99–010 

Calendar No. 118 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 112–41 

CLEAN ESTUARIES ACT OF 2011 

JULY 28, 2011.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1313] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred a bill (S. 1313) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary Program, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon 

with an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do 

pass. 

GENERAL STATEMENT AND BACKGROUND

S. 1313, the ‘‘Clean Estuaries Act of 2011,’’ amends the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or Act) to reauthorize appropriations for the National Estuary Program through fiscal 

year 2017, and to make programmatic changes to this program. 

Estuaries are partially enclosed bodies of water, and the surrounding coastal habitats, where freshwater outflows from rivers 

and streams meet and mix with tidal inflows from the ocean. These 

transition zones between land and sea, fresh and salt water, support a wide variety of plant, fish, and wildlife species. Both because 

of the mix of saline and fresh water and because estuaries shelter 

plants and animals from the full force of ocean winds and waves, 

many fish and shellfish species depend on estuaries to spawn, and 

for their young to hatch and grow. Estuaries also serve as habitat 

and breeding areas for hundreds of species of birds and other wildlife, including marine mammals and sea turtles. 

Estuaries play an important role in the U.S. economy. Coastal 

and marine waters of the United States account for 28.3 million 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

1 NOAA Economic Statistics 2002. 

2 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century (2004). 

3Linwood Pendleton, ed., The Economic and Market Value of Coasts and Estuaries: What’s 

at Stake? (Restore America’s Estuaries), 2008. 4Department of Transportation: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2007: National Transportation Statistics, Washington, DC. 5 Crossett, K.M. et al., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Population Trends 

Along the Coastal United States: 1980–2008 (2004). 6 Chambers, J.R., 1992. Coastal Degradation and Fish Population Losses, in Stroud, ed., Stemming the Tide of Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc., 

Leesburg, VA. This source was cited in Lellis-Dibble, K.A. et al., Estuarine Fish and Shellfish 

Species in U.S. Commercial and Recreational Fisheries: Economic Value as an Incentive to Protect and Restore Estuarine Habitat, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO–90, November 2008, which independently determined that between 2000 and 2004, estuarine species represented 46% by weight and 68% by value of the commercial catch. 7Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2006 (Annual Report of NOAA Fisheries). 

8 Costanza, R. et al, ‘‘The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Hurricane Protection,’’ AMBIO: A 

Journal of the Human Environment, June 2008. 

jobs.1 While coastal counties constitute only 13% of the nation’s 

land mass, these counties and their adjacent waters account for 

over half of the gross domestic product.2

Estuaries contribute to the economy of the nation through tourism and recreation, including wildlife viewing; energy production, 

navigation/port industries; and commercial and recreational fishing. On an annual basis, beach-going and recreational fishing generate up to $30 billion of economic value, and coastal wildlife viewing generates up to $49 billion.3 Much of this activity occurs in and 

along the coasts of estuaries. The Narragansett Bay tourism and 

outdoor recreation industry alone is valued at two billion dollars 

annually. Estuaries also shelter important ports, which are critical 

to our economy—more than 78% of U.S. overseas trade by volume 

comes and goes by ship.4 In addition, the coastal areas surrounding 

estuaries are among the most populated areas in the United 

States. Collectively, the nation’s coastal counties account for only 

13% of the land mass of the lower 48 states. In 2003, however, 53% 

of Americans lived in these coastal counties.5

Most economically important fish and shellfish species live in estuaries during at least one stage of their life. According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 

the National Research Council (NRC), estuaries provide habitat for 

75 percent of our national commercial fish catch, and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch.6 In 2006, commercial and recreational fishing accounted for $185 billion in revenue and more 

than two million jobs.7

Estuaries provide critical ecosystem services. The marsh land 

and plants in estuaries help control water pollution by filtering out 

the sediment and pollutants carried by rivers and streams and help 

prevent shoreline erosion. Estuaries also protect inland areas from 

flooding and storm surges by absorbing the water before it can 

reach inland areas. These coastal wetlands provide $23.2 billion 

worth of storm protection services each year.8

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified several environmental concerns in the 28 estuaries involved in the National Estuary Program (NEP), such as habitat loss and alteration; 

declines in fish and wildlife populations; excessive nutrients; toxic 

chemical contaminations; pathogenic microorganisms; alteration of 

freshwater flows; and the introduction of invasive species. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

9The estuary program for the Long Island Sound is the only Federally-administered program; 

it is run by EPA. 10 Bearden, D.M, National Estuary Program: A Collaborative Approach to Protecting Coastal 

Water Quality, Congressional Research Service, 97–644 (2001). 11http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm. Accessed on July 25, 2011. 

NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (NEP)

In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to add Section 

320, which authorized the National Estuary Program. Led by EPA, 

this collaborative, voluntary program addresses water quality problems and habitat degradation in priority estuaries across the nation. It is comprised of approved estuary programs that are, for the 

most part, administered by state or local governments or non-governmental entities.9 These programs lead comprehensive planning 

efforts to protect estuaries. 

When Congress first authorized the program, it identified 16 estuaries as estuaries of national significance, including the Long Island Sound in New York and Connecticut, Narragansett Bay in 

Rhode Island, San Francisco Bay in California, and Puget Sound 

in Washington. (Six of these estuaries launched their NEP programs that same year.) 10 The Governor of any state may nominate 

to the EPA Administrator an estuary lying in whole or in part 

within that state as an estuary of national significance. To date, 

EPA has approved 28 estuaries for the NEP. 

Once approved, each estuary program, led by a management conference that represents the spectrum of stakeholders, conducts 

long-term planning and management activities to address the 

unique set of factors contributing to the degradation of that estuary. Under section 320, each approved estuary program is required 

to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

(CCMP). The CCMP is the action plan for protecting and restoring 

the estuary. The priorities and activities identified in the CCMP 

are arrived at through the consensus of the management conference: a diverse group of stakeholders consisting of local, state, 

and Federal government agencies, commercial entities, members of 

the agricultural community, universities, and non-governmental organizations. Once complete, EPA must approve the CCMP and provide financial and technical assistance for its implementation. 

Section 320 authorized $35 million annually for the NEP for fiscal years 2001 through 2010. To leverage Federal resources, EPA 

requires approved estuary programs to have a specific finance plan 

and to provide a non-Federal match of between 25 percent and 50 

percent. NEP estuaries have secured funding from a variety of 

sources including stormwater utility fees, municipal bond funding, 

fines and settlements, tax abatements and incentives, and sales 

fees. According to EPA, between 2003 and 2010, the approved estuary programs were collectively able to leverage nearly $2.3 billion 

in funding from sources other than appropriations for section 320 

of the Clean Water Act. The investment ratio of non-NEP funds to 

NEP funds is roughly 15 to 1.11

The reforms included in S. 1313, as amended, aim to make the 

NEP still more effective by providing additional resources for improved management and accountability for program participants. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION

S. 1313, the ‘‘Clean Estuaries Act of 2011,’’ will amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or Act) to reauthorize appropriations for the National Estuary Program through 

fiscal year 2017 at $35 million annually and enhance transparency 

and accountability in participating estuary programs. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section designates the title of the bill as the ‘‘Clean Estuaries Act of 2011.’’ 

Section 2. National Estuary Program amendments 

This section amends section 320 of the Clean Water Act to modify and add new requirements to estuary programs participating in 

the NEP. 

Subsection (a)(1) Summary 

Amends section 320(b)(4) of the Act to add additional requirements in the development and revision of an approved estuary’s 

CCMP. These amendments require that each estuary program: • identify the estuary and upstream waters to be addressed 

by the program; • recommend corrective actions and compliance schedules to 

address point and nonpoint sources of pollution in that estuary, and to propose protection and conservation actions that 

will restore or maintain key ecological and recreational characteristics of that estuary; • identify components of healthy and impaired watersheds, 

including significant adverse impacts outside areas addressed 

by the plan, and prioritize actions to protect and maintain that 

level of health by conducting integrated assessments of the 

estuary’s aquatic habitat and biological integrity, water quality, and natural hydrologic flows; • consider current and future sustainable commercial activities in the estuary; • identify vulnerabilities in the estuary, including potential 

impacts of changes in sea level impacts to water quality, habitat, and infrastructure, and implement adaptation strategies; • increase public education and awareness of the ecological 

health and water quality conditions of the estuary; • identify performance measures and goals to track the degree to which the plan is being implemented successfully; and • include a coordinated monitoring strategy. 

Discussion 

The new requirements in this section make improvements to the 

national estuary program planning process. 

First, this act requires approved estuary programs to clearly 

identify the areas covered by the CCMP. This requirement will improve program management, help to focus and prioritize resources, 

help educate the public and stakeholders, and create a better sense 

of estuary identity. While hydrological boundaries for the estuary 

must be considered, given the scope of the NEP program the area 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

addressed by a given approved estuary program need not include 

the entire watershed that ultimately drains into the estuary. 

Second, this act requires approved estuary programs to identify 

and assess healthy and impaired components of a watershed for 

protection in order to ensure a complete assessment of the health 

of an estuary and to enable estuary programs to prioritize actions 

that protect as well as restore key habitat. This includes significant 

adverse impacts that are outside the area addressed by an approved estuary program management plan, which may not include 

the entire watershed that drains into the estuary. The identification and assessment of these sources of impairment allows the estuary program to better determine the impairment reduction for 

which it is responsible. The analysis required is an essential component of maintaining the integrity of an estuary. 

Third, approved estuary programs are required to consider the 

role of current and future commercial operations in the estuary and 

the means by which their activities can be sustained. Commercial 

activities and the health of the estuaries in which they are located 

are inextricably linked. Commercial activity can impact the ecological health of estuaries just as the ecological health of estuaries can 

impact the viability of commercial activities. Given this interrelationship, each approved estuary program must include commercial entities in its CCMP process and work with such entities to develop sustainable operations. 

Fourth, this section requires each NEP estuary to address the 

environmental impacts unique to its region. This requirement recognizes ongoing efforts at the agency to incorporate vulnerabilities 

and adaptation strategies into the CCMP process for each approved 

estuary program. 

Fifth, this section requires each approved estuary program to improve public outreach and education in order to increase awareness 

of the ecological health of the estuary, the economic importance of 

estuaries, the positive or negative impacts of actions on the 

estuary’s condition, and the connections between estuaries and the 

oceans, land and atmosphere. This provision does not require education on climate change mitigation. 

Finally, each estuary program must include performance measures and goals in its CCMP that will be used to track the effectiveness of program implementation as well as a coordinated monitoring strategy. Outcomes against which program performance can 

be quantitatively measured are accountability tools that help ensure federal resources are wisely spent and program goals will be 

met. 

Subsection (a)(2) Summary 

Amends section 320(b)(6) to clarify and enhance the monitoring 

requirements related to an estuary CCMP. Each approved estuary 

program must monitor water quality, healthy watershed, and habitat conditions in the estuary and its upstream waters. The estuary 

programs must also monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the CCMP. All monitoring results must be made available 

to the public. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
6 

Discussion 

Estuary programs must monitor water quality and habitat conditions around the estuary in order to track progress in estuary restoration and protection. Not only does this approach provide more 

information for program managers on the effectiveness of program 

activities, it also provides information to nearby communities about 

the state of their estuary. 

Subsection (a)(3) Summary 

Amends section 320(b) to require that each estuary program provide information and educational activities on the ecological health 

and water quality conditions of the estuary to the public. 

Discussion 

This provision ensures that each approved estuary program fulfills its obligation to educate the public about estuarine conditions, 

the economic and ecological importance of the estuary, and activities to restore the ecosystem. The programs are well-situated to 

provide such information, given the collaborative style of management and the diverse interests they represent. 

Subsection (b)(1) Summary 

Makes a technical change to section 320(c)(5) and adds not-forprofit organizations to the list of entities that can participate in the 

management conference. 

Subsection (b)(2) Summary 

Amends section 320(d) by adding a provision entitled, ‘‘Use of Existing Data and Collaborative Processes.’’ The new provision attempts to eliminate redundancy in data collection and improve involvement of and collaboration between stakeholders when developing a new CCMP or updating an old CCMP. Existing NEPs attribute successful restoration efforts in part to the successful engagement and inclusion of all estuary stakeholders. The provision 

requires approved estuary programs make use of collaborative processes to ensure equitable inclusion of affected interests; engage 

members of the conference; ensure relevant information is accessible to all members; promote accountability and transparency; 

identify roles and responsibilities in the Conference; and resolve 

disputes. 

Subsection (c) Summary 

Amends section 320(f) to require the periodic update and approval of a CCMP. Not later than 5 years of the date of enactment 

of S. 1313, as amended, the EPA Administrator must evaluate the 

implementation of each CCMP to determine the degree to which 

the goals of the CCMP have been met. Following the initial evaluation, each estuary program is subject to a subsequent evaluation 

every five years. The evaluations may be completed by EPA or, at 

the request of the Administrator, by a third party. An approved estuary program may not be involved in evaluating its own program. 

Each estuary program shall be provided the opportunity to respond to EPA’s program evaluation. EPA must issue a report on 

the results of the evaluation, including the findings and recommendations of the Administrator, as well as any comments reVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:57 Jul 29, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR041.XXX SR041

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

ceived from the estuary program. This report shall be made available to the public through publication in the Federal Register and 

on the Internet. If an estuary program is accepted into the NEP 

after passage of this Act, that program will be evaluated within 

five years after the submission of its CCMP to the Administrator, 

and every five years thereafter. 

Each approved estuary program is required to update its CCMP 

no later than 18 months after the public release of its evaluation. 

The updated plan must reflect, to the maximum extent practicable, 

the results of the program evaluation. Within 120 days after receiving an updated CCMP, the Administrator must approve that 

CCMP if he or she determines that the updated CCMP meets both 

the goals of the NEP and reflects the results of the program evaluation. 

Subsection (c) further allows the Administrator to consider an estuary program to be in probationary status if the estuary program 

has not received approval for an updated CCMP on or before the 

last day of the three-year period beginning on the date on which 

the Administrator makes an evaluation available to the public. 

Discussion 

EPA currently reviews each of the NEP estuary programs every 

three years, through an implementation review process. The evaluation requirement instituted by S. 1313, as amended, is intended 

to replace this existing review with a more rigorous program evaluation. 

Program implementation and program evaluation will be enhanced through the use of performance measures and goals, as required by this act. The evaluation is intended to assist program 

managers, in both EPA and the approved estuary program, in their 

efforts and to identify whether the goals of the CCMP are being 

achieved and to provide insights as to whether the management 

plan is successful, whether the management approaches are appropriate, where to focus efforts, and to identify impairments that may 

be preventing improvements. 

The requirements to regularly evaluate and update each 

estuary’s CCMP serve a number of purposes. First, it addresses the 

fact that a number of estuary programs have never updated their 

CCMPs. Second, it ensures that each estuary program acknowledges and accounts for any changes in the estuary in its CCMP, 

such as new impairments, new sources of impairments or newly recovered habitat. Third, it ensures that stakeholders will continue 

to be active partners in the restoration and protection of the estuary through involvement in CCMP updates. Finally, the linked 

evaluation and CCMP approval process enhances accountability because an updated CCMP must reflect program evaluation results. 

If the evaluation results indicate that the goals of the CCMP 

have been achieved, or that the program is headed in the right direction, the required update may be minimal. If the evaluation results indicate that CCMP goals are not being met, and the Administrator recommends programmatic changes, the update may be 

significant. In such a case, the update might require that additional stakeholders be incorporated into the planning process, that 

a new CCMP be adopted, or that a new management and impleVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:57 Jul 29, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR041.XXX SR041

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

mentation strategy be applied to ensure that the goals of the NEP 

program are achieved. 

This subsection allows the Administrator to place an estuary program in probationary status, and as described in subsection (d), the 

designation of probationary status requires the Administrator to reduce grant funding to the estuary program. This designation, in 

combination with subsequent penalties, provides the estuary programs with added incentive to incorporate evaluation recommendations for program improvement into the CCMP update, in order to 

receive approval by the Administrator. 

Subsection (d) Summary 

This subsection amends section 320 to establish new requirements for Federal agencies whose actions or activities affect estuaries in the National Estuary Program. The legislation requires 

that, following approval of a CCMP, any Federal action or activity 

affecting an estuary in the NEP shall be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with the CCMP. 

Federal agencies are also required, to the maximum extent practicable, to cooperate and coordinate their activities related to the 

implementation of an approved CCMP. The legislation requires 

that EPA serve as the lead agency in these inter-agency coordination and cooperation efforts. In making their annual budget requests, Federal agencies must consider their CCMP responsibilities. Finally, this subsection requires that Federal agencies collaborate in the development of tools and methodologies for monitoring the ecological health and water quality conditions of estuaries included in the National Estuary Program. 

Discussion 

The Committee recognizes that the strength of the National Estuary Program lies in its consensus-based, locally driven approach. 

To fulfill the goals of the program, the Committee expects that Federal agencies not only take part in the CCMP planning process but 

also, as stakeholders in the respective estuaries, take part in implementing their responsibilities under approved estuary plans. 

Subsection (e) Summary 

This subsection amends section 320(h), as re-designated by subsection (d), which relates to the provision of grants to develop and 

implement an estuary CCMP. In keeping with the collaborative 

and cooperative nature of this program, this subsection would disallow individuals from applying for and receiving National Estuary 

Program grant funding. Subsection (e) also outlines the penalties 

associated with placing a management conference on ‘‘probationary 

status.’’ First, the Administrator is required to reduce grant funding, in an amount determined by the Administrator, for estuary 

programs in probationary status. If the Administrator determines 

that the program has been in probationary status for two consecutive years, the Administrator shall also terminate an estuary program from the National Estuary Program, and cease its grant 

funding. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

Discussion 

The Committee believes that estuary programs must be held accountable for updating, receiving approval for, and implementing 

updated CCMPs. The provisions in this subsection will help provide 

such accountability. 

Subsection (f) Summary 

This subsection amends section 320(j), as re-designated by subsection (d), and reauthorizes appropriations for the National Estuary Program through fiscal year 2017. Subsection (f) maintains the 

current authorization level of $35 million through 2017. This subsection further directs the Administrator to provide at least 80 percent of the amounts appropriated per fiscal year for grants to the 

estuaries to develop, implement and monitor comprehensive conservation and management plans. This subsection limits the expenses related to EPA administration of grants to 5 percent. It also 

requires that EPA include in the annual budget a clear description 

of the amounts requested for grants. 

Discussion 

The Committee intends that funds provided to the National Estuary Program be clearly accounted for and that at least 80 percent 

of the appropriated amounts go to the management of individual 

NEP estuaries. Limited funds must be spent responsibly and be 

well accounted for. Additionally, limiting administrative expenses 

will allow more funds to be utilized on the ground. 

Subsection (g) Summary 

This subsection makes a technical amendment to section 

320(k)(1)(A), as re-designated by subsection (d). This subsection directs the research program established under section 320(k) to include research on the introduction and establishment of invasive 

species in estuarine environments. 

Subsection (h) Summary 

This subsection amends section 320 by adding a periodic evaluation of EPA’s National Estuary Program. This subsection requires 

that the Administrator, or a third party at the request of the Administrator, evaluate the overall NEP program (in addition to the 

requirements that each participating estuary be evaluated) within 

five years of passage of this legislation, and every five years thereafter. The evaluation shall assess the effectiveness of the NEP program in improving water quality, improving natural resources, and 

making improvements in sustainable uses of the estuaries covered 

by estuary programs that are part of the NEP. If improvements 

have been made, the evaluation should identify the best practices 

that were in place under that plan, and assess the reasons those 

practices were effective. Moreover, to encourage the wise use of 

limited resources, the evaluation should identify redundant reporting requirements and recommend how to limit these redundancies. 

The findings and recommendations of this evaluation shall be 

issued by the Administrator in a report published on both the 

Internet and in the Federal Register. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

Discussion 

This evaluation will assist the EPA program manager and Congress in determining whether the goals of the National Estuary 

Program are being achieved, and identifying ways to improve the 

program where it falls short of the goals. The evaluation results 

will help identify whether new tools, policies, or funding is needed 

to better implement the program—with the ultimate objective of restoring and protecting estuaries. 

Subsection (j) Summary 

This subsection changes the definition of estuary to include 

Great Lakes coastal waters and other nearby bodies of water that 

are similar in form and function to estuaries. This amendment was 

intended to make the NEP program consistent with other federal 

estuary programs, including the Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 

and the National Estuary Research Reserve System established 

under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as those programs include the Great Lakes. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On June 30, 2011, Senators Whitehouse, Vitter, Cardin, and Lieberman introduced S. 1313, the ‘‘Clean Estuaries Act of 2011.’’ The 

bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works. 

In the 111th Congress, similar legislation (H.R. 4715) was passed 

by the House by a vote of 278–128 on April 15, 2010. On June 30, 

2010, the Committee ordered H.R. 4715, as amended by the substitute amendment, reported favorably to the Senate by voice vote 

with a quorum present. 

On July 13, 2011, the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works met to consider S. 1313. Senators Whitehouse, Vitter, and 

Cardin offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 

Committee ordered S. 1313, as amended by the substitute amendment, reported favorably to the Senate by voice vote with a quorum 

present. 

HEARINGS

In the 111th Congress, on February 24, 2010, the Full Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife held a joint legislative hearing on 

legislative approaches to protection and restoring Great Water bodies. The Committee heard testimony from the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, Peter Silva, and the Commissioner of the 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Alexander Grannis, who expressed support for the National Estuary 

Program. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

The Committee on Environment and Public Works met to consider S. 1313 on July 13, 2011. The bill was ordered to be reported 

favorably with an amendment in the nature of a substitute (offered 

by Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Cardin), by voice vote with 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, and Johanns requesting to be recorded 

as voting ‘‘no.’’ 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

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

Rules of the Senate, the committee finds that S. 1313, as amended, 

does not create any additional regulatory burdens, nor will it cause 

any adverse impact on the personal privacy of individuals. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

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

Budget Office (CBO) has found, ‘‘S. 1313 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would 

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

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

JULY 21, 2011. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1313, the Clean Estuaries Act of 2011. 

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

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

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1313—Clean Estuaries Act of 2011 

Summary: S. 1313 would authorize the appropriation of $35 million annually over the 2012–2017 period for the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Estuary Program. The authorization for this program expired in 2010, and $27 million was 

appropriated for the program in 2011. Under the National Estuary 

Program, EPA develops plans for attaining or maintaining water 

quality in an estuary. This legislation also would require EPA to 

evaluate and report on the effectiveness of the entire National Estuary Program every five years. CBO estimates that implementing 

this legislation would cost $151 million over the 2012–2016 period, 

assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. 

Enacting S. 1313 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

S. 1313 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

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

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of this legislation is shown in the following table. The 

costs of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and environment). 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012– 

2016 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level ....................................................................... 35 35 35 35 35 175 

Estimated Outlays ........................................................................ 16 30 35 35 35 151 

Basis of estimate: CBO assumes that S. 1313 will be enacted 

near the start of 2012 and that the amounts authorized will be appropriated each fiscal year beginning in 2012. Estimated outlays 

are based on historical spending patterns for the National Estuary 

Program. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1313 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

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

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

on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

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

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

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

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

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 301. (a)* * * 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM. 

(a) MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.— 

(1) NOMINATION OF ESTUARIES.—The Governor of any State 

may nominate to the Administrator an estuary lying in whole 

or in part within the State as an estuary of national significance and request a management conference to develop a comprehensive management plan for the estuary. The nomination 

shall document the need for the conference, the likelihood of 

success, and information relating to the factors in paragraph 

(2). 

ø(2) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—In any case¿ (2) CONVENING OF CONFERENCE.—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 the water, requires the control of point and nonpoint 

sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of polVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:57 Jul 29, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR041.XXX SR041

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
13 

1 Both P.L. 100–653 and P.L. 100–658 inserted the same Massachusetts Bay phrase after Buzzards Bay; so that the phrase appears twice. 2P.L. 100–688, section 2001(3) inserted the Louisiana, Florida, New York bays after ‘‘Galveston, Texas;’’ which technically could not be executed. 

lution in more than one State, the Administrator shall select such estuary and convene a management conference. 

ø(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); 1 Puget Sound, Washington; New YorkNew Jersey Harbor, New York and New Jersey; Delaware 

Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; Delaware Inland Bays, 

Delaware; Albermarle Sound, North Carolina; Sarasota 

Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, California; Santa Monica 

Bay, California; Galveston Bay, Texas; 2 BaratariaTerrebonne 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 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. 

(b) PURPOSES OF CONFERENCE.—The purposes of any management conference convened with respect to an estuary under this 

subsection shall be to— 

(1) assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and 

uses of the estuary; 

(2) collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, 

and natural resources within the estuarine zone to identify the 

causes of environmental problems; 

(3) develop the relationship between the inplace loads and 

point and nonpoint loadings of pollutants to the estuarine zone 

and the potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural 

resources; 

ø(4) develop a comprehensive conservation and management 

plan that recommends priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the estuary, including restoration and maintenance of water quality, a balanced indigenous population of 

shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the designated uses of the estuary are 

protected;¿ 

(4) develop and submit to the Administrator a comprehensive 

conservation and management plan that— 

(A) identifies the estuary and the associated upstream 

waters of the estuary to be addressed by the plan, with consideration given to hydrological boundaries; 

(B) recommends priority protection, conservation, and 

corrective actions and compliance schedules that address 

point and nonpoint sources of pollution— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 

(i) to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the estuary, including— 

(I) restoration and maintenance of water quality, 

including wetlands and natural hydrological 

flows; 

(II) a resilient and diverse indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife; and 

(III) recreational activities in the estuary; and 

(ii) to ensure that the designated uses of the estuary 

are protected; 

(C)(i) identifies healthy and impaired watershed components, including significant adverse impacts to the estuary 

outside the area addressed by the plan that could affect the 

water quality and ecological integrity of the estuary, and 

the sources of those adverse impacts, by carrying out integrated assessments that include assessments of— 

(I) aquatic habitat and biological integrity; 

(II) water quality; and 

(III) natural hydrological flows; and 

(ii) provides the applicable Federal or State authority 

with information on any identified adverse impacts and the 

sources of those adverse impacts; 

(D) considers current and future sustainable commercial 

activities in the estuary; 

(E) addresses the impacts of the changing climate on the 

estuary, including— 

(i) the identification and assessment of vulnerabilities in the estuary; 

(ii) the development and implementation of adaptation strategies; and 

(iii) the potential impacts of changes in sea level on 

estuarine water quality, estuarine habitat, and infrastructure located in the estuary; 

(F) increases public education and awareness with respect to— 

(i) the ecological health of the estuary; 

(ii) the water quality conditions of the estuary; and 

(iii) ocean, estuarine, land, and atmospheric connections and interactions; 

(G) includes performance measures and goals to track 

implementation of the plan; and 

(H) includes a coordinated monitoring strategy for Federal, State, and local governments and other entities. 

(5) develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the 

plan by the States as well as Federal and local agencies participating in the conference; 

ø(6) monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to 

the plan; and¿ 

(6) monitor (and make results available to the public regarding)— 

(A) water quality conditions in the estuary and the associated upstream waters of the estuary identified under 

paragraph (4)(A); 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
15 

(B) watershed and habitat conditions that relate to the 

ecological health and water quality conditions of the estuary; and 

(C) the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the comprehensive conservation and management plan developed 

for the estuary under this subsection; 

(7) provide information and educational activities on the ecological health and water quality conditions of the estuary; and 

ø(7)¿(8) review all Federal financial assistance programs and 

Federal development projects in 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 øparagraph (7)¿ (paragraph (8), such programs and 

projects shall not be limited to the assistance programs and development projects subject to Executive Order 12372, but may include 

any programs listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance which may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the plan developed under this section. 

(c) MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE.—The members of a management 

conference convened under this section shall include, at a minimum, the Administrator and representatives of— 

(1) each State and foreign nation located in whole or in part 

in the estuarine zone of the estuary for which the conference 

is convened; 

(2) international, interstate, or regional agencies or entities 

having jurisdiction over all or a significant part of the estuary; 

(3) each interested Federal agency, as determined appropriate by the Administrator; 

(4) local governments having jurisdiction over any land or 

water within the estuarine zone, as determined appropriate by 

the Administrator; and 

(5) affected industries, public and private educational institutions, not for-profit organizations, and the general public, as 

determined appropriate by the Administrator. 

ø(d) UTILIZATION OF EXISTING DATA.—In developing¿ 

(d) USE OF EXISTING DATA AND COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES.— 

(1) USE 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, State, and local agencies. 

(2) USE OF COLLABORATIVE PROCESSES.—In updating a plan 

under subsection (f)(4) or developing a new plan under subsection (b), a management conference shall make use of collaborative processes— 

(A) to ensure equitable inclusion of affected interests; 

(B) to engage with members of the management conference, including through— 

(i) the use of consensus-based decision rules; and 

(ii) assistance from impartial facilitators, as appropriate; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
16 

(C) to ensure relevant information, including scientific, 

technical, and cultural information, is accessible to members; 

(D) to promote accountability and transparency by ensuring members are informed in a timely manner of— 

(i) the purposes and objectives of the management 

conference; and 

(ii) the results of an evaluation conducted under subsection (f)(6); 

(E) to identify the roles and responsibilities of members— 

(i) in the management conference proceedings; and 

(ii) in the implementation of the plan; and 

(F) to seek resolution of conflicts or disputes as necessary. 

ø(f) APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANS.— ø(1) APPROVAL.—Not later than 120 days after the completion of a conservation and 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. 

ø(2) IMPLEMENTATION.—Upon approval of a conservation and 

management plan under this section, such plan shall be implemented. Funds authorized to be appropriated under titles II 

and VI and section 319 of this Act may be used in accordance 

with the applicable requirements of this Act to assist States 

with the implementation of such plan.¿ 

(f) ADMINISTRATION OF PLANS.— (1) APPROVAL.—Not later than 120 days after the date on 

which a management conference submits to the Administrator 

a comprehensive conservation and management plan under this 

section, and after providing for public review and comment, the 

Administrator shall approve the plan, if— 

(A) the Administrator determines that the plan meets the 

requirements of this section; and 

(B) each affected Governor concurs. 

(2) COMPLETENESS.— (A) IN GENERAL.—If the Administrator determines that a 

plan is incomplete under paragraph (1) or (7), the Administrator shall— 

(i) provide the management conference with written 

notification of the basis of that finding; and 

(ii) allow the management conference to resubmit a 

revised plan that addresses, to the maximum extent 

practicable, the comments contained in the written notification of the Administrator described in clause (i). 

(B) RESUBMISSION.—If the Administrator determines that 

a revised plan submitted under subparagraph (A)(ii) remains incomplete under paragraph (1) or (7), the Administrator shall allow the management conference to resubmit 

a revised plan in accordance with subparagraph (A). 

(C) SCOPE OF REVIEW.—In determining whether to approve a comprehensive conservation and management plan 

under paragraph (1) or (7), the Administrator— 

(i) shall limit the scope of review to a determination 

of whether the plan meets the minimum requirements 

of this section; and 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
17 

(ii) may not impose, as a condition of approval, any 

additional requirements. 

(3) FAILURE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR TO RESPOND.—If, by the 

date that is 120 days after the date on which a plan is submitted or resubmitted under paragraph (1), (2), or (7) the Administrator fails to respond to the submission or resubmission 

in writing, the plan shall be considered approved. 

(4) FAILURE TO SUBMIT A PLAN.—If, by the date that is 3 

years after the date on which a management conference is convened, that management conference fails to submit a comprehensive conservation and management plan or to secure approval for the comprehensive conservation and management 

plan under this subsection, the Administrator shall terminate 

the management conference convened under this section. 

(5) IMPLEMENTATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—On the approval of a comprehensive 

conservation and management plan under this section, the 

plan shall be implemented. 

(B) USE OF AUTHORIZED AMOUNTS.—Amounts authorized 

to be appropriated under titles II and VI and section 319 

may be used in accordance with the applicable requirements of this Act to assist States with the implementation 

of a plan approved under paragraph (1). 

(6) EVALUATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the date of 

enactment of this paragraph, and every 5 years thereafter, 

the Administrator shall carry out an evaluation of the implementation of each comprehensive conservation and management plan developed under this section to determine the 

degree to which the goals of the plan have been met. 

(B) REVIEW AND COMMENT BY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.—In completing an evaluation under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall submit the results of the 

evaluation to the appropriate management conference for 

review and comment. 

(C) REPORT.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—In completing an evaluation under 

subparagraph (A), and after providing an opportunity 

for a management conference to submit comments 

under subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall issue 

a report on the results of the evaluation, including the 

findings and recommendations of the Administrator 

and any comments received from the management conference. 

(ii) AVAILABILITY TO PUBLIC.—The Administrator 

shall make a report issued under this subparagraph 

available to the public, including through publication 

in the Federal Register and on the Internet. 

(D) SPECIAL RULE FOR NEW PLANS.—Notwithstanding 

subparagraph (A), if a management conference submits a 

new comprehensive conservation and management plan to 

the Administrator after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator shall complete the evaluation of 

the implementation of the plan required by subparagraph 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
18 

(A) not later than 5 years after the date of such submission 

and every 5 years thereafter. 

(7) UPDATES.— (A) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 18 months after the 

date on which the Administrator makes an evaluation of 

the implementation of a comprehensive conservation and 

management plan available to the public under paragraph 

(6)(C), a management conference convened under this section shall submit to the Administrator an update of the 

plan that reflects, to the maximum extent practicable, the 

results of the program evaluation. 

(B) APPROVAL OF UPDATES.—Not later than 120 days 

after the date on which a management conference submits 

to the Administrator an updated comprehensive conservation and management plan under subparagraph (A), and 

after providing for public review and comment, the Administrator shall approve the updated plan, if the Administrator determines that the updated plan meets the requirements of this section. 

(8) PROBATIONARY STATUS.—The Administrator may consider 

a management conference convened under this section to be in 

probationary status, if the management conference has not received approval for an updated comprehensive conservation and 

management plan under paragraph (7)(B) on or before the last 

day of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which the Administrator makes an evaluation of the plan available to the 

public under paragraph (6)(C). 

(g) FEDERAL AGENCIES.— (1) ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED WITHIN ESTUARIES WITH APPROVED

PLANS.—After approval of a comprehensive conservation and 

management plan by the Administrator, any Federal action or 

activity affecting the estuary shall be conducted, to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner consistent with the plan. 

(2) COORDINATION AND COOPERATION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army (acting 

through the Chief of Engineers), the Administrator of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, the Director of 

the United States Geological Survey, the Secretary of the 

Department of Transportation, the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the heads of 

other appropriate Federal agencies, as determined by the 

Administrator, shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 

cooperate and coordinate activities, including monitoring 

activities, related to the implementation of a comprehensive 

conservation and management plan approved by the Administrator. 

(B) LEAD COORDINATING AGENCY.—The Environmental 

Protection Agency shall serve as the lead coordinating 

agency under this paragraph. 

(3) CONSIDERATION OF PLANS IN AGENCY BUDGET RE- QUESTS.—In making an annual budget request for a Federal 

agency referred to in paragraph (2), the head of such agency 

shall consider the responsibilities of the agency under this secVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:57 Jul 29, 2011 Jkt 099010 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR041.XXX SR041

sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
19 

tion, including under comprehensive conservation and management plans approved by the Administrator. 

(4) MONITORING.—The heads of the Federal agencies referred 

to in paragraph (2) shall collaborate on the development of tools 

and methodologies for monitoring the ecological health and 

water quality conditions of estuaries covered by a management 

conference convened under this section. 

ø(g)¿(h) GRANTS.— 

(1) 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, øother public or nonprofit private agencies, 

institutions, organizations, and individuals¿ and other public 

or non-profit private agencies, institutions, and organizations. 

(2) PURPOSES.—Grants under this subsection shall be made 

to pay for activities necessary for the development and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and management 

plan under this section. 

(3) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of a grant to any 

person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year— 

(A) shall not exceed— 

(i) 75 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the 

development of a comprehensive conservation and 

management plan; and 

(ii) 50 percent of the annual aggregate costs of the 

implementation of the plan; and 

(B) shall be made on condition that the non-Federal 

share of the costs are provided from non-Federal sources. 

(4) EFFECTS OF PROBATIONARY STATUS.— 

(A) REDUCTIONS IN GRANT AMOUNTS.—The Administrator 

shall reduce, by an amount to be determined by the Administrator, grants for the implementation of a comprehensive 

conservation and management plan developed by a management conference convened under this section, if the Administrator determines that the management conference is 

in probationary status under subsection (f)(8). 

(B) TERMINATION OF MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES.—The 

Administrator shall terminate a management conference 

convened under this section, and cease funding for the implementation of the comprehensive conservation and management plan developed by the management conference, if 

the Administrator determines that the management conference has been in probationary status for 2 consecutive 

years. 

ø(h)¿(i) GRANT REPORTING.—Any person (including a State, 

interstate, or regional agency or entity) that receives a grant under 

øsubsection (g)¿subsection (h) shall report to the Administrator not 

later than 18 months after receipt of such grants and biennially 

there after on the progress being made under this section. 

ø(i)¿ø(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator not to exceed 

$35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2010 for— 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
20 

ø(1) expenses related to the administration of management 

conferences under this section, not to exceed 10 percent of the 

amount appropriated under this subsection; 

ø(2) making grants under subsection (g); and 

ø(3) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and 

management plan by the 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 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out subsection (j).¿ 

(j) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2012 

through 2017 for— 

(A) expenses relating to the administration of management conferences by the Administrator under this section, 

except that such expenses shall not exceed 5 percent of the 

amount appropriated under this subsection; 

(B) making grants under subsection (h); and 

(C) monitoring the implementation of a conservation and 

management plan by the management conference, or by the 

Administrator in any case in which the conference has been 

terminated. 

(2) ALLOCATIONS.—Of the sums authorized to be appropriated 

under this subsection, the Administrator shall provide at least 

80 percent per fiscal year for the development, implementation, 

and monitoring of each conservation and management plan eligible for grant assistance under subsection (h). 

(3) REQUIREMENT.—The Administrator shall include in the 

annual budget request of the Environmental Protection Agency 

a clear description of the amounts requested by the Administrator to make grants under paragraph (1)(B). 

ø(j)¿(k) RESEARCH.— (1) 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 and the National Marine Fisheries Service of 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as appropriate, for one or more estuarine zones— 

(A) a long-term program of trend assessment monitoring 

measuring variations in pollutant concentrations, marine 

ecology, and other physical or biological environmental 

øparamenters¿parameters which may affect estuarine 

zones (including monitoring of both pathways and ecosystems to track the introduction and establishment of nonnative species), to provide the Administrator the capacity 

to determine the potential and actual effects of alternative 

management strategies and measures; 

(B) 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
21 

translating information on specific discharges or general 

pollutant loadings within estuarine zones into a set of 

probable effects on such zones; 

(C) 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 

(D) a program of research to identify the movements of 

nutrients, sediments and pollutants through estuarine 

zones and the impact of nutrients, sediments, and pollutants on water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or 

potential uses of the estuarine zones. 

(2) 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; 

(B) an assessment of the state and health of the Nation’s 

estuarine zones, to the extent evaluated under this subsection; 

(C) a discussion of pollution problems and trends in pollutant concentrations with a direct or indirect effect on 

water quality, the ecosystem, and designated or potential 

uses of each estuarine zone, to the extent evaluated under 

this subsection; and 

(D) 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. 

(l) NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM EVALUATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, and every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall complete an evaluation of the national estuary 

program established under this section. 

(2) SPECIFIC ASSESSMENTS.—In conducting an evaluation 

under this subsection, the Administrator shall— 

(A) assess the effectiveness of the national estuary program in improving water quality, natural resources, and 

sustainable uses of the estuaries covered by management 

conferences convened under this section; 

(B) identify best practices for improving water quality, 

natural resources, and sustainable uses of the estuaries covered by management conferences convened under this section, including those practices funded through the use of 

technical assistance from the Environmental Protection 

Agency and other Federal agencies; 

(C) assess the reasons why the best practices described in 

subparagraph (B) resulted in the achievement of program 

goals; 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
22 

(D) identify any redundant requirements for reporting by 

recipients of a grant under this section; and 

(E) develop and recommend a plan for eliminating any 

redundancies. 

(3) REPORT.—In completing an evaluation under this subsection, the Administrator shall issue a report on the results of 

the evaluation, including the findings and recommendations of 

the Administrator. 

(4) AVAILABILITY.—The Administrator shall make a report 

issued under this subsection available to management conferences convened under this section and the public, including 

through publication in the Federal Register and on the Internet. 

ø(k)¿ø(m) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the terms 

‘‘estuary’’ and ‘‘estuarine zone’’ have the meanings such terms have 

in section 104(n)(4) of this Act, except that the term ‘‘estuarine 

zone’’ shall also include associated aquatic ecosystems and those 

portions of tributaries¿ 

(m) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the terms ‘estuary’ and ‘estuarine zone’ have the meanings given the terms in section 104(n)(4), 

except that— 

(1) the term ‘estuary’ also includes near coastal waters and 

other bodies of water within the Great Lakes that are similar 

in form and function to the waters described in the definition 

of ‘estuary’ in section 104(n)(4); and 

(2) the term ‘estuarine zone’ also includes— 

(A) waters within the Great Lakes described in paragraph (1) and transitional areas from such waters that are 

similar in form and function to the transitional areas described in the definition of ‘estuarine zone’ in section 

104(n)(4); 

(B) associated aquatic ecosystems; and 

(C) 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. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS