Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

May 20, 2024 R48069

Overview of the National Estuary Program
May 20, 2024
(NEP)
Laura Gatz
Estuaries—coastal waterbodies where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with the ocean’s
Specialist in Environmental
saltwater—are among the world’s most productive ecosystems. They are beneficial in many
Policy
ways—providing habitat for thousands of species of birds, mammals, fish, and other wildlife;

filtering sediment and pollutants from rivers and streams; protecting coastal communities from
flooding and erosion; storing carbon from greenhouse gases; and providing commercial and

economic value through tourism, recreation, and fisheries. The health and productivity of
estuaries are affected by both natural and human-related influences. While issues facing each estuary vary, many are stressed
by rapid population growth and development in coastal communities. Among other things, this growth and development has
increased pollutant runoff and negatively affected water quality and ecosystem health. Recognizing the challenges of
pollution, development, and overuse, and that “the Nation’s estuaries are of great importance for fish and wildlife resources
and recreation and economic opportunity,” Congress established the National Estuary Program (NEP) through amendments
to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987. The NEP is a nonregulatory program that aims to protect and restore the water
quality and ecological integrity of nationally significant estuaries.
The NEP, administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a place-based (i.e., geographic-specific)
program that works to protect and restore “estuaries of national significance” that are threatened by pollution, development,
or overuse. The NEP includes 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico. Each of the
28 estuaries in the NEP has its own local estuary program, which functions under a governance structure called a
management conference. Management conferences consist of diverse stakeholders, including EPA and other federal agencies,
state and local governments, tribes, industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and the public. Management conferences are
responsible for developing and implementing management plans, called Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans (CCMPs), to restore and protect the estuary.
The CWA authorizes EPA to provide grants to local NEPs for developing and implementing CCMPs, as well as competitive
grants to recipients “that are best able to address urgent, emerging, and challenging issues that threaten the ecological and
economic well-being of the estuaries” or that relate to coastal resiliency of the estuaries. Congress appropriates funds to the
NEP through the NEP/Coastal Waterways program area in EPA’s Environmental Programs and Management appropriations
account. These funds support both the NEP and Coastal Waterways Programs. Of the funds supporting NEP activities, EPA
apportions them equally among the 28 NEP estuaries. In FY2024, Congress appropriated $40 million to the NEP/Coastal
Waterways program area, indicating the appropriations would be sufficient to provide each of the estuaries with a grant of at
least $850,000. Congress also specified that $2.5 million of the appropriations be made available in competitive grants. In
addition to regular annual appropriations, in November 2021, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA; P.L. 117-58), which included $132 million in supplemental appropriations for NEP grants to develop and implement
CCMPs. IIJA specified that $26.4 million be made available for each of FY2022 through FY2026.
The NEP generally receives bipartisan support. Observers often highlight the successes of NEPs in leveraging the federal
funding provided to those programs. According to EPA, on average, the NEPs raise $17 for every $1 provided by EPA. One
policy issue that some stakeholders debate is whether the NEP should focus on providing funds to estuaries already in the
NEP, or whether EPA should expand the program to include additional estuaries. Some argue that the current NEP estuaries
face a multitude of challenges that can be costly to address, and that the level of appropriations that the program receives may
not adequately support the addition of new estuaries to the program. Others assert that additional estuaries could benefit from
being added to the NEP. Moving forward, Congress may wish to consider whether current annual appropriations are
sufficient to assist in funding the restoration activities of the NEP estuaries, and whether to add additional estuaries to the
program. Congress may also wish to consider oversight of the program to ensure funds, particularly those provided through
IIJA, are used efficiently.

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Introduction
Estuaries are coastal waterbodies where freshwater from rivers and streams mixes with the
ocean’s saltwater.1 Estuarine environments are among the world’s most productive ecosystems
and contain habitats such as wetlands, mudflats, and seagrass beds. These waterbodies are
beneficial in many ways. They provide critical habitat for thousands of species of birds,
mammals, fish, and other wildlife; filter sediment and pollutants from rivers and streams; help
protect coastal communities from flooding and erosion; store carbon from greenhouse gases; and
provide commercial and economic value through tourism, recreation, and fisheries.2
The health and productivity of estuaries are affected by both natural and human-related
influences. Although the issues facing each estuary can vary, many estuaries are stressed by
similar factors. Over half the U.S. population lives in coastal watershed counties, where runoff
from the land in the watershed drains to coastal waters, including estuaries.3 Rapid population
growth and development in coastal communities over the last several decades have increasingly
stressed U.S. estuaries. Specifically, stormwater runoff from urban and agricultural areas carries
higher loads of contaminants, sediment, and excess nutrients into nearby streams, rivers, and
estuaries, negatively affecting the water quality of those waterbodies.4 Leaking septic tanks or
sewer overflows can also contribute to pathogen and nutrient loading to surface waters and
estuaries. Excess nutrients, in particular, can lead to harmful algal blooms and low oxygen levels,
which can kill fish or other animals.5 More broadly, declining water quality degrades habitats,
affecting fisheries, wildlife, and aesthetic values, and may result in recreational and economic
losses. Climate change impacts, such as rising sea levels and changing frequencies and intensities
of floods and storms, may also continue to exacerbate these issues by altering the balance of
saltwater and freshwater in an estuary and by increasing the volume of polluted runoff entering an
estuary.6
Recognizing the challenges of pollution, development, and overuse of resources, and that “the
Nation’s estuaries are of great importance for fish and wildlife resources and recreation and
economic opportunity,” Congress established the National Estuary Program (NEP) through
amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1987.7 The NEP is a nonregulatory program that
aims to protect and restore the water quality and ecological integrity of nationally significant
estuaries.
This report provides an overview of the NEP, including how estuaries are selected for inclusion in
the NEP and how the local NEPs function. The report also provides information on authorization

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Basic Information About Estuaries,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/basic-
information-about-estuaries#whatis.
2 EPA, “Basic Information About Estuaries”; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “Estuary
Habitat,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/estuary-habitat.
3 NOAA and the U.S. Census Bureau, National Coastal Population Report: Population Trends from 1970 to 2020,
March 2013, https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/training/population-report.html. Coastal watershed counties are defined
as “counties where a substantial portion of their land area intersect coastal watersheds, and consequently represent
where land use changes and water quality impacts most directly impact coastal ecosystems.”
4 EPA, “Basic Information About Estuaries,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/basic-information-about-estuaries#whatis.
5 For more information on harmful algal blooms, see CRS Report R44871, Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms: Causes,
Challenges, and Policy Considerations, by Laura Gatz.
6 NOAA, “Estuary Habitat,” https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/estuary-habitat.
7 P.L. 100-4.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 6 Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

of appropriations and enacted appropriations for the NEP and related grant programs, a discussion
of congressional interest in the NEP, and a discussion of policy options for Congress.
National Estuary Program (NEP)
Congress established the NEP with the Water Quality Act of 1987.8 The NEP, administered by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a place-based program (i.e., geographic-
specific) that works to protect and restore “estuaries of national significance” that are threatened
by pollution, development, or overuse.9 The NEP includes 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic,
Gulf, and Pacific coasts and in Puerto Rico.10 See Figure 1 for a map of these estuaries’ study
areas, which include the estuary and surrounding watershed.

8 P.L. 100-4. Clean Water Act (CWA) §320; 33 U.S.C. §1330.
9 The CWA does not define “estuary of national significance.” However, to facilitate its review of estuary nominations,
EPA, in 1990, developed guidance on the nomination process. Regarding national significance, governors were to
provide information on why the estuary is important to the nation, the geographic scope of the estuary, and how lessons
learned from the estuary could apply to other areas, among other things. EPA, The National Estuary Program: Final
Guidance on the Contents of a Governor’s Nomination, January 1990.
10 EPA, “Overview of the National Estuary Program,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/overview-national-estuary-program.
Congressional Research Service

2

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Figure 1. EPA National Estuary Program (NEP) Study Areas

Source: EPA, “Printable Map of the National Estuary Program Study Areas,” January 2023, https://www.epa.gov/
nep/printable-map-national-estuary-program-study-areas.
Notes: Study area 15 is in Puerto Rico. The map does not include Alaska, Hawaii, or U.S. territories other than
Puerto Rico, because they do not contain NEP Study Areas.
For each of these estuaries, EPA partners with other federal agencies, state and local governments,
tribes, industry, academia, nonprofit organizations, and the public to develop and implement
management plans to restore and protect the estuary. EPA oversees and manages the national
program; selects participating estuaries; and provides guidance, technical assistance, and annual
funding through grants to local programs. The following subsections provide information on
estuary selection, the governance and management plans of the local NEPs, and NEP funding and
grants.
Estuary Selection
The NEP includes 28 estuaries, which EPA added to the NEP between 1987 and 1995. Under
CWA Section 320(a), the governor of a state can nominate an estuary that is located “in whole or
in part within the state” to be designated as an estuary of national significance for inclusion in the
Congressional Research Service

3

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

NEP.11 The nomination must address several critical elements, including “demonstrating
significant environmental need to protect and restore the nominated estuary.”12 The EPA
Administrator then determines whether such estuaries should be selected for inclusion in the NEP
and may also independently select an estuary of national significance.13
When Congress established the NEP in 1987, it directed EPA to give priority consideration to 11
specific estuaries for inclusion in the program.14 These included Long Island Sound, NY and CT;
Narragansett Bay, RI; Buzzards Bay, MA; Puget Sound, WA; New York-New Jersey Harbor, NY
and NJ; Delaware Bay, DE and NJ; Delaware Inland Bays, DE; Albemarle Sound, NC; Sarasota
Bay, FL; San Francisco Bay, CA; and Galveston Bay, TX.
In subsequent legislation, Congress added five additional estuaries for priority consideration.
Congress added Santa Monica Bay, CA, in 1987,15 and in 1988 added Massachusetts Bay
(including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor), MA; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex,
LA; Indian River Lagoon, FL; and Peconic Bay, NY.16 EPA designated these 16 as estuaries of
national significance under the NEP.
In addition, EPA added 12 other estuaries to the program that met the criteria in CWA Section
320. EPA issued calls for nominations from governors in the Federal Register in 1992 and 1994
to help identify and select estuaries to include in the program.17 EPA’s stated intent in using a
public nomination process was to allow the agency to “evaluate how a nominated estuary would
offer opportunities to advance the national program by bringing innovative approaches, covering
different geographic areas, and addressing new or challenging environmental issues among other
evaluation factors.”18 Further, the aim was to evaluate how the estuary, if designated, would
support the model of meeting both local and CWA priorities.
According to EPA, the agency has not solicited additional nominations since the 1994 call and
does not have plans for a new call for nominations. EPA asserts that it is prioritizing the support
of existing estuaries in the program.19
In 2000, Congress amended the CWA to add Lake Pontchartrain, LA, to the list of estuaries with
priority consideration, but EPA has not added it to the NEP.20
In 2021, Congress enacted the Protect and Restore America’s Estuaries Act, which amended the
CWA to add the 12 estuaries already in the NEP, but not listed in CWA Section 320, to the list of
estuaries for priority consideration.21 These include Casco Bay, ME; Tampa Bay, FL; Coastal

11 CWA §320(a)(1); 33 U.S.C. §1330(a)(1).
12 EPA, “Overview of the National Estuary Program,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/overview-national-estuary-program.
13 CWA §320(a)(2)(A); 33 U.S.C. §1330(a)(2)(A).
14 P.L. 100-4; CWA §320(a)(2)(B); 33 U.S.C. §1330(a)(2)(B).
15 P.L. 100-202.
16 P.L. 100-688.
17 EPA, “Nominations of Estuaries to the National Estuary Program,” 57 Federal Register 6178, February 20, 1992.
EPA, “Nominations of Estuaries to the National Estuary Program,” 59 Federal Register 66533, December 27, 1994.
18 EPA, “The National Estuary Program Designation Process,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/overview-national-estuary-
program.
19 Personal communication with EPA, August 21, 2023. See also EPA, “Overview of the National Estuary Program,”
https://www.epa.gov/nep/overview-national-estuary-program, in which EPA states, “The EPA is not actively seeking
new nominations at this time.”
20 P.L. 106-457. According to EPA, the governor of Louisiana at that time was not interested in pursuing Lake
Pontchartrain’s inclusion in the NEP.
21 P.L. 116-337.
Congressional Research Service

4

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Bend, TX; San Juan Bay, PR; Tillamook Bay, OR; Piscataqua Region, NH; Barnegat Bay, NJ;
Maryland Coastal Bays, MD; Charlotte Harbor, FL; Mobile Bay, AL; Morro Bay, CA; and Lower
Columbia River, OR and WA.22
Local NEPs—Governance and Management Plans
Each of the 28 estuaries in the NEP has its own local estuary program, which functions under a
governance structure called a management conference. Management conferences consist of
diverse stakeholders, including EPA and other federal agencies, state and local governments,
tribes, industry, educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and the public.23
As required by the CWA, each local NEP’s management conference has developed a long-term
management plan, called a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), to
address the environmental challenges for its estuary. CCMPs contain actions to
• restore and maintain the integrity of the estuary (e.g., actions to address water
quality; balanced populations of shellfish, fish, and wildlife; and protection of the
estuaries’ uses, including recreational activities);
• address the effects of recurring extreme weather events on the estuary; and
• increase public education and awareness of the estuary’s water quality and
health.24
CCMPs include several components: a statement of priority problems or issues to be addressed in
the plan; goals and objectives for the estuary; action plans for achieving the goals and objectives;
and monitoring and financial strategies.25 For example, a CCMP may include a water quality goal
for an estuary such as reducing pollutants to the waterbody to comply with state water quality
criteria for that waterbody.26 The CCMP would then have specific actions, such as working to
implement water quality improvement projects to address particular pollutants. It would also
identify costs for specific actions and funding sources for the action.
Since the initial CCMPs were developed, the management conferences have periodically revised
and updated the CCMPs to reflect changes in the estuary and emerging challenges, among other
things. The management conferences work collaboratively to implement the CCMPs through a
consensus-building approach.27
Each of the local NEPs has a program office located within the estuary’s watershed that facilitates
the work outlined in its CCMP.28 The precise structure of each local NEP varies, but generally

22 The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program was renamed the Coastal and Heartland National Estuary
Partnership in 2019.
23 CWA §320(c); 33 U.S.C. §1330(c).
24 CWA §320(b)(4); 33 U.S.C. §1330(b)(4). For links to the CCMPs for each estuary in the NEP, see EPA,
“Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/comprehensive-conservation-and-
management-plans.
25 EPA, Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the National Estuary Program, EPA 842-B-05-003,
February 2005, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/documents/
2007_04_09_estuaries_nepprimeruments_chapter4.pdf.
26 See, for example, Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Looking Ahead to 2030: A 10-Year
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, 2019,
https://onelagoon.org/management-plan/.
27 CWA §320(b); 33 U.S.C. §1330(b). EPA, “Overview of the National Estuary Program,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/
overview-national-estuary-program.
28 EPA, National Estuary Program Booklet, 842K07001, https://www.epa.gov/nep/national-estuary-program-booklet.
Congressional Research Service

5

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

includes an office with a director and staff that help serve functions such as managing NEP
activities, providing administrative and technical support to any committees the management
conference may have assembled, conducting public outreach and education, and integrating NEP
activities with other restoration efforts in the watershed.29 Many NEPs have a host entity, such as
a state agency, university, or nonprofit organization, that administers the EPA assistance
agreement that supports and funds the NEP’s activities and projects.30 Some of the local NEPs are
structured as independent agencies or organizations.31
Funding and Grants
Congress authorized appropriations for the NEP when it established the program in 1987 and has
reauthorized appropriations for the program several times. Congress has also provided
appropriations for the program that fund grants to each local NEP to develop and implement
CCMPs, as well as nationally administered competitive grants awarded to address certain “urgent
and challenging issues.”
Authorizations of Appropriations
When Congress first established the NEP, Section 320(g) of the CWA authorized EPA to provide
grants for assisting research, surveys, studies, modeling, and other technical work necessary for
the development of a CCMP.32 Congress authorized $12.0 million annually from FY1987 through
FY1991 for these grants and for general support of the management conferences.33 In November
2000, Congress reauthorized appropriations for the NEP through FY2005 and amended the CWA
to allow funding to be used for implementing CCMPs in addition to developing them.34 The 2000
amendments authorized $35.0 million per year for each of FY2001 through FY2005.
Congress reauthorized appropriations for the NEP again in 2004 (authorizing $35.0 million for
each of FY2005-FY2010) and in 2016 (authorizing $26.5 million for each of FY2017-FY2021).35
The 2016 reauthorization also amended the CWA to modify eligible uses of the funds: (1) no
more than 5% for expenses relating to the administration of grants or awards by EPA; (2) no less
than 80% for grants to develop, implement, and monitor CCMPs; and (3) no less than 15% for
newly established competitive awards, to be provided to grant applicants “that are best able to

29 EPA, National Estuary Program Booklet; EPA, Community-Based Watershed Management: Lessons from the
National Estuary Program, EPA-842-B-05-003, February 2005, p. 17, https://www.epa.gov/nep/fact-sheet-about-
community-based-watershed-management-handbook.
30 See, for example, “Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program,” https://www.smbnep.org/who-we-are/. The Santa
Monica Bay National Estuary Program is comprised of and implemented by two different entities: the Santa Monica
Bay Restoration Commission (the nonregulatory Management Conference) and The Bay Foundation (a nonprofit host
entity, which receives NEP grant funds to implement the CCMP). See also San Francisco Bay Estuary Partnership,
“About Us,” https://www.sfestuary.org/about-us/. The San Francisco Bay Estuary Partnership’s host entity is the
Association of Bay Area Governments, which is staffed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
31 See, for example, Delaware Estuary Program, FAQs on DELEP Governance and the National Estuary Program,
March 2017, pp. 7-8, https://s3.amazonaws.com/delawareestuary/NEP_DELEP_FAQs_March2017.pdf.
32 33 U.S.C. §1330(g). Grants were provided on a 75% federal, 25% nonfederal basis to state, interstate, and regional
water pollution control agencies, state coastal zone management agencies, interstate agencies, or other public or
nonprofit private agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals.
33 P.L. 100-4.
34 Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-457). The cost share remained the same (75% federal, 25%
nonfederal) for grant funds used to develop CCMPs. The cost share for grants to implement CCMPs is 50% federal,
50% nonfederal.
35 P.L. 108-399; P.L. 114-162.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 12 Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

address urgent and challenging issues that threaten the ecological and economic well-being of
coastal areas.”36
Congress reauthorized the NEP again in 2021 (authorizing $50.0 million for each of FY2022-
FY2026).37 The 2021 reauthorization also amended the CWA to require that future CCMPs
“address the effects of recurring extreme weather events on the estuary, including the
identification and assessment of vulnerabilities in the estuary and the development and
implementation of adaption strategies,” and increase public education and awareness of the
estuary’s health and water quality. It also amended the section that authorizes competitive grants
to direct the EPA Administrator to select award recipients that are best able to address certain
issues that threaten the ecological and economic well-being of estuaries in the NEP or that relate
to the coastal resiliency of NEP estuaries (rather than “coastal areas” more broadly, as was
previously authorized).38
Appropriations
Congress appropriates funds to the NEP through the NEP/Coastal Waterways program area in
EPA’s Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriations account. These funds
support both the NEP and Coastal Waterways Programs. Of the funds supporting NEP activities,
EPA apportions them equally among the 28 estuaries in the NEP. The apportioned amounts are
dependent on total appropriations for the NEP/Coastal Waterways program area, generally
identified in accompanying report language.
Table 1 summarizes FY2019-FY2024 enacted appropriations and the FY2025 budget request for
the NEP, as well as the amounts of funding to be provided to each of the estuaries in the program
and for competitive grants as identified in accompanying report language.
In November 2021, Congress passed and President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA),39 also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which included
$132 million in supplemental appropriations to remain available until expended for NEP grants to
develop and implement CCMPs. IIJA specified that $26.4 million shall be made available for
each of FY2022 through FY2026, and that the funds are not subject to the statutory requirement
that not less than 15% of the appropriation be used for competitive awards. IIJA further specified
that the EPA Administrator may waive or reduce the required nonfederal share, and IIJA provides
that up to 3% of the amount appropriated shall be for salaries, expenses, and administration. In
July 2022, EPA issued an implementation memorandum for the IIJA funding, which specifies that
projects funded through IIJA should seek to accelerate and more extensively implement CCMPs;
prioritize projects in, and benefits to, disadvantaged communities; build the adaptive capacity of

36 CWA §320(g)(4)(C) states that these “urgent and challenging issues” include “(i) extensive seagrass habitat losses
resulting in significant impacts on fisheries and water quality; (ii) recurring harmful algal blooms; (iii) unusual marine
mammal mortalities; (iv) invasive exotic species that may threaten wastewater systems and cause other damage; (v)
jellyfish proliferation limiting community access to water during peak tourism seasons; (vi) flooding that may be
related to sea level rise or wetland degradation or loss; and (vii) low dissolved oxygen conditions in estuarine waters
and related nutrient management.”
37 P.L. 116-337.
38 The 2021 reauthorization also added nonprofit organizations to the list of management conference members,
codifying existing practice to do so, and amended the competitive grants provision to expand the type of projects
eligible for selection, including “emerging” issues that threaten estuaries, issues related to coastal resiliency,
stormwater runoff, accelerated land loss, and extreme weather events.
39 P.L. 117-58.
Congressional Research Service

7

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

ecosystems and communities; and leverage and support additional resources.40 The memorandum
also provides information on how NEPs should use and report on the supplemental funding.
President Biden’s FY2025 budget request for EPA includes $32.61 million for the NEP/Coastal
Waterways program area.41 The budget request indicates that this reflects a reduction in resources
for the program because “significant additional funding for these activities is available in FY2025
through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.”42

40 Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, National Estuary Program Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding
Implementation Memorandum for Fiscal Years 2022-2026, EPA, July 26, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2022-07/NEP%20BIL%20Implementation%20Memo%20FY22-26_July%202022_signed.pdf. Adaptive
capacity refers to NEPs’ efforts to expand climate change adaptation, hazard mitigation, and resilience activities,
including protection and restoration of habitats that increase resiliency and carbon sequestration (hereinafter BIL
Implementation Memo).
41 EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, EPA-
190R24002, March 2024, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-03/fy-2025-congressional-justification-
all-tabs.pdf, pp. 586-589.
42 EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, pp. 586-589.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 13 link to page 13
Table 1. FY2019-FY2024 Appropriations for the National Estuary Program
(dollars in millions)
Infrastructure
Investment
and Jobs Act
FY2025
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
(2021)
FY2022
FY2023
FY2024
Budget

Enacteda
Enactedb
Enactedc
Supplementald
Enactede
Enactede
Enactedf
Requestg
Total Annual
$132.00, of
Appropriations to the
which $26.4
NEP/Coastal Waterways
$26.72
$29.82
$31.82
available in each
$35.00
$40.00
$40.0
$32.61
Program Area
of FY2022-
FY2026
Amount per Estuary
$0.90 in each of
$0.60
$0.66
$0.70
$0.75
$0.85
$0.85
$0.70
FY2022-2026h
Competitive Grants
$1.00
$1.35
$1.50
Not specified
$2.00
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
Notes: Amounts presented in the table have not been adjusted for inflation and do not reflect account specific rescissions.
Sources:
a. FY2019 enacted amounts are as reported in the “Explanatory Statement” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), as published in
the Congressional Record, vol. 165, part 204-Book III (December 17, 2019), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-
bk3.pdf. Under Division D, see the funding table beginning on p. H11335. For the FY2019 amount per estuary and competitive grant amount, see the “Explanatory
Statement” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 116-6), as published in H.Rept. 116-9, p. 230.
b. FY2020 enacted amounts are as reported in the “Explanatory Statement” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), as published in
the Congressional Record, vol. 166, part 218-Book IV (December 21, 2020), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-12-21/pdf/CREC-2020-12-21-house-
bk4.pdf. Under Division G, see the funding table beginning on p. H8593. For the FY2020 amount per estuary and competitive grant amount, see the “Explanatory
Statement” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), as published in the Congressional Record, vol. 165, part 204-Book III (December
17, 2019), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2019-12-17/pdf/CREC-2019-12-17-house-bk3.pdf, p. H11293.
c. FY2021 enacted amounts are as reported in the “Joint Explanatory Statement—Division G” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-
103), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT47048/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT47048.pdf; see the funding table beginning on p. 1631. For the FY2021 amount
per estuary and competitive grant amount, see the “Explanatory Statement” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260), as published
in the Congressional Record, vol. 166, part 218-Book IV (December 21, 2020), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2020-12-21/pdf/CREC-2020-12-21-house-
bk4.pdf, p. H8540.
d. P.L. 117-58, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Division J, Title VI—Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
e. FY2022 and FY2023 enacted amounts are as reported in the “Joint Explanatory Statement—Division G” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023
(P.L. 117-328), as published in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Committee Print of the Committee on Appropriations, Book 2 of 2, Divisions G-N,
committee print, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Prt. 50-348 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2023), p. 1770. For the FY2023 amount per estuary and competitive grant amount,
CRS-9

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

see p. 1566. For the FY2022 amount per estuary and competitive grant amount, see the “Joint Explanatory Statement—Division G” accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT47048/pdf/CPRT-117HPRT47048.pdf; see the funding table beginning
on p. 1631.
f.
FY2024 enacted amounts are as reported in the “Joint Explanatory Statement—Division E” accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42),
as published in the Congressional Record, vol. 170, part 39 (March 5, 2024), https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2024/03/05/170/39/CREC-2024-03-05.pdf, p. S1684.
g. EPA, Fiscal Year 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations, EPA-190R24002, March 2024, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/
documents/2024-03/fy-2025-congressional-justification-all-tabs.pdf, pp. 586-589.
h. IIJA did not include language specifying the amount each estuary is to receive. However, in EPA’s National Estuary Program Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding
Implementation Memorandum for Fiscal Years 2022-2026, EPA specified that it will annually provide each of the estuaries in the program with approximately $900,000.
See Radhika Fox, Assistant Administrator, National Estuary Program Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding Implementation Memorandum for Fiscal Years 2022-2026, EPA,
July 26, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-07/NEP%20BIL%20Implementation%20Memo%20FY22-26_July%202022_signed.pdf.

CRS-10

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

NEP Oversight
EPA oversees the efforts of each local NEP in implementing its CCMP and achieving established
targets and milestones through both annual workplan and reporting requirements associated with
grant assistance agreements, as well as through the program evaluations EPA conducts on a five-
year cycle.
For grant assistance agreement-related requirements, EPA has issued guidance to the local NEPs
that details the agency’s annual workplan and reporting requirements and major assistance
agreement policies.43 Annual workplans are to include elements such as the CCMP (and which
goals the local NEP plans to focus on in the coming year); budget, staff, and cost-share
information; details about new and ongoing projects (including information about deliverables,
milestones, and how the project supports the CWA); and accomplishments, such as completed
workplan activities and lessons learned. Local NEPs are also required to provide annual reports to
the relevant EPA regions as part of their assistance agreements, as a record of how funds were
spent. These reports are to include information about all major projects completed during the
year, including deliverables, any constraints, the funds spent on implementation, and which
CCMP goals or objectives the project helped fulfill.
EPA also conducts program evaluations to assess each local NEP’s progress in achieving
programmatic and environmental results. EPA initiated its NEP implementation review process in
1997.44 Since that time, EPA has reassessed and modified its process several times and developed
and updated program evaluation guidance—most recently in 2021.45 EPA conducts program
evaluations on a five-year cycle. These evaluations consist of (1) the local NEPs developing and
submitting required information as outlined in the guidance; (2) site visits by program evaluation
teams to each local NEP; and (3) documentation of findings via a formal letter from EPA
headquarters.46
The 2021 program evaluation guidance requires that each local NEP provide a narrative
submission that discusses (1) the progress the NEP has made toward achieving the goals and
objectives identified in its CCMP through its workplan accomplishments over the prior five years;
(2) information on how the local NEP’s organizational structure and operational health and
function demonstrate the ability to overcome challenges and achieve current and future CCMP
goals; and (3) information that shows how the NEP applies and connects the day-to-day work for
the NEP with CWA and EPA priorities. The guidance more specifically requires that the local
NEPs address these topics with details showing how progress and outcomes are being achieved.
This includes information on budgets, monitoring and assessment, and examples of how the local
NEP is supporting CWA programs. Local NEPs are also required to submit additional documents,
such as the annual workplans and reports that the local NEPs provide as part of their grant
assistance agreements.
EPA historically has not shared the results of its program evaluations publicly. However, EPA has
indicated that the agency plans to start posting the trends from the program evaluations’ findings

43 EPA, FY2021-FY2024 Clean Water Act §320 National Estuary Program Funding Guidance, October 2020.
44 EPA, National Estuary Program, Program Evaluation Guidance, September 30, 2021, https://www.epa.gov/nep/
progress-evaluation-national-estuary-program.
45 EPA, National Estuary Program, Program Evaluation Guidance.
46 The program evaluation teams, per the guidance, consist of the EPA Headquarters NEP Coordinator, the EPA
Regional NEP Coordinator, and, if possible, an ex-officio NEP Director.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 16 link to page 19 link to page 16 link to page 16 Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

and recommendations on its website.47 To help share lessons learned across the program, EPA’s
website currently provides examples of environmental, programmatic, and financial leveraging
success stories.48 In addition, the agency publishes reports highlighting various accomplishments
and impacts made by the NEP program, or describing NEP efforts on certain topics such as
climate change and nutrient pollution.49 The most recent of these is the National Estuary Program
2022 Accomplishments report, which presents certain national metrics for FY2022 and success
stories and results from local NEPs.50
Congressional Interest
As discussed above, in November 2021, Congress indicated recent support for the NEP when it
passed the IIJA, which included $132 million in supplemental appropriations for NEP grants to
develop and implement CCMPs. In addition, in December 2022, Congress passed and President
Biden signed the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (P.L.
117-263), which included language from several other bills that pertain to the NEP. Specifically,
Congress amended the CWA to formally authorize two existing CWA Geographic Programs—the
Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay Geographic Programs—and included provisions that require
certain coordination efforts with NEP programs in those areas. In addition, Congress directed the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a comprehensive restoration plan for northern estuaries
in Florida, including two local NEPs.
Congress has also demonstrated its interest in the NEP through other legislative proposals and
congressional hearings. Table 2 summarizes legislation introduced during the 117th and 118th
Congresses related to the NEP, and Table 3 summarizes congressional hearings held in the 117th
Congress that included discussions about the NEP (none has been held to date in the 118th
Congress). Legislation providing appropriations for the NEP is excluded from Table 2, as enacted
appropriations laws are discussed above.
The bills listed in Table 2 include proposals to designate a “National Estuaries Week”; to
explicitly authorize certain CWA Geographic Programs in the CWA and require coordination
between those programs and local NEPs; to add an estuary to the list of those for which EPA is
required to give priority consideration for inclusion in the NEP; to provide additional funding to
NEPs affected by certain hurricanes; and to direct the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a
comprehensive restoration plan for northern estuaries in Florida, including two local NEPs. Some
of the provisions in some of these bills were enacted as part of P.L. 117-263, as discussed above.

47 Personal communication with EPA, March 7, 2024. EPA has indicated it is aiming to post this information beginning
in the summer of 2024.
48 EPA, “NEP Success Stories,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/nep-success-stories.
49 EPA, “National Estuary Program Reports,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/national-estuary-program-reports.
50 EPA, National Estuary Program 2022 Accomplishments, EPA-842-R-23-001, December 2023, https://www.epa.gov/
nep/national-estuary-program-2022-accomplishments.
Congressional Research Service

12

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Table 2. Selected Legislation Related to the National Estuary Program
(117th and 118th Congresses)
Latest Action
Bill No.
Bill Title
Summary of Relevant Provision
(Date)
118th Congress
H.Res. 688
Expressing
Would express support for the designation of
H.Res. 688 referred
and
support for the
“National Estuaries Week,” and the intent of the
to committee (Sept.
S.Res. 353
designation of the
House of Representatives and Senate to continue
14, 2023);
(related)
week of
working to understand, protect, and restore the
S.Res. 353 submitted
September 16
estuaries of the United States, among other things.
in the Senate,
through
considered, agreed to
September 23,
without amendment
2023, as “National
and with a preamble
Estuaries Week”
by Unanimous
Consent (Sept. 20,
2023)
H.R. 628
South Florida
Would amend the Clean Water Act (CWA) to
H.R. 628 referred to
and S. 119
Ecosystem
authorize the South Florida CWA Geographic
subcommittee (Feb. 1,
(identical)
Enhancement Act
Program, including a grant program to carry out
2023);
of 2023
projects to monitor, enhance, protect, preserve,
S. 119 referred to
or restore water quality, wetlands, aquatic
committee (Jan. 26,
ecosystems, or marine habitat in South Florida and 2023)
within the study area boundaries of two local
NEPs—the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary

Program and the Coastal and Heartland National
Estuary Partnership.
S. 116
The Hurricanes of
Would provide appropriations to EPA for FY2023,
Referred to
2022 Disaster
$100 million for environmental restoration and
committee (Jan. 26,
Relief Rectification
monitoring, to remain available until expended,
2023)
Act
including to carry out the NEP for estuaries within
states and territories impacted by hurricanes Ian,
Nicole, or Fiona; and other activities.
S. 50
Pensacola and
Would amend the CWA to require the EPA
Passed Senate with an
Perdido Bays
Administrator to give priority consideration to
amendment by voice
Estuary of
selecting the Pensacola and Perdido Bay Estuary in
vote (Mar. 12, 2024)
National
Florida and Alabama as an estuary of national
Held at the desk in
Significance Act of
significance.
the House (Mar. 15,
2023
2024)
S.Amdt.1694 Amendment to
Amends S. 50. Would amend the CWA to require
Agreed to in the
to S. 50
Pensacola and
EPA to give priority consideration to selecting the
Senate by Unanimous
Perdido Bays
Pensacola and Perdido Bay Estuary in Florida and
Consent (Mar. 12,
Estuary of
Alabama as an estuary of national significance.
2024)
National
However, specifies that EPA may not use FY2024
Significance Act of
funds to implement the amendment, and may only
2023
use FY2025 funds to implement the amendment if
FY2025 appropriations are at least $850,000 more
than the amount appropriated in FY2023.
Congressional Research Service

13

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Latest Action
Bill No.
Bill Title
Summary of Relevant Provision
(Date)
117th Congress
H.R. 7776
James M. Inhofe
Amended the CWA to authorize the San
Enacted as P.L. 117-
National Defense
Francisco Bay CWA Geographic Program,
263 (Dec. 23, 2022)
Authorization Act
including a grant program to support its
for Fiscal Year
restoration. Includes provisions to consult and
2023
coordinate with the local NEP—the San Francisco
Estuary Partnership—and its Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
Amended the CWA to authorize the Puget Sound
CWA Geographic Program. Required the
Director of the Program Office to, among other
things, coordinate and align the activities of the
EPA Administrator with the Puget Sound National
Estuary Program Management Conference’s most
recent CCMP, and other area plans and initiatives.
Also includes provisions to ensure coordination
between the CWA Geographic Program and the
local NEP.
Also directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
develop a comprehensive restoration plan for
northern estuaries in Florida, including two local
NEPs—the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary
Program and the Coastal and Heartland National
Estuary Partnership.
H.Res. 1358
Expressing
Would have expressed support for the designation Referred to
support for the
of “National Estuaries Week,” and the intent of
committee (Sept. 15,
designation of the
the House of Representatives to continue working
2022)
week of
to understand, protect, and restore the estuaries
September 17
of the United States, among other things.
through
September 24,
2022, as “National
Estuaries Week”
H.Res. 655
Expressing
Would have expressed support for the designation Referred to
support for the
of “National Estuaries Week,” and the intent of
subcommittee (Sept.
designation of the
the House of Representatives to continue working
17, 2021)
week of
to understand, protect, and restore the estuaries
September 18
of the United States, among other things.
through
September 25,
2021, as “National
Estuaries Week”
H.R. 7520
To direct the
Would have directed the U.S. Army Corps of
Referred to
Corps of
Engineers to develop a comprehensive plan for
subcommittee (Apr.
Engineers to
Lake Okeechobee and northern estuaries
15, 2022)
develop a
ecosystem restoration, including the study area
comprehensive
boundaries of two local NEPs—the Indian River
plan for Lake
Lagoon National Estuary Program and the Coastal
Okeechobee and
and Heartland National Estuary Partnership.
northern estuaries
ecosystem
restoration, and
for other purposes
Congressional Research Service

14

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Latest Action
Bill No.
Bill Title
Summary of Relevant Provision
(Date)
H.R. 6771
South Florida
Would have amended the CWA to authorize the
H.R. 6771 referred to
and S. 3676
Ecosystem
South Florida CWA Geographic Program,
subcommittee (Feb.
(identical)
Enhancement Act
including a grant program to carry out projects to
22, 2022);
of 2022
monitor, enhance, protect, preserve, or restore
S. 3676 referred to
water quality, wetlands, aquatic ecosystems, or
committee (Feb. 17,
marine habitat in South Florida and within the
2022)
study area boundaries of two local NEPs—the
Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program and
the Coastal and Heartland National Estuary
Partnership.
H.R. 1144
PUGET SOS Act
Would have amended the CWA to authorize the
Passed in the House
Puget Sound CWA Geographic Program. Would
(Jun. 15, 2021)
have required the Director of the Program Office

to, among other things, coordinate and align the
activities of the EPA Administrator with the Puget
Received in the Senate
Sound National Estuary Program Management
and referred to
Conference’s most recent CCMP and other area
committee (Jun. 16,
plans and initiatives. Included provisions to ensure
2021)
coordination between the CWA Geographic
Program and the local NEP.
H.R. 610
San Francisco Bay
Would have amended the CWA to authorize the
H.R. 610 passed in the
and
Restoration Act;
San Francisco Bay CWA Geographic Program,
House (Jun. 15, 2021)
including a grant program to support its
S. 1906
San Francisco Bay
Received in the Senate
restoration. Included provisions to consult and
(related
Restoration Act of
and referred to
coordinate with the local NEP—the San Francisco
bills)
2021
committee (Jun. 16,
Estuary Partnership—and its CCMP.
2021)
S. 1906 referred to
committee (May 27,
2021)
S.Res. 779
A resolution
Would have designated the week of September 17
Passed/agreed to in
designating the
through September 24, 2022, as “National
the Senate by
week of
Estuaries Week,” and expressed the intent of the
unanimous consent
September 17
Senate to continue working to understand,
(Sept. 20, 2022)
through
protect, and restore the estuaries of the United
September 24,
States, among other things.
2022, as “National
Estuaries Week”
S.Res. 374
A resolution
Would have designated the week of September 17
Referred to
designating the
through September 24, 2021, as “National
committee (Sept. 21,
week of
Estuaries Week,” and expressed the intent of the
2021)
September 19
Senate to continue working to understand,
through
protect, and restore the estuaries of the United
September 25,
States, among other things
2021, as “National
Estuaries Week”
S. 2213
Pensacola and
Would have amended the CWA to require the
Referred to
Perdido Bays
EPA Administrator to give priority consideration
committee (Jun. 24,
Estuary of
to selecting the Pensacola and Perdido Bay Estuary
2021)
National
in Florida and Alabama as an estuary of national
Significance Act of
significance.
2021
Source: CRS analysis of Congress.gov. Current as of May 13, 2024.
Congressional Research Service

15

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Table 3. Selected Hearings Related to the National Estuary Program
(117th Congress)
Hearing
Hearing Title (Date)
Committee
NEP Information
Serial No.
The Clean Water Act at
Subcommittee on
Discussed the successes of the past 50
H.Hrg.
Fifty: Highlights and
Water Resources and
years of CWA implementation and
117-59
Lessons Learned from a
Environment, House
remaining challenges. Mentioned the NEP
Half Century of
Committee on
as a CWA program that has yielded some
Transformative Legislation
Transportation and
success as a place-based restoration
(Sept. 20, 2022)
Infrastructure
program.
Building Climate-Resilient
House Select
Discussed efforts in the Lower Columbia
H.Hrg.
Coastal Communities:
Committee on the
Estuary Partnership (a local NEP) funded by 117-22
Perspectives from
Climate Crisis
the NEP. Focused on climate resilience
Oregon’s State, Local, and
efforts and noted the benefits that would
Tribal Partners (Aug. 3,
be realized through supplemental funding
2022)
Congress provided through the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Interior, Environment, and
Subcommittee on
Included comments from Members of
H.Hrg.
Related Agencies
Interior, Environment,
Congress showing support for the NEP and 117-493
Appropriations for 2023
and Related Agencies,
its importance in protecting and restoring
(Apr. 29, 2022)
House Committee on
water quality and ecological integrity for
Appropriations
estuaries of national significance.
Source: CRS, using ProQuest Congressional and govinfo.gov. Current as of May 13, 2024.
Notes: CRS did not identify any potentially relevant hearings held in the 118th Congress. Appropriations
hearings are included if they include testimony or discussion of the NEP beyond mention of appropriations
funding.
Issues for Congress
The NEP generally receives bipartisan support in Congress, in light of the environmental and
economic importance of the NEP estuaries as well as the resources the program leverages.51
According to EPA, on average, the local NEPs raise $17 for every $1 provided by EPA.52 These
additional funds come from federal, state, local, and private sources through various mechanisms,
including annual membership appeals, license plate revenues, fines and penalties, state
appropriations, and intergovernmental agreements.53 The local NEPs use the leveraged funds to
protect and restore habitat, support land acquisitions, upgrade wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure, conduct outreach and education, and implement other priority actions in CCMPs.54
Ongoing policy issues for Congress related to the NEP include the size of the program, the level
of appropriations needed to support the program, and oversight of the program.

51 For example, when Congress reauthorized the NEP in 2021 by passing the “Protect and Restore America’s Estuaries
Act” (H.R. 4044), the House passed the bill with a vote of 355-62, and the Senate passed it without amendment by
voice vote.
52 EPA, “Financing Strategies Used by the National Estuary Program,” https://www.epa.gov/nep/financing-strategies-
used-national-estuary-program.
53 EPA, “Financing Strategies Used by the National Estuary Program.”
54 EPA, “Financing Strategies Used by the National Estuary Program.”
Congressional Research Service

16

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Size of the NEP
Some policymakers debate whether the NEP should focus on providing funds to estuaries already
in the NEP, or whether EPA should expand the program to include additional estuaries. Some
observe that the current NEP estuaries face a multitude of challenges that can be costly to address,
and that the level of appropriations that the program receives may not adequately support the
addition of new estuaries to the program. EPA has provided this reasoning as to why the agency
has not put out calls for additional estuaries or added new estuaries to the program on its own
initiative in recent years.55 Others assert that additional estuaries could benefit from being added
to the NEP.56 To this end, in recent sessions of Congress, some Members have introduced
legislation that would add estuaries to the priority consideration list for inclusion in the NEP.
Moving forward, Congress may consider whether current annual appropriations are sufficient to
assist in funding the restoration activities of the NEP estuaries, and whether to add estuaries to the
program.
Level of Appropriations and Oversight
In the past, some have advocated for greater appropriations for the program, noting that the need
for funding to implement CCMPs outweighs the funds the NEPs receive.57 Others have argued
that restoration efforts in the estuaries are more appropriately addressed by state and local
agencies.58 Congress provided supplemental appropriations through IIJA to help NEPs make
more progress in implementing their CCMPs and developing revised CCMPs. EPA has signaled
in its implementation memorandum for the supplemental funding, as discussed above, that IIJA
funds will be provided to existing estuaries in the program to accelerate and more extensively
implement CCMPs, ensure that benefits reach disadvantaged communities, build the adaptive
capacity of ecosystems and communities, and leverage additional resources.59
As discussed above, EPA uses multiple mechanisms to oversee the local NEPs’ efforts in
implementing their CCMPs. To date, some of these results have not been publicly available.
Information included in performance evaluations and annual reports may provide insight into the
funding needed by NEPs to implement their CCMPs and aspects of the program that could be
improved. Moving forward, Congress may consider oversight of the program to ensure that funds,
particularly those provided through IIJA, are used efficiently and are helping the NEPs meet the
goals outlined in their CCMPs.

55 Personal communication with EPA, August 21, 2023.
56 In addition to S. 50 (118th) and S. 2213 (117th) discussed above, which propose to add the Pensacola and Perdido
Bays, FL, to the list of estuaries to receive priority consideration for inclusion in the NEP, Members have introduced
bills in prior sessions of Congress that would have added other estuaries to the list. These include the Mississippi
Sound, MS, and the Port Royal Sound, SC.
57 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment, Protecting and Restoring America’s Iconic Waters, 116th Cong., 1st sess., June 25, 2019, H.Hrg. 116-25.
58 See, for example, U.S. EPA, FY 2018 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations,
EPA-190-K-17-002, May 2017, p. 287, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-05/documents/fy-2018-
congressional-justification.pdf.
59 BIL Implementation Memo.
Congressional Research Service

17

Overview of the National Estuary Program (NEP)

Author Information

Laura Gatz

Specialist in Environmental Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R48069 · VERSION 1 · NEW
18

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 20, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Environmental Policy

National Defense

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON