[House Report 111-442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
111th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 111-442
======================================================================
CLEAN ESTUARIES ACT OF 2010
_______
March 17, 2010.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 4715]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 4715) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to reauthorize the National Estuary
Program, and for other purposes, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
Purpose of the Legislation
H.R. 4715, the ``Clean Estuaries Act of 2010'', amends the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or Act) to
reauthorize appropriations for the National Estuary Program
through fiscal year 2016, and to make programmatic changes.
Background and Need for Legislation
Estuaries are bodies of water that receive both outflows
from rivers and tidal inflows from the ocean. They are
transition zones between fresh water from rivers and saline
water from the ocean. The mixing of fresh and salt water
provides a unique environment that supports diverse habitats
for a wide variety of living resources, including plants, fish,
and wildlife. Many fish and shellfish species depend on the
sheltered habitat provided by estuaries, as well as the mix of
saline and fresh water. Estuaries are often used as places for
these species to spawn, and for their young to grow and
develop. These areas also serve as habitat and breeding areas
for hundreds of species of birds and other wildlife, including
marine mammals.
Estuaries and associated coastal areas are major economic
drivers for this nation. From a resource standpoint alone,
healthy estuaries are very economically productive. Coastal
areas of the United States account for 28 million jobs. The
coastal areas surrounding estuaries are among the most
populated areas in the nation. Collectively, the nation's
coastal counties account for only 13 percent of the total
contiguous land area of the United States. However, 43 percent
of the population lives in these coastal areas.\1\ Furthermore,
while estuarine counties constitute only 13 percent of the
nation's land area, they account for 49 percent of the gross
domestic product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These figures are based on only marine coastal counties.
Counties bordering the Great Lakes were considered non-coastal
counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most commercially and recreationally important fish and
shellfish species, such as striped bass, shad, salmon,
sturgeon, shrimp, crabs, lobster, clams, oysters, mussels, and
bay scallops, depend on estuaries for stages of their life
cycles. Commercial and recreational fishing annually accounts
for $185 billion in revenues, and more than two million jobs.
According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the National Research Council (NRC),
estuaries provide habitat for 75 percent of the U.S. commercial
fish catch and 80 to 90 percent of the recreational fish catch.
The University of Maryland has found that a significant
proportion of the ten billion pounds of commercial fish
landings in 2004, worth over $3.8 billion (unprocessed), are
dependent on estuaries.
In addition to fishing, estuaries also produce significant
economic value for the nation, including through sectors such
as tourism, energy production, and navigation. Estuaries also
provide cultural and recreational opportunities that include
boating, fishing, swimming, surfing, and bird watching, and
provide locations for ports and harbors. The University of
California and the Ocean Foundation have determined that, on an
annual basis, beach-going generates up to $30 billion of
economic value, recreational fishing generates up to $26
billion, and coastal wildlife viewing generates up to $49
billion. Louisiana State University's Center for Energy Studies
reports that 30 percent of U.S. crude oil production, 20
percent of U.S. natural gas production, and 45 percent of U.S.
petroleum refining capacity lies within a few miles of the Gulf
of Mexico coastal zone, which includes numerous estuaries.
Finally, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's Marine Policy
Center reports that U.S. ports handled over $800 billion in
trade in 2003.
Many of the nation's estuaries are in poor ecological
health. An impaired estuary not only impacts commercial and
recreational fishing, it can also result in decreased tourism
revenues, among other factors. Degraded habitat, like coastal
wetlands, can also result in increased flooding, shoreline
erosion, and damaged infrastructure. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the following
environmental concerns among the 28 approved estuaries in EPA's
National Estuary Program (NEP): 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. EPA rates estuary health and the following
table includes EPA's most recent ratings of estuaries included
in the NEP.
THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
EPA's National Estuary Program was authorized in 1987 as an
amendment to the Clean Water Act (section 320 of the Act). The
NEP promotes comprehensive planning efforts to help protect
nationally significant estuaries in the United States that are
deemed to be threatened by pollution, development, and overuse.
The NEP is a stakeholder-driven, collaborative program to
address water quality problems and target habitat restoration.
The NEP is composed of approved estuary programs that are, for
the most part, non-Federal programs administered by state or
local governments or non-governmental entities. Under the
program, the Governor of any state may nominate to the EPA
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 estuary program in Long Island Sound
is the only Federally-administered program it is run by EPA.
Through a process of wide-ranging stakeholder engagement, each
approved estuary program conducts long-term planning and
management activities to address the complex factors that
contribute to the degradation of estuaries. Each estuary
program relies on the consensus-based participation of a whole
range of stakeholders located in the area: local, state, and
Federal governments; commercial entities; members of the
agricultural community; and non-governmental entities, such as
environmental organizations. To date, EPA has approved 28
estuaries as part of the program.
Under section 320, each approved estuary program is
required to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP). The CCMP is the implementation framework for
protecting and restoring the estuary. The CCMP identifies
discrete activities to address priority problems. Developed by
estuary stakeholders, the activities prescribed through the
CCMP are based on consensus and will often involve coordination
and collaboration between different stakeholder entities. EPA
must approve the CCMP.
EPA provides each approved estuary program with financial
and technical assistance. Section 320 authorized $35 million
annually for fiscal years 2001 through 2010 for the NEP. Some
of this funding has been used to set up individual program
offices at each of the 28 approved estuaries. Each program
office usually consists of a small staff that is housed in, and
is an entity of, a state or local government agency,
university, or non-governmental organization. Because each
approved estuary program can be located in a number of
different types of organizations, the program structure and
character of each of the 28 local estuary programs is unique.
With the exception of the Long Island Sound estuary program,
none of the staff in any of the approved estuary programs are
EPA employees. They are usually either employed by non-
governmental organizations or state or local government
entities (but supported through NEP grants).
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM FUNDING
Congress has appropriated the following amounts for the NEP
program over the past three years: $26.7 million in fiscal year
(FY) 2008; $27.1 million in FY 2009; and $32.6 million in FY
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 for
funding provided under the program. EPA also encourages non-
Federal funding for projects in approved estuaries because it
promotes buy-in of non-Federal partners (e.g., state and local
governments, non-governmental organizations) and further
fosters the collaborative process under the NEP. Estuaries
under the program have attracted funding from a variety of
sources including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program,
stormwater utility fees, municipal bond funding, fines and
settlements, tax abatements and incentives, and sales fees.
According to EPA, between 2003 and 2007, the approved estuary
programs were collectively able to leverage nearly $1.3 billion
in funding from sources other than appropriations for section
320. The investment ratio of non-NEP funds to NEP funds is 15.5
to 1.
PROGRAMMATIC RESULTS
On the whole, the NEP has resulted in improved estuarine
conditions for participating estuaries. For instance, on a
national scale, the NEP estuaries (collectively) score slightly
higher than non-NEP estuaries for water quality indices. The
reforms included in H.R. 4715 will make the NEP more effective
by providing additional needed resources for improved
management of estuaries and requiring transparency, performance
measures and goals, and accountability to determine the impact
of the program.
While no new estuaries have been formally included in the
program since 1995, EPA reports that numerous states,
localities, and non-governmental organizations have expressed
interest in 38 additional estuaries being included within the
NEP. These estuaries include:
Alaska: Cook Inlet; Kenai River
California: Humboldt Bay; Tomales Bay; San
Pedro Bay; Newport Bay; San Diego Bay; Tijuana River
Florida: Lower St. Johns River; Lake Worth;
Biscayne Bay; Florida Bay; Crystal River/Homosassa
Spring; Apalachicola Bay; St. Andrews Bay;
Choctawhatchee Bay; Pensacola Bay
Georgia: Savannah River
Hawaii: Hanalei Bay; Kaneohe Bay
Louisiana: Calcasieu Lake; Atchafalaya Bay;
Lake Pontchartrain
Maine: Penobscot Bay; Gulf of Maine
Massachusetts: Martha's Vineyard
Mississippi: Mississippi Sound
New York: Great South Bay
North Carolina: Cape Fear River
Oregon: Coos Bay
Puerto Rico: Mayaguez Bay
South Carolina: Charleston Harbor; Port
Royal Sound; Savannah River
Texas: Lavaca Bay-Tres Palacios Bay
Virginia: Virginia Coastal Bays
Washington: Grays Harbor; Willapa Bay
If Congress appropriates funding for the NEP at the
increased authorization amounts included in H.R. 4715, EPA will
be able to add 12 new estuaries to the National Estuary
Program.
Summary of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title
This section designates the title of the bill as the
``Clean Estuaries Act of 2010''.
Sec. 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) amends section 320(b)(4) of the Act to
add additional requirements in the development and revision of
an approved estuary's CCMP.
First, each estuary program must identify the estuary and
upstream waters that will be addressed by the program. Given
the scope of the NEP program, the area addressed by a given
approved estuary program may not include the entire watershed
that ultimately drains into the estuary. For program management
purposes, and to educate the public and stakeholders, approved
estuary programs should clearly identify the areas covered by a
CCMP. This requirement will help to focus and prioritize
resources, and create a better sense of estuary identity.
Second, each estuary program must consider current and
future sustainable commercial activities in the estuary. Given
the location of all estuaries in the NEP program, commercial
activities are a necessary and permanent component. Commercial
activity can impact the ecological health of estuaries.
Similarly, the ecological health of estuaries can impact the
viability of commercial activities. Each approved estuary
program must include commercial entities in its CCMP process,
and work with such entities to create commercial operations
that impact the estuary in a sustainable manner.
Third, each estuary program must address the impacts of
climate change on the estuary by identifying vulnerabilities in
the estuary and developing and implementing adaptation
strategies. On June 19, 2008, EPA announced a new pilot program
for NEP estuaries, entitled ``Climate Ready Estuaries''.
According to EPA, each NEP estuary in the Climate Ready
Estuaries program received technical assistance to assess and
reduce its vulnerability to climate change. This section
requires each NEP estuary to address the climate change impacts
unique to its region.
Fourth, each estuary program must increase public education
and awareness of the ecological health and water quality
conditions of the estuary. Many impairments suffered by
estuaries are a function of activities by individuals in the
watershed. Similarly, only changes in behavior--at the
individual level--will decrease some of these harmful
activities. Approved estuary programs are well-situated to
promote educational activities that will demonstrate to members
of surrounding communities the ecological and economic
importance of estuaries, and identify activities that can help
to restore estuaries, as well as activities that will degrade
them.
Fifth, each estuary program must identify and assess
impairments that impact the estuary but that are located
outside of the immediate area addressed by the estuary. Given
the scope of the NEP program, the area addressed by a given
approved estuary program may not include the entire watershed
that ultimately drains into the estuary. As a result,
impairments from upstream sources, as well as those from
outside of the watershed, such as atmospheric deposition, may
degrade the estuary. Nevertheless, because these sources of
impairment lie outside of the formal estuary program area,
these sources are outside of the purview of the program. Each
estuary program is charged with identifying these sources of
impairment to enable stakeholders to better understand the
connectivity between the upstream elements of the watershed and
the potential downstream impacts to the estuary. In addition,
the identification and assessment of these sources of
impairment will enable the estuary program to better determine
the impairment reduction for which it is ultimately
responsible.
Finally, each CCMP must include performance measures and
goals to track the degree to which the plan is being
implemented successfully. Performance measurement is a tool to
determine the effectiveness of a program in achieving program
goals. Each estuary program must include program goals and
priorities in its CCMP and the performance measures that will
be used to track the effectiveness of program implementation.
Subsection (a)(2) 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 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. To track progress in estuary
restoration and protection, estuary programs must monitor water
quality and habitat conditions around the estuary. Not only
does this approach provide more information for program
managers, it also provides information to nearby communities
about the state of their estuaries.
Subsection (a)(3) 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. This provision ensures
that the approved estuary program, itself, is participating in
educating the public about estuarine conditions and the
ecological and economic importance of estuaries, and is
identifying activities that can help to restore estuaries, as
well as those that will degrade them.
Subsection (b) makes a technical change to section
320(c)(5) and adds not-for-profit organizations to the list of
entities that can participate in the management conference.
Subsection (c) amends section 320(f) to require the
periodic update and approval of a CCMP. Within four years of
the date of enactment of H.R. 4715, the ``Clean Estuaries Act
of 2010'', the EPA Administrator shall evaluate the
implementation of each approved estuary program's CCMP to
determine whether, and the degree to which, the goals of the
CCMP have been met. Following the initial evaluation, each
estuary program shall be subject to a subsequent evaluation
every four years. The evaluations may be completed by EPA or,
at the request of the Administrator, by a third party. However,
an approved estuary program may not be involved in evaluating
its own program. Following the completion of an estuary program
evaluation, the Administrator shall submit the evaluation
results to the estuary program for review and comment. Each
estuary program shall be provided the opportunity to respond to
EPA's program evaluation. EPA shall issue a report on the
results of the evaluation, including the findings and
recommendations of the Administrator, as well as any comments
received 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 four years of the submission of its CCMP to
the Administrator, and every four years thereafter.
EPA currently reviews each of the NEP estuary programs
through a process known as the implementation review process.
Each estuary program is reviewed every three years. This
process is intended to assess how well each estuary program
supports the core goals of the Clean Water Act, as well as to
evaluate the extent and effectiveness of each estuary program's
contribution to meeting the goals of EPA's Strategic Plan. The
evaluation requirement instituted by H.R. 4715 is intended to
require that more rigorous program evaluations be conducted of
the estuary programs. Program implementation and program
evaluation will be facilitated through the identification,
inclusion, and use of performance measures and goals, as
required by this legislation. The evaluation is intended to
assist program managers, in both EPA and the approved estuary
program, and identify if the goals of the CCMP are being
achieved. It will provide insights as to whether the management
plan is successful, whether the management approaches are
appropriate, whether efforts in particular areas should be
intensified, and whether impairments coming from unanticipated
sources are hindering positive results.
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 shall reflect, to the maximum
extent practicable, the results of the program evaluation. The
Administrator shall, within 120 days after receiving an updated
CCMP, approve that CCMP if the Administrator determines that
the updated CCMP meets both the goals of the NEP and reflects
the results of the program evaluation.
The CCMP evaluation and update serves 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 new impairments
and new sources of impairments in its CCMP. Third, it ensures
that stakeholders will continue to be active partners in the
restoration and protection of the estuary, through involvement
in the CCMP updating process. Finally, it provides
accountability by linking the evaluation process to
implementation of evaluation results. In other words, approval
of a CCMP update is contingent upon incorporation by the
estuary of evaluation results into its plan.
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 update may be de minimis. However, if the
evaluation results indicate that CCMP goals are not being met,
and recommends that programmatic changes are necessary, the
update may be significant. An update, in these circumstances,
might require that new stakeholders be incorporated into the
planning process, that a new CCMP be adopted, or that a new
management and implementation strategy be applied to ensure
that the goals of the NEP program--the restoration and
protection of the estuary--are achieved.
The Administrator may 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. As
described later in this Committee Report, the designation of
probationary status entails a reduction in grant funding to the
estuary program by the Administrator. The Committee believes
that this designation, in combination with subsequent
penalties, provides the estuary programs with an incentive to
incorporate evaluation recommendations into their CCMP update,
in order to receive approval of an updated CCMP by the
Administrator.
Subsection (d) amends section 320 by adding a new
subsection that places new requirements on 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 shall serve as the lead agency in these inter-agency
coordination and cooperation efforts. In making their annual
budget requests, Federal agencies shall 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.
The Committee recognizes that the strength of the National
Estuary Program lies in its being a consensus-based, locally
driven program. As a result, 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. In instances where the actions or activities of multiple
Federal agencies affect the estuary, the Committee expects
these agencies to coordinate their activities. Not only will
this approach result in administrative efficiencies,
coordinated planning and implementation will yield results that
will facilitate the protection and restoration of the estuary
in question.
Subsection (e) amends section 320(h) by adding new grant
conditions. The Administrator shall be required to reduce grant
funding for those approved estuary programs that are considered
to be in probationary status. The grant reduction amount shall
be determined by the Administrator. The Administrator shall
also terminate an estuary program from the National Estuary
Program, and cease its grant funding, if the Administrator
determines that the program has been in probationary status for
two consecutive years.
The Committee believes that estuary programs must be held
accountable for updating, receiving approval for, and
implementing updated CCMPs. Decreasing funding and, if
necessary, expulsion from the National Estuary Program for a
lack of an approved CCMP update will provide such
accountability.
Subsection (f) amends section 320(j), as redesignated, and
authorizes an increase in appropriations. This subsection
increases the authorization of appropriations for the National
Estuary Program from $35 million to $50 million annually for
fiscal years 2011 through 2016. This subsection directs the
Administrator to provide grant funding, subject to
appropriations, of at least $1.25 million for each approved
estuary program in the National Estuary Program. The Committee
believes that a funding level of $1.25 million per approved
estuary program will provide the resources for each estuary
program to properly oversee the implementation of its CCMP.
This level of funding is a significant increase over existing
appropriations to estuaries under the program; in 2008, each
estuary received approximately $592,000 under the program. An
authorization level of $50 million will allow each existing
estuary to receive $1.25 million, and provide enough funding to
add 12 new estuaries under the program. If the NEP is funded at
fully authorized levels, the Committee expects that an
additional 12 estuary programs will be added to the National
Estuary Program.
Subsection (g) makes a technical amendment to section
320(k)(1)(A), as redesignated by this legislation.
Subsection (h) amends section 320 by adding a new
subsection that requires a periodic evaluation of EPA's
National Estuary Program. The legislation requires that the
Administrator, or a third party at the request of the
Administrator, evaluate the overall NEP program (in addition to
the requirement that each participating estuary be evaluated)
within four years of passage of this legislation, and every
four years thereafter. The evaluation shall determine whether
the NEP program has resulted in improved water quality,
improved natural resources, and improvements in sustainable
uses of the estuaries covered by estuary programs that are part
of the NEP. The findings and recommendations of this evaluation
shall be issued by the Administrator in a report on both the
Internet and in the Federal Register.
The Committee believes that this evaluation will assist EPA
program managers and Congress in determining whether the goals
of the National Estuary Program are being achieved. The
evaluation results will provide insights as to whether the
program is successful, and whether new tools, policies, or
funding is needed to better implement the program--with the
ultimate objective of restoring and protecting estuaries.
Legislative History and Committee Consideration
In the 110th Congress, on June 26, 2008, the Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on
``Protecting and Restoring America's Great Waters, Part 1:
Coasts and Estuaries''. The Subcommittee received testimony
from Representative Norman D. Dicks, EPA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the State of Washington, the
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and representatives
of non-governmental organizations.
In the 111th Congress, on October 6, 2009, the Subcommittee
on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on
``Protecting and Restoring America's Great Waters: The Long
Island Sound''. The Long Island Sound Study is an approved NEP
estuary program. The Subcommittee received testimony from EPA,
the States of Connecticut and New York, the Stamford Water
Pollution Control Authority (CT), and representatives of non-
governmental organizations.
On March 2, 2010, Representative Timothy H. Bishop
introduced H.R. 4715, the ``Clean Estuaries Act of 2010''.
On March 3, 2010, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 4715. The
Committee ordered H.R. 4715 reported favorably to the House by
voice vote with a quorum present.
Record Votes
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each record vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. There
were no recorded votes taken in connection with consideration
of H.R. 4715 or ordering the bill reported. A motion to order
H.R. 4715 reported favorably to the House was agreed to by
voice vote with a quorum present.
Committee Oversight Findings
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
Cost of Legislation
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is
included in this report.
Compliance With House Rule XIII
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
references the report of the Congressional Budget Office
included in the report.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to
facilitate the protection and restoration of estuaries within
the National Estuary Program, including through the use of
program evaluations.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4715
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2010.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4715, the Clean
Estuaries Act of 2010.
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,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 4715--Clean Estuaries Act of 2010
Summary: H.R. 4715 would extend the authorization of
appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) National Estuary Program through fiscal year 2016.
Under current law, $35 million is authorized to be appropriated
each year through 2010, and enacting this legislation would
increase that authorized annual funding level to $50 million in
subsequent years. Under the National Estuary Program, EPA
develops plans for attaining or maintaining water quality in an
estuary. CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would
cost $216 million over the 2011-2015 period, assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts.
Enacting H.R. 4715 would not affect direct spending or
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
H.R. 4715 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).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level................................ 50 5O 5O 50 50 250
Estimated Outlays.................................. 23 43 50 50 50 216
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted in 2010 and that the amounts authorized
will be appropriated each fiscal year beginning in 2011.
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns for
the National Estuary Program.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4715
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.
Compliance With House Rule XXI
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits, as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. H.R.
4715 does not contain any earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits under clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of
rule XXI.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or
joint resolution of a public character shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in
the Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (P.L. 104-4).
Preemption Clarification
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt State, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 4715 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this
legislation.
Applicability to the Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) Purposes of Conference.--The purposes of any management
conference convened with respect to an estuary under this
subsection shall be to--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(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 its associated
upstream waters to be addressed by the plan,
with consideration given to hydrological
boundaries;
(B) 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 resilient
and diverse indigenous population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife, and recreational activities
in the estuary, and assure that the designated
uses of the estuary are protected;
(C) considers current and future sustainable
commercial activities in the estuary;
(D) addresses the impacts of climate change
on the estuary, including--
(i) the identification and assessment
of vulnerabilities in the estuary; and
(ii) the development and
implementation of adaptation
strategies;
(E) increases public education and awareness
of the ecological health and water quality
conditions of the estuary;
(F) identifies and assesses impairments,
including upstream impairments, coming from
outside of the area addressed by the plan, and
the sources of those impairments; and
(G) includes performance measures and goals
to track implementation of the plan.
* * * * * * *
[(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 its associated upstream waters, as
identified under paragraph (4)(A);
(B) 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
[(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 [paragraph (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) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) affected industries, public and private
educational institutions, not-for-profit organizations,
and the general public, as determined appropriate by
the Administrator.
* * * * * * *
[(f) Approval and Implementation of Plans.--
[(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.
[(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 the Administrator determines that
the plan meets the requirements of this section and the
affected Governor or Governors concur.
(2) Implementation.--Upon approval of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan under this section,
the plan shall be implemented. Funds 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
the plan.
(3) Evaluation.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 4 years after
the date of enactment of this paragraph, and
every 4 years thereafter, the Administrator
shall complete 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 plan
required by subparagraph (A) not later than 4
years after the date of such submission and
every 4 years thereafter.
(4) Updates.--
(A) Requirement.--Not later than 18 months
after the date on which the Administrator makes
an evaluation of a comprehensive conservation
and management plan available to the public
under paragraph (3)(C), a management conference
convened under this section shall submit to the
Administrator an update of the plan. The
updated plan shall reflect, 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.
(5) 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 (4)(B) on or before the last day of the 3-
year period beginning on the date on which the
Administrator makes an evaluation of the plan available
to the public under paragraph (3)(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.--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 Chief of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies, as determined by the
Administrator, shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, cooperate and coordinate activities
related to the implementation of a comprehensive
conservation and management plan approved by the
Administrator. The Environmental Protection Agency
shall serve as the lead coordinating agency under this
paragraph.
(3) Consideration of plans in agency budget
requests.--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 section, 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.
[(g)] (h) Grants.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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)(5).
(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.
[(h)] (i) Grant Reporting.--Any person (including a State,
interstate, or regional agency or entity) that receives a grant
under [subsection (g)] subsection (h) shall report to the
Administrator not later than 18 months after receipt of such
grants and biennially thereafter on the progress being made
under this section.
[(i) 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--
[(1) expenses related to the administration of
management conferences under this section, not to
exceed 10 percent of the amount appropriated under this
subsection;
[(2) making grants under subsection (g); and
[(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 $50,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2011 through 2016 for--
(A) expenses related to the administration of
management conferences under this section,
except that such expenses shall not exceed 10
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--
(A) at least $1,250,000 per fiscal year,
subject to the availability of appropriations,
for the development, implementation, and
monitoring of each conservation and management
plan eligible for grant assistance under
subsection (h); and
(B) up to $5,000,000 per fiscal year to carry
out subsection (k).
[(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
[paramenters] 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;
* * * * * * *
(l) National Estuary Program Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this paragraph, and every 4 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 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.
(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 to public.--The Administrator shall
make a report issued under this subsection available to
the public, including through publication in the
Federal Register and on the Internet.
[(k)] (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 draining into the
estuary up to the historic height of migration of anadromous
fish or the historic head of tidal influence, whichever is
higher.
* * * * * * *