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: