Water Quality: Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure Adequacy
of Boat Pumpout Facilities in No-Discharge Zones (24-MAY-04,
GAO-04-613).
Clean Water Act regulations generally prohibit boats from
discharging untreated sewage but allow the discharge of treated
sewage using certified marine sanitation devices. The act allows
states to designate "no-discharge zones"--areas in which vessels
are prohibited from discharging any sewage--if the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) finds that adequate facilities exist in
such zones for the removal and treatment of sewage from vessels.
In some cases, such as for drinking water intake zones, EPA makes
the designation. As requested, this report assesses (1) EPA's
process for determining the adequacy of facilities to remove and
treat sewage in proposed no-discharge zones; (2) the extent to
which EPA and the states ensure that adequate facilities remain
available after designation; (3) the extent to which the Coast
Guard and the states enforce discharge prohibitions; and (4)
various effects of no-discharge zones, as identified by EPA,
states, and localities.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-613
ACCNO: A10220
TITLE: Water Quality: Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure
Adequacy of Boat Pumpout Facilities in No-Discharge Zones
DATE: 05/24/2004
SUBJECT: Environmental monitoring
Outdoor recreation
Pollution monitoring
Sewage disposal
Water pollution control
Water quality
State-administered programs
Boating
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-613
Report to the Honorable Jim Saxton, House of Representatives
May 2004
WATER QUALITY
Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure Adequacy of Boat Pumpout
Facilities in No-Discharge Zones
Contents
Tables
Figures
May 24, 2004Letter
The Honorable Jim Saxton House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Saxton:
The number of recreational boats in the United States increased from
nearly 8 million in 1977 to approximately 13 million in 2002. With the
increase in boating, there has been a corresponding rise in the potential
for sewage from boats to damage water quality generally and to harm
sensitive areas such as shellfish beds and beaches. Waters in sheltered
areas where boats congregate, such as harbors and marinas, are
particularly susceptible to sewage accumulation because water in these
areas may not circulate as freely as in the ocean and other
well-circulating waterways.
Under the Clean Water Act, the discharge of both untreated and treated
sewage from boats is generally banned in bodies of water that cannot be
navigated by interstate vessels. In waterways that can support interstate
vessel traffic-such as the coastlines, the Great Lakes, and many rivers
and lakes-Clean Water Act regulations prohibit boats from discharging
untreated sewage within 3 nautical miles of U.S. territory but generally
allow the discharge of treated sewage that meets EPA treatment standards.
The act requires that boats with installed toilets be equipped with
systems, called marine sanitation devices, that either treat and discharge
sewage into the water or hold untreated sewage until it is removed. EPA
has established standards of performance for marine sanitation devices,
and the Clean Water Act generally prohibits states from establishing their
own standards. It does, however, authorize them to designate "no-discharge
zones"-areas in which vessels are prohibited from discharging any sewage,
whether treated or untreated, under certain circumstances.1 The Clean
Water Act provides for U.S. Coast Guard and state enforcement of the
provisions of the act governing marine sanitation devices.
The first no-discharge zones were established in 1975, and currently there
are 59 no-discharge zones in 23 states (see app. I). The Clean Water Act
authorizes state-designated no-discharge zones in which states may
completely prohibit the discharge of sewage from all vessels into certain
state waters if the state determines that the protection and enhancement
of the quality of those waters require greater environmental protection
and EPA determines that adequate facilities are reasonably available for
the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels in
the proposed no-discharge zones. The required facilities include devices
that remove sewage from holding tanks on boats-known as pumpout
facilities-and are generally located either on a dock, where boats pull up
to use them, or on pumpout boats, which travel to boats to empty the
holding tanks. When the areas to be protected involve drinking water
intake zones or other "special protection areas," such as wildlife
sanctuaries, Clean Water Act regulations require states to apply to EPA
for the designation but do not require a determination that adequate
facilities are available. In these cases, EPA rather than the states may
officially establish the no-discharge zones (federally designated
no-discharge zones) via a final rule in the Federal Register, while the
states establish the zones in all other cases (state-designated
no-discharge zones). Of the 59 no-discharge zones, only 3 are federally
designated. Thus, most of the no-discharge zones are designated by states
following determinations by EPA that the areas had adequate pumpout
facilities.
Some boaters have raised questions about the condition and availability of
pumpout facilities in some no-discharge zones, generally those that
encompass larger areas. In addition, some boaters have questioned the need
for no-discharge zones, contending that vessel discharges constitute a
relatively small portion of water pollution and that improved marine
sanitation devices could treat waste to levels that exceed water quality
standards. On the other hand, some federal, state, and local officials
question the performance of marine sanitation devices over the number of
years they may be used; point out that vessel discharges can concentrate
in or near shore areas; and say that even minimal amounts of pollution
near beaches and shellfish beds, for example, can harm sensitive marine
life or cause disease.
As agreed with your office, this report (1) evaluates EPA's process for
determining whether states have adequate facilities for the safe and
sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from boats in proposed
no-discharge zones, (2) assesses the extent to which EPA and the states
ensure that adequate pumpout facilities remain available after a
no-discharge zone is designated, (3) evaluates the extent to which the
Coast Guard and the states enforce compliance with the prohibition against
vessel sewage discharges in no-discharge zones, and (4) identifies the
effects of no-discharge zones that EPA, states, and localities have
reported.
Unless otherwise specified, this report focuses on the no-discharge zones
that the states designate because 56 of the 59 zones as of March 2004 were
state-designated zones. 2 We studied 12 of the 23 states that have
established no-discharge zones: California, Florida, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode
Island, Texas, and Utah. Our criteria for state selection included that
states be geographically dispersed; be located in coastal, noncoastal, and
Great Lakes locations; and have a range of no-discharge zone designation
dates, among other factors. We reviewed the requirements for designating
no-discharge zones, pumpout facility monitoring, and enforcement in
statutes, regulations, and federal guidance, as well as criteria developed
by EPA regions. We interviewed and obtained documents from officials in
EPA's regional offices and agencies in the selected states to evaluate the
basis of no-discharge zone designations, and we collected pumpout
monitoring data. We interviewed and collected data from officials at the
Coast Guard and state law enforcement agencies to determine the extent of
enforcement for these states. Finally, we identified surveys and
interviewed EPA, state, and local officials to determine what effects of
no-discharge zones have been identified in the selected states. Appendix
II provides additional details on our scope and methodology. We conducted
our review from July 2003 through May 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief
EPA's process for determining the adequacy of facilities for boat sewage
in proposed no-discharge zones allows EPA to make general estimates of
facility needs-such as a general ratio of the number of pumpouts needed
for the number of boats in the area-but has some limitations. For example,
EPA requires states to identify in their applications for no-discharge
zones the number of pumpout facilities in the proposed zones and the
number of boats operating there. However, EPA does not require other
information that could be used to develop site-specific estimates of
facility needs, such as information on the sizes of boats in the area and
the number of boats estimated to have holding tanks that require pumpout
facilities. While EPA guidance states that such information would help the
agency make informed and balanced decisions, EPA requests but does not
require this information and thus does not consistently obtain it.
Further, EPA generally makes its determinations without conducting site
visits to the facilities identified in the applications to ensure, for
example, that the facilities are accessible and functioning. Finally,
while EPA's determination process consistently requires states to provide
information on the number and location of pumpout facilities to address
the sewage disposal needs of boaters with installed toilets, it does not
consistently require information on the number and location of facilities
known as dump stations that are needed by the many boaters who use
on-board portable toilets.
We found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout facilities after
the no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act does not
address the monitoring or oversight of pumpout facilities in established
no-discharge zones nor does it define a role for EPA after it has
determined that pumpout facilities are adequate in proposed no-discharge
zones. Nonetheless, the continued adequacy of pumpout facilities in
no-discharge zones is essential so that boaters can comply with the sewage
discharge prohibitions. Over time, pumpout facilities may become
inadequate if some pumpout owners do not keep the existing pumpouts in
working order or if pumpout facilities do not keep pace with boat
populations. Of the 12 states we reviewed, we found 2-Michigan and
California-that had formally reevaluated the adequacy of facilities in
no-discharge zones. In both cases, the states found a need for more
facilities. California found other problems as well, such as poorly
maintained equipment. While some localities appear to provide effective
monitoring and oversight of pumpout stations in no-discharge zones, EPA
and the states cannot be assured that such monitoring is occurring
consistently in the absence of effective federal and/or state oversight.
While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast Guard authority to enforce in
all no-discharge zones, under its regulations the Coast Guard generally
limits its enforcement of the discharge prohibitions to areas where
discharges are specifically prohibited by EPA regulations-currently the
three federally designated no-discharge zones-and does not enforce
discharge prohibitions in the state-designated zones. EPA and state
officials were generally not aware of the Coast Guard's regulatory
limitation of its enforcement authority. Enforcing discharge prohibitions
is inherently difficult, but EPA and others agree that some enforcement
presence is important for encouraging boater compliance. States can
enforce discharge prohibitions under the Clean Water Act or they can enact
their own discharge prohibitions for no-discharge zones, and the states we
reviewed enforce prohibitions against discharge in a variety of ways and
to varying degrees. Enforcement tools used by states include citations for
illegal discharges, dye tablets in marine sanitation devices to identify
leaks or illegal discharges, and inspections of marine sanitation devices
to ensure that they are secured against discharges. In some cases, states
place greater emphasis on boater education than enforcement. We found that
local enforcement of the discharge ban, such as by harbormasters and
marina owners, may also take place.
Although few data are available, EPA, state, and local officials report
that water quality and environmental stewardship have increased following
designation of no-discharge zones. States and localities value
no-discharge zones as a part of comprehensive plans to improve water
quality, such as the water quality improvement plan for the Chesapeake
Bay. However, because it can be difficult to link water pollution to
specific sources or water quality improvements to specific programs,
quantifying the effect of no-discharge zones versus other pollution
control programs is problematic. As a result, some state and local
officials cite proxy measures, such as the number of gallons of sewage
pumped from boats through pumpout facilities, as evidence that
no-discharge zones help protect water quality. Along with the water
quality benefits, some state and local officials say that no-discharge
zones have fostered a sense of environmental stewardship among boaters and
marina owners and have encouraged them to take concrete steps to protect
sensitive waters. Additional perspectives on the effects of no-discharge
zones, as well as other issues, may be provided by a recent EPA survey of
boaters, marina owners, state officials, marine sanitation device
manufacturers, and laboratories that test marine sanitation devices.
Results of this survey have not yet been published.
We are making five recommendations to enhance the effectiveness of the
no-discharge zone program. For example, we are making recommendations that
would help ensure that EPA consistently collects and verifies information
to develop site-specific estimates of the pumpout and dump station
facilities needed and that mechanisms are developed to ensure the ongoing
adequacy of such facilities. We are further recommending that EPA and the
Coast Guard (1) meet with relevant states to review enforcement roles in
the state-designated no-discharge zones, (2) determine whether current
enforcement is adequate, and (3) clarify the respective enforcement roles
in EPA and Coast Guard guidance and, if appropriate, revise federal
regulations.
Background
As discussed above, for navigable waterways, the Clean Water Act generally
allows the discharge of treated sewage that meets EPA standards but
prohibits boats from discharging untreated sewage into waters within 3
nautical miles of U.S. territory. States wanting to establish no-discharge
zones in which both treated and untreated sewage is banned generally must
demonstrate in written applications to EPA that adequate facilities are
reasonably available for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of
sewage from vessels in the potential no-discharge zones. In 1976, EPA
issued a regulation that established the information requirements for
state applications to EPA for no-discharge zone determinations. In 1984,
the authority to make determinations regarding the no-discharge zones in
their respective regions was delegated to EPA's 10 regional offices.3 EPA
Region I and EPA headquarters developed additional guidance for states and
localities in 1991 and 1994, respectively.4 Region I and headquarters
guidance documents are generally consistent in terms of application
information requirements; however, Region I's guidance is more specific in
some areas and also places greater emphasis on obtaining some additional
information in support of the applications.
EPA, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, requires that states certify
the need for the no-discharge zones being sought. Thus, while EPA
guidelines request that states provide EPA information in support of the
need for no-discharge zones, EPA does not make a determination regarding
the state's position that the no-discharge zones are needed. EPA's
regional offices review state applications to determine whether adequate
facilities are reasonably available for the safe and sanitary removal and
treatment of sewage from vessels in the potential no-discharge zones.
Before issuing final decisions-called determinations-on the adequacy of
the pumpout facilities, the regional offices generally seek public
comments via a notice in the Federal Register. The final decision is also
published in the Federal Register. As discussed above, in most cases,
EPA's determination, based on the information provided by the states in
their applications, addresses the adequacy of the facilities and
authorizes the states to establish the requested no-discharge zones. Eight
of the 12 states we reviewed formally designated the no-discharge zones
with state laws.
Seven of the 23 states with no-discharge zones have statewide no-discharge
zones, which include most state waters.5 In the sixteen other states that
have designated no-discharge zones, only specific bodies of water or parts
of water bodies are included. As shown in figure 1, the 23 no-discharge
zone states include:
o all but two of the eastern coastal states
o one western coastal state
o four of the eight states bordering the Great Lakes
o two states with coastal waters on the Gulf of Mexico
o six inland states.
Figure 1: No-Discharge Zones
aWith the exception of certain fresh waters into which the overboard
discharge of sewage is prohibited by EPA regulations (40 CFR 140.3.)
The earliest no-discharge zone applications were approved in 1975 and the
most recent in 2003. (App. I provides more information on existing
no-discharge zones, including the state where the no-discharge zone is
located, the name of the water body, the type of designation, and the year
of EPA's Federal Register notice.)
Boats with installed toilets must be equipped with systems, called marine
sanitation devices, that either treat and discharge sewage into the water
or hold untreated sewage until it is removed. Under the Clean Water Act,
EPA is to set standards of performance for marine sanitation devices to
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from
vessels into navigable waters. The U.S. Coast Guard is to provide
certification of design, installation, operation, and material of marine
sanitation devices. Three types of marine sanitation devices are certified
by the Coast Guard: Types I and II treat sewage, typically through
maceration and chlorination, and then release it through the hull into the
water.6 Releases can be controlled by Y-valves-devices that allow
through-hull discharges when in an opened position. In no-discharge zones
where both treated and untreated sewage is prohibited, Y-valves must be
closed and secured. The Type III marine sanitation devices are holding
tanks that store but do not treat sewage. Type III devices can also be
retrofitted with Y-valves that can permit release of untreated sewage
through the hull when in an opened position. In addition, boats with Type
I and Type II devices may also have holding tanks installed. The treatment
standards for marine sanitation devices were promulgated by EPA in 1972
and 1976.
Many boaters, particularly those with smaller recreational vessels, rely
on portable toilets, which are not installed in the vessel, to store
sewage onboard. The contents of portable toilets are generally emptied
into dump stations, which are designed to receive the waste and allow
boaters to rinse out the portable toilet. Figure 2 shows a photograph of a
dump station, in the bottom left corner, and a pumpout station, which is
to the immediate right of the dump station.
Figure 2: Pumpout and Dump Station in Channel Islands Harbor, California
Funds for sewage removal facilities in no-discharge zones are not provided
to states under the Clean Water Act; however, federal funds have been
available to states under the Clean Vessel Act to construct pumpout
facilities in many areas, including the no-discharge zones. Specifically,
to help reduce pollution from vessel sewage discharges, the Clean Vessel
Act has authorized funding to states for a program for the construction,
renovation, operation, and maintenance of pumpout and dump station
facilities. Using grants, this program has funded the construction of more
than 2,700 pumpout and 1,800 dump station facilities-including many in
no-discharge zones-according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
administers the program.7 The grant recipients-either public or private
marinas-are required to ensure pumpout and dump station accessibility by,
for example, making the pumpout facilities and dump stations available to
all recreational vessels and charging reasonable fees. Under this program,
the fees charged to boaters for pumpout services cannot exceed $5 unless
justified before the grant proposal is approved.
To implement its pumpout grant program, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has developed guidelines8 for what constitutes adequacy of facilities for
the removal and treatment of sewage from vessels that states may use to
identify facility needs. Among other things, the guidelines provide states
with technical information on the adequacy of and appropriate types and
location of pumpout stations and dump stations. The Fish and Wildlife
Service guidelines addressing the adequacy of facilities are broadly
applicable and are neither limited to nor directed at no-discharge zones.
The Fish and Wildlife Service developed its guidance in consultation with
EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Coast Guard,
coastal states, local municipalities, boat users, manufacturers of pumpout
equipment, marina operators, conservation groups, and others, in a process
that included seeking public comments on draft guidelines. Because of
their broad applicability, the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines
represent a resource upon which the states and EPA may choose to refer in
addressing and evaluating the adequacy of facilities in no-discharge
zones. For example, the guidelines identify key factors that impact the
demand for pumpout and dump stations that can be helpful to EPA and the
states in considering the need for facilities in proposed no-discharge
zones. EPA acknowledges the relevance of this guidance to the no-discharge
program by citing it in its 1994 guidance.
The Oceans Act of 2000 established a 16-member U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy for the purpose of assessing U.S. ocean policy and making
recommendations for a new, comprehensive national policy. The commission's
preliminary report, which was issued in April 2004, includes
recommendations related to the approval of no-discharge zones, pumpout
facility supply and maintenance, and marine sanitation device standards.
The final report will be issued after the commission considers comments
from the nation's governors and other interested parties.
EPA's Process for Determining the Adequacy of Facilities Could Be Improved
EPA's process for determining the adequacy of facilities for boat sewage
in proposed no-discharge zones has some limitations. First, the
information that EPA requires states to provide in their no-discharge zone
applications supports general but not site-specific estimates of pumpout
facility needs; additional information needed for more meaningful
site-specific estimates is optional. Second, EPA generally makes its
determinations without conducting site visits to the facilities identified
in the applications. Finally, EPA does not request information on the
number of boats with portable toilets, which need dump station facilities;
the agency requests, but does not require, information on the number and
location of dump station facilities in proposed no-discharge zones.
EPA Requires States to Provide Information That Supports General Estimates
of Pumpout Facility Needs
EPA's regulation implementing the no-discharge zone provisions of the
Clean Water Act, issued in 1976,9 provides that state applications for
no-discharge zones must meet the following seven minimum requirements-most
of which relate to pumpout facilities:
o a certification that the protection and enhancement of the waters
described in the application require greater environmental protection than
the applicable federal standard,
o a map showing the location of commercial and recreational pumpout
facilities,
o a description of the location of the pumpouts,
o the general schedule of operating hours of the pumpout facilities,
o the draught requirements on vessels that may be excluded because of
insufficient water depth adjacent to the facility,10
o information indicating that treatment of waste from pumpout facilities
is in conformance with federal law, and
o information on vessel population and vessel usage of the subject waters.
In 1994 guidance that augments the regulation, EPA clarified these
requirements. For example, the guidance specifies that applications must
state the number and type of pumpout facilities (e.g., stationary or
mobile). The guidance also indicates that the information to be provided
on vessel population should reflect the peak occupancy rate-that is, the
percentage of the population expected to be in use on peak holiday
weekends. EPA further clarifies that the boat population identified is to
include boats that are moored in the area as well as transient boats that
traverse the area. With regard to the treatment of waste from pumpout
facilities, EPA identifies the treatment options that are acceptable and
further identifies the two options it prefers.
With these clarifications, the elements related to pumpout facilities that
states must include in their applications can provide EPA with information
sufficient to assess pumpout facility adequacy in broad terms-using a
general ratio of the number of pumpouts needed for the number of boats in
the area. For example, the information is generally sufficient for EPA to
determine whether there is at least one pumpout station for every 300 to
600 boats in the proposed no-discharge zone-the general criterion that the
Fish and Wildlife Service provides in its guidance on pumpout adequacy.11
While EPA does not directly endorse this broad estimate in its regulation
or its 1994 guidance on no-discharge zones, it does refer states and
localities to the Fish and Wildlife Service guidance for use as a resource
in preparing no-discharge zone applications. Further, in our review of 30
applications for no-discharge zones,12 we found that most of them
demonstrated ratios that fell within the Fish and Wildlife Service's broad
general guide of one pumpout facility per 300 to 600 boats.
Information That Would Support Site-Specific Estimates Is Generally
Optional
Although the number of pumpout facilities in a majority of state
applications fell within the broad guide, the broad guide does not ensure
that pumpout facilities will be adequate in every case because adequacy
depends in part on site-specific conditions. As such, the Fish and
Wildlife Service indicates in its general guidance on pumpout adequacy
that its broad guide for pumpout adequacy is not a definitive rule, but
should be modified to reflect varying circumstances for each area.
Further, the Fish and Wildlife Service provides a formula that may be used
to develop more site-specific estimates of the number of pumpout
facilities needed to service vessels in a given area (see fig. 3). One key
variable included in the formula is the size of boats in the area.
Generally, the larger the boat, the more likely it is to have a holding
tank. Because boats with holding tanks use pumpout facilities, the size of
boats in a proposed no-discharge zone is a pertinent factor in estimating
pumpout needs.
Figure 3: Fish and Wildlife Service Formula for Evaluating the Adequacy of
Pumpout Facilities in an Area
Note: The formula contained in the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines
assumes that 50 percent of boats from 26 to 40 feet and all boats over 40
feet have holding tanks and need access to pumpout facilities. These
assumptions are derived from a 1981 EPA assessment of boat size and use of
marine sanitation devices. Federal officials with whom we spoke were
unaware of any current national estimates on the number of marine
sanitation devices. The formula can be adapted to varying estimates
regarding the number or percent of boats needing pumpout facilities, the
number of boats that can be serviced per hour, and the number or percent
of boats at peak occupancy.
Thus, to the extent that states provide information on the numbers of
boats in size categories and other information needed for the formula, EPA
can use, or adapt, the formula to develop a more site-specific estimate of
pumpout needs. While EPA's 1994 guidance refers to the Fish and Wildlife
Service's formula as a method to determine adequacy of pumpout facilities
in no-discharge zones, EPA does not require state no-discharge zone
applications to include all the information necessary to use the formula.
Instead, some of the information that may be provided to EPA optionally by
the state is needed for the formula.
Specifically, EPA suggests, but does not require, states to submit
information such as
o estimates of the number of boats in various size categories that would
travel in the proposed no-discharge zones,
o the estimated number or percentage of boats with holding tanks, and
o the operating capacity, which can be measured as the number of boats
that can be served by each pumpout facility per hour.
We note that EPA's guidance states that the additional information that is
requested, but not required, would enable EPA to make "an informed and
balanced decision" about the adequacy of the pumpout facilities. Many of
the state applications we reviewed included some of the optional
information, but not always in a form that could be used in the Fish and
Wildlife Service formula.13 For example, some states provided information
about boat sizes, but categorized the information in ranges that were
incompatible with the ranges used in the formula. In terms of pumpout
operating capacity, some states noted the storage capacity of the pumpout
facility, which is only one factor in determining operating capacity. We
note that the EPA guidance also provides general estimated values that can
be used as defaults if site-specific information is not available for some
of the elements of the formula. However, the use of default values can
diminish the assurance that the estimate of pumpout facilities needed will
be adequate for the specific area being evaluated.
EPA Region I acknowledges the importance of site-specific determinations
of adequacy of pumpout facilities in guidance it provides to applicants
for no-discharge zones. That is, while providing a broad general guide on
adequacy, the guidance also states that there is no set ratio or formula
to determine the exact number of pumpout facilities necessary to serve a
given population of boats. Further, the guidance recommends varying
numbers of pumpout facilities depending on certain site-specific
circumstances. For example, while the Region I guidance states that a
ratio of one pumpout facility per 450 boats with holding tanks should be
sufficient to meet the demand for pumpout services in most areas, it
recommends a minimum of one pumpout per 300 boats with holding tanks be
provided in areas where a larger percentage of boats are 25 feet in length
and over because these boats are more likely to have holding tanks.
Accordingly, Region I requires applicants to provide the actual or
estimated number or percentage of boats with holding tanks. Region I
indicates in its guidance that the estimates of adequacy provided are
based on their best professional judgment and on the experiences of
regulatory officials in other parts of the country where no-discharge
standards are in effect. Further, the guidance states that the region will
maintain flexibility on the issue of adequacy, reviewing all applications
on a case-by-case basis.
Aside from ensuring that facilities function and exist, it is also
important to assess factors that are likely to limit boaters' use of and
access to pumpout stations. Two such factors are fees charged for pumpout
facility use and whether private facilities restrict the public's access
to pumpouts. For example, expensive pumpout services raise the concern
that boaters would illegally discharge sewage into the water instead of
paying a high pumpout fee. The Clean Vessel Act regulations recognize that
fees are an important part of pumpout usage and limit the fees charged at
facilities funded by the grant program generally to $5. EPA, however, has
not consistently obtained information about fees in evaluating the
adequacy of pumpout stations. Specifically, EPA's guidance requests but
does not require the states to provide information on pumpout fees in the
applications. Several of the no-discharge zone applications that we
examined either did not identify the fees or included incomplete
information about the pumpout facility fees. For those no-discharge zones
that included this information, the fees for pumpout facilities ranged
from no charge to $25. At the time of the application, six of the nine
pumpout facilities in one no-discharge zone cost $15 for service, and
several facilities were free only to marina tenants.
EPA Generally Does Not Conduct Site Visits to Facilities Identified in
Applications
Ensuring the existence and availability of adequate pumpout facilities is
important because (1) EPA only reviews pumpout adequacy at the time of
states' applications for no-discharge zones and (2) once EPA has
determined pumpout adequacy, the states may establish no-discharge zones
that are essentially permanent designations. Complaints about the lack of
adequate pumpout facilities even in newly established no-discharge zones
further underscore the importance of site visits to verify the information
provided on pumpout stations in the state applications. For example, some
boaters raised concerns that pumpout facilities malfunction or are
otherwise unavailable in some no-discharge zones. One boater with whom we
spoke believes that EPA "rubber stamps" no-discharge zone applications and
stated that the agency routinely approves applications without confirming
the availability of pumpout facilities.
Site visits would provide the most accurate method of verification of the
pumpout facilities and the related treatment facilities. In addition to
confirming their existence and location, site visits permit evaluations of
the condition of the facilities and the boater access to them-factors that
phone calls to pumpout owners, for example, could not confirm. However,
according to EPA regional office officials, the agency generally does not
verify in person either the availability or the accessibility of pumpout
facilities described in no-discharge zone applications. Specifically, of
the nine EPA regions that have processed no-discharge zone applications,
four regions have verified some information about the pumpout facilities
through site visits. One of these regions has received only one
application for a no-discharge zone. Of the remaining three regions that
have conducted site visits, only one region visited a majority of the
proposed no-discharge zones.14
An official at a region that has consistently verified the availability of
pumpout facilities in person explained that the visits help "ground truth"
the information submitted in no-discharge zone applications. Along these
lines, the Preliminary Report of the U. S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
issued for public comment by the nation's governors and other interested
parties in April 2004, recommends that EPA conduct a thorough assessment,
including field inspections, to verify the availability and accessibility
of functioning pumpout facilities in existing no-discharge zones and prior
to the approval of any new no-discharge zones.
Some EPA officials who did not verify any or most of the application
information through site visits attributed this decision to lack of
authority, inadequate resources, or an EPA presence in the area that
precluded the need to visit. In terms of authority, however, the EPA
guidance states that officials may contact owners of pumpout facilities to
verify information.
EPA's Determination Process Does Not Consistently Consider the Needs of
Boaters with On-Board Portable Toilets
We also found that EPA does not consistently address the adequacy of dump
stations in its determinations of adequacy of the sewage facilities in
proposed no-discharge zones. As discussed in the background section, many
recreational boaters rely on portable toilets and require dump stations to
dispose of sewage. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines state that more
dump stations than pumpout facilities would be desirable in an area that
has a majority of boats less than 26 feet in length because the smaller
boats would be more likely to have portable toilets that require dump
stations. Similar to the formula for estimating the demand for pumpout
facilities in a given area, the Fish and Wildlife Service provides a
formula to estimate the demand for dump stations using site-specific
information. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that 20 percent of
the boats between 16 and 26 feet in length have portable toilets. Although
the need for dump stations will vary in the proposed no-discharge zones,
EPA requests but generally does not require information on the number and
location of dump station facilities in proposed no-discharge zones.
Further, EPA does not request information on the number of boats with
portable toilets that would need dump station, rather than pumpout,
facilities.
The Clean Water Act Does Not Address EPA Monitoring of Facilities After
No-Discharge Zones Are Established, and State Monitoring Is Limited
The continued adequacy of pumpout facilities in no-discharge zones is
essential so that boaters can comply with the prohibitions of any sewage
discharges from boats. Over time, pumpout facilities may become
inadequate, but we found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout
facilities after no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act
does not address monitoring or oversight of pumpout facilities in
established no-discharge zones nor does it define an ongoing role for EPA
after the establishment of such zones. However, studies by two states of
the adequacy of pumpout and dump station facilities in long-standing
no-discharge zones identified problems-including facility shortages-that
support the need for such oversight. While higher-level oversight is
minimal, we found that some localities appear to provide effective
monitoring and oversight.
Pumpout Needs Are Likely to Change over Time
Continued adequacy of pumpout facilities is a critical component of an
effective no-discharge zone because such facilities both allow and
encourage compliance with the no-discharge prohibitions. Along these
lines, guidelines issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service on pumpout and
dump stations encourage the states to conduct periodic surveys to ensure
an adequate number of both pumpout and dump stations. According to the
Fish and Wildlife Service guidance, patterns of use identified by such
surveys will indicate where and if additional pumpout and dump stations
are needed. Pumpout needs can increase for several reasons. First, some
pumpout owners may not maintain their pumpout stations in working order or
may close the facilities. Second, high use of pumpouts and dump stations
has been related to aggressive management practices, active enforcement in
no-discharge zones, and good maintenance. That is, as boaters are
encouraged to use pumpout services and the pumpout facilities become more
convenient and widespread, demand for such services can increase. The
operator of a pumpout boat in one no-discharge zone said that he has
observed that boaters are using larger holding tanks since the town began
providing pumpout services, moving away from 5-gallon holding tanks to
20-, 30-, or 50-gallon tanks.
Third, the capacity of pumpout facilities may not keep pace with increases
in the boat populations. For example, while Michigan designated all of its
waterways as a no-discharge zone in 1976, the number of registered boats
in that state doubled from 535,000 in 1974 to 1 million in 2002-with most
of the growth occurring after the no-discharge zone was designated. In
addition, some boating groups believe that initial determinations of
adequacy of facilities, which are based on a number of assumptions, may
result in an inaccurate assessment of the need for pumpout services. We
believe that periodic reevaluations based on actual use and needs would be
appropriate. Along these lines, in its April 2004 draft report, the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy recommends that EPA conduct a thorough
assessment, including field inspections, to verify the availability and
accessibility of functioning pumpout facilities in existing no-discharge
zones because of inadequate pumpout facilities in some coastal areas.
After No-Discharge Zones Are Established, Federal and State Monitoring Is
Limited
Under the Clean Water Act, once EPA has determined that proposed
no-discharge zones have adequate pumpout facilities, the areas remain
state-designated no-discharge zones essentially in perpetuity. We found
that little or no monitoring of pumpout facilities is done at the federal
and state levels. First, in part because the act does not address
monitoring or oversight of the pumpout facilities by EPA after states
establish no-discharge zones, EPA does not periodically inspect or
recertify its initial determinations that the facilities are adequate.
Similarly, the act does not specify any subsequent requirements for the
states to ensure the continued adequacy of the pumpout facilities. Thus,
the states each determine how and to what extent they will monitor the
maintenance and availability of pumpouts in no-discharge zones and
determine if they will periodically evaluate whether the existing pumpout
facilities remain sufficient.
We found that some states have laws that could help ensure that pumpout
facilities are maintained in working order, if implemented effectively.
For example, Texas requires that pumpout facilities, wherever they are
located, be certified annually and that inspections "may be required of
pumpout facilities prior to certification." To the extent inspections take
place, this requirement would give the state some assurance that pumpouts
in no-discharge zones and other areas are being maintained and are
available to boaters. However, according to an official with the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, currently inspections are not being
done at the state level because of funding constraints. In addition, we
found that a 1994 Maryland law requires most marinas to have pumpouts
available but does not provide for their systematic monitoring. We also
found that a Michigan law generally requires that all docking facilities
provide pumpout facilities that are approved by the Department of Health
and that inland marinas are required to have an operating permit that is
renewed every 3 years. For the permit renewal, the marina must continue to
meet the requirements governing marinas, including the provision requiring
pumpout stations. However, an official in Michigan could not confirm
whether inspections of pumpouts are occurring as part of this
recertification process.
Further, of the 12 states we reviewed, we found that 2-Michigan and
California-had formally reevaluated the adequacy of pumpouts in
no-discharge zones. In both cases, they identified a need for more
facilities. Michigan, which has had a statewide no-discharge zone since
1976, conducted a comprehensive study in the mid-1990s that identified the
need for 96 additional pumpout and 169 dump station facilities. Similarly,
in 2003, a California regional water board conducted a review of the
pumpout and dump stations in 2 of the state's 12 individual no-discharge
zones.15 The California regional water board concluded that the pumpout
and dump stations in the 2 no-discharge zones, which had been established
in 1976, were not adequate and requested that the state water board
require additional pumpout and dump stations in these no-discharge zones.
Further, in one of the no-discharge zones, the water board found that
three out of the four pumpout stations were inoperable. The water board
also found a number of problems that could undermine the effectiveness of
these no-discharge zones including
o limited or no access to pumpout stations;
o pumpout hoses lying on the boat slips, which could result in spillage of
sewage;
o broken valves, hoses repaired by duct tape, and a lack of required
meters to determine usage;
o lack of a current phone number to report an inoperable pumpout;
o lack of signs on how to operate pumpout stations;
o lack of signs indicating that the harbor is a no-discharge zone; and
o lack of maps showing pumpout locations.
The regional board made recommendations to address these deficiencies to
the state board and issued a compliance schedule for the actions to be
taken. In addition, a California official said that the state water board
is developing a pumpout and dump station monitoring plan for the entire
state, based on regional pilot projects, that will include standards for
pumpout and dump station monitoring, operation, and maintenance.
Localities Sometimes Monitor Facilities
As noted in the Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines, pumpout monitoring
is best done by those closest to the area, such as marina personnel. We
found that effective local monitoring does occur in some of the
no-discharge zones. Local leadership and support appears to be an
important factor that can make no-discharge zones successful by ensuring
that the proper facilities are available when needed. Local leadership can
be provided by a proactive harbormaster responsible for the facilities or
a watchdog group in the area. For example, the harbormaster in a long-term
(1979) no-discharge zone in California-Avalon Bay Harbor-has few problems
with the operations and maintenance of the pumpout facilities. The
harbormaster, who has worked in the harbor throughout the life of the
no-discharge zone, is employed by the city of Avalon, which also pays for
the operation and maintenance of the pumpouts. The city replaced the
pumpouts in 1995 using Clean Vessel Act funds, relocating them away from a
dock that shared a ramp with a ferry and had caused some boat congestion.
The harbormaster said this change has reduced congestion. The harbor also
has a pumpout boat funded by the city that can service boats away from the
dock.
Another no-discharge zone that appears to be benefiting from local
monitoring is Key West, Florida. The city of Key West maintains all the
pumpout facilities in its citywide no-discharge zone, using mooring fees
to offset costs. A spokesperson for an environmental organization said
that the city is very proactive in making sure that pumpouts are
available. For example, they said the city's pumpout boats are very active
and responsive to requests for pumpouts at all hours. Further, under a
city ordinance, the
efforts on preventing discharges from occurring rather than catching
violators. Along these lines, many officials identified tasks such as
education and outreach as effective methods to achieve compliance with the
discharge ban.
The Coast Guard Does Not Enforce Discharge Prohibitions in Most of the
No-Discharge Zones
The Clean Water Act states that the Coast Guard shall enforce the marine
sanitation device provisions of the act, which include the provisions
allowing for the establishment of no-discharge zones. In addition, the act
specifies that the Coast Guard may develop agreements with other federal
or state agencies to provide enforcement of the marine sanitation device
provisions. According to Coast Guard officials, although the agency has
not specifically delegated enforcement authority to enforce no-discharge
zones to any other entity, various regional agreements are in place that
delegate law enforcement authority to some state agencies for enforcing
federal boating standards and associated equipment on recreational and
uninspected small passenger vessels. Irrespective of any agreements with
the Coast Guard, the Clean Water Act authorizes states to enforce all of
the marine sanitation device provisions, including discharge prohibitions
established under those provisions.
While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast Guard general authority to
enforce all no-discharge zones, the Coast Guard's implementing regulations
only exercise authority to enforce no-discharge zones in those areas where
EPA has specifically prohibited discharges under its implementing
regulations. The EPA regulations that the Coast Guard's regulations cite
prohibit the discharge of treated and untreated sewage into three named,
federally designated no-discharge zones and into fresh waters which do not
allow ingress or egress and rivers not capable of navigation by interstate
vessel traffic. EPA's regulations also allow states to establish
no-discharge zones but do not identify the state-designated zones that
have been established. As a result, the Coast Guard enforces the discharge
prohibitions only in the three federally designated zones, which include
drinking water intake zones and areas of particular environmental
importance.16
EPA and many state officials were not aware of the limitation in
enforcement authority in the Coast Guard's regulations. EPA headquarters
and many regional officials with whom we spoke said they believed that the
Coast Guard had the authority to enforce the discharge ban in both
state-designated and federally designated no-discharge zones. Further,
EPA's Web site on vessel sewage discharges states that the Coast Guard and
the state in which the no-discharge zone has been designated "have
enforcement authority of the no-discharge zones for vessel sewage." In
addition, state officials we spoke with believed that the Coast Guard had
enforcement responsibility for all of the no-discharge zones, whether they
were state-designated or federally designated.
Despite the common belief that the Coast Guard has enforcement authority
in all no-discharge zones under the Clean Water Act, EPA and state
officials also said that enforcement at the local level can provide the
most effective enforcement. And we found that, in practice, local
communities typically serve as the primary enforcement authority in
no-discharge zones. Further, state officials believe that other priorities
limit the Coast Guard's ability to enforce the ban against discharges in
no-discharge zones. Resource constraints have also been cited by the EPA
as a reason for limited Coast Guard enforcement under the Clean Water Act
in the past. For example, the no-discharge zone guidance developed by EPA
Region I in 1991 states that resource constraints have limited the ability
of the Coast Guard to effectively enforce the marine sanitation standards
for recreational and small commercial vessels. The guidance notes that to
compensate for the lack of enforcement, the Coast Guard has entered into
an agreement with the New England states to share enforcement
responsibilities for federal boating safety standards and associated
equipment. The EPA guidance states that although it "does not state so
explicitly," the Coast Guard's intent under the agreement is that the
state may also assume responsibility for enforcement of marine sanitation
device and vessel sewage discharge regulations in this region.
States Vary in the Manner and Extent to Which They Ensure Compliance
The extent to which states ensure compliance with the discharge ban in
no-discharge zones varies in part because states can enforce discharge
provisions under the Clean Water Act or enact their own no-discharge
prohibitions. Of the states that we studied, eight states have enacted
legislation to make the ban against sewage discharges in their
no-discharge zones effective. Two of the states have not enacted
legislation but have instead relied on either interagency agreements or
local ordinances to make the prohibition against sewage discharges
effective. Officials in the two remaining states identified state laws
that prohibit the release of any pollutants as the legal basis for
enforcement of the sewage discharge ban in no-discharge zones.
There is variety in the extent to which agencies ensure compliance even
among the states that have enacted no-discharge zone laws. Officials in
the 12 states we reviewed identified boater education as a tool to
encourage compliance, but not all of these states may have effective
mechanisms to penalize violators. For example, the Maryland Department of
the Environment has primary enforcement responsibility for the state's two
no-discharge zones but does not patrol waterways to monitor the
no-discharge zones for violations. According to one of the state's
no-discharge zone applications, the environmental agency relies primarily
on violations being reported to it from sources such as the Natural
Resources Police, local health agencies, marina owners, and boaters.
Discussing this situation with Maryland officials, including two officers
with Maryland's Natural Resource Police, we were told that Natural
Resources Police officers patrol the state waterways and can check for
improper installation of marine sanitation devices during courtesy boat
inspections. However, a Natural Resource Police officer said that if an
officer witnessed a discharge violation, the Natural Resources Police
would need an authorization from the state Department of the Environment
to issue any penalties because the state has not established any policies
or procedures allowing the Natural Resources Police to do so directly.
Some states are enforcing the no-discharge prohibitions
Natural resource or law enforcement agencies in several of the states that
we considered conduct some enforcement of no-discharge zones at the state
level by inspecting vessel equipment or issuing tickets. For example, the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources enforces the statewide
no-discharge zone in part by conducting vessel inspections to ensure that
marine sanitation systems are sealed shut and thus rendered incapable of
overboard discharge. Michigan natural resource officers can inspect boats
under the following circumstances: (1) in response to a complaint that
discharges occurred or for any other violation of a state law, (2) with
probable cause, or (3) with permission of the boater. Michigan law
enforcement officers place stickers with dates on the exterior of vessels
to indicate that the systems were sealed.
Some states have used dye tablets as part of inspections to detect leaks
in the marine sanitation systems on vessels in no-discharge zones.
Officials place a dye tablet in a boat's toilet and identify any leaks in
the marine sanitation system by observing whether the dye is released into
the water.
Monetary penalties for illegal discharges can potentially range from
several hundred dollars in some states to several thousand dollars in
others.17 State law enforcement officials pointed out the challenge of
issuing tickets for illegal discharges because of the difficulties in
detecting violations. We found that at least one state has issued tickets
with monetary penalties to boaters for violating the sewage discharge ban
in a no-discharge zone.18 However, reliable data that would indicate the
frequency of tickets issued for illegal sewage discharges in no-discharge
zones were not available in many of the states that we considered.
Further, one state official explained that such data might not identify
all sewage discharge citations because in some cases local authorities can
also issue tickets.
Other states emphasize education over enforcement
We found that many states have encouraged compliance by educating boaters
about the ban on sewage discharges rather than penalizing violators. For
example, one official at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
periodically visits marinas and explains the sewage discharge ban to
boaters. This official has not issued tickets, but relies on these
interactions to encourage compliance with the discharge ban in
no-discharge zones. Also, Maryland has sought to encourage compliance with
the discharge ban in no-discharge zones by educating boaters about the ban
on discharges, proper installation of marine sanitation equipment, and the
location and operation of pumpout facilities. State officials believe that
these outreach efforts influence boater attitudes and enhance compliance
with the discharge restrictions.
Enforcement may occur at the local level
Irrespective of state enforcement efforts, enforcement may occur at the
local level. For example, we found that marina owners and town
harbormasters may rely on vessel equipment inspections, water patrols,
tickets, or dye tablet programs to help enforce the ban against discharges
in no-discharge zones.19 Further, some localities have enacted ordinances
to authorize local enforcement of the discharge prohibitions.
Local law enforcement officers have inspected recreational vessels to
ensure that equipment is securely closed to prevent sewage discharges into
the water. Inspections are typically voluntary. Some localities direct
officers to patrol harbor areas in vessels and observe boating activity.
In one of those localities, the patrol officers do not screen the area for
illegal discharges but rather monitor compliance with all boating laws.
Local law enforcement officials acknowledge that such surveillance is
unlikely to catch all illegal discharges.
Dye tablets have helped officials detect illegal discharges and prosecute
violators in some areas. For example, Avalon Harbor, a no-discharge zone
off Catalina Island, California, uses a dye tablet program to enforce the
ban against vessel sewage discharges. Avalon harbormaster officials place
a dye tablet in each toilet of every boat that enters the harbor. The
tablet dyes the waste in the holding tank, producing a lime green color.
If a boater discharges the tank contents into the water, the bright green
dye appears in the water and clearly marks the identity and location of
the illegal discharge. The dye plume remains visible in the water for
approximately 15 to 20 minutes. According to an Avalon Harbor official,
they have identified about 450 violators since the program's inception in
1988. He said that the city of Avalon has authority to assess monetary
penalties of up to $500 for sewage discharges but typically assesses
penalties of less than $300. He said they have also prohibited violators
from using the harbor for one year, noting that the possibility of being
barred from the harbor is actually a greater deterrent than fines. The
photograph in figure 4 shows in the lower left corner a dye plume, which
was released by a dye tablet in Avalon Harbor, California.
Figure 4: Dye Tablet Used in Avalon Harbor, California
While dye tablets can help officials link violators to illegal discharges,
they are a resource-intensive method. The dye tablets themselves are
inexpensive, but the locality must have officers to distribute them and
then monitor the waters for dye releases. Furthermore, other localities
point out that dye tablets would not be effective in all waterways because
in some areas the dye would not show up well or would dissipate too
quickly to be effective.
The city of Key West, Florida, provides an example of how municipalities
can use ordinances to help enforce the ban on sewage discharges.
Specifically, the city has enacted an ordinance to recognize the discharge
ban and implement compliance requirements. The ordinance requires all
marinas with pumpout facilities and each vessel to maintain logs that
track sewage pumpout activities. These records allow the city to monitor
pumpout activity. The city also has a dedicated marine unit that actively
enforces the discharge ban in the no-discharge zone, in conjunction with
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Representatives of local entities also have cited other informal or
indirect methods that promote compliance with the discharge prohibitions,
such as peer pressure and marina lease agreements. For example, one local
representative said that boaters often encourage each other to refrain
from discharging. Other representatives of local entities stated that
boaters report suspected violators to harbor officials. In addition, some
noted that marinas also often include discharge bans in lease agreements
as conditions for slip rentals.
Finally, we note that a lack of effective coordination among authorized
enforcement agencies can impede compliance efforts. For example, a Texas
marine protection official explained that multiple entities-including
municipalities, a county sheriff's department, a state natural resources
agency, health districts, and the Coast Guard-have authority to enforce
the discharge ban, yet none of the entities have actively done so. This
official reported that enforcement did not occur for the following
reasons: (1) the agencies did not know how to screen for violations, (2) a
desire to avoid jurisdiction conflicts, (3) concerns that fining boaters
would be perceived as an attempt to obtain extra funds, and (4) the belief
of each agency that another agency was enforcing the discharge ban.
Although Few Data Are Available, EPA, State, and Local Officials Report
Benefits After Designation of No-Discharge Zones
A number of EPA, state, and local officials believe that water quality and
environmental stewardship have increased following designation of
no-discharge zones. While it is difficult to measure the specific effect
of no-discharge zones on overall water quality, officials cite various
reasons for believing that the zones help protect water quality, and
states and localities often include no-discharge zones in comprehensive
water quality improvement plans. Further, state and local officials told
us that no-discharge zones result in a sense of increased environmental
stewardship among boaters and marina owners. In 2003 EPA hired a
contractor to conduct a series of surveys to assess various no-discharge
zone issues. As of April 15, 2004, EPA had not received the contractor's
report. This information may offer additional perspectives on the effects
of no-discharge zones.
Water Quality Improvements Reported
Because it is difficult to distinguish boat discharges from other sources
of water pollution or to link water quality improvements to specific
programs, measuring the specific effect of no-discharge zones as opposed
to other pollution programs on overall water quality is problematic, and
few data are available on the effect of no-discharge zones. However, some
officials report that water quality has improved following the
establishment of no-discharge zones. For example, 3 years after Great Salt
Pond in Rhode Island was designated a no-discharge zone in 1993, shellfish
beds were reopened for harvesting. The shellfish beds had been closed
since 1983 because of increases in fecal coliform bacteria concentrations
during increased boating activity in the summer. According to a state
official, a decrease in nutrients from sewage discharges has also resulted
in fewer algae blooms. EPA and Rhode Island officials attribute these
changes to the designation of Great Salt Pond as a no-discharge zone,
along with an increase in the number of pumpout facilities and better
boater education.
Officials also cite good water testing results as at least partially
attributable to no-discharge zones. For example, California law requires
water quality testing for waters adjacent to public beaches for
microbiological contaminations, including total coliform, fecal coliform,
and enterococci bacteria, to monitor potential human health risks. The
harbormaster in Channel Islands Harbor, a no-discharge zone in California,
said that quarterly water quality testing results there consistently show
good water quality, even though the harbor is large, with more than 2,600
slips, and about 5,000 visiting boats per year, plus 100 permanent and 40
to 50 transient commercial fishing boats. Another official also said a
measure of the success of the no-discharge zone in his area is that while
the boating population has increased greatly, the level of water quality,
while it has not improved, has not declined.
Some no-discharge zone officials also measure improvements to waters in
no-discharge zones using proxy measures such as the quantity of sewage
that was prevented from polluting the water because it was pumped out of
boats by pumpout facilities. For example, according to the Nantucket
harbormaster, 110,000 to 120,000 gallons of sewage are pumped annually
from boats in the Nantucket Harbor no-discharge zone in Massachusetts.
Rhode Island, which has a statewide no-discharge zone, tracks data on the
number of gallons of sewage pumped for marinas throughout the state.
According to a state official, gallons pumped from boats statewide grew
from 254,500 in 2000 to 371,000 in 2002, an increase of 46 percent.
By a similar gauge of damage averted, EPA, state and local officials also
told us that the ban against treated sewage is a valuable pollution
prevention measure in some areas because marine sanitation devices do not
fully eliminate pathogens-of particular importance in human bathing and
shellfish bed areas-nor do they remove nutrients from the discharge.
Excessive nutrients can be a problem because they encourage the thick
growth of aquatic plants that contribute to an unhealthy environment,
including low dissolved oxygen levels, which harm aquatic life, such as
fish and coral reefs. For example, the Chesapeake Bay has been listed as
an impaired water body under the Clean Water Act due to low dissolved
oxygen related to excess nutrients, which has killed fish and other
organisms. In addition, new coral growth that has been found off Key West
may be resulting, in part, from the Key West no-discharge zone that
disallows the release of treated sewage. Although it is difficult to
attribute water quality and other improvements directly to any one
pollution prevention program, an environmental organization has related
the no-discharge zone and the advanced wastewater treatment system to the
new coral growth that it states has not been found elsewhere in the
Florida Keys.
In addition, states and localities often cite the no-discharge zone
designation as an important element of comprehensive plans to improve
water quality for large water areas, including bay and estuary management
plans.
o Most of the New England coast is under EPA's National Estuary Program,
which was authorized by the Congress to improve the quality of estuaries
of national importance. No-discharge zones are included in these
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans. Similarly, the plan for
Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, also included a no-discharge zone in order to
improve water quality. In 2003, after EPA made a determination that the
pumpout facilities were adequate, the Barnegat Bay no-discharge zone was
established.
o Maryland's no-discharge zones are part of comprehensive plans to improve
the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and in Maryland's coastal bays.
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement-signed by EPA, the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
and the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia-identified no-discharge zones as a tool for improving water
quality in the bay. Similarly, the Maryland Coastal Bays Conservation and
Management Plan, developed in 1995 under the National Estuary Program,
included an action item for no-discharge zone designation. In 2002, EPA
determined that Herring Bay in the Chesapeake Bay and Northern Coastal
Bays had adequate pumpout facilities and these became no-discharge zones.
o In New York State, proposed no-discharge zones have been included as
components of a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program to
advance coastal policies related to the protection of sensitive areas. To
identify sensitive areas for possible designation as no-discharge zones,
New York did a comprehensive assessment of the state's coastal areas,
including those affected by the introduction of nitrogen or chemicals from
marine sanitation devices, such as shellfish beds. New York determined
that part of the Hudson River should be designated a no-discharge zone,
but the area had an inadequate number of pumpout facilities. Using Clean
Vessel Act funding, pumpout facilities were added and this area was
established as a no-discharge zone in 2003.
o An advisory committee recommended no-discharge zone designation as one
of a number of tools to minimize sewage being discharged into Lake Powell,
located in Utah and Arizona. The advisory committee included
representatives from state government, the National Park Service, two
universities, and the Navajo Nation and was formed to study ways to
address beach closures resulting from fecal contamination. In 2000, EPA
determined that Lake Powell had adequate facilities to establish a
no-discharge zone.
Finally, some officials also cited economic benefits related to
no-discharge zones. For example, a Rhode Island official said that boat
sewage is incompatible with shellfish health, and thus the statewide
no-discharge zone benefited the offshore clamming industry. A marina owner
in the no-discharge zone in Maryland's Chesapeake Bay said that the
cleaner water resulting from the no-discharge zone is beneficial to the
marina business. Officials in Newport Bay, a California no-discharge zone,
said there was a "huge" economic value in having clean water in the bay.
They said that increases in boat discharges would result in property
values decreasing and a drop in tourism and in sport and commercial
fishing because the visitors would go elsewhere if the water were dirty.
Increases in Environmental Stewardship Reported
Along with the water quality benefits, a number of EPA, state, and local
officials told us that no-discharge zones have fostered a sense of
environmental stewardship or responsibility among boaters and marina
owners and have encouraged them to take concrete steps to protect
sensitive waters. One marina owner said that the presence of a
no-discharge zone "drives new environmental programs." Another
often-mentioned feature of environmental stewardship that is cited is the
phenomenon of peer pressure, or boaters monitoring other boaters to
prevent them from discharging.
Recent EPA Surveys May Provide Additional Perspectives
A national assessment of no-discharge zones was conducted by a contractor
for EPA in the fall of 2003 in the form of surveys of groups that are
relevant to no-discharge zones, such as boaters and marina owners. One of
EPA's goals was to use the survey data to evaluate the effectiveness of
no-discharge zones and of marine sanitation devices. EPA officials said
the marine sanitation device standards have been in place for a long time
and do not incorporate current limits for water pollution, such as for
nutrients and enterococcus. EPA is also concerned about how well marine
sanitation devices perform over time because there are no requirements to
determine whether these devices continue to function after initial
certification.20
The set of surveys was tailored to obtain information from specific groups
involved with no-discharge zones, as follows:
o to survey boat owners and operators about boating activity, pumpout
station usage, reasons for using or declining to use pumpout stations,
volume of boat waste generated, and effectiveness of no-discharge zones;
o to obtain information from states about enforcement and water quality
for specific no-discharge zones, such as changes in the frequency of beach
closures and changes in shellfish bed contamination after no-discharge
zone designation; and
o to assess marina owners' and operators' knowledge of no-discharge zones
and pumpout stations.
EPA also surveyed marine sanitation device manufacturers and laboratories
that certify marine sanitation devices on how these devices treat bacteria
and pathogens. EPA estimates that there are about 30 to 40 marine
sanitation device manufacturers in the U.S. and approximately 60
worldwide. As of April 15, 2004, EPA had not yet received the draft report
on the surveys' results from the contractor. However, an EPA official said
that information provided by the contractor to date was consistent with
the issues we have identified.
Conclusions
The success of no-discharge zones in improving water quality depends in
large measure on the ongoing availability of accessible and affordable
pumpout and dump station facilities that encourage and allow all boaters
to comply with the discharge restrictions. EPA has developed a workable
framework for determining the initial adequacy of pumpout facilities in
proposed no-discharge zones, although this determination process could be
enhanced and better supported. Some of the key information needed to
develop site-specific estimates of pumpout facility needs is optional, and
EPA would be better able to make informed, balanced determinations if it
consistently received this information. Also, EPA's determinations of
adequacy would be better supported if the agency conducted site
inspections of the facilities identified in the applications, as
recommended in the April 2004 Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy. In addition, we believe that EPA's determination process
would be more comprehensive if it also covered the adequacy of dump
stations, which it does not currently address.
Given that no-discharge zones are established in perpetuity, some
monitoring is warranted to ensure the ongoing adequacy of pumpout and dump
station facilities in these zones. For no-discharge zones to be effective,
pumpout facilities need to be adequate not only when the no-discharge
zones are designated but also over time. Pumpout facilities may not remain
available for various reasons, including inadequate maintenance; and
increases in the use of pumpout facilities and the number of boats in
no-discharge zones may require additional facilities in order to help
boaters comply with the discharge prohibitions. While the Clean Water Act
does not specify a continuing EPA role, we believe that EPA needs to
develop a mechanism to address the continued adequacy of the pumpout and
dump station facilities over time, such as requiring periodic
recertifications. Such a mechanism would be consistent with the
recommendation contained in the April 2004 Preliminary Report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy that EPA reevaluate the adequacy of facilities
in existing no-discharge zones.
We recognize that enforcing discharge prohibitions is inherently difficult
and requires resources that may also be needed for other activities such
as, in the case of the Coast Guard, rescue operations and homeland
security. In our view, states and localities may reasonably be expected to
provide the primary enforcement of the discharge prohibitions in their
no-discharge zones. However, the Coast Guard could enhance compliance with
the discharge bans by providing some level of enforcement in
state-designated no-discharge zones. While the states should not look to
the Coast Guard to take the lead in such enforcement, it is not clear why
the Coast Guard does not exercise its statutory authority to enforce the
restrictions in no-discharge zones in which the Coast Guard operates, such
as in coastal areas. In any event, the Coast Guard and EPA should work
with the relevant states to ensure that all parties understand and agree
on their respective enforcement roles. Clarity is needed so that EPA and
the states can ensure that appropriate enforcement efforts are made in
no-discharge zones.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To enable EPA regions to consistently develop site-specific estimates of
the need for pumpout facilities and thereby better assess the adequacy of
the pumpout services in reviewing applications for no-discharge zones, we
recommend that the Administrator of EPA
o require EPA regions to obtain and consider all information needed to
develop site-specific estimates of pumpout facilities to adequately
support proposed no-discharge zones, such as information on pumpout fees
and estimates of the number of boats in various size categories and/or
those with holding tanks; and
o require EPA regions to conduct site inspections to verify that the
pumpout facilities identified in proposed no-discharge zone applications
are available, in good working order, and accessible to boaters.
To better ensure that the boaters using on-board portable toilets in
no-discharge zones have adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary
removal and treatment of sewage from their boats, we recommend that the
Administrator of EPA require EPA's regions to also evaluate the adequacy
of dump station facilities when determining whether adequate facilities
for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all boats
are reasonably available.
To ensure that pumpout and dump station facilities remain available in
existing no-discharge zones, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA
develop a mechanism or mechanisms to help ensure that facilities in
established no-discharge zones remain adequate and available over time,
seeking additional authority, if needed, to require periodic
recertifications in which the adequacy and availability of facilities
would be reevaluated by EPA or by reviewing periodic state assessments of
the adequacy and availability of facilities in existing no-discharge
zones.
Because of the current confusion about the Coast Guard's enforcement role
for no-discharge zones, we recommend that the Coast Guard and EPA (1) meet
with the relevant states to review the enforcement roles in the
state-designated no-discharge zones, (2) determine whether current
enforcement is adequate, and (3) clarify the respective enforcement roles
in EPA and Coast Guard guidance and, if appropriate, revise federal
regulations.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA and the Coast Guard.
The chief of EPA's Marine Pollution Control Branch said that the agency
generally agreed with the findings and recommendations in the draft
report. In addition, both EPA and the Coast Guard provided some technical
suggestions that we incorporated into the final report. EPA and the Coast
Guard also met to discuss the enforcement recommendation in the draft
report that called for EPA and the Coast Guard to review the interplay
between their respective regulations implementing the no-discharge zone
provisions of the Clean Water Act and determine and clarify the Coast
Guard's role in enforcing the restrictions in state-designated
no-discharge zones. At the meeting, EPA and the Coast Guard agreed that
the Clean Water Act provides the Coast Guard with authority to enforce
discharges in no-discharge zones and that the Coast Guard had limited this
authority in its implementing regulations. Because the confusion over the
Coast Guard's role extended beyond EPA to the states and localities that
were also not aware of the limited enforcement authority by the Coast
Guard in the majority of the no-discharge zones (the 56 state-designated
zones), we revised the recommendation in the report to ensure that EPA,
the Coast Guard, and relevant states review enforcement roles, determine
the adequacy of enforcement, and for EPA and the Coast Guard to revise
their guidance to clarify the respective enforcement roles of the states
and the Coast Guard in all no-discharge zones.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we will plan no further distribution until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
other interested congressional committees, the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of Homeland Security.
We will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.
Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
John B. Stephenson, Director Natural Resources and Environment
EPA- and State-Designated No-Discharge ZonesAppendix I
A total of 59 no-discharge zones have been designated by either the EPA or
states in 23 states since 1975. The following table provides information
on no-discharge zones that have been designated as of March 31, 2004, and
includes the type of designation; the state or states where the
no-discharge zone is located; the name of the body of water designated;
and the year that EPA's rule establishing an EPA-designated no-discharge
zone was published in the Federal Register or that EPA made a
determination that adequate pumpout facilities were available in a
proposed no-discharge zone.
Table 1:
Type of designation State Waterbody Year
California Mission Bay 1976
California Oceanside Harbor 1976
California Dana Point Harbor 1976
State: Particular San Diego Bay (30 ft.
Environmental California deep at Mean Lower Low 1976
Importance When Watera
Adequate Pumpout California Newport Bays 1976
Facilities Are California Sunset Bay 1976
Available California Pacific Coast Highway 1976
Bridge
California Huntington Harbor 1976
California Channel Islands Harbor 1979
California Avalon Bay Harbor 1979
California Richardson Bay 1987
California/Nevada Lake Tahoe 1977
Pawcatuck River, Little
Narragansett Bay,
Connecticut portions of Fishers 2003
Island Sound and
Stonington Harbor
Florida Destin Harbor 1988
Florida City of Key West waters 1999
Maryland Herring Bay 2002
Maryland Northern Coastal Bays 2002
Massachusetts Nantucket Harbor 1992
Massachusetts Wareham Harbor 1992
Massachusetts Westport Harbor 1994
Massachusetts Waquoit Bay 1994
Massachusetts Wellfleet 1995
Massachusetts Stage Harbor Complex 1997
Massachusetts Harwich 1998
Massachusetts Buzzards Bay 2000
Massachusetts Three Bay/Centerville 2001
Harbor
Michigan All 1976
Minnesota St. Croix River 1996
Minnesota Mississippi River (part) 1977
Minnesota Minnesota River (part) 1977
All (except Mississippi
Missouri River, Missouri River, 1975
part of Bull Shoals Lake)
New Hampshire All (except coastal 1975
waters)
New Jersey Barnegat Bay 2003
New Jersey Shark River 1998
New Jersey Manasquan River 1998
New Jersey Navesink River 1999
New Jersy Shrewsbury River 2000
New Mexico All 1976
New York Hudson River (Manhattan 2003
to Troy, 153 miles)
New York Lake Champlain 1976
New York Lake George 1976
New York Mamaroneck Harbor 1997
New York East Hampton (7 water 1999
bodies)
New York Greater Huntington-North 2000
Port
New York Port Jefferson Harbor 2001
Complex
New York Peconic Estuary 2002
Rhode Island Great Salt Pond, Block 1993
Island
Rhode Island All 1998
South Carolina/Georgia Hartwell Lake 1995
South Carolina/North Broad Creek, Lake Keowee,
Carolina/Georgia Lake Murray, Lake 1999
Thurmond, and Lake Wylie
Texas 24 freshwater bodies 1999
Texas Clear Lake 1996b
Utah and Arizona Lake Powell 2000
All (including parts of
Vermont Lake Champlain and Lake 1975
Memphremagog)
Virginia Smith Mountain Lake 2000
All (except Lake
Wisconsin Superior, Mississippi 1976
River, part of St. Croix
River)
EPA: Particular State waters within the
Environmental Florida Florida Keys National 2002
Importance Marine Sanctuary
Minnesota Boundary Waters Canoe 1977
Area
EPA: Drinking water New York Hudson River (part) 1995
intake zone
No-Discharge Zones
Source: U.S. EPA and GAO.
aMeans Lower Low Water is the average height of the lower of the two low
waters of any tidal day over a 19-year period.
bThis date is approximate. EPA did not announce the determination of
adequate pumpout facilities for Clear Lake in the Federal Register, but
the applicant estimated that Clear Lake was designated as a no-discharge
zone in spring 1996. The application was submitted to EPA Region 6 on
April 21, 1994.
Objectives, Scope, and MethodologyAppendix II
Our objectives were to (1) evaluate EPA's process for determining whether
states have adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and
treatment of sewage from boats in proposed no-discharge zones, (2) assess
the extent to which EPA and the states ensure that adequate pumpout
facilities are available after a no-discharge zone is designated, (3)
evaluate the extent to which the Coast Guard and the states enforce
compliance with the prohibition against vessel sewage discharges in
no-discharge zones, and (4) identify the effects of no-discharge zones
that EPA, states, and localities have reported.
To achieve our first objective, we reviewed the requirements for
designation of no-discharge zones in statutes, regulations, and federal
guidance, as well as additional formal and informal criteria that have
been developed by EPA regions. We interviewed and obtained documents from
officials in EPA's regional offices and state environmental and/or natural
resource agencies, as appropriate, to assess the basis of no-discharge
zone approvals for 12 of the 23 states that have received no-discharge
zone designations: California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah.
State selection factors included: geographic dispersion; coastal,
noncoastal, and Great Lakes locations; a range of no-discharge zone
designation dates; both partial and total inclusion of state surface
waters in no-discharge zones; no-discharge zones that include both
recreational and commercial vessel traffic; and at least one no-discharge
zone petition for designation that was denied. Also, we evaluated at least
one state in each of the nine EPA Regions that have no-discharge zones.
EPA was unable to provide copies of the applications for no-discharge zone
determinations made prior to 1984. For established no-discharge zones, we
were able to obtain copies of 30 of the 48 no-discharge zone applications
for the 12 states we reviewed. We were not able to obtain every
application submitted by 10 of the states nor any applications from 2
states; these applications were considered in the 1970s. We also reviewed
the Pumpout Station and Dump Station Technical Guidelines developed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service under the Clean Vessel Act.
To assess the extent to which EPA and the states ensure that adequate
pumpout facilities are available after a no-discharge zone is designated,
we reviewed statutes and regulations, analyzed federal guidance, and
interviewed federal and state officials in the nine regions with
no-discharge zones. We requested and collected available state data on
monitoring for the 12 states in our review, and we interviewed
representatives of local entities in 14 of the 48 no discharge zones in
the 12 states.
To assess the extent to which the Coast Guard and the states enforce
compliance with the prohibition against vessel sewage discharges in
no-discharge zones, we analyzed the requirements for enforcement that are
contained in statutes and regulations and also analyzed federal guidance.
We interviewed officials at Coast Guard and state and local law
enforcement agencies to determine the extent of enforcement activities for
the 12 states we reviewed. We collected and analyzed the available data on
the enforcement actions in these 12 states.
To achieve the final objective, we interviewed federal and state officials
and representatives of local entities to obtain their views and available
information on the effects of the no-discharge zones in the 12 states we
reviewed. We reviewed the surveys that EPA was using for its 2003 review
of no-discharge zones, but the findings were not available as of May 15,
2004.
Overview of Marine Sanitation DevicesAppendix III
A marine sanitation device includes any equipment for installation on
board a vessel, which is designed to receive, retain, treat, or discharge
sewage, and any process to treat such sewage.1 The following table
presents information for each type of marine sanitation device, including
the function, the use and applicability, and effluent limits.
Table 2:
Type of Function Use and Effluent limits
marine device applicability
Physical and Type I marine
chemical sanitation devices
treatment of are acceptable on Device must be
sewage prior to vessels that are 65 certified to treat
discharge. feet in length and waste to a fecal
Type I under.a coliform bacteria count
Type I devices no greater than
generally Coast Guard reports 1000/100 milliliters
macerate and that most Type I and with no visible
chlorinate the devices are found floating solids.
waste. on vessels built
before 1980.
Type II marine
sanitation devices
are permitted on
Biological or all vessels. Type
physical and II devices are
chemical generally installed
treatment of on vessels that are
sewage prior to over 65 feet in Device must be
discharge. length.b certified to treat
waste to produce
Includes Commonly used on effluent having a fecal
Type II biological commercial vessels coliform bacteria count
(aerobic and can treat no greater than 200/100
digestion) several hundred to milliliters and
treatment many thousand suspended solids no
devices and gallons of sewage greater than 150
devices that per day. milligrams/liter.
macerate and
chlorinate Type II devices are
waste. larger than Type I
devices and
generally require
more power to
operate.
Used on vessels of
any size.
Commonly include
holding tanks, but
other devices that
qualify as Type III
are:
Sewage storage vacuum collection There is no waste
Type III prior to pumpout systems, effluent standard
at a pumpout incineration because the device does
facility. systems, not treat waste.
recirculation
systems, and a
composting system.
Most recreational
boats built since
the late 1970s have
included holding
tanks.
Marine Sanitation Devices
Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).
aVessels 65 feet in length and under with an installed toilet must be
equipped with a marine sanitation device.
bVessels over 65 feet in length with an installed toilet must be equipped
with either a Type II or Type III marine sanitation device.
Boaters may retrofit, or make modifications to, marine sanitation devices,
as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Retrofitted Marine Sanitation Devices
Components Function Relevant Standards
Boaters modify (1) Type I
or II marine sanitation
devices so they can store The retrofitted marine
waste to be pumped out of sanitation device is not
a holding tank. For a separate category
example, a boater may Allows boats to comply recognized by EPA or
incorporate a holding with varying discharge Coast Guard regulations.
tank into the plumbing restrictions when The applicable standards
system that connects to a traveling in and out of will depend on whether
Type I device, or (2) no-discharge zones. the boater wants to
Type III marine treat and discharge or
sanitation devices so store and receive a
that they can treat waste pumpout.
with a Type I or II
device.
Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).
GAO Contacts and Staff AcknowledgmentsAppendix IV
GAO Contacts
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 Christine Fishkin, (202) 512-6895
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to those individuals named above, Kate Cardamone, Karen
Keegan, Cynthia Norris, Ilga Semeiks, and Amy Webbink made key
contributions to this report.
(360373)
*** End of document. ***