Water Quality
Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure Adequacy of Boat Pumpout Facilities in No-Discharge Zones Gao ID: GAO-04-613 May 24, 2004Clean 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.
EPA's process for determining whether adequate facilities are reasonably available to remove and treat sewage from boats in proposed no-discharge zones could be improved. EPA currently requires states to submit general estimates of need for facilities (known as pumpouts) in state applications for no-discharge zones, but other information that would support site-specific estimates is optional. As a result, EPA does not receive this information consistently. Moreover, EPA generally makes its determinations on adequacy without site visits to evaluate the facilities identified in the applications to ensure, for example, that they are accessible and functioning. GAO found no EPA and limited state oversight of pump-out facilities after no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act does not address the monitoring of such facilities in established no-discharge zones, nor does it define a specific role for EPA after the agency has initially determined that the facilities are adequate. Because the success of no-discharge zones depends in large measure on adequate facilities, GAO believes that EPA should assess the continued adequacy of these facilities, seeking additional authority, if needed, to require periodic recertifications or reassessments. The Coast Guard limits its enforcement of no-discharge prohibitions to the three federally designated no-discharge zones; it does not enforce them in the 56 state-designated zones. While the Clean Water Act grants the Coast Guard authority to enforce in all no-discharge zones, Coast Guard's regulations exercise enforcement authority only in areas where discharges are prohibited by EPA regulations--currently the three federally designated zones. EPA and others were not aware of the Coast Guard's regulatory limitation of its enforcement authority. GAO found that states enforced in different ways, such as by issuing tickets or inspecting boats. Many states place more emphasis on boater education than on penalizing violators. Although few data are available to assess the effects of no-discharge zones, a number of EPA, state, and local officials believe that water quality and environmental stewardship have increased after designation of these zones. In addition, officials cite gallons of boat sewage pumped as evidence that no-discharge zones reduce water pollution.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-613, Water Quality: Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure Adequacy of Boat Pumpout Facilities in No-Discharge Zones
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-613
entitled 'Water Quality: Program Enhancements Would Better Ensure
Adequacy of Boat Pumpout Facilities in No-Discharge Zones' which was
released on June 23, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
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:
[Hyperlink, http: //www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-613]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-613, a report to the Honorable Jim Saxton
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
EPA‘s process for determining whether adequate facilities are
reasonably available to remove and treat sewage from boats in proposed
no-discharge zones could be improved. EPA currently requires states to
submit general estimates of need for facilities (known as pumpouts) in
state applications for no-discharge zones, but other information that
would support site-specific estimates is optional. As a result, EPA
does not receive this information consistently. Moreover, EPA generally
makes its determinations on adequacy without site visits to evaluate
the facilities identified in the applications to ensure, for example,
that they are accessible and functioning.
GAO found no EPA and limited state oversight of pumpout facilities
after no-discharge zones are established. The Clean Water Act does not
address the monitoring of such facilities in established no-discharge
zones, nor does it define a specific role for EPA after the agency has
initially determined that the facilities are adequate. Because the
success of no-discharge zones depends in large measure on adequate
facilities, GAO believes that EPA should assess the continued adequacy
of these facilities, seeking additional authority, if needed, to
require periodic recertifications or reassessments.
The Coast Guard limits its enforcement of no-discharge prohibitions to
the three federally designated no-discharge zones; it does not enforce
them in the 56 state-designated zones. While the Clean Water Act grants
the Coast Guard authority to enforce in all no-discharge zones, Coast
Guard‘s regulations exercise enforcement authority only in areas where
discharges are prohibited by EPA regulations”currently the three
federally designated zones. EPA and others were not aware of the Coast
Guard‘s regulatory limitation of its enforcement authority. GAO found
that states enforced in different ways, such as by issuing tickets or
inspecting boats. Many states place more emphasis on boater education
than on penalizing violators.
Although few data are available to assess the effects of no-discharge
zones, a number of EPA, state, and local officials believe that water
quality and environmental stewardship have increased after designation
of these zones. In addition, officials cite gallons of boat sewage
pumped as evidence that no-discharge zones reduce water pollution.
Pumpout Facilities and Buoy Located in No-Discharge Zones:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that EPA better ensure that facilities are and remain
adequate in no-discharge zones and that EPA and the Coast Guard meet
with relevant states to review and clarify enforcement roles. EPA
agreed with the recommendations and EPA and the Coast Guard provided
technical comments about the Coast Guard‘s enforcement role that are
incorporated in the report.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-613.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202)
512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
EPA's Process for Determining the Adequacy of Facilities Could Be
Improved:
The Clean Water Act Does Not Address EPA Monitoring of Facilities After
No-Discharge Zones Are Established, and State Monitoring Is Limited:
Inherent Difficulties, Limited Coast Guard Enforcement, and Varying
State and Locality Approaches Result in Varied Enforcement:
Although Few Data Are Available, EPA, State, and Local Officials Report
Benefits After Designation of No-Discharge Zones:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: EPA-and State-Designated No-Discharge Zones:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Overview of Marine Sanitation Devices:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: No-Discharge Zones:
Table 2: Marine Sanitation Devices:
Table 3: Retrofitted Marine Sanitation Devices:
Figures:
Figure 1: No-Discharge Zones:
Figure 2: Pumpout and Dump Station in Channel Islands Harbor,
California:
Figure 3: Fish and Wildlife Service Formula for Evaluating the Adequacy
of Pumpout Facilities in an Area:
Figure 4: Dye Tablet Used in Avalon Harbor, California:
Abbreviations:
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
Letter May 24, 2004:
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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 3] EPA
Region I and EPA headquarters developed additional guidance for states
and localities in 1991 and 1994, respectively.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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:
* all but two of the eastern coastal states:
* one western coastal state:
* four of the eight states bordering the Great Lakes:
* two states with coastal waters on the Gulf of Mexico:
* six inland states.
Figure 1: No-Discharge Zones:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 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 guidelines[Footnote 8] 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,[Footnote 9] provides that state
applications for no-discharge zones must meet the following seven
minimum requirements--most of which relate to pumpout facilities:
* a certification that the protection and enhancement of the waters
described in the application require greater environmental protection
than the applicable federal standard,
* a map showing the location of commercial and recreational pumpout
facilities,
* a description of the location of the pumpouts,
* the general schedule of operating hours of the pumpout facilities,
* the draught requirements on vessels that may be excluded because of
insufficient water depth adjacent to the facility,[Footnote 10]
* information indicating that treatment of waste from pumpout
facilities is in conformance with federal law, and:
* 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.[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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:
[See PDF for image]
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.
[End of figure]
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:
* estimates of the number of boats in various size categories that
would travel in the proposed no-discharge zones,
* the estimated number or percentage of boats with holding tanks, and:
* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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:
* limited or no access to pumpout stations;
* pumpout hoses lying on the boat slips, which could result in spillage
of sewage;
* broken valves, hoses repaired by duct tape, and a lack of required
meters to determine usage;
* lack of a current phone number to report an inoperable pumpout;
* lack of signs on how to operate pumpout stations;
* lack of signs indicating that the harbor is a no-discharge zone; and:
* 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 city requires both marinas and boaters to
keep pumpout logs. Pumpout facilities may be monitored by meters that
record the quantity of sewage pumped. Pumpout records from meters can
serve multiple purposes, such as tracking the use of pumpouts over time
and identifying the quantity of sewage not being discharged into the
water.
Inherent Difficulties, Limited Coast Guard Enforcement, and Varying
State and Locality Approaches Result in Varied Enforcement:
Despite the inherent difficulties in enforcing discharge prohibitions,
EPA and others believe an enforcement presence is important because it
encourages boater compliance. Under its regulations, the Coast Guard
generally limits its enforcement of the no-discharge prohibitions to
the three federally designated no-discharge zones. Accordingly, the
Coast Guard does not enforce the prohibitions in the vast majority of
no-discharge zones, which are designated by states. States can also
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 enforced prohibitions against discharge in a variety
of ways and to varying degrees.
Illegal Discharges from Boats are Inherently Difficult to Detect:
Practical considerations make enforcement of the discharge prohibitions
in no-discharge zones a difficult task. Illegal discharges from boats
may be made underwater--through the hull, as with Type I and II marine
sanitation devices and Type III holding tanks retrofitted with Y-
valves--making it difficult to link evidence of sewage discharges to
the violators. Moreover, sewage discharges may rapidly dissipate in the
water before evidence of violations can be obtained.
In light of the practical enforcement challenges, officials have relied
on various methods to enforce the ban against discharges in no-
discharge zones. The enforcement methods include (1) inspecting boat
equipment to ensure that Y-valves have been closed to prevent sewage
discharges, (2) placing dye tablets in boat toilets, and (3) patrolling
waterways and issuing citations for identified illegal discharges. The
penalties for illegal discharges in the areas we reviewed included
fines and prohibiting violators from boating in the no-discharge zone.
EPA guidance on no-discharge zones concludes that while enforcement
methods can encourage compliance, education and outreach are necessary
to "complement and supplement enforcement efforts." Similarly, an
official overseeing a no-discharge zone stated that he has focused
compliance 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.[Footnote 20]
The set of surveys was tailored to obtain information from specific
groups involved with no-discharge zones, as follows:
* 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;
* 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:
* 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:
* 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:
* 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 [Hyperlink, 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,
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: EPA-and State-Designated No-Discharge Zones:
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: No-Discharge Zones:
Type of designation: State: Particular Environmental Importance When
Adequate Pumpout Facilities Are Available; State: California;
Waterbody: Mission Bay; Year: 1976.
Type of designation: State: Particular Environmental Importance When
Adequate Pumpout Facilities are Available:
State: California;
Waterbody: Oceanside Harbor;
Year: 1976.
State: California;
Waterbody: Dana Point Harbor;
Year: 1976.
State: California;
Waterbody: San Diego Bay (30 ft. deep at Mean Lower Low Water[A];
Year: 1976.
State: California;
Waterbody: Newport Bays;
Year: 1976.
State: California;
Waterbody: Sunset Bay;
Year: 1976.
State: California;
Waterbody: Pacific Coast Highway Bridge;
Year: 1976.
State: California;
Waterbody: Huntington Harbor;
Year: 1976.
State: California;
Waterbody: Channel Islands Harbor;
Year: 1979.
State: California;
Waterbody: Avalon Bay Harbor;
Year: 1979.
State: California;
Waterbody: Richardson Bay;
Year: 1987.
State: California/Nevada;
Waterbody: Lake Tahoe;
Year: 1977.
State: Connecticut;
Waterbody: Pawcatuck River, Little Narragansett Bay, portions of
Fishers Island Sound and Stonington Harbor;
Year: 2003.
State: Florida;
Waterbody: Destin Harbor;
Year: 1988.
State: Florida;
Waterbody: City of Key West waters;
Year: 1999.
State: Maryland;
Waterbody: Herring Bay;
Year: 2002.
State: Maryland;
Waterbody: Northern Coastal Bays;
Year: 2002.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Nantucket Harbor;
Year: 1992.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Wareham Harbor;
Year: 1992.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Westport Harbor;
Year: 1994.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Waquoit Bay;
Year: 1994.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Wellfleet;
Year: 1995.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Stage Harbor Complex;
Year: 1997.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Harwich;
Year: 1998.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Buzzards Bay;
Year: 2000.
State: Massachusetts;
Waterbody: Three Bay/Centerville Harbor;
Year: 2001.
State: Michigan;
Waterbody: All;
Year: 1976.
State: Minnesota;
Waterbody: St. Croix River;
Year: 1996.
State: Minnesota;
Waterbody: Mississippi River (part);
Year: 1977.
State: Minnesota;
Waterbody: Minnesota River (part);
Year: 1977.
State: Missouri;
Waterbody: All (except Mississippi River, Missouri River, part of Bull
Shoals Lake);
Year: 1975.
State: New Hampshire;
Waterbody: All (except coastal waters);
Year: 1975.
State: New Jersey;
Waterbody: Barnegat Bay;
Year: 2003.
State: New Jersey;
Waterbody: Shark River;
Year: 1998.
State: New Jersey;
Waterbody: Manasquan River;
Year: 1998.
State: New Jersey;
Waterbody: Navesink River;
Year: 1999.
State: New Jersy;
Waterbody: Shrewsbury River;
Year: 2000.
State: New Mexico;
Waterbody: All;
Year: 1976.
State: New York;
Waterbody: Hudson River (Manhattan to Troy, 153 miles);
Year: 2003.
State: New York;
Waterbody: Lake Champlain;
Year: 1976.
State: New York;
Waterbody: Lake George;
Year: 1976.
State: New York;
Waterbody: Mamaroneck Harbor;
Year: 1997.
State: New York;
Waterbody: East Hampton (7 water bodies);
Year: 1999.
State: New York;
Waterbody: Greater Huntington-North Port;
Year: 2000.
State: New York;
Waterbody: Port Jefferson Harbor Complex;
Year: 2001.
State: New York;
Waterbody: Peconic Estuary;
Year: 2002.
State: Rhode Island;
Waterbody: Great Salt Pond, Block Island;
Year: 1993.
State: Rhode Island;
Waterbody: All;
Year: 1998.
State: South Carolina/Georgia;
Waterbody: Hartwell Lake;
Year: 1995.
State: South Carolina/North Carolina/Georgia;
Waterbody: Broad Creek, Lake Keowee, Lake Murray, Lake Thurmond, and
Lake Wylie;
Year: 1999.
State: Texas;
Waterbody: 24 freshwater bodies;
Year: 1999.
State: Texas;
Waterbody: Clear Lake;
Year: 1996[B].
State: Utah and Arizona;
Waterbody: Lake Powell;
Year: 2000.
State: Vermont;
Waterbody: All (including parts of Lake Champlain and Lake
Memphremagog);
Year: 1975.
State: Virginia;
Waterbody: Smith Mountain Lake;
Year: 2000.
State: Wisconsin;
Waterbody: All (except Lake Superior, Mississippi River, part of St.
Croix River);
Year: 1976.
Type of designation: EPA: Particular Environmental Importance:
State: Florida;
Waterbody: State waters within the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary;
Year: 2002.
State: Minnesota;
Waterbody: Boundary Waters Canoe Area;
Year: 1977.
Type of designation: EPA: Drinking water intake zone:
State: New York;
Waterbody: Hudson River (part);
Year: 1995.
Source: U.S. EPA and GAO.
[A] Means Lower Low Water is the average height of the lower of the two
low waters of any tidal day over a 19-year period.
[B] This 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.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
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.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Overview of Marine Sanitation Devices:
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.[Footnote 21]
The following table presents information for each type of marine
sanitation device, including the function, the use and applicability,
and effluent limits.
Table 2: Marine Sanitation Devices:
Type of marine device: Type I;
Function: Physical and chemical treatment of sewage prior to discharge;
Type I devices generally macerate and chlorinate the waste;
Use and applicability: Type I marine sanitation devices are acceptable
on vessels that are 65 feet in length and under.[A]; Coast Guard
reports that most Type I devices are found on vessels built before
1980;
Effluent limits: Device must be certified to treat waste to a fecal
coliform bacteria count no greater than 1000/100 milliliters and with
no visible floating solids.
Type of marine device: Type II;
Function: Biological or physical and chemical treatment of sewage prior
to discharge; Includes biological (aerobic digestion) treatment devices
and devices that macerate and chlorinate waste;
Use and applicability: Type II marine sanitation devices are permitted
on all vessels. Type II devices are generally installed on vessels that
are over 65 feet in length.[B]; Commonly used on commercial vessels
and can treat several hundred to many thousand gallons of sewage per
day; Type II devices are larger than Type I devices and generally
require more power to operate;
Effluent limits: Device must be certified to treat waste to produce
effluent having a fecal coliform bacteria count no greater than 200/100
milliliters and suspended solids no greater than 150 milligrams/liter.
Type of marine device: Type III;
Function: Sewage storage prior to pumpout at a pumpout facility;
Use and applicability: Used on vessels of any size; Commonly include
holding tanks, but other devices that qualify as Type III are: vacuum
collection systems, incineration systems, recirculation systems, and a
composting system; Most recreational boats built since the late 1970s
have included holding tanks;
Effluent limits: There is no waste effluent standard because the
device does not treat waste.
Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).
[A] Vessels 65 feet in length and under with an installed toilet must
be equipped with a marine sanitation device.
[B] Vessels over 65 feet in length with an installed toilet must be
equipped with either a Type II or Type III marine sanitation device.
[End of table]
Boaters may retrofit, or make modifications to, marine sanitation
devices, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Retrofitted Marine Sanitation Devices:
Components: Boaters modify (1) Type I or II marine sanitation devices
so they can store waste to be pumped out of a holding tank. For
example, a boater may incorporate a holding tank into the plumbing
system that connects to a Type I device, or (2) Type III marine
sanitation devices so that they can treat waste with a Type I or II
device;
Function: Allows boats to comply with varying discharge restrictions
when traveling in and out of no-discharge zones;
Relevant Standards: The retrofitted marine sanitation device is not a
separate category recognized by EPA or Coast Guard regulations. The
applicable standards will depend on whether the boater wants to treat
and discharge or store and receive a pumpout.
Source: U.S. EPA and U.S. Coast Guard (data); GAO (analysis).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
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):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Clean Water Act also allows states to establish more stringent
requirements for houseboats.
[2] The federally designated no-discharge zones are subject to
different application requirements than those that are designated by
the states.
[3] EPA Region 10 is the only EPA region without no-discharge zones.
[4] Region I's guidance is Guidance for States and Municipalities
Seeking No-Discharge Area Designations for New England Coastal Waters,
June 1991 (Rev. April 1992); EPA's overall guidance is Protecting
Coastal Waters from Vessel and Marina Discharges: A Guide for State and
Local Officials, August 1994.
[5] The seven states are Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and Vermont.
[6] Type I marine sanitation devices may be used on recreational boats
65 feet long or less, while the more complex Type II devices may be
used on any size boat but must be used on larger boats equipped with
installed toilet facilities.
[7] Data from Fish and Wildlife Service covers 1993 through 1999.
[8] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the guidelines in the
Federal Register, Clean Vessel Act: Pumpout Station and Dump Station
Technical Guidelines, 59 Fed. Reg. 11,290 (1994) (codified at 50 C.F.R.
pt. 85).
[9] The regulation was amended in 1995, 1998, and 2002.
[10] Draught, also spelled draft, refers to the depth to which a boat
is immersed in the water.
[11] As discussed further below, the Fish and Wildlife Service guidance
also directly addresses the number of dump stations that are available,
while EPA does not.
[12] Eighteen of the 48 applications for the twelve states included in
our review date back to the 1970s and were no longer available.
Further, 8 of the 30 applications we reviewed were submitted before the
EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service guidance documents were available.
[13] GAO obtained copies of no-discharge zone applications from 10 of
the 12 states identified for this report. GAO was unable to obtain (1)
each application submitted by these 10 states and (2) any applications
from 2 states; the applications were considered in the 1970s.
[14] Three EPA regional offices could not confirm whether the agency
had verified the application information. Most of these designations
had been made in the 1970s.
[15] Under California law, regional water board staff are to inspect
pumpouts at least annually; the water boards may determine the need for
additional pumpout facilities at any time and request the state board
to require specified marine terminals to install and operate pumpout
facilities where necessary to protect water quality.
[16] Coast Guard officials said that enforcement in waterways that are
not navigable generally fall within state jurisdiction. EPA's
regulations cite three federally designated no-discharge zones that
cover five distinct locations.
[17] The penalties in some states are linked to statutes that generally
prohibit the discharge of pollutants, not just sewage, into waterways.
[18] Other state officials reported that they have issued tickets for
illegal sewage discharges, but could not confirm the number of
citations issued for illegal discharges in no-discharge zones. Also,
local officials reported that they have issued tickets for illegal
sewage discharges in no-discharge zones.
[19] We interviewed representatives of local entities in 14 of the 48
no-discharge zones reviewed in this study.
[20] The Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
includes a recommendation that EPA revise its regulations to require
that new marine sanitation devices meet significantly more stringent
pathogen-reduction standards and that the U. S. Coast Guard should
require manufacturers to provide warranties that the devices meet these
new standards for a specified period of time.
[21] 33 U.S.C. §1322(a)(5).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
