[Senate Report 112-41]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\NOAA Economic Statistics 2002.
    \2\U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st 
Century (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Linwood Pendleton, ed., The Economic and Market Value of Coasts 
and Estuaries: What's at Stake? (Restore America's Estuaries), 2008.
    \4\Department 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
    \7\Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2006 (Annual Report of NOAA 
Fisheries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Costanza, R. et al, ``The Value of Coastal Wetlands for 
Hurricane Protection,'' AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, June 
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

                     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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\The estuary program for the Long Island Sound is the only 
Federally-administered program; it is run by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Bearden, D.M, National Estuary Program: A Collaborative 
Approach to Protecting Coastal Water Quality, Congressional Research 
Service, 97-644 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm. Accessed on July 
25, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

                     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 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.

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-
for-profit 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 
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 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 implementation 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.

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.

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 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).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 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 [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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    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).
          [(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 pollution in more than one 
                State, the Administrator shall select such 
                estuary and convene a management conference.
                  [(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 York-New 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\ Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary 
                complex, Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, 
                Florida; Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana 
                and Mississippi; and Peconic Bay, New York.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \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.
    \2\P.L. 100-688, section 2001(3) inserted the Louisiana, Florida, 
New York bays after ``Galveston, Texas;'' which technically could not 
be executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          (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;
          [(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--
                          (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;
          [(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);
                  (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
          [(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) 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.
    [(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;
                  (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.
    [(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--
                  (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
                          (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 (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 
        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) Recipients.--The Administrator is authorized to 
        make grants to State, interstate, and regional water 
        pollution control agencies and entities, State coastal 
        zone management agencies, interstate agencies, [other 
        public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, 
        organizations, and individuals] 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.
      [(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 there after on the progress being made 
under this section.
      [(i)][(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--
          [(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 $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).
    [(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 (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 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;
                  (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.
    [(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]
  (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  
