33 USC 1330 - National estuary program

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Executive Order 12372, referred to in subsec. (span), is Ex. Ord. No. 12372, July 14, 1982, 47 F.R. 30959, as amended, which is set out under section 6506 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

Amendments

2021—Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 2, substituted “Peconic Bay, New York; Casco Bay, Maine; Tampa Bay, Florida; Coastal Bend, Texas; San Juan Bay, Puerto Rico; Tillamook Bay, Oregon; Piscataqua Region, New Hampshire; Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; Maryland Coastal Bays, Maryland; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; Mobile Bay, Alabama; Morro Bay, California; and Lower Columbia River, Oregon and Washington” for “and Peconic Bay, New York”.

Subsec. (span)(4). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 3, inserted dash after “management plan that” and subpar. (A) designation before “recommends” and added subpars. (B) and (C).

Subsec. (c)(5). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 4, inserted “nonprofit organizations,” after “educational institutions,”.

Subsec. (g)(4)(C). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 5(1), in introductory provisions, inserted “, emerging,” after “urgent” and substituted “the estuaries selected by the Administrator under subsection (a)(2), or that relate to the coastal resiliency of such estuaries” for “coastal areas”.

Subsec. (g)(4)(C)(vi), (vii). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 5(2), added cls. (vi) and (vii). Former cls. (vi) and (vii) redesignated (viii) and (ix), respectively.

Subsec. (g)(4)(C)(viii). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 5(2), (3), redesignated cl. (vi) as (viii) and inserted “, extreme weather,” after “sea level rise”.

Subsec. (g)(4)(C)(ix). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 5(2), redesignated cl. (vii) as (ix).

Subsec. (i)(1). Puspan. L. 116–337, § 6, inserted “, and $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2026,” after “2021”.

2016—Subsec. (g)(4). Puspan. L. 114–162, § 1, added par. (4).

Subsec. (i). Puspan. L. 114–162, § 2, added subsec. (i) and struck out former subsec. (i) which related to authorization of appropriations for fiscal years 2001 through 2010.

2004—Subsec. (i). Puspan. L. 108–399 substituted “2010” for “2005” in introductory provisions.

2002—Subsec. (k). Puspan. L. 107–303 repealed Puspan. L. 105–362, § 501(a)(2). See 1998 Amendment note below.

2000—Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Puspan. L. 106–457, § 301, inserted “Lake Pontchartrain Basin, Louisiana and Mississippi;” before “and Peconic Bay, New York.”

Subsec. (g)(2), (3). Puspan. L. 106–457, § 302, added pars. (2) and (3) and struck out former pars. (2) and (3) which read as follows:

“(2) Purposes.—Grants under this subsection shall be made to pay for assisting research, surveys, studies, and modeling and other technical work necessary for the development of a conservation and management plan under this section.

“(3) Federal share.—The amount of grants to any person (including a State, interstate, or regional agency or entity) under this subsection for a fiscal year shall not exceed 75 percent of the costs of such research, survey, studies, and work and shall be made on condition that the non-Federal share of such costs are provided from non-Federal sources.”

Subsec. (i). Puspan. L. 106–457, § 303, substituted “$35,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005” for “$12,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1991”.

1998—Subsec. (k). Puspan. L. 105–362, § 501(a)(2), which directed the substitution of “section 1254(n)(3)” for “section 1254(n)(4)”, was repealed by Puspan. L. 107–303. See Effective Date of 2002 Amendment note below.

1988—Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Puspan. L. 100–653, § 1004, and Puspan. L. 100–688, § 2001(1), made identical amendments, inserting “Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor);” after “Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts;”.

Puspan. L. 100–688, § 2001(2), substituted “California; Galveston” for “California; and Galveston”.

Puspan. L. 100–688, § 2001(3), which directed insertion of “; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana; Indian River Lagoon, Florida; and Peconic Bay, New York” after “Galveston Bay, Texas;” was executed by making insertion after “Galveston Bay, Texas” as probable intent of Congress.

1987—Subsec. (a)(2)(B). Puspan. L. 100–202 inserted “Santa Monica Bay, California;”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2002 Amendment

Amendment by Puspan. L. 107–303 effective Nov. 10, 1998, and Federal Water Pollution Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) to be applied and administered on and after Nov. 27, 2002, as if amendments made by section 501(a)–(d) of Puspan. L. 105–362 had not been enacted, see section 302(span) of Puspan. L. 107–303, set out as a note under section 1254 of this title.

Massachusetts Bay Protection; Definition; Findings and Purpose; Funding Sources

Puspan. L. 100–653, title X, §§ 1002, 1003, 1005, Nov. 14, 1988, 102 Stat. 3835, 3836, provided that:

“SEC. 1002. DEFINITION.

“For purposes of this title [amending section 1330 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 1251 and 1330 of this title], the term ‘Massachusetts Bay’ includes Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, and Boston Harbor, consisting of an area extending from Cape Ann, Massachusetts south to the northern reach of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

“SEC. 1003. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

“(a)Findings.—The Congress finds and declares that—

“(1) Massachusetts Bay comprises a single major estuarine and oceanographic system extending from Cape Ann, Massachusetts south to the northern reaches of Cape Cod, encompassing Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay, and Cape Cod Bay;

“(2) several major riverine systems, including the Charles, Neponset, and Mystic Rivers, drain the watersheds of eastern Massachusetts into the Bay;

“(3) the shorelines of Massachusetts Bay, first occupied in the middle 1600’s, are home to over 4 million people and support a thriving industrial and recreational economy;

“(4) Massachusetts Bay supports important commercial fisheries, including lobsters, finfish, and shellfisheries, and is home to or frequented by several endangered species and marine mammals;

“(5) Massachusetts Bay also constitutes an important recreational resource, providing fishing, swimming, and boating opportunities to the region;

“(6) rapidly expanding coastal populations and pollution pose increasing threats to the long-term health and integrity of Massachusetts Bay;

“(7) while the cleanup of Boston Harbor will contribute significantly to improving the overall environmental quality of Massachusetts Bay, expanded efforts encompassing the entire ecosystem will be necessary to ensure its long-term health;

“(8) the concerted efforts of all levels of Government, the private sector, and the public at large will be necessary to protect and enhance the environmental integrity of Massachusetts Bay; and

“(9) the designation of Massachusetts Bay as an Estuary of National Significance and the development of a comprehensive plan for protecting and restoring the Bay may contribute significantly to its long-term health and environmental integrity.

“(span)Purpose.—The purpose of this title is to protect and enhance the environmental quality of Massachusetts Bay by providing for its designation as an Estuary of National Significance and by providing for the preparation of a comprehensive restoration plan for the Bay.

“SEC. 1005. FUNDING SOURCES.

“Within one year of enactment [Nov. 14, 1988], the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Governor of Massachusetts shall undertake to identify and make available sources of funding to support activities pertaining to Massachusetts Bay undertaken pursuant to or authorized by section 320 of the Clean Water Act [33 U.S.C. 1330], and shall make every effort to coordinate existing research, monitoring or control efforts with such activities.”

Purposes and Policies of National Estuary Program

Puspan. L. 100–4, title III, § 317(a), Fespan. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 61, provided that:

“(1)Findings.—Congress finds and declares that—

“(A) the Nation’s estuaries are of great importance for fish and wildlife resources and recreation and economic opportunity;

“(B) maintaining the health and ecological integrity of these estuaries is in the national interest;

“(C) increasing coastal population, development, and other direct and indirect uses of these estuaries threaten their health and ecological integrity;

“(D) long-term planning and management will contribute to the continued productivity of these areas, and will maximize their utility to the Nation; and

“(E) better coordination among Federal and State programs affecting estuaries will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the national effort to protect, preserve, and restore these areas.

“(2)Purposes.—The purposes of this section [enacting this section] are to—

“(A) identify nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution, development, or overuse;

“(B) promote comprehensive planning for, and conservation and management of, nationally significant estuaries;

“(C) encourage the preparation of management plans for estuaries of national significance; and

“(D) enhance the coordination of estuarine research.”