grants 

• Can act as neutral forums for stakeholders 

• Can access private funds more easily as a nongovernmental organization 

• Can be modified as required 

• Greater flexibility in the use of paid or volunteer staff than governmental organizations 

• Qualifies an organization for low postal rates, favorable pension plan status, and tax-sheltered 

annuity plans 

• In some states, can also receive property tax and sales tax exemptions 

Reasons Not to Become a 501(c)(3) Nonprofit: 

NEP-Specific Drawbacks 

• Lack of institutional framework for operational funding and staff support 

• State agencies can still exercise influence if they are on the board of directors 

• Not in the loop in state budget decision-making 

• 

Internet, accounting, legal, corporate reporting, etc.) 

• 

• Competition with other nonprofits 

• Politics of the job 

General Drawbacks 

• Harder to secure government appropriations and grants 

• Cannot receive more than 90 percent of their income from an endowment 

• Can only undertake limited lobbying activities 

• Cannot exercise regulatory authority 

i Nonprofit NEPs: Looking Back on the 

Lessons They Learned. 

Pros and Cons of Becoming a TaxExempt Nonprofit 

Reasons to Become a 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Nonprofit: 

Tax exempt status 

Incur new costs (e.g., increase in health insurance, liability insurance, computer maintenance, 

Vulnerable to economic downturns 

Source: U.S. Env ronmental Protection Agency, Coastal Management Branch. 

Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002. 

93 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 

94
Appendix E: Excerpt from an NEP Finance Plan

Source Program Amount 

Funding Committed 

Marmot Foundation Schoolyard Habitat $ 

Visteon Corporation Sense of Place Habitat Projects $ 

Conectiv $ 

DelDOT Program Support $ 

City of Wilmington $ 

PG&E Logan Generating Plant $ 

Longwood Foundation Building/Equipment $

$ 

Requests Pending 

ALICO General Operating and Program Support $ 

Delaware River Port Authority General Operating and Program Support $ 

The AIG Life Companies Program Support $ 

$ 

Sun Company $ 

Coast Day 2003 $ 

Delaware 319 Schoolyard Habitat $ 

Delaware 319 Delaware CESP $ 

$

$ 

Proposals Not Funded 

Classroom Education $ 

Environmental Endowment for NJ Schoolyard Habitat $ 

Classroom Education $ 

Municipal Stenciling $ 

Maurice River Ecotourism $ 

Schoolyard Habitat $

$ 

Potential Proposals 

Delaware River and Bay Authority Delaware CESP $ 

Chichester Foundation Programs $ 

MBNA Educational Program $ 

Prospect Hill Foundation General Operating $ 

MacArthur Foundation Programs $ 

Good Samaritan Foundation Programs $ 

William Penn Foundation Programs $

$ 

10,000.00 

3,000.00 

2,500.00 

50,000.00 

28,000.00 

5,000.00 

50,000,00 

148,500.00 

59,000.00 

229,000.00 

70,000.00 

80,000.00 

20,000.00 

29,000.00 

20,000.00 

24,000.00 

137,000.00 

668,000.00 

4,000.00 

11,000.00 

4,000.00 

54,000.00 

10,000.00 

13,600.00 

96,600.00 

30,000.00 

100,000.00 

30,000.00 

10,000.00 

150,000.00 

20,000.00 

300,000.00 

640,000.00 

Appendix E: 

Ex

2002 Teachers Institute 

Program Support 

Habitat Work 

 Total: 

PA DEP Growing Greener Clean Water Theater 

Program Support 

PA CZM 

U.S. EPA Region III - RGI Clean Water Partners - N.C.C. 

 Total: 

PG&E 

League of Women Voters 

U.S. EPA Headquarters - Enviro. Ed. 

U.S. EPA Region II - 104(b)3 C.W.A. 

U.S. EPA Region II - RA Priority 

 Total: 

 Total: 

cerpt from an NEP Finance Plan 

95 
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 

96
Appendix F: Reference Material

Estuaries on the Edge: The Vital Link 

Between Land and Sea.

Estuaries of the United States: Vital Statistics of a National 

Resource Base.

Fifty Years of Population 

Change Along the Nation’s Coast: 1960-2010.

Commerce, 1990. 

Community Culture and the Environment: A 

Guide to Understanding a Sense of Place. 

National Estuary Program Guidance, Base 

Program Analysis. 

National Estuary Program Guidance: 

Technical Characterization in the National Estuary Program.

Nonprofit NEPs: 

Looking Back on the Lessons They Learned. 

Watershed Management Approach. 2000. 

<http:// 

.” Coastlines 10.2 (2002). 

Policy Studies Journal 27.3 (1999): 530-543. 

Appendix F: 

Reference Material 

Martin, Morton, Dobrzynski, and Valentine. 

 Washington: American Oceans Campaign, 1996. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Ocean Service. 

 Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Service. 

 Washington: U.S. Department of 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Washington: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

 Washington: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1994. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Coastal Management Branch. 

Washington: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 2002. 

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation, Division of Water Pollution Control. 25 Aug. 2004 

www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/watershed/>. 

Webler, Thomas. “Why Do (or Don’t) Local Government Officials Participate in 

Watershed Planning Efforts Washington: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. “Integrating Technical Analysis with Deliberation in 

Regional Watershed Management Planning: Applying the National Research Council 

Approach.” 

97
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 

98
This Page Intentionally Left Blank. 
COMMUNITY-BASED 

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: 

LESSONS FROM THE 

NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 

EPA-842-B-05-003 February, 2005 

Visit the EPA Office of 

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds 

www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries 

to download a copy of this handbook and find: 

Policy and Guidance Documents, 

Reports and Fact Sheets, 

Funding Information, and 

Web Site Links to the National Estuary Programs