United States Office of EPA/600/4-90/033
Environmental Protection Research and Development November 1990
Agency Washington DC 20460
Near Coastal Program
Plan for 1990: Estuaries
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program
-------
EPA/600/4-90/033
November 1990
NEAR COASTAL PROGRAM PLAN FOR
1990: ESTUARIES
Edited by
A. F. Holland
Versar, Inc.
ESM Operations
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Contracts 68-D9-0166, 68-D9-0093, 68-03-3529,
68-C8-0066, and 68-C8-0061
Project Officer
John Paul
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NARRAGANSETT, RHODE ISLAND 02882
•yK> Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency's review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This report should be cited as follows:
Holland, A. F., ed. 1990. Near Coastal Program Plan for 1990: Estuaries. EPA 600/4-90/033. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, Rl.
-------
The preparation of this document, ERLN-1231, was funded by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency through the following contracts:
68-D9-0166 Versar, Inc.
68-D9-0093 Versar, Inc.
68-03-3529 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
68-C8-0066 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
68-C8-0061 Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
68-01-7176 Computer Sciences Corporation
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental regulatory programs in the United States have been estimated
to cost moro than $70 billion annually. Most of these programs address specific
local pollution problems. For the specific purposes for which they were designed,
these programs appear to be effective; however, the means to assess the
effectiveness of these programs for protecting the environment at national and
regional scales and over the long-term do not exist. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) considers it critical to establish monitoring and
assessment programs to confirm the effectiveness of pollution control strategies
and to corroborate the science upon which they are based at regional and national
scales.
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a
nationwide initiative being implemented by EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD). It was developed in response to the demand for information
on the condition of the nation's ecological resources. Although EMAP is funded
by ORD, it is designed to be an integrated federal program. Throughout the
planning of EMAP, ORD is working with other federal agencies including the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fisheries Service (USFS), and
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as well as other offices within EPA (e.g., the
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP)). These other agencies and
offices also will participate in the collection and use of EMAP data.
The goal of EMAP is to assess and document the status and trends in the
condition of the nation's forests, wetlands, estuaries, coastal waters, lakes, rivers,
and streams, Great Lakes, agricultural lands, and arid lands on an integrated and
continuing basis. It is designed to answer the following questions on regional and
national scales over the time period of decades:
• What is the status, extent, and geographical distribution of our
ecological resources?
• What proportion of these resources is declining or improving?
Where? At what rate?
• What are the factors likely to be contributing to declining condition?
-------
• Are pollution control, reduction, mitigation, and prevention programs
achieving overall improvement in ecological conditions?
Assessment of status and trends in the condition of the nation's ecological
resources requires data collected in a standardized manner, over large geographic
scales, and for long periods of time. Such assessments cannot be accomplished
by aggregating data from the many individual, short-term monitoring programs that
have been conducted in the past or are being conducted currently. Differences in
the parameters measured, the collection methods used, timing of sample
collection, and program objectives severely limit the value of historical and existing
monitoring data for conducting regional and national assessments. An integrated,
federal, multi-ecosystem monitoring and assessment program offers the
advantages of earlier detection of problems and improved identification of their
extent, magnitude, and likely causes. Such a program also enables more cost
effective regulatory and remedial actions to ensure protection and restoration of
the nation's ecological resources.
This document describes the plans for implementing EMAP in near coastal
ecosystems, including estuaries, estuarine and coastal wetlands, coastal waters,
and the Great Lakes. EMAP does not have the financial resources to implement
regional monitoring programs in all near coastal ecosystems simultaneously.
Therefore, a phased implementation is proposed, beginning with a demonstration
project in the estuaries of the mid-Atlantic region (i.e., the Virginian Province) in
1990.
Information obtained from the 1990 EMAP Near Coastal (EMAP-NC)
Demonstration Project will be used to:
• Demonstrate the value of integrated, multiagency monitoring
programs for planning, setting priorities, and evaluating the
effectiveness of pollution control actions,
• Define a sampling approach and network design for quantifying the
extent and magnitude of pollution problems in estuaries and
addressing objectives of multiple offices within EPA and NOAA,
• Develop standardized monitoring methods for estuaries that can be
transferred to other programs and agencies for sampling near coastal
environments,
• Identify and resolve logistical issues associated with implementing a
multiagency national status and trends ecological monitoring
program.
VI
-------
EMAP-NC does not have the resources to monitor all parameters of concern.
Rather, EMAP-NC will identify, evaluate, and sample indicators of environmental
quality that collectively characterize the overall condition of estuarine ecosystems
and are applicable on regional and national scales.
The sampling design used by EMAP-NC for the 1990 Demonstration Project
combines the strengths of systematic sampling designs with an understanding of
estuarine systems to collect data that provide unbiased estimates of the status of
estuarine resources with a known level of confidence. Information from individual
sample sites will be pooled both within and between years to produce regional
estimates for three classes of estuaries: (1) large estuaries (e.g., Chesapeake Bay,
Long Island Sound); (2) large tidal rivers (e.g., Potomac, Delaware, Hudson Rivers);
and (3) small, discretely, distributed estuaries, bays, inlets, tidal creeks, and rivers
(e.g., Barnegat Bay, Indian River Bay, Lynnhaven Bay, Elizabeth River).
Modifications of this design that are adequate for representing the status and
trends in the extent and magnitude of ecological will be used when the program
is implemented nationally.
EMAP-NC is, therefore, a regional monitoring program and is not specifically
designed to collect monitoring data representing a particular estuary. Rather, it is
designed to collect data that can be used to make statements about the population
of estuaries in a region and the classes of estuaries sampled. The sample design
allows assessments of status and trends for selected large estuaries and large tidal
rivers (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay) or other subpopu-
lations of interest (e.g., EPA Regions). Subpopulation assessments will have a
higher level of uncertainty than regional or class level assessments.
EMAP-NC, in close coordination with NOAA's National Status and Trends
Program, will provide annual data summaries and periodic interpretive reports on
the ecological condition of the Nation's estuaries. This information will be used to
evaluate the effectiveness of existing pollution control programs and policies, to
identify those types of estuarine ecosystems most in need of research,
assessment, and remediation, and to identify emerging pollution problems.
VII
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Objectives 1-2
1.2 Perceived Estuarine and Coastal Ecological
Condition 1-3
1.3 Identification of the Problem 1-6
1.4 Proposed Solution to the Problem 1-8
1.5 Coordination 1-10
1.6 Organization of the Remainder of This Plan ... 1-11
2.0 APPROACH AND RATIONALE 2-1
2.1 Scope of the EMAP Near Coastal Component . 2-2
2.2 Sampling Design 2-4
2.3 Indicators of Environmental Quality 2-8
2.4 Analysis and Integration 2-10
2.5 Data Management 2-13
2.6 Quality Assurance 2-15
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
2.7 EMAP Reporting 2-17
2.8 1990 Demonstration Project 2-17
3.0 SAMPLING DESIGN 3-1
3.1 Elements of the Sampling Design 3-1
3.2 General Sampling Approach 3-2
3.3 Definition of Boundaries 3-4
3.4 Regionalization 3-4
3.5 Classification 3-7
3.6 Sampling Design for the Demonstration
Project 3-15
3.7 Overview of Sampling Activities 3-41
4.0 INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION ... 4-1
4.1 The EMAP Indicator Strategy 4-1
4.2 Framework for Indicator Selection 4-2
4.3 Application of Indicator Selection Strategy
to Estuarine Ecosystems 4-10
4.4 Estuarine Candidate Indicators 4-14
4.5 Future Indicators 4-43
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Page
5.0 ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION 5-1
5.1 Need for Analysis and Integration 5-1
5.2 Types of Analyses 5-3
5.3 Measurement of Trends 5-23
5.4 EMAP-NC As a Client 5-28
5.5 Dissemination of Results 5-32
6.0 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 6-1
6.1 Data Management 6-2
6.2 Project Management 6-10
6.3 Staffing of NCIMS 6-12
7.0 LOGISTICS PLAN 7-1
7.1 Sampling Activities 7-2
7.2 Field Crews 7-5
7.3 Equipment 7-6
7.4 Sampling Logistics 7-8
7.5 Sample Shipment and Processing 7-10
7.6 Project Management 7-14
7.7 Contingencies 7-16
XI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
Page
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE 8-1
8.1 Data Quality Objectives 8-2
8.2 Quality Control 8-7
8.3 Quality Assessment 8-10
8.4 Quality Assurance of Data Management
Activities 8-14
8.5 Quality Assurance Reports to Management ... 8-17
9.0 REFERENCES 9-1
Appendices
A Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Overview A-1
B Memorandum of Understanding Between Environmental
Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration B-1
C List of Participants at the EMAP-NC Indicator
Workshop C-1
XII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 List of EMAP-NC indicators by major category 2-12
3-1 Summary of the characteristics of estuarine classes 3-9
3-2 List of estuarine resources within the Virginian
Province with surface areas greater than 2.6 km2 3-11
3-3 Estuaries in the Virginian Province included in the large
estuarine system class 3-16
3-4 Tidal rivers in the Virginian Province included in the large
tidal rivers class 3-17
3-5 Estuaries and tidal rivers in the Virginian Province included
in the small estuarine system class 3-18
3-6 1990 base sampling locations for the large estuarine
systems class 3-24
3-7 1990 base sampling locations [Random (R) and Index (I)]
for large tidal river class 3-28
3-8 1990 sample locations [Random (R) and Index (I)]
for the small estuarine systems class 3-30
3-9 1990 Demonstration Project sampling sites for
continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring 3-34
3-10 Locations of indicator testing and evaluation
sites for 1990 Demonstration Project 3-37
3-11 Locations of supplemental sampling sites in the 1990
Demonstration Project to assess spatial variability due
to scale in large estuarine systems and small sample
size in small estuarine systems 3-42
XIII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pace
3-12 Number of samples that will be taken in the 1990
Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province and the
1990-1993 cycle that could be used for subpopulation
estimation 3-44
4-1 General indicator selection critiera 4-4
4-2 Major categories of candidate indicators developed
from EMAP-NC conceptual model 4-15
4-3 Indicators selected for measurement in the 1990
Demonstration Project 4-16
4-4 Chemicals to be measured in sediments during the
1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project 4-22
4-5 Target fish taxa and the expected percentage of sampling
sites at which they will be collected in each salinity
zone, as determined from a Monte Carlo simulation analysis
of available fish trawl data for the Virginian Province 4-29
4-6 Chemicals to be measured by EMAP-NC in fish and bivalve
tissue during the 1990 Virginian Province
Demonstration Project 4-31
4-7 Synopsis of potential data sources for stressor indicators . . . 4-40
4-8 Major data sources for the National Coastal Pollution
Discharge Inventory 4-42
5-1 Translation of broad policy questions into policy relevant
and scientific components 5-4
5-2 Comparison of Annual Statistical Summaries and Inter-
pretative Assessment Report 5-33
XIV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
7-1 Sampling activities that will be accomplished at each station
type during each of the three sampling periods 7-3
7-2 Example of the proposed sampling schedule for Team 1 for the
first 10 days of Sampling Interval 2 7-11
8-1 Measurement Quality Objectives for EMAP-NC indicators
and associated data 8-5
8-2 Quality assurance sample types, type of data generated,
and measurement quality expressed for all measurement
variables 8-11
8-3 Warning and control limits for quality control samples 8-15
8-4 Recommended detection limits for EMAP-NC chemical
analyses 8-16
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Framework for Marine Environmental Monitoring Systems . . 1-9
2-1 EMAP-NC biogeographical provinces 2-5
2-2 Overview of the indicator strategy for EMAP-NC. The
manner in which indicators are related to the major
environmental problems and impacts is also shown 2-11
2-3 Example cumulative frequency distribution 2-14
2-4 Role of data quality objectives in obtaining a balance
between available resources and the level of uncertainty ... 2-16
3-1 Base sampling sites for all classes of estuaries in the 1990
EMAP-NC Demonstration Project in the Virginia Province . . . 3-26
3-2 Sites for which dissolved oxygen concentrations will be
monitored continuously from June 19 through August 30 for
the 1990 EMAP-NC Demonstration Project in the
Virginian Province 3-33
3-3 Indicator testing and evaluation sites to be sampled during
the 1990 EMAP-NC Demonstration Project in the
Virginian Province 3-38
3-4 Schematic summarizing the indicator testing and evalua-
tion strategy for the 1990 EMAP-NC Demonstration Project
in the Virginian Province 3-39
XVI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3-5 Supplemental sampling sites for the 1990 EMAP-NC
Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province 3-40
3-6 All sites to be sampled during the 1990 EMAP-NC
Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province 3-45
4-1 Framework for indicator development 4-3
4-2 Primary evaluation criteria used by EMAP-NC in the
tiered indicator selection strategy 4-8
4-3 Conceptual model for defining indicators of
estuarine quality 4-12
4-4 Schematic of how the Hydrolab DataSonde 3 will be
deployed for continuous dissolved oxygen moniitoring 4-26
5-1 Example cumulative frequency distribution 5-6
5-2 Components of the Estuarine Condition Index 5-9
5-3 Hypothetical cumulative frequency distribution for
the Estuarine Condition Index 5-13
5-4 Example matrix for assessing the relative contribution
of the Ecological Condition Index and the Human Use
Index to subnominal environmental conditions 5-14
5-5 Example matrix for assessing the relative contribution
of the Benthic Index and Fish Index to subnominal
ecological conditions 5-16
XVII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
5-6 Example matrix for evaluating the contribution of two expo-
sure indicators, dissolved oxygen concentration and sedi-
ment toxicity, to subnominal values of the Benthic Index ... 5-18
5-7 Example matrix for assessing the relative contribution
of sediment contaminants to subnominal sediment
toxicity values 5-20
5-8 Example matrix for identifying the attributes of benthic
communities that are most influenced by exposure to
subnominal dissolved oxygen concentrations 5-21
5-9 Example graph that will be used to display trends data
for indices and indicators 5-24
5-10 Example graph that will be used to summarize trends data
for the multiyear status estimates produced by EMAP-NC;
90% confidence limits are shown 5-25
5-11 Example matrix that is the starting point for detailed
evaluation of trends 5-27
6-1 Matrix summarizing data access for various user groups
as a function of the degree of data processing and the
level of quality assurance that has been completed 6-8
7-1 Areas to be sampled by each team during the 1990
Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province 7-9
7-2 Management structure for the 1990 Virginian Province .... 7-15
8-1 The three stages of developing data quality objectives 8-3
8-2 Example of a control chart 8-18
XVIII
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the rationale, approach, objectives, and plan for
establishing a monitoring program to periodically assess the status and trends in
ecological condition of the nation's estuarine and coastal ecosystems. The
proposed program is designed to assess changes in the ecological condition of
estuarine and coastal waters over broad biogeographical regions (e.g., the Mid-
Atlantic region, the Gulf of Mexico) and over long time periods (e.g., decades). It
is one element of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP),
a nationwide program being conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) to conduct similar
assessments for all the nation's ecological resources. Appendix A provides a
conceptual overview of EMAP.
The goal of EMAP is to document the condition of the nation's forests,
wetlands, estuarine and coastal waters, inland surface waters, Great Lakes,
agricultural lands, and arid lands in an integrated manner, on a continuing basis.
Although EMAP is designed and funded by ORD, other offices and regions within
EPA (e.g., Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Region III) and other federal
agencies (e.g., Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessments of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Forest Service, and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)) have contributed to its development and will
participate in the collection and use of EMAP data. When fully implemented,
EMAP will form a complex national monitoring network, with a large proportion of
the data collection and analysis being accomplished by other federal, state, and
local agencies. EMAP must develop interagency agreements with these other
agencies and establish a constituency within EPA regional offices and states.
EMAP is designed to provide the information required to formulate
environmental protection policies of the 1990s and beyond by providing answers
to the following questions:
• What is the status, extent, and geographical distribution of the
nation's important ecological resources?
• What proportion of these resources is declining or improving?
Where, and at what rate?
• What are the factors that are likely to be contributing to declining
condition?
1-1
-------
• Are control and mitigation programs achieving overall improvement
in ecological conditions?
• Which resources are at greatest risk to pollution impacts?
EMAP is not a compliance or enforcement monitoring program; nor is it a
diagnostic monitoring program. Site-specific field studies, bioassays, and fate and
effects modeling programs generally are used to support compliance
determinations, enforcement actions, and diagnostic programs. EMAP also is not
an ecological research program; rather, it is a program designed to assist in
identifying, defining, and prioritizing the ecological questions that must be resolved
to ensure protection and restoration of the nation's ecosystems. EMAP will work
with academic, governmental, and private research organizations, and particularly
with EPA research laboratories and grant programs, to address those questions.
The information generated by EMAP will be used by the following groups:
• Decision makers at all levels of government who set environmental
policy,
• Resource managers and regulators who require an objective basis for
allocation of resources and prioritization of actions, especially those
directed toward protecting and enhancing ecological resources, and
• Those interested in evaluating the effectiveness of the nation's
environmental policies for protecting and enhancing ecological
resources (e.g., the EPA Administrator and Senior Management staff.
Congress, and the public).
1.1 Objectives
The specific objectives of EMAP-Near Coastal (EMAP-NC) are as follows:
• Provide a quantitative assessment of the regional extent of coastal
environmental problems by measuring pollution exposure and
ecological condition,
• Measure changes in the regional extent of environmental problems
for the nation's estuarine and coastal ecosystems,
1-2
-------
• Identify and evaluate associations between the ecological condition
of the nation's estuarine and coastal ecosystems and pollutant
exposure, as well as other factors known to affect ecological
condition (e.g., climatic conditions, land use patterns), and
• Assess the effectiveness of pollution control actions and
environmental policies on a regional scale (i.e., large estuaries like
Chesapeake Bay, major coastal regions like the mid-Atlantic and Gulf
Coasts) and nationally.
As a first step in accomplishing the above objectives, a Demonstration
Project will be implemented in the mid-Atlantic region in 1990. The major goal of
this demonstration project is to illustrate the benefits of regional monitoring data
collected in a standard way for assessing status and trends of ecological resources
and, at the same time, to collect the information necessary to develop a technically
sound and cost-effective program that can be implemented over the long term.
1.2 Perceived Estuarine and Coastal Ecological Condition
Estuarine and coastal ecosystems are among the most productive of
ecological systems. Historically, more than 70 percent of commercial and
recreational landings of fish and shellfish are taken from estuaries (U.S.
Department of Commerce 1929-1988). Estuaries also provide critical feeding,
spawning, and nursery habitats, as well as migratory routes, for many
commercially and recreationally important fish, shellfish, birds, waterfowl, and
mammals (Lippson et al. 1979; Olsen et al. 1980). Marshes and submersed
aquatic vegetation (SAV) that occur along the shores of estuaries are particularly
valuable components of coastal ecosystems (Daiber and Roman 1988; Daiber
1986; Kemp et al. 1984; Pomeroy and Wiegert 1981). These vegetated
communities stabilize shorelines from erosion, reduce nonpoint source pollution
loadings, improve water clarity, and provide habitat for migrating waterfowl, fish,
and shellfish (Daiber and Roman 1988; Odum 1988; The Conservation Foundation
1988; Daiber 1982; Redfield 1972).
The public values estuarine and coastal ecosystems for recreational and
aesthetic pleasure (e.g., boating, swimming, hunting, and fishing). Approximately
$7 billion in public funds are spent annually on outdoor marine and estuarine
recreation in the 22 coastal states (NOAA 1988). Millions of tourists visit coastal
beaches annually, and coastal property is among the nation's most valuable real
estate. The estuarine and coastal environment also provides cooling waters for
energy production, transportation routes for ships, and space for economic
1-3
-------
development. Most of the nation's major ports are located in coastal
environments, mainly estuaries.
Billions of dollars have been spent to reduce the pollutant loadings entering
estuarine and coastal ecosystems, with mixed results. In general, coastal pollution
abatement programs have been effective at reducing the impacts of conventional
pollutants (i.e., excess nutrients and organic materials) on water quality and
controlling unacceptable production and disposal practices for most toxic
chemicals. Some systems that once exhibited severely low dissolved oxygen
concentrations because of the discharge of excessive amounts of conventional
pollutants, such as the lower salinity regions of Delaware Bay and the Potomac
River, have partially recovered (Lippson et al. 1979; Albert 1982). In addition,
massive releases of toxic chemicals that were associated with faulty
manufacturing practices (e.g., release of Kepone into the James River and PCB and
DDT into the Southern California Bight) no longer occur (Huggett and Bender 1980;
Huggett 1989; Logan et al. 1989; Mearns et al. 1988). The release of a few
persistent toxic pesticides, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, also has been
controlled effectively by limiting their sale and production (Logan et al. 1989;
Mearns et al. 1988). Many other pollution problems, particularly the accumulation
of persistent toxicants in sediments and biota and the loss of critical habitat (e.g.,
SAV and wetlands), have proved to be difficult to control and correct (NRC 1989).
The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in the
passage of major environmental legislation to protect the quality of estuarine and
coastal waters, including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. The environmental quality goals
established by these legislative acts and associated amendments, such as the
Clean Water Act of 1987, provide the regulatory basis for protecting and
enhancing estuarine and coastal ecological resources. These laws clearly reflect
society's desire to preserve the ecological integrity and human uses of natural
resources. EPA protects the environmental quality, including ecological integrity
and societal uses of coastal ecosystems, by promulgation and enforcement of
uniform federal regulations in support of environmental legislation. These
regulations are designed to limit the type and quantity of pollutants entering
estuarine and coastal waters.
In principle, environmental regulations and associated testing programs
should control the release of all pollutants. In practice, however, incomplete
scientific information about the ecological and human health consequences of
many pollutants, limitations of pollution control technologies, and the cost of
implementing some control strategies have resulted in control of only a fraction of
the pollutants presently released into the environment (Levin and Kimball 1984).
In addition, existing regulations focus on control of point source discharges, which
constitute only one major source of pollutants. EPA and the coastal states have
1-4
-------
only recently begun to develop and initiate programs to address diffuse and
nonpoint source pollutants and to require protection of critical habitats (e.g.,
wetlands, SAV). A major shortcoming of current pollution control policies is that
the cumulative or incremental effects of multiple pollutants from multiple sources
(e.g., point and nonpoint source) are not considered when discharge limits are
established. "
In many coastal regions, water and sediment quality and the abundance of
living resources are perceived to have declined over the past 10 to 15 years,
despite the implementation of more strict control programs. Increasingly, reports
appear in the popular press (Morganthau 1988; Toufexis 1988; Smart et al. 1987)
and scientific journals describing the decline of estuarine and coastal environmental
quality, as exemplified by the following:
• Increases in the frequency, duration, and size of water masses that
do not contain sufficient oxygen to sustain living resources (USEPA
1984; Officer et al. 1984; Parker et al. 1986; Rabalais et al. 1985;
Whitledge 1985);
• Accumulation of contaminants in sediment and in the tissues of fish
and shellfish to levels that threaten humans and the vitality of fish
and shellfish populations (OTA 1987; NRC 1989);
• Declines in the amount and quality of ecologically important habitats
(e.g., wetlands and SAV) that are associated with high population
levels of waterfowl, shorebirds, fish, and shellfish (Prayer et al.
1983; The Conservation Foundation 1988; Orth and Moore 1983);
• Increased evidence that many restoration and mitigation efforts have
not replaced losses of critical habitats (Sanders 1989; The
Conservation Foundation 1988);
• Increased incidence of pathological problems in fish and shellfish in
systems that have high levels of chemical contamination (Sinderman
1979; O'Connor et al. 1987; Buhler and Williams 1988; Capuzzo et
al. 1988);
• More favorable conditions for and increased frequency and
persistence of algal blooms and associated decreases in water clarity
(USEPA 1984; Pearl 1988);
1-5
-------
• Increased incidence of closures of beaches, shellfishing grounds, and
fisheries because of pathogenic and chemical contamination (Smart
et al. 1987; Food and Drug Administration 1971, 1985; Hargis and
Haven 1988; Broutman and Leonard 1988; Leonard et al. 1989); and
• Increased incidence of human health problems from consumption of
contaminated fish and shellfish or swimming in contaminated waters
(Fein et al. 1984; Jacobson et al. 1983, 1984; Malins 1989).
The above symptoms of the declining environmental quality of estuarine and
coastal systems are specific to particular areas; nonetheless, they are characteristic
of the kinds of problems facing all coasts from New England to Alaska.
1.3 Identification of the Problem
Most of the symptoms of declining ecological condition in estuarine and
coastal ecosystems have a common denominator-humans. Our species has
directly affected these ecosystems by adding excessive amounts of pollutants to
the air and water and by modifying or destroying ecologically important and rare
habitats such as wetlands, SAV, and forested areas along the shoreline. Most
important, however, human activities adversely affect estuarine and coastal
ecosystems by changing the character of the land in ways that increase the
amount and types of pollutants that reach them. Often, changes to the land that
adversely affect estuarine coastal ecological condition occur in parts of the
watershed that are far removed from coastal areas. For example, agricultural
practices in Pennsylvania can adversely influence sediment and pollutant loadings
in Chesapeake Bay (USEPA 1984).
Changes in relative abundance of ecological resources, particularly declines
in the abundance and catch of harvested fish and shellfish, are perceived, often
incorrectly, to be entirely the result of pollution impacts. Pollution is not the only
factor affecting the productivity and condition of estuarine and coastal
ecosystems. Declines in fish and shellfish populations also are due to over-
harvesting. As a result, many fisheries management agencies have imposed catch
restrictions. Natural climatic variation has major effects on recruitment success
and abundance of marine organisms, especially fish and shellfish, as well as on
overall ecological condition and the water quality of many estuaries and coastal
regions (Rose et al. 1986; Holland etal. 1987; Gushing 1982; Helz 1988; Jeffries
and Terceiro 1985; Summers and Rose 1987; Crecco et al. 1986). For example,
a large fraction of the variation in recruitment success of striped bass is associated
with the timing and amount of freshwater inflow and annual temperature cycles
(Polgar 1982; Polgar et al. 1985).
1-6
-------
Congressional hearings on the National Environmental Monitoring
Improvement Act in 1984 concluded that despite considerable annual expenditures
on monitoring, federal agencies could assess neither the current status of the
nation's ecological resources nor the overall progress toward legally mandated
environmental goals. A major factor contributing to this problem is that regulatory
and resource management agencies have recognized only recently the complexity
of many estuarine and coastal pollution and resource management problems,
particularly the high degree of connectivity between the extent, type, and condition
of ecosystems in the watershed and the amount and type of pollutants released
into coastal habitats.
In a recent review of marine and estuarine monitoring programs, the Marine
Board of the National Research Council (NRC) concluded that the integrated
monitoring and assessment information needed for protecting and restoring
estuarine and coastal ecosystems was not available (NRC 1990a). As a result, it
presently is not possible to accomplish the following:
• Define which pollution insults (or natural problems) represent the
greatest threat to marine and estuarine resources,
• Evaluate whether insults (or natural problems) and their
consequences vary regionally or are similar from region to region,
• Objectively evaluate the effectiveness of past management actions
in protecting and maintaining environmental quality and natural
resources, and
• Separate natural changes in ecological condition from
anthropogenically induced impacts.
The need to establish ecological baselines will become acute as the
complexity, scale, and societal importance of estuarine and coastal environmental
issues increase (NRC 1989, 1990a). The long- and short-term success of coastal
environmental protection and restoration programs is dependent upon the ability
to define baseline conditions and to establish attainable environmental quality goals
(NRC 1990a). Progress toward achievement of environmental quality goals must
also be measured routinely, as a means of assessing the effectiveness of previous
management actions. If particular control strategies are ineffective, alternative
strategies may be required or the initial approach may need to be modified. In
short, monitoring and assessment information covering a range of spatial (national,
regional, system-specific) and temporal (long- and short-term) scales, including
information on the status of ecosystems in the watershed, is vital to the protection
and restoration of estuarine and coastal ecosystems (Wolfe et al. 1987; NRC
1990s).
1-7
-------
An additional problem hindering effective environmental decision making is
the timely synthesis and dissemination of monitoring data and the associated
interpretive assessments. Historically, many of the important decisions for which
monitoring data were collected were made before the actual data were obtained
and analyzed and a final assessment report was prepared (NRC 1990a).
1.4 Proposed Solution to the Problem
Recognizing the need for better environmental surveillance, the EPA
Science Advisory Board (SAB) recommended in 1988 that EPA develop and
implement a program to assess the status and trends of the nation's ecological
resources, and that it should have the capability to identify emerging environmental
problems before they reach crisis proportions (SAB 1988). The SAB made this
recommendation because EPA's regulatory mandates and multimedia responsibil-
ities require complex quantitative assessments of pollutant impacts on ecosystems
and their human uses. Data collected by the program the SAB envisioned would
be used to evaluate the overall effectiveness of environmental control policies and
regulations. The recommendation by the SAB is one of the major factors
contributing to ORD's decision to initiate development of EMAP.
The National Research Council (NRC) Marine Board review of marine and
estuarine monitoring systems (NRC 1990a) also recommended the creation of a
national network of regional monitoring programs for estuarine and coastal
environments. This review recommended that the program be multiagency in
nature, including both NOAA and EPA, and that it be designed in a manner that
would incorporate and contribute to monitoring and assessment efforts being
developed for systems in EPA's National Estuary Program. The NRC review
emphasized the importance of ensuring that the data produced by monitoring
programs were synthesized and integrated in a timely manner, into information that
could be used by the public and decision makers. The Marine Board review also
recognized the need for "new" monitoring efforts to build upon the vast amount
of existing monitoring information and to extend monitoring programs landward as
a means of identifying factors contributing to coastal pollution problems.
The NRC review developed a conceptual framework that identified the major
components of successful monitoring and assessment systems (Fig. 1-1). This
framework applies to all spatial and temporal scales and types of monitoring. It is
particularly applicable to status and trends monitoring programs and was used in
the development of EMAP-NC to ensure concerns identified by the NRC review
were addressed. Deficiencies in monitoring strategies usually result from failure
1-8
-------
INSTITUTIONAL
SETTING
• Mandates
• Missions
• Societal Needs
TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENT
AND TRANSFER
NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL
SETTING
• Basic Features of Environment
• Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Specific
Programmatic
Undefined
TECHNICAL DESIGN
• Specific Objectives
• Focusing—Role of Tiered Approaches
• Reconnaissance
• Sampling Design
• Quality Assurance
• Adaptation
• Utility
IMPLEMENTATION
TECHNICAL
INTERPRETATION
DATA MANAGEMENT
AND ANALYSIS
DECISION MAKING
Figure 1-1. Framework for Marine Environmental Monitoring Systems (NRC 1990a)
-------
to consider one or more elements of this framework or from considering them out
of logical sequence or context (NRC 1990a).
1.5 Coordination
Meeting the objectives of EMAP requires close cooperation among many
offices within EPA and with other federal, state, and local agencies involved in
monitoring activities. Although EMAP is funded by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD), other offices within EPA (e.g., the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection) have participated actively in its development. EMAP-NC has
coordinated with each of the National Estuary Programs in the mid-Atlantic region
about activities planned in that region in 1990 and beyond. Coordination will occur
with other National Estuary Programs and ongoing EPA programs (e.g., Gulf of
Mexico Program) before monitoring activities are implemented in these regions.
Both NOAA and EPA have mandates to conduct a broad range of research
and monitoring activities to assess the effects of pollution on coastal and estuarine
environments. There are similarities and differences between existing NOAA and
EPA programs; however, the combined results of both agencies' programs serve
the national interest more than the results of individual programs. It is the
intention of NOAA and the EPA to cooperate and coordinate, to the greatest extent
possible, to integrate estuarine and coastal monitoring, research, and assessment
activities and to ensure that data collected by EMAP and the NOAA National
Status and Trends Program augment and complement each other to the maximum
extent possible.
The framework for cooperating and coordinating monitoring and research
activities between NOAA and EPA is a joint NOAA/EPA Committee for Coastal and
Estuarine Environmental Quality Monitoring. This committee was created to ensure
coordination and exchange of information between the two agencies on coastal
monitoring, research, and assessment. The joint committee has held monthly
meetings since October 1989. The purpose of these meetings has been to
exchange planning information and to identify opportunities for joint comple-
mentary monitoring, research, and assessment activities. As a result of the
activities of this committee, a joint NOAA/EPA quality assurance program has been
implemented for sampling near coastal environments. Through the joint com-
mittee, NOAA has assisted EPA in the development and evaluation of coastal and
estuarine environmental quality indicators by participating in workshops, providing
data for retrospective analyses, and reviewing EPA plans and analysis results. The
joint NOAA/EPA committee recently developed and executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOD) that defines continued interagency cooperation and inter-
action and provides a framework for integrating the activities of the NOAA National
1-10
-------
Status and Trends Program and EMAP into a unified national monitoring and
assessment program for estuarine and coastal waters (Appendix B).
The extent, type, and ecological condition of terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems has a major influence on the amount and type of pollutants that are
released into coastal waters. Therefore, it is critical that interagency cooperation
and coordination on monitoring, research, and assessment does not stop with the
activities of the joint NOAA/EPA Committee for Coastal and Estuarine
Environmental Quality Monitoring. To ensure the protection and effective
management of all the nation's ecological resources, the joint NOAA/EPA activities
must be extended landward to incorporate other agencies and ecosystems. Then,
the integrated ecological monitoring, research, and assessment programs required
to address the complex, multimedia environmental issues of the 1990's and
beyond will become a reality.
Coordination with NOAA and other federal agencies, as well as with other
offices within EPA, avoids duplicative monitoring efforts and allows existing data
to be used to maximum benefit. This coordination should lead to the incorporation
of historical baselines established by other agencies, such as NOAA's baselines on
contaminant concentrations in sediments and bivalves, into EMAP-NC analyses.
It will also lead to the incorporation of EMAP-NC data into the analyses and
assessments accomplished by other agencies. The regional-scale assessments
resulting from EMAP-NC, in combination with the ongoing characterization work
of NOAA, will provide a substantial portion of the technical information needed to:
(1) characterize existing conditions and define coastal environmental problems; (2)
coordinate the design and implementation of regional monitoring and assessment
activities; and (3) identify, assess, and recommend management strategies and
solutions that will enhance and protect regional coastal environmental quality.
1.6 Organization of the Remainder of This Plan
The remaining sections of this document are organized in the following
manner:
• Approach and Rationale (Chapter 2.0) provides an overview of all
aspects of EMAP-NC.
• Sampling Design (Chapter 3.0) provides a detailed description of the
proposed sampling approach.
• Indicator Development and Evaluation (Chapter 4.0) details the
strategy used to select the parameters to be measured (i.e.,
1-11
-------
indicators of environmental quality), discusses the basis for
selections, and describes activities that will be conducted to evaluate
the indicators that have been selected and to identify additional indi-
cators.
Analysis and Integration (Chapter 5.0) provides an overview of what
analyses will be conducted and how their results will be used.
Information Management (Chapter 6.0) provides a general description
of data management procedures that will be used to ensure that the
collected data are provided to users quickly and efficiently. This
chapter also describes the information management system that will
be used to monitor the status of project activities.
Logistics Plan (Chapter 7.0) describes how sampling activities will be
conducted and how unanticipated logistical problems will be
addressed.
Quality Assurance (Chapter 8.0) details the procedures that will be
used to ensure that the quality of the data collected is sufficient to
meet program objectives and the needs of prospective users.
References (Chapter 9.0) is the list of references cited in the text.
Appendix A is a conceptual overview of EMAP.
Appendix B is a copy of the MOU between NOAA and EPA relevant
to status and trends monitoring of estuarine environments.
Appendix C is a list of participants at the EMAP-NC indicator
workshop.
1-12
-------
2.0 APPROACH AND RATIONALE
Assessing the status and trends for the nation's estuarine and coastal
ecological resources requires data collected in a standardized manner, over large
geographic scales, for long periods of time. Such assessments cannot be
accomplished by aggregating data from the many individual, short-term monitoring
programs that have been conducted in the past and are being conducted currently.
Differences in the parameters measured, the collection methods used, timing of
sample collection, and program objectives severely limit the usefulness of historical
monitoring data for conducting regional and national status and trends
assessments (Beanlands and Duinker 1983, 1984; Wolfe et al. 1987; Chesapeake
Bay Panel 1988; Panel on Particulate Wastes in the Ocean 1989; NRC 1989,
1990a, 1990b).
The EMAP Near Coastal program (EMAP-NC) proposes to monitor a defined
set of parameters (i.e., indicators of estuarine and coastal environmental quality)
on a regional scale, over a period of decades, using standardized sampling methods
with a probability-based sampling design. These characteristics distinguish EMAP-
NC from other monitoring programs and will provide the data for preparing the
regional and national scale assessments that are needed to address the
environmental issues of the 1990s and beyond (Reilly 1989; Thomas 1988a,
1988b).
Local programs that measure the same parameters and sample in a manner
compatible with EMAP will be able to use EMAP products to obtain a regional and
national perspective with which to evaluate the seriousness of local problems.
This will assist them in two ways: (1) by determining whether their problems are
unique, and (2) by facilitating detection of problems that are more easily measured
on regional or national scales (e.g., determination of whether apparent declines in
valued resources are associated with regional changes in climate or is more likely
attributable to regional or local changes in pollutant loadings).
Because of its unique approach to monitoring EMAP-NC will be able to
accomplish the following:
• Assess the status, extent, and geographical distribution of the
nation's estuarine and coastal ecological resources,
2-1
-------
• Estimate the proportion of those resources that are declining or
improving, where, and at what rate,
• Quantify pollution exposure on regional and national scales,
• Identify the factors that are contributing to declining conditions and
assess which factors represent the greatest threat to valued
resources and ecosystem attributes,
• Determine whether environmental regulations and enforcement
actions are protecting near coastal ecological resources adequately,
and
• Identify emerging problems before they reach crisis proportion.
2.1 Scope of the EMAP Near Coastal Component
EMAP-NC has established its inland boundary as the limit of tidal influence.
The outer boundary is the continental shelf break. Ecosystems occurring between
these boundaries that ultimately will be sampled by EMAP-NC are the following:
• Estuarine and Coastal Wetlands -- submerged lands characterized by
periodic or constant saturation and the presence of vegetation
adapted to or tolerant of saturated soils,
• Estuaries -- semi-enclosed bodies of water that have a free connec-
tion with the open sea and an inflow of freshwater that mixes with
the seawater; estuaries include fjords, bays, inlets, lagoons, and tidal
rivers,
• Coastal Waters -- the waters lying over the continental shelf that are
more saline than estuaries, and
• The Great Lakes -- freshwaters not affected by marine currents; each
lake has a unique, complex current pattern.
At the present time, EMAP does not have the financial resources to
implement regional monitoring programs in all estuarine and coastal ecosystems
simultaneously. Therefore, a phased implementation is proposed that focuses
2-2
-------
much of the initial efforts on estuaries. The reasons for selecting estuaries as the
starting point are:
• Natural hydrodynamic and chemical processes concentrate and retain
pollutants in estuaries. As a result, estuaries are repositories for
many of the pollutants released into the nation's waterbodies and
atmosphere and are integrators of man's insults on the near coastal
environment (Conomos and Peterson 1976; Schubel and Carter
1976, 1984; Goldberg et al. 1978; NRC 1983, 1989; Biggs and
Howell 1984; Schubel and Kennedy 1984; OTA 1987; Nixon et al.
1986).
• Demographers project that the high urbanization rate of estuarine
watersheds will continue through the 1990s; by the year 2000, over
75 percent of the nation will live within 50 miles of the coast (OTA
1987). Most of these individuals will live in a watershed that drains
into an estuary.
• Estuaries provide critical spawning and nursery habitat for many
commercially and recreationally important fish and shellfish (Gunter
1967; Tagatz 1968; Lippson et al. 1979). Protection of estuarine
habitats and biota is critical to the sustainability of commercial and
recreational fisheries (May 1974, Polgar 1982). Early life stages of
these resources are very sensitive to pollution insults (Hall et al.
1982; Weltering 1984).
• The environmental quality and status of living resources in estuaries
is strongly influenced by the ecological condition in estuarine and
coastal wetlands, as well as by environmental conditions throughout
the watershed (EPA 1983; Donovan and Tolson 1987; Costanza et
al. 1990). As a result, information on the status and trends of
estuarine ecosystems should provide information about the condition
of other coastal ecosystem types, and perhaps, the entire watershed.
• The ecological condition of estuaries appears to be more degraded
than that of coastal waters (OTA 1987).
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA are assessing
the status and trends of estuarine and coastal wetlands on a national
scale. EMAP-NC will coordinate with the FWS and NOAA to define
the scope of assessment activities required to initiate regional
monitoring programs for estuarine and coastal wetlands. EMAP-NC
considers it critical to include wetlands in its estuarine program
2-3
-------
before a regional monitoring program is implemented in the
southeastern United States and the Gulf of Mexico.
2.2 Sampling Design
The sampling design for EMAP-NC has three elements:
• A reaionalization scheme for partitioning estuarine and coastal
resources into regions with similar ecological properties that
constitute reasonable reporting units,
• A classification scheme to define subpopulations of interest (e.g.,
classes of estuaries, types of wetlands) that can be sampled using
a common approach, and
• A statistical design that will obtain unbiased estimates of the status
and trends of near coastal ecological resources cost effectively.
EMAP-NC will use the regionalization scheme shown in Fig. 2-1 to divide the
nation's estuarine and coastal resources into a series of biogeographical provinces.
Initially, field activities will be implemented in the Virginian Province, with other
provinces added in subsequent years. By 1995, all provinces in the continental
U.S. should be included in the sampling program. At this time, EMAP-NC plans to
sample only those portions of the Acadian and West Indian provinces that are
under the control of the United States government.
The classification scheme is used to subdivide estuaries into classes that
have similar physical features and are likely to respond to stressors in a similar
manner. The classes defined include: (1) large, continuously distributed estuaries
(e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Long Island Sound); (2) large tidal rivers (e.g., Potomac,
Delaware, Hudson Rivers); and (3) small, discretely distributed estuaries, bays,
inlets, tidal creeks, and rivers (e.g., Barnegat Bay, Indian River Bay, Lynnhaven
Bay, Elizabeth River). The purposes of classifying estuaries into categories having
similar attributes (e.g., size, shape, resource distributions) are: (Da common
sampling design can be applied to each class, (2) the variability in conditions within
a class should be less than that which occurs among classes, reducing the number
of samples necessary to characterize a class accurately, and (3) the degree of
confidence with which inferences can be made about systems within a class that
are not sampled is increased.
2-4
-------
EMAP Biogeographical Provinces
to
en
Columbian
Californian v^'H
Acadian
Virginian
West Indian
Figure 2-1. EMAP-NC biogeographical provinces
-------
A critical issue that must be addressed by EMAP-NC is how best to
represent the ecological condition of estuarine and coastal environments with
limited financial resources and relatively few samples. It is obvious that one or two
samples, from one or two locations, at one time of the day, in a specific season
of a particular year cannot characterize the ecological condition of even a small
estuary. Such a sampling program is justified only if it can be demonstrated that
parameters that are indicative of the overall ecological condition of estuaries can
be identified and a population approach to sampling can be used to characterize
estuarine resources. That is, resources and locations that are sampled can be used
to make inferences about unsampled resources and locations. One of the major
goals of EMAP-NC 1990 field effort is to make this demonstration.
EMAP-NC does not have the resources to characterize natural variability or
to assess status in all seasons. Therefore, sampling will be limited to a confined
portion of the year (i.e., an index period), when measured parameters are expected
to show the greatest response to pollution stress and within-season variability is
expected to be reduced. EMAP-NC has selected summer as the appropriate index
period. For most estuarine and coastal ecosystems in the northern hemisphere,
mid-summer (July-August) is a period when dissolved oxygen concentrations are
most likely to approach stressful low values (Holland et al. 1977; EPA 1984;
Officer et al. 1984), and the cycling and adverse effects of contaminant exposure
are greatest because of low dilution flows and high temperatures (Connell and
Miller 1984; Sprague 1985, Mayer et al. 1989). In addition, fauna and flora are
usually abundant during summer, increasing the probability of collecting the
organisms required to complete assessments.
Within each estuarine class, elements of systematic, random, and fixed
location sampling based on scientific judgement will be used. Large, continuously
distributed estuaries will be sampled using a randomly placed systematic grid. Grid
points will be about 18 km apart, and the entire estuary will be sampled. Large
tidal rivers will be sampled along systematically spaced lateral transects. Transects
are located about 25 km apart. The starting point for the first transect at the
mouth of the river (between river mile 0-25) will be randomly selected. Two
sampling points are located on each transect; one is randomly selected and one is
an index sample. The goal of the index sample is to use scientific judgement to
identify sampling locations that can be used to determine if degraded conditions
occur in a system without having to conduct intensive surveys. The index sample
site will be located in a depositional, muddy environment where sediments are
accumulating, and the potential for exposure to low dissolved oxygen concen-
tration and/or to contaminants is high. Small, relatively discrete estuaries will be
sampled using a population approach. First, a list of all small estuaries is defined
and placed in order according to latitude. Then the estuaries are classified into
groups of four and one estuary from each group is randomly selected for sampling
2-6
-------
without replacement. Two samples are located in each small estuary that is
sampled; one is randomly selected and one is an index sample. Regional scale
information from index sites will be combined with similar information from
randomly selected locations.
Index samples will be used to estimate the proportion of sampling sites in
small estuaries and tidal river segments that have unacceptable (or acceptable)
indicator values in places that are particularly vulnerable to pollution impacts.
However, the index samples are biased and cannot be used alone to estimate the
extent of degradation. When regional scale information from index sites is
combined with similar information from randomly selected locations, robust
statements can be made about the proportion of systems that have pollution
problems in highly vulnerable sites as well as about the extent and magnitude (i.e.,
area! extent) of degradation for the population of small estuaries and tidal river
segments. ;t
When it is implemented, EMAP-NC will operate on a four-year sampling
cycle, with approximately one fourth of the total number of samples needed to
make an overall assessment collected in each year. Regional interpretative
assessments will be prepared every four years by combining the data collected
over the four year cycle. Such a multiyear baseline reduces the confounding effect
of year-related phenomena (e.g., weather) to the assessment process. Multiyear
baselines are particularly important for evaluating the effectiveness of management
actions (EPA 1983a, 1983b). Annual assessments can be made with the data
collected during any year; however, these annual assessments will have a higher
degree of uncertainty than assessments based on the full four year sampling
program.
Many studies have defined the major problems facing the nation's estuaries
and coastal waters (OTA 1987; EPA 1987; NRC 1989; NOAA 1988). In general,
these studies conclude that the major environmental issues for estuarine and
coastal ecosystems are those that adversely affect the maintenance of balanced
indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and other biota including the following:
• Increases in the amount of water that has low dissolved oxygen
concentration levels,
• Euuophication,
• Chemical and microbial contamination of water, sediments, and
biological tissue,
2-7
-------
• Habitat modification, and
• Cumulative impacts of more than one of the above.
The EMAP-NC indicator strategy was developed to address these problems and
their associated impacts on valued ecosystem attributes.
2.3 Indicators of Environmental Quality
EMAP-NC does not have the resources to monitor all ecological parameters
of concern to the public. Congress, scientists, and decision makers. Therefore, a
defined set of parameters that serve as indicators of environmental quality will be
measured. EMAP-NC indicators will be selected to be:
• Related to ecological condition in a way that can be quantified and
interpreted,
• Applicable across a range of habitats and biogeographical provinces,
• Valued by and of concern to society, and
• Quantifiable in a standardized manner with a high degree of
repeatability.
The selection of indicators that will be used by EMAP-NC is an ongoing
process. It is anticipated that a number of years will be required to develop a
complete list of indicators. The selection process consists of the following steps:
• Identification of valued ecosystem attributes and stressors that affect
them,
• Development of a conceptual source-receptor model that links valued
ecosystem attributes to stressors,
• Using the conceptual model to identify candidate indicators,
• Evaluation and classification of candidate indicators into categories
(core, developmental, research) using evaluation criteria that are
generic to all EMAP resource groups (e.g., forests, arid lands,
agroecosytems),
2-8
-------
• Testing and evaluation of indicators to assess their ability to
discriminate between polluted and unpolluted sites,
• Conducting regional scale demonstration projects to show the
feasibility of indicators and the value of indicator data to
characterizing overall ecosystem status, and
• Periodic revaluation of indicators.
Categories of indicators that were identified and will be sampled by EMAP-
NC include the following:
• Response Indicators -- Measurements that quantify the integrated
response of ecological resources to individual or multiple stressors.
Examples include measures of the condition of individuals (e.g.,
frequency of tumors or other pathological disorders in fish),
populations (e.g., abundance, biomass), and communities (e.g.,
species composition, diversity).
• Exposure Indicators -- Physical, chemical, and biological measure-
ments that quantify pollutant exposure, habitat degradation, or other
causes of degraded ecological condition. Examples include contam-
inant concentrations in the water, sediments, and biological tissues;
the acute toxicity of sediments to endemic or sensitive biota; and
dissolved oxygen concentration.
• Habitat Indicators -- Physical, chemical, and biological measurements
that provide basic information about the natural environmental
setting. Examples include water depth, salinity, sediment character-
istics, and temperature. Habitat indicators will be used to normalize
values for exposure and response indicators across environmental
gradients. Habitat indicators may also be used as a basis for defining
subpopulations of interest for assessments.
• Stressor Indicators -- Economic, social, or engineering measures that
can be used to identify the sources of pollution and causes of
environmental problems and poor ecological condition. Examples
include human demographics, land use patterns, discharge records
from manufacturing and sewage treatment facilities, freshwater
inflows, and pesticide usage on the watershed. Stressor data will be
gathered primarily from existing federal and state programs (e.g.,
NOAA's National Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory-NCPDI,
wetland acreage and extent from FWS's National Wetland Inventory,
2-9
-------
NOAA, and State wetland inventories and maps), from other EMAP
task groups (e.g., the extent and distribution of forests, atmospheric
deposition of pollutants), and from local permitting/planning
agencies. EMAP-NC recognizes that it also will have to spend some
of its resources on measuring stressors.
The relationships among indicator categories are summarized in Fig. 2-2.
Information on exposure, habitat, and stressor indicators will be used to identify
potential factors contributing to the status and trends of response indicators. A
list of indicators that will be used in the first year of the program is provided in
Table 2-1. In this first year, EMAP-NC will over-sample indicators and use the
data collected to develop a reduced list of indicators that can be applied to
characterize overall estuarine condition accurately when the program is fully
implemented. The over sampling is necessary because indicators of estuarine
condition that are acceptable to the public and scientists and have been
demonstrated to be appropriate to apply at regional scales are not well developed.
2.4 Analysis and Integration
Integration and synthesis of EMAP-NC data into assessments of the
condition of estuaries is a formidable challenge. Assessment results must be
scientifically defensible and presented in a manner that can be understood by non-
technical audiences. Unfortunately, estuarine science has not developed measures
of the environmental condition of estuaries that are accepted by scientists and
understood by the public and other non-technical audiences.
To accomplish its objectives, EMAP-NC will conduct the following types of
analyses:
• Status assessments,
• Trends evaluations, and
• Diagnostic evaluations including identification of factors that may be
affecting status and trends.
The analysis approach for status assessments will be hierarchical. First the
overall condition of estuarine resources will be quantified using response indicators
to define the extent and magnitude of pollution problems. Then, this integrated
assessment will be decomposed to define associations between exposure, habitat,
2-1Q
-------
EMAP-NC INDICATOR STRATEGY
RESPONSE
INDICATORS
Living Resources
Abundance Biomass
Benthos and Fish •<—
Diversity/Composition
Benthos and Fish
Fish Pathology/Hispopathology
IMPACTS
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Eutrophicalion
" Contamination
Habitat Modification
Cumulative Impacts
EXPOSURE
INDICATORS
STRESSOR
INDICATORS
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Contaminant Concentrations in
Water
Sediments
Fish Muscle
Bioassays
Water
Sediment ^
PROBLEMS
Nutnent/BOD Loadings
_ Contaminant Loadings
Hydrologic Modifications
Shoreline Development
Freshwater Discharge
Climate
Land Use Patterns
. Pollutant Loadings
Human Population Density
Human Demographics
HABITAT
INDICATORS
Water Depth
Salinity
Sediment Characteristic
Figure 2-2.
Overview of the indicator strategy for EMAP-NC. The manner in which indictors are related to the
major environmental problems and impacts is also shown.
-------
Table 2-1. List of EMAP-NC indicators by major category
Category
Proposed Indicator
Response
Exposure
Habitat
Stressor
Benthic species composition and biomass
Gross pathology of fish
Fish community composition
Relative abundance of large burrowing shellfish
Histopathology of fish
Apparent RPD
Sediment contaminant concentration
Sediment toxicity
Contaminants in fish flesh
Contaminants in large bivalves
Water column toxicity
Continuous and point measurements of dissolved oxygen
concentration
Salinty
Sediment characteristics
Water depth
Fresh water discharge
Climatic fluctuations
Pollutant loadings by major category
Land use patterns of watershed by major categories
Human population density/demographics
Fishery landings statistics
2-12
-------
and stressor indicators and to identify likely causes and relative contributions of
various stresses to problems.
A principal graphical representation of EMAP status information will be
cumulative distribution functions (CDFs). CDFs were chosen because essential
information on both central tendency (e.g., mean, median) and extreme values can
be summarized in an easily interpreted graphical format (Fig. 2-3). CDFs will be
prepared for response indicators for each estuary class, for all estuaries within the
region, and eventually for all estuaries nationally. CDFs also will be prepared for
selected exposure indicators and to characterize habitat conditions using habitat
indicators.
The approach to trend assessment will consist of sampling a portion (e.g.,
one fourth) of the sampling sites each year in a manner that ensures geographic
dispersion and repeating the cycle on a regular basis (e.g., every 4 years). Annual
estimates of status can be evaluated individually or aggregated with other years
to establish multi-year baselines that are more stable than annual estimates. Multi-
year baselines are particularly useful for measuring trends and for evaluating the
effectiveness of pollution control programs.
Although individual response Indicators are important measures of specific
aspects of environmental condition, the goal of EMAP-NC is to provide answers to
questions with an holistic perspective of estuarine systems. Multiple statements
(i.e., multiple CDFs) about the status and trends of the nation's estuaries, each
based on a different response indicator, present information that may confuse
many EMAP clients. Single, integrated statements about the overall status of
estuarine resources are more easily communicated and understood. Therefore,
EMAP-NC must develop an Estuarine Condition Index (ECU that integrates the data
collected for multiple response indicators into a single CDF describing the status
of estuarine resources.
2.5 Data Management
EMAP-NC will use a distributed data management system. In this system,
data are produced at a number of remote locations, where samples are processed.
Results, are then transferred to a central site where they are verified to be
reasonable and are integrated into the Near Coastal Information Management
System (NCIMS). The NCIMS will include data in both raw and summary form to
minimize costly redundant analysis (NCR 1990a). Information on study
characteristics, institutional and organizational structures, sampling methods,
sample status, data format, quality assurance, key scientists involved in the
2-13
-------
Example CDF
100
Subnominal| Marginal
234
Indicator Value
Figure 2-3. Example cumulative frequency distribution. Dotted lines represent
confidence limits.
2-14
-------
generation of each data set, and data access support will be available for all data
sets. Data management reports that summarize the types, volume, and quality of
data, as well as a list of the specific data sets that are available, will be prepared
and distributed to potential users frequently (i.e., approximately every two years).
2.6 Quality Assurance
EMAP-NC will employ EPA's data quality objectives (DQO) approach to
ensure that the type, amount, and quality of data collected are adequate to meet
program goals and that analysis results have quantifiable and acceptable levels of
uncertainty. The DQO process is an iterative approach, balancing costs against
uncertainty, to achieve a desired or acceptable level of data quality (Fig. 2-4). The
first step in the DQO process consists of determining the level of uncertainty that
the decision makers who will use the data are willing to accept. Then, the uncer-
tainty associated with the measurement program is estimated. The two estimates
are compared and the sampling program modified (e.g., the intensity of sampling
increased or decreased, sampling methods altered) until the proper balance
between costs and uncertainty is achieved. Once an acceptable level of uncer-
tainty has been established, quality control and quality assessment procedures are
applied to each program element (e.g., field sampling, laboratory analysis, transfer
of information to a data base, and data analysis) to ensure that the specified level
of quality is attained and maintained.
Because regional data with which to estimate spatial and temporal variability
within the summer index period are either unavailable or unaccessible for most, if
not all, of the proposed indicators, it will not be possible for EMAP-NC to
implement DQOs during the first year or two of the program. Accordingly, the first
year's program will be implemented using Measurement Quality Objectives
(MQOs). MQOs establish the acceptable level of uncertainty for field and
laboratory methods. MQOs differ from DQOs in that they do not consider spatial
and temporal variability in estimating uncertainty levels. The MQO uncertainty
level for each indicator will be based on the available scientific literature for
sampling, processing, and measurement methods or a manufacturer's specifica-
tions for a given instrument (Plumb 1981; Holme and Mclntyre 1984; SeaBird
Electronics, Inc. 1987; Pollard et al. 1990).
The data collected using MQOs during the first several years of EMAP-NC
will be used to measure the uncertainty associated with the regional measurement
program for each indicator. This information will then be evaluated, acceptable
DQO's defined, and the sampling program modified as necessary to address pro-
gram objectives. For additional information on the EMAP quality assurance
2-15
-------
Increasing
Uncertainty
Data
Quality
Objectives
Costs
I
Decreasing
Decreasing
Figure 2-4. Role of data quality objectives in obtaining a balance between
available resources and the level of uncertainty
2-16
-------
program, readers should refer to the Quality Assurance Project Plan developed for
the 1990 Demonstration Project in estuaries of the Virginian Province (Pollard et
al. 1990). EMAP-NC also has developed field collection and laboratory processing
methods manuals that standardize sampling and processing operations for this
study (Stroebel 1990; Graves 1990).
2.7 EMAP Reporting
EMAP-NC will produce three types of reports to meet the objectives of the
program: (1) Annual Statistical Summaries, (2) Interpretive Assessment Reports,
and (3) Special Scientific Reports. Annual Statistical Summaries will be prepared
approximately 9 months after data are collected and will provide tabular and
graphical summaries of each year's collections. They will be analogous to the
annual reports prepared by the Department of Commerce for leading economic
indicators. Interpretive Assessment Reports will be prepared for the public,
Congress, interested scientists, and decision makers (e.g., the EPA Administrator)
every 4 years and will:
• Assess status of ecological resources on regional scales,
• Measure trends in ecological resources,
• Identify likely causes of poor, deteriorating, or improving conditions,
• Assess the extent and magnitude of pollution exposure and impacts,
• Identify emerging problems and their likely causes before they reach
crisis proportions, and
• Assess the effectiveness of regulatory/control programs.
Special Scientific Reports will be produced periodically to address specific concerns
raised about the program (e.g., appropriateness of design) and topical areas of
general interest (e.g., results of the indicator testing and evaluation program).
2.8 1990 Demonstration Project
As a first step in accomplishing the objectives of EMAP-NC, a
Demonstration Project will be implemented in the Virginian Province in 1990. The
2-17
-------
major goals of this Demonstration Project are to evaluate the utility of the EMAP
sampling design and approach and, at the same time, collect the information
necessary to develop a technically sound and cost-effective sampling program that
can be implemented over the long term. The goals of the 1990 Virginian Province
Demonstration Project include the following:
• Demonstrate the value of regional monitoring data collected in a
standard way, measuring a defined set of parameters, using a robust
sampling design as a basis for status assessments,
• Identify, test, and evaluate indicators of environmental quality for
estuaries that can be applied over broad regions,
• Develop standardized sampling and processing methods for
evaluating estuarine environmental quality,
• Evaluate alternative sampling designs and approaches for establishing
a regional and national monitoring network in estuaries,
• Develop analysis procedures for converting monitoring data into
information useful to the public, Congress, environmental decision
makers, policy analysts, and the scientific community, and
• Identify and resolve logistical problems associated with conducting
a regional/national scale monitoring program in estuaries.
EMAP-NC is being implemented in the Virginian Province (i.e., the Mid-
Atlantic region) for the following reasons:
• There is a high level of public concern that estuarine resources in this
region are degrading at a faster rate than those in other regions
(Smart et al. 1987; Toufexis 1988; Morganthau 1988; OTA 1987).
• The information obtained will be invaluable to many forthcoming
management decisions, including development of a restoration plan
for the New York Harbor Complex; development of monitoring and
management plans for the Delaware Bay, Narragansett Bay, Buzzards
Bay, and Long Island Sound National Estuary Programs; and
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Chesapeake Bay management
plan.
• Many of the proposed indicators and sampling approaches have been
tested and validated for broad regions of the Virginian Province (e.g.,
2-18
-------
EPA 1984b; Holland et al. 1987; NOAA 1987; Dauer et al. 1988;
Turgeon et al. 1989).
• Proximity to the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory at
Narragansett, Rhode Island, will facilitate resolution of many
logistical problems.
The 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project includes a number of
program enhancements. These special studies include:
• An indicator testing and evaluation program that will evaluate the
ability of indicators to discriminate between polluted and unpolluted
environments,
• Temporal sampling for some indicators (e.g., dissolved oxygen
concentration) extending beyond the boundaries of the anticipated
index period to better define starting and ending times for the index
period,
• Repeated measurements of selected indicators (e.g., dissolved
oxygen concentration, fish community characteristics, and
contaminants in fish flesh) during the index period to assess their
stability and suitability for application in the sampling design, and
• Intensive spatial sampling conducted at a subset of stations (i.e., the
Delaware River, Delaware Bay, Indian River Estuary), to evaluate the
advantages and disadvantages of sampling at alternative spatial
scales.
Because the objectives of the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration
Project are somewhat different from those envisioned for the full implementation
of EMAP-NC, the reporting associated with the 1990 study will include several
additional reports including the following:
• An Example Assessment Report, due in fall 1990, that will present
examples of the kinds of assessment information that EMAP-NC will
produce.
• A Demonstration Project Activities Summary, due in winter 1990-
1991, that summarizes the data collected, describes the status of
data records, identifies and discusses problems and issues encoun-
tered during the field program, and develops recommendations for
improving logistical activities during the implementation phase.
2-19
-------
A Demonstration Project Interpretative Assessment Report, prepared
in spring 1991, that makes a status assessment for the Virginian
Province based on one year of data and presents the findings of the
indicator testing and evaluation program, intensive spatial sampling
efforts, and the evaluation of alternative sampling designs. The
report will provide the technical basis for the design of future EMAP-
NC monitoring efforts in the Virginian Province and elsewhere.
2-20
-------
3.0 SAMPLING DESIGN
Program objectives are the major factor that influence the sampling design
for monitoring and assessment programs, including when and where samples are
collected and what parameters are measured. A sampling design that is closely
linked to objectives not only ensures that the data collected will address those
objectives, but also facilitates synthesis and integration of the data into useful
information (NRC 1990a). In this chapter, the strategy and procedures that
EMAP-NC will use to determine when and where samples will be collected is
discussed. In the following chapter (4.0 Indicators of Environmental Quality), the
process that will be used to identify and select the parameters (i.e., indicators) to
be measured will be described.
Most of the resources for monitoring and assessment programs are
expended on the collection and processing of samples (Downing 1979). For
example, 70-80% of the cost for the benthic element of the Chesapeake Bay
monitoring program is for sample collection and processing (Holland et al. 1986K
In many monitoring and assessment programs the largest fraction of available
resources is associated with data collection, leaving inadequate resources for
synthesis and integration activities crucial for converting the data into information
needed to address program objectives (NRC 1990a). It is critical that the EMAP-
NC sampling design is constructed in a manner that ensures that sample collection
and processing are not excessive and that adequate resources are available for
synthesis and integration.
3.1 Elements of the Sampling Design
EMAP-NC seeks to assess the ecological condition of U.S. estuarine and
coastal resources and to measure changes in that condition in a manner that
facilitates determination of the effectiveness of environmental policies and
regulations for protecting valued system attributes. To accomplish its objectives,
EMAP-NC must develop a sampling program that:
• Determines the quantity, extent (e.g., kilometers, hectares), and
geographic distribution of each estuarine and coastal ecosystems of
interest,
• Estimates the proportion of each ecosystem class that is in
acceptable and unacceptable condition,
3-1
-------
• Measures the proportions that are degrading or improving, where,
and at what rate,
• Determine the level of pollution exposure by ecosystem class and
region, and
• Identifies the likely reasons for degradation or improvement in a
manner that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
environmental policies and regulatory programs.
EMAP-NC includes all estuarine and coastal ecosystems of the United States
including estuaries, tidal wetlands, coastal waters, and the Great Lakes. The
ecological characteristics (e.g., resource types, processes controlling distributional
patterns) and environmental problems (e.g., low dissolved oxygen concentration,
toxics contamination) affecting these ecosystems vary regionally, as well as across
ecosystem types. A reqionalization scheme is required to allocate estuarine and
coastal resources into manageable sampling units for collection and reporting of
data. The regions should be applicable to all near coastal ecosystem types. A
classification scheme is required to organize the near coastal ecosystems within
a region into classes that facilitate sampling and interpretation of data. Finally, a
statistical sampling design must be developed for collection of samples across
regions and ecosystem classes.
3.2 General Sampling Approach
EMAP-NC could use either of two general sampling approaches to collect
the data required to accomplish its objectives. These are:
• Census the nation's estuarine and coastal ecosystems and important
habitats on a periodic basis (e.g., every 4 years), and
• Sample a subset of estuarine and coastal resources periodically, and
use the data to make inferences about unsampled areas.
The census technique is the appropriate sampling method for characterizing
and assessing status and trends for some rare resources, because minimal
population densities require that most of the resource must be sampled to
characterize status and to measure trends (e.g., changes in abundance of rare and
endangered species or habitats). The census technique is not a cost-effective or
appropriate sampling approach for assessing the status and trends of broadly
distributed, relatively abundant resources. EMAP-NC does not have the resources
to conduct regular censuses of the nation's esutarine and coastal resources.
3-2
-------
Sampling a subset of the resources and using the information obtained about the
subset to make inferences about unsampled resources is the only approach that
is appropriate for EMAP-NC.
The subset of resources sampled by EMAP-NC could be: (Da sample
which is determined, based on available scientific knowledge, to be
"representative" of the range of environmental settings that exist in estuarine and
coastal environments, or (2) a probability sample of estuarine and coastal
resources. Collection of "representative" samples is an extreme case of stratified
sampling and assumes that the data collected at the "representative" sampling
locations can be extrapolated to broader spatial and temporal scales. Available
scientific information is used to identify "representative" sampling locations, as
well as to define the spatial scale and temporal periods that the samples represent.
Periodic collection of "representative" samples is a powerful technique for
measuring trends, because this approach minimizes interactions between spatial
and temporal variation. Because "representative" samples can be located at any
of a number of sites, they are generally easier to collect than probability samples
and frequently can be located at a site for which there is existing historical data.
Unfortunately, the current scientific understanding of the environmental
processes that control condition and distributions of estuarine and coastal
resources is inadequate to define the bias and uncertainty associated with
extrapolating environmental quality information for "representative" locations to
other sites. This is especially true for data collected over broad geographic scales
and long time periods. Therefore, EMAP-NC will use a probability sampling
approach that samples resources in proportion to their abundance and distribution
and obtains unbiased estimates of resource characteristics and variability. The
probability sampling approaches selected will apply systematic (e.g., grid) sampling
to facilitate characterizations of spatial patterns and to encourage broad geographic
coverage.
Many of the proposed parameters that EMAP-NC will measure exhibit large
intra-annual variability (Oviatt and Nixon 1973; Jeffries and Terceiro 1985; Grassle
et al. 1985; Holland et al. 1987). EMAP-NC does not have the resources to
characterize this variability or to assess status for all seasons. Therefore, sampling
will be confined to a limited portion of the year (i.e., an index period), when
indicators are expected to show the greatest response to pollution stress and
within-season (i.e., week-to-week) variability is expected to be small.
For most estuarine and coastal ecosystems in the Northern Hemisphere,
mid-summer (July-August) is the period when ecological responses to pollution
exposure are likely to be most severe. During this period, dissolved oxygen
concentrations are most likely to approach stressful low values (Holland et al.
1977; USEPA 1984; Oviatt 1981; Officer et al. 1984). Moreover, the cycling and
3-3
-------
adverse effects of contaminant exposure are generally greatest at the low dilution
flows and high temperatures that occur in mid-summer (Connell and Miller 1984;
Sprague 1985, Mayer et al. 1989). Therefore, summer was selected as the
appropriate index period for EMAP-NC.
Once unbiased quantitative information on the kinds, extent, condition, and
distribution of estuarine and coastal resources and associated estimates of
uncertainty are known, a baseline of the status of existing conditions will be
established. This baseline information will be used to develop criteria for
identifying "representative" sampling sites for future sampling (e.g., trends sites,
detailed studies of processes associated with deterioration and recovery, the
magnitude of natural variation). This baseline will also be used to determine the
"representativeness" of historical data and sampling sites (e.g., NOAA status and
trends sites). Over the long-term, EMAP-NC seeks to develop a sampling design
that includes both "representative" and probability sampling, incorporating the
advantages of both approaches.
3.3 Definition of Boundaries
Landward and seaward boundaries for estuaries, coastal and estuarine
wetlands, and coastal waters are delineated as follows:
• Landward boundary -- The landward boundary of all estuarine and
coastal ecosystems is the maximum inland extent of the tide (e.g.,
the Troy Dam for the Hudson River).
• Seaward boundary -- The seaward boundary of estuaries (as well as
bays and sounds) is the point of confluence with the ocean. Wetland
seaward boundaries are the continuously inundated (subtidal)
margins, including nonvegetated mud flats. The seaward boundary
for coastal waters is the continental shelf break (approximately the
200 m depth contour).
Landward and seaward boundaries of the Great Lakes will be defined in summer
1991, during the development of a conceptual plan to sample this province.
3.4 Reaionalization
The EMAP-NC regionalization scheme consists of seven regions or provinces
within the continental United States; five provinces in Alaska, Hawaii, and the
3-4
-------
Pacific territories; and a region that comprises the Great Lakes (Fig. 2-1). These
provinces are analogous to those used by NOAA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for their assessment programs and are applicable to all estuarine and
coastal ecosystem types (Beasley and Biggs 1987; Terrell 1979).
The EMAP-NC regionalization scheme is based on two primary factors:
major climatic zones and prevailing oceanic currents. The climatic zones are those
described by Bailey (1970), and the ocean current delineation is based on Terrell
(1979). Physical characteristics were used to define regional boundaries rather
than ecological characteristics because of the ease and precision with which
geographical boundaries can be defined using physical characteristics. Regional
boundaries defined using ecological characteristics are less distinct than those
delineated using physical characteristics. Boundaries defined by physical char-
acteristics, however, are generally similar to those defined by ecological
characteristics (Hedgpeth 1957; Knox 1986, Odum and Copeland 1974).
In its initial phases, EMAP-NC will monitor estuarine and coastal status and
trends in only the seven provinces comprising the continental United States:
• Acadian Province - This region spans the Gulf of Maine and includes
estuarine and coastal systems from the eastern United States-
Canada border to Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Acadian Province
is characterized by a continental climate and is directly affected by
the Labrador Current. It is typified by a deeply incised, "drowned"
coastline, with high tidal energy in the northern portion of the Gulf
of Maine, and rocky, cobble, and sandy beaches along the southern
portion of the Gulf of Maine.
• Virginian Province -- This region includes the wide expanse of
irregular coastline from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to the mouth of
Chesapeake Bay (Cape Henry, Virginia). It includes many large
estuarine systems (e.g., Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay,
Chesapeake Bay) as well as a substantial number of small estuaries
and tidal rivers. The Virginian Province is affected by both the
Labrador Current and the Gulf Stream and is characterized by a
continental/ subtropical climate.
• Carolinian Province - This region includes the South Atlantic coast
from Cape Henry, Virginia, to Cape Canaveral, Florida. The
Carolinian Province is characterized by wide, shallow estuarine
systems (e.g., Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds), extensive barrier island
systems (e.g., Georgia and Carolina sea islands), complex lagoon
systems (e.g., Indian River), and broad expanses of coastal marsh.
3-5
-------
This region is dominated by the Gulf Stream and has a subtropical
climate.
West Indian Province -- This region includes South Florida (both the
southern Atlantic and Gulf coasts) and the Caribbean territories. The
portion of the West Indian Province that will be sampled by EMAP-
NC extends from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on the Atlantic Coast, to
Anclote Key, Florida, on the Gulf Coast and includes the Florida Keys
and Florida Bay. EMAP-NC is not planning to sample the Caribbean
territories at this time. The West Indian Province is dominated by a
tropical climate, resulting from the Florida current. It is composed of
diverse ecological resources, including regions of low, swampy
coastline (e.g., Biscayne Bay), large coastal wetlands (e.g.,
Everglades), extensive sea grass beds (e.g., shallow tidal flats around
the Florida Keys), coral reefs/heads (e.g., Florida Keys), and
mangrove islands (e.g.. Ten Thousand Islands).
Louisianian Province -- This region includes the majority of the
coastline of the continental United States along the Gulf of Mexico.
The Louisianian Province extends from Anclote Key, Florida, to the
eastern United States-Mexico border. The region has a sub-tropical
climate and is characterized by extensive sandy beaches (e.g.,
Pensacola region), extensive marsh and swamp areas (e.g,
Atchafalaya/Vermilion Bays), barrier island systems (e.g., Texas
barrier islands), hypersaline lagoons (e.g., Laguna Madre), and an
expansive deltaic system (e.g., Mississippi Delta.)
Californian Province -- This region includes the Pacific Coast of the
Southwestern United States and is dominated by the California
Current. The Californian Province extends from the western United
States-Mexico border to Point Reyes, California. The region is char-
acterized by a dry, Mediterranean climate, beaches bordered by high
cliffs (e.g., Big Sur area), deep canyon estuaries (e.g., Monterey
Bay), extensive kelp beds, sporadic freshwater inflow, and two
relatively large estuarine systems (i.e., San Francisco Bay and San
Diego Bay).
Columbian Province -- This region includes the Pacific Coast of the
Northwestern United States and is dominated by the Alaska and
California Currents. The Columbian Province extends from Point
Reyes, California, to the United States-Canada border. This region
has a continental/subtropical climate and is characterized by beaches
bordered by high cliffs, high freshwater inflow (e.g., Columbia River),
3-6
-------
numerous rocky islands, extensive eelgrass beds, and two large
estuarine systems (i.e., Puget Sound and Columbia River Estuary).
A pilot project for the Great Lakes is planned for 1992. Additional provinces that
comprise the remainder of the estuarine and codstal ecosystems of the United
States are not included in the initial planning for EMAP-NC (e.g., Alaskan, Aleutian,
Bering, Artie, and Insular) and are not discussed further.
EMAP-NC will be implemented in phases, beginning with a demonstration
project in the estuaries of the Virginian Province in 1990. In 1991, a
demonstration project is planned for the Louisianian Province, followed by
programs in the Carolinian Province in 1992, the Acadian and West Indian
Provinces in 1993, and the Californian and Columbian Provinces in 1994. The
schedule for initiating programs for coastal waters, wetlands, and estuaries in
Alaska, Hawaii, and the Pacific and Caribbean territories will be developed after
successful programs have been implemented in the estuaries of the Virginian and
Louisianian Provinces and the value of the EMAP approach has been demonstrated.
Major reasons for initiating EMAP-NC in the estuaries of the Virginian Province
have already been discussed.
3.5 Classification
Estuarine resources vary widely in size, shape, and ecological
characteristics. Many estuaries, like the Chesapeake Bay, are large, continuously
distributed resources that consist of expansive regions of a broad variety of habitat
types (e.g., multiple salinity zones and sediment types); whereas others (e.g., small
bays, inlets, and salt ponds) are relatively discrete resources composed predomi-
nantly of one (or a few) habitat type(s). It would not be cost-effective or logical
to sample such vastly different resource types using the same spatial scale with
a single sampling design. Excessive number of samples would be collected for
extensive and abundant resources and rare resources would not be adequately
represented. A classification scheme that organizes estuaries into groups with
similar physical and ecological characteristics is required to facilitate sampling and
interpretation of data.
The specific goals of the classification process are to categorize estuaries
into groups or classes:
• For which a common sampling design can be used,
3-7
-------
• That facilitate synthesis and integration of the data collected into
assessments that can be used for evaluating the effectiveness of
management actions,
• Where the variability of indicators within a group (i.e., class) is less
than that which occurs among groups, reducing the number of
samples necessary to represent ecological condition of a class
accurately and facilitating measurement of similarities and differences
among groups, and
• That allow inferences about systems that are not sampled to be
made with a quantifiable and high degree of confidence.
The classification scheme presented in this section is specific to estuaries;
however, the approach used and the principles developed are applicable to all
coastal ecosystem types.
Potential classification variables evaluated for classifying estuarine resources
included salinity, sediment type, and physical dimensions. Physical dimensions
(surface area, aspect ratio) were chosen as the basis for the EMAP-NC
classification scheme for estuaries, and the estuarine waters of the Virginian
Province were classified into three categories: large estuarine systems, large tidal
rivers, and small estuarine systems. Large estuarine systems were defined as
systems having surface areas greater than 260 km2 (~ 100 mi2) and aspect ratios
(length/ average width) less than 20. Large tidal rivers were defined as systems
having surface areas greater than 260 km2 (-100 mi2) and aspect ratios greater
than 20. Small estuarine systems were defined as systems having surface areas
less than 260 km2 (-100 mi2) but greater than or equal to 2.6 km2 (~ 1 mi2).
The boundaries of the classes defined above can be delineated accurately
from available NOAA maps and are not likely to change within the time frame of
EMAP. In addition, these classes are meaningful to a broad range of audiences,
including environmental managers, Congress, scientists, policy analysts, and the
public, because they form groups of ecosystems for which regional and national
management actions could be implemented. Table 3-1 summarizes the important
characteristics of the estuarine classes defined.
A classification scheme based on salinity distribution or sediment
characteristics was not selected because such schemes did not:
• Define groups of systems that could be sampled with a common
design. Classes based on salinity distributions, sediment
characteristics, and pollution loadings included rare and abundant as
3-8
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of the characteristics of estuarine classes
Characteristics
Surface Area
Shape
Salinity
Sediments
Watersheds
Management Regions
*? Contaminant Sources
Large Estuaries
> 260 km2
Aspect ratio < 20
Strong salinity
gradients
Heterogeneous
Large, complex
Multi-state
Multiple
Large Tidal Rivers
> 260 km2
Aspect ratio > 20
Partial salinity
gradients
Heterogeneous
Large, complex
Multi-state
Multiple
Small Estuaries
2.6 - 260 km2
Any
Generally does not hav<
salinity gradients
Relatively homogeneou:
Small
Usually, a single state
Relatively few
-------
well as large and small system types. Such widely different system
types can not be sampled with a common design.
• Facilitate the synthesis and integration of data into information that
could be used for evaluating the effectiveness of management
actions. If samples are grouped into different classes from year to
year as a result of natural variation (e.g., annual changes in the sizes
of salinity zones that occur as a result of year-to-year variation in
rainfall), then trend assessments are not reliable because it is unclear
whether the trends observed are real or are due to variation in the
classification process.
• Identify groups of systems that could be delineated using available
data and maps. This delineation is necessary to ensure that the
number of samples allocated to each class is adequate to meet
program objectives.
• Allow aggregation or segregation of the data into geographic units
that were meaningful from a regulatory and general interest
perspective (e.g., EPA regions). Most environmental management
actions are taken for whole systems or groups of systems.
Although salinity, sediment characteristics, and pollutant loadings were not
appropriate a priori classification variables, they will be used as post-classification
variables during the analysis process to create subpopulations (strata) that facilitate
interpretation and synthesis of the data. The major constraint associated with
using salinity, sediment characteristics,and pollution loading variables in a post-
classification mode is that the number of samples comprising subpopulations will
vary from year-to-year. The consequence of variable sample sizes will be that the
uncertainty levels associated with findings will vary in an uncontrolled manner.
A total of 22,873 km2 (~ 8,935 mi2) of estuarine waters occurs in the
Virginian Province. Table 3-2 provides a list of the estuarine resources of the
Virginian Province with surface areas greater than or equal to 2.6 km2 (~ 1 mi2).
Resources with surface areas less than 2.6 km2 were not included in the sampling
frame.
Application of the classification scheme to the Virginian Province results in
the identification of:
• Twelve (12) large estuarine systems with a total surface area of
15,754 km2 (~ 6,153 mi2 or 70 percent of the total area to be
sampled)
3-10
-------
Table 3-2. List of estuarine resources within the Virginian Province with surface
areas greater than 2.6 km2
System
Cape Cod
Block Island Sound/
Narragansett Bay
East Long Island
Long Island Coast
Long Island Sound
Estuary
Nantucket Ponds
Vineyard Ponds
New Bedford Harbor
Massachusetts Bays/Ponds
Cape Cod Canal
Westport River
Nantucket Harbor
Chatham Harbor
Edgartown Harbor
Vineyard Sound
Buzzards Bay
Nantucket Sound
Rhode Island Ponds
Connecticut Ponds
Taunton River
Providence River
Mt. Hope Bay
Sakonnet River
Narragansett Bay
Block Island Sound
Island Ponds
Shelter Sound
Little Peconic Bay
Napeague Bay
Great Peconic Bay
Moriches Bay
Hempstead Bay
Shinnecock Bay
Gardiners Bay
Great South Bay
Quinnipac River
Harlem River
Mystic River
Housatonic River
Niantic River
Thames River
East River
Surface Area
(km2)
2.6
2.6
2.8
3.4
4.1
6.2
14.2
34.2
37.0
265.2
604.8
1883.4
2.6
4.1
8.8
17.4
34.4
51.3
268.1
1342.4
2.6
27.7
56.7
86.8
93.5
31.9
37.3
55.2
173.8
343.7
2.6
2.6
8.5
9.1
9.1
11.9
14.0
3-11
-------
Table 3-2. Continued
System
Long Island Sound
(Continued)
Hudson River/
Raritan Bay
New Jersey Coastline
Delaware Bay
Estuary
West Long Island Bays
New Haven Harbor
Connecticut River
Fishers Sound
Long Island Sound
Passaic River
Kill Van Kull
Hackensack River
Raritan River
Arthur Kill
Newark Bay
Upper NY/NJ Bay
Jamaica Bay
Sandy Hook Bay
Raritan Bay
Lower NY/NJ Bay
Hudson River
Shark River
New Jersey Coastal Bays
Manasquan River
Metedeconk River
Mullica River
Toms River
Navesink River
Shrewsbury River
Great Egg Harbor
Great Bay
Little Egg Harbor
Barnegat Bay
Smyrna River
Stow Creek
St. Jones River
Blackbird Creek
Leipsic River
Mispillion River
Alloway Creek
Christina River
C&D Canal
Cohansey River
Surface Area
(km2)
22.3
23.8
39.1
71.5
2884.2
2.6
4.1
4.7
8.8
9.8
14.0
33.9
35.0
61.6
71.7
217.3
335.1
2.8
3.9
6.2
6.7
7.5
8.0
9.8
11.1
22.3
40.9
86.2
201.0
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
4.7
4.7
6.5
3-12
-------
Table 3-2. Continued
System
Delaware Bay
(Continued)
Delaware Bays
Maryland Coastline
Virginia Coastline
Chesapeake Bay
Estuary
Schuykill River
Maurice River
Appoquinimink River
Salem River
Delaware River
Delaware Bay
Pepper Creek
Indian River Bay
Rehobeth Bay
Little Assawoman Bay
Sinepuxent Bay
Assawoman & Isle of
Wight Bays
Chincoteague Bay
Virginian Coastal Bays
Fishermans Inlet
Magothy Bay
Back Bay
Anacostia River
Appamatox River
Aquia Creek
Herring Bay
Wicomico River
Lynnhaven Bay
Pocomoke River
Port Tobacco River
Bohemia River
Nanjemoy Creek
Wye River
Breton Bay
West River
South River
Northeast River
Back River
Middle River
Tred Avon River
Magothy River
Surface Area
(km2)
7.0
7.8
13.0
44.0
239.3
1533.8
7.3
25.6
28.7
7.0
11.4
61.6
354.3
2.6
7.5
43.3
83.7
2.6
2.8
4.7
6.2
6.5
7.0
7.3
7.5
9.1
9.1
9.1
11.1
11.1
14.5
14.5
14.8
15.0
15.0
17.9
3-13
-------
Table 3-2. Continued
System
Estuary
Surface Area
(km2)
Chesapeake Bay
Continued)
Corrotoman River
Mattaponi River
St. Clements Bay
Elizabeth River
Gunpowder River
Broad Creek
Big Annemessex River
Pamunkey River
Chickahominy River
Nansemond River
Bush River
Sassafras River
Monie Bay
Miles River
Severn River
Susquehanna River
Harris Creek
Piankatank River
St. Marys River
Nanticoke River
Elk River
Wicomico River (Potomac)
Patapsco River
Manokin River
Little Choptank River
Chester River
Fishing Bay
Susquehanna Flats
Honga River
Patuxent River
Mobjack Bay
York River
Eastern Bay
Choptank River
Pocomoke Sound
Rappahannock River
Tangier Sound
James River
Potomac River
Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
18.1
19.7
20.2
21.8
21.8
22.0
23.3
23.3
23.3
24.1
25.4
26.2
28.0
29.0
29.3
31.1
35.0
37.3
39.6
51.5
53.1
55.4
61.4
69.9
74.3
78.5
80.8
89.9
115.5
126.7
138.3
144.0
173.0
219.9
324.8
435.6
559.2
651.1
1179.5
5658.1
3-14
-------
• Five (5) large tidal rivers (i.e., Hudson, Potomac, James, Delaware,
and Rappahannock Rivers) with a total surface area of 2,840 km2
(~ 1,109 mi2 or 13 percent of the total area to be sampled)
• One hundred thirty-seven (137) small estuarine systems with a total
surface area of 4,279 km2 (~ 1,671 mi2 or 17 percent of the total
area to be sampled).
Tables 3-3 through 3-5 provide lists of estuaries in each class.
3.6 Sampling Design for the Demonstration Project
EMAP-NC is being initiated as a regional-scale demonstration project in the
estuaries of the Virginian Province because available scientific information is not
adequate to develop a cost-effective and scientifically defensible sampling program
for full-scale implementation. Important questions have been raised about the
timing and locations of sampling, as well as about justification for the
measurement of particular parameters. Concerns also have been raised about the
value of regional scale status and trends information for evaluating the
effectiveness of environmental protection actions and defining environmental
priorities for estuarine resources. The objectives of the 1990 Demonstration
Project are to address the above questions and concerns by obtaining the data
needed to accomplish the following:
• Evaluate alternative sampling designs and trade-offs between cost
and uncertainty, allowing specified data quality objectives to be
developed for the full-scale implementation of EMAP in estuaries
• Identify reliable indicators for inclusion in an implementation program
including development of a strategy for adding and deleting
indicators in the future
• Develop a logistically feasible, cost-effective sampling design that
will define the status and trends of estuaries in the Virginian Province
• Demonstrate the usefulness and ease of presentation of the data
resulting from applying an EMAP sampling approach.
3-15
-------
Table 3-3. Estuaries in the Virginian Province included in the large estuarine system
class (> 259 km2)
Estuary
Buzzards Bay
Nantucket Sound
Vineyard Sound
Narragansett Bay
Block Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Great South Bay
Delaware Bay
Chincoteague Bay
Pocomoke Sound
Tangier Sound
Chesapeake Bay
State(s)
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Rhode Island, New
York, Connecticut
New York, Connecticut
New York
Delaware
Maryland
Maryland, Virginia
Maryland, Virginia
Virginia, Maryland
Surface
Area
(km2)
604.8
1883.4
265.2
268.1
1342.4
2884.2
343.7
1533.8
354.3
324.8
559.2
5658.1
Aspect
Ratio
2.6
1.9
2.3
2.7
1.8
6.2
9.3
3.0
4.7
7.3
8.1
17.5
3-16
-------
Table 3-4. Tidal rivers in the Virginian Province included in the large tidal rivers
class
Estuary
State(s)
Surface
Area
(km2)
Aspect
Ratio
Hudson River
Delaware River
Potomac River
Rappahannock
River
James River
New York, New Jersey 335.1
Delaware, New Jersey 239.3
Jersey, Pennsylvania
Maryland, Virginia 1179.5
Virginia 435.6
Virginia 651.1
150.5
62.4
41.8
68.2
37.2
3-17
-------
Table 3-5. Estuaries and tidal rivers in the Virginian Province included in the small
estuarine systems class
Estuary/
Tidal River
Chatham Harbor
Cape Cod Canal
New Bedford Harbor
Nantucket Harbor
Nantucket Ponds*
Vineyard Ponds*
Edgartown Harbor
Massachusetts Bays/
Ponds*
Westport River
Rhode Island Ponds*
Sakonnet River
Mt. Hope Bay
Taunton River
Providence River
Shinnecock Bay
Moriches Bay
Gardiners Bay
Hempstead Bay
Great Peconic Bay
Little Peconic Bay
Shelter Sound
Napeague Bay
Long Island Ponds*
West Long Island
Bays*
East River
Housatonic River
New Haven Harbor
Quinnipac River
Connecticut River
Niantic River
Thames River
Mystic River
Fishers Sound
State
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
Rl
Rl
Rl
Rl, MA
Rl
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
CN
System
Cape Cod
Buzzards Bay
Buzzards Bay
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Cape Cod
Narragansett Bay
Narragansett Bay
Narragansett Bay
Narragansett Bay
Narragansett Bay
Long Island Coast
Long Island Coast
Long Island Coast
Long Island Coast
East Long Island
East Long Island
East Long Island
East Long Island
East Long Island
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Surface
Area
(km2)
34.2
4.1
2.8
14.2
1.3
1.8
37.0
3.4
6.2
1.8
51.3
34.4
8.8
17.4
55.2
31.9
173.8
37.3
93.5
56.7
27.7
86.8
2.3
3.9
13.7
9.1
23.8
2.6
39.1
9.1
11.9
8.5
71.5
Multiple small ponds and bays, many of which are < 2.6 km2, are combined as a
potential sampling entity; one random pond or bay is-selected representing the set
of ponds or bays; surface area represents an average pond or bay.
3-18
-------
Table 3-5. Continued
Estuary/
Tidal River
Connecticut Ponds*
Harlem River
Jamaica Bay
Lower NY/NJ Bay
Upper NY/NJ Bay
Sandy Hook Bay
Kill Van Kull
Arthur Kill
Raritan Bay
Newark Bay
Hackensack River
Passaic River
Raritan River
Navesink River
Shrewsbury River
Shark River
Manasquan River
Metedeconk River
Toms River
Barnegat Bay
Little Egg Harbor
Great Bay
Mullica River
New Jersey Coastal
Bays*
Great Egg Harbor
Mispillion River
St. Jones River
Maurice River
Leipsic River
Cohansey River
Smyrna River
Stow Creek
Alloway Creek
Blackbird Creek
Appoquinimink River
State
CN
NY
NY
NY, NJ
NY, NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
DE
DE
NJ
NJ
NJ
DE
NJ
NJ
DE
DE
System
Block Island Sound
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
Hudson/Raritan
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
New Jersey Coast
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Surface
Area
(km2)
3.9
2.6
35.0
217.3
33.9
61.6
4.1
9.8
71.7
14.0
4.7
2.6
8.8
9.8
11.1
2.8
6.2
6.7
8.0
201.0
86.2
40.9
7.5
3.9
22.3
2.6
2.6
7.8
2.6
6.5
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
13.0
3-19
-------
Table 3-5. Continued
Estuary/
Tidal River
C&D Canal
Salem River
Christina River
Schyukill River PA
Rehobeth Bay
Indian River Bay
Pepper Creek
Little Assawoman Bay
Assawoman Bay
Sinepuxent Bay
Virginia Coastal
Bays*
Magothy Bay
Fishermans Inlet
Back Bay
Elizabeth River
Lynnhaven Bay
Mobjack Bay
Nansemond River
Chickahominy River
Appamatox River
York River
Mattaponi River
Pamunkey River
Piankatank River
Corrotoman River
Great Wicomico River
Pocomoke River
Manokin River
Big Annemessex River
Monie Bay
Wicomico River
Fishing Bay
Honga River
St. Marys River
Breton Bay
St. Clements Bay
Wicomico River
(Potomac)
State
DE, MD
NJ
DE
PA
DE
DE
DE
MD
MD
MD
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
System
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Bay
Delaware Coast
Delaware Coast
Delaware Coast
Maryland Coast
Maryland Coast
Maryland Coast
Virginia Coast
Virginia Coast
Virginia Coast
Virginia Coast
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Surface
Area
(km2)
4.7
44.0
4.7
7.0
28.7
25.6
7.3
7.0
61.6
11.4
2.6
43.3
7.5
83.7
21.8
7.0
138.3
24.1
23.3
2.8
54.1
19.7
23.3
37.3
18.1
29.0
7.3
69.9
23.3
28.0
6.5
80.8
115.5
39.6
11.1
20.2
55.4
3-20
-------
Table 3-5. Continued
Estuary/
Tidal River
Chester River
Choptank River
Patuxent River
Nanticoke River
Port Tobacco River
Aquia Creek
Nanjemoy Creek
Anacostia River
Little Choptank
River
Tred Avon River
Harris Creek
Broad Creek
Eastern Bay
Herring Bay
Miles River
Wye River
West River
South River
Severn River
Magothy River
Patapsco River
Back River
Middle River
Gunpowder River
Bush River
Romney Creek
Sassafras River
Bohemia River
Elk River
Northeast River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna Flats
State
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD, DC
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
System
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Surface
Area
(km2)
78.5
62.9
76.1
129.8
7.5
4.7
9.1
2.6
74.3
15.0
35.0-
22.0
173.0
6.2
29.3
9.1
11.1
14.5
29.3
17.9
61.4
14.8
15.0
30.0
25.4
5.7
26.2
9.1
53.1
14.5
31.1
89.9
3-21
-------
The 1990 Demonstration Project includes the following elements:
• A base sampling effort that will collect the data to make an initial
assessment of the status of the estuaries of the Virginian Province
• Intensive spatial sampling to evaluate the influence of spatial scale
on the assessment of status, to define a spatial scale that is
adequate for full-scale implementation, and to assess the value of
information collected from "representative" sampling sites relative to
information collected at probability sample sites
• Intensive temporal sampling including continuous monitoring of water
quality, primarily dissolved oxygen concentration, to evaluate the
reliability of an index period approach for assessing ecological status
• Testing and evaluation of indicators of environmental quality to
determine the reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and repeatability of
indicator responses for discriminating between polluted and
unpolluted conditions and to identify parameters that should be
measured during the implementation phase.
EMAP-NC plans to conduct demonstration or pilot projects prior to
implementing operational programs in all new regions, as well as when initiating
programs in new resource types (i.e., coastal waters). The amount of intensive
sampling conducted during these demonstration projects is expected to decline
substantially as additional regions are incorporated into the program and more
information on the scale of regional and temporal variation is made available.
3.6.1 Base Sample Selection for Large Estuarine Systems
Sampling sites in large estuarine systems were selected using a randomly
placed systematic grid. The distance between the systematically-spaced sampling
points on the grid is approximately 18 km. This grid is an extension of the
systematic grid proposed for use throughout EMAP (Overton 1989).
The random placement of the grid was established assuming a planar
projection and using the following steps described by Overton (1989):
1. Establish the appropriate planar distance for the grid,
3-22
-------
2. Establish a cardinal orientation for the grid, relative to the plane, to
determine one of the three alignment axes, and fix the remaining two
axes,
3. Establish a 0-position of the grid, providing the x-location and the
y-location of each of the points in the grid, spanning the United
States and its adjacent coastal waters,
4. Select, at random, a perturbation from this 0-location, as follows:
a. Select u, a uniform random variable, between 0 and 1
b. Select v, a uniform random variable, between 0 and V3/2
c. If u < 1/2 and v < 1/2 V3~- u/ 2 >/3~, then reset
u = u + 1/2 and v = v + V3/2
d. If u > 1/2 and v < u/ 2 V3~- 1/ 2 A/3~/ then reset
u = u - 1/2 and v = v + V3/2
5. Translate the origin to the center of the hexagon, and rescale by the
appropriate planar grid distance:
a. u = (u- 1/2)d.
b. v = (v- 1/V37d.
6. Translate the grid from its 0-position to its randomized position by
adding u to all of the x-locations and v to all of the y-locations.
For the 1990 Demonstration Project, 54 sample sites were identified within
the boundaries of large estuarine systems, in areas that could be sampled using the
available boats (i.e., sites in water greater than 1 m in depth). Sites are listed in
Table 3-6 and are shown in Fig. 3-1. All of these sites will be sampled in the 1990
Demonstration Project.
3.6.2 Base Sample Selection for Large Tidal River Systems
The selection of sampling sites for the large tidal rivers class was based on
a linear analog of the design for the large estuarine systems. A systematic linear
grid was used to define the spine of the five large tidal rivers in the Virginian
3-23
-------
Table 3-6. 1990 base sampling locations for the large estuarine systems class
Estuary
Buzzards Bay
Block Island Sound
Chesapeake Bay
Pocomoke Sound
Tangier Sound
Bay Mainstem
Location
Latitude (°N)
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
37°
37°
37°
38°
38°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
39°
30.54'
21.31'
12.72'
12.33'
11.91'
53.72'
44.83'
52.78'
1.68'
9.63'
35.94'
10.18'
27.03'
43.88'
1.27'
18.13'
34.98'
9.21'
51.83'
26.07'
0.30'
42.92'
0.73'
8.67'
59.20'
16.61'
33.45'
50.29'
41.25'
7.75'
Longitude (°W)
70°
71°
71°
71°
72°
75°
75°
75°
75°
76°
75°
75°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
57.55'
30.24'
36.31'
49.53'
2.75'
46.65'
51.70'
59.14'
54.10'
1.56'
56.72'
59.26'
1.71'
4.16'
4.19'
6.67'
9.15'
11.61'
11.62'
14.11'
16.52
16.61'
6.60'
14.09'
21.48'
21.59'
24.08'
26.57'
31.42'
16.88'
Chincoteague Bay
38'
4.37'
75(
16.53'
3-24
-------
Table 3-6. Continued
Estuary
Buzzards Bay
Delaware Bay
Great South Bay
Long Island Sound
Narragansett Bay
Nantucket Sound
Location
Latitude (°N)
41°
38°
39°
39°
39°
39°
40°
40°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
30.54'
55.76'
4.60'
12.60'
3.76'
20.60'
44.45'
50.77'
1.82'
9.97'
11.46'
10.99'
2.33'
10.49'
1.28'
0.72'
0.13'
38.48'
29.90'
31.50'
23.00'
31.30'
22.79'
31.08'
Longitude (°W)
70°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
72°
73°
72°
72°
72°
72°
72°
72°
73°
73°
73°
71°
71°
70°
70°
70°
70°
70°
57.55'
10.55'
5.27'
12.72'
18.00'
20.20'
59.87'
46.53'
48.23'
55.55'
15.96'
29.16'
35.06'
42.36'
1.39'
14.54'
27.68'
18.01'
24.14'
4.31'
10.60'
17.63'
23.89'
30.94'
Vineyard Sound
41
22.28'
70<
50.45'
3-25
-------
Base Sampling Sites
Tidal riv«r«
Small ••tuarln* «y«t«m«
Larg* ••tuarin* ay»t«»»
Figure 3-1. Base sampling sites for all classes of estuaries in the 1990 EMAP-NC
Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province
3-26
-------
Province. The start-point of the spine was at the mouth of the tidal river. The first
transect ("rib") was located at a randomly selected river-kilometer between 0 and
25. Additional transects were placed every 25 km from the first, in an upstream
direction. On each transect, both an index site and a randomly located sampling
point were identified. The randomly selected site was located along the rib. The
index site was located in a deep, muddy portion of the transect, usually near the
channel, that was expected to have depositional characteristics. Areas of known
dredging activity were avoided. The design for large tidal rivers resulted in 25
transects and 50 sampling locations (25 index samples and 25 random samples).
The 50 sample locations (index and random) for the large tidal rivers are listed in
Table 3-7 and are shown in Fig. 3-1.
3.6.3 Base Sample Selection for Small Estuarine Systems
The small estuarine systems class was composed of 137 systems. For the
1990 Demonstration Project, 32 (i.e., ~ 23%) of the available small estuarine
systems were selected for sampling. To ensure the systems selected for sampling
were geographically dispersed, they were ordered from north to south by
combining adjacent small estuaries into groups of four and selecting a sample at
random from each group. Both an index sampling site and a randomly selected
sampling site having a depth _>. 1 m were identified within the boundaries of these
32 small estuaries. The index site was selected using available information on
sediment type, depth, and geometry to identify a depositional environment. In
small tidal rivers, the index site was located at the mouth of the river in a soft,
muddy sediment (e.g., Thames River). In small lagoonal estuaries, the index site
was located at the deep central portion in soft mud sediments. The 64 sampling
sites (index and random) for small estuarine systems are listed in Table 3-8 and
shown in Fig. 3-1.
3.6.4 Definition of the Index Period
Accurate definition of the boundaries of the summer index period is critical
to the development of a sampling design that can be used by EMAP-NC over the
long term. This is particularly true for indicators that have large seasonal variation
(e.g., dissolved oxygen concentration) and for indicators for which little is known
about their seasonal variation on regional scales (e.g., contaminants in fish flesh,
gross pathology of fish). Because of the importance of accurately defining the
boundaries of the index period, sampling for the 1990 Demonstration Project will
encompass the entire summer (June 19-September 30). During the summer index
period, each of the previously defined sampling locations will be sampled up to
3-27
-------
Table 3-7. 1990 base sampling locations [Random (R) and Index (I)] for the large tidal
river class
Tidal River
Potomac River
James River
Rappahannock
River
Delaware River
Transect
Number
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Sample
Type
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
Location
Latitude Longitude
(°N) (°W)
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
36°
36°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
40°
40°
40°
40°
4.21'
3.06'
13.10'
12.22'
23.89'
24.00'
30.00'
30.00'
44.20'
45.00'
55.30'
56.10'
1.92'
2.00'
12.55'
12.55'
16.20'
16.10'
20.00'
20.00'
44.20'
44.00'
57.90'
58.00'
6.63'
6.61'
9.90'
10.00'
12.02'
12.00'
35.00'
35.00'
45.00'
45.00'
52.88'
52.91'
3.03'
3.17'
10.00'
10.00'
76°
76°
76°
76°
77°
77°
77°
77°
77°
77°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
77°
77°
77°
77°
76°
76°
76°
76°
77°
77°
77°
77°
77°
77°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
74°
74°
740
74°
27.88'
29.86'
47.14'
47.14'
5.21'
5.00'
16.49'
17.08'
2.00'
2.16'
25.04'
25.04'
34.33'
35.00'
47.89'
47.51'
4.25'
4.25'
16.37'
16.50'
35.07'
35.11'
52.03'
51.71'
0.00'
0.00'
8.53'
8.26'
15.10'
15.13'
34.90'
33.50'
29.00'
29.30'
1 1 .00'
1 1 .00'
58.00'
58.00'
43.68'
43.75'
3-28
-------
Table 3-7. Continued
Tidal River
Transect Sample
Number Type
Location
Latitude
Longitude
Hudson River 1
2
3
4
5
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
40°
40°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
41°
42 o
42 o
53.00'
53.00'
9.00'
9.00'
23.00'
23.00'
44.00'
44.00'
0.00'
0.00'
73°
73°
73°
73°
73°
73°
73°
73°
73°
73°
56.57'
56.00'
52.97'
53.75'
57.38'
57.20'
56.71'
56.60'
56.33'
56.50'
3-29
-------
Table 3-8. 1990 sample locations [Random (R) and Index (l)l for the small estuarine
systems class
Tidal River
or Estuary
Buzzards Bay
New Bedford Harbor
Chesapeake Bay
Pocomoke River
West River
Broad Creek
Anacostia River
Port Tobacco River
Patapsco River
Middle River
Back River
Elk River
Elizabeth River
Mattaponi River
Delaware Bay
Salem River
Alloway Creek
Maurice River
Delaware Coast
Indian River Bay
Sample
Type
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
I
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
Location
Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)
41°
41°
37°
37°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
36°
36°
37°
37°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
38°
38°
38.55'
38.50'
59.90'
57.80'
52.70'
51.22'
44.60'
44.99'
52.18'
51.52'
22.42'
25.01'
14.78'
13.16'
18.30'
18.57'
16.20'
15.29'
28.78'
25.69'
49.91'
55.50'
40.50'
31.60'
34.83'
34.19'
30.10'
30.20'
16.62'
12.71'
35.60'
36.10'
70°
70°
75°
75°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
77°
77°
77°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
75°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
75°
75°
75°
75°
74°
75°
75°
75°
54.70'
55.25'
37.30'
38.75'
31.10'
31.10'
14.50'
14.80'
59.85'
1.00'
2.33'
1.55'
33.42'
32.58'
24.60'
24.51'
26.60'
26.62'
56.50'
0.82'
17.63'
20.70'
54.67'
52.63'
29.72'
30.84'
32.00'
32.06'
58.70'
2.32'
6.70'
7.74'
3-30
-------
Table 3-8. Continued
Tidal River
or Estuary
East Long Island
Great Peconic Bay
Little Peconic Bay
Napeague Bay
Shinnecock Bay
Hudson/Raritan
Hackensack River
Sandy Hook Bay
Upper New York Bay
Lono Island Sound
Mystic River
Housatonic River
New Jersey Coast
Mullica River
Shrewsbury River
Shark River
Barnegat Bay
Nantucket /Vineyard
Edgartown Harbor
Virginia Coast
Magothy Bay
Sand Channel
Sample
Type
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
R
1
Location
Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)
40°
40°
41°
41°
41°
41°
40°
40°
40°
40°
40°
40°
40°
40°
41°
41°
41°
41°
39°
39°
40°
40°
40°
40°
39°
29°
41°
41°
37°
37°
37°
-5 ~, 37°
57.40'
55.88'
0.00'
0.00'
3.70'
4.20'
52.30'
51.58'
45.00'
45.00'
27.60'
26.50'
38.80'
40.00'
21.88'
19.50'
17.20'
10.00'
32.50'
31.10'
20.60'
20.55'
11.38'
11.60'
56.60'
46.71'
25.60'
24.50'
7.80'
10.00'
17.98'
18.16'
72°
72°
72°
72°
72°
72°
72°
72°
74°
740
74°
74°
74°
74°
71°
71°
73°
73°
74°
74°
73°
74°
74°
74°
74°
74°
70°
70°
75°
75°
75°
75°
30.20'
31.09'
24.70'
25.03'
0.10'
28.40'
28.40'
28.85'
5.20'
5.00'
4.50'
1.60'
3.50'
2.70'
57.87'
58.50'
4.32'
5.50'
24.50'
24.50'
59.20'
0.00'
1.90'
2.40'
6.11'
7.50'
31.00'
28.90'
54.90'
55.27'
50.00'
48.10
-------
three times for parameters anticipated to have high within-summer variability (e.g.,
dissolved oxygen concentration, fish abundance and species composition). The
three sampling intervals will be: (1) June 19 through July 18, (2) July 19 through
August 31, and (3) September 1 through approximately September 30.
Seasonal variation in dissolved oxygen concentration and temperature are
two of the most important factors controlling index period boundaries. To assist
with defining index period boundaries, continuous dissolved oxygen, temperature,
tidal stage, salinity, and pH measurements will be made from the middle of June
to the end of August at 30 of the 116 sampling sites (Fig. 3-2; Table 3-9). At
each of these stations the benthic species composition and biomass indicators will
also be measured at approximately the beginning, middle, and end of the
deployment period to define relationships between environmental conditions (e.g.,
dissolved oxygen exposure) and benthic parameters and to assess the stability of
benthic indicators over the index period. Continuous monitoring can not be
initiated at a larger number of stations because it is not logistically feasible.
The 30 locations selected for continuous water quality monitoring include
13 locations in large estuarine systems, five locations in large tidal rivers, and 12
locations in small estuarine systems. They are dispersed throughout the region.
Available information and expert opinion suggested that during summer, these
stations should experience a broad range of dissolved oxygen conditions. Many
have a high probability of consistently exhibiting dissolved oxygen concentrations
greater than 3.0 mg/l. At the other extreme, many also have a high probability of
consistently exhibiting dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than 2.0 mg/l.
Some (up to 25%) of the Hydrolab DataSonde 3 monitors will be removed
from service because they become damaged, lost, stolen, or fail to operate
properly. As a result, by the end of the second sampling interval continuous
monitoring will probably be conducted at only a subset of the original stations. To
ensure that measurements are continued at those stations which are likely to
provide the data of highest value to EMAP-NC, the relative order in which stations
will be removed from service if necessary to ensure coverage of higher value data
is shown in Table 3-9.
3-32
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
Monitoring Sites
Figure 3-2. Sites for which dissolved oxygen concentrations will be monitored
continuously from June 19 through August 30 for the 1990 EMAP-
NC Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province
3-33
-------
Table 3-9. 1990 Demonstration Project sampling sites for continuous dissolved
oxygen monitoring
Tidal River
or Estuary
Buzzards Bav
Buzzards Bay
New Bedford Harbor
Narraaansett Bav
Narragansett Bay
East Long Island
Great Peconic Bay
Napeague Bay
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Long Island Sound
Mystic River
Hudson/Raritan
Sandy Hook Bay
Hackensack River
New Jersey Coast
Barnegat Bay
Shrewsbury River
Order of
Removal of Location
Service Latitude (°IM) Longitude (°W)
4
24
19
18
1
30
29
8
2
28
23
26
41°
41°
41°
40°
41°
41°
41°
41°
40°
40°
39°
40°
30.54'
38.55'
38.48'
57.40'
3.70'
9.97'
0.13'
21.88'
27.60'
45.00'
56.60'
20.60'
70°
70°
71°
72°
72°
72°
73°
71°
740
74°
74°
73°
57.55'
54.70'
18.01'
30.20'
0.10'
55.55'
27.68'
57.87'
4.50'
5.20'
6.11'
59.20'
Delaware Coastal Bays
Indian River Bay
Delaware Bav/River
Delaware Bay
Delaware River
Delaware River
25
17
13
5
38(
39°
39°
40°
35.60'
20.60'
45.00'
3.03'
75(
6.70'
75° 20.20'
75° 29.00'
74° 58.00'
3-34
-------
Table 3-9. Continued
Tidal River
or Estuary
Order of
Removal of
Service
Latitude (°N)
Location
Longitude (°W)
Chesapeake Bay
Tangier Sound
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Anacostia River
Potomac River
Elk River
Patapsco River
Back River
Elizabeth River
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Rappahannock River
James River
12
16
11
27
9
6
15
21
20
14
3
10
22
7
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
39°
39°
39°
36°
37°
37°
37°
37°
37°
1.68'
59.20'
33.45'
52.18'
23.89'
28.78'
14.78'
16.20'
19.91'
9.21'
26.07'
17.15'
57.90'
20.00'
75°
76°
76°
76°
76°
75°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
77°
54.10'
21.48'
24.08'
59.85'
5.04'
56.50'
33.42'
26.60'
17.63'
11.61'
14.11'
19.05'
52.03'
16.37'
3-35
-------
3.6.5 Indicator Testing and Evaluation
Sufficient information is not available to verify the reliability of indicator
responses for the estuaries in the Virginian Province. Therefore, a study to
determine the reliability of indicators to discriminate between polluted and
unpolluted environments will be conducted. Samples for this study will be
collected at 23 locations (11 polluted and 12 unpolluted) (Table 3-10; Fig. 3-3).
These 23 locations include three major salinity zones (i.e., marine/polyhaline,
mesohaline, oligohaline/tidal freshwater) and two geographic regions (Chesapeake
Bay and coastal regions north of the New York Harbor). Four sample sites, which
are expected to exhibit varying combinations of pollution stress, are located in each
salinity zone of each geographic region (Fig. 3-4). For example, the polyhaline
zone within Chesapeake Bay will be represented by samples from Hampton Roads,
Virginia (high contaminant levels, high dissolved oxygen); Elizabeth River, Virginia
(high contaminant levels, low dissolved oxygen); Rappahannock Shoals, Virginia
(low contaminant levels, low dissolved oxygen), and the lower mainstem of
Chesapeake Bay (low contaminant levels, high dissolved oxygen). Indicator testing
and evaluation sites will be sampled to the degree possible during the July 20-
August 30 interval. The entire suite of core, developmental, and research
indicators will be measured at each site.
3.6.6 Supplemental Sampling
Sufficient data are not available to ascertain the spatial sampling scale
necessary to represent the ecological condition of estuarine systems in the
Virginian Province adequately. To address this problem for large estuaries and
large tidal rivers, Delaware Bay (both the estuary and tidal river portion) will be
sampled at a density four times greater (i.e., sample points approximately 9 km
apart; 33 additional sampling sites) than other large estuaries and tidal rivers (Table
3-10 and Fig. 3-5). This spatially intensive data set will be used to evaluate the
benefits of an enhanced grid for the assessment of ecological condition for large
estuarine systems and large tidal rivers. The data resulting from the supplemental
sampling program in Delaware Bay also will provide information to assist the
Delaware Bay National Estuary Program in identifying environmental concerns,
designing future monitoring activities, and preparing the Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plan (CCMP). This information will provide a data set
EMAP-NC can use to evalaute the effect of spatial scale on DQOs.
3-36
-------
Table 3-10. Locations of indicator testing and evaluation sites for 1990
Demonstration Project. [G (Geographic Location): N = North, S = South;
S (Salinity): P = Polyhaline, M = Mesohaline, O = Tidal Fresh/Oligohaline;
C (Sediment Contaminant Concentrations): H = High, L = Low; DO
(Dissolved Oxygen Concentration): H = High, L = Low; *=base
program stations]
Indicator Test
Site
Chesapeake Bay
Bear Creek
Colgate Cove
South River
Rappahannock River
Chesapeake Bay
Elizabeth River*
James River
Anacostia River*
Bohemia River
Back River*
Bush River
Connecticut River
Arthur Kill
Quinnipiac River
Hempstead Bay
Long Island Sound*
Blackrock Harbor
New Bedford Harbor*
Shrewsbury River*
Hudson River*
Hackensack River*
Passaic River
G
S
S
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
S
M
M
M
M
P
P
P
P
0
0
0
0
M
M
M
P
P
P
P
0
0
0
0
C
L
H
H
L
L
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
DO
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
Location
Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)
38°
38°
38°
38°
37°
37°
36°
37°
38°
39°
39°
39°
41°
40°
41°
40°
41°
41°
41°
40°
41°
40°
40°
53.38'
14.60'
15.20'
52.70'
37.40'
4.00'
49.91'
0.00'
52.18'
22.70'
16.20'
26.60'
20.80'
37.30'
18.80'
55.22'
11.46'
9.58'
38.55'
20.60'
23.00'
45.00'
45.00'
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
76°
72°
74°
72°
73°
72°
73°
70°
73°
73°
74°
74°
24.06'
29.79'
33.10'
30.90'
27.90'
10.00'
17.63'
20.00'
59.85'
0.00'
26.60'
14.75'
22.70'
12.20'
53.15'
38.70'
15.96'
12.62'
55.00'
59.20'
57.38'
5.20'
9.90'
3-37
-------
Indicator Testing and
Evaluation Sites
Figure 3-3. Indicator testing and evaluation sites to be sampled during the 1990
EMAP-NC Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province
3-38
-------
oo
I
OJ
CD
HIGH
HIGH
CONTAMINANTS CONCENTRATION
LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
OUSOHAUHE ....j
POLYHALINE
SALINITY GRADIENT
Figure 3-4.
Schematic summarizing the indicator testing and evaluation strategy for the 1990 EMAP-NC
Demonstration Project in the Virginian Province
-------
Supplemental
Sampling Sites
Figure 3-5. Supplemental sampling sites for the 1990 EMAP-NC Demonstraton
Project in the Virginian Province
3-40
-------
Two types of supplemental samples will be collected to determine the
appropriate scale for representing resource condition for small estuarine systems:
(1) five randomly located replicate samples from five separate systems, and (2)
four randomly located supplemental samples in one small estuarine system (i.e.,
Indian River). Supplemental samples from small estuarine systems will be used to
determine the effect of replicate samples on estimates of variance and population
estimates. The supplemental sample sites in small estuarine systems for the 1990
Demonstration Project are listed in Table 3-11 and shown in Fig. 3-5.
3.6.7 Potential for Subpopulation Estimation
Table 3-12 delineates the anticipated number of samples within some of the
subpopulations of interest for the Virginian Province. Variables used to form these
classes include geographic sub-region, salinity, and vulnerability to pollution
loadings. The distribution of sampling sites based on vulnerability to pollution
stress was based on physical characteristics that determine the capacity of an
estuary to retain pollutants (Biggs and Howell 1984). The number of samples
included in some subpopulations (e.g., salinity zones) in Table 3-12 is subject to
change due to the transient nature of variables that define those classes. The
information in Table 3-12 suggests that the proposed design allows definition of
a broad range of subpopulations.
Due to the incomplete knowledge of sediment distributional patterns for the
Virginian Province, the potential numbers of samples available for assessing the
status for major sediment types was not estimated. Historical data for sediment
distributions of the estuaries of the Virginian Province will be compiled, and maps
of sediment distributions will be prepared by NOAA Strategic Assessment Branch
as a part of EMAP-NC activities during 1990-1991.
3.7 Overview of Sampling Activities
The Virginian Province Demonstration Project sampling activities will be
conducted during a summer index period, extending from mid-June through the end
of September. This period is divided into three sampling intervals: June 19
through July 18, July 19 through August 30, and September 1 through
approximately September 30. A total of 215 sites will be sampled in 1990
(Fig. 3-6) as follows:
• 111 base sampling sites
3-41
-------
Table 3-11. Locations of supplemental sampling sites in the 1990 Demonstration
Project to assess spatial variability due to scale in large estuarine
systems and small sample size in small estuarine systems
Tidal River
or Estuary
Large Systems
Delaware Bay
Delaware River
Transect 1 B R
I
Transect 2B R
I
Transect 3B R
i
i
Transect 4B R
1
Location
Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)
38°
38°
38°
38°
38°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
39°
40°
51.72'
51.37'
56.33'
55.48'
59.93'
9.27'
4.98'
8.91'
8.72'
8.25'
7.97'
12.24'
16.62'
16.21'
20.23'
27.86'
24.21'
0.71'
0.32'
4.11'
40.00'
50.81'
58.41'
6.00'
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
75°
74°
6.52'
12.93'
4.03'
16.78'
13.93'
55.51'
59.14'
1.86'
8.12'
15.23'
20.40'
17.70'
14.97'
22.31'
26.27'
33.72'
29.45'
1.52'
8.00'
11.76'
32.09'
20.00'
6.00'
50.36'
3-42
-------
Table 3-11. Continued
Tidal River Location
or Estuary Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)
Indian River Bav
Small Systems
38° 35.01' 75° 10.59'
38° 36.14' 75° 8.22'
38° 35.71' 75° 4.99'
38° 36.67' 75° 6.58'
38° 36.62' 75° 5.65'
Back River, MD 39° 16.50' 76° 27.00'
Elizabeth River, VA 36° 50.10' 76° 21.40'
Mattaponi River, VA 37° 36.90' 76° 50.80
Mystic River, CN 41° 20.30' 71° 58.50'
Mullica River, NJ 39° 33.10' 74° 24.90'
3-43
-------
Table 3-12. Number of samples that will be taken in the 1990 Demonstration
Project in the Virginian Province and the 1990-1993 cycle that could
be used for subpopulation estimation. Number of samples in salinity
categories could change based on actual salinities.
Subpopulation Estimation Number of Samples
Classes Including Replicates
Geographic Sub-regions:
Buzzards Bay 4
Nantucket Sound 5
Cape Code Region 8
Narragansett Bay 2
Block Island Sound 4
Long Island Sound 20
East Long Island Bays 6
Coastal Long Island Bays 3
Hudson/Raritan 20
New Jersey Coastal Bays 10
Delaware Bay/River 49
Delaware Inland Bays 6
Maryland/Virginia Coastal Bays 5
Chesapeake Bay 93
Salinity Zones:
Polyhaline 90
Mesohaline 98
Tidal Fresh/Oligohaline 27
Pollution Vulnerability Zones:
Low 35
Moderate 120
High 60
3-44
-------
All Sampling Sites
Figure 3-6. All sites to be sampled during the 1990 EMAP-NC Demonstration
Project in the Virginian Province
3-45
-------
• 30 continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring sites (a subset of the
111 base sampling sites)
• 23 indicator testing and evaluation sites (9 of which are a subset of
the 111 base sampling sites)
• 57 index sampling sites in small estuaries and large tidal rivers
• 33 supplemental sampling sites.
EMAP-NC will be focused on collecting data for indicators of environmental
quality during an index period, when responses to stress are anticipated to be most
severe. The sampling design will combine the strengths of systematic and random
sampling with an understanding of estuarine systems to collect data that will
provide unbiased estimates of the status of the nation's estuarine resources. This
design also will provide reasonable approximations of the variability associated
with status estimates.
The following characteristics distinguish the EMAP-NC sampling design from
that used by most other monitoring program designs:
• The scale of sampling is regional. The spatial scale of most other
monitoring programs is smaller (i.e., individual estuarine systems or
portions of systems) (Wolfe et al. 1987; NRC 1990a, 1990b).
• Standardized sampling methods are used across broad geographical
regions. Sampling methods used by most monitoring programs are
not generally standardized across regions; therefore, data rarely can
be combined to perform regional or national assessments (NRC
1990a, 1990b).
• Measurements are focused on categories of indicators that are linked
to major environmental concerns (i.e., endpoints) and to each other,
allowing identification of the extent and magnitude of impacts
associated with potential stressor categories or causes. Most other
monitoring programs are specific to one pollution problem and sample
only a few parameters directly related to it. Frequently, different
programs monitoring the effects of the same pollution problem, in the
same system, sample different parameters (NRC 1990b). As a result,
data from ongoing programs rarely can be combined to estimate the
regional extent of impacts of even one pollution problem (NRC
1990a).
3-46
-------
A combination of random and systematic sampling is used to obtain
complete geographic coverage of rare and abundant resources and
unbiased estimates of status and trends for all estuarine types. Most
other monitoring programs sample at fixed stations, do not have
complete coverage of resource types or distributions, and do not
include both random and systematic elements (NRC 1990a; Wolfe et
al. 1987).
Index samples will be collected to facilitate and enhance the
interpretation of the data from randomly selected sites. Most other
monitoring programs sample only at representative sample sites.
Unfortunately, these programs do not know the degree to which the
data they collect are representative of actual conditions in a
probabilistic sense (NRC 1990a).
The time frame of sampling is long-term (decades), and trend
evaluations will be based on multiyear baselines. Most other
monitoring programs are limited in duration (several years), and
establish baselines based on one or two years of data; therefore,
evaluation of trends relies on differences among years (Wolfe et al.
1987; NRC 1990a). This approach is clearly flawed because of the
high year-to-year variation characteristic of estuarine and coastal
resources (Holland et al. 1987).
3-47
-------
-------
4.0 INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
EMAP-NC does not have the resources to monitor all of the ecological
parameters of concern to the public, Congress, scientists and environmental
managers. Therefore, the limited resources available must be focused on the
system attributes that are of greatest concern and best address program
objectives. The purpose of this chapter is to describe and explain the strategy
used by EMAP-NC to identify and select indicators. In the first two sections of the
chapter, we describe the generic approach to indicator selection that is being used
by all resource groups within EMAP. In the remaining sections of the chapter, we
describe the application of that approach to identify indicators to be measured
during the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project and those that are still
being considered for incorporation into the program in future years.
4.1 The EMAP Indicator Strategy
Selection of indicators is based on a "top-down", risk assessment approach.
Within a risk assessment framework, anthropogenic influences that have the
potential to affect indigenous populations deleteriously (e.g., inputs of toxic
materials) are referred to as stressors. The magnitude of the stress to which living
resources are exposed depends on the concentration and duration of the exposure,
as well as the habitat characteristics and physical conditions prevailing at the
exposure site. Most animals have a variety of behavioral responses that minimize
or reduce exposure to pollutants, including avoidance and/or modification of certain
biochemical and physiological processes. If behavioral responses fail to reduce
exposure, a "dose" occurs that may cause impaired function, alterations in
physiological condition, death, or a change in species composition (e.g., Pearson
and Rosenberg 1978; Gray 1982). These impairments may, in turn, adversely alter
ecosystem attributes, such as production of fisheries and wildlife, as well as
beneficial functions, such as fishing and swimming, that are valued by society.
The traditional "bottom-up" approach to risk assessment emphasizes
measurement of stressors and uses mathematical models of transport,
transformation, and fate processes to estimate exposure levels. Estimates of
exposures are coupled to the results of laboratory toxicological information using
dose-response models, and ecological effects are predicted. The "bottom-up"
approach to risk assessment is a reasonable way to approach the assessment of
4-1
-------
single pollutant hazards where transport, transformation, and effects are
understood and can be modeled reliably (Fava et al. 1987).
Ecological resources, however, are more often affected by multiple
pollutants arriving in multiple media. These interactions, mediated by highly
variable natural processes and pollution abatement actions, exert both direct and
higher order (e.g., indirect) effects. The "bottom-up" approach to risk assessment
may not detect unanticipated interactions and is often incapable of modeling poorly
understood natural processes (Wolfe et al. 1987, Levin et al. 1984, Fava et al.
1987). To resolve these problems, EMAP has adopted the "top-down," effects-
driven approach to risk assessment. Here, emphasis is placed on identification of
higher order effects which then are decomposed to identify the associated hazard
or stressors, by using exposure information. This approach is more likely to
measure and explain cumulative impacts of natural and anthropogenic influences
on ecological resources than is a "bottom-up" approach.
4.2 Framework for Indicator Selection
EMAP is an evolving program; therefore, the selection of indicators to be
used in the program is an ongoing process. The selection process consists of six
phases in which all potential indicators are identified as candidates, and each is
classified on an ascending scale from candidate to research to developmental to
core (Fig. 4-1), according to the degree to which evaluation criteria generic to all
resource groups of EMAP are met (Table 4-1). At each successive stage in the
scale (candidate through core), the number of evaluation criteria that must be met,
the degree to which the criteria must be exhibited, and the extent of external
review, become more stringent. This section describes the tiered approach to
indicator selection and development being used by all resource groups in EMAP,
and the following section describes the application of this approach to EMAP-NC.
The six phases of the EMAP indicator selection process are:
1) Identification of issues (environmental values and apparent stressors)
and valued ecosystem attributes (assessment endpoints)
2) Development of a conceptual model that links expected stressors to
the identified endpoints and, in so doing, assists in identifying
candidate indicators of environmental stress
3) Screening the candidate indicators based on a set of evaluation
criteria, selecting as research indicators those that appear to fulfill
key requirements, rejecting those indicators that clearly do not, and
4-2
-------
IDENTIFY -*—
ISSUES/ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS
Objectives Methods
Develop indicators
linked to endpoints
Expert Knowledge
Literature Review
Conceptual Models
Criteria
Evaluation
Workshops
CANDIDATE INDICATORS
Priorize based
on criteria
- reject, suspend, or
proceed
Expert Knowledge
Literature Review
Conceptual Models
RESEARCH INDICATORS
Criteria
Peer Review
Evaluate expected
performance
- quantitative testing
and evaluaton
Analysis of Existing Data
Simulations
Pilot Tests
Indicator Testing/Eval'n
Mock Assessments
Conceptual Models
Criteria
Peer Review
DEVELOPMENTAL INDICATORS
Evaluate actual
performance on a
regional scale
- build infrastructure
- demonstrate utility
- assess logistics
Regional Demonstration
Projects
Regional Statistical
Summary
CORE INDICATORS
Implement Regional
and
National Monitoring
- periodic revaluation
Criteria at
Regional Scale
Peer Review
Agency Review of
Summary
EMAP Data Analysis
Correlate Old Indicators with
Proposed Replacements
Feedback from
Peers and Agencies
Peer Review
Assess Promising
Candidate Indicators
Revisit Assessment Endpoints
Figure 4-1. Framework for indicator development
4-3
-------
Table 4-1. General indicator selection criteria
Critical Criteria
Regionally Responsive
Unambiguously Interpretable
Low Measurement Error
Simple Quantification
Environmental Impact
Low Year-to-Year Variation
Desirable Criteria
Sampling Unit Stable
Available Method
Historical Record
Retrospective
Anticipatory
Cost Effective
New Information
Must reflect changes in ecosystem condition and respond to
stessors of concern across most resource classes and habitats
within a region
Must be related unambiguously to an assessment endpoint or
relevant exposure or habitat variable that forms part of the eco-
system group's overall conceptual model of ecological structure
and function
Exhibits low measurement error and stability of regional cumula-
tive frequency distribution during index period (low temporal
variation in regional statistics)
Can be quantified by synoptic monitoring or by cost effective
automated monitoring
Sampling must have minimal environmental impact
Must have sufficiently low natural year-to-year variation to detect
ecologically significant changes within a reasonable time frame
Measurements of response indicator taken at a sampling unit
(site) should be stable over the course of the index period (to
conduct associations)
Should have a generally accepted, standardized measurement
method that can be applied on a regional scale
Has a historical data base, or a historical data base can be
generated from accessible data sources
Can be related to past conditions via retrospective analyses
Provides an early warning of widespread changes in ecosystem
conditions or processes
Has low incremental cost relative to its information
Provides new information; does not merely duplicate data already
collected by cooperating agencies
4-4
-------
holding in a state of "suspended evaluation" those candidate
indicators for which there is insufficient information to advance to
research status but for which no "fatal flaw" has been identified
4) Evaluation and testing of the ability of research indicators to
discriminate between polluted and unpolluted sites over the range of
environmental settings that occur on regional scales to identify the
subset of developmental indicators suitable for application in a
regional demonstration project
5) Regional scale demonstration of the sensitivity, reliability, and
specificity of response for developmental indicators, using the
sampling frame, sampling methods, and data analyses that will be
used in the fully-implemented EMAP
6) Periodic re-evaluation of core indicators after they have been
incorporated into EMAP.
In the first two phases of the indicator development process, a
comprehensive list of potential indicators is developed by identifying all state and
process variables that link stresses to impacts. The next three phases are a
stepwise reduction of this list by critical evaluation to a defensible, practical set of
core indicators that will be used in the implementation phase of the program.
The first phase focuses on defining the two ends of a conceptual model that
links sources and receptors. At one end are the environmental perturbations that
are causes of concern (e.g., human population density, deforestation, improper
waste treatment, sea level rise). At the other end are the valued ecosystem
attributes that are likely to be affected by the environmental stressors. Consistent
with the "top-down" approach, more emphasis is placed on identifying all of the
valued ecosystem attributes than on identifying all of the possible stressors.
Valued ecosystem attributes are often referred to as endpoints of concern,
or assessment endpoints, and are formal expressions of the actual environmental
value that is to be protected. The goal of EMAP is to identify endpoints that:
(1) have unambiguous operational definitions, (2) have social and/or biological
relevance, and (3) can be predicted or measured. Identification of environmental
values and assessment endpoints requires a broad perspective of resource values
(as expressed by resource managers, scientists, private industry, legislators, and
the general public) and resource stresses (which may occur on local to global
spatial scales, and over short to long term temporal scales). Many of the potential
clients of EMAP, including EPA Regional Offices, EPA Program Offices, and other
state and federal agencies, as well as scientists, environmental activity groups, and
industry are consulted during this phase to ensure that the valued ecosystem
4-5
-------
attributes and problems identified have broad-based support and will yield useful
information.
The second phase of the process is to develop an explicit conceptual model
of the ecosystem that links the valued ecosystem attributes with the environmental
stresses identified in phase 1. The model identifies the causal pathways by which
stresses and valued ecosystem attributes are connected, and serves as a tool for
identifying candidate indicators. The ecological components and processes within
the model include all possible measures of system function between the two ends
of the spectrum of interest. The model also provides a framework for defining how
the core indicators ultimately selected will be linked together in the analysis and
interpretation phase.
One of the ecosystem attributes that will be employed as an endpoint by all
of the EMAP resource groups is biotic integrity. It is important to recognize that
not all indicators leading to that endpoint will serve the same function in analysis
of the data. For a model related to the biotic integrity endpoint, EMAP will be
measuring four types of indicators including the following:
1) Response Indicators -- Characteristics of the environment measured
to provide evidence of the ecological condition of a resource for
supporting valued ecosystem attributes (e.g., species composition,
abundance, and biomass of important biota)
2) Exposure Indicators -- Characteristics of the environment measured
to provide evidence of the occurrence or magnitude of physical,
chemical, or biological stress (e.g., contaminant concentrations in
sediments, the toxicity of sediments to endemic biota, dissolved
oxygen concentration)
3) Habitat Indicators -- Physical, chemical and biological attributes
measured to characterize conditions necessary to support an
ecological or human use in the absence of pollutants (e.g., sediment
characteristics, salinity vegetation type and extent)
4) Stressor Information — Natural processes, environmental hazards, or
management actions that effect changes in exposure and habitat
indicators (e.g., pollutant loadings, hydrologic modifications, land
use).
Response indicators are the measures that will be used to assess status and
trends. Exposure and habitat indicators will be used to explain patterns observed
for response variables. Exposure or habitat indicators also identify possible threats
4-6
-------
to ecosystems. Stressor information will be used to identify the likely sources of
the problem. Figure 2-2 shows the relationships among indicator types
schematically.
While the first and second phases of the indicator selection process are
targeted towards inclusion of all relevant possible indicators, the next three phases
of the EMAP indicator development strategy focus on exclusion of indicators that
currently cannot be measured within EMAP constraints, as well as identifying a
subset of the indicators to be elevated to higher levels (e.g., research,
developmental). The process is guided both by a set of criteria (Table 4-1) and by
peer reviews of research plans. As indicators advance through the indicator
development process, different criteria are emphasized (Fig. 4-2). At each step the
criteria become more focused on the value of the data for addressing EMAP
objectives.
In the third phase (selection of research indicators), a candidate indicator
meeting a set of positive criteria may be advanced to the research stage, one
meeting a set of negative criteria may be rejected, or available information may be
deemed insufficient either to reject or advance a candidate. Existing literature
information and expert knowledge (including workshops) are the major sources
used to identify which candidate indicators should become research indicators.
Key considerations in this evaluation are: (1) demonstrating responsiveness along
an environmental quality gradient, (2) being an important link in the conceptual
model, and (3) requiring low incremental cost. It is not critical to meet all of the
criteria in this phase, provided that at least some of the criteria are met decisively.
For instance, a gross external pathologic examination of biota is extremely
inexpensive if the biota are already being collected for other reasons (e.g.,
collection of fish for determination of tissue contaminant concentrations).
Therefore, it makes sense to include this indicator at the research level, even if
information about its ability to meet some of the other criteria is not conclusive.
The principal reasons that an indicator would be rejected at this stage are
redundancy with superior measures, temporal instability within the index period,
or demonstrated non-responsiveness to environmental quality gradients.
In the fourth phase (selection of developmental indicators), the selection
criteria are expanded to a more detailed set of questions that center around
demonstrating that indicator responsiveness to pollution gradients is strong enough
to be distinguished from natural environmental gradients (e.g., salinity,
temperature, depth) by statistical means. It also involves a more detailed
examination of the costs and feasibility of sampling the indicator on a regional
scale (e.g., holding time requirements, processing times). As many potential
indicators have been tested only in the laboratory or across limited local
environmental gradients, the answer to these questions quantitatively will require
more than a literature review. In most cases it will involve field measurements at
4-7
-------
- Regional data interpretable within conceptual model
- Provides new, important insights not available from
existing programs or measures
- Evaluation of costs and benefits
o
- Important within the conceptual model
- Responsivenes demonstrated in lab or small-scale
field study
- Low incremental cost
- Responsive to stressors on a regional scale
- Methods believed fesaible on a regional scale
- Not responsive to stressors of concern
- Redundant with superior measures
- Not measurable on
-Temporally unstable
an EMAP frame
within the index period
REJECTED
Figure 4-2. Primary evaluation criteria used by EMAP-NC in the tiered indicator selection strategy
-------
a subset of sample stations such as the indicator testing and evaluation stations,
discussed in Chapter 3.
The fifth phase (identification of core indicators through a regional
demonstration project) addresses questions that can be answered only by applying
EMAP sampling and data analysis protocols at a regional scale including:
• Can the required data be collected at the regional scale?
• Do the regional data provide new information not available from
existing data?
• Are regional cumulative frequency distributions stable over the index
period?
The sixth phase is the implementation of core indicators at regional and
national spatial scales. In this phase, it is important for EMAP to balance
continuity of measurement procedures with a set of procedures for continually
improving indicators to maximize trend detection capability. Major activities that
occur in this phase include:
• Evaluation of the costs and benefits of using newly developed
superior indicators or sampling methods, and
• Examination of the degree to which core indicators represent valued
ecosystem attributes.
An important component of the EMAP indicator development strategy is the
continual re-evaluation of assessment endpoints and response indicators. An
important part of this review process is the rejection of indicators at all levels once
they are shown to be non-responsive or redundant with other indicators.
Candidate indicators for which evaluation was suspended previously may be
reviewed as new assessment endpoints or environmental problems emerge. Also,
candidate indicators that are suspended because of technological limitations may
advance to higher categories rapidly when those limitations are removed by new
technological developments. The application of remote sensing for measuring
properties of estuarine waters is a good example of this case.
4-9
-------
4.3 Application of Indicator Selection Strategy to Estuarine Ecosystems
4.3.1 Valued Ecosystem Attributes
As noted above, it is important to translate public and scientific values and
concerns into ecosystem attributes and assessment endpoints that can be
assessed directly through the measurement of indicators. The ecosystem
attributes important to estuarine systems are: biotic integrity and human uses.
Biotic integrity includes maintenance of populations and ecosystems capable of
recovering from stress. The health, and consequently, the abundance of fish and
shellfish populations are related to the biotic integrity endpoint. The most evident
public concern over the condition of the estuarine ecosystems relates to human
uses (i.e., the fishable, swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act). When beaches
are closed to swimming or shellfish beds are closed to harvesting, the public's
attention becomes focused on the causes of the problem. The public also values
estuarine waters highly for commercial or recreational fishing. Fish and shellfish
populations must be abundant enough to make harvesting feasible. They also
must be free of disease and other manifestations of stress, as well as being safe
for human consumption. Aesthetics is another component of the human use
endpoint. Over half of the U.S. population resides within 50 miles of the coastal
zone. A significant segment is drawn to coastal areas for recreational purposes,
such as boating, swimming, and sightseeing. Floating debris, odor, excessive plant
growth, and discoloration of the water have a pronounced effect on public
attitudes about water quality and environmental health.
There appear to be seven major types of environmental perturbations that
are likely to affect biotic integrity and human uses of estuaries:
• Inputs of conventional pollutants,
• Inputs of toxic contaminants,
• Inputs of solids,
• Inputs of pathogens,
• Overharvesting of resources, and
• Cumulative impacts from all of the above.
4-10
-------
Each of these inputs may take many forms (e.g., point-source, non-point, or
atmospheric), and may come from many types of activities (e.g., shoreline
development, industrial activity, urban runoff).
In addition, there are several emerging problems that can affect the way
estuaries function (e.g., global climate change). As a long-term monitoring and
assessment program, EMAP must consider perturbations likely to occur 20 years
in the future and beyond. The mechanisms by which such impacts will become
apparent undoubtedly will be numerous, and they will be nearly impossible to
predict. The "top down" approach allows for identification of the effects of
emerging problems without advance knowledge of causal relationships.
4.3.2. Development of a Conceptual Model for the Selection of EMAP-NC
Indicators
The second phase of the indicator selection process is the development of
a conceptual source-receptor model that links the valued ecosystem attributes and
the stressors identified above. The model developed by EMAP-NC is shown in
Fig. 4-3. It is based on the following premises:
• The higher trophic levels of interest are benthos and fish, and the
health of these populations is directly related to the assessment
endpoint of biotic integrity.
• There are two routes by which stress is transmitted to higher trophic
levels: (1) the stress exerts a direct effect on suborganismal or
organismal responses; and (2) stress alters energy and materials
flow, indirectly affecting high trophic levels, including species
composition and abundance.
• Suborganismal responses are usually more indicative of exposure
than response, and during initial indicator selection, emphasis is
focused on organism, population, and community level effects.
Point, nonpoint, and atmospheric source inputs are measurable
parameters that are related to stressor indicators, including
management actions, natural processes, or environmental hazards.
These inputs include pathogens, contaminants, nutrients, and solids.
4-11
-------
STRESSORS
INPUTS
INDICATORS
ENDPOINTS
rsJ
Climate
Anthropogenic
> Population Density
' Land Use
' Management Practices
> Fossil Fuel Use
/ f~ Pathogens^
/ A •p°"" p*1
t s I Non-point I
/ *' V J
/' x' /^ontaminanlsN
^C ^-H ^NoTpomt \-*
Q ^_*.' V • Atmocphvnc /
Blotic Integrity
• Composition
• Abundance
• Health
Human Use
• Consumption
Swimming
Aesthetics
- Visual
- Olfactory
Figure 4-3. Conceptual model for defining indicators of estuarine quality. Solid arrows indicate material flows.
Dashed arrows indicate influence.
-------
• Source inputs form pools in water and sediments, and these pools
are the basis for organism exposure. This exposure results in tissue
uptake or direct biological effects in plankton, rooted macrophytes,
benthos, and fish.
• Certain basic characteristics of the habitat, such as salinity,
temperature and sediment characteristics, can modify exposure and
response.
• There is no attempt to quantify linkages; the purpose of the model
is only to define linkages.
The conceptual model was used to identify as many candidate indicators as
possible. It is based on an understanding of the causal mechanisms of natural and
anthropogenic stress effects for estuarine systems. In the assessment phases, the
conceptual source-receptor model will be used to generate hypotheses related to
causal mechanisms that can be tested using EMAP-generated data and specific
research approaches.
4.3.3 Special Constraints on the Selection of Estuarine Indicators
In addition to the indicator selection criteria discussed in Section 4.2, there
are several specific constraints that the sampling design described in Chapter 3
imposes on the indicator selection process, including the following:
• Samples must be amenable to collection from trailerable vessels.
The maximum length of these boats is 25 feet; therefore, sampling
gear must be of moderate size and relatively lightweight.
• Samples are collected during a summer index period, and indicators
must be measurable and stable over that period.
• The indicator must have a standardized method of collection or
analysis that generally can be conducted during a single visit to the
sample site. A second visit to the site to retrieve deployed gear is
acceptable, but continued visits to the site are beyond the resources
available to EMAP-NC, given its regional nature.
• Indicators must be measurable at random sites. A probability
sampling design does not allow for selection of sampling sites based
on where the indicator is most easily measured or is most likely to be
responsive.
4-13
-------
4.4 Estuarine Candidate Indicators
Approximately 150 candidate indicators were identified from the conceptual
model of estuarine systems (Table 4-2). Following preliminary selection and
categorization of candidate indicators, a series of workshops was held in December
1989 to identify, evaluate, and discuss potential indicators of ecological condition
and environmental quality. Workshop participants (see Appendix C for a list of
participants) were selected based upon recommendations from the Estuarine
Research Federation (ERF), NOAA, and EPA Program Offices and Regions. They
included a combination of researchers from universities, private consulting firms,
governmental agencies (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA, EPA, and state regulatory and resource management agencies),
and non-profit organizations. Participants had a broad range of monitoring
experience on all coasts (i.e., Atlantic, Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico) and in a wide
variety of marine/estuarine environments (e.g., tidal flats, large and small estuaries,
tidal rivers, and coastal waters).
Prior to the indicator workshop, participants were provided documents that:
(1) outlined the EMAP conceptual approach and rationale, (2) described the EMAP-
NC indicator strategy, and (3) contained a list of potential indicators. Each
participant was requested to review the material and to come to the workshop
prepared to identify, evaluate, and establish priorities for indicators for the 1990
Demonstration Project. Participants also were requested to be prepared to
recommend measurement and analysis methods for potential indicators.
Conclusions and findings of the workshops were used to refine the list of
indicators and to identify those that will be measured in the 1990 Demonstration
Project.
The indicator selection process yielded five research indicators, nine
developmental indicators, and two core indicators (Table 4-3). This section of the
chapter identifies which candidate indicators were placed into each category and
the rationale for these placements and gives an overview of the methodology that
will be used for measurement of those indicators selected for use in the 1990
Demonstration Project. Detailed descriptions of collection and processing methods
are provided in Strobel (1990) and Graves (1990). Although the tiered selection
process for indicators was conducted from candidate upwards to core, they are
presented in the following section from core downward to place emphasis on those
measurements most important to the program.
4-14
-------
Table 4-2. Major categories of candidate indicators developed from EMAP-NC
conceptual model
POOLS
Water
Sediment
Nutrients
Nutrient Ratios
Algal Growth Potential
Pathogens
Contaminants (water column or microlayer)
Suspended Solids
Light Transmission
Light Quality
Particle Size Distribution
Total Organic Carbon
Dissolved Oxygen
Flotsam
Nutrients
Nutrient Ratios
Pathogens
Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon
Acid Volatile Sulfides
RPD
Jetsam
PRIMARY PRODUCERS
Algal
Species Composition (diversity,
indicator species)
Biomass/Abundance
Production
Condition Indices
Biomarkers
Tissue Contaminants
Tissue Pathogens
Macrophytes
Species Composition (diversity,
indicator species)
Biomass/Abundance
Production
Size Structure
Shape Characteristics of Beds
Condition Indices
Biomarkers
Tissue Contaminants
Tissue Pathogens
Population/Community
Species Composition
Abundance
Community Function Measures
(trophic status, IBI, BRAT etc.)
Secondary Production
SECONDARY PRODUCERS
Individual
Condition Indices (length-
weight, Lipids, HSI)
Pathology
Behavior
Growth
Reproduction
Tissue Contaminant Levels
Respiration
Immune Response
Subnominal
Biochemical
- MFD's
- Metalotheincins
- AAH
Genetic
- DNA Adducts
- Chromosome Damage
- Microsomes
- T-cells
LINKAGES
Toxicity (water column, sediment)
Contaminant Uptake Rates (primary, secondary)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (water column, sediment)
Food Consumption
Salinity
Temperature
Depth
pH
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Sediment Grain Size
Flushing Rate
Energy Regime
4-15
-------
Table 4-3. Indicators selected for measurement in the 1990 Demonstration Project
CATEGORY
PROPOSED INDICATOR
Core
Benthic species composition and biomass
Habitat indicators (salinity, tempertaure, pH, sediment characteristics, water depth)
Developmental
Sediment contaminant concentration
Sediment toxicity
Dissolved oxygen concentration
Contaminants in fish flesh and shellfish
Gross pathology of fish
Relative abundance of large burrowing shellfish
Aesthetic indicators (flotsam, jetsam, odor, water clarity)
Research
Fish community composition
Histopathology of fish
Apparent redox potential discontinuity
Water column toxicity
4-16
-------
4.4.1 Core Indicators
4.4.1.1 Benthic Species Composition and Biomass
Macrobenthic organisms play an important role in the estuarine conceptual
model. As major secondary consumers in estuarine ecosystems, they represent
an important linkage between primary producers and higher trophic levels for both
planktonic and detritus-based food webs (Frithsen 1989, Holland et al. 1989).
They are a particularly important food source for juvenile fish and crustaceans
(Chao and Musick 1977, Bell and Coull 1978, Homer et al. 1980, Holland et al.
1989). Macro- benthic feeding activities can remove large amounts of particulate
material from the water, especially in shallow (< 10m) estuaries, improving water
quality by increasing water clarity and limiting phytoplankton production (Cloern
1982, Officer et al. 1982; Holland et al. 1989).
The benthic macroinvertebrate species composition and abundance indicator
has been placed in the core group not only because of its importance, but also
because of its responsiveness to the kinds of environmental stress gradients of
interest to EMAP-NC. Benthic assemblages are composed of diverse taxa with a
variety of reproductive modes, feeding guilds, life history characteristics, and
physiological tolerances to environmental conditions (Warwick 1980; Frithsen
1989; Bilyard 1987). As a result, benthic populations respond to changes in
conditions, both natural and anthropogenic, in a variety of ways (Pearson and
Rosenberg 1978, Rhoads et al. 1978; Boesch and Rosenberg 1981). Responses
of some species (e.g., filter feeders, species with pelagic life stages) are indicative
of water quality changes, while responses of others (e.g., organisms that burrow
in or feed on sediments) are indicative of changes in sediment quality.
Furthermore, most benthic species have limited mobility and cannot avoid
stressful environmental conditions. Benthic assemblages thus cannot avoid and
must respond to many of the problems that will be emphasized by EMAP-NC,
including toxic pollution, eutrophication, sediment quality, habitat modification,
multiple pollution stresses, and climate change (Sanders et al. 1980, Elmgren and
Frithsen 1982, Rhoads et al. 1978, Frithsen et al. 1985, Holland et al. 1987).
Benthic community studies have a history of use in regional estuarine monitoring
programs and have been proven to serve as an effective indicator for describing
the extent and magnitude of pollution impacts in estuarine ecosystems, as well as
for assessing the effectiveness of management actions.
Benthic species composition, abundance, and biomass also are influenced
by habitat conditions including salinity and sediment type (Sanders et al. 1965,
Carriker 1967, Boesch 1977, Dauer et al. 1984, Holland et al. 1987, 1989).
4-17
-------
Distributions of benthic organisms, however, are remarkably predictable along
estuarine gradients and are characterized by similar groups of species over broad
latitudinal ranges (Thorson 1957; Holland et al. 1987). Information on changes
in benthic population and community parameters due to habitat characteristics can
be useful for separating natural variation from changes associated with human
activities (Holland et al. 1987).
Data for the benthic species composition and biomass indicator will be
obtained by collecting three replicate 413 cm2 samples with a Young-modified Van
Veen grab. The Young grab was selected as the appropriate sampling gear
because it is deployed easily from small boats and adequately samples both mud
and sand habitats. Other gear possibilities did not sample such a broad range of
sediment types adequately (e.g., Wildco Box Corer, Ponar grab, Van Veen grab)
or could not be deployed as easily from the small boats proposed for use by EMAP-
NC (e.g., spade box corer, Smith-Mclntyre grab). Hard sediments (e.g., rock or
shell) that cannot be sampled adequately by the Young-modified Van Veen grab
will not be sampled by EMAP-NC; however, the proportion of these habitat types
will be estimated,
Benthic samples will be sieved in the field through a 0.5 mm screen and
preserved in a 10% buffered formalin solution to which rose bengal has been
added. In the laboratory, organisms will be identified to the lowest taxonomic level
practical and counted. The dry weight biomass of major taxa will be measured.
4.4.1.2 Habitat Indicators -- Salinity. Temperature. pH. Sediment Characteristics.
and Water Depth
Habitat indicators provide important information about the environmental
setting of a sample site. Salinity and temperature are among the most important
factors controlling the distribution of biota and ecological processes in estuaries
(Remane and Schlieper 1971). Organic content, grain size distribution, and depth
of the redox potential discontinuity (RPD) layer are the major sediment
characteristics that influence sediment quality and processes, as well as benthic
invertebrate distributions. Water depth itself has little direct effect on estuarine
biota because most estuaries are relatively shallow, and the pressure changes that
occur are minor. However, in almost all estuaries, changes in water depth are
associated with changes in sediment characteristics, dissolved oxygen con-
centration, and temperature regime. Therefore, information about depth is useful
for explaining many of the observations that will be taken by EMAP-NC.
4-18
-------
Cumulatively, the above parameters define the major habitats sampled by
EMAP-NC, and information on these habitat indicators will be essential for
normalizing responses of exposure and response indicators to natural
environmental gradients. They will also be used to define subpopulations for
analysis and integration activities.
These indicators have been advanced to core status because they are
essential to interpretation of response and exposure indicators, because regional
sampling is feasible, and because it can be accomplished at a small incremental
cost. Some of the measures, notably salinity and temperature, are variable within
the index period, but they vary in a predictable manner with respect to known
factors such as tide, month, and freshwater flow. Furthermore, the instruments
that are being used to continuously monitor dissolved oxygen (see Section 4.4.2.3)
at a subset of the sites also measure salinity, temperature and pH. This
continuous water quality monitoring will enhance EMAP-NC's ability to predict the
importance of fluctuations in these habitat variables at a site.
Point-in-time salinity, temperature, pH, and water depth measurements will
be taken each time a sampling site is visited, using the SeaBird CTD.
Sediment characteristics (e.g., water content, grain size distribution, organic
carbon content) will be determined for all sampling sites during the July 20-August
20 sampling period, using the procedures of Plumb (1981). In addition, the silt-
clay content of a subsample of each grab collected for benthic community analyses
will be determined.
4.4.2 Developmental Indicators
Table 4-3 includes a list of the developmental indicators proposed for the
1990 Demonstration Project. A brief justification for the selection of each of these
indicators, and a summary of the measurement methods that will be used for each
indicator, is provided below. Detailed methods that will be used to collect and
process data for developmental indicators are provided in Strobel (1990) and
Graves (1990). Developmental indicators will be measured at base sampling sites
up to three times during the summer index period. The major objective of
measuring these indicators multiple times is to examine the stability of the CDFs
for these indicators within the summer index period. Repeated visits to sample
sites also will increase the probability of capturing the targeted fish species at least
once during the summer index period.
4-19
-------
4.4.2.1 Sediment Contaminant Concentrations
Metals, organic chemicals, and fine-grained sediments entering estuaries
from freshwater inflows, point sources of pollution, and various nonpoint sources,
including atmospheric deposition, generally are retained within estuaries and
accumulate within the sediments (Turekian 1977; Forstner and Wittman 1981;
Nixon et al. 1986; Hinga 1988; Schubel and Carter 1984). This is because most
contaminants have an affinity for adsorption onto particles (Hinga 1988;
Honeyman and Santschi 1988). Chemical and microbial contaminants generally
adsorb to fine-grained materials in the water and are deposited on the bottom,
accumulating at deposition sites, including regions of low current velocity, deep
basins, and the zone of maximum turbidity. The concentration of contaminants in
sediments is dependent upon interactions between natural (e.g., physical sediment
characteristics) and anthropogenic factors (e.g., type and volume of contaminant
loadings) (Sharpe et al. 1984).
Bottom sediments in some estuaries (e.g., harbors near urban areas and in-
dustrial centers) are so contaminated that they represent a threat to both human
and ecological health (OTA 1987; NRC 1989; Weaver 1984). Contaminated
sediments are not limited to harbors near industrial centers and urban areas.
Pollutant runoff from agricultural areas also is an important source of contaminant
input to estuaries (Boynton et al. 1988; Pait et al. 1989), and many relatively rural
estuarine settings have levels of toxic chemicals in sediments that adversely affect
biota.
Sediment contamination meets three criteria for elevation to developmental
status. It is feasible to sample on a regional scale; it is clearly important to
assessment endpoints; and the expected variability within the index period is small.
This indicator was not elevated to core status at this time because it may not be
required at every location or on every sampling date and may be redundant with
data on sediment toxicity.
The geographic extent of contaminated sediments and the ecological effects
of exposure to them are poorly defined (NRC 1989, NOAA 1988). Even in highly
contaminated bays and harbors (e.g., New York Harbor, Commencement Bay,
Baltimore Harbor, Elizabeth River), the extent and magnitude of contamination
often is not known (NRC 1989). Because regional information on the extent and
magnitude of sediment contamination does not exist, environmental managers do
not know whether the pollution abatement measures that have been taken to
reduce contaminant loadings are having the desired effect, nor do they have the
information to establish priorities for future cleanup efforts. The sediment
contamination indicator addresses these needs.
4-20
-------
Sediment samples for determination of contaminant levels will be collected
using a stainless steel Young-modified Van Veen grab. The surface sediment (top
2 cm) will be removed from three grab samples and composited. During collection,
care will be taken to avoid collection of material from the edge of grabs and to use
only samples that have undisturbed sediment surfaces. The composite sample will
be homogenized, and a subsample will be taken for measurement of contaminant
concentrations.
Initially, the NOAA National Status and Trends suite of contaminants will be
measured in the homogenized subsample (Table 4-4). The NOAA suite includes
chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), major elements, and toxic metals. Clostridium spores in
sediments will also be measured as an indicator of sewage loading (Cabelli 1977).
The NOAA Status and Trends and EMAP quality assurance programs have
developed measurement methods jointly that will provide data of sufficient quality
to meet the objectives of both the Agencies. EMAP-NC plans to work with NOAA,
the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(OMEP), the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE), regional offices and
academic researchers to refine the list of contaminants to include "new"
generations of pesticides and herbicides, as well as toxic chemicals that are
projected to represent a threat to estuarine and coastal ecosystems in the 1990's
and beyond. Many of these refinements will be made before 1991 field programs
are implemented.
4.4.2.2 Sediment Toxicitv
Sediment toxicity tests are the most direct measure available for determining
the toxicity of contaminants in sediments. These tests provide information that
is independent of chemical characterizations and ecological surveys (Chapman
1988). They improve upon the direct measure of contaminants in sediments
because many contaminants are tightly bound to sediment particles or are
chemically complexed and are not biologically available (USEPA 1989). However,
sediment toxicity can not be used entirely in replacement of direct measurement
of sediment contaminant concentrations, since the latter is an important part of
interpreting observed mortality in toxicity tests.
Sediment toxicity testing has had many applications in both marine and
freshwater environments (Swartz 1987; Chapman 1988) and has become an
integral part of many benthic assessment programs (Swartz 1989). A particularly
important application of sediment toxicity testing is in programs seeking to
establish contaminant-specific effects. Sediment toxicity passes to developmental
indicator status on the same criteria as sediment contaminants: 1) regional scale
4-21
-------
Table 4-4. Chemicals to be measured in sediments during the 1990
Virginian Province Demonstration Project
Polvaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
DDT and its metabolites
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(ejpyrene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
2-methylnaphthalene
1 -methylnaphthalene
1 -methylphenanthrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Acenaphthlylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Major Elements
Aluminum
Iron
Manganese
Silicon
Trace Elements
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
o,p'-DDD
p.p'-DDD
o,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDE
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
Chlorinated pesticides
other than DDT
Aldrin
Alpha-Chlordane
Trans-Nonachlor
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
Mi rex
18 PCB Congener:
Congener Location
Number
8
18
28
52
44
66
74
99
101
118
153
105
138
187
128
180
170
196
206
209
of
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CI's
4'
21
4
2'
21
3'
4
21
21
3'
2'
3
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
21
21
2'
5
41
5
3
4
41
4
4
4
4
3'
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5'
51
41
5
4'
5
4'
4'
4
4
4'
3'
4
3'
31
31
3'
5
51
5
5
4'
41
5
4
4'
4
4
4
4
5'
51
5' 6
4'
5 51
41 5
4' 5 6
41 5 51 6
4' 5 5' 6 61
Other measurements
Tributyltin
Acid Volatile Sulfides
Total organic carbon
4-22
-------
sampling appears to be feasible, 2) results are important to assessment endpoints,
and 3) variability within the index period is anticipated to be small. This indicator
was not elevated to core status because it may only be required for a subset of
stations and may be redundant with data for sediment contaminant concentrations.
EMAP-NC proposes to measure acute (10 day) toxicity of surface sedi-
ments. The sediments used for the toxicity tests will be a subsample of the same
composite from which sediment contaminant concentrations and sediment
physical/chemical properties are determined. Data on the physical and chemical
characteristics of sediments (e.g., grain size, acid volatile sulfides, and organic
carbon content) will be used to determine whether these sediment properties are
associated with the degree of toxicity.
The sediment toxicity tests proposed for EMAP-NC will employ standard
methods (Swartz et al. 1985) but will use the east coast amphipod Ampelisca
abdita. This species has been shown to be both acutely and chronically sensitive
to contaminated sediments (Breteler et al. 1989; Scott and Redmond 1989; DiToro
et al. in press). Because Ampelisca is a tube dweller, it is tolerant of a wider range
of sediment types than Rhepoxvnius. the genus of amphipod that is most
commonly used in sediment toxicity evaluations (Long and Buchman 1989).
For a typical bioassay, 200 ml of sediment from the homogenized grab
samples collected at each sampling site will be placed in 1 liter beakers and
covered with 775 ml of water. The bioassays will be conducted for 10 days,
under static conditions, at constant temperature (20 °C) and 30 ppt salinity. Five
replicate tests will be conducted for each station. Sediment toxicity tests will
include a broad range of controls, including uncontaminated reference sediments
and exposure to toxic levels of specific chemicals in water.
A potential problem with the proposed toxicity test is that contaminants in
sediments from low salinity waters may become less available (i.e., less toxic) in
the higher salinity water (30 ppt) used for conducting tests. To address this
problem, a series of low salinity toxicity tests (5 ppt) using low salinity species
(e.g., Hvalella aztecta or Leptocheirus plumulosus) will be conducted jointly with
the 30 ppt Ampelisca tests for all sampling sites where the ambient salinity is less
than 10 ppt. The data obtained from this comparison will be used to develop a
correction factor for the Ampelisca test over all salinities if it is demonstrated to
be necessary.
4-23
-------
4.4.2.3 Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
Dissolved oxygen concentration met three criteria for advancement to
developmental status: (1) it is a parameter of overwhelming importance to assess-
ment endpoints and is one of the most important factors contributing to fish and
shellfish mortality in estuarine and coastal waters; (2) as a link in the
eutrophication process, it is a critical component of the EMAP-NC conceptual
model; and (3) it has been shown to be responsive to environmental stress in the
form of nutrient input, regardless of habitat gradients. The concern with using
dissolved oxygen as an indicator, and the reason it was not advanced to core
status is that it is extremely variable temporally (i.e., a point measurement of
acceptable oxygen levels at a site does not mean that site was not exposed to low
dissolved oxygen as little as several hours previously). Technology exists to
integrate measurements of dissolved oxygen over time, but that technology has
not been tested over a regional scale, which is the objective of advancing dissolved
oxygen concentration to the developmental indicator category for the 1990
Demonstration Project.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a fundamental requirement for the maintenance
of balanced indigenous populations of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic biota. Most
estuarine populations can tolerate short exposures to dissolved oxygen
concentrations below 100% saturation without apparent adverse effects. Pro-
longed exposures to less than 60% oxygen saturation may result in altered
behavior, reduced growth, adverse reproductive effects, and mortality (Vernberg
1972; Reish and Barnard 1960). Exposure to less than 30% saturation (~ 2 mg/l)
for 1 to 4 days causes mortality to most biota, especially during summer months,
when metabolic rates are high. Stresses that occur in conjunction with low
dissolved oxygen (e.g., exposure to hydrogen sulfide) may cause as much, if not
more, harm to aquatic biota than exposure to low dissolved oxygen concentration
alone (Brongersma-Sanders 1957; Brown 1964; Theede 1973). In addition,
aquatic populations exposed to low dissolved oxygen concentration may be more
susceptible to the adverse effects of other stressors (e.g, disease, toxic chemicals).
Dissolved oxygen concentration is a particularly important exposure
indicator. However, dissolved oxygen concentration, even in bottom waters, can
fluctuate greatly with tide, wind patterns, and biological activity. In deeper areas
of the Chesapeake Bay, bottom dissolved oxygen has a strong tidal signal; high
tide corresponds to lower oxygen concentrations near the bottom. Significant
autocorrelation of oxygen concentration persists for 6 to 8 days, indicating that
consecutive measurements less than 8 days apart may not be independent. In the
4-24
-------
Gulf of Mexico and other shallow estuaries, dissolved oxygen has a strong diurnal
signal. Before dissolved oxygen can be used as a core indicator, the following
questions on its stability and variability must be answered:
• What is the best parameter for representing dissolved oxygen
exposure (e.g., percent of time below a critical value, frequency of
occurrence of exceedance value, mean over some defined period)?
• Is the frequency distribution of dissolved oxygen concentration stable
over the summer index period at regional scales?
• Is there sufficient predictability in dissolved oxygen patterns so that
the degree of low dissolved oxygen stress (magnitude and duration
of extreme events) which biota might be exposed to during the
summer period can be predicted using a short-term (e.g., less than
one week) continuous measurement record?
Two types of dissolved oxygen measurements will be made in the Virginian
Province Demonstration Project to examine the reliability of dissolved oxygen as
an indicator: (1) point-in-time measurements along water column profiles, and (2)
continuous bottom water measurements (approximately every 20 minutes).
Point-in-time water column profiles of dissolved oxygen concentration will be made
each time a sampling site is visited, using a SeaBird CTD (Model JBE 25) equipped
with a Beckman type polarographic dissolved oxygen electrode. The point-in-time
measurements will be used as a response indicator to estimate the extent of low
dissolved oxygen conditions. The continuous bottom water measurements of
dissolved oxygen concentration will be made at up to 30 sampling sites over a 60
to 70 day period between the middle of June and early September. The selected
sample sites are representative of the various habitat types (e.g., estuarine classes,
salinity zones, sediment types, and water depths) that occur within the Virginian
Province and were chosen using information provided by EPA regional offices,
state and federal researchers working in the region, and local experts. They are
anticipated to represent the range of dissolved oxygen exposures likely to occur
in the region.
A Hydrolab DataSonde 3, equipped with a polarographic dissolved oxygen
electrode and a digital datalogger, will be used to make continuous dissolved
oxygen and related measurements (Fig. 4-4). The DataSonde 3 will take
measurements of conductivity, temperature, salinity, depth, pH, and oxygen
concentration about 1 m off the bottom every 20 minutes. The unit will be
serviced, and the stored data will be retrieved approximately every 10 days (refer
to Chapter 7.0 for servicing schedule). Before deployment and upon retrieval, the
performance of the various sensors on the DataSonde 3 will be tested and
validated. In addition, point-in-time measures of dissolved oxygen concentration
4-25
-------
WATER SURFACE
EMAP
HYDROLAB
INSTRUMENT
Figure 4-4. Schematic of how the Hydrolab DataSonde 3 will be deployed for
continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring
4-26
-------
and other parameters will be taken with the SeaBird CTD during the deployment
period as a check on the data collected by the DataSonde 3.
4.4.2.4 Contaminants in Fish Flesh
One of the questions that the concerned public most frequently asks
environmental managers is "Are the fish safe to eat?" The contaminants in fish
flesh indicator is of overwhelming importance to this assessment endpoint and is
intended to provide the data to answer this question on a regional scale. It is a
critical component of the estuarine conceptual model, and analytical methods for
analyzing contaminants are well-established. For these reasons, this indicator was
advanced to developmental status. The largest concern with the contaminant in
fish flesh indicator is that we may be unable to catch the desired kinds of fish at
a sufficient number of the sites to include this measure in the program. This
concern applies to all indicators that require collection of specific kinds of fish at
a large number of sites (e.g., organismal and suborganismal measures of
environmental quality). Fish samples will be archived initially, and the decision to
proceed with chemical analysis will be contingent upon catching sufficient numbers
of the kinds of fish needed.
In addition to serving as a response indicator for human usage of estuaries,
contaminants in fish tissue also will provide a measure of ecological exposure of
valued biota to contaminants in the environment. As previously noted, the
presence of contaminants in sediments does not mean that they are available for
uptake into the food web. Contaminants present in fish tissue obviously have
made their way into the food web and are available to higher trophic levels. In
addition, long-term, region-wide changes in the average concentration of a
particular contaminant in fish flesh over a number of years provides useful
information about contaminant input, bioavailability, or both (NOAA 1989). This
information, however, must be normalized for the influence of size, species-specific
physiological differences, and other factors that are known to influence
contaminant levels in fish flesh (Sloan et al. 1988).
While the presence of contaminants in tissue indicates exposure to
bioavailable contaminants, the absence of contaminants in fish flesh does not
necessarily indicate the absence of bioavailable contaminants. The reasons for this
are:
• Many contaminants are taken up and metabolized by fish;
consequently, even when fish are exposed to a contaminant, they
may not accumulate that contaminant in their flesh.
4-27
-------
• Contaminants may cause mortality before they accumulate in the
flesh.
Many of the factors that influence contaminant concentration in fish flesh are
species and compound specific. The indicator testing and evaluation program is
designed to define the relative importance of these factors to EMAP-NC.
Major questions that the Virginian Province Demonstration Project will
address for the contaminants in fish flesh indicator include the following:
• Can sufficient numbers and kinds of target species be collected,
given the sampling design and logistical constraints?
• Are CDFs for the contaminants in fish flesh indicator stable over the
summer index period?
• Does this indicator provide important information about the status of
estuarine ecosystems?
Answers to these questions should provide the information needed to determine
if the contaminants in fish flesh indicator should be added to the core indicator
suite during full implementation of EMAP-NC. Answers to the first question also
will provide information regarding the feasibility of including other organismal or
suborganismal indicators (e.g., biomarkers) in the program in the future.
Fish for tissue analysis will be collected up to three times at each sampling
location, using a 16-m high-rise otter trawl. Trawls will be towed for 10 minutes
against the tide, at a boat speed of approximately 1 m/s. Up to five individuals
from each of 10 target species will be retained from each trawl and frozen for
tissue analysis (Table 4-5). The list of target species is based on: (1) the
expectation of capture at a high percentage of sampling stations, (2)
commercial/recreational value, (3) use by one or more coastal states in toxics
monitoring programs, and (4) use by the NOAA National Status and Trends
Program in contaminant or bioeffects assessments. Catch expectations were
estimated by conducting a Monte Carlo simulation analysis of available fish trawl
data for the Virginian Province.
Not all of the target species that are collected and frozen will be processed
for chemical analysis. Selection of taxa for processing will depend largely on the
number and distribution of sampling sites at which each species is captured; more
broadly distributed species will be favored. In addition, bottom-dwelling fish will
be processed preferentially because: (1) they tend to be more stationary than
pelagic fish, and (2) they generally accumulate contaminants at a faster rate and
4-28
-------
Table 4-5. Target fish taxa and the expected percentage of sampling sites at which
they will be collected in each salinity zone, as determined from a Monte
Carlo simulation analysis of available fish trawl data for the Virginian
Province
Polyhaline
Channel Catfish
Atlantic Croaker
Hogchoker
Summer Flounder
Spot
White Catfish
Weakfish
Winter Flounder
Windowpane
0.0
20.5
35.2
63.1
35.3
0.0
48.3
63.1
55.1
Meson aline
1.8
68.0
87.0
29.3
88.3
26.3
53.5
66.8
0.0
Oligohaline
39.7
19.0
37.3
0.0
32.0
24.4
19.8
0.0
0.0
Flounder
White Perch 0.7 78.4 52.1
4-29
-------
have a higher incidence of pathologic abnormalities than pelagic fish. The selection
of fish for chemical analyses will not be made until after all collections have been
completed and an evaluation has been made to determine the target species
collected at the greatest number of stations by estuarine class, salinity zone,
sediment type, and geographic subregions.
Generally, five individuals from each of the target species will be composited
for analysis; however, the final decision on the number of fish to composite will
be delayed until the number of each target species collected at sampling sites and
the size of the individuals is known. Muscle tissue will be dissected from the
dorsal region of the fish using titanium blades, with care being taken not to
incorporate skin, scales, or bone into the sample. The chemicals measured and
analytical procedures used are similar to those used in the NOAA National Status
and Trends Program (Table 4-6). As was the case for contaminants in sediments,
EMAP-NC plans to work with NOAA, OPP, OPPE, OMEP, regional offices, and
academic researchers to refine the list of contaminants in biota to one that is
agreeable to all parties concerned but does not over burden the program with
excessive chemical measurements.
4.4.2.5 Gross Pathology of Fish
The incidence of gross pathological disorders in fish such as fin erosion,
somatic ulcers, cataracts, and axial skeletal "aesthetic" abnormalities is a major
means used by the public to judge the environmental quality of a water body. The
gross pathology of fish indicator was advanced to developmental quality status
because it is clearly important to assessment endpoints, it is responsive, and there
is a small incremental cost for measuring the indicator, given that trawling activity
is already taking place at each site to capture fish for tissue analysis.
Gross pathological disorders have a scientific base; severely polluted
habitats have a higher frequency of gross pathological disorders than similar, less
polluted habitats (Sinderman 1979; O'Connor et al. 1987; Buhler and Williams
1988; Malins et al. 1984, 1988). Laboratory exposures to contaminants such as
PCBs, petroleum products, and pesticides, also suggest that many gross
pathological disorders are associated with contaminant exposure (Sinderman 1979;
Capuzzo et al. 1988). However, fish pathology is not ready for core status
because the following questions remain to be answered:
• Can sufficient numbers and kinds of target species be collected
within the EMAP-NC sampling design and logistical constraints to
provide meaningful data on the incidence of gross pathological
disorders?
4-30
-------
Table 4-6. Chemicals to be measured by EMAP-NC in fish and bivalve tissue during
the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project
DDT and its Metabolites
Trace Elements
o,p'-DDD
p,p'-DDD
o,p'-DDE
p.p'-DDE
o,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
Chlorinated Pesticides
other than DDT
Aldrin
Alpha-Chlordane
Trans-Nonachlor
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
Mi rex
18 PCB Congeners:
Congener Location
Number of CI's
8 24'
18
28
52
44
66
101
118
153
105
138
187
128
180
170
195
206
209
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2'
4
2'
2'
3'
2'
3'
2'
3
2'
21
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
2'
5
4'
5
3
4
4
4
4
3'
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5'
5'
4'
5
4'
4'
4
4
4'
3'
4
3'
3'
3'
3'
5'
5
5
4'
4'
5
4
4'
4
4
4
4
5'
5'
5'
4'
5
4'
4'
4'
4'
6
5'
5
5 6
5 5'
5 5'
6
6
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
4-31
-------
• Are CDFs for gross pathological disorders in fish stable over the
summer index period, and do they provide important information
about the status of near coastal ecosystems?
• Is the incidence of pathological defects sufficiently high at polluted
sites to be distinguished from "clean" sites, given the level of
sampling effort (i.e., previous studies at severely polluted sites have
found incidences of 10% or less, and it is likely that EMAP-NC will
collect less than 100 fish at most sites in the Virginian Province).
Answers to these questions should provide the information needed to determine
whether the fish gross pathology indicator should be added to the core indicator
suite during full implementation of EMAP-NC.
Up to 30 individuals of each target species from each trawl will be examined
externally for gross pathological disorders including skin ulcers, fin erosion, gill
abnormalities, visible tumors, cataracts, or spinal abnormalities. Fish found to have
pathological defects will be preserved for detailed histopathological examination.
Results of the detailed examination will be used to identify possible causes of
aberrations and to ensure that the defects were not ones that could have resulted
from abrasion and physical damage occurring during collection.
4.4.2.6 Relative Abundance and Tissue Contaminant Concentrations of Large
Burrowing Shellfish
Estuarine waters produce large quantities of economically important shellfish
despite the closure of substantial portions of shellfish producing areas in virtually
every coastal state due to pollution impacts (Broutman and Leonard 1986; Leonard
et al. 1989). The large shellfish indicators (i.e., abundance of large shellfish and
tissue contaminant concentrations) were given developmental status because of
their importance to the assessment endpoint of human use, a small incremental
cost, and the availability of proven methods to analyze contaminants.
Pollution problems that threaten shellfish populations include increases in
low dissolved oxygen concentration, toxic contamination of sediments and tissues,
and microbial contamination of tissues. These insults reduce growth and survival,
adversely affecting production. They also reduce the value and quality of shellfish
meats for human consumption. The relative immobility of shellfish makes them
good integrators of long-term environmental conditions for the site from which they
were collected. The burrowing life style of many shellfish places them at a
location where exposure to pollution insults, such as low dissolved oxygen stress
and contaminants, is likely to be high. The occurrence of large-sized (i.e., older)
4-32
-------
shellfish at a site generally is considered to be an indicator that environmental
conditions at that site have been relatively stable over time.
Filter feeding bivalves pump large quantities of water across the surface of
their gills and remove large amounts of particulate material from the water (Dame
et al. 1980; Cloern 1982; Jorgensen et al. 1986; Doering et al. 1986). A
substantial portion of the captured material is ingested, and the associated
contaminants are concentrated in tissues to concentrations many times higher than
those in the water. Tissue contamination increases or decreases whenever the
surroundings become more or less contaminated (Roesijadi et al. 1987; Pruell et
al. 1987). Bivalve tissue contaminant concentrations are influenced by many
factors including species, size, physiological condition, season, and environmental
setting. If variation due to these factors can be accounted for, and sufficient
numbers of individuals can be collected, contaminant concentrations in the tissues
of bivalves is a potentially useful indicator of contaminant exposure.
The NOAA National Status and Trends program has been measuring con-
taminant concentrations in tissues of bivalves (oysters and mussels) of higher
salinity estuarine waters (> 10 ppt) since 1986. NOAA, however, does not
collect data on burrowing shellfish or shellfish from low salinity areas. As a part
of the 1990 Demonstration Project, EMAP-NC will determine whether sufficient
numbers of large, easily collected filter feeding bivalves occur in lower salinity
waters to justify their inclusion in the NOAA National Status and Trends Program.
Such a program would provide useful information on the extent and magnitude of
contaminant exposure in habitats that are particularly vulnerable to contaminant
impacts (Schubel and Carter 1984; Sharpe et al. 1984). The data from the bivalve
survey also will be used to determine whether high-salinity, burrowing bivalves
should be considered for inclusion in the NOAA National Status and Trends
Program.
Large infaunal shellfish will be collected from each site, using a rocking chair
dredge equipped with a 2.5 cm mesh liner. The duration of the dredge tows will
be five minutes. All large shellfish collected in each sample will be counted and
identified to species level. Shell length of target species (i.e., Anadonta spp., Ensis
directus. Macoma balthica. Corbicula manilensis. Mercenaria mercenaria. My a
arenaria. Musculinium spp., Rangia cuneata. Tagelus plebius) will be measured to
provide an indication of the age structure of the population.
Up to 10 individuals of each target species will be scrubbed of sediment and
other material using a nylon or natural fiber brush, frozen, and shipped to the
analytical laboratory on dry ice. These 10 individuals will represent the largest size
class available in the collection. In the laboratory, composited whole body tissue
samples will be made by homogenizing soft parts, and the NOAA National Status
and Trends suite of bivalve tissue contaminants will be measured on homogenized
4-33
-------
tissue subsamples (Table 4-6). As with fish, the decision regarding whether to
proceed with chemical analysis, and the species which will actually be analyzed,
will be determined based upon the species that are collected and the number of
sites at which they are found.
4.4.2.7 Aesthetic Indicators (Flotsam. Jetsam. Odor. Water Clarity)
One of the human use endpoints is visual aesthetics of the environment.
A habitat is degraded for the aesthetics indicator if floating and deposited garbage
and trash are abundant, if there are noxious odors, or if the water is not clean in
appearance. Because of their importance to the human use endpoint and the low
incremental cost for making these observations, the aesthetics indicators were
advanced to developmental status.
Although they are relatively easy to observe and measure, flotsam, jetsam
and odor generally are not measured by monitoring programs, and almost nothing
is known of their variability and stability as indicators of environmental quality.
Flotsam is likely to be highly variable, because it is subject to movement by wind
and tides, and its input rates are likely to be dominated by events (e.g., storms).
The presence of flotsam and odors will be noted at each sampling site during the
Demonstration Project before other samples are collected. Jetsam will be mea-
sured as trash collected in fish trawls. The types, and relative amount of jetsam
will be recorded.
Water clarity will be measured in three ways: transmissometry, f luorometry,
and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Transmissometry provides
information on the turbidity of water; fluorometry provides information concerning
the degree to which reduction in light penetration may be due to the presence of
photosynthetic algae, and PAR provides information on the degree to which
turbidity can inhibit photosynthetic activity. The incremental cost for measuring
all three is small since each can be obtained with a probe added to the SeaBird
CTD package. Transmissometry will be measured with a Seatech
transmissometer, PAR will be measured with a Biospherical QAP 200, and
fluorometry will be measured with a Seatech fluorometer.
4.4.3 Research Indicators
Table 4-3 includes the list of the research indicators that will be used for the
1990 Demonstration Project. A brief justification for the selection of each of these
indicators, and a summary of the measurement methods that will be used is
4-34
-------
provided below. The general purpose of sampling these indicators during the
Demonstration Project is to obtain the information required to determine whether
they should be evaluated further, should be removed from the list of potential
indicators because of some deficiency, or should be incorporated into the
developmental indicator suite. Detailed methods that will be used to collect and
process data for research indicators are provided in Strobel (1990) and Graves
(1990).
4.4.3.1 Fish Community Composition
Estuarine fish have economic, recreational, and ecological value. Some are
harvested; others serve as forage for predatory organisms that have great aesthetic
value (e.g., birds, sport fish, mammals). Most fish species hold a position near the
top of the estuarine food chain. The impact of anthropogenic activities on fish
concerns the public. Therefore, fish community indicators were advanced to
research status because of their importance to assessment endpoints and their role
in the conceptual model of Near Coastal resources.
Factors controlling species composition and abundance of estuarine fish
communities are complex and not well understood. However, most fish ecologists
agree that the assemblage of fish that occurs at a sampling site is controlled by
water and sediments quality parameters, including contaminant concentrations and
inputs, and habitat conditions (Weinstein et al. 1980). For example, polluted sites
are thought to contain less diverse and less stable fish assemblages than
unpolluted sites and are dominated by pollution-tolerant species, such as
mummichogs and carp, (Haedrich and Haedrich 1974; Jeffries and Terceiro 1985;
Weinstein et al. 1980; Livingston 1987). The degree to which information on fish
community composition can be used to assess the status of estuarine
environments on regional scales is unknown. A major purpose of evaluating fish
community composition as part of the Demonstration Project is to determine
whether regional scale information on fish community characteristics can be used
as an indicator of environmental quality. If fish community data could be used in
this manner, it would be particularly meaningful to a broad range of audiences,
especially the public.
Analysis methods for integrating and synthesizing data on fish community
properties into assessments of status and trends are poorly developed. For
example, the average biomass of fish caught for a standard amount of effort and
the capture frequency of tolerant species are parameters that can be measured in
a straightforward manner. Unfortunately, these parameters are not sensitive to
many pollution stresses, and fisheries science has not developed methods for
predicting the fish assemblage that would be expected at a site under a given set
4-35
-------
of environmental conditions, polluted or unpolluted. EMAP-NC will use the
indicator testing and evaluation data to determine whether a method for defining
the expected species composition at a site, based on physical characteristics,
including salinity, temperature, bottom type, and latitude can be developed. If an
expected assemblage can be determined, it will be compared with those actually
observed. Failure of expected taxa to occur in an area would be attributed to
undesirable environmental conditions, and subnominal conditions would be defined
on the basis of the percentage of the expected taxa that are not caught at a site.
4.4.3.2 Histopatholoav of Fish Populations
While gross fish pathology is a potential response indicator of environmental
status that is easy and economical to measure, it may not provide insight into the
potential cause of the pathology (O'Connor et al. 1987) . To address this concern,
EMAP-NC will perform detailed histopathological examinations of randomly
selected individuals of target and non-target fish species at the indicator testing
and evaluation sites. All individuals of each target species that "fail" the field
gross pathology examination and up to 25 randomly selected individuals of each
target species that "pass" the field examination at the indicator testing and
evaluation sites will undergo a detailed histopathological examination. In addition,
up to 10 randomly selected individuals from non-target species collected at these
sites will be examined similarly. Histopathology advanced to research indicator
status on the same criteria as gross pathology; however, it is not being
implemented on a regional basis until it can be shown to discriminate between
polluted and unpolluted sites. Detailed histopathology exams will also be
conducted on collected fish that have gross pathological disorders.
Representative tissue samples will be taken from specimens and processed
for histological analysis. Tissue samples will be dehydrated in an ethanol gradient,
cleared in a xylene substitute, infiltrated, and embedded in paraffin. Sections will
be cut at 6/vm on a rotary microtome, stained with Harris' hematoxylin and eosin,
and examined microscopically. The results of this microscopic examination will be
used to assess the relationship between the incidence of external abnormalities and
internal histopathological abnormalities, to characterize the types of
external/internal pathologies, and to create a baseline of histopathological
information for the Virginian Province. Based on these findings, a determination
will be made regarding whether histopathological examination warrants further
consideration by EMAP-NC.
4-36
-------
4.4.3.3 Apparent Depth of the Redox Discontinuity Profile
The redox potential discontinuity (RPD) is the transition zone at which
sediment processes become anaerobic. RPD depth varies with sediment organic
content and biological activity in the sediment. Depth to the RPD advanced to
research indicator status because of its small incremental cost. Benthic animals
are important regulators of the deposition and resuspension of bottom sediments
and of the exchange of constituents between bottom sediments and the overlying
water (Rhoads 1974; Rhoads et al. 1978; Rhoads and Boyer 1982; Aller 1982).
By ventilating and displacing sediments during burrowing and feeding, they affect
geochemical profiles in sediments and interstitial water. This is particularly true for
higher salinity, fine grained sediments where wave disturbance and tidal scour do
not occur. In these habitats, the depth to the redox potential discontinuity (RPD)
is negatively associated with physical and anthropogenically induced disturbance
and positively associated with acceptable and desirable ecological conditions.
Chemically contaminated and organically enriched sediments generally have
shallow RPD depths and are dominated by shallow burrowing short-lived species
that are resistant to pollution (Scott et al. 1987; Rhoads and Germano 1987;
O'Connor et al. 1987).
Although these patterns for RPD depth are well established for high salinity
« 15 ppt) waters, they may not apply to moderate and low salinity regions of
estuaries (Holland et al. 1988, 1989). One of the objectives of evaluating RPD
depth as a research indicator is to determine the degree to which this measure is
applicable to the array of low salinity environments that will be sampled by EMAP-
NC. The applicability of RPD depth to low salinity waters and the reliability it
demonstrates at indicator testing and evaluation sites will be used to determine
whether it should be included as a core indicator during full implementation.
RPD depth will be estimated in two ways: (1) by visually measuring the
depth of the color change in sediments in clear plastic cores inserted into each
grab sample collected for benthic species composition and biomass, and (2) by
deploying a sediment-profile camera at selected indicator testing and evaluation
sites (Rhoads and Germano 1982). The sediment-profile camera photographs the
sediment-water interface in the vertical plane. The photograph is processed by
computer image analysis to quantify apparent RPD depth, grain size, and relative
abundance of surface tube structures, surface boundary roughness, penetration
depth, and presence of feeding voids and methane gas bubbles. The rapidity with
which these pictures can be processed makes this method particularly useful for
large-scale characterization and mapping studies. Estimates of the apparent RPD
depth obtained by measuring the cores and from the sediment-profile camera
photographs will be compared at the selected indicator testing and evaluation sites.
This comparison will determine the reliability of the visual measurement of the
4-37
-------
apparent RPD depth in cores. If this simple indicator can be demonstrated to be
reliable, it would greatly enhance the amount of information that could be obtained
from a single benthic grab sample.
4.4.3.4 Water Column Toxicitv
An important environmental quality concern of environmental managers and
the public is the toxicity of estuarine waters to biota. Because of these concerns,
EPA has developed standardized laboratory methods for measuring water column
toxicity in marine environments. The measurement of toxicity has many
advantages over direct measurement of contaminant concentrations in the water
column. Direct measurement of contaminants in the water is expensive, costing
up to $ 1,000 per sample. Moreover, data on chemical concentrations in the water
are difficult to interpret. Chemicals may be bound in ways that make them
biologically unavailable. In addition, chemical concentrations that produce adverse
biological effects frequently are near or below detection limits of analytical
methods. Measurement of water column toxicity is economical, usually costing
only a few hundred dollars per sample, and interpretation of the experimental
endpoints is straightforward.
EMAP-NC proposes to evaluate three water column toxicity tests, using a
2 liter water surface sample collected approximately 1 m below the surface at each
indicator testing and evaluation site. The three water column bioassays are: (1)
sea urchin (Arbacia ounctulata) fertilization test (Nacci et al. 1987); (2) red algal
(Champia parvula) sexual reproduction test (Thursby and Steele 1987); and (3)
bivalve (Mulinia lateralis) fertilization and larval growth test (APHA 1985). Results
of the three tests will be compared to determine their relative sensitivity. All tests
will be conducted within 48 hours after the sample is collected at 30 ppt and 20
°C. Natural seawater (100 ppt) will be used to bring low salinity water up to the
standard salinity. This will dilute some whole water samples by as much as 20%
but is necessary because of the salinity tolerances of the test organisms.
The observed responses will be correlated with those for other indicators
(e.g., sediment toxicity, sediment contaminant concentration, benthic species
composition and biomass, contaminants is fish tissue, and fish gross pathology).
Based on these findings, a determination will be made regarding whether water
column toxicity should be included in EMAP-NC during full implementation or
removed from further evaluation.
4-38
-------
4.4.4 Stressor Indicators
The stressor indicators, including an overview of the specific parameters to
be estimated and their sources, are defined in Table 4-7. Most of the information
on stressor indicators will be obtained from an update to NOAA's National Coastal
Pollution Discharge Inventory (NCPDI). The data sources NOAA includes in the
NCPDI are extensive; a partial list of these sources is presented in Table 4-8.
Stressor indicators will not be sampled in the field concurrently with other
indicators.
4.4.5 Rejected and Suspended indicators
Over 100 of the candidate indicators were not advanced to higher
categories and were either rejected or suspended. Evaluations for most of these
were suspended because insufficient information was available with which to
evaluate them. Of the rejected indicators, most were eliminated because .of
inherent variability during the index period, ambiguity in their interpretation, or
because data on them are not easily sampled within the constraints of EMAP-NC.
Emphasis in the Demonstration Project is on population or community
measures of response; most individual and suborganismal measures were
suspended for future consideration. A principal concern with the use of
suborganismal measures is that it may not be possible to gather target specimens
at a sufficient number of sampling sites to justify their inclusion in the sampling
program. Alternatively, it may be necessary to perform analyses on a relatively
large number of species and develop interspecies calibrations of responses. Such
methods have not yet been developed.
Indicators for birds and mammals, including population measures,
community measures, and measures of contaminant uptake were rejected primarily
because it was not possible to obtain population estimates of large, wide-ranging
animals given the constraints of the sampling equipment (i.e., 25 foot boats) and
resources. Information on basin-wide trends for birds will be obtained using
historical data (e.g., FWS breeding bird surveys, Audubon Christmas bird count)
and existing programs. In addition, EMAP-NC has initiated discussions with FWS
to determine if response and exposure indicators can be identified for colonial
nesting birds. Secondary production was rejected for all animals because it would
require sampling outside the EMAP-NC index period of mid-summer.
4-39
-------
Table 4-7. Synopsis of potential data sources for stressor indicators
Stressor Indicator
Specific Parameters
Source(s)
Freshwater Discharge
Volume of inflow
Atmospheric Temperature
•?*• Wind Speed and Direction
o
Atmospheric Deposition
Precipitation
Pollutant Loadings by
Categories including:
• Point Sources
-- Industrial Discharge
by Category
-- Municipal Sewage
• Non-Point Sources
-- Urban Runoff
-- Non-Urban Runoff
(i.e., agriculture,
forests, etc.)
- Irrigation Return
Flows
Daily mean, median, and range at the
earth's surface for key locations within
each region
Wind speed and direction at the earth's
surface for key locations within each region
Rainfall in cms, loading of atmospheric
pollutants
Flow, biological oxygen demand, organic
pollutants, inorganic pollutants, number of
wastewater treatment plants, number of
industrial dischargers, number of power
plants
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
- National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN)
- Water Data Reports
- National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)
National Climate Center Archives (NCCA)
National Climate Center Archives (NCCA)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- Local Climatological Data
National Climate Center Archives (NCCA)
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)
Multi-state Atmospheric Power Production Pollution Study (MAP3S)
Utility Acid Precipitation Program (UAPSP)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)
-------
Table 4-7. (Continued)
Stressor Indicator
Specific Parameters
Source(s)
Land Use Patterns
Human Population Density
Fishery Landings
Area, % urban, % agriculture, % forest,
% wetland, % water, % barrier, number of
major and minor urban areas
Density, density by occupation and
industrial category
Commercial and recreational catch
statistics
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
- National Coastal Pollution Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)
U.S. Census of Population
United Nations Demographic Yearbook
U.S. Census of Manufacturing
U.S. Agriculture Census
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
-* Shellfish Bed Classification Area, % approved for harvesting
National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters
-------
Table 4-8. Major data sources for the National Coastal Pollution Discharge
Inventory (modified from Basta et al. 1985)
Source Category
Institutions
Major Data Sources
Pollutants in Streamfiow
Entering the Coastal Zone
U S Geological Survey
State Water Quality Agencies
USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN)
USGS Water Data Reports
State Water Quality Reports
Point Sources
EPA Regional Offices
State Water Quality Agencies
Section 208 and Regional
Planning Offfices
Industry Organizations
EPA Data Bases, Reports, and Regulations
-- NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR)
-- Permit Compliance System (PCS)
-- 1982 Needs Survey
- Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) File
-- Section 201, 208, and 303e Basin Plans
- Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
State Water Quality Reports
Regional Basin Planning Reports
Urban Nonpoint Runoff
U.S. Geological Survey
National Weather Service
Bureau of the Census
State Water Quality Agencies
Section 208 and Regional
Planning Offices
EPA National Urgban Runoff Program (NURP)
EPA Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows
and Urban Stormwater Runoff
USGS Land Use Data and Analysis Program (LUDA)
1982 Census of Population
1982 and 1983 County and City Data Book
1982 EPA Needs Survey
NOAA Local Climatological Data
Non-urban Nonpoint Runoff
U S Geological Survey
National Weather Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
State Water Quality Agencies
Agricultural Extension Offices
Section 208 and Regional
Planning Offices
USGS LUDA Program
SCS 1982 National Resource Inventory (NRI)
SCS SOILS-5 Data Base
Cornell Nutrient Simulation Model
USGS Study, "Elemental Concentration in Soils"
Agricultural Extension Office Records for Fertilizer and
Pesticide Use
NOAA Local Climatological Data
County Soil Surveys and Maps
Section 208 and Regional Planning Studies
Irrigation Return Flows
U S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
EPA Regional Offices
USGS Regional Offices
Local Water Management
Districts
USGS, State, and Regional Water Quality Management
Studies
Oil and Gas Operations
U.S. Geological Survey
EPA Regional Offices
U.S. Coast Guard
State Oil and Gas Programs
American Petroleum Institute
Environmental Subcommittee of
the Offshore Operators
Committee
USCG Pollutant Incident Reporting System (PIRS)
USGS Conservation Division Accident File and Production
and Drilling File
EPA Drilling Platform Permits and Platform Discharge
Characterization Studies
API Inventory of Wells and Drilling Statistics
State Oil and Gas Program Files
OOC Pollutant Dischare Characterization Studies
Marine Transportation
U.S. Department of Commerce
Maritime Administration
U S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
UN International Maritime
Organization
Port Authorities in the U.S.
and Mexico
Industry Organizations
MARAD Vessel Movement Monthly Master Data File
USGS Documented Vessel File
COE, "Waterborne Commerce Statistics"
Dredging Operations
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
EPA Regional Offices
UN International Maritime
Organization
EPA Ocean Dumping Permit Files
COE Report to Congress, "Administration of Ocean
Dumping Activities"
IMO Dredge Material Disposal Reports
Abbreviations. SCS, U S Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, API, American Petroleum Institute; OOC, Offshore
Operators Committee; USCG, U.S. Coast Guard; MARAD, U.S. Department of Commerce Maritime Administration; COE,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; IMO, UN International Maritime Organization (formerly IMCO - Intergovernmental
Maritime Consultative Organization).
4-42
-------
No measures of primary producers were advanced to research or devel-
opmental status. Measures of phytoplankton species composition and productivity
were suspended because they are too variable within the index period. Produc-
tivity measures also more appropriately interpreted from data collected in the
spring than in the summer index period. Contaminant concentrations in phyto-
plankton were considered insensitive and uninterpretable measures because of
rapid turnover and were rejected. Measures of submersed aquatic vegetation
(SAV) were suspended because their discontinuous distribution is not compatible
with the present EMAP sampling design. EMAP-NC will develop methodologies for
periodically measuring the status and trends in SAV jointly with NOAA and FWS
during 1991-1992.
Measurements of water column pools were rejected because of high
variability and methodological problems with sampling. For instance, pools of
elevated concentrations of many contaminants are present in the water column
only after runoff events. Water column nutrient concentrations and nutrient ratios
are highly variable, and their interpretation generally requires integrated measures
or sampling at a time other than the mid-summer index period. These measures
were suspended until technology that integrates their concentration over time
advances. Pools of toxic contaminants will be measured in the sediment, but
nutrient concentrations in the sediments were rejected because their effects on
eutrophication processes and biota are not easily interpreted or well understood.
4.5 Future Indicators
In a long-term status and trends monitoring program it is important to
maintain continuity in the indicators that are measured. However, it is also
important to continually re-evaluate whether the techniques used to measure those
indicators remain the most cost-effective and precise, particularly as technology
improves (NRC 1990a). In addition, developing indicators must be examined
continually to determine whether their addition to the program would improve our
ability to characterize environmental conditions and identify factors contributing to
that condition.
EMAP-NC will maintain two types of indicator development activities as the
program progresses. One will concentrate on development of new candidate
indicators, or studies to advance candidate indicators to research indicator status.
This program will emphasize basic research, will be conducted primarily through
extramural research, and will be funded through ORD or the EPA grants program
that is administered independently of, and integrates across, resource groups. In
contrast, studies conducted within EMAP-NC will be more applied and will
concentrate on tests to advance research indicators to developmental or core
4-43
-------
status. EMAP-NC efforts will build upon basic research conducted in laboratory
settings or at local scales by testing and evaluating indicators on a regional or
national scale. While it is difficult to be precise about future plans, it appears likely
that indicator development within EMAP-NC will focus on three areas during the
next few years: 1) suborganismal measures such as biomarkers, 2) remote sensing
of primary producers, and 3) measurement of status and trends for wetlands and
SAV.
The 1990 Demonstration Program contains little in the way of measure-
ments at the suborganismal level. Considerable basic research effort is being
conducted on a wide range of suborganismal measures, that includes genetic,
biochemical and tissue biomarkers, and many of these have been found to be
promising indicators of environmental stress. The major advantage of biomarkers
is that they may be an early warning indicator of exposure to environmental stress.
At present, EMAP-NC is stressing measures that provide reliable indication that an
impact has occurred. In the future, however, EMAP-NC undoubtedly will need to
incorporate early warning indicators into its measurement program. EMAP-NC is
interacting with the EPA Research Laboratories in Gulf Breeze, FL, Cincinnati, OH,
and Narragansett, Rl, to develop a basic research strategy that will be used Jo
incorporate suborganismal indicators into the program in future years.
Primary production is an important component of the estuarine conceptual
model but is not being measured in the Demonstration Project because of large
temporal variability in conventional measures that could be used to estimate the
status and trends for primary producers. However, there appear to be two feasible
methods that might be used to overcome this problem: 1) remote sensing
techniques for estimating status and trends in chlorophyll stocks (a measure of
algal biomass), and 2) automated in situ fluorometers with digitizing capability.
Remote sensing of chlorophyll by satellite has the advantage of allowing multiple
estimates of a site over a season without having to visit the site. This would
permit integration over time at a reasonable cost. The technique has been tested
to a limited degree, with mixed success. The principle problem appears to be one
of interference from turbidity. There appear to be ways to solve this problem,
which EMAP-NC will investigate over the next year. Automated fluorometers would
solve the temporal variability problem for primary production in the same way that
the deployed dissolved oxygen meters solve this problem for dissolved oxygen.
Analogous instrumentation for measuring fluorescence that includes data logging
capability is just becoming available on the market, and EMAP-NC is working with
several potential manufacturers to examine the feasibility of such a product.
The 1990 Demonstration Program currently does not include measurement
of SAV and wetlands. This absence stems not from a lack of importance of these
habitats, but from a realization that these land-margin ecosystems are complex,
and factors controlling their distributions and quality are poorly understood. The
4-44
-------
conceptual source-receptor model for aquatic habitats developed by EMAP-NC for
the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project is not adequate for identifying
indicators that represent these complex interactions or the health of these complex
ecosystems. In addition, most wetlands and SAV have discontinuous distributions
in the Virginian Province and are relatively rare resources that cannot be sampled
in the same manner as purely aquatic resources. The boats used by EMAP-NC are
not appropriate for sampling these resources. Many agencies (e.g., FWS, NOAA,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, state agencies) have or are currently developing
programs that attempt to assess the status and trends of wetlands and SAV. The
activities of these other agencies include tidal, non-tidal, and riparian habitats.
Because of the complexity of technical issues involved with identification of
indicators and sampling design and the complexity of coordination tasks involving
other agencies, EMAP-NC decided to delay sampling wetlands and SAV until these
issues could be resolved. A wetlands resource group has been established within
EMAP to address these issues. The wetlands resource group plans to produce a
draft program plan for wetlands in 1990 and will work with EMAP-NC to develop
plans for conducting a pilot study to evaluate the ability of potential indicators to
discriminate between disturbed and undisturbed wetlands as a part of a planned
1991 Demonstration Project for the Gulf of Mexico. EMAP-NC also plans to
address issues relative to SAV as part of the 1991 Gulf of Mexico studies.
4-45
-------
-------
5.0 ANALYSIS AND INTEGRATION
The success of any monitoring program depends on the degree to which the
data that are collected are used to answer the questions for which the program
was designed (Wolfe et al. 1987; NRC 1990a). Conversion of data into
information requires the appropriate analysis tools and the resources to apply those
tools. Recognizing that analysis and integration represent the return on investment
made during the design and data collection phases, EMAP-NC: (1) is committed
to developing the analysis tools that will be required before collection of the data
begins, and (2) has targeted about 15% to 20% of its resources to analysis and
integration activities.
Synthesis of the data that will be collected by EMAP-NC into an integrated
assessment of the ecological status of estuaries of the Virginian Province, and
eventually of the nation, is a formidable challenge. Results of this assessment
must be not only scientifically defensible, but also presented in a manner that can
be understood by non-technical audiences. Unfortunately, estuarine science has
not developed measures of the condition of estuaries that are accepted by
scientists and understood by the public and other non-technical audiences.
Standardized methods for assessing cumulative environmental impacts and
partitioning those impacts into the contributions associated with major pollution
stresses also are not available.
This chapter describes the approach that EMAP-NC will use to accomplish
the following: (1) synthesis and integration of the data collected into an integrated
assessment of the ecological condition of estuarine resources; (2) evaluation of
changes in ecological condition resulting from human action or in action; (3)
development of an implementation sampling design for the estuaries of the
Virginian Province; and (4) dissemination of results to a broad range of audiences.
5.1 Need for Analysis and Integration
Because of its national and regional scope, EMAP-NC will serve a broad
spectrum of clients. It is important that the analyses and reports that are produced
5-1
-------
address the primary concerns of all types of clients. Potential clients of EMAP-NC
data include:
• Congress,
• The Administrator of EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ),
• EPA Regions and Program Offices,
• Other federal and state agencies with environmental management
authority (e.g., NOAA, FWS, state water pollution control agencies,
state natural resource agencies),
• Regional advisory boards (e.g., Delaware River Basin Commission,
Interstate Commission on Potomac River Basin),
• Industry/utility environmental associations,
• Environmental activist organizations (e.g., Environmental Defense
Fund),
• Scientists and researchers, and
• The concerned public.
Another function of EMAP-NC will be to adapt and improve itself. Many of the
sampling activities conducted for the Demonstration Project are intended to obtain
the information needed to refine the sampling design. In addition, results of the
indicator testing and evaluation study will be used to refine the list of the indicators
that will be sampled in the implementation phase.
The goal of EMAP-NC integration activities is to translate scientific results
into answers to policy-relevant questions. Statistical analysis is the first step in
this activity and will be used to characterize the data, to determine the uncertainty
associated with indicator measurements, and to test for spatial and temporal
trends. Integration activities follow statistical analyses and involve converting
analysis results into evaluations of the effectiveness of regulatory programs;
integrated assessments of the extent, magnitude, and consequences of pollution
impacts; and identification of the pollution hazards and risks that pose the greatest
threat to the ecological condition of estuaries.
EMAP-NC will work with clients to refocus their broad policy questions into
specific scientific questions that can be addressed using EMAP-NC data. It is
5-2
-------
important for EMAP-NC to use this opportunity to educate clients about the
usefulness and limitations of the data that will be produced. Examples of how
broad policy questions will be converted to specific questions that can be
answered with EMAP-NC data are shown in Table 5-1. An important result of the
above process is to ensure that users' expectations of monitoring data are realistic.
EMAP is designed to assess the condition of ecological resources, to mea-
sure trends in that condition, and to identify likely causes of changes in condition
at regional scales. However, the sampling design also allows questions to be
answered for major classes of estuaries (i.e., large estuaries, large tidal rivers, and
small estuaries) and selected subpopulations of interest (e.g., salinity and sediment
strata, specific large estuarine systems like the Chesapeake Bay). EMAP-NC will
not address questions that are specific to any particular sampling site or identify
cause and effect relationships. For example, EMAP-NC will not address questions
such as:
• "What is the impact of industry x's discharge on downstream
fisheries?"
• "Are excess contaminant inputs causing low abundance of benthic
invertebrates?"
Rather, EMAP-NC is designed to identify factors that are associated with existing
conditions and changes in conditions.
5.2 Types of Analyses
To accomplish its objectives, EMAP-NC must conduct the following types
of analyses:
• Assessment of the status of estuarine resources in terms of their
capacity to support valued ecological resources and human uses,
• Management of changes in status that occur over time (i.e., trends),
and
• Identification of likely factors that are contributing to status and
changes in status (i.e., associations).
More generally, the detailed analysis EMAP-NC data will focus on status, trends,
and associations among indicators. These analyses will be synthesized into
evaluations of the effectiveness of environmental policies and regulations.
5-3
-------
Table 5-1. Translation of broad policy questions into policy relevant and scientific
components
Policy Questions
Why do so many fish have tumors?
Is the problem related to contaminants?
How extensive is the problem? Is it getting worse?
Policy Relevant Questions
What percentage of fish have gross pathological abnormalities?
Is this percentage changing?
Is there an association between sites that have high levels of sediment contami-
nant and sites that have pathological abnormalities in fish?
Scientific Components
Estimate the proportion of fish with gross abnormalities within 25% of the true
proportion with 90% confidence.
Estimate the rate of change in gross abnormalities and determine if the slope is
signifcantly different from zero with 90% confidence.
Using categorical regression, determine with 90% confidence whether there is a
relationship between percentage of gross abnormalities and sediment contami-
nant concentration of PCBs or other contaminants.
5-4
-------
Before a description of the specific analyses to be conducted is accom-
plished, the format for presentation of the data and the strategy that will be used
to reduce complex data into integrated assessments must be described. A brief
description of the criteria that will be used to define acceptable and unacceptable
ecological condition also will be presented.
5.2.1 Cumulative Distribution Functions
A principal means by which EMAP-NC will represent information graphically
to technical audiences is through the use of cumulative distribution functions
(CDFs). CDFs were chosen as a major presentation method because they present
information on both central tendency (e.g., median) and extreme values (i.e.,
range) in one easily interpreted graphical format (Overton et al. 1990). Figure 5-1
is an example of the type of CDF that EMAP-NC will prepare and use.
Development of CDFs and estimation of their associated variance will be
accomplished using the procedures defined in Horvitz and Thompson (1952) and
Overton and Stehman (1987). These procedures reduce the estimation process
to the specification of inclusion probabilities. Because the EMAP-NC sampling
program is probability based, inclusion probabilities can be estimated for each of
the estuarine resource classes sampled. The nature of these approximations and
their adequacy for meeting EMAP-like objectives is described in Stehman and
Overton (1987) and Overton and Stehman (1987).
Two types of inclusion probabilities must be determined: first and second
order. First order inclusion probabilities are the probabilities with which individual
sampling units are included in the sample. These inclusion probabilities must be
determined for each sample, and the probability becomes an essential part of the
data record. Data collected at a sampling site have little value to EMAP-NC with-
out the associated first order inclusion probability. Inclusion probabilities can be
viewed as an objective criteria for defining the representativeness of a specific
sampling location. First order inclusion probabilities are generated at the time of
sample collection and will be referred to as p,. Second order, or pairwise, inclusion
probabilities are the probabilities with which two specific sampling units are
included in the sample and are designated as PJJ. The estimation of variance
requires the determination of second order inclusion probabilities.
5-5
-------
100
0
1234
Indicator or Index Value
Figure 5-1. Example cumulative frequency distribution. Dotted lines are the 90% confi-
dence bounds.
5-6
-------
The specific calculations for producing CDFs use weighing factors (W| or w^)
rather than actual inclusion probabilities. These factors are the inverse of the
inclusion probability so that:
Wj = Up, and Wij = 1/py .
CDFs will initially be constructed for response indicators for each estuary
class (i.e., large estuaries, large tidal rivers, and small estuaries). Each of the
class-level CDFs uses the specific inclusion probabilities associated with that class
(i.e., proportional representation of the surface area of the class). The class-level
CDFs will be combined into an integrated CDF by weighting the observations for
response indicators by the ratio of the total surface area of the class to the total
surface area of estuarine resources in the region.
EMAP-NC has chosen to combine the class-level CDFs into an integrated
CDF on the basis of spatial area because this approach represents a straight-
forward integration that has a basis in the primary objectives of EMAP; that is, the
status of estuarine resources in the region. This weighting system is not the only
method that could be used. Other reasonable methods include weighting by
volume or by system (i.e., each estuary is weighted equally regardless of size). In
addition, subjective weighing schemes could be developed that weighted highly
valued systems or sites move heavily than other habitat types (e.g., spawning and
nursery areas would be weighted more heavily than other habitats types).
In the Virginian Province, the proposed integration scheme results in more
"weight" being given to samples from the large estuarine class because this class
represents about 70% of the estuarine surface area. Integrated CDFs, therefore,
may not be representative of problems in less abundant resource types (e.g.,
smaller estuarine systems). As a result, EMAP-NC will present CDFs at the class
and province levels for all response indicators. CDFs for other subpopulations of
interest (e.g., EPA regions; selected large estuarine systems like Chesapeake Bay,
San Francisco Bay, and Long Island Sound; and specific habitats such as sediment
types, salinity zones, and depth strata) also will be prepared. The confidence limits
for subpopulation CDFs will depend upon the number of observations taken for
each subpopulation. One of the objectives of the 1990 Demonstration Project is
to determine the uncertainty associated with CDFs for specific large systems and
other subpopulations of interest. These data will be used as a basis for
determining whether the sampling design should be modified.
5-7
-------
5.2.2 Environmental indices
Although individual response indicators are important measures of specific
aspects of environmental condition, the goal of EMAP-NC is to provide answers to
questions with an holistic perspective of estuarine systems. Multiple statements
(i.e., assessments) about the status and trends of the nation's estuaries, each
based on a different response indicator, present information that may confuse
many EMAP clients. Single, integrated statements about the overall status of
estuarine resources are more easily communicated and understood. Single
statements about the condition of estuaries are also valuable for establishing and
measuring progress toward goals. Therefore, EMAP-NC must integrate the data
collected for multiple response indicators into an integrated assessment (i.e., single
statement) of the status of estuarine resources. This integration must be
accomplished in a manner that allows estimation of the contribution of each
indicator to the overall assessment. In short, EMAP-NC must develop an Estuarine
Condition Index (ECU that can be decomposed into the relative contribution of each
response indicator.
The conceptual framework that EMAP-NC will use to develop an Estuarine
Condition Index (ECI) is presented in Fig. 5-2. Essential features of this framework
are as follows:
• The ECI will be based on multiple independent indices that provide
information on the two assessment endpoints: biological integrity
and human use.
• All indices composing the ECI will be derived from aggregate
information for the indicators measured by the field program.
• Because of the hierarchical construction of the ECI, the relative
contribution of each indicator to the ECI can be determined.
The mathematical procedures (e.g., weighting schemes) that will be used
to combine indicators and indices into the ECI have not been developed. Limited
index development work will be accomplished during the next year using existing
data (e.g., benthic data from the Chesapeake Bay monitoring program, fish data
from selected state and private trawling programs). The major source of
information that will be used to develop indices will be the Demonstration Project,
particularly the indicator testing and evaluation study.
EMAP-NC recognizes that development of indices that reflect the overall
quality of estuaries will be controversial. There undoubtedly will be conflicting
views of the value of particular indicators and combinations of indicators for the
5-8
-------
Estuarine Condition Index
Ecological Condition Index
Human Use Index
CO
Benthic Community Index Fish Community Index
Macrofaunal Abundance
Macrofaunal Biomass
Number of Benthic Species
Fish Abundance
Number of Fish Species
Kinds of Fish Species
Aesthetics Index
Algal Mats
Floating Trash
Trash in Trawls
Odor
Water Clarity
Fisheries Index
Fish Pathology
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Shellfish Bed Closures
Notices to Fishermen
Figure 5-2. Components of the Estuarine Condition Index
-------
assessment of status. To alleviate these concerns, EMAP-NC will conduct
extensive testing of the indices to demonstrate their reliability and sensitivity.
Most importantly, indices will be developed in a manner which allows determi-
nation of the contribution of each indicator to the overall index value.
In summary, EMAP-NC must develop an Estuarine Condition Index (ECI) that
synthesizes the information for multiple indicators into a single integrated
statement of status. This index will be composed of multiple indices, each
summarizing information for a different valued attribute of estuaries. These indices
are an objective way to summarize a large amount of complex and often conflicting
information into a form that can be presented easily and understood by EMAP-NC
clients. The indicators used by EMAP-NC will be analogous to the leading
economic indicators used by the Department of Commerce to report the status of
the economy.
5.2.3 Definition of Nominal and Subnominal Boundaries
EMAP-NC plans to estimate, for each type of estuarine and coastal eco-
system type of interest, the proportion that is in unacceptable condition. Meeting
this objective requires determining the values that are considered unacceptable for
each environmental quality index and for all response indicators. Acceptable and
unacceptable values also may need to be determined for key exposure indicators
(e.g., dissolved oxygen concentration, sediment contaminant concentrations).
EMAP-NC will use the terms nominal to refer to acceptable or undesirable con-
ditions and subnominal to refer to unacceptable or desirable conditions. For all
response indicators and indices, there will be a value that cannot be categorized
without ambiguity due to the inadequacy of current scientific knowledge. These
values will be referred to as marginal. For those indices and indicators that are
well understood, the ability to classify sites as being nominal or subnominal will be
strong, and the range of marginal values will be small. With greater classification
uncertainty, the range of marginal values will be proportionately larger.
There are currently few generally accepted limits that can be used to define
subnominal and nominal boundaries for most of the indicators and indices that will
be measured by EMAP-NC. EMAP-NC will establish boundaries for nominal and
'subnominal conditions by contrasting data from reference sites of known and
acceptable environmental quality with data for sites of known and unacceptable
quality (NRC 1990a). The specific source of these data will be the indicator
testing and evaluation program described in Chapter 3. Subnominal and nominal
condition will be relatively easy to define for qualitative measures of environmental
condition. For example, the presence of floating trash, trash in trawls, or floating,
smelly algal mats is clearly a subnominal (unacceptable) condition, whereas the
5-10
-------
absence of these conditions is nominal (acceptable). Guidelines also exist that may
be used to assist in defining subnominal and nominal conditions for contaminant
levels in fish tissue, including Food and Drug Administration limits or EPA criteria
(EPA 1989).
Nominal and subnominal boundaries will not be defined for habitat or
stressor indicator categories. These boundaries have no ecological meaning for
habitat indicators. Unacceptable salinity zones do not exist; the ecological function
and human uses of each estuarine salinity zone are different (e.g., Carriker 1967;
Lippson et al. 1979). Nominal and subnominal boundaries for stressor indicators
(e.g., land use patterns) are dependent upon a wide variety of system specific
factors, such as dilution capacity and flushing time. Over the long term, EMAP
may provide information that contributes to the establishment of nominal and
subnominal boundaries for stressor indicators, but this will not occur until
relationships between stressor, exposure, and response indicators are better
understood.
The initial nominal and subnominal boundaries established by EMAP-NC may
be controversial; however, because CDFs represent the complete distribution of
values, the proportion of values that are above or below any reference value can
be estimated visually, and the effect of changes in nominal and subnominal
boundary values on results can be evaluated without reanalysis of the data.
Nominal and subnominal boundaries will vary with habitat type for many
indicators. For example, the nominal/subnominal boundary for the number of
benthic species per unit area clearly will be a function of salinity. Nominal high-
salinity habitats will be composed of 2 to 10 more species per unit area than
nominal low- salinity habitats (Holland et al. 1987, 1989). EMAP-NC will address
this problem by: (1) identifying normalizing variables and applying them to make
indicator values for all habitats comparable, and/or (2) developing different
nominal/subnominal boundaries for each habitat type and integrating the infor-
mation from the multiple curves into an overall statement. For example, in the
benthic example presented above, bottom salinity could be used as a normalizing
factor to develop a CDF for an estuarine class and all estuarine classes combined,
or different CDFs could be developed for each salinity zone.
5.2.4 Status Assessments
The analytical approach for status assessments will be hierarchical. First
the overall condition of estuarine resources will be quantified. Then, this integrated
assessment will be decomposed to identify major pollution problems and to define
5-11
-------
associations between those problems and exposure, habitat, and stressor
indicators.
The hierarchical or decompositional approach for assessing status begins
with an overall assessment of condition using the ECI. A hypothetical CDF for the
ECI is shown in Fig. 5-3. This figure summarizes a large amount of information
and gives "the big picture," a single number assessment that is easily commun-
icated to and understood by regulators, environmental managers, Congress, and
the public. For example, using the hypothetical CDF and applying the values for
subnominal and nominal conditions for the ECI shown, the following types of
statements can be made:
• 29% of the estuarine area within the region is subnominal or
unacceptable,
• 42% of the estuarine area within this region is nominal or
acceptable, and
• 29% of the estuarine area within this region has specific problems
that may require action and should be considered indeterminate or
marginal, but conditions are not yet critical.
In addition to knowing the overall areal extent of subnominal conditions
within a region, the specific problems that contribute to that condition must be
identified and their relative importance determined. For example, the degree to
which degraded ecological conditions and reduced human usage contribute to
subnominal ECI values in Fig. 5-3 needs to be estimated. CDFs for the Ecological
Condition Index and the Human Use Index will be constructed to show the pro-
portion of estuarine area that exhibits subnominal (and nominal) conditions for
each. However, these independent CDFs do not show the percentage of sites that
has both subnominal ecological condition and subnominal human uses. EMAP-NC
will evaluate estuarine areas having specific problems by focusing analyses on the
subset of samples that have subnominal ECI values using the procedure shown in
Fig. 5-4. From the hypothetical data in Fig. 5-4, the following types of statements
can be made for sites having subnominal ECI values:
• 77% are subnominal with respect to either ecological resources or
human use,
• 51% have subnominal ecological resources,
• 47% are subnominal with respect to their ability to support human
use activities,
5-12
-------
Estuarine Condition Index
100
ca
I
80 -
60 -
§ 40
20-
0
Subnominal
Marginal
Nominal
3
4
6
Figure 5-3. Hypothetical cumulative frequency distribution for the Estuarine
Condition Index. Dotted lines are the 90% confidence limits.
5-13
-------
Nominal
Nominal 0
Human Use Index
Marginal
Subnominal
Ecological
Condition
Index
Marginal
Subnominal
0
1
22
17
23
21
Z51
Z 47
Figure 5-4. Example matrix for assessing the relative contribution of the
Ecological Condition Index and the Human Use Index to subnominal
environmental conditions. Values shown are the percent of area
having subnominal ECI values.
5-14
-------
• 21% have both subnominal ecological resources and human use
activities, and
• 22% are characterized as having marginal conditions for human use
and ecological condition.
Nominal values for the independent indices are unlikely to cause subnominal values
for the dependent index. Therefore, the value for the top left hand corner of Fig.
5-4 has been set to zero.
The status assessment resulting from the Virginian Province Demonstration
Project will be based on one year of data. When EMAP-NC is implemented fully,
however, status assessments will be conducted using data collected over a four
year period (Hunsacker and Carpenter 1990). Using four years of data to describe
status reduces the variance associated with climatological or other unpredictable
events (e.g., oil spills) that strongly influence estuarine condition during any
specific year. Although such events are of interest, EMAP-NC is designed to
measure multi-year baselines. These multi-year baselines ultimately may provide
a means of quantifying the effects of such unpredictable events.
5.2.5 Identification of Associations Relevant to Status Assessments
To determine which indices and which response indicators are associated
with the status defined by Fig. 5-3, a decompositional approach will be used.
Figure 5-5 presents hypothetical data to illustrate how the factors contributing to
subnominal ecological condition will be partitioned into the contributions due to the
benthic and the fish indices. Based on the hypothetical data in Fig. 5-5, the
following types of statements can be made:
• 85% of the area with subnominal ecological condition has either
subnominal benthic or fish communities,
• 68% of the area with subnominal ecological condition has
subnominal benthic communities,
• 29% of the area with subnominal ecological condition has
subnominal fish communities,
• 12% of the area with subnominal ecological condition has both
subnominal benthic and fish communities, and
• 13% has marginal benthic and fish communities.
5-15
-------
Nominal
Nominal 2
Benthic Index
Marginal
Subnominal
Fish Index Marginal
Subnominal
8
18
38
15
12
E29
£68
Figure 5-5. Example matrix for assessing the relative contribution of the Benthic
Index and Fish Index to Subnominal ecological conditions. Values
shown are the percent of area having subnominal ecological
condition index values.
5-16
-------
A similar approach to that shown in Fig. 5-5 would be used to decompose the
Human Use Index into contributions due to the Aesthetics Index and Fisheries
Index.
Figure 5-6 presents hypothetical data to illustrate how associations between
exposure indicators (e.g., sediment toxicity and dissolved oxygen concentration)
and subnominal conditions for response indicators (e.g., benthic index) relevant to
status assessments will be evaluated. The following types of statements can be
made using the data in Fig. 5-6:
• 43% of the area with subnominal benthic communities is exposed to
either subnominal dissolved oxygen concentrations or toxic
sediments,
• 36% of the area with subnominal benthic communities is exposed to
low dissolved oxygen concentrations,
• 12% of the area with subnominal benthic communities has toxic
sediments,
• 5% of the area with subnominal benthic communities is exposed to
both low dissolved oxygen concentrations and toxic sediments, and
• 13% of the area with subnominal benthic communities is exposed to
marginal values for dissolved oxygen concentration and toxic
sediments.
The proposed analysis approach presented in Fig. 5-6 can be used to
prioritize future actions. For example, based on the hypothetical data shown,
dissolved oxygen concentration is probably the major factor influencing the
condition of benthic communities on the regional scale. A relatively small
proportion (12%) of the area having subnominal benthic communities was exposed
to sediments which were toxic to sensitive biota. In this hypothetical example
actions (e.g., pollution abatement, remediation, research) that reduce exposure to
low dissolved oxygen concentrations or provide greater understanding of the
effects of low dissolved oxygen potentially would be of greater benefit than
actions that reduced exposure to toxic sediments. The costs and benefits of
reducing dissolved oxygen exposure, however, must be contrasted with the costs
benefits of reducing exposure to toxic sediments before making a final
determination of priorities. EMAP-NC will provide information that can be used for
cost-benefit analyses but does not plan to conduct such analyses.
5-17
-------
Dissolved Qxvaen Concentration
Nominal
Nominal 15
Marginal
Subnominal
Sediment Marginal
Toxicity
Subnominal
8
21
13
19
12
2 12
36
Figure 5-6. Example matrix for evaluating the contribution of two exposure
indicators, dissolved oxygen concentration and sediment toxicity, to
Subnominal values of the Benthic Index. Values shown are the
percent area having subnominal Benthic Index values.
5-18
-------
The analysis approach (in Fig. 5-6) can also be used to identify emerging
problems. For example, 15% of the estuarine area with subnominal benthic
communities was not exposed to subnominal dissolved oxygen concentrations or
toxic sediments. Therefore, these two factors are unlikely to contribute to the
subnominal benthic communities found at these sites. Some other factor
potentially is having an adverse effect on benthic communities at these sites. This
unknown factor may be another exposure indicator (e.g., physical disturbance of
sediments) or a factor not being measured by the EMAP-NC program. If the
number of sites that have subnominal values for an index or response indicator that
cannot be associated with an exposure, habitat, or stressor is large and increasing,
it may be an indication of an emerging problem requiring further study. If this
number is small and is not changing, it is probably not important to conduct
studies to identify contributing factors.
Figure 5-7 uses hypothetical data to illustrate how the information for sites
with subnominal benthic communities that also exhibited sediment toxicity will be
decomposed to identify specific sediment contaminants likely to be associated with
the observed toxicity responses. Figure 5-8 shows how the attributes of benthic
communities that are most responsive to exposure to low dissolved oxygen will be
identified, using data from sites with subnominal benthic communities that were
also exposed to low dissolved oxygen stress. Similar analyses will be used to
decompose and explain associations for all indices and indicators.
5.2.6 More on Associations
The decompositional approach described above is only one method that
EMAP-NC will use to identify associations between spatial and temporal patterns
for response indicators and factors likely to be contributing to those patterns.
Associations among indicators also will be evaluated using a suite of correlation
techniques including both parametric and non-parametric tests. Categorical and
logistic regressions are the techniques that will probably be more successful. The
scientific analysis to be selected will depend upon the characteristics of the data
for each indicator (e.g., censored or not censored, distribution) and the specific
question to be answered by each analysis (Rose et al. 1986).
The decompositional analysis approach also will be applied to subsets of the
data set to evaluate associations that may be masked by analyzing the complete
data sets. For example, large estuaries, which receive drainage from large,
complex watersheds, may have different pollution problems and ecological
responses to pollution than small estuaries, which are surrounded by less complex
and more homogeneous watersheds. In addition to analyzing subsets of the data
by resource class (i.e., large estuaries, large tidal rivers, and small estuaries),
5-19
-------
Oraanic Contaminant (e.g.. PCBs)
Nominal
Nominal 3
Inorganic Marginal
Contaminants
te-fl-. CO Subnominal
Marginal
11
12
Subnominal
8
12
37
I 57
Figure 5-7. Example matrix for assessing the relative contribution of sediment
contaminants to subnominal sediment toxicity values. Values shown
are percent of area having subnominal sediment toxicity.
58
5-20
-------
Nominal
Nominal 2
Number of Species
Marginal
Subnominal
Benthic Marginal
Biomass
Subnominal
13
10
15
47
64
66
Figure 5-8. Example matrix for identifying the attributes of benthic communities
that are most influenced by exposure to subnominal dissolved
oxygen concentrations. Values shown are percent of area exposed
to subnominal dissolved oxygen concentrations.
5-21
-------
habitat type subsets will be analyzed. For example, low salinity regions of
estuaries may have different pollution problems and may be controlled by different
processes than high salinity regions. The practical limit to analyzing subsets of the
data set is that as more and more data are excluded from an analysis the
uncertainty of estimates increase. Subsets that are reasonably large (n > 25)
must be chosen in order to ensure that the uncertainty associated with conclusions
is not unacceptably large.
As an illustration of the value of the above analysis approach for making
status assessments, the major findings resulting from the hypothetical data
presented are highlighted as examples of the types of statements that would
appear in an EMAP-NC Interpretive Assessment Report:
• 29% of the estuarine area within the hypothetical region is
subnominal or unacceptable,
• 51% of the subnominal estuarine area has subnominal ecological
resources; 47% is subnominal with respect to human uses,
• 68% of the area with subnominal ecological resources has
subnominal benthic communities; 29% has subnominal fish
communities, and
• Exposure to low dissolved oxygen concentration is the major factor
associated with subnominal benthic communities, affecting both
diversity and abundance of benthic biota.
5.2.7 Analysis of Spatial Distribution
The spatial distribution of resources within a province will be characterized
and evaluated as a part of status assessments. The major spatial analysis to be
conducted is an evaluation of broad scale patterns (e.g., north/south gradient) for
resources and pollution problems within provinces. The question being addressed
by this analysis is whether pollution problems are more severe in some locations
than others. This analysis will be conducted by estuarine class and for subpop-
ulations (e.g., salinity zones, sediment type, depth zone) across classes. The
techniques that will be used include the following:
• Graphic display of data for indicators on maps using bar charts, and
5-22
-------
• Multivariate statistical analyses (e.g., clustering, principal com-
ponents analyses) to determine whether identifiable subpopulations
occur within regions.
In addition, spatial patterns for selected indicators (e.g., dissolved oxygen
concentration, benthic biorngss, contaminants in fish flesh) in the large estuarine
system and large tidal river classes will be delineated for any pattern that is
apparent at the resolution of the sampling grid (i.e., 18 km for large estuaries and
25 km for large tidal rivers). In Delaware Bay, which will be sampled at four times
the density of other systems (i.e., sample points in the Delaware estuary will be
about 9 km apart), such mapping activities may provide new insight into the
distribution of resources and general location of pollution problems within the
system (e.g., indicate that toxic sediments were confined to specific regions of the
estuary).
5.3 Measurement of Trends
The goal of EMAP-NC is to estimate trends in areal extent of subnominal
values for response indicators and indices nationally, by province, by EPA region,
and by selected large estuaries. This is different from the normal usage of the
term trend, which is measurement of the change in a specific parameter value that
occurs over time at a specific site or in a specific system. EMAP-NC data can be
used to evaluate trends for specific sites or single systems. However, the
uncertainty associated with such trend assessments would be large because of the
small number of samples collected for any particular site or system at any one time
(usually one per year).
The approach to trend assessment being used by EMAP-NC is called the
interpenetrating design. This approach consists of sampling a portion (e.g., one
fourth) of the sampling sites each year in a systematic or systematic random
manner that ensures geographic dispersion and repeating the cycle based on the
portion sampled (e.g., every 4 years). Annual data collected in this way can be
evaluated individually (i.e., annual estimates of status) or aggregated with other
years (i.e., moving averages) as shown in Figs. 5-9 and 5-10. The annual
estimates provide the large number of data points needed for the evaluation of
associations. The aggregated estimates establish multi-year baselines that are
more stable than annual estimates and are useful for measuring trends and for
evaluating the effectiveness of pollution control programs.
5-23
-------
Ol
I
ho
20
Temporal Trends
Percentage of sites below 2 mg/liter of dissolved oxygen
15
10
o
J L
J I I I L
89 90 91 92 93
94
Year
95 96 97 98 99
Figure 5-9. Example graph that will be used to display trends data for indices and indicators
-------
Percent Degraded Area
Years 1 - 4
Years5-8 Years 9-12
Figure 5-10. Example graph that will be used to summarize trends data for the
multiyear status estimates produced by EMAP-NC; 90% confidence
limits are shown.
5-25
-------
The descriptive ability of a four year interpenetrating design is great. The
basic population moving average estimates for years 1 through 4 are given as:
Z yw
• Year 1 Ty = s=1
. 1 Z Zyw
• Year 2 Ty = 2 yr s
II Zyw
• Year 3 Ty = 3 yr s
IZZyw
• Year 4 Ty = 4 yr s .
The last representation applies to all subsequent years. Variance estimates for
the moving average estimates would follow the procedures of Horvitz and
Thompson (1952) and Stehmanand Overton (1989). Subpopulation estimates and
their associated variances would follow standard subsetting protocols for
subpopulation estimation, including the generation of distributions and confidence
limits for distributions (Stehman and Overton 1989).
Factors contributing to trends (i.e., associations) will be identified and
evaluated using a matrix approach similar to that described previously for status
assessments (Fig. 5-11). The proportion of samples showing no change in status
over time will not be used for these analyses. Evaluations of factors associated
with trends will focus instead on the subset of sites that show declining and
improving conditions (Fig. 5-11). These subsets will be analyzed using a
decompositional approach identical to that described for status assessments to
identify the following:
• Which valued ecosystem attributes, ecological or human use, are
changing, at what rate, and on what spatial scale, and
• Which specific indices and indicators are associated with improving
and degrading conditions.
Emphasis will be placed on evaluation of associations between stressor indicators
and trends in other indicators and indices.
5-26
-------
Estuarine Condition Index
Years 9-12
Marginal Subnominal
Estuarine
Condition
Index
Years 1-4
— No change in status
— Improving conditions
— Degrading conditions
Figure 5-11. Example matrix that is the starting point for detailed evaluation of
trends
5-27
-------
The EMAP-NC team will answer the following questions relevant to trends
assessment in 1990-1991:
• To what degree and with what limitations can historical data be
incorporated into trend analyses conducted by EMAP-NC?
• What are the uncertainties associated with combined CDFs for
indicators? How will these uncertainties be estimated and with what
degree of confidence?
• What is the analytical power of the EMAP-NC design for trend
estimation using the variance and distributions observed in the 1990
Demonstration Project?
• Can variability due to climatic forcing be partitioned from that due to
anthropogenic effects for each indicator using an analysis of variance
approach that treats climate as a covariate?
5.4 EMAP-NC As a Client
A major part of the 1990 Demonstration Project will be the collection of
information that can be used to develop a sampling design appropriate for
implementation over the long-term. Specific issues that must be addressed before
a final implementation design can be developed include the following: (1)
evaluation of the influence of spatial scale on status assessments, (2) evaluation
of the reliability, specificity, and sensitivity of indicator responses, (3) definition of
the appropriate sampling window (i.e., index period) for representing estuarine
ecological condition, (4) evaluation of the stability of indicator responses over the
index period, and (5) comparison of the value of probability and index (i.e.,
judgement or fixed station) samples for representing the status of small estuaries
and large tidal river segments. An overview of the analyses that will be conducted
to address each of these issues is presented below.
5.4.1 Spatial Scale of Sampling
A major assumption of the sampling design is that the spatial variability of
indicators is sampled adequately. This represents an untried assumption and its
evaluation is a major goal of the 1990 Demonstration Project. Information from
the supplemental sampling program will be used as the basis for model-based
simulations to determine the advantages and disadvantages of sampling at
5-28
-------
alternative spatial scales. The goal of these analyses will be to define a spatial
scale that is adequate for representing the ecological condition of estuaries. The
major focus of these simulations will be the evaluation of the effects that changes
in spatial scale have on: (H CDFs and associated measures of uncertainty,
(2) classification error for "key" response indicators, (3) measures of variance and
central tendency, (4) the ability to describe general (> 100 km2) and localized
(< 500 km2) changes in condition, and (5) the detection of small (1-2% per year)
trends. Because sampling scales may vary regionally, EMAP-NC plans to conduct
studies to define the appropriate sampling scales before implementing programs in
other regions of the country (e.g., Gulf of Mexico).
5.4.2 Testing and Evaluation of Indicators
One of the primary goals of the 1990 Demonstration Project is the assess-
ment of the reliability of the indicators for discriminating between polluted and
unpolluted environments over broad geographical scales and a range of environ-
mental settings. To accomplish this objective, samples of all indicators will be
collected from a variety of polluted and unpolluted sites selected specifically
because they display particular geographic and environmental characteristics (Fig.
3-9). Direct comparisons of indicator values within salinity types and across
geographic sub-regions will be made to assess the reliability of the indicators and
to distinguish between sites of known "good" environmental quality and sites of
known "bad" environmental quality using ANOVA, MANOVA, and or T-tests.
Within each geographic sub-region, the responses of indicators will be compared
across salinity zones to determine the magnitude of salinity effects on indicator
responses. Similarly, comparison of indicator responses will be made within
salinity zones but across geographic sub-regions to assess the role of latitudinal
gradients on indicator responses.
5.4.3 Definition of the Appropriate Index Period
The continuous water quality measurements, dissolved oxygen and tempera-
ture, will be analyzed to determine an appropriate sampling period for char-
acterizing dissolved oxygen exposure. First, the data records will be compared to
quality control checks taken at the beginning and end of deployment period to
determine the degree to which fouling and drift affected measurements. Portions
of the data records that are determined to be of unacceptable quality (e.g., those
that drifted by more than 20% from actual) will be removed. Interpolation
techniques will be used to fill in the missing portions of records, and spectral
analysis will be conducted to identify periodic signals. The data will be filtered for
5-29
-------
the major periods defined during spectral analysis, and residuals will be plotted to
identify a 45 to 60 day period when dissolved oxygen and temperature were
relatively stable. If the missing data or data that are of low quality are a
substantial portion of the data record, it may not be reasonable to use interpolation
to fill in data gaps (e.g., if there are more gaps than data). In this case,
trigonometric functions that represent identifiable periodicities (e.g., 12.5 hrs, 24
hrs, 14 days, 28 days) will be fit to the data using ANCOVA. Residuals will be
plotted and used to define the 45 to 60 day period when dissolved oxygen is
relatively stable.
The continuous records will also be sub-sampled and evaluated using model-
based sampling strategies to determine the degree to which various possible
alternative sampling strategies (e.g., 1 day records, 2 day records) collect data that
represent "true" dissolved oxygen exposure. The test of successful representation
is the ability to classify sites correctly into nominal, subnominal, and marginal
categories for dissolved oxygen exposure at least 80% of the time. A variety of
measures of dissolved oxygen exposure (e.g., percent of time below critical values,
frequency of exposure to low values, daily minimum) will be used for these
simulations.
5.4.4 Stability of Indicator Responses
While present ecological knowledge of estuarine systems in the Virginian
Province strongly suggests that the six-week sampling interval between mid-July
and the end of August will produce temporally stable values for most response and
exposure indicators, little information is available for several indicators (e.g., gross
pathology of fish, fish community parameters, point-in-time measures of dissolved
oxygen, salinity) to verify the assumption. During 1990, many of the base
sampling locations will be revisited up to three times to sample indicators with a
high potential for within-index period variation. In addition, at the 30 stations
where continuous water quality measurements are made, benthic community
parameters will be measured up to three times. CDFs will be created for each
indicator in each of the three possible sampling intervals. Lack of significant
difference in the resulting curves would suggest regional population stability.
Furthermore, similar distributions of points within the CDFs would suggest stability
at a sub-regional scale. Sampling sites will be classified into groups having similar
environmental characteristics, and the values of the selected indicators within the
groups will be compared for the three sampling periods. Both univariant and
multivariant comparisons will be conducted.
5-30
-------
5.4.5 Value of Index Sampling Sites
In each of the 32 small estuarine systems and on 25 transects in the five
large tidal rivers, both an index site and a random site will be sampled for benthic
community parameters. These values will be compared using paired T-tests to
determine whether the values for indicators taken from index and random locations
are significantly different. Separate analyses will be conducted for large tidal rivers
and small estuaries. In addition, CDFs for each indicator across the region will be
calculated for index sites and random sites, and a determination will be made
regarding whether the curves are significantly different. Separate CDFs will be
prepared for large tidal rivers and small estuaries.
5.4.6 Representativeness of NOAA Status and Trends Sampling Sites
The approach described above for comparing index sites and randomly
selected sites also will be used to determine the representativeness of sediment
contaminant data collected by the NOAA National Status and Trends Program.
This comparison will be accomplished differently for each estuarine class. For
example, the CDF developed using EMAP-NC data from the small estuarine
systems class data will be compared to a similar CDF constructed from NOAA sites
within small estuaries. The lack of significant differences between curves
produced by NOAA sites and EMAP sites would indicate that NOAA sites sample
small estuaries representatively. Similar comparisons will be made for large
estuarine systems. In addition, in the estuaries where NOAA takes multiple
samples, NOAA National Status and Trends Program sites will be paired with
adjacent EMAP-NC sites, based on proximity and the data collected. For example,
NOAA has nine (9) sites within the mainstem of Chesapeake Bay, while EMAP will
sample 23 sites in the Chesapeake Bay in 1990. These 23 stations would be
paired with the NOAA sites based on proximity, and comparisons of "represen-
tativeness" would be accomplished using an ANOVA approach. If this testing
shows no significant differences between the NOAA sites and the EMAP-NC sites
with regard to local setting and regional distribution, then the NOAA sites would
be judged to be representative of the condition of the estuarine resources. NOAA
and EPA have agreed to consider modification of their respective sampling designs,
based on the results of the analysis described above.
5-31
-------
5.5 Dissemination of Results
The findings of EMAP-NC must be disseminated to a broad range of audi-
ences at a variety of technical levels. A major deficiency of many monitoring
programs is that they produce only technical reports and do not provide the
information in a form that can be used by decision makers (NRC 1990a; Beanlands
and Duinker 1983, 1984). In addition, the information that is needed frequently
is not available in a timely manner. EMAP-NC has developed a reporting strategy
designed to address this problem by producing a range of reports, for a variety of
audiences, in a timely manner. The three major types of reports EMAP-NC will
produce are:
• Annual Statistical Summaries prepared approximately nine months
after data are collected and providing tabular and graphical
summaries of the data, including CDFs and trends plots for each
indicator sampled,
• Interpretative Assessment Reports involving a high degree of
synthesis and integration prepared approximately every four years,
and
• Special Scientific Reports published periodically for technical
audiences, to address specific concerns and to evaluate interim
results.
Table 5-2 contrasts the contents of Annual Statistical Summaries and
Interpretative Assessment Reports. Each type of report is discussed briefly below.
5.5.1 Annual Statistical Summaries
Annual Statistical Summaries will be analogous to the annual reports
prepared by the Department of Commerce for Leading Economic Indicators. They
will present the data in summary tables and will include annual CDFs. The
summaries will include measures of uncertainty and an evaluation of the quality of
the data (i.e., results of QA evaluations). They also will include a summary of
sampling information (e.g., number of sampling sites sampled by subpopulation,
parameters measured, maps showing sampling locations, an overview of the
sampling design). Annual Statistical Summaries will not include evaluations of
associations. They will include a discussion of the limitations and assumptions
associated with the sampling design and analysis procedures and define how the
data should be used. Inclusion of this information will reduce the
5-32
-------
Table 5-2. Comparison of Annual Statistical Summaries and Interpretative
Assessment Reports
Annual Statistical Summary
Interpretive Assessment Report
Includes all indicators measured within
EMAP-NC
Discussions limited to selected
indicators to tell a story or to address
specific questions
Provides a summary of sampling
statistics
Does not discuss sampling statistics
Detailed description of sampling and
processing methods
Short overview of sampling and
processing methods; includes a brief
description of analysis methods
Will not include indicator data from
other sources
Will include any data necessary
Will provide status summaries for all
indicators
Status assessment focused on
response indicators
Will provide trends summaries for all
indicators
Trends evaluations focused on
response and stressor indicators
Includes descriptive statistics only;
extremely limited interpretation of
results; no association analysis
Includes descriptive and interpretive
statistics; association analysis leading
to plausible explanations of status and
trends are included
Directed toward technical audiences,
with examples and major findings
highlighted for a general audience
Short document, intended for general
audiences and managers. Analysis and
conclusions may need to be backed up
by Special Scientific Reports. Detailed
scientific explanations of major findings
will be highlighted for technical
audiences.
5-33
-------
degree to which the data are used in an inappropriate manner. A major goal of
Annual Statistical Summaries will be to facilitate identification of future analyses
that should be conducted. Annual Statistical Summaries will be broadly distributed
but will be addressed mainly to a technical audience.
5.5.2 Interpretive Assessment Reports
Interpretative Assessment Reports will be prepared for the public, Congress,
program and regional offices, agency decision makers, and the interested scientific
community. They will: (1) describe associations among indicator categories, (2)
identify the likely causes of poor ecological condition, (3) assess the extent and
magnitude of pollution impacts, (4) describe trends, (5) identify emerging hazards
before they reach crisis proportions, and (6) evaluate the effectiveness of pollution
control programs and policies on regional scales. Because Interpretative
Assessment Reports are prepared for a broad range of audiences, the information
they contain will be presented in summary as well as detailed form (i.e., they will
contain a good executive summary).
5.5.3 Special Scientific Reports
Examples of Special Scientific Reports that will be prepared include:
• Methods Manuals providing a detailed description of and justification
for sampling and processing methods,
• Data Management Reports providing a description of available data,
how to access it, and who to contact for more information,
• Design and Analysis Evaluations presenting detailed evaluations of
the sampling design and analysis procedures and identifying
modifications to the design or analysis protocols that would better
address objectives, and
• Research Reports presenting the approach, rationale, and findings of
research projects such as the development and validation of "new"
indicators, development of new statistical methods, and evaluations
of the adequacy of proposed sampling methods or technologies.
5-34
-------
Special Scientific Reports will be prepared mainly for technical audiences; however,
a summary of their results will be presented in the Interpretative Assessment
Reports.
The 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project will produce a number
of Special Scientific Reports including:
• Field Operations Manual, due in Spring 1990, that provides detailed
guidance to field crews on safety, communications, boat and vehicle
operations, training sampling activities, and the shipping of samples
to processing laboratories for the 1990 Demonstration Project. This
manual will be a model for developing field operations when EMAP-
NC implements programs in other provinces.
• An Implementation Plan, due in Spring 1990, that provides detailed
plans for how the 1990 Demonstration Project will be implemented
and managed. This plan will provide a model that can be followed
for implementation programs in other provinces.
• An Example Interpretive Assessment Report, due in Fall 1990, that
presents examples of the kinds of assessment information EMAP-NC
will produce and provides a detailed analysis plan for future EMAP-
NC data.
• A Laboratory Methods Manual, due in Summer 1990, that provides
detailed descriptions of the laboratory methods that will be used to
process samples for the Demonstration Project and will form a basis
for laboratory processing activities for all future EMAP-NC activities.
• A Data Management Plan, due in Summer 1990, that provides
detailed information on the data management system that will be
used to manage the data generated by the 1990 Demonstration
Project and forms a basis for data management for all future EMAP-
NC activities. Examples of field and laboratory data sheets are
included in the Data Management Plan.
• A Demonstration Project Activities Summary, due in Winter 1990-
1991, that summarizes the data collected, describes the status of
data records, identifies and discusses problems and issues that were
encountered during the field program, and develops
recommendations for improving logistical activities.
• A Demonstration Project Interpretive Assessment Report, due in
Summer 1991, that details the findings of the indicator testing and
5-35
-------
evaluation program and intensive spatial sampling efforts. The report
will include evaluations of alternative sampling designs and develop
recommendations about future sampling efforts. Most importantly,
this report will make a preliminary (i.e., one year) assessment of the
status of the estuaries of the Virginian Province that will be a model
for future Interpretative Assessment Reports to be prepared by
EMAP-NC.
5.5.4 Example Assessment Report
Because of the importance of defining precisely how the data collected by
EMAP-NC will be used for integrated assessments, a brief discussion of the
Example Interpretative Assessment Report is provided below. This report will
include examples of the kinds of analyses and graphics that can be produced using
EMAP-NC data. Most importantly, the Example Interpretative Assessment Report
will identify and develop the analysis tools for synthesizing and integrating the data
before data collection is completed. The Example Assessment Report also will
identify the types of data and information required from other EMAP resource
groups (e.g., forests, agroecosystems) and other agencies (e.g., NOAA, USGS)
permitting arrangements to obtain these data to be made well before they are
needed.
The data to be used for the Example Assessment Report will be a
combination of simulated and actual data for key indicators. Characteristics of the
simulated data (e.g., mean, range, variance, distribution) will be based on
retrospective analysis of existing data. The example assessment data set will be
compiled in a manner that allows associations (i.e., interdependence) among
indicators to be varied for various subpopulations (e.g., estuarine classes, salinity
strata, sediment strata). Initially, the example assessment will include a limited
number of indicators and estuarine classes. Once the preliminary simulated data
set is developed, it will be used to:
• Identify analysis approaches that adequately define associations
among indicators
• Present examples of the kinds of summary results and conclusions
EMAP-NC will produce.
Additional levels of complexity (e.g., more indicators, estuary classes) will
be incorporated into the example data set as linkages among indicators are better
understood. When evaluating the analyses for the example assessments, emphasis
will be placed on determining the adequacy of the uncertainty estimates for
5-36
-------
extreme values because these are the areas of the curves that are most likely to
change as a result of management action (or inaction).
5-37
-------
-------
6.0 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
During the course of the EMAP-NC Demonstration Project, more than 5,000
samples will be collected at over 200 sample sites. In addition, many of the
parameters (i.e., indicators) that will be measured (e.g., contaminants in fish flesh)
involve the collection of large amounts of data for each sampling site. As the
sampling program is expanded to include other provinces, the quantity of data
collected will increase exponentially. The ability of EMAP-NC to manage and
disseminate the large amounts of information that will be collected will have a
major influence on the success of the program. Development of an adequate
information management system is therefore as important to the success of EMAP-
NC as is collection of the data (NRC 1990a).
The analyses to be accomplished by EMAP-NC range from tabular
summaries and statistical comparisons to evaluations of spatial distributions using
Geographical Information Systems (CIS). During the implementation mode, EMAP-
NC plans to publish statistical summaries of each year's collections within nine
months after collection of the last sample. Analysts, therefore, require access to
data of high quality shortly after they are collected. A computerized data
management system is required to ensure that EMAP-NC data are made available
for analysis in a timely manner.
EMAP-NC will be conducting a range of activities (e.g., sample collection,
laboratory processing, statistical analyses) simultaneously over broad geographical
areas. In order to identify problems, develop alternative plans, control costs, and
modify schedules, project management within EMAP will require frequent (daily
and weekly) reports on the status of each program activity. Therefore, a project
management information system is needed to organize and track EMAP-NC project
management data.
The remainder of this chapter is organized in two sections that parallel the
two general types of information management activities identified above: (1) data
management and (2) project management. The objectives of this chapter are to
provide an overview of the way information collected by EMAP-NC will be man-
aged and to inform potential users of when and how they will have access to
EMAP-NC data. A detailed description of the EMAP-NC information management
system is provided in Rosen et al. (1990). Rosen et al. (1990) also contains copies
of data sheets and forms on which EMAP-NC will be recorded.
6-1
-------
6.1 Data Management
Data management within EMAP will occur at three levels of organization.
Each level will function independently, but their activities will be coordinated to
form an integrated data management system that covers all ecosystems and
related EMAP activities. The three levels of organization are as follows:
• Regional - each region (e.g., Virginian Province) within a task group
(e.g., Near Coastal),
• National -- each task group (i.e., ecosystem type), with data
aggregated over all regions, and
• Program-wide -- entire EMAP program, integrated over all task groups
(i.e., national evaluations across multiple ecosystem types).
EMAP information management activities are coordinated by the EMAP
Information Management Committee (IMC). The EMAP-NC senior data analyst,
Technical Director, and the ERLN ADP coordinator are members of the IMC. They
are responsible for ensuring that information management activities within EMAP-
NC are consistent with EMAP objectives, with activities occurring in other
ecosystem types, and with Agency IBM policies and procedures. The EMAP-NC
senior data analyst will use the IMC as an advisory group in the development,
establishment, and maintenance of the Near Coastal Information Management
System (NCIMS). The EMAP-NC team will participate in the development of
standards for EMAP data processing through representation on the IMC. EMAP-NC
data management will adhere to all standards developed by the IMC.
6.1.1 Data Storage
EMAP-NC will use a distributed data base system that consists of a central
site and multiple remote nodes. The three major types of remote nodes are (1)
regional coordination nodes, (2) field teams, responsible for collecting samples and
making primary measurements, and (3) laboratories, responsible for processing
samples. Field and laboratory nodes will transfer data and preliminary analyses to
the appropriate regional coordination node for some processing prior to transfer to
the NCIMS. Specific data management activities that will occur at the remote
nodes are:
• Data collection,
6-2
-------
• Initial calculation of parameter values,
• Initial entry of data into electronic format,
• Preliminary data analysis and summary,
• Quality assurance for sample tracking, sample preparation, and
analytical techniques, and
• Transfer of appropriate data, in specified electronic formats, to the
NCIMS, indicating progress on analyses, summarizing results, and
identifying potential problems.
The core of the distributed EMAP-NC data management system is the Near
Coastal Information Processing Center located at the Environmental Research
Laboratory-Narragansett (ERL-Narragansett). Personnel at this facility are
responsible for maintaining a comprehensive Data Inventory, a Data Set Index,
Code Libraries, and a Data Dictionary for EMAP-NC. They will also maintain and
disseminate EMAP-NC data and ensure that appropriate data are incorporated into
the NCIMS. The Near Coastal Information Processing Center will also support the
data processing requirements of the remote nodes and the exchange of data with
other agencies and organizations.
The NCIMS must have the flexibility to handle the array of data types
resulting from sample collection and processing. It must also support a variety of
analysis, presentation, and reporting activities. For the 1990 Demonstration
Project, the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) will be used as the data
management system. SAS will also be used for most statistical analyses. SAS
has been selected as the data management system because no relational data base
system is available to EPA through current contacting mechanisms. When a
relational data management system is available to EPA through the Office of
Information Resource Management (OIRM), the EMAP-NC data management
system will be converted to the selected relational data base system. This will
allow users more flexible and efficient access to EMAP-NC data. After the
conversion to a relational data base system, SAS will continue to be used as a
principal data analysis tool.
At a minimum, the NCIMS will contain the following information:
• Complete records of each sampling event,
6-3
-------
• Complete data for vertical CTD profiles for salinity, temperature,
water depth, dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, transmissometry
(an estimate of water clarity), fluorometry (an estimate of algal
abundance), and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR),
• Data on concentrations of contaminants, organic content, physical
sediment characteristics, and apparent redox potential discontinuity
(RPD) depth of sediments for each sampling site,
• Data on silt/clay content for each grab sample processed for benthic
community parameters,
• Benthic counts and biomass by taxonomic groupings,
• Counts and sizes for target bivalve species collected by the bivalve
dredging program,
• Counts and size measurements for fish species, concentrations of
contaminants in fish flesh for targeted fish species, gross
pathological disorders for targeted fish species at the base sampling
sites and for a subset of all species at the indicator testing and
evaluation sites, detailed histopathology information for fish that
were found to have gross pathological disorders, and detailed
histopathology for a subset of all species at indicator testing and
evaluation sites,
• Raw and summarized data of dissolved oxygen concentration,
salinity, temperature, pH, and tidal stage (as indicated by change in
water depth) for the continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring sites,
and
• Data resulting from standard toxicity tests of (1) water samples
collected at the indicator testing and evaluation sampling sites, and
(2) sediment samples collected at all stations.
Data will be stored in SAS data libraries by indicator and topical area (e.g.,
benthic species composition and biomass, contaminant concentration in fish flesh,
ancillary physical/ chemical data collected for each station sampling event).
A directory of data sets and libraries (Data Set Index) that are available at
the NCIMS will be developed. This index will provide users with important
information about the contents of each data set. It will also describe how to
6-4
-------
access a particular data set. Information in the Data Set Index will include the
following:
• A description of the data set and its purpose,
• Spatial and temporal sampling information about the collection site
(e.g., length of record, geographical location),
• A list of the variables measured (e.g., salinity, sediment
characteristics, numbers of benthic species, abundance of each
species, biomass by major taxa, etc.),
• Name, address, and telephone number of the scientist working on
EMAP-NC who is most informed about the data set,
• A description of the storage format of the data,
• An indication of whether the data is a subset/superset of other data
sets (i.e., Does it belong to a particular data library?),
• The location of the data (i.e., where it physically resides),
• An assessment of the quality of the data including results of quality
assurance evaluations conducted on it,
• Identification of and directions for access to other data sets that
contain similar or related information, and
• Information on how to access the data set including names of
contacts, approximate costs, and length of time required to access
the data set.
The Data Set Index will be updated weekly. Potential users will have access to the
most current version.
Historical data sets will be evaluated to determine whether they contain data
of value to EMAP-NC. Those that contain useful information and are available will
be incorporated into the NCIMS as data sets or data libraries. Historical data that
are used frequently will be converted into SAS data sets. Information for historical
data sets available from the NCIMS will be included in the Data Set Index.
A major requirement of the Near Coastal Information Processing Center
capabilities will be to create maps and perform geographically based analyses.
Therefore, the data generated for EMAP-NC will be referenced to a spatial entity,
6-5
-------
such as a latitude and longitude. Spatial analyses will be accomplished using ARC-
INFO, a Geographic Information System (GIS) that is used throughout EPA. ARC-
INFO is also used by most of the other federal and state agencies participating in
EMAP. ARC-INFO is a powerful tool that includes extensive analytical capabilities
and interfaces with a number of other major software products, including SAS and
ERDAS (a common software tool for processing data collected by satellites).
ARC-INFO is not user friendly. Therefore, user friendly interfaces for routine data
analysis and display will be developed by the Near Coastal Information Processing
Center. EMAP-NC data analysts will work with other data management groups
within EMAP (e.g., the Las Vegas GIS group) and other agencies (e.g., NOAA) to
develop standards and coverages for GIS applications. Standards will be developed
for assuring data accuracy, naming conventions, and documenting and archiving
completed maps.
The initial base map for the Virginian Province will be at a scale of
1:100,000. Overlays for this base map delineating Virginian Province sampling
locations and sampling plan (i.e., anticipated sampling dates, sampling crews,
sample types), major road networks, and locations of facilities to which the field
crew may require access will be a part of the NCIMS.
6.1.2 Incorporation of Data into the NCIMS
All data received by the Near Coastal Information Processing Center will be
quality assured using procedures described in Chapter 8.0 and converted into SAS
data sets. The data sets will be stored in data libraries by indicator type.
Following initial data processing, the EMAP-NC Synthesis and Integration Team will
perform the required data analyses and produce summary data bases. Examples
of the types of information stored in summary data bases are dissolved oxygen
summary data (e.g., percent of values below 2 mg/l for continuous dissolved
oxygen monitoring stations), cumulative distribution functions for each indicator
by estuarine class and for subpopulations of interest (e.g., salinity zones), and
means and standard deviations for all indicators by estuarine class and
subpopulations of interest. The NCIMS will maintain data and relevant analysis
results in both raw and summarized form. This will eliminate costly redundant
analyses.
6.1.3 Data Access and Transfer
The EPA VAX network will be the main means of access to data in the
NCIMS. All data base design work and documentation, including the code libraries,
6-6
-------
the data dictionary, standard operating procedures for data handling, and
Geographical Information System (GIS) standards and base coverages, will be
available over this network. Users who do not have access to the VAX network
will be provided direct dial access to the NCIMS, as appropriate. Access
authorization will be established under the direction of the Technical Director of
EMAP-NC.
Data will be made available to different types of users, on different time
scales, based on the quality assurance level of the data. The following groups of
potential data users and their order of access have been defined:
• EMAP-NC entities that generate data -- Field crews, sample
processing laboratories,
• Near Coastal Primary Users -- The Field Coordinator, data
management personnel, QA/QC Officer, Synthesis and Integration
Team, Technical Director, and NOAA personnel working on EMAP-
NC,
• EMAP Data Users -- All other EMAP task groups, NOAA, and other
federal agencies, and
• General Public - Academic personnel, EPA program and regional
offices, and other federal, state, and local governmental agencies.
Access for each of the user categories is defined in Fig. 6-1.
Ultimately, the data, reports, and findings of EMAP-NC will be important to
many other groups within EMAP, the scientific community, and the general public.
Data that are available to the entire EMAP community will be transferred to and
maintained on the EPA National Computer Center (NCC) VAX Cluster. Public
access to EMAP-NC data will be through the NCC.
Historical data sets or data collected by other organizations that may be
important, though not likely to be used regularly, will be documented, processed,
and quality assured; however, they will not be incorporated into the data sets that
are available on the NCC VAX cluster. Data sets which are not likely to be used
or which contain data that cannot be quality assured will be maintained on tape.
These data will be documented but will not be made available through the NCIMS.
The amount of confidential data or data for which the quality is suspect or cannot
be determined that is available through the NCIMS will be limited.
All data in the NCIMS made available for general use will be in read-only
format, allowing users to access the data without compromising the integrity of
6-7
-------
Level of QA
None
Machine
o>
* Complete
Analysis Results
Degree of Processing
Raw Initial Summaries Final Summaries
1* 1*
r, ir i*, ii*
r, ir, in* i, n, in
1, II, III, IV 1, II, III
i*
r, n*, in*
i, n, in
1, II, III, IV
* These data users have explicitly agreed not to disseminate the data released to them and to
use it only for specific purposes confirmed by the EMAP-NC Technical Director.
Figure 6-1. Matrix summarizing data access for various user groups as a function of the degree of data processing
and the level of quality assurance that has been completed. Group 1 = Organizations that generated
the data; Group II = EMAP-NC primary users, including the Technical Director, NOAA, data
management support staff and synthesis and integration staff; Group III = Other EMAP users and task
groups; Group IV = General public.
-------
the data base. Requests to obtain copies of or access to data in the NCIMS will
be submitted to the EMAP-NC Senior Data Analyst. The EMAP-NC Senior Data
Analyst in conjunction with the EMAP-NC Technical Director will develop a
schedule for providing access to these data. The release schedule will depend on
the availability of personnel to process the data and the urgency of the request.
6.1.4 Documentation
The comprehensive documentation that will be available to all users of the
NCIMS includes the following:
• Information system documentation,
• Data base dictionary,
• Data base directory,
• Code tables,
• Internal and external documentation for all processing programs,
• Directory structures, and
• Access control for directories, files, and data bases.
6.1.5 Redundancy
All data generated, processed, and incorporated into the NCIMS will be
stored in redundant systems to ensure that if one system is destroyed or
incapacitated, the Information Management team will be able to reconstruct the
data base. The raw data for these data bases will reside on at least three different
physical devices.
All data files will be backed up regularly. For field operations, backups will
be accomplished on a daily basis. In the Information Center, incremental backups
to removable media will be performed on all files daily. Backups of EMAP direc-
tories will be performed weekly. Intermediate files will be downloaded to tape
weekly.
6-9
-------
All original data files will be saved on-line for at least two years. After that,
the files will be permanently archived on floppy disks or tapes. All original files will
be protected so that they are read-only; write and delete privileges will be removed
from these files, and the deletion of an original file will not be permitted.
6.2 Project Management
EMAP-NC program management will need frequent and accurate status
reports about field collection and laboratory processing activities. The Project
Management Information System will be used for this purpose. The Project
Management Information System has two major elements: (1) a communications
system for rapidly transferring information between field crews, processing labora-
tories, and the NCIMS, and (2) a sample tracking system for monitoring the status
of sampling events on a periodic basis. These two elements of the Project
Management Information System are discussed below.
The computer programs that will be used to communicate with field crews
and sample processing laboratories will be developed by the Near Coastal
Information Management Team. The programs will include: (1) navigational
assistance; (2) a system for recording events and observations made by field crews
and for transferring these data to the NCIMS; (3) bar code readers for rapidly and
effectively entering sample identification information; (4) communications
capabilities for data retrieval from a broad range of electronic data
logging/recording devices; and (5) access to a data base of logistical information
(e.g., boat repair facilities). In addition, this system will automatically conduct
routine quality assurance checks (e.g., validation of station identification
information), as well as provide documentation for sampling events (e.g., latitude
and longitude of sampling sites). The system also will assist in monitoring the
transfer of samples from the field teams to the processing laboratories.
6.2.1 Communications
Field crews and processing laboratories will submit data to the NCIMS in
established time frames using standard formats. The communications software
available for the NCIMS will facilitate this information exchange. For example,
software in the NCIMS will automatically log remote computers into the central
processing center, then perform file transfers into predetermined directories. Initial
processing of the data will be begun automatically. When processing is complete,
the EMAP-NC information management center will be notified and requested to
acknowledge that it is aware the data are ready for additional processing.
6-10
-------
Data in the NCIMS that will be available to the field crews via the
communications link include the following:
• Logistical Information -- locations of boat ramps, overnight delivery
offices, dry ice suppliers, airports, bus stations, hospitals, police
stations, marinas with boat repair facilities, Coast Guard stations,
motels, restaurants, gas stations, automotive repair centers, etc.
• Sampling Locations -- including latitude and longitude, LORAN
coordinates, sample identification numbers, expected sediment and
water quality characteristics, estuary class, and station type (e.g.,
base sampling site, indicator testing and evaluation sampling site, or
supplemental sample site) for each sampling location.
6.2.2 Sample Tracking Information
The sample tracking system will track samples from their initial collection
through completion of all analyses and/or processing. To accomplish this, each
sampling event and sample type will be assigned a unique identification number.
These numbers will be entered into the NCIMS prior to collection of data. Sample
numbers will be bar coded to facilitate data entry by the field crews.
Information entered for each sample in the sample tracking system that will
be available for retrieval and review will include:
• Sampling site name (cross referenced to a Station Data Base),
• The time the sample was collected, including date, hour, and
duration of sampling effort,
• Type of sample (e.g., grab samples to be processed for benthic
species composition and biomass, fish tissue sample to be processed
for contaminant concentrations),
• Identification of the individual/team that collected the sample,
• A list of the analyses and processing activities which are planned for
that sample and the status of those analyses and activities (e.g.,
collection completed, analyses completed),
• Directions to files containing "raw" data generated for each sample
(e.g., CTD profiles), and
6-11
-------
• Directions to textual files containing descriptive information about the
sampling event (e.g., field team comments).
When samples are transferred from field crews to analytical laboratories, a
record of the exchange will be entered into the sample tracking system, both upon
rele.ase and upon receipt of the materials. The identity and disposition of any
sample can therefore be established by checking the sample status in the NCIMS.
The status of all analyses and results will also be available through the sample
tracking system.
6.3 Staffing of NCIMS
The NCIMS will consist initially of five full-time data management
professionals. The positions and their responsibilities are as follows:
• A Senior Data Analyst (member of IMC) responsible for system
design, liaison with other ecosystems and agencies, development of
data management standards for EMAP-NC, and ensuring that EMAP-
NC adheres to standards developed by IMC,
• A Programmer responsible for development of the software needs to
implement the EMAP-NC information management system,
• A CIS Programmer responsible for development of the software to
display and analyze EMAP-NC data using CIS technology,
• A Fortran/System Programmer responsible for development of
programs to incorporate data coming from field crews and other
remote sources into the NCIMS efficiently, and
• A Data Clerk responsible for documenting EMAP-NC data sets,
including historical data obtained from other agencies, transfer of
data to other agencies, routine reports of the data quality of NCIMS,
routine processing of "new" data, and data entry.
6-12
-------
7.0 LOGISTICS PLAN
The sampling design for the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project
is complex and involves collection of ecological information from a broad
geographical area (Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay) over a relatively short time period
(summer 1990). It includes routine data collection and processing, as well as the
conduct of special studies to obtain the information needed to evaluate indicators
of environmental quality and alternative sampling designs. Major logistical
activities that must be undertaken for successful completion of the Demonstration
Project include:
• Selection and procurement of sampling equipment (e.g., boats,
motors, vehicles, sampling gears) and supplies (e.g., bottles, shipping
containers, chemicals),
• Testing and evaluation of sampling equipment (e.g., water quality
monitors, data recording devices, navigational aids),
• Identification and selection of technical staff and contractors for the
conduct of sample collection and processing (e.g., approximately 40
individuals),
• Training of field crews including development of a Field Operations
Manual,
• Establishment and management of an Operations Center and
communications network,
• Conduct of the data collection program including collection and
processing of samples,
• Tracking of performance and progress on sample collection and
processing activities, and
• Maintenance of equipment and resupply of field crews.
Details of implementation activities for the 1990 Demonstration Project are
provided in Schimmel (1990).
7-1
-------
Sample collection and processing activities for the 1990 Virginian Province
Demonstration Project require the activities of 50 to 60 technical staff to be
coordinated and managed. When implemented nationally, EMAP-NC sample
collection and processing activities will be the responsibility of Regional Off ices and
likely will be conducted by a combination of NOAA, ORD, EPA Regional, state,
university, and private contractor laboratories. For this national program, the
activities of hundreds of technical staff must be managed and coordinated. The
findings of sample collection and processing activities for the 1990 Demonstration
Project will be the major basis used to identify logistical issues (e.g., training re-
quirements, procurement and contracting limitations, equipment maintenance and
performance issues, methods development problems) that must be resolved before
EMAP-NC can be implemented nationally.
This chapter provides an overview of the logistics plan for implementing the
1990 Demonstration Project. A discussion of the lessons learned and
recommendations for implementation of sampling programs in other regions and
nationally will be prepared as part of the Interpretative Assessment Report for the
1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project. This report will be prepared in
1991.
7.1 Sampling Activities
Sampling activities for the Virginian Province Demonstration Project will be
conducted from mid-June through the end of September. This index period is
divided into three intervals: June 19 through July 18, July 19 through August 30,
and September 1 through approximately September 30. Interval 1 will be used
mainly to identify and resolve sampling problems and to provide an opportunity for
the field crews to become proficient at sampling activities. Most of the data
critical to the success of the Demonstration Project, including the special studies,
will be collected in Interval 2 when the most stressful environmental conditions
(e.g., lowest dissolved oxygen concentrations) are expected to occur. Interval 3
will be used to fill in data gaps, including collection of data for those indicators for
which it was not critical to collect during the Interval 2 period (e.g., estimates of
the abundance and distribution of large bivalves). An evaluation of indicators
measured during all three sampling periods will provide data for an analysis of the
variability of indicators over the index period.
During the Demonstration Project, samples will be collected from 215 sites
(Fig. 3-6). These sites consist of the six station types. Sampling activities
associated with each station type are detailed in Table 7-1 and described below.
7-2
-------
Table 7-1. Sampling activities that will be accomplished at each station type during
each of the three sampling periods
Station Type
Interval 1
Interval 2
Interval 3
Base Sampling Site
Spatial Supplement/
Scale Supplement
Sites
Continuous Dissolved
Oxygen Monitoring
Sites
Continuous Dissolved
Oxygen Servicing
Revisits
Index Sites
Indicator Testing/
Evaluation Sites
CTD Profile
Fish Trawling"'
Not sampled
CTD Profile
Fish Trawling
Benthic Grab""
CTD Profile
Replace
DataSonde
Not sampled
Not sampled
CTD Profile
Fish Trawling
Benthic Grab(b)
Same as base
sampling site
Same as base
sampling site
CTD Profile
Replace
DataSonde
CTD Profile
Benthic Community
CTD Profile
Fish Trawling
Benthic Grab(bl
Shellfish Dredging
Sediment Profile Camera
Water Column Sampling
CTD Profile
Fish Trawling
Shellfish Dredging
Not sampled
CTD Profile
Fish Trawling
Benthic Community
Shellfish Dredging
Not conducted
Not sampled
Not sampled
(a) Fish trawling includes measurement of fish community, tissue contaminants, and gross
pathology.
(bl Benthic grab sampling includes samples for determining benthic community structure,
sediment contaminants, and sediment toxicity.
7-3
-------
• The 111 base sampling sites form the core of the sampling program
and were selected using the sampling design described in Chapter 3.
Data collected at these sites will be the basis used to assess the
ecological status of the Virginian Province. Data for selected
indicators (e.g., dissolved oxygen concentration, fish community
parameters, fish gross pathology) will be collected at as many base
sample sites as possible during all three sampling intervals and will
be used to evaluate the consistency of their distributions over the
index period.
• Continuous dissolved oxygen (DO) monitoring will be conducted
throughout the first and second sampling intervals at 30 of the base
sampling sites using Hydrolab DataSonde 3 dissolved oxygen moni-
tors. Each monitor will be serviced approximately every 10 days.
Servicing activities consist of retrieving the deployed unit, trans-
ferring the data to an on-board computer, installing a calibrated
replacement unit, and performing the quality control (QC) checks to
evaluate the performance of both the unit that is being deployed and
the one that is being retrieved. Data for all core and developmental
indicators, except sediment contaminant concentrations and sed-
iment toxicity, will be collected from the continuous dissolved
oxygen monitoring sites during each sampling interval.
• Indicator testing and evaluation sites were selected to represent a
broad range of dissolved oxygen levels and levels of toxics con-
tamination (see Chapter 3.0) and will be sampled only during the
second sampling interval. Eight of these sites are coincident with
base sampling sites. Indicator testing and evaluation sites will be
sampled for the same parameters as the base sampling sites. In
addition, research indicators, which require further evaluation to
determine their suitability (e.g., reliability, specificity of response) for
broad-scale application, will also be sampled at these sites. The data
collected from the indicator testing and evaluation sites will be the
basis used to determine the degree to which indicators discriminate
between polluted and unpolluted sites.
• Each of the base sampling sites in the small estuaries and large tidal
rivers will have an associated index sample site. Index sites were
chosen to represent depositional environments. In systems that are
exposed to pollutants, such depositional environments have a high
probability of exposure to unacceptable dissolved oxygen concen-
trations and/or toxic levels of contaminants. There are 57 index
sites; they will be sampled only during the second sampling interval.
7-4
-------
The 33 spatial supplemental sampling sites will provide the
information necessary to evaluate alternative sampling strategies,
including defining the appropriate sampling density for full-scale
implementation. Supplemental samples will be collected only during
the second sampling interval.
7.2 Field Crews
Sampling will be conducted by three teams. Each team will be composed
of two, four-person field crews rotating every five days. Field crew activities will
be directed from an Operations Center located at the EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory at Narragansett, Rhode Island (ERL-Narragansett). The Operations
Center will be responsible for maintaining daily contact with each crew and
tracking and reporting on the progress of sample collection and processing
activities. A commercial "800" number has been purchased to facilitate
communications between the Operations Center and field crews (1-800-NET-
EMAP). The "800" telephone line will be manned 24 hours per day to ensure that
field crews can communicate with the Operations Center at any time. The
Operations Center is also responsible for responding to public inquiries, such as
those associated with the return of lost equipment and requests for detailed
information about sampling activities.
Each crew will consist of a Crew Chief and three crew members. The Team
Leader will act as Crew Chief for one of the two crews comprising a team. Field
sampling will be directed by the Crew Chief, who will be the captain of the boat
and the on-site decision maker regarding safety, sampling activities, and commun-
ication with the Operations Center. The Team Leader is responsible for overseeing
all activities including tracking progress and maintaining equipment.
Qualifications for Team Leaders and Crew Chiefs are an M.S. degree in
Biological/Ecological Sciences and three years of experience with small boat
operations and data collection activities in marine/estuarine ecosystems, or a B.S.
degree in a related field and five years of relevant experience. The three crew
members will be required to have a B.S. degree or equivalent and, preferably, at
least one year of experience in small boat operations and data collection in
marine/estuarine ecosystems.
On any sampling day, three crew members, one of whom is a Crew Chief,
will be on the boat collecting data, sediments, benthic organisms, and fish, and
deploying and retrieving the water quality monitors at the designated sampling
stations. The other crew member will remain on shore in a mobile laboratory and
will prepare samples for shipment to processing laboratories, service and calibrate
7-5
-------
water quality monitors, repair damaged equipment, and provide general support,
including communication between the boat crew and the Operations Center.
Each team will have two substitute crew members who have undergone the
same training as regular crew members. Each team will also have a crew member
who, based on experience or performance, will be designated as a backup Crew
Chief. These people will be available to the Team Leader in the event that illness,
injury, or family emergency requires replacement of a crew member. Should
additional crew members be needed for any reason, the Team Leader will contact
the Operations Center, and arrangements will be made for a replacement crew
member from another team. A fourth sampling team, composed of backup per-
sonnel, may be activated to assist primary teams in maintaining the sampling
schedule. The fourth team most likely would be activated during the second
sampling interval to assist with collecting supplemental samples.
7.3 Equipment
Each sampling team will be equipped with a 24-foot boat and trailer, all
necessary sampling equipment, a pickup truck, and a mobile laboratory/service
center. In addition, each crew will have a small van available to transport crew
members to and from staging areas during crew changes. A fully equipped
spare boat, trailer, and pickup truck will be available at the Operations Center
for emergency use or to augment field collection.
The boat will be equipped with twin 150 horsepower outboard engines
(to ensure crew safety in case one engine fails), a mast and boom with a
hydraulic winch and capstan, Loran C, radar, VHP radios, a portable cellular
telephone, a depth finder, all required safety equipment, maintenance tools,
nautical charts for all sampling stations, and repair parts for sampling gear and
outboard motors. The boat, engines, and trailer are estimated to weigh
approximately 8,000 pounds. Because many of the ramps that will be used are
likely to be of marginal quality, a full-size four wheel drive pickup truck,
equipped for heavy-duty towing, will be used for towing. The truck bed will be
covered by a camper shell that provides a secure area for storing equipment and
supplies.
Each team will have the following equipment for collecting samples:
• A SeaBird CTD water profiling instrument outfitted with dissolved
oxygen and pH sensors, transmissometer, fluorometer, and a
photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) sensor
7-6
-------
• Up to 14 Hydrolab DataSonde 3 recording units for measuring
continuous dissolved oxygen and other water quality data at the
30 long-term dissolved oxygen monitoring sites
• Several 16 m high-rise fish trawls with detachable cod-end liners
• One stainless steel Young-modified Van Veen grab for sampling
benthic organisms and sediments
• One rocking-chair dredge for collecting large (> 1 inch) bivalves
• Two lap-top personal computers (one computer will be maintained
on the boat and one in the mobile laboratory).
The mobile laboratory will be used for servicing and calibrating water
quality monitors, repairing equipment, storing supplies and backup equipment,
and preparing samples for shipment to processing laboratories. It will be
equipped with a workbench, shelving, and general supplies (e.g., shipping
containers, labels, spare equipment, expendable supplies, and materials neces-
sary to service field gear and water quality monitors). It will also have a VHP
radio for communication with the boat and a lap-top computer for entering,
recording, and transferring data to the Operations Center.
The field computers will serve as the primary means of capturing,
storing, transmitting, and tracking electronic data from the Hydrolab and
SeaBird instruments. In addition, they interface with the navigation instruments
through custom software, assisting the Crew Chiefs to locate stations and
record station coordinates during sampling activities (e.g., at the beginning and
end of on-station activities). Data and information on the lap-top computers are
transmitted to the Operations Center via modem over commercial telephone
lines. These data also will be transferred on floppy disks. In addition, a com-
plete copy of all sampling activities and data will be maintained on the hard disk
of both computers. Field crews will "flag" any data or collections they consider
to be questionable and will include an explanation of why the data were
flagged. Because information is lacking on the ability of computers to
withstand the abuse to which they may be subjected on the boats, data sheets
will serve as the primary means of recording all but the electronic data.
However, where feasible, field data will be entered onto the field computers and
electronically transmitted to the Operations Center to provide a basis for
evaluating the system.
7-7
-------
As previously noted, the boat and the mobile laboratory will be equipped
with a marine band VHP radio. The radios will be used as the primary means of
communication between the land-based crew member and the boat during field
operations.
7.4 Sampling Logistics
Equipment and supplies required to support field operations will be stored
at two locations: Narragansett, Rhode Island, in the northern portion of the
sampling area, and Columbia, Maryland, in the southern portion of the sampling
area. Field crews will use these local bases as resupply points for mobile
laboratories, as meeting places for crew changes, and as locations to prepare
for or stage down from field trips.
Each sampling team will be responsible for sampling a defined geographic
area (Fig. 7-1). Team 1 will sample stations from Cape Cod south to New York
Harbor, including Long Island Sound and the Hudson River as far north as
Albany, New York. Team 2 will be responsible for the area from New York
Harbor, south to the upper Chesapeake Bay, including stations in the mainstem
of the Bay north of Annapolis, Maryland. Team 3 will be responsible for
sampling stations in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries south of Annapolis,
Maryland, and the Delmarva Peninsula (Eastern shore of Delaware, Maryland,
and Virginia).
Site reconnaissance will be conducted by the Crew Chiefs before actual
sampling begins to identify inaccessible sites and potential hazards to sampling
activities. Facilities necessary to complete data collection activities, including
boat ramps, marinas, hotels, dry ice vendors, and overnight shipping depots,
also will be located as a part of reconnaissance activities. During
reconnaissance, the stations will be located using the protocols described in the
Field Operations Manual (Strobel 1990). If the station location is found to be
unacceptable for specific sampling activities (e.g., too shallow for deployment
of water quality monitors, located in a busy navigational channel), the
Operations Center will be notified. The Operations Center will work with the
sampling design team to identify an alternative sampling site. Information
obtained during reconnaissance will be stored in a computerized data base and
included as an addendum to the Field Operations Manual.
Each team must sample approximately two stations per day to complete
all required sampling activities, including travel by boat and car, time on station
collecting samples, and launching and hauling the boat. The normal workday
7-8
-------
SAMPLING TEAM 1
Annapolis, MD,
SAMPLING TEAM 2
SAMPLING TEAM 3
Figure 7-1. Areas to be sampled by each team during the 1990 Demonstration
Project in the Virginian Province. Base Stations are indicated by
stars.
7-9
-------
for field crews will be approximately 12 hours. However, during the early part
of the program when crews are becoming familiar with sampling operations
(e.g., sampling Interval 1) many 16- to 18-hour days are anticipated. After the
initial learning phase, crews will be required to plan their days to be off the
water by about 1800 hours. Table 7-2 provides an example of the scheduling
process.
During the first two sampling intervals, each team will be responsible for
sampling 9 to 11 continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring stations. These
stations must be revisited once every 10 days to service and replace the
Hydrolab DataSonde 3 water quality monitors. To maintain this schedule, each
team must complete a circuit of its designated sampling area every 10 days.
Collection of data from continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring sites is the
major factor affecting when other stations are visited.
On the day of a visit to a continuous dissolved oxygen monitoring site,
Crew Chiefs will have the option of selecting any nearby site that has not been
sampled. This selection will generally be based on local weather conditions.
The adjacent site that is most likely to be adversely affected by inclement
weather will be sampled as early in the schedule as possible. For example, all
stations in Nantucket Sound are clustered into one group. On the first visit to
Nantucket Sound, Team 1 will attempt to sample the site that is farthest from
shore. If weather does not permit this, the team will sample a more accessible
site nearer to shore. Ten days later, when the crew returns to Nantucket
Sound, it will try again to sample the site most likely to be adversely affected
by weather that remains to be sampled.
7.5 Sample Shipment and Processing
The expertise of several laboratories will be required for sample
processing. During the Demonstration Project, chemical contaminant analyses
will be conducted at the EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio; fish histopathology will be conducted at the Environmental
Research Laboratory in Gulf Breeze, Florida; sediment and water column
toxicology testing will be conducted at the EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island; and benthic sample processing will be
conducted by private contractors. A detailed description of sample handling
procedures that will ensure timely processing of samples with limited holding
times is provided in the Field Operations Manual (Strobel 1990). An EMAP-NC
Laboratory Manual has been prepared to ensure that standardized laboratory
protocols and procedures are used to process samples (Graves 1990).
7-10
-------
Table 7-2. Example of the proposed sampling schedule for Team 1 for the first
10 days of Sampling Interval 2 (July 20- July 30). [BS = Base
Station activities, I = Index Station activities, SUPL = Supplemental
Station activities, TEST = Indicator Test Station activities, DOV =
DO Revisit activities, and DOM = DO Monitoring activities]
Date
7/20/90
Location
(Station
Number)
Buzzards Bay
(2)
New Bedford
(3)
Activity Time On
Station
(hrs)
DOV + BS 5
DOV 1
Travel
by Boat
(hrs)
1
1
Travel
By Car
(hrs)
2
Launch/
Hauling
(hrs)
1
7/21/90 Nantucket Sound BS
(223)
Nantucket Sound BS
(225)
7/22/90 Narragansett Bay DOV
(212)
Block Island Sound BS
(8)
7/23/90 Mystic River
(203)
DOV
Connecticut River TEST
(206)
TOTAL TIME = 11 HOURS
3.5
2.5
TOTAL TIME = 13 HOURS
TOTAL TIME = 11 HOURS
6.5
0.5
TOTAL TIME = 12 HOURS
7-11
-------
Table 7-2. Continued
Date
Location
(Station
Number)
Activity Time On Travel Travel Launch/
Station by Boat By Car Hauling
(hrs) (hrs) (hrs) (hrs)
7/2/90 Long Island Sound DOV
(193)
Quinnipiac River
(207)
TEST 6.5
0.5
TOTAL TIME = 11 HOURS
7/25/90 Long Island Sound DOV
(201)
Long Island Sound BS
(191)
1
0.75 F 1
1
3 1 3.25 1
TOTAL TIME = 12 HOURS
7/26/90 Hudson River
(186 and 187)
BS + I 4.25 1 3.5 1
TOTAL TIME = 9.75 HOURS
7/27/90 Hackensack River
(169)
Arthur Kill
(164)
DOV
1
1
TEST F 6.5 3
TOTAL TIME = 13.5 HOURS
7/28/90 Great South Bay
(188)
Napeague Bay
(162 and 163)
DOV
1
0.5
1
BS + I 4.25 1
TOTAL TIME = 11.75 HOURS
7/29/90 Great Peconic Bay DOV + BS 5 0.5 6
(158 and 159) + l
7 12 TOTAL TIME = 12.5 HOURS
-------
Table 7-2. Continued
Date
Location
(Station
Number)
Activity Time On Travel Travel Launch/
Station by Boat By Car Hauling
(hrs) (hrs) (hrs) (hrs)
Begin Second Cycle
7/30/90 Buzzards Bay
(2)
New Bedford
(3)
DOV
DOV + BS 5
TOTAL TIME = 11 HOURS
7-13
-------
Sample tracking and data transfer will be a complex coordination task
involving a wide variety of sample types shipped by any of three or four crews
from a large number of possible shipping locations to the different processing
laboratories. EMAP-NC has developed a computer-based sample tracking
system to assist with this task (see Section 6.2). This system documents that
a sample has been collected and placed in a shipping container. The destination
of the shipment is also recorded. When a shipment is received, the receiving
laboratory will record the shipment identification number and the identification
numbers of all the samples inside the shipping container. Receiving laboratories
will notify the Operations Center via the EPA network of receipt of all shipments
and the identification number, type, and condition of all samples in each
shipment. Most receipt notifications will be made within 24 hours. The
Demonstration Project Manager will use information on sample collection and
processing activities to assess the overall progress of the project and to identify
problems (e.g., when samples have not been shipped or received on time). The
software will flag any samples that were shipped but not received within two
days of shipment. On a periodic basis, processing laboratories will be provided
a list of the sample identification numbers they have received and data on the
bottom salinity of the site at the time of collection. Analytical labs will not be
provided any other information (e.g., location) about samples.
7.6 Project Management
Figure 7-2 outlines the organizational structure for the 1990 Virginian
Province Demonstration Project.
The Associate Director for Near Coastal is responsible for program
planning, budget management, program management, quality assurance,
interagency coordination and constituency building. The major activities that
must be conducted by the Associate Director include preparation and revision of
multiyear implementation and operating plans, preparation and justification of
budgets to EPA management, personnel management, resolution of organization
conflicts, review of technical proposals and products for scientific rigor,
establishing cooperating agreements with other agencies, informing key
audiences (e.g., the scientific community, the public, special interest groups,
other agencies) about EMAP activities, accomplishments, and plans.
The Technical Director will provide the technical leadership for EMAP-NC.
The Technical Director's major responsibilities are research planning, including
preparing and defending budgets; revising plans to reflect changes in policy,
priorities, technical findings, and resources; developing and revising schedules;
and synthesis and integration of the collected data into products. The Technical
7-14
-------
EMAP QA
Officer
T
Associate Director
Near Coastal
Technical Director
Estuaries
QA
Coordinatior
Contingency
Committee
Synthesis and
Integration Group
Demonstration
Project Manager
Data Management
Support Group
Processing
Laboratories
Operations Center
Support Staff
Field Activities
Coordinator
Figure 7-2. Management structure
Demonstration Project
for the 1990 Virginian Province
7-15
-------
Director also will assist the Associate Director with interagency coordination.
The activities of the Technical Director are supported by a Quality Assurance
Officer, a data management staff, and a synthesis and integration staff.
The Demonstration Project Manager directs day-to-day operation of the
1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project. The Demonstration Project
Manager's major responsibility is to ensure that the needed samples are
collected and processed. Major activities that the Demonstration Project
Manager must conduct are selection and procurement of equipment and
supplies, testing and evaluation of equipment, identification and selection of
technical staff and contractors to perform the field program, training of field
crews, management of the Operations Center, maintenance and storage of
equipment, and tracking the progress of field and laboratory processing
activities. The Demonstration Project Manager will make weekly progress
reports to the Technical Director and other EMAP management. These reports
will include the following:
• A list of the sites successfully sampled,
• A list of sites not sampled, the reasons why, and what plans have
been made for obtaining these samples at a later time,
• The status of supplies and equipment,
• A general overview of data collection activities, and
• A brief evaluation of the quality of the data that were collected.
The Demonstration Project Manager will be supported by a Field
Coordinator and the staff of the Operations Center. The Field Coordinator will
be the major point of contact between field crews and other individuals within
EMAP-NC.
7.7 Contingencies
Most regional monitoring programs are adversely affected by
unpredictable events (e.g., inclement weather, equipment failure) that delay
schedules. The success of the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project
is to a large degree dependent upon the efficiency with which acceptable
contingency plans are developed and problems resolved.
7-16
-------
The Crew Chief has the responsibility for determining whether sampling
can be accomplished with an acceptable margin of safety and represents the
lowest level at which decisions about alterations to the sampling activities and
schedule will be made. The primary reason for cancellation of a sampling event
most likely will be inclement weather. If inclement weather is anticipated, Crew
Chiefs will sample only at sheltered sites that are minimally affected by
inclement weather. Detailed procedures that Crew Chiefs will follow to ensure
the safety of crew members are described in the Field Operations Manual
(Strobel 1990).
Unforeseen circumstances, such as Coast Guard restrictions resulting
from an accident or other regulations that close an area to boat traffic, may
cause field crews to reschedule or cancel sampling activities at a specific
location. If this should occur, the Crew Chief will contact the Operations
Center immediately for instructions. The Demonstration Project Manager will
have a list of sampling sites that can be moved without adversely affecting the
sampling design (e.g., indicator testing and evaluation sites), as well as the
protocol for choosing an alternative site. If the site is one that can be moved,
the Operations Center will inform the Crew Chief of the location of the "new"
site. If the site cannot be moved, the Demonstration Project Manager will
contact the Technical Director, who will determine on appropriate actions.
Most equipment malfunctions and repairs will be handled by Crew
Chiefs, using repair facilities within their specific sampling area. Crew Chiefs
will coordinate this activity with their Team Leader and the Field Coordinator.
In the event that a piece of field equipment (e.g., boat engines) fails and
requires extensive repair beyond what can be provided locally within one day,
the Operations Center will be notified. The Operations Center will take the
actions required to ensure that replacement equipment is transported to the
crew as rapidly as possible. The Demonstration Project Manager will be
responsible for the rapid repair of damaged or malfunctioning equipment. Team
Leaders will maintain an equipment log containing information on the
performance and status of each major piece of equipment. This information will
be communicated to the Operations Center on a routine basis.
When logistical problems that threaten the integrity of the project occur,
the Technical Director will convene a meeting of the Contingency Committee,
which will provide advice on potential alternative sampling designs or strategies.
The Technical Director will be responsible for making decisions that alter the
sampling design or field/laboratory/QA procedures. The committee will be
composed of experts who are familiar with the sampling design, analysis
scheme, indicators, sampling methodologies, and logistics and will advise the
Technical Director on topics related to their respective areas of expertise.
7-17
-------
Decisions of the Contingency Committee will be relayed to field crews by the
Operations Center.
7-18
-------
8.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project will use 40 to 50 staff
members to collect samples; and five different laboratories to process samples.
The size of the staff involved in data collection and the number of organizations
involved in laboratory processing will increase proportionately when EMAP-NC
programs are implemented in other regions. Monitoring programs that involve
multiple field crews and laboratories frequently encounter problems in obtaining
data that are comparable among the many individuals and laboratories involved
(Taylor 1978, 1985; Martin Marietta Environmental Systems 1987; NRC 1990a).
Such problems usually result because, in the haste to initiate the data collection
program, the field crews are not adequately trained in applying standardized
collection methods and the comparability of the laboratory processing methods and
capabilities are not evaluated (Taylor 1985).
EMAP-NC will implement a quality assurance (QA) program to ensure that
the data produced are comparable and of known and acceptable quality. This
program will consist of two distinct but related sets of activities: quality control
and quality assessment. Quality control includes design, planning, and man-
agement actions to ensure that the appropriate types and amounts of data are
collected in the manner required to address study objectives. Examples of some
quality control activities that will be employed by EMAP-NC are the development
of standardized sample collection and processing protocols and the requirement for
specific levels of training for field crews and technicians who will collect and
process samples. The goals of quality control procedures are to ensure that
collection, processing, and analysis techniques are applied consistently and
correctly; the number of lost, damaged, and uncollected samples is minimized; the
integrity of the data record is maintained and documented from sample collection
to entry into the data record; data are comparable with similar data collected
elsewhere; and study results can be reproduced.
Quality assessment activities will be implemented to quantify the
effectiveness of the quality control procedures. These activities ensure that
measurement error and bias are identified, quantified, and accounted for or
eliminated, if practical. Quality assessment consists of both internal and external
checks including repetitive measurements, internal test samples, interchange of
technicians and equipment, use of independent methods to verify findings,
exchange of samples among laboratories, use of standard reference materials, and
audits (Taylor 1985; USEPA 1984).
8-1
-------
8.1 Data Quality Objectives
While quality assurance (QA) is a necessary part of any sampling program,
defining the proper level of QA is difficult. If QA is defined too rigorously, it can
consume a disproportionate share of program resources; if QA is defined too
leniently, the data collected may be of insufficient quality to meet program
objectives. Within EMAP, the balance between cost and uncertainty will be
established using the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process (Fig. 2-4).
Developing DQOs is a multistage, iterative process that involves individuals
at all levels of the project (Fig. 8-1). The first stage is initiated by the manager or
decision maker, who identifies the central question to be addressed and the degree
of acceptable uncertainty associated with the answer. In identifying acceptable
uncertainty, the manager must weigh the cost of collecting samples against the
"cost" of reaching incorrect decisions based on the sampling effort. The second
stage is conducted by the project scientific staff, who formulate a sampling
strategy for addressing the question and then estimate the cost of developing an
answer with the satisfactory level of accuracy, precision, representativeness,
comparability, and completeness. If the cost estimates are acceptable to the
decision maker, then the project proceeds to the third stage, in which the technical
staff develops quality control and quality assessment procedures for each aspect
of the program (e.g., field collection, laboratory analysis and processing, data
management analysis) that are consistent with the desired level of quality. If cost
estimates are too high, then the scientific staff and the decision makers jointly
modify the design and expectations of the proposed program until a proper balance
of cost and uncertainty is achieved.
Two sources of error are considered in establishing DQOs: sampling error
and measurement error. Sampling error is the difference between the sampled
value and the true value and is a function of natural spatial and temporal variability
and sampling design. The temporal variability relevant to EMAP-NC is that which
occurs within the index period. Measurement error is the difference between the
true sample values and the reported values, and can occur during the act of
sampling, data entry, data base manipulation, etc. While "good" data are available
to estimate measurement error for all of the parameters that will be measured by
EMAP-NC, data for estimating sampling error are either unavailable or unaccessible
for many, if not most, of the indicators to be measured. Acceptable estimates of
variability are unavailable because EMAP is the first program to measure most of
these parameters on a regional scale, using standardized methods and a
probability-based sampling design.
Reliable estimates of temporal and spatial variability are essential to the
DQO process because they are required for quantifying the degree of uncertainty
8-2
-------
CO
co
STAGE
Purpose
Personnel
With Lead Role
1
M!?P Refjne
^ajorf. Questions
Questions
Data User
(decision
makers)
2
Establish Refjne
Design constraints
Constraints
Project
Management
Staff
3
Design
Program to
Meet Constraints
Technical
Staff
Figure 8-1. The three stages of developing Data Quality Objectives
-------
that will be produced by the sampling design. Without them, the scientific staff
cannot provide the decision makers with an estimate of cost for a desired level of
uncertainty (Fig. 8-1). For this reason, DQOs will not be implemented in the 1990
Demonstration Project. Rather, a major goal of the Demonstration Project will be
to gather the data to establish DQOs when the program is implemented in subse-
quent years. The Demonstration Project will be implemented using Measurement
Quality Objectives (MQOs). MQOs establish acceptable levels of uncertainty for
each measurement process but differ from DQOs in that they are not combined
with sampling error to estimate programmatic uncertainty. In subsequent years,
DQOs will be developed to replace the MQOs. MQOs were established by
obtaining estimates of achievable data quality based on manufacturer
specifications, the judgment of knowledgeable experts, and available literature
information. Each measured parameter will have an associated MQO for each of
the attributes of data quality: representativeness, comparability, completeness,
accuracy, and precision. Data quality attributes are defined below, along with the
MQO established for each measured parameter within EMAP-NC.
• Representativeness is the degree to which the data represent a
characteristic of a population parameter. In EMAP-NC,
representativeness is most germane to the proper siting of a
sampling location, and the MQO will be to ensure that all samples,
with the exception of fish trawling, are within 100 meters of the
planned sampling site. Fish trawling should occur within 500 meters
of the planned site.
• Completeness is a measure of the amount of valid data (i.e., data not
associated with some criterion of potential unacceptability) collected
from a measurement process compared to the amount that was
expected to be obtained. The MQO completeness criteria for EMAP-
NC will range from 75 to 90 percent, depending on the measurement
process. The specific completeness criterion for each measured
variable is presented in Table 8-1.
• Comparability is defined as "the confidence with which one data set
can be compared to another" (Stanley and Verner 1985).
Comparability of reporting units and calculations, data base
management processes, and interpretative procedures must be
ensured if the overall goals of EMAP are to be realized. The MQO for
the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project is to apply
accepted methods in a standardized way and to generate a high level
of documentation to ensure that future EMAP efforts can be made
comparable.
8-4
-------
Table 8-1. Measurement Quality Objectives for EMAP-NC indicators and associated data
Indicator/Data Type
Sediment Contaminant
Concentration
Organics
Inorganics
Sediment Toxicity
Benthic Species Composition
and Biomass
Sample collection
Sorting
Counting
Taxonomic identifications
Biomass
Sediment Characteristics
Grain size
Sand, silt, clay
Gravel
Total organic carbon
% water
Acid volatile sulfides
Dissolved Oxygen
Concentration
Salinity
Temperature
Depth
Fluorometry
Water Clarity
PH
Accuracy Precision C
Goal Goal
30%
15%
NA
NA
10%
10%
10%
NA
NA
NA
20%
NA
20%
_±. 1-0 mg/l
Ji2ppt
±2°C
1 m
NA
NA
±0.2
30%
15%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10%
20%
50%
20%
20%
20%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Completeness
Goal
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
8-5
-------
Table 8-1. Continued
Indicator/Data Type
Contaminants in Fish Flesh
Organics
Inorganics
Gross Pathology of Fish
Fish Community Composition
Sample collection
Counting
Taxonomic identifications
Length determinations
Relative Abundance of Large
Burrowing Bivalves
Sample collection
Counting
Taxonomic identifications
Tissue Contaminants in
Large Bivalves
Organics
Inorganics
Histopathology of Fish
Sediment Mixing Depth
Water Column Toxicity
Accuracy
Goal
30%
15%
NA
NA
10%
10%
_+. 5 mm
NA
10%
10%
30%
15%
NA
+_ 5 mm
NA
Precision
Goal
30%
15%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
30%
15%
NA
NA
40%
Completeness
Goal
90%
90%
90%
75%
90%
90%
90%
75%
90%
90%
90%
90%
NA
90%
90%
8-6
-------
• Accuracy is defined as the difference between a measured value and
the true or expected value and represents an estimate of systematic
error or net bias (Kirchner 1983; Hunt and Wilson 1986; Taylor
1985).
• Precision is defined as the degree of mutual agreement among
individual measurements and represents an estimate of random error
(Kirchner 1983; Hunt and Wilson 1986; Taylor 1987).
Together, accuracy and precision provide an estimate of the total error or
uncertainty associated with measured value. Accuracy and precision goals for the
indicators to be measured are provided in Table 8-1. Accuracy and precision
cannot be defined for all parameters because of the nature of the measurement
type. For example, accuracy measurements are not possible for toxicity testing,
sample collection activities, and fish pathology measurements. In addition,
accuracy and precision goals are not established for stressor indicators. Control
of the data quality attributes of stressor indicators is beyond the scope of EMAP-
NC.
8.2 Quality Control
Establishing MQOs is of little value if the proper quality control activities are
not undertaken to ensure that program objectives are met. Quality control in
EMAP-NC will be achieved in three ways:
• Developing standardized sampling protocols for all sampling activities
that are consistent with MQOs and the associated data quality
attributes,
• Documenting those protocols in a manner that allows for easy
reference and evaluation by all personnel involved in the project, and
• Training personnel responsible for each protocol to ensure that they
are qualified to conduct assigned tasks using the specified method.
Most of the indicators that will be measured during the Demonstration
Project are those for which standardized protocols, with known and acceptable
levels of error, already exist. The first year (or more) of the program will be used
to develop, refine, and standardize the measurement methods for indicators for
which standard methods presently do not exist.
8-7
-------
Although standard protocols are being used for many of the measurements
that will be made, an essential aspect of the EMAP-NC QC program is written
documentation of all sampling, laboratory, and quality assurance protocols. EMAP-
NC has produced three documents to accomplish this objective:
• Laboratory Operations Manual -- A document containing detailed
instructions for laboratory and instrument operations, including all
procedures designed to ensure quality control of the measurement
process.
• Field Operations Manual -- A document containing detailed
instructions for all field activities.
• Quality Assurance Project Plan -- A document that specifies the
policies, organization, objectives, and functional activities for the
project. The plan will also describe the quality assurance and quality
control activities and measures that will be implemented to ensure
that the data produced will meet the MQOs established for the
project.
A critical aspect of quality control is to ensure that the individuals involved
in each activity are properly trained to conduct the activity. Laboratory personnel
involved in the Demonstration Project do not require extensive training, since most
of the samples will be processed by established laboratories, using the standard
protocols presently employed on a production basis. The field sampling personnel,
who are being assembled specifically for this project and who are being asked
to conduct a wide variety of activities in the same manner consistently, will receive
approximately one month of training.
Training for sampling crews will begin in late May and will continue for
about one month, until the beginning of the data collection phase. The first part of
this training will be oriented toward classroom and laboratory work. Qualified
Crew Chiefs must have previous experience in small boat handling and of most of
the required sampling equipment (e.g., trawls, dredges, sediment samplers).
Therefore, training of Crew Chiefs will emphasize project objectives and design,
sampling protocols, computer use, and navigation protocols required to locate
sites. In addition, the Crew Chiefs will be instructed in public relations and policy
issues relating to EMAP-NC. The Crew Chiefs will help to train the remaining crew
members in boat operations, navigation, use of sampling gear, and general
sampling protocols. The final portion of training will involve "hands-on/in-field"
application of sampling methods.
Classroom training will be conducted jointly by the University of Rhode
Island's Marine Resources Department and EMAP-NC management and QA
8-8
-------
personnel based at the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Narragansett,
Rl. All instructors have wide-ranging experience in training scientific personnel in
routine sampling operations (e.g., collection techniques, small boat operations).
Their expertise will be supplemented by that of recognized experts in such
specialized areas as fish pathology (Dr. Linda Despres-Patanjo NMFS, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts, and Mr. John Ziskowski, NMFS, Milford, Connecticut), fish identifi-
cation (Dr. Don Flescher, NMFS, Woods Hole), first aid including CPR (American
Red Cross), and field computer/navigation system use (Mr. Jeffrey Parker, Science
Applications International Corporation, Newport, Rhode Island).
All EMAP equipment (e.g., boats, sampling gear, computers) will be used
during the training sessions, and by the end of the course, all crews members must
demonstrate proficiency in the following areas:
• Towing and launching the boat,
• Making predeployment checks of all sampling equipment,
• Locating stations using the navigation system,
• Entering data into and retrieving data from the lap-top computers,
• Using all the sampling gear,
• Administering first aid, including CPR, and
• Using general safety practices.
In addition, all field crew members must be able to swim and will be required to
demonstrate that ability.
The first several weeks of Sampling Interval 1 will be an extension of formal
training. At this time, the Crew Chiefs will be given the opportunity to become
thoroughly familiar with their crews and equipment. During this period, EMAP-NC
scientists with expertise in boat operations, field collection methods, and quality
assurance will accompany the crews and provide intensive training in areas where
the crews exhibit deficiencies. This intensive "on-the-job-training" will continue
until all crews have demonstrated that they can conduct all aspects of the
sampling program proficiently.
Some sampling activities (e.g., fish taxonomy, gross pathology, net repair,
etc.) require specialized knowledge. While all crew members will be exposed to
these topics during the training sessions, it is beyond the scope of the training
program to develop proficiency for each crew member in all of these areas. For
8-9
-------
each of the specialized activities, selected crew members, generally those with
prior experience in a particular area, will be provided intensive training. At the
conclusion of the training program, at least one member of each crew will have
been provided detailed training in fish taxonomy, mollusk taxonomy, fish gross
pathology, net repair, gear deployment, and navigation.
All phases of field operations will be detailed in the Field Operations Manual.
Copies of this manual will be distributed to all trainees prior to the training period.
The manual will include a checklist of all equipment, instructions on the use of all
equipment, and procedures for sample collection. In addition, the manual will
include a schedule of activities to be conducted at each sampling location. It will
also contain a list of potential hazards associated with each sampling site.
8.3 Quality Assessment
The effectiveness of quality control efforts will be measured by quality
assessment activities, including quality assessment samples and audits. The goal
of these activities will be to quantify accuracy and precision, but most importantly,
they will be used to identify problems that need to be corrected as data sets are
generated and assembled. Details of the quality assessment activities that will be
conducted during the 1990 Demonstration Project can be found in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan. A brief overview of these activities is provided below.
Quality assessment procedures will include using standards and check
samples to verify instrument calibrations in the field, as well as collecting duplicate
samples, field blanks, and performance evaluation samples. Quality assessment
samples generally will be blind or double blind. The expected values of blind
samples are not known to the analyst, while double blind samples cannot even be
identified by the analyst as a control sample (Taylor 1985). The type and
frequency of quality assessment activities that will be performed for each sampling
activity are summarized in Table 8-2.
Field/laboratory technicians and analysts will be apprised routinely of their
performance on quality assessment samples. Actions taken upon failing an
assessment sample will depend on the magnitude of the problem. Criteria will be
established for both warning and control limits. Exceeding warning limits will
require only rechecking of calculations or measurement processes, but exceeding
control limits will require that all samples processed since the last assessment
sample be reanalyzed. Field/ laboratory technicians and analysts who repeatedly
fail criteria will be removed from their positions and retrained. Examples of the
warning and control limits that will be used in conducting chemical analyses of
sediments and tissue samples collected during the Demonstration Project are
8-10
-------
Table 8-2. Quality assurance sample types, type of data generated, and measurement quality expressed for all
measurement variables
Variable
QA Sample Type or
Measurement Procedure
Frequency
of Use
Data Generated
for Measurement
Quality Definition
00
Sediment Toxicity
Benthic Species Com-
position and Biomass
Sorting
Sample counting
and ID
Biomass
Sediment
Characteristics
Dissolved
Oxygen
Concentration
Salinity
Reference toxicants
tests
Each experiment
Variance of replicated
toxicity results
Resort of complete
sample including debris
Recount and ID of
sorted animals
Duplicate weights
Splits of a sample
Air-saturated sea water
and/or side by side
collection/measurements
with Winkler determinations
Known check standard in
mid-range of calibra-
tion
10% of each
tech's work
10% of each
tech's work
10%
10% of
samples
One at each
sampling
location
One at each
sampling
location
Number of animals
resorted
Number of count and ID
errors
Duplicate results
Duplicate results
Replicated difference
from expected
Replicated difference
from expected
-------
Table 8-2. Continued
Variable
QA Sample Type or
Measurement Procedure
Frequency
of Use
Data Generated
for Measurement
Quality Definition
oo
i
M
Temperature
Depth
Fluorometry
Water Clarity
PH
Gross Pathology
Fish
Fish Community
Composition
Thermometer check of
instrument
Check bottom depth
against depth finder
on boat
Check sample
Check sample
Known check standard
in mid-range of
calibration
One at each
sampling
location
One at each
sampling
location
One at each
sampling
location
One at each
sampling
location
One at each
sampling
Examination by expert Each trawl
pathologist
I.D. of voucher specimens Each trawl
by taxonomic experts
Replicated difference
from expected
Replicated difference
from actual
Replicated difference
from actual
Replicated difference
from actual
Replicated difference
from actual
location
Percentage of misiden-
tifications
Percentage of misiden-
tifications
-------
Table 8-2. Continued
00
i
CO
Variable
QA Sample Type or
Measurement Procedure
Frequency
of Use
Data Generated
for Measurement
Quality Definition
Relative Abundance
of Large Burrow-
ing Bivalves
Water Column
Toxicity
Expert I.D. of voucher
specimens
Reference toxicant tests
Each trawl
Each
Experiment
Percentage of misiden-
tifications
Variance of replicated
toxicity results
-------
shown in Table 8-3. Recommended detection limits for chemical analyses are
shown in Table 8-4.
Field and laboratory aspects of the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration
Project will be subjected to audits. Initial review of the field team will be
performed during the training program. Following training, a site assessment audit
will be performed by a combination of QA, training personnel, the Demonstration
Project Manager, and the Technical Director. This audit will be considered a
"shakedown" procedure to assist field teams in obtaining a consistent approach
to collection of samples and generation of data. At least once during the field
sampling program, a formal site audit will be performed by QA personnel to
determine compliance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan, the Field Operations
Manual, and the Laboratory Methods Manual. Checklists and audit procedures will
be developed for this audit that are similar to those presented in USEPA (1985).
EMAP-NC QA personnel will conduct a performance audit of all laboratory
operations at the outset of the project to determine whether each laboratory effort
is in compliance with the procedures described in the Quality Assurance Project
Plan. Additionally, once during the study, a formal laboratory audit will be
conducted following protocols similar to those presented in USEPA (1985).
Checklists that are appropriate for each laboratory operation will be developed and
approved by the EMAP-NC QA Officer prior to the audits.
8.4 Quality Assurance of Data Management Activities
EMAP-NC must ensure and maintain the integrity of the large number of
values that eventually will be entered into the data management system (NRC
1990; Risser and Treworgy 1986; Packard et at. 1989). EMAP-NC will use the
procedures highlighted below to ensure the quality of the data in the EMAP Near
Coastal Information Management System (NCIMS).
To minimize the errors associated with entry and transcription of data from
one medium to another, data will be captured electronically to the degree possible.
When manual entry is required, a hard copy of the entered data will be checked
against the original by a second data entry operator to identify non-matches and
correct keypunching errors. When data are transferred, the transfer will be done
electronically, if possible, using communications protocols (e.g., Kermit software)
that check on the completeness and accuracy of the transfer. When data are
transferred using floppy disks or tapes, the group sending the information will
specify the number of bytes and the file namesof the transferred files. These data
characteristics will be verified upon receipt of the data. If the file can be verified.
8-14
-------
Table 8-3. Warning and control limits for quality control samples
Analysis Type
Recommended
Warning Limit
Recommended
Control Limit
Method Blanks
(organic and inorganic)
Matrix Spikes
50%
la)
Less than detection
limit
Not specified
Laboratory Control Sample
Organic
80% - 120%(b|
70% - 130%
Inorganic
Laboratory Duplicate
(organic and inorganic)
Ongoing Calibration Check
(organic and inorganic)
Standard Reference Material1"1
Organic
90% - 110%
80% - 120%
85% - 115%
+_ 30% relative
percent difference
± 15% of the
initial calibration
70% - 130%
Inorganic
90%- 110%
85% - 115%
(a| Units are percent recovery
lb) Units are percent of true value
8-15
-------
Table 8-4. Recommended detection limits (in ppm/dry weight) for EMAP-NC
chemical analyses
Analyte
Inorganics
Al
Si
Cr
Mn
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Ag
Cd
Sn
Sb
Hg
Pb
Oraanics
PAHs
PCBs
PCB congeners
ODD, DDE, DDT species
Tissue
Sample
10.0
100
0.1
5.0*
50.0
0.5
5.0
50.0
2.0
1.0
0.01
0.2
0.05
0.2*
0.01
0.1
20.0*
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sediment
Sample
1500
10000
5.0
1.0
500
1.0
5.0
2.0
1.5
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.2
0.01
1.0
5.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
* Not measured in fish tissues
8-16
-------
it will be incorporated into the data base. Otherwise, new files will be requested.
Whenever feasible, a hard copy of all data will be provided with transferred files.
Erroneous numeric data will be identified using range checks, filtering
algorithms, and comparisons to lists of valid values established by experts for
specific data types (i.e., lookup tables). When data fall outside an acceptable
range, they will be flagged in a report for the EMAP-NC Quality Assurance Officer
(QAO). Similarly, when a code cannot be verified in the appropriate lookup table,
the observation will be flagged and reported to the QAO.
All discrepancies and errors that are identified will be documented. This
documentation will be a permanent part of the NCIMS. Data will not be
incorporated into the NCIMS until all discrepancies have been resolved. The near
coastal QAO will be responsible for resolving all errors. Data sets in which dis-
crepancies have been resolved will be added to the appropriate data base. A
record of the addition will be entered into the Data Set Index and kept in hard
copy. Once data have been entered into the NCIMS, changes will not be made
without the written consent of the QAO.
To ensure that complete records of all field activities are maintained, the
field computer system will not allow modification of the data files. Instead,
correction values will be entered into the data file and associated with the incorrect
entry. Corrections will be made then and a record of the original data and the
correction will become a permanent part of the file.
8.5 Quality Assurance Reports to Management
Control charts (an example of which is shown in Fig. 8-2) will be used
extensively to document measurement process control. Control charts will be used
with the following: (1) QC check standards for controlling instrument drift, (2)
matrix spike or surrogate recoveries to measure extraction efficiency or matrix
interference, (3) certified performance evaluation samples to control overall
laboratory performance, and (4) blank samples. Control charts will be maintained
at each participating laboratory and reported with the data.
The first Annual Statistical Summary for EMAP-NC is scheduled for June
1991, after completion of the 1990 Virginian Province Demonstration Project.
Precision, accuracy, comparability, completeness, and representativeness of the
data collected during the Demonstration Project will be summarized in this
document, and detection limits will be reported. Interpretive Assessment Reports
will be prepared every four years, and Special Scientific Reports will be produced
periodically to address concerns raised about the program, such as the ability of
8-17
-------
00
I
00
Q
LU
CO
O
(/)
UJ
x + 3S
•- x + 2S
I I
CERTIFIED MEAN (x)
x - 2S
x - 3S
I I I J I I I I I
TIME SCALE
X ± 2S = WARNING LIMIT
(95% CONFIDENCE)
X ± 3S = ACTION LIMIT
Figure 8-2. Example of a control chart
-------
the sampling design to detect trends. The data quality attributes of precision,
accuracy, comparability, completeness, and representativeness will also be
provided for each of the reports.
8-19
-------
9.0 REFERENCES
Albert, R.C. 1982. Cleaning up the Delaware River. West Trenton, NJ: Delaware
River Basin Commission.
Aller, R.C. 1982. The effects of macrobenthos on chemical properties of marine
sediment and overlying water, in: Animal-Sediment Relations: The Biogenic
Alteration of Sediments, 53-102. P.L. McCall and M.J.S. Tevesz, eds.
New York: Plenim Press.
APHA. 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17th
Ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Basta, D.J., B.T. Bower, C.N. Ehler, F.D. Arnold, B.P. Chambers, and D.R.G. Farrow.
1985. The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
Beanlands, G.E. and P.N. Duinker. 1983. An ecological framework for environmental
impact assessment in Canada. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Institute for Resource and
Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University.
Beasley, B. and R. Biggs. 1987. Near coastal water segmentation. Report by the
College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware.
Bell, S.S. and B.C. Coull. 1978. Field evidence that shrimp predation regulates
meiofauna. Oecoloaia 35:141-148.
Biggs, R.B. and B.A. Howell. 1984. The estuary as a sediment trap: Alternate
approaches to estimating its filtering efficiency. In: The Estuary as a Filter, 107-
129. V.S. Kennedy, ed. New York: Academic Press.
Bilyard, G.R. 1987. The value of benthic infauna in marine pollution monitoring studies.
Mar. Poll. Bull. 18:581-585.
Boesch, D.F. 1977. Application of numerical classification in ecological investigations
of water pollution. Spec. Sci. Rpt. 77, EPA-600/3-7703.
Boesch, D.F. and R. Rosenberg. 1981. Response to stress in marine benthic
communities. In: Stress Effects on Natural Ecosystems, 179-200. G.W. Barret
and R. Rosenberg, eds. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
9-1
-------
Boynton, W.R., W.M. Kemp, J. Garber, J.M. Barnes, L.L. Robertson, and J.L. Watts.
1988. Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring program ecosystems processes
component. Level 1 Report No. 5. Prepared for Maryland Department of
Environment by University of Maryland Center for Environmental and Estuarine
Studies.
Breteler, R.J., K.J. Scott and S.P. Shepurd. 1989. Application of a new sediment
toxicity test using the marine amphipod Ampelisca abdita to San Francisco Bay
sediments, in: Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, Volume 12. U.M.
Cowgill, and L.R. Williams, eds. ASTM.
Brongersma-Sanders, M. 1957. Mass mortality in the sea. in: Treatise on Marine
Ecology and Paleoecology, 941-1010. J.W. Hedgpeth, ed. Mem. Geol. Soc. Am.
67.
Broutman, M.A. and D.L. Leonard. 1986. National Estuarine Inventory: Classified
Shellfish Growing Water by Estuary. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
Broutman, M.A. and D.L. Leonard. 1988. The Quality of the Shellfish Growing Wate/s
in the Gulf of Mexico. Rockville, MD: NOAA.
Brown, A.C,. 1964. Lethal effects of hydrogen sulfide on ByJJia (Gastropoda). Nature
203:205-206.
Bryan G.W. 1985. Bioavailability and effects of heavy metals in marine deposits, in:
Wastes in the Ocean: Nearshore Waste Disposal, 41-79. B.H. Ketchum et al., ed.
New York: Wiley.
Buhler, D.R. and D.E. Williams. 1988. The role of biotransformation in toxicity. Fish.
Aauat. Toxicol. 11:303-311.
Cabelli, V.J. 1977. Clostridum oerfringens as a water quality indicator. Special Technical
Publ. 635. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
Capuzzo, J.M., M.N. Moore, and J. Widdows. 1988. Effects of toxic chemicals in the
marine environment: Predictions of impacts from laboratory studies. Aquat.
Toxicol. 11:19-28.
Carriker, M.R. 1967. Ecology of estuarine benthic invertebrates: A perspective, in:
Estuaries, Publ. No. 83, 442-487. G.H. Lauff, ed. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Chao, L.N. and J.A. Musick. 1977. Life history, feeding habitats, and functional
morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the York River estuary. Fishery Bull.
75:657-702.
9-2
-------
Chapman, P.M. 1988. Marine sediment toxicity tests, in: Chemical and Biological
Characterization of Sludges, Sediments, Dredge Spoils, and Drilling Muds. J.J.
Lichtenberg, F.A. Winter, C.I. Weber and L. Fredkin, eds. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM.
Chesapeake Bay Panel. 1988. Marine Environmental Monitoring in Chesapeake Bay.
Prepared for the Committee on A Systems Assessment of Marine Environmental
Monitoring, Marine Board, National Research Council, Washington DC.
Cloern, J.E. 1982. Does the benthos control phytoplankton biomass in South San
Francisco Bay? Mar. Ecol. Proa. Ser. 9:191-202
Connell, D.W. and G.J. Miller. 1984. Chemistry and Ecotoxicology of Pollution. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.
Conomos, T.J. and D.H. Peterson. 1976. Suspended-particle transport and circulation
in San Francisco Bay: An overview, in: Estuarine Process, Vol. 2, 48-62. M.L.
Wiley, ed. New York: Academic Press.
The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action
Agenda. Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.
Costanza, R., F.H. Sklar, and M.L. White. 1990. Modeling coastal landscape dynamics.
Bioscience 40:91-107.
Crecco, V., T. Savoy, and W. Whitworth. 1986. Effects of density-dependent and
climatic factors on American shad Alosa sapidissima recruitment: A predictive
approach. Can. J. Fish. Aauat. Sci. 43:457-463.
Gushing, D.H. 1982. Climate and Fisheries. London: Academic Press.
Daiber, F.C. 1982. Animals of the Tidal Marsh. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Daiber, F.C. 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Daiber, F.C. and C.T. Roman. 1988. Tidal marshes. in: The Delaware Estuary:
Rediscovery a Forgotten Resource, 95-114. T.L. Bryant and J.R. Pennock, eds.
Newark, DE: University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program.
Dame, R., R. Zingmark, and D. Nelson. 1980. Filter feeding coupling between the
estuarine water column and benthic subsystems. In: Estuarine Perspectives, 521-
526. V.S. Kennedy, ed. New York: Academic Press.
Dauer, D.M., T.L. Stokes, Jr., H.R. Barker, Jr., R.M. Ewing, and J.W. Sourbeer. 1984.
Macrobenthic communities of the Lower Chesapeake Bay. IV. Bay-wide transects
and the Inner Continental Shelf. Int. Revue Ges. Hvdrobiol. 69:1-22.
9-3
-------
DiToro, D.M., J.D. Mahony, D.J. Hansen, K.J. Scott, M.B. Hicks, S.M. Mayr, M.S.
Redmond. In press. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: The role of acid volatile
sulfide.
Doering, P.M., C.A. Oviatt, and J.R. Kelly. 1986. The effects of the filter-feeding clam
Mercenaria mercenaria on carbon cycling in experimental marine mesocosms. ^
Mar. Res. 44:839-861.
Donovan, M.L. and J.P. Tolson. 1987. Land Use and the Nation's Estuaries. Rockville,
MD: NOAA.
Downing, J.A. 1979. Aggregation, transformation and the design of benthic sampling
programs. J. Fish Res. Bd. Can. 36:1454-1463.
Elmgren, R., and J.B. Frithsen. 1982. The use of experimental ecosystems for
evaluating the environmental impact of pollutants: A comparison of an oil spill in
the Baltic Sea and two long-term, low level oil addition experiments in microcosms.
in: Marine mesocosms: Biological and Chemical Research in Experimental
Ecosystems, 109-118. G.D. Grice and M.R. Reeve, eds. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Fava, J.A., W.J. Adams, R.J. Larson, G.W. Dickson, K.L. Dickson, W.E. Bishop. 1987.
Research Priorities in Environmental Risk Assessment. Publication of the Society
of Enviromental Toxicology and Chemistry, Washington, DC.
Fein, G.G., J.L. Jacobson, S.W. Jacobson, P.W. Schwartz, and J.K. Dowler. 1984.
Prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls: Effects on birth size and
gestational age. Pediatr. 105:315-320.
Food and Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch. 1971. National shellfish
register of classified estuarine waters. Davisville, Rl: Northeast Technical Services
Unit.
Food and Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch and National Marine
Fisheries Service. 1985. National shellfish register of classified estuarine waters.
Rockville, MD.
Forstner, U. and G.T.W. Wittmann. 1981. Metal pollution in the aquatic environment.
2nd revised edition. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and trends of
wetlands and deep water habitats in the conterminous United States 1950s to
1970s. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St.
Petersburg, FL.
9-4
-------
Frithsen, J.B. 1989. The benthic communities within Narragansett Bay. An assessment
completed for the Narragansett Bay Project. Kingston, Rl: University of Rhode
Island.
Frithsen, J.B., A.A. Keller and M.E.Q. Pilson. 1985. Effects of inorganic nutrient
additions in coastal areas: A mesocosm experiment data report. Volume 1. MERL
Series, Report No. 3. Kingston, Rl: The University of Rhode Island.
Goldberg, E.D., V. Hodge, M. Koide, J. Griffin, E. Gamble, O.PBricker, G. Matisoff, G.R.
Holdren, and R. Braun. 1978. A pollution history of Chesapeake Bay. Geochim.
Cosmochim. Acta 42: 1413-1425.
Grassle, J.F., J.P. Grassle, L.S. Brown-Leger, R.F. Petrecca, and N.J. Copley. 1985.
Subtidal macrobenthos of Narragansett Bay. Field and mesocosm studies of the
effects of eutrophication and organic input on benthic populations, in: Marine
Biology of Polar Regions and Effects of Stress on Marine Organisms, 421-434.
J.S. Gray and M.E. Christiansen, eds. New York: Wiley.
Graves, R.L. 1990. Draft Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Near
Coastal Demonstration Project Laboratory Methods Manual. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
Gray, J.S. 1982. Effects of pollutants on marine ecosystems. Ne{h. J. Sea Res,
16:424-443.
Gunter, G. 1967. Some relationships of estuaries to the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico.
in: Estuaries, 621-638. G.H. Lauff, ed. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Pub. No. 83,
Washington, DC.
Haedrich, R.L. and S.O. Haedrich. 1974. A seasonal survey of the fishes in the Mystic
River, a polluted estuary in downtown Boston, Massachusetts. Estu.ari.ne Coastal
Mar. Sci. 2:59-73.
Hall, L.W., Jr., D.T. Burton, L.H. Liden. 1982. Power plant chlorination effects on
estuarine and marine organisms. CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 10(1):27-
47.
Hargis, W.J., Jr. and D.S. Haven. 1988. Rehabilitation of the troubled oyster industry
of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Shellfish Research 7:271-279.
Hedgpeth, J.W. (ed.). 1957. Treatise on marine ecology and palaeoecology. Geol. Soc.
of Am. Mem. 67, Washington, DC.
Helz, G.R. 1988. Responses of estuarine and coastal marine waters to changing climate.
A paper prepared during the author's tenure as an Environmental Science &
Engineering Fellow. USEPA, Washington, DC.
9-5
-------
Hinga, K.R. 1988. Seasonal predictions for pollutant scavenging in two coastal
environments using a model calibration based upon thorium scavenging. Marine
Environmental Research 26:97-112.
Holland, A.F., N.K. Mountford, and J.A. Mihursky. 1977. Temporal variation in upper
bay mesohaline benthic communities: I. The 9-m mud habitat. Chesapeake Sci.
18:370-378.
Holland, A.F., A. Shaughnessy, M. Hiegel, L. Scott. 1986. Long-term benthic monitoring
for the Maryland Portion of Chesapeake Bay: July 1984-December 1985.
Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting
Program, by Martin Marietta Environmental Systems.
Holland, A.F., AT. Shaughnessy, and M.H. Hiegel. 1987. Long-term variation in
mesohaline Chesapeake Bay macrobenthos: Spatial and temporal patterns.
Estuaries 10:227-245.
Holland, A.F., A.T. Shaughnessy, L.C. Scott, V.A. Dickens, J. Gerritsen, J.A. Ranasinghe.
1989. Long-term benthic monitoring and assessment program for the Maryland
portion of Chesapeake Bay: Interpretive report. Prepared by Versar, Inc. for
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Research Program.
CBRM-LTB/EST-2.
Holme, N.A. and A.D. Mclntyre. 1984. Methods for Study of Marine Benthos. London:
Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Homer, M., P.W. Jones, R. Bradford, J.M. Scoville, D. Morck, N. Kaumeyer, L.
Hoddaway, and D. Elam. 1980. Demersal fish food habits studies near the Chalk
Point Power Plant, Patuxent Estuary, Maryland, 1978-1979. Prepared for the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Siting Program, by the
University of Maryland, Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies,
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland, UMCEES-80-32-CBL.
Honeyman, B.D. and P.H. Santschi. 1988. Metals in aquatic systems: Predicting their
scavenging residence times from laboratory data remains a challenge. Envir. Sci.
and Tech. 22:862-871.
Horvitz, D.G. and D.J. Thompson. 1952., A genealization of sampling without
replacement from a finite universe. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 47:663-685.
Huggett, R.J. 1989. Kepone and the James River, in: Contaminated Marine Sediments
-- Assessment and Remediation, 417-424. Washington, DC: National Academy
of Sciences, National Academy Press.
Huggett, R.J. and M.E. Bender. 1980. Kepone in the James River. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 14:918-923.
9-6
-------
Hunsaker, C. and D. Carpenter, eds. 1990. Ecological indicators for the environmental
monitoring and assessment program. Technical Report for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Research and Development.
Hunt, D.T.E. and A.L. Wilson. 1986. The Chemical Analysis of Water: General
Principles and Techniques. 2nd ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Jacobson, S.W., J.L. Jacobson, P.M. Schwartz, and G.G. Feine. 1983. Intrauterine
exposure of human newborns to PCBs: Measures of exposure. In: PCBs: Human
and Environmental Hazards, 311-343. F. M. D'itri and M.A. Kamrin, eds. Boston:
Butterworth Publishers.
Jeffries, H.P., and M. Terceiro. 1985. Cycle of changing abundances in the fishes of the
Narragansett Bay area. Mar. Ecol. Proa. Ser. 25:239-244.
Jorgensen, C.B., P. Famme, H.S. Kristensen, P.S. Larsen, F. Mohlenberg, and H.U.
Riisgard. 1986. The bivalve pump. Mar. Ecol. Proo. Ser. 34:69-77.
Kemp, W.M., W.R. Bounton, R.R. Twilley, J.C. Stevenson, and L.G. Ward. 1984.
Influences of submerged vascular plants on ecological processes in upper
Chesapeake Bay. In: The Estuary as a Filter,367-394. V.S. Kennedy, ed. New
York: Academic Press.
Kirchner, C.J. 1983. Quality control in water analysis. Environ. Sci. and Technol.
17(4):174A-181A.
Knox, G.A. 1986. Estuarine Ecosystems: A Systems Approach. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Leonard, D.L., M.A. Broutman, and K.E. Harkness. 1989. The quality of shellfish
growing areas on the east coast of the United States. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration OAD, Rockville, MD.
Levin, S.A. and K.D. Kimbali (eds.). 1984. New perspectives in ecotoxicology.
Environmental Management 8:375-472.
Lippson, A.J., M.S. Haire, A.F. Holland, F. Jacobs, J. Jensen, R.L. Moran-Johnson, T.T.
Polgar, and W.R. Richkus. 1979. Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary.
Prepared for Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Power Plant Siting
Program by Martin Marietta Corporation, Baltimore, MD.
Livingston, R.J. 1987. Field sampling in estuaries: The relationship of scale to
variability. Estuaries 10:194-207.
9-7
-------
Logan, B.E., R.G. Arnold, and A. Steele. 1989. Computer simulation of DDT distribution
in Palos Verdes shelf sediments. In: Contaminated Marine Sediments --
Assessment and Remediation, 178-198. Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences, National Academy Press.
Long, E.R., and M.F. Buchman. 1989. An evaluation of candidate measures of biological
effects for the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Tech. Memo.
Malins, D.C. 1989. Sediment contamination and marine ecosystems: Potential risks to
humans, in: Contaminated Marine Sediments - Assessment and Remediation.
155-164. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy
Press.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, D.W. Brown, S.L. Chan, M.S. Myers, J.T. Landahl, P.G.
Prohaska, A.J. Friedman, L.D. Rhodes, D.G. Burrows, W.D. Gronlund, and H.O.
Hodgins. 1984. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases in bottom-dwelling
fish in Puget Sound, Washington. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:705-713.
Malins, D.C., B.B. McCain, J.T. Landahl, M.S. Myers, M.M. Krahn, D.W. Brown, SJ_.
Chan, and W.T. Roubal. 1988. Neoplastic and other diseases in fish in relation
to toxic chemicals: An overview, in: Aquatic Toxicology, Toxic Chemicals, and
Aquatic Life: Research and Management,43-67. D.C. Malins and A. Jensen, eds.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Martin Marietta Environmental Systems. 1987. Statistical and deliverable analytical
support contract: Final report. Prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program Water
Quality Data Analysis Working Group.
May, R.C. 1974. Larval mortality in marine fishes and the critical period concept, in:
The Early Life History of Fish, 3-19. J.H.S. Blaxter, ed. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Mayer, F.L., Jr., L.L. Marking, L.E. Pedigo, and J.A. Brecken. 1989. Physiochemical
factors affecting toxicity: pH, salinity, and temperature, Part I. Literature review.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL.
Mearns, A.J., M.B. Matta, D. Simccek-Beatty, M.F. Buchman, G. Sigenaka, and W.A.
Wert. 1988. PCB and chlorinated pesticides contamination in U.S. fish and
shellfish. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo.
MOS/OMA 39 OAD, Seattle, WA.
Morganthau, T. 1988. Don't go near the water: Is it too late to save our dying coasts?
Newsweek. August 1, 42-47.
9-8
-------
Nacci, D., R. Walsh, and E. Jackim. 1987. Guidance manual for conducting sperm cell
tests with the sea urchin, Arbacia punctulata, for use in testing complex effluents.
Contribution No. X105. jn: Users Guide to the Conduct and Interpreatation of
Complex Effluent Toxicity Tests at Estuarine/Marine Sites. S.C. Schimmel, ed.
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Narragansett, Rhode Island. Contribution No. 796.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1987. A summary of
selected data on chemical contaminants in tissues collected during 1984, 1985,
and 1986. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical
Memorandum Nos OMA 38.
NOAA. 1988. Federal plan for ocean pollution research development, and monitoring:
Fiscal years 1988-1992. Prepared by the National Ocean Pollution Program Office
for the National Ocean Pollution Policy Board. Rockville, MD.
National Research Council (NRC). 1983. Fundamental Research on Estuaries: The
Importance of an Interdisciplinary Approach. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
NRC. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sediments -- Assessment and Remediation.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1990a. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1990b (in press). Monitoring Southern California Coastal Waters. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC.
Nixon, S.W., C.D. Hunt and B.L. Nowicki. 1986. The retention of nutrients (C,N,P),
heavy metals (Mn, Cd, Pb, Cu), and petroleum hydrocarbons in Narragansett Bay.
in: Biogeochemical Processes at the Land-sea Boundary,99-122. P. Lasserre and
J.M. Martin, eds. New York: Elsevier.
O'Connor, J.S., J.J. Ziskowski, and R.A. Murchelano. 1987. Index of pollutant-induced
fish and shellfish disease. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Special Report, NDS, Rockville, MD.
Odum, H.T. and B.J. Copeland. 1974. A functional classification of coastal systems of
the United States. In: Coastal Ecological Systems of the United States,5-84.
H.T. Odum, B.J. Copeland, and E.A. McMahan, eds. Washington, DC: The
Conservation Foundation.
Odum,W.E. 1988. Comparative ecology of tidal freshwater and salt marshes. Ann. Rev.
Ecol. Svst. 19:147-176.
9-9
-------
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). 1987. Wastes in Marine Environments.
Washington, DC.
Officer, C.B., T.J. Smayda, and R. Mann. 1982. Benthic filter feeding: A natural
eutrophication control. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 9:203-210.
Officer, C.B., R.B. Biggs, J.L. Taft, I.E. Cornin, M.A. Tyler, and W.R. Boynton. 1984.
Chesapeake Bay anoxia: Origin, development, and significance. Science 223:22-
27.
Olsen, S., D.D. Robadue, and V. Lee. 1980. An interpretive atlas of Narragansett Bay.
Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Marine Bulletin 40.
Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in
submerged aquatic vegetation. Science 222:51-53.
Overton, W.S. and S.D. Stehman. 1987. Empirical investigation of sampling and other
errors in the National Stream Survey: Analysis of a replicated sample of streams.
Oregon State Tech. Report 119.
Overton, W.S. 1989. Design report of the environmental monitoring and assessment
program. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Oviatt, C.A. 1981. Some aspects of water quality in and pollution sources to the
Providence River. Report for Region I, EPA, September 1979-September 1980,
Contract #68-04-1002.
Oviatt, C.A., and S.W. Nixon. 1973. The demersal fish of Narraganset Bay: An analysis
of community structure, distribution and abundance. Estuar. and Coastal Mar. Sci.
1:361-378.
Pait, A.S., D.R.G. Farrow, J.A. Lowe, and P.A. Pacheis. 1989. Agricultural pesticide use
in estuarine drainage areas: A preliminary summary for selected pesticides.
Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch Office of Oceanography and Marine
Assessment, NOAA.
Panel on Particulate Wastes in the Oceans. 1989. Monitoring Particulate Wastes in the
Oceans. Prepared for the Committee on A Systems Assessment of Marine
Environmental Monitoring, Marine Board, National Research Council. Washington
DC.
Parker, C.A., J.E. O'Reilly, and R.B. Gerzoff. 1986. Oxygen depletion in Long Island
Sound. Historical Trends Assessment Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, OAD, Rockville, MD.
9-10
-------
Pearl, H.W. 1988. Nuisance phytoplankton blooms in coastal, estuarine, and inland
waters. Limnol. Oceanoar. 33:823-847.
Pearson, T.H. and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic
enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanoar. Mar. Biol. Ann.
Rev. 16:229-311.
Plumb, R.H. 1981. Procedures for handling and chemical analysis of sediment and water
samples. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of
Engineers Technical Committee on Criteria for Dredge and Fill Material. Published
by Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi. Technical Report EPA/CE-81-1.
Polgar, T.T. 1982. Factors affecting recruitment of Potomac River striped bass and
resulting implications for management, in: Estuarine Comparisons,427-442. V.S.
Kennedy, ed. New York: Academic Press.
Polgar, T.T., J.K. Summers, R.A. Cummins, K.A. Rose, and D.G. Heimbuch. 1985.
Investigation of relationships among pollutant loadings and fish stock levels Jn
northeastern estuaries. Estuaries 8:20-29.
Pollard, J.E., K.M. Peres, T.C. Chaing, R. Valente, C. Strobel, and J. Rosen. 1990.
Environmental monitoring and assessment program near coastal demonstration
project quality assurance project plan. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH.
Pomeroy, L.R., and R.G. Wiegert, eds. 1981. The Ecology of a Salt Marsh. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Pritchard, D.W. 1955. Estuarine circulation patterns. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 81:1-11.
Pruell, R.J., J.G. Quinn, J.L. Lake, and W.R. Davis. 1987. Availability of PCBs and PAHs
to Mvtilus edulis from artificially resuspended sediments, in: Oceanic Processes
in Marine Pollution. Vol. 1. Biological Processes and Wastes in the Ocean, 97-108.
J.M. Capuzzo, and D.R. Kester, eds. Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Rabalais, N.N., M.J. Dagg, and D.F. Boesch. 1985. Nationwide review of oxygen
depletion and eutrophication in estuarine and coastal waters: Gulf of Mexico.
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Data Report.
Redfield, A.C. 1972. Development of a New England salt marsh. Ecol. Monogr.
42:201-237.
Reilly W.K. 1989. Measuring for environmental results, EPA Journal 15(3):2-4.
9-11
-------
Reish, D.J. and J.L. Barnard. 1960. Field toxicity tests in marine water utilizing the
polychaetous annelid Capitella caoitata (Fabricius). Pacif. Nat. 1:1-8.
Remane, A., and C. Schlieper. 1971. Biology of Brackish Water. New York: John Wiley
and Sons.
Rhoads, D.C. 1974. Organism-sediment relations on the muddy sea floor. Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. A. Rev. 12:263-300.
Rhoads, D.C., P.L. McCall, and J.Y. Yingst. 1978. Disturbance and production on the
estuarine sea floor. Amer. Scient. 66:577-586.
Rhoads, D.C., and J.D. Germano. 1982. Characterization of organism-sediment
relations using sediment profile imaging: An efficient method of remote ecological
monitoring of the seafloor (REMOTS System). Mar. Ecol. Proor. Ser. 8:115-128.
Rhoads, D.C., and L.F. Boyer. 1982. The effects of marine benthos on physical
properties of sediments: A successional perspective, In: Animal-Sediment
Relations: The Biogenic Alteration of Sediments, pp 1-52. P.L. McCall and M.J.
S. Tevesz (eds.), New York: Plenum Press.
Roesijadi, G., J.S. Young, A.S. Drum, and J.M. Gurtisen. 1987. Behavior of trace metals
in Mvtilus edulis during a reciprocal transplant field experiment. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 18:155-170.
Rose, K.A., J.K. Summers, R.A. Cummins, and D.G. Heimbuch. 1986. The analysis of
long-term multivariate ecological data using categorical times series. Can. J. Fish.
Aauat. Sci. 43:2418-2426.
Rosen, J.S. and J.Beaulieu, M.Hughes, H. Buffum, J. Copeland, R. Valente, J. Paul, F.
Hollland, S. Schimmel, C. Strobel, K. Summers, K. Scott, J. Parker. 1990.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Data Management System for
Near Coastal Demonstration Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Develoment. EPA-600/X-90/207.
Sanders, H.K., P.C. Mangelsdorf, Jr., and G.R. Hampson. 1965. Salinity and faunal
distribution in the Pocasset River, Massachusetts. Limnol. Oceanogr. 10:R216-
R229.
Sanders, H.L., J.F. Grassle, G.R. Hampson, L.S. Morse, S. Garner-Price, and C.C. Jones.
1980. Anatomy of an oil spill: Long term effects from the grounding of the barge
Florida off West Falmouth, Massachusetts. J. Mar. Res. 38:265-380.
Sanders, J.E. 1989. PCB pollution in the upper Hudson River. In: Contaminated Marine
Sediments -- Assessment and Remediation, 365-400. Washington, DC: National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press.
9-12
-------
Schimmel, S.C. 1990. Implementation Plan for the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program Near Coastal Demonstration Project. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
Schubel, J.R. and H.H. Carter. 1976. Suspended sediment budget for Chesapeake Bay.
In: Estuarine Processes, Vol. 2, 48-62. M.L. Wiley, ed. New York: Academic
Press.
Schubel, J.R., and H.H. Carter. 1984. The estuary as a filter for fine-grained suspended
sediment. Jn: The Estuary as a Filter,81-104. V.S. Kennedy, ed. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.
Schubel, J.R. and V.S. Kennedy. 1984. The estuary as a filter: an introduction, in:
The Estuary as a Filter,1-11. V.S. Kennedy, ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press,
Inc.
Science Advisory Board (SAB). 1988. Future risk: Research strategies for the 1990s.
The Report of the Research Strategies Committee. Science Advisory Board, EPA
to Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, EPA.
Scott, J., D. Rhoads, J. Rosen, S. Pratt, and J. Gentile. 1987. The impact of open-water
disposal of Black Rock Harbor dredged material on benthic recolonization at the
FVP site. Technical Report D-87-4. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Scott, K.J., and M.S. Redmond. 1989. The effects of a contaminated dredged material
on laboratory populations of the tubificious amphipod Ampelisca abdita. in:
Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, 12th volume. U.M. Cougill and L.R.
Williams, eds.
Sea Bird Electronics, Inc. 1987. Sealogger CTD. Sea Bird Electronics, Inc. Bellevue,
WA.
Sharpe, J.H., J.R. Pennock, T.M. Church, T.M. Tramontano, and L.A. Cifuentes. 1984.
The estuarine interaction of nutrients, organics, and metals: A case study in the
Delaware Estuary. In: The Estuary as a Filter, 241-258. V.S. Kennedy, ed.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Sinderman, C.J. 1979. Pollution-associated diseases and abnormalities of fish and
shellfish: A review. Fish. Bull. 76:717-741.
Sloan, R., B. Young, V. Vecchio, K. McKnown, and E. O'Connel. 1988. PCB
concentrations in the striped bass from the marine district of New York State.
Tech. Report 88-1. Department of Environmental Protection, New York.
9-13
-------
Smart, T., E. Smith, T. Vogel, C. Brown, and K. Wolman. 1987. Troubled Waters
BusinessWeek. October 12, 1987, 88-104.
Sprague, J.B. 1985. Factors that modify toxicity. In: Fundamentals of Aquatic
Toxicology. G.M. Rand and S.R. Petrocelli, ed. New York: Hemisphere
Publication Corp.
Stanley, T.W. and S.S. Verner. 1985. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
quality assurance program. Jn: Quality Assurance for Environmental
Measurements, ASTM STP 867, 12-19. J.K. Taylor and T.W. Stanley, eds.
Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Stehman, S.D. and W.S. Overton. 1987. An empirical investigation of the variance
estimation methodology prescribed for the National Stream Survey: Simulated
sampling from stream data sets. Oregon State Technical Report 118.
Stehman, S.V. and W.S. Overton. 1989. An empirical, general population assessment
of the properties of variance estimators of the Horvitz-Thompson estimator under
random-order, variable probability systematic sampler. Technical Report. 132,
Dept. of Statistics, Oregon State Univesity.
Strobel, CJ. 1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Near Coastal
Component 1990 Demonstration Project Field Operations Manual. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development. 68-C8-
066.
Summers, J.K. and K.A. Rose. 1987. The role of interactions among environmental
conditions in controlling historical fisheries variability. Estuaries 10:255-266.
Swartz, R.C. 1987. Toxicological methods for determining the effects of contaminated
sediment on marine organisms, in: Fate and Effects of Sediment Bound Chemicals
in Aquatic Systems, 183-198. K.L. Dickson, A. W. Maki, and W.A. Brungs, eds.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Swartz, R.C. 1989. Marine sediment toxicity tests. Contaminated sediments --
assessment and remediation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Swartz, R.C., W.A. DeBen, J.K. Jones, J.O. Lamberson, and F.A. Cole. 1985.
Phoxocephalid amphipod bioassay for marine sediment toxicity. in: Aquatic
Toxicology and Hazard Assessment: Seventh Symposium, 284-307. R. D.
Cardwell, R. Purdy, and R.C. Banner, eds. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for
Testing and Materials.
Tagatz, M.E. 1968. Biology of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus (Rathbun) in the St.
Johns River, Florida. Fish. Bull. 67:17-33.
9-14
-------
Taylor, J.K. 1978. Importance of inter-calibration in marine analysis. Thai. Jugo.
14:221.
Taylor, J.K. 1985. Principles of quality assurance of chemical measurements. NBSIR
85-3105. National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD.
Taylor, J.K. 1987. Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements. Chelsea, ME: Lewis
Publishers, Inc.
Terrell, T.T. 1979. Physical regionalization of coastal ecosystems ofthe United States
and its territories. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
FWS/OBS-79/80.
Theede, H. 1973. Comparative studies on the resistance of marine bottom invertebrates
to oxygen deficiency and hydrogen sulphide. Mar. Biol. 2:325-337.
Thomas, L.M. 1988a. The E in Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental
Protection Agency Journal 14(1):3-4.
Thomas, L.M. 1988b. Environmental Regulation Challenges We Face. Environmental
Protection Agency Journal 14(2):2-3.
Thorson, G. 1957. Bottom communities, in: Treatise on Marine Ecology and
Paleoecology,461-535. J.W. Hedgpeth, ed. New York: Geological Society of
America.
Thursby, G.B., and R.L. Steele. 1987. Guidance manual for conducting sexual
reproduction tests with the marine macroalga Champia parvula for use in tsting
complex effluents. Contribution No. X103. Jn: Users Guide to the Conduct and
Interpretation of Complex Effluent Toxicity Tests at Estuarine/Marine Sites. S.C.
Schimmel, ed. Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island. Contribution No. 796.
Toufexis, A. 1988. Our filthy seas: The world's oceans face a growing threat from
manmade pollution. Time. August 1.
Turekian, K.K. 1977. The fate of metals in the oceans. Geo. et Cosmochimica Acta
41:1139-1144.
Turgeon, D.D., B.W. Gottholm, K.D. McMahon, A. Robertson. 1989. Toxic
Contamination in Long Island Sound. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration National Status and Trends Program for Marine Environmental
Quality. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessments
Division, Rockville, MD.
9-15
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983a. Chesapeake Bay: A profile of
environmental change. Prepared for the U.S.Congress by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1983b. Technical support manual: Waterbody surveys and assessments for
conducting use attainability analyses. Vol. II: Estuarine systems. Off ice of Water
and Standards.
USEPA. 1984. Chesapeake Bay: A framework for action. Prepared for the U.S.
Congress by the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
USEPA. 1985. Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Surplus and Sample Bank
Audits. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, Cincinatti, OH. EPA/600/4-79/019.
USEPA. 1987. Unfinished business: A comparative assessment of environmental
problems. Vol. 1, Overview. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
USEPA. 1989. Briefing Report to the EPA Science Advisory Board on the. Equilibrium
Partioning Approach to Generating Sediment Quality Criteria. EPA 440/5-89-002.
USEPA, Criteria and Standards Division, Washington, DC.
Vernberg, F.S. 1972. Dissolved gases. In: Marine Ecology, Vol. I, Part 3, 1491-1526.
O.Kinne, ed. New York: Wiley-lnterscience.
Warwick, R.M. 1980. Population dynamics and secondary production on benthos, in:
Marine Benthic Dynamics, Belle W. Baruch Library in Science Number 11. K.R.
Tenore and B.C. Coull, eds. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Weaver, G. 1984. PCB contamination in and around New Bedford, Mass. EST 18:22A-
27A.
Weinstein, M.P., S.L. Weiss, and M.F. Walters. 1980. Multiple determinants of
community structure in shallow marsh habitats, Cape Fear River estuary, North
Carolina, USA. Mar. Biol. 48:227-243.
Whitledge, I.E. 1985. Nationwide review of oxygen depletion and eutrophication in
estuarine and coastal waters: Executive Summary. Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Upton, NY.
Wolfe, D.A., M.A. Champ, D.A. Flemer, and A.J. Mearns. 1987. Long-term biological
data sets: Their role in research, monitoring, and management of estuarine and
coastal marine systems. Estuaries 10:181-193.
9-16
-------
Weltering, D.M. 1984. The growth response in fish chronic and early life stage toxicity
tests: A critical review. Aauat. Toxicol. 5:1-21.
9-17
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program Overview
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Modeling,
Monitoring Systems and
Quality Assurance (RD-680)
Washington DC 20460
Research and Development
EPA/600.9-90-001 January 1990
Environmental
Monitoring and
Assessment Program
Overview
-------
Overview
This document presents an overview of the rationale, goals, and primary elements of the En-
vironmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), which represents a long-term com-
mitment to assess and document periodically the condition of the Nation's ecological resourc-
es. EMAP is being designed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Research and Development. The program will serve a wide spectrum of users: decision-makers
who require information to set environmental policy; program managers who must assign pri-
orities to research and monitoring projects; scientists who desire a broader understanding of
ecosystems; and managers and analysts who require an objective basis for evaluating the effec-
tiveness of the Nation's environmental policies.
Monitoring, Regulatory, & Policy Needs EMAP's Purpose
Environmental regulatory programs have been estimated to
cost more than $70 billion annually, yet the means to assess
their effect on the environment over the long term do not ex-
ist While regulatory programs are based upon our best un-
derstanding of the environment at the time of their develop-
ment, it is critical that long-term monitoring programs be in
place to confirm the effectiveness of these programs in
achieving their environmental goals and to corroborate the
science upon which they are based.
The EPA, the U.S. Congress, and private environmental or-
ganizations have long recognized the need to improve our
ability to document the condition of our environment Con-
gressional hearings in 1984 on the National Environmental
Monitoring Improvement Act concluded that, despite consid-
erable expenditures on monitoring, federal agencies could as-
sess neither the status of ecological resources nor the overall
progress toward legally-mandated goals of mitigating or pre-
venting adverse ecological effects.. In the last decade, articles
and editorials in professional journals of the environmental
sciences have repeatedly called for the collection of more rel-
evant and comparable ecological data and easy access to
those data for the research community.
Affirming the existence of a major gap in our environmen-
tal data and recognizing the broad base of support for better
environmental monitoring, the EPA Science Advisory Board
(SAB) recommended in 1988 that EPA initiate a program that
would monitor ecological status and trends, as well as devel-
op innovative methods for anticipating emerging problems
before they reach crisis proportions. EPA was encouraged to
become more active in ecological monitoring because its reg-
ulatory responsibilities require quantitative, scientific assess-
ments of the complex effects of pollutants on ecosystems.
EMAP is being initiated in 1990 by EPA in response to these
recommendations.
EMAP is being designed to monitor indicators of the condi-
tion of our Nation's ecological resources. Specifically, EMAP
is intended to respond to the growing demand for informa-
tion characterizing the condition of our environment and the
type and location of changes in our environment Simultane-
ous monitoring of pollutants and environmental changes will
allow us to identify likely causes of adverse changes. When
fully implemented, EMAP will answer the following ques-
tions:
Q What is the current status, extent, and geograph-
ic distribution of our ecological resources (e.g.,
estuaries, lakes, streams, wetlands, forests, grass-
lands, deserts)?
Q What proportions of these resources are degrad-
ing or improving, where, and at what rate?
Q What are the likely causes of adverse effects?
Q Are adversely-affected ecosystems responding as
expected to control and mitigation programs?
EMAP will provide the Administrator, the Congress, and
the public with statistical data summaries and periodic inter-
pretive reports on ecological status and trends. Because
sound decision-making must consider the uncertainty asso-
ciated with quantitative information, all EMAP status and
trends estimates will include statistically-rigorous confidence
limits.
re-
Assessments of changes in our Nation's ecological
source conditions require data on large geographic scales
collected over long periods of time. For national assessments,
comparability of data among geographic regions (e.g., the
Northeast, Southeast and West) and over extended periods is
-1 -
-------
critical, and meeting this need by simply aggregating data
from many individual, local, and short-term networks that are
fragmented in space or time has proven difficult, if not impos-
sible. EMAP will focus specifically on national and regional
scales over periods of years to decades, collecting data on in-
dicators of ecological condition from multiple ecosystems
and integrating them to assess environmental change. This
approach, along with EMAP's statistically-based design, dis-
tinguishes it from most current monitoring efforts, which tend
to be short-term or locally-focused. A long-term, integrated,
multi-ecosystem monitoring program offers the advantages of
earlier detection of problems and improved resolution of
their extent and magnitude, while enabling formulation of
more cost-effective regulatory or remedial actions.
Environmental monitoring data are collected by EPA to
meet the requirements of a variety of regulatory programs.
Many federal agencies collect environmental data specifical-
ly to manage particular ecological resources. Efficient execu-
tion of EPA's mandate to protect the Nation's ecosystems re-
quires, therefore, that EMAP complement, supplement, and
integrate data and expertise from the regulatory offices within
EPA and from other agencies. EMAP should not be perceived
as a substitute for ongoing programs designed to meet objec-
tives other than its own. Interagency coordination is actively
being pursued with the Departments of Interior, Commerce,
and Agriculture. This coordination avoids duplicative moni-
toring efforts, facilitates exchange of existing data for use in
the refinement of monitoring networks, and increases the ex-
pertise available to quantify and understand observed status
and trends. EMAP will also draw upon the expertise and ac-
tivities of the EPA Regional Offices, States, and the interna-
tional community.
Ecological monitoring programs of the 1990's and beyond
must be able to respond and adapt to new issues and per-
spectives within the context of a continuing effort to detect
trends and patterns in environmental change. These demands
will be met by EMAP through a flexible design that can ac-
commodate as yet undefined questions and objectives as
well as changing criteria of performance and scientific capa-
bility. Further, EMAP's design will encourage analysis, re-
view, and reporting processes that foster discovery of unan-
ticipated results and promote the widespread dissemination
of scientifically-sound information. Periodic evaluations of
the program's direction and emphasis will be the key to
maintaining its viability and relevance while retaining the
continuity of the basic data sets. These evaluations will serve
to preclude the "aging" that typically hinders long-term moni-
toring efforts.
Planning & Design
The major activities in 1990 around which EMAP is being
developed are:
Q Indicator Evaluation and Testing—evaluation and
testing of indicators of ecological condition;
Q Network Design—design and evaluation of inte-
grated, statistical monitoring networks and proto-
cols for collecting status and trends data on indi-
cators;
Q Landscape Characterization—nationwide charac-
terization of ecological resources in areas within
the EMAP sampling network to establish a base-
line for monitoring and assessment; and
Q Near-Coastal Demonstration Project—imple-
mentation of regional-scale surveys to define the
current status of our estuarine resources.
Although the goal is to establish the program in all catego-
ries of ecosystems, the initial emphasis is on testing and im-
plementing the program in estuaries, near-coastal wetlands,
and inland surface waters, coordinating these activities with
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey. Because precipitation and air quality are two important
factors influencing ecosystems, EMAP also will contribute to
the evaluation and maintenance of the multia'gency atmos-
pheric deposition networks currently coordinated by the Na-
tional Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (i.e., the Na-
tional Trends Network/National Dry Deposition Network).
These ecosystems and deposition networks offer immediate
opportunities to demonstrate the EMAP approach.
EMAP also will contribute to the development of a re-
search program in environmental statistics. This program will
refine the statistical framework for the remaining types of
ecosystems in preparation for full implementation of EMAP
in 1995 and beyond. Relying heavily on expertise from aca-
demia and industry, this program will develop methods and
approaches for: (a) analyzing and interpreting spatial and
temporal trends in indicators across regions; (b) incorporating
and substituting historical data and data from ongoing moni-
toring programs into EMAP; (c) designing efficient quality as-
surance programs for ecological monitoring programs; and
(d) diagnosing the likely causes of adverse conditions in eco-
systems.
Indicator Evaluation & Testing
Purpose
EMAP will evaluate and use indicators that collectively de-
scribe the overall condition of an ecosystem. Measurements
of ecosystem condition should reflect characteristics clearly
valued by society. Measurement methods must be standard-
ized and quality-assured so that spatial patterns and temporal
trends in condition within and among regions can be accu-
rately assessed.
Strategy
Indicators in three categories will be evaluated:
-2-
-------
Q Response indicator!—which quantify the re-
sponse of ecosystems to anthropogenic stress. Ex-
amples include signs of gross pathology (e.g., the
appearance of tumors in fish or visible damage to
tree canopies); the status of organisms that are
particularly sensitive to pollutants or populations
of organisms important to sportsmen, commercial
interests, or naturalists; and indices of community
structure and biodiversity.
Q Exposure indicators—which show whether
ecosystems have been exposed to pollutants, hab-
itat degradation, or other causes of poor condi-
tion. Examples include ambient pollutant concen-
trations; acidic deposition rates; bioaccumulation
of toxics in plant and animal tissues;
media-specific field bioassays using test organ-
isms; and measurements of habitat condition or
availability (e.g., siltation of bottom habitat and
vegetative canopy complexity).
G Stressor indicators—which are socio-economic,
demographic, and regulatory compliance meas-
urements that are suggestive of environmental
stress. Examples include coal production, popula-
tion figures, pesticide applications, pollutant
emissions inventories, and land use.
Sets of indicators will be identified and measured in all cat-
egories for each ecosystem type. The set of response indica-
tors should reflect adverse effects of both anticipated and un-
anticipated environmental stresses (e.g., new pollutants).
Criteria must be developed for each response indicator to
identify when conditions change from acceptable or desira-
ble to unacceptable or undesirable. Criteria could be based
on conditions attainable under best management practices as
observed at "regional reference sites", relatively undisturbed
sites that are typical of an ecoregion. A set of exposure indi-
cators will be used to determine whether ecosystems have
been exposed to environmental stress and what the causes of
poor condition are likely to be. For example, undesirably low
diversity in stream fish communities across a region might be
related to the presence of toxics in sediments, siltation of bot-
tom habitat insufficient flow, low pH, or bioaccumulation of
toxics. In this example, stressor indicators that might be ex-
amined in diagnosing the cause would include the number
and type of industrial dischargers, farmed acreage or con-
struction activity, water withdrawals, presence of mine spoils
or acidic deposition, and regional pesticide application.
The goals of EMAP are quite different from those of the
compliance monitoring most commonly conducted by EPA.
While compliance monitoring involves identifying, with a
high degree of confidence, pollutant concentrations that can
be linked unequivocally to individual polluters, EMAP will
use sets of indicators to assess the condition of multiple eco-
logical systems across regions, coupled with an evaluation of
associated pollutant sources or other anthropogenic environ-
mental disturbance. EMAPs regional approach to environ-
mental monitoring and assessment is quite unusual, and the
expected benefits include an improved capability to detect
emerging problems and to identify those types of ecosystei
most in need of research, assessment, or remediation. R
gional monitoring and assessment is the only effective way
determine whether current environmental regulations are a
equately protecting our ecological resources.
Activities
Many scientific questions remain to be answered. Is tr
natural variability in response indicators too large to malt
sufficiently precise estimates of regional conditions? Can ect
system condition be compared among regions with differin
biota? What criteria will be used to determine acceptable vei
sus unacceptable conditions? How are the data best interpret
ed for systems with response indicators in undesirable range
and multiple, conflicting, or unknown exposure indicators
What, if anything, might be done when a system's range ii
response indicators is acceptable, but the range in exposuri
indicators is not? EMAP will seek short- and long-term an
swers to these questions through three types of activities:
G Reports evaluating the availability and applicabili-
ty of indicators for all EMAP ecosystem
categories;
G Workshops on ecological indicators; and
Q Development of a long-term indicator research
program for all EMAP ecosystem categories.
Network Design
Purpose
Meeting the goal of estimating status and trends in the con-
dition of the Nation's ecosystems requires a monitoring
framework that
G Provides the basis for determining and reporting
on ecological indicators at various geographic
scales;
G Is adaptable to monitoring on regional as well as
on continental and globalscales;
G Enables the examination of correlations among
spatial and temporal patterns of response,
exposure, and stressor indicators;
G Enables the incorporation or substitution of data
from ongoing monitoring sites and networks; and
G Is sufficiently adaptable and flexible to accommo-
date changes in spatial extent of the resource
(e.g., the areal extent of wetlands) and to address
current and emerging issues.
3-
-------
Strategy
A global grid will be constructed for identifying sampling
sites. This grid will then be divided into sub-grids in accor-
dance with whatever scale of resolution (e.g., national, re-
gional, or subregional) is required for an assessment of the
condition of ecological resources. Currently, a sub-grid for
the United States and its surrounding continental shelf waters
that includes approximately 12,500 sites is being evaluated.
Within these sites, ecosystems will be identified and charac-
terized and their their number and area! extent will be deter-
mined. This initial characterization will be accomplished us-
ing existing maps, satellite imagery, and aerial photography.
Field sampling of sets of indicators will be conducted on a
subset of sites statistically selected from the 12,500 original
sites.
Current EMAP research will determine the number of sam-
pling sites needed for regional and national reports on the
status, changes, and trends in indicators. Two alternative ap-
proaches for field sampling of approximately 3,000 sites are
being considered. In the first, about one-fourth of the 3,000
sites across the continental United States would be visited in
one year. The following year, a second one-fourth of the sites
would be sampled and so on, such that all sites would be vis-
ited during a four-year period. In the second, data would be
collected during a single year at all the sampling sites in a ge-
ographical area (e.g., the estuaries in the Virginian Province
from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras or all lakes and streams in
the Northeast] and sampling efforts would shift to a new area
during following years. The statistical, logistical, and report-
ing advantages of each option are being evaluated in light of
EMAPs long-term goal to provide a national assessment of
the status, changes, and trends in ecological resources. In ad-
dition, the timing of the sampling period, the statistical proce-
dures for establishing where a measurement is to be made,
and the number of samples that must be collected at each
sampling site are being examined.
Activities
Current activities are focused on making the global grid fi-
nal, applying it to the United States, and identifying rules for
associating ecosystems with grid points and statistically se-
lecting them for sampling. The EMAP design and sampling
strategy will be reviewed by the American Statistical Associa-
tion and appropriate ecosystem experts.
Landscape Characterization
Purpose
National assessments of status and trends of the condition
of ecosystems require knowing not only what percentage of a
particular resource is in desirable or acceptable condition,
but also how much of that resource exists. Some types of wet-
lands are being lost at an alarming rate; conversion and loss
of other types of ecosystems are also occurring. Such changes
may be of particular concern if statistically correlated with
pollutant exposure or other anthropogenic stressors. For most
ecosystems, few national data bases can currently be used to
derive quantitative estimates of ecosystem extent and chang-
es in condition on a regional basis with known confidence.
The technique that will be used to address these issues is
landscape characterization. Landscape characterization is the
documentation of the principal components of landscape
structure—the physical environment, biological composition,
and human activity patterns—in a geographic area. EMAP
will characterize the national landscape by mapping land-
scape features (e.g., wetlands, forests, soils, and land uses) in
areas associated with the EMAP sampling grid. Characteriza-
tion uses remote sensing technology (satellite imagery and
aerial photography) and other techniques (e.g., cartographic
analysis and analysis of census data) to quantify the extent
and distribution of ecosystems. Over time, periodic aerial
and satellite photography will permit quantitative estimation
of changes in landscape features that might be related to an-
thropogenic activities and pollutants. The results of these
characterization analyses also permit more informed selec-
tion of systems for field sampling.
Strategy
The characterization strategy involves the application of re-
mote sensing technology to obtain high-resolution data on se-
lected sample sites and lower resolution data over broad geo-
graphical areas. Other data sources such as maps and
censuses will be used to supplement the remote sensing data.
The remote sensing data also will furnish detailed informa-
tion needed for the network design. For example, lakes,
streams, wetlands, forests, and other types of ecosystems as-
sociated with each grid point will be identified so that a sub-
set for field sampling can be statistically selected. Characteri-
zation also supplies a portion of the data needed to classify
ecosystems into subcategories of interest (e.g., forest-cover
types, wetland types, crops, and lake types).
Certain types of landscape data assist in diagnosing the
probable causes of undesirable conditions in response indica-
tors. Characterization will describe the physical and spatial
aspects of the environment that reflect habitat modification,
for example, those that can amplify or counteract the effects
of toxicants and other pollutants on plants and animals.
Finally, characterization will compile data on stressor indi-
cators that can be identified from remote sensing and
mapped data, including land use, mining activities, popula-
tion centers, transportation and power corridors, and other
anthropogenic disturbances.
EMAP will assemble, manage, and update these data in
Geographic Information System (CIS) format. A standardized
characterization approach and a landscape information net-
work common to all ecosystems will be used to optimize cost
and data sharing and to ensure common format and consis-
tency. Through close work with other agencies, EMAP will
-4-
-------
establish design requirements for the integrated characteriza-
tion including acceptance criteria for baseline data, consis-
tent classification detail and accuracy, and suitable spatial
and temporal resolution to distinguish landscape features of
particular interest.
Activities
The design of the characterization plan and the evaluation
of potential characterization techniques are in progress. A
prototype methodology for high-resolution characterization
has been developed. Current activities include evaluating a
range of methods, from landscape ecology to quantitative,
multistage remote sensing (combined satellite and aerial pho-
tography) in widely different terrain types. EMAP characteri-
zation will begin in 1990 at approximately 800 sites, or
about one-fourth of the 3,000 selected for field sampling.
Near-Coastal Demonstration Project
Purpose
Information obtained from the near-coastal demonstration
project will be used to refine the EMAP design, and the study
itself will serve as a model for implementing EMAP projects
in other study areas and types of ecosystems.
The demonstration project has five goals:
Q Evaluate the utility, sensitivity, and applicability
of the EMAP near-coastal indicators on a regional
scale;
Q Determine the effectiveness of the EMAP network
design for quantifying the extent and magnitude
of pollution problems in the near-coastal environ-
ment;
Q Demonstrate the usefulness of results for plan-
ning, priority-setting, and determining the
effectiveness of pollution control actions;
Q Develop standardized methods for indicator
measurements that can be transferred to other
study areas and made available for other
monitoring efforts; and
Q Identify and resolve logistical issues associated
with implementing the network design.
Strategy
The strategy for accomplishing the above tasks is to work
closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration's National Status and Trends Program to field-test the
near-coastal indicators and network design through a demon-
stration study in the estuaries and coastal wetlands of the
Mid-Atlantic area of the United States. Estuaries were select-
ed because their natural circulation patterns concentrate and
retain pollutants. Estuaries and coastal wetlands are ah
spawning and nursery grounds for many valued living n
sources, and estuarine watersheds receive a large proportic
of the pollutants discharged to the Nation's waterways. TV
Mid-Atlantic study area was chosen because adverse polli
tant impacts are evident; contaminants are present in the w;
ter, sediments, and biota; the vitality of many organisms is r«
portedly threatened; and seven of the area's larger estuarie
are included in EPA's National Estuary Program.
Activities
During 1989, the major environmental problems associat
ed with near-coastal systems were identified: eutrophication
contamination, habitat modification, and the cumulative im
pact of multiple stressors. A set of response, exposure, anc
stressor indicators applicable to each problem is to be identi
fied, based on current understanding of how various environ-
mental stressors affect ecosystem processes and biota. Near-
coastal ecosystems have been classified for monitoring and
assessment based on their physical and chemical characteris-
tics and their susceptibility to environmental stressors. A
monitoring network design that is compatible with the EMAP
design is being developed. Several logistical and technical
questions regarding the EMAP near-coastal project remain,
including:
Q What set of indicators will be measured?
Q What specific methods will be used to sample
each indicator?
Q Will all indicators be measured at all sampling
sites or can a sampling plan be developed that re-
quires measurement of costly indicators only at
selected sites? and
Q To what degree should sources of variation be
measured and accounted for in the network
design?
The near-coastal demonstration project will be conducted
in the estuaries and coastal wetlands of the mid-Atlantic area
of the United States (from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod) during
mid-1990. A report on the results of the project will be pre-
pared in 1991.
Information Contact
EMAP is planned and managed by ORD's Office of Model-
ing, Monitoring Systems, and Quality Assurance (OMMSQA).
Inquiries may oe directed to:
EMAP Director
ORD/OMMSQA (RD-680)
US. EPA
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5767
Fax: (202)252-0929
-5-
-------
APPENDIX B
Memorandum of Understanding Between
Environmental Protection Agency and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-------
-------
JOINT NOAA-EPA AGREEMENT TO DETERMINE THE STATUS,
TRENDS, AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ANTHROPOGENIC STRESS IN
COASTAL AND ESTUARINE AREAS OF THE UNITED STATES
I. PURPOSE
The NOAA National Ocean Service and the U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development agree to coordinate their research and
monitoring programs for assessing the effects of anthropogenic
stress on marine and estuarine ecosystems. This agreement
provides an initial mechanism for coordination of planning
activities leading to the establishment of a joint NOAA/EPA
program for monitoring the status and trends of near coastal
environmental quality and ecological conditions. It also covers
joint activities associated with the synthesis and integration of
monitoring and characterization data into assessments of the
effects of human activities on the Nation's near coastal
ecosystems.
II. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
Both NOAA and the U.S. EPA have regulatory mandates to conduct a
broad range of research and monitoring activities to assess the
effect of anthropogenic stress on marine and estuarine
environments. Without coordination and cooperation/ these
activities could result in duplicative efforts. For example,
both NOAA/NOS jind the U.S. EPA/ORD have a need for and a
requirement to conduct status and trends monitoring research on
indicators of environmental quality and pollution assessment
activities at regional and national scales in coastal areas.
Existing NOAA programs are focused on (1) assessing the status
and trends of chemical contaminants, at national and regional
levels, (2) characterizing existing environmental-conditions and
problems using available data and retrospective analyses, (3)
development of indicators of the effects of chemical
contamination on biota, and (4) development of information
•transfer capabilities (e^g.,-computerized information-management
systems that make a broad range of information on the
characteristics and conditions of coastal areas available to
decision makers and scientists).
Existing U.S. EPA/ORD programs are focused on (1) development and
evaluation of indicators of.marine and estuarine environmental
quality and sampling methods that quantify and partition the
extent and magnitude of cumulative and multimedia anthropogenic
impacts on marine and estuarine environments; (2) establishment
of the monitoring networks to obtain the data necessary to
determine the status and trends in ecological condition of near
coastal ecosystems-, and (3) conduct of multimedia integrated
assessments, including retrospective analyses, to evaluate the
effectiveness of pollution control policies and practices and to
-------
identify emerging pollution problems before they reach crisis
proportions.
Although both commonalities and differences exist between NOAA
and U.S. EPA programs, the combined results of both serve the
national interest more than the results of either program.
Therefore, it is the intention of NOAA/NOS and the U.S. EPA/ORD
to cooperate and coordinate to the greatest possible extent to
prevent duplication of efforts and to ensure that information
produced by each program is used to the maximum extent possible,
including joint synthesis and integration activities.
Cooperation has already begun in several areas including the
following:
0 A schedule of monthly meetings for coordinating
activities for the exchange of information has been set
and honored since October 1989. The purpose of these
meetings has been to avoid and prevent duplicative
activities and to identify areas for joint activities.
Information exchanged at these meetings has been used
by both NOAA and U.S. EPA in developing future research
and monitoring plans.
0 Combined NOAA/EPA quality control and assurance
procedures have been developed, and a joint NOAA/EPA
qualjlty assurance program will be implemented in 1990
for "the Near Coastal Demonstration Project of U.S.
EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.
0 EPA has transferred funds to NOAA to begin data
collection and synthesis efforts to characterize
important aspects of estuaries in the Virginia
Province.
0 NOAA has assisted EPA in development and evaluation of
marine/estuarine environmental quality indicators by
participating -in-*forkshops,—providing-data-f or
retrospective analyses and review of EPA plans.
0 NOAA personnel have been assigned to and will
participate directly in the FY 1990 EMAP Near Coastal
field measurement program.
The desire to implement this agreement reflects the success of
ongoing cooperation and the desire of both agencies to further
enhance the exchange of information.
III. COOPERATIVE PLANNING
The NOAA/NOS and U.S. EPA/ORD agree to coordinate the planning
and implementation of their research, monitoring, and assessment
-------
programs for assessing the ecological condition of near coastal
environments. This program shall include:
0 Research and monitoring to assess the effects of human
activities on near coastal environment and the
effectiveness of existing environmental regulations and
policies.
0 Research related to testing and evaluating indicators
of ecological condition.
0 Planning and establishment of status and trends
monitoring networks.
0 Synthesis and integration of monitoring and assessment
data, including retrospective analyses.
0 Identification of emerging coastal pollution problems.
IV. COORDINATION STRUCTURE
The framework for monitoring and research conducted under this
memorandum shall be developed through the NOAA/EPA Joint
Committee for Coastal and Marine Environmental Quality
Monitoring. This committee was created to ensure coordination
and exchange of information between the two programs on
monitoring, research, and assessment activities.
The activities of this joint committee shall include:
0 Early and continuing communication about research and
monitoring priorities.
0 Interactive planning and review of plans.
0 Exchange of funds for work on joint projects.
0 Interim review of results,_discussions_p_f areas of
concern, and recommendations of actions.
0 Joint synthesis and integration of the data collected
by each agency.
0 Planning and approval of joint documents assessing the
status and trends of the ecological condition of near
coastal environments and other projects deemed
necessary.
V. OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
It is the intenr~of~NOAA/NOS and EPA/ORD to interact with other
organizations conducting monitoring and research programs within
-------
the scope of the Agreement.
This agreement and subsequent Memoranda of Understanding shall be
considered subject to revision by direction from either of the
principal agencies.
oT
-------
APPENDIX C
List of Participants at the EMAP-NC Indicator Workshop
-------
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN INDICATORS
Denise Breitburg
Academy of Natural Science
Benedict Estuarine Research Lab
Benedict, MD
Robert Diaz
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA
Jeffrey B. Frithsen
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
Jonathan Garber
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI
Michael Haire
Maryland Department of the Environment
Baltimore, MD
Fred Holland
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
William Muir
U.S. EPA, Region III
Philadelphia, PA
William Nelson
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI
Joel S. O'Connor
U.S. EPA, Region II
New York, NY
John Paul U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI
Nancy N. Rabalais
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
Chauvin, LA
C-3
-------
Ananda Ranasinghe
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
John Scott
SAIC
Narragansett, RI
Anna Shaughnessy
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
Steve Weisberg
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
BENTHIC INDICATORS
Robert Diaz
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA
Jeffrey B. Frithsen
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
Jonathan Garber
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI
Fred Holland
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
John Kraeuter
Rutgers University
Port Norris, NJ
Mark Luckenback
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA
Sam Luoma
U.S. Geological Survey
Menlo Park, CA
C-4
-------
Foster "Sonny" Mayer
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Gulf Breeze, FL
Joel S. O'Connor
U.S. EPA, Region II
New York, NY
Fred Pinkney
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
Ananda Ranasinghe
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
Donald C. Rhoads
SAIC
Woods Hole, MA
John Scott
SAIC
Narragansett, RI
John Stein
NOAA
Seattle, WA
Kevin Summers
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Gulf Breeze, FL
Steve Weisberg
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
FISH AND SHELLFISH INDICATORS
John Boreman
UMAS/NOAA CMER Program
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA
Linda A. Deegan
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, MA
C-5
-------
Tom DeMoss
U.S. EPA, Region III
Annapolis, MD
Frank Hetrick
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
Fred Holland
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
James R. Karr
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University
Blacksburg, VA
John Kraeuter
Rutgers University
Port Norris, NJ
Mark Luckenback
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA
Sam Luoma
U.S. Geological Survey
Menlo Park, CA
Foster "Sonny" Mayer
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Gulf Breeze, FL
William Nelson
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, RI
Joel S. O'Connor
U.S. EPA, Region II
New York, NY
Tom O'Connor
NOAA
National Status and Trends Program
Rockville, MD
Fred Pinkney
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
C-6
-------
William Richkus
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
John Scott
SAIC
Narragansett, RI
John Stein
NOAA
Seattle, WA
Kevin Summers
U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory
Gulf Breeze, FL
Steve Weisberg
Versar, Inc.
Columbia, MD
C-7
-------
CONTRIBUTORS AND COMMENTS
Individuals who made significant contributions to the
preparation of this document were, in alphabetical order:
Dr. Jeffrey Frithsen, Versar, Inc.
Dr. Jeroen Gerritsen, Versar, Inc.
Dr. Fred Holland, Versar, Inc.
Dr. John Paul, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Narrangansett, Rhode
Island
Mr. Jeffrey S. Rosen, Computer Sciences Corporation
Mr. Steven Schimmel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode
Island
Dr. John Scott, Science Applications International
Mr. Charles Strobel, Science Applications International
Dr. Kevin Summers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida
Dr. Stephen Weisberg, Versar, Inc.
Mr. Raymond Valente, Science Applications International.
This document greatly benefitted from comments received
from the following:
Mr. John Baker
Mr. Dan Basta
Dr. Tudor Davies
Dr. Doug Heimbuch
Dr. Rick Linthurst
Dr. Jay Messer
Mr. David Marmoreck
Mr. Thomas DeMoss
Mr. Jim Pollard
Dr. Thomas O'Connor
Dr. Scott Overton
Dr. Andy Robertson
•&U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1991.518. 18720555
C-l
------- |