OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000CEM\tiff\20013NFF.tif): Unspecified error
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND 1
Overview of the National Estuary Program 1
Purpose of this Document 1
The Role of Characterization 3
H. KEY TASKS IN THE TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS 9
Overview 9
Task 1: Identify and describe the valued resources/uses of
the estuary 11
Task 2: Determine the conditions of the valued
resources/uses 14
Task 3: Identify the priority problems being experienced by
the valued resources/uses 19
Task 4: Identify the likely causes of and possible solutions
to the priority problems 23
Task 5: Provide input to the Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan 29
Individual Project Reports 29
Characterization Report 30
Characterization Summary 31
Relationship to Monitoring 32
HI. MANAGING THE TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS 34
Roles in the Process 34
Process Management 34
Scientific/Technical Direction and Review 35
Management/Policy Direction and Review 36
Public Participation 36
Technical Work 37
Time Frame for Technical Characterization 38
IV. REFERENCES 41
V. GLOSSARY OF TERMS 43
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed wHh Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Purposes of an NEP management conference as defined in Section 320 of the
Clean Water Act 2
2 Casco Bay Five-Year Timeline, demonstrating overlap across the four phases
of the National Estuary Program 5
3 Matrix of management conference information needs 7
4 Relationships among the technical characterization tasks 10
5 Example worksheet used to establish relative importance of an estuary's
resources 13
6 Historical record of seagrass habitat in Tampa Bay (TBNEP, 1993) 15
7 Historical landings of spotted seatrout, one of the most sought-after
gamefish in Florida (TBNEP, 1993) 15
8 Dissolved oxygen levels (mg/1) over a seven day period in Little Sarasota
Bay (Tomasko, 1993) 17
9 Dissolved oxygen levels (mg/1) versus hours after sunrise in Little
Sarasota Bay (Tomasko, 1993) 17
10 Segmentation of Tampa Bay by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
(Treat et al., 1985) 18
11 Assessment matrix for a hypothetical estuary 20
12 Galveston Bay ecosystem impact matrix (GBNEP, 1994) 22
13 Problem linkage in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary 23
14 Conceptual models representing three main issues of eutrophication for
Massachusetts Bays (Kelly, 1991) 25
15 Areal blade productivity plotted against watershed nitrogen loads for
Thalassia testudinum from four sites in Sarasota Bay
(Tomasko et al, in review) 27
16 Areal blade productivity of Thalassia testudinum versus blade epiphyte loads
(Tomasko, 1993) 27
17 Depth limits of seagrass in Sarasota Bay as a function of segment-wide
annual average light attenuation coefficient 28
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
18 Hypothetical timeframes for characterizing two estuarine resources/uses 40
LIST OF TABLES
1 Typical sources of estuary problems 6
-------
I. BACKGROUND
Overview of the National Estuary Program
Estuaries1 are waterways, such as bays and sounds, where fresh water
drained from the surrounding watershed mixes with salt water from the ocean.
This blend of fresh and salt water makes estuaries biologically productive,
sustaining many kinds of finfish, shellfish, marshes, underwater grasses, and
microscopic marine life. Since estuaries have economic, aesthetic, and
recreational value to people, they are attracting a growing number of coastal
residents and commercial activities. Aquatic life and scenic values are affected
in many ways by these growing populations.
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act established the National Estuary
Program (NEP) to identify nationally significant estuaries threatened by
pollution, development, or overuse and to promote the preparation of
comprehensive management plans to ensure their ecological integrity. The
program's goals are protection and improvement of water quality and
enhancement of living resources. To reach these goals, the Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convenes management
conferences for each estuary in the NEP to provide a forum for consensus
building and problem solving among interested agencies and user groups. The
management conference studies environmental conditions and trends in the
estuary and their likely causes, identifies the most significant problems, and
develops an action-oriented Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) to address high-priority problems.
Some estuaries have already been studied to determine the range of
environmental problems. EPA has begun to focus on these estuaries as
appropriate areas to "streamline" CCMP development. The intent is to use the
NEP process to establish the validity of the initial characterization information
and develop consensus on the priority problems and potential management
solutions.
Purpose of this Document
Section 320 establishes several purposes (Figure 1) for NEP
management conferences, including a requirement under purposes 1-3 to
conduct an objective, technical assessment of the state of the estuary. This
assessment, called characterization, is the basis for defining and selecting the
problems to be addressed in the CCMP. In addition, purpose 5 calls for
management conferences to develop plans to coordinate implementation of the
CCMP by federal, state, and local agencies, and purpose 7 requires the
All italicized words are defined in the GLOSSARY OF TERMS.
-------
(1) Assess trends in water quality, natural resources, and uses of
the estuary
(2) Collect, characterize, and assess data on toxics, nutrients, and
natural resources within the estuarine zone to identify the causes
of environmental problems
(3) Develop the relationships between the inplace loads and point and nonpoint
loadings of pollutants to the estuarine zone and the
potential uses of the zone, water quality, and natural resources
(4) Develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan that
recommends priority corrective actions and compliance schedules addressing
point and nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the estuary, ... and assure that the
designated uses of the estuary are protected
(5) Develop plans for the coordinated implementation of the plan by states as
well as federal and local agencies participating in the conference
(6) Monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pursuant to the plan
(7) Review all federal financial assistance programs and federal
development projects ... to determine whether such assistance
programs or projects would be consistent with and further the
purposes or objectives of the plan prepared under this section.
Figure 1. Purposes of an NEP management conference as defined in
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act.
conference to review all federal financial assistance programs and development
projects for consistency with the CCMP. EPA has interpreted these purposes
to call for a two-part characterization process:
TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION--An evaluation of the
conditions of the resources and uses of the estuary, the priority
problems being experienced by those resources and uses, and the
causes of the priority problems; and
BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS--An analysis of existing federal,
state, and local resource management programs.
-------
This document provides guidance for NEPs on conducting technical
characterization of the estuary, including:
• Defining the role of technical characterization in CCMP
development;
• Outlining a broad, flexible process for conducting characterization;
and
• Identifying responsibilities of key management conference
participants.
A companion document, "National Estuary Program Guidance: Base
Program Analysis" (EPA, 1993), provides guidance on management
characterization of existing federal, state, and local resource management
programs.
Although the primary audience for this guidance is the members of the
management conference who will participate in the technical characterization
effort, the process it suggests may have applicability beyond the NEP. The
guidance is not intended to serve as a scientific treatise on estuarine studies;
rather it suggests a shared NEP framework for assessing environmental data
and ensuring that management decisions are informed by sound science.
The Role of Characterization
NEP management conferences follow four phases in developing their
CCMPs:
Phase 1: Convening the management conference and establishing a
structure of committees and procedures for conducting the
group's work;
Phase 2: Characterizing the estuary to determine its health, reasons
for its decline, and trends for future conditions; assessing
the effectiveness of existing efforts to protect the estuary;
and defining the highest priority problems to be addressed
in the CCMP;
Phase 3: Specifying action plans in the CCMP to address priority
problems identified through characterization and public
input. The CCMP builds as much as possible on existing
state, local, and federal programs; and
Phase 4: Monitoring the implementation of the CCMP, reviewing
progress, and redirecting efforts where appropriate.
-------
These phases need not occur sequentially, and do not under the
streamlined approach. As the NEP has evolved, EPA has encouraged
management conferences to proceed with the four phases simultaneously as
often as possible. For example, early results of characterization (Phase 2) may
indicate obvious management actions prior to completion of the CCMP. NEP
participants are encouraged to take early action where solutions are already
possible. In these cases, early implementation of management
recommendations can proceed using funds other than those available under
section 320. Figure 2 demonstrates the overlap in timing across the various
activities associated with the four NEP phases for the Casco Bay Estuary
Project. The Casco Bay Estuary Project completed a preliminary CCMP
within the first two years of the program. Based largely on initial
characterization work, the program identified five specific threats to the
estuary. The preliminary CCMP was used as a tool to focus subsequent
characterization work.
EPA has found this concurrent approach so effective that the Agency
has based selection of new estuaries on their ability to streamline the NEP
phases, focusing on estuaries where:
• Significant problem characterization is complete;
• A management framework analogous to a management conference
already exists; and
• Key state and local agencies have already committed to participate
in and support the NEP process.
Management conferences of NEPs selected under these criteria are
expected to complete development of CCMPs in less time than has been
allowed for previous management conferences. For example, a first draft of
the CCMP is to be completed within the first twelve to eighteen months of the
management conference being convened. Under the streamlined approach,
these first draft CCMPs will be used as tools for implementing early actions to
correct known and suspected problems of the estuary. In addition, the first
draft CCMPs will focus characterization efforts on filling data gaps that,
without further data collection, will prevent the management conference from
deciding what action is needed to correct a problem. This streamlined
approach to CCMP development will result in a more focused effort toward
achieving the goals of the NEP.
But to address less obvious or more complex problems, sound
characterization of the estuary's environmental and management status is
critical. During Phase 2 of the NEP process, the management conference
identifies and fills in information necessary to define priority problems,
determines areas for action, and identifies appropriate corrective actions.
Technical characterization answers questions about the physical, chemical, and
biological processes at work in the estuary. It also considers the scope and
intensity of threats to the estuary's health and identifies likely activities or
-------
p
f
E
1
1
V
>«
>
^^
U
<
8
£
O
I
1
>
I
o
1
ity Problems
«_i
o
£
£•
'•e
4)
2
f
I
3
CQ
>,
•o
B
(^
s/Trends
i
4-*
V)
>»
•o
2
t/i
e/Effect J
(/>
3
U
>%
S?
^^
2
«rf
V)
bo
*C
2
i
CO
m
•S
*o
«
>,
u
S
+^
"o
*-*
_o
15
5
ca
T3
£
bo
O
Z
c
<
Ou
S
U
u
S
*E
1
0-
S
u
u
S
Q
u
u
"«
il
-------
sources, such as inappropriate patterns of development, habitat destruction,
industrial wastewater, or agricultural runoff, that could be causing problems in
the estuary (Table 1).
TABLE 1. TYPICAL SOURCES OF ESTUARY PROBLEMS.
POINT SOURCES
Wastewater discharges from POTYVs
Direct wastewater discharges from industrial facilities
Combined sewer overflows
Stonnwater discharges
Animal feedlots
Boat discharges
NONPOINT SOURCES
Agricultural runoff
Urban and suburban runoff
Silvicultural runoff
In-place sediments
Mining runoff
Construction site runoff
Landfill runoff/Ieachate
Septic system leaks and overflows
Atmospheric deposition
Groundwater pollutant transfer
OTHER
Shipping and marinas
Dredging
Shoreline development
Freshwater inflow
Sea level rise
Essential though it is, however, science cannot marshall action alone.
As presented in Figure 3, decision makers must also consider whether
corrective actions are possible. Some problems, for example, may rate as high
priorities for the CCMP because mechanisms to address them are already in
place or could be readily implemented. The companion base program
analysis, therefore, serves as a management characterization of the estuary
through a process of describing the framework of institutions and programs
within which a CCMP will be implemented. The base program analysis also
assesses the effectiveness of that framework in managing and protecting the
estuary's resources, and when combined with the technical characterization,
recommends issues to be addressed in the CCMP based on potential
management enhancements or alternatives.
-------
Priority
Problems
Types of
Information
Desired
E
V
«•
I
i
•t
*.
I
£
I
o
0*
What activities or pollutants are
problems in the estuary?
Do they produce system-wide
impacts?
Are the impacts significant
enough to affect the entire
estuary?
PROVIDED BY THE TECHNICAL
CHARACTERIZATION
Do they affect potential uses
of the estuary?
Can the causes or
sources be identified?
Do existing programs
address problems?
PROVIDED BY THE
BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS
T
How effective are they?
If programs aren't effective,
why not?
\
What are some potential
solutions?
What institutional or
management barriers impede
solutions?
DETERMINED BY THE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
(with recommendations from
the Bue Program Analysis)
r^y,
What resources (funding, staff,
public support, etc.) are
available for addressing
probems and their causes?
During characterization and problem definition (Phase 2), the Management Conference
assembles information (rows of this matrix) about suspected high-priority estuary
problems (columns).
Each cell in this matrix actually represents from one to many pages of information
answering the row's question for that priority problem. The Management Conference
may decide to drop some priority problems from consideration (shown hatched above)
because the technical characterization indicates they are not significant enough to
require action in the CCMP.
Figure 3. Matrix of management conference information needs.
-------
Together, the technical characterization and base program analysis
provide the information necessary for developing CCMP recommendations and
help the management conference secure effective mechanisms for addressing
priority problems and their causes.
8
-------
n. KEY TASKS IN THE TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION
PROCESS
Overview
As defined previously, the fundamental goal of technical
characterization is to provide information on which to base decisions and
propose actions in the CCMP. To satisfy this goal, the following major
objectives or tasks need to be undertaken:
Task 1: Identify and describe the valued resources/uses of the
estuary
Task 2: Determine the condition of the valued resources/uses
Task 3: Identify the priority problems being experienced by the
valued resources/uses
Task 4: Identify the likely causes of and possible solutions to the
priority problems
Task 5: Provide input to the comprehensive conservation and
management plan
The relationships among the technical characterization tasks are
presented graphically in Figure 4. As is shown in Figure 4, the later tasks in
the process build upon the results of the earlier tasks. It is important to note
that the ability to move from one task to the next is governed by the
availability and quality of environmental data, both of which may vary among
the valued resources/uses. This variability may result in the development and
implementation of recommended actions much earlier for some of the
resources/uses than for others. For example, a management conference may
be able to proceed relatively quickly, and with relatively less effort, through
Tasks 1-3 if a particular resource has been well studied prior to the estuary
being selected for the NEP. Therefore, the individual tasks that comprise
technical characterization may occur on different timeframes for each of the
valued resources/uses.
It is also important to note that technical characterization plays a key
role in many of the decisions that are made by the management conference
prior to the development of the CCMP. For example, the decision to
implement early actions with other than section 320 funds (the "Action Now
Agenda"; see Figure 2) is made based on a determination that an adequate
understanding of a particular problem exists. Also, the selection of Action
Plan Demonstration Projects by the management conference combines early
technical characterization results with pilot-scale solutions that may be
recommended later in the CCMP for estuary-wide application. Therefore, the
value of the technical characterization process can be demonstrated on many
levels.
-------
Task 1: Identify Resources/Uses
Task 2: Determine Conditions
Task 3: Identify Priority Problems
Review existing information
Address data gaps
Task 4: Identify Likely Causes
& Possible Solutions
r
~l
Review existing information
dat
Address data gaps
1
OTHER DECISIONS:
- APDPs
- "Action Now" Agenda
Task 5: Provide Input to CCMP
MANAGEMENT
CHARACTERIZATION
Technical characterization
Relationship to other parts of CCMP development process
Figure 4. Relationships among the technical characterization tasks.
10
-------
Although collection of new data may be required to address critical
information gaps or specific issues that are identified for early action by the
management conference, technical characterization in the NEP relies heavily
on existing environmental data. In fact, a criterion for selection into the NEP
is the advanced state of knowledge concerning the conditions of the estuary.
Effective management of environmental data is as important to the
success of the characterization effort as collecting the data. Data analysis
efforts conducted in conjunction with the technical characterization process are
often hampered by historical data that are not readily available (i.e., lost,
misplaced, or inaccessible) or that lack essential information necessary to
evaluate the comparability of data sets (i.e., sampling methods, QA/QC
protocols). Often, while significant funds are expended on data collection, the
amount of funding allocated to data management is relatively small and
inadequate. Failure to plan for data management early in the process can
result in loss of information, thus wasting funds allocated to data collection
efforts. To overcome these potential pitfalls, NEP experience to date suggests
that three factors be considered when developing a data and information
management system to support the technical characterization process:
• Location and accessibility of the data
• Methods used to collect and analyze the data
• Relevance of the data to the goals and objectives for the estuary
The following sections describe the tasks of the technical
characterization process, including relevant examples from the NEP. The
tasks outlined in this guidance are intended to provide a generic framework for
technical characterization, leaving each management conference the flexibility
to modify this framework to suit its specific needs.
Task 1; Identify and describe the valued resources/uses of the estuary
A critical first step, not only for characterization, but also for
developing the CCMP, is to identify and describe the valued resources and
uses of the estuary. It is important to begin the technical characterization
process with a focus on resources and uses; because, in some cases, the
management conference's efforts may need to be directed at protection rather
than restoration (i.e., preventing a problem rather than correcting one). If the
management conference only considers existing problems from the start,
problem prevention may be overlooked. In addition, it is important that the
management conference identify the most valued resources and uses of the
estuary early in the technical characterization process, establishing priorities
which will focus the remaining characterization work.
As a practical matter, much of the identification of valued resources
and uses is accomplished during development of the nomination package that is
11
-------
submitted prior to the estuary's entry into the NEP. In establishing the need
to convene a management conference, the nomination package provides a
general synthesis of available information on the economic and ecologic value
of the estuary. In addition, the nomination package presents examples of the
overall goals and environmental quality objectives that will be proposed to the
management conference once it is convened. Therefore, accomplishing Task 1
does not generally require the collection of new environmental data once the
management conference is convened.
The information summarized hi the nomination package provides a
valuable starting point for the management conference in accomplishing the
first task of technical characterization. However, it is critical that, once
convened, the management conference reach consensus on the valued resources
and uses of the estuary. To accomplish this, the management conference must
establish criteria for identifying the most "valued" resources and uses of an
estuary, reflecting the overall goals and environmental quality objectives of the
management conference. Identifying these criteria can often be difficult,
because the value of many of the estuary's resources and uses are not easily
quantified through traditional techniques. NEPs have used a variety of
methods to develop these criteria, including ecological risk analysis, human
health risk analysis, legislation, and public debate. Some of the NEPs,
including Casco Bay, Indian River Lagoon, and Galveston Bay, are attempting
to incorporate economic valuation factors into their priority setting process.
EPA's Oceans and Coastal Protection Division is currently developing a
handbook on the use of economic resource valuation in the NEP.
It is important to gather public input at this stage to begin building
long-term commitment to achieving the program's goals. This has often been
accomplished through public workshops and conferences sponsored by the
management conference. For example, in 1989 and 1990, the Delaware
Estuary Program conducted a series of facilitated workshops to form a "vision
of the Delaware Estuary for the year 2020 which was shared by a diversity of
people representing the users of the estuary" (DELEP, 1990). During
facilitated discussions, workshop participants identified the most important uses
and resources of the estuary, largely based on their individual perspectives as
users (i.e., fishermen, recreational boaters, land developers, birdwatchers,
businessmen, farmers, etcetera). Participants agreed on the following list:
• Fisheries
• Wildlife
• Recreation
• Water Supply
• Commerce
12
-------
These uses and values were the basis for goals and objectives endorsed
by the management conference.
Worksheets, such as the one shown in Figure 5, can be used to develop
a graphical representation of the overall relative importance of the estuary's
resources. The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project used forms of this
worksheet as workshop tools to stimulate discussion among participating
managers and technical experts. Environmental managers and regulators were
asked to position the valued resources along the Public Value axis; technical
and scientific participants were asked to position the resources along the
Ecological Value axis. The results were combined and resources were then
positioned on a master worksheet. Valued resources in the upper right
quadrant had the highest overall value, while those positioned in the lower left
quadrant had the lowest value.
HIGH
ECONOMIC/PUBLIC
VALUE
LOW
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
Health
Wetlands
y\Zooplankton
y\Benthos
HIGH
ECOLOGICAL
VALUE
LOW
ECONOMIC/PUBLIC
VALUE
Figure 5. Example worksheet used to establish relative importance of an
estuary's resources.
Opinion surveys have also been used frequently in the NEP to identify
perceptions of user groups and the general public concerning the valued
resources and uses of an estuary. In 1987, the Narragansett Bay Project
13
-------
conducted such a survey to determine public perceptions concerning uses of
the Bay, threats to those uses, and choices that should be made between
competing uses (NBP, 1987). A random sample of adults was selected from a
sampling frame stratified to reflect geographic distribution of the adult
population of Rhode Island. According to the researchers who conducted the
survey, the sample of 503 people produced results that were within +4 percent
of the results which would have been obtained by sampling the entire adult
population of Rhode Island. Based on the survey results, two closely related
issues, pollution and risk from contaminated fish, were the most important
issues to the public. Also, the researchers noted a consistent tendency by the
public to assign a high priority to pollution issues. The results of the survey
helped to set the direction of the Project in future years.
Identification of the most valued resources and uses allows the
management conference to begin the process of identifying priority problems
of the estuary. A focused approach to characterization is necessary under the
NEP, because time and funding constraints limit an expanded assessment to
only the more important or "valued" resources and uses. Those resources and
uses which are ranked low by the management conference could be addressed
in the "unfinished agenda" described later in this document.
Task 2; Determine the conditions of the valued resources/uses
Once the management conference has identified the valued resources
and uses of the estuary, the current condition of each of these resources/uses
must be assessed. Therefore, Task 2 of the technical characterization is
essentially a status and trends analysis of each of the resources/uses. The
status and trends analysis presents the past and current conditions of the
estuary, and predicts the future conditions of the estuary should current trends
continue. NEPs are also encouraged to analyze trends in demographics, land
use, census, and other data that may influence the environmental conditions.
Puget Sound's "State of the Sound" 1988 Report dedicated an entire chapter to
"Human Development of the Puget Sound Area" which projected future trends
in population, economic development, and land uses (PSWQA, 1988). In
addition, Task 2 activities help to highlight gaps in information concerning the
condition of the estuary. The identification of these information gaps can help
determine the necessity for new data collection efforts during the technical
characterization process.
A simple status and trends analysis can show obvious changes over
time. These status and trends analyses consist of simple plots or other forms
of graphical analyses of the available data. These very simple charts are most
useful to demonstrate the estuary's current conditions and changes over time to
the public and decision makers, the key audiences for the characterization
results. For example, Figure 6, taken from the Tampa Bay Status and Trends
Report, presents the historical record of seagrass habitat loss in Tampa Bay
(TBNEP, 1993). Figure 7 presents the historical landings of spotted seatrout,
14
-------
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN SEAGRASSES
* ESTIMATE,BASED ON
Figure 6. Historical record of seagrass habitat loss in Tampa Bay
(TBNEP, 1993).
SPOTTED
SEATROUT
747.OOO 4OO.OOO 225.OOO 1O4,
Pou IM as
ooo
Figure 7. Historical landings of spotted seatrout, one of the most sought-
after gamefish in Florida (TBNEP, 1993).
15
-------
one of the most sought-after gamefish in Florida (TBNEP, 1993). The report
did not point to a specific cause and effect relationship, but indicated that the
combined loss of seagrasses and overharvesting have played a part in the
decline of seatrout landings.
A basic trend analysis, while an important first step toward
understanding the estuary's conditions, does not always lead to clear cut
hypotheses or conclusions in itself. For example, Figure 6 shows that seagrass
beds have stabilized in acreage since 1982, yet the sea trout landings
(Figure 7) have continued to decline. But such trend analyses allow the
conference to identify questions which direct future characterization work,
leading the conference to the information it needs to formulate
recommendations for the management actions. Questions such as "Although
seagrass acreage has remained constant, has the health and productivity of the
seagrass beds been altered?" and "What is the optimum level of seagrass
habitat we need to support the seatrout fisheries?" can be identified by the
conference through the simple trend analyses.
Detection of more subtle changes over time requires more detailed
analyses and statistical tests. For these analyses, several attributes of the data
(e.g., distributional characteristics, seasonality, and correlation among factors)
need to be explored to determine the applicability of available tests for
detecting changes in environmental conditions. Data collected during this task
can help in designing sampling protocols for the monitoring plan, a
requirement under purpose 7 of the management conference. The Sarasota
Bay Program collected data demonstrating diurnal fluctuations in dissolved
oxygen levels, as shown in Figure 8 (Tomasko, 1993). Figure 9 shows
thatprevious sampling in Little Sarasota Bay was typically conducted during
mid-morning to early afternoon, thus eliminating the highs and lows of the
data, and biasing any dissolved oxygen trend analyses (Tomasko, 1993). The
Sarasota Bay Program used this information to design the monitoring protocols
for dissolved oxygen in the post-CCMP monitoring plan.
The "Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program" (EPA,
1992a) provides examples of analyses conducted by the Chesapeake Bay
Program to evaluate the response of water quality parameters to nutrient
reduction actions. This case study includes an evaluation of existing data to
determine the minimum trend that could be detected at different levels of
sampling effort.
In evaluating the conditions of the estuary, it is often useful to adopt a
segmentation scheme. Segmentation refers to the division of an estuary into
subareas based on homogeneous conditions such as bottom type, salinity, or
water temperature. Physical, chemical, and/or biological data for the estuary
are then aggregated based on these segments. Segmentation represents a
compromise between the difficulty of resolving the physical detail of an entire
estuary and the expediency of dealing with a small number of geographical
units. The purpose of technical characterization is to provide information that
16
-------
e 7
en
f 6
& 5
>. 5
x
O
•o 4
1 3
in
(20 cm above bottom)
Sept. 5,1991-Sect. 11.1991
Figure 8. Dissolved oxygen levels (mg/I) over a seven day period in Little
Sarasota Bay (Tomasko, 1993).
Dissolved Oxygen vs. Hours After Sunrise
(20 cm above bottom)
D.O.
levels
seen in
typical
samples
10 15
Hours alter sunrise
20
25
Hours when D.O.
is typically sampled
Figure 9. Dissolved oxygen levels (mg/1) versus hours after sunrise in
Little Sarasota Bay (Tomasko, 1993).
17
-------
can be linked with the results of the management characterization to
recommend corrective actions in the CCMP. Since these actions are often
geared toward meeting environmental restoration and protection goals for
segments of the estuary, analysis of the status and trends of the resources for
each segment is a natural approach. Figure 10 shows a segmentation scheme,
adopted by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, that subdivides Tampa
Bay into seven segments (Treat et al, 1985). Pollutant load reduction goals,
and management actions to achieve them, will be developed by the Tampa Bay
management conference to address the following targeted habitats:
• Saline and oligohaline seagrasses
• Emergent marshes
• Mangroves
• Unvegetated benthic, intertidal, and superlittoral habitats
• Pelagic
2COO
27-4S
17'JO-
w SUBDIVISIONS OF TAMPA BAY
^ 1 OLD TAMPA BAY 8 BOCA CIEOA BAY N
> 3 HILLSBOROUQH BAY « TERRA CEIA BAY
3 MIDDLE TAMPA BAY 7 MANATEE RIVER
4 LOWER TAMPA BAY
JB'U'
28'00'
27'4«'
27'JO'
B2'46-
82'30'
Figure 10. Segmentation of Tampa Bay by the Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program (Treat et al, 1985).
18
-------
From a statistical perspective, determining the status and trends of
valued resources and uses has inherent uncertainty associated with it due to a
number of factors, including errors of measurement, limits of precision in
measurement or analytical methods, statistical variability of the analytical
methods, and inherent spatial and temporal variability of the parameters being
measured. Of equal importance is the actual range of values found in the data.
A wide range of values may be due to natural variation, sampling design,
and/or analytical methods. This uncertainty in the data is carried over into the
status and trends analysis and affects the conclusions drawn from the data.
For these reasons, Task 2 necessarily involves an evaluation of the quality of
existing data based on completeness, accuracy, and precision. This
information is used to assure the validity of comparisons being made between
various data sets, which is important when quantitative analyses are required.
The expectation for Task 2 of the technical characterization effort is
that the results will provide a summary of the status and trends of the estuary's
resources and uses, leading to a set of hypotheses concerning cause-effect
relationships under Task 4 based on a preponderance of evidence. In general,
the basic research and effort required to establish definitive cause-effect
relationships are beyond the timeframe of the NEP, given the considerations
related to the use of existing data presented previously. However, some
management conferences may be able to build on pre-NEP research to
establish conclusive cause-effect relationships within the NEP timeframe.
Task 3; Identify the priority problems being experienced bv the valued
resources/uses
Once the conditions of the valued resources/uses have been assessed,
the management conference must reach consensus on the highest priority
problems being experienced by the estuary. These priorities form a critical
foundation for development of the action plans in the CCMP, where it is often
necessary to make choices from among the universe of management options.
As with the identification of valued resources/uses under Task 1, the
identification of priority problems should draw on the groundwork established
in the estuary's nomination package. However, as with Task 1, it is important
that the management conference reach consensus on the priority problems. An
approach for establishing priorities among the estuary's problems is
summarized in the National Research Council's "Managing Troubled Waters"
(NRC, 1990). The end product of this approach is an assessment matrix that
presents valued resources and the likely causes of problems being experienced
by those resources (Figure 11). Each cell in the matrix summarizes the effects
of any given perturbation on a single valued resource. The assessment matrix
also provides a quick assessment of how a perturbation affects a number of
valued resources, and how a single resource is affected by a number of
different perturbations.
19
-------
VALUED
RESOURCES
RunoK (Non-Point Soureat)
Waitawatar Outfalls
Dredging
OiVChwnal Spite
Shoreline Modification
Inflow Modification
Power Plant*
Sh(jping
Agriculture
Stem*
Bloonv/lnvasiont
ManneDebm
Commercial Fithing
Sport F«hng
Sea level Change*
-------
The process of developing the matrix provides an effective tool for
building consensus among the wide range of parties participating in the
management conference. The matrix is developed based on the answers to
several questions about the estuary, including:
(1) What are the important or valued resources in the estuary?
(2) What perturbations cause problems with these resources?
(3) What is the potential influence of each perturbation on these
resources?
(4) Do these perturbations cause system-wide problems?
(5) What is the level of scientific understanding of the interaction
between each perturbation and resource?
It should be noted that these questions are similar in nature to, but
more specific than, the information needs identified previously in Figure 3.
Answers to these questions can be drawn from Tasks 1 and 2 of the technical
characterization process. However, it is important to develop these answers
through a consensus process that incorporates input from scientific and
technical experts, managers, and the concerned public. To accomplish this, a
worksheet similar to that shown in Figure 5 can be used to rank perturbation
sources relative to their effects on the valued resources/uses identified under
Task 1. For each cell in the matrix, it is necessary to summarize the present
understanding of the relationship between each valued resource and each
source of perturbation. This information is the result of evaluations and
analyses performed under Task 2. Summarizing this information in the matrix
also creates a powerful tool for assessing gaps in understanding the estuary.
The Galveston Bay NEP (GBNEP, 1994) used a similar approach for
identifying and prioritizing valued resources and developing an assessment
matrix (Figure 12). The GBNEP developed, with public input, a Priority
Problem list to direct characterization work and to rank and fund projects. An
initial assessment matrix was subsequently developed and circulated among
members of the Program's Technical Advisory Committee. After a consensus
was developed within this Committee, the matrix was forwarded to the
Program's Management Committee for further refinement and approval.
GBNEP found the matrix to be valuable for consensus building within the
conference and to help guide and focus the scientific work of the conference.
This approach provides the essential information about estuarine
resources and sources of perturbation. GBNEP's Ecosystem Impact Matrix
also identifies certain relationships that are poorly understood and was used by
GBNEP to identify and prioritize resources, priority problems, and sources of
perturbation. The essential components of the approach are the basic questions
identified above and some mechanism for consensus building and public
participation. The results from ongoing studies conducted during the technical
21
-------
OJ
<
I
1
8
5
ft
1
I
1
o
I
1
•5
*
I
i
i
X
1
1
I
m
1
if
I
-s
1
I
|
c
•B.
i
i
1"
6
*
*
*
*
,.
p»
*
*
*
*
*
p-
*
*
*
*
*
p-
p-
*
*
*
.
*
*
*
!
*
*
*
*
P"
P-.
*
I
*
*
* i
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
..
-
..
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
p-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
P-.
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
p-
P"
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
.
p-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
p-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
..
-
*
*
-
*
*
*
*
p-
p-
*
*
*
*
P-.
*
*
*
*
-
p-
*
*
P-.
*
*
p-
p-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
p-
p-
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
p-
P"
*
P-.
p-
p-
*
-
^.
*
*
*
t
*
*
*
*
-
55 2 W 3
i i i i
*
* *
* * *
* * * *
03
cc t
I I
8 -
u= (0
vi «n oi en
8 8 1 J
3 3 «/> *2
<8 <5? ± ±
I
I
O
.a
a
£
o
a
M
o
1
o
a>
a.
s
22
-------
characterization then provide essential information that assist the management
conference in selecting the highest priority problems to be addressed in the
CCMP. These studies often serve as the basis for distinguishing between
perceived problems and real problems.
In characterizing an estuary, it is important to consider the linkages
among the priority problems, in addition to considering them in isolation.
These linkages could dramatically influence conclusions concerning cause-
effect relationships under Task 4, and subsequent recommendations for action.
An example of problem linkage can be found in the Barataria-Terrebonne
National Estuary Program (BTNEP). The BTNEP Conference Agreement
describes the interconnections among seven priority problems (Figure 13):
hydrological modification, habitat loss, sediment loss, changes in living
resources, eutrophication, pathogens, and toxic substances. Hydrological
modification is identified as the "lynch pin" problem that influences all six of
the other priority problems.
Interconnections Among
Priority Problems
Hydrologic modification
Direct Effects
Habitat loss
Changes in living
resources
Indirect Effects
Eutropliication l__
Pathogens
SOCIO - ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Figure 13. Problem linkage in the Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary.
Task 4; Identify the likely causes of and possible solutions to the priority
problems
Under Tasks 1-3 of the technical characterization, the management
conference evaluates the conditions of the estuary and identifies priority
23
-------
problems. The results of these tasks provide a picture of the health of the
estuary. However, because the ultimate goal of the management conference is
to develop a CCMP that "recommends priority corrective actions," the most
important output from the technical characterization is the identification of
likely causes of the priority problems (Task 4). The likely causes become a
link between the technical and management characterizations (Figure 4),
providing targets for recommendations developed in the CCMP.
A basic description of the estuary's processes and functions is necessary
to determine likely causes of the priority problems. This "snapshot" of the
estuary allows the management conference to evaluate the relative linkages
between various human activities and the priority problems. Therefore, to
develop a complete picture of the estuary, it is important to have access to
land use and demographic information as well as physical, chemical, and
biological data. NEPs have used various methods to describe their estuaries,
ranging from narrative descriptions to conceptual models. These two methods
are presented below, but others may be useful as well.
A narrative description may take the form of a qualitative, nontechnical
summary of existing information explaining the relationships between natural
and human perturbations and impacts on valued resources. A narrative
description often includes a mix of qualitative and quantitative and technical
descriptions. The Puget Sound NEP used this approach in its "1988 State of
the Sound Report" (PSWQA, 1988). Qualitative, thorough descriptions of the
estuarine processes were combined with simple diagrams showing circulation
patterns, marine, freshwater, and terrestrial habitats, and living resource
information, relating how various factors influence the estuarine processes and
resources. This report also made use of easy to read qualitative narrative
matrices to describe: 1) the possible causes, current status, and outlook for
each problem indicator; 2) pollutants, possible sources, and associated impacts;
3) sources, effects, and trends; and 4) the distribution of certain contaminants
in the Sound. These matrices were concise, simple, and contained on one
page.
Another useful method for describing the affected estuary involves the
development of a diagrammatic or conceptual model to represent the current
understanding of estuarine structure and function. Good conceptual models
clearly and succinctly represent the best understanding of ecosystem resources
(e.g., wetlands, fish, sediments), processes (e.g., predation, turbulent mixing),
and factors controlling their interactions. A well-constructed conceptual model
can plainly represent and communicate the complex interactions and processes
characteristic of estuaries in a form that is more concise than most narrative
descriptions. Examples of three conceptual models, representing the three
main issues related to eutrophication in Massachusetts Bays, are presented in
Figure 14 (Kelly, 1991).
24
-------
(a) Dissolved Oxygen Depletion
Contributing Factors
• Light
• Suspended matter
• Temperature
• Salinity
• Physics (mixing, stratification,
advection, air-sea exchange)
• Nutrients
• Organic matter
(b) Stimulation of Problem Phytoplankton
Contributing Factors
• Nutrient quality and
"quality" (N/P/Si)
• Light
• Suspended matter
• Temperature
• Salinity
• Physics (mixing, stratification,
advection)
(c) Changes in the Food Web
Contributing Factors
• Light
• Suspended matter
• Temperature
• Salinity
• Physics (mixing, stratification,
advection)
• Nutrient "quality"
• Plankton species
Figure 14. Conceptual models representing three main issues of
eutrophication for Massachusetts Bays (Kelly, 1991).
25
-------
Conceptual model development should be directed by a clear
articulation of the model's purpose. A well-defined statement of purpose
identifies the model's use, topic of concern, type of information to be
included, and intended audience. Conceptual models possess the following
attributes that can help advance the technical characterization process:
• They provide an explicit structure for organizing and summarizing
existing knowledge of the system.
• They provide a common language, thereby enhancing
communications between managers and scientists.
• They provide a frame of reference for reviewing the rationale
behind management decisions.
The following elements should be included in any conceptual model:
• Natural and anthropogenic perturbation sources
• Potentially impacted, valued resources
• Processes affecting exposure to perturbations, and resource stress
(i.e. contaminant transport; contaminant transformations; and
contaminant bioaccumulation)
How an estuary, or part of an estuary, responds to anthropogenic and
non-anthropogenic perturbations can involve the interplay of a number of
valued resources and estuarine processes. It is important to understand this
interplay to evaluate the potential for multiple benefits that may derive from
addressing a single cause (e.g., control of storm runoff may have positive
effects on submerged aquatic vegetation and shellfish beds). Conceptual
models can assist the management conference by depicting these interactions in
a manner that identifies likely cause-effect relationships, and that facilitates the
development of appropriate management actions and monitoring objectives.
Once likely cause-effect relationships of the priority problems have
been established, the management conference goes on to determine the strength
of those relationships. Statistical techniques such as regression and correlation
analyses can be used to explore the nature of these relationships and the degree
to which measurements of two or more factors vary together. For example,
Figure 15 shows a relationship between seagrass productivity and nitrogen
loads in Sarasota Bay. Figure 16 shows the relationship between seagrass
productivity and epiphyte loads (Tomasko, 1993). The Sarasota Bay Program
found that elevated nitrogen loads negatively impact seagrasses, but stimulate
the productivity of epiphytes, naturally occurring algae which adhere to
seagrass blades, thus reducing light availability to the seagrasses (Tomasko et
al., in review). In order to document that water quality monitoring programs
have biological relevance, a correlation analysis was performed on yearly
average light attenuation coefficients versus the depth to which seagrasses
26
-------
5
ft
E
|
:E
v
I
CO
100 200 300 400 500
Watershed Nitrogen Loads (kg N / day)
600 700
Figure 15. Areal blade productivity plotted against watershed nitrogen
loads for Thalassia testudinum from four sites in Sarasota Bay
(Tomasko et al, in review).
3.5
N 2,5
I 2
Blade Productivity vs. Epiphyte Loads
(four sites in Sarasou Bay)
i
&
L5
i
0.5
0
10 20
30 40 SO 60
Epiphytes (percent of blade wt.)
70 80
Figure 16. Area! blade productivity of Thalassia testudinum versus blade
epiphyte loads (Tomasko, 1993).
27
-------
grow in Sarasota Bay. As a result, Figure 17 suggests that this method of
measuring water clarity is a meaningful tool for estimating the depth to which
seagrasses grow. With shallow bottom slopes, dramatic increases in seagrass
habitat can be achieved with minimal increases in water clarity (Tomasko,
1993). Such clear graphical depictions of characterization's key findings are
extremely convincing to both scientists and the general public. If time and
resources permit, the management conference can take these findings one step
further by developing mathematical functions to summarize the observed
relationships. These functions can form the basis for the use of predictive
tools, such as the water quality and hydrodynamic models being developed by
the Long Island Sound Study (LISS, 1990).
2
i
V-5
0)
•o
0)
o 1
m •
VI
s
o
"5
u
0
0.4
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1
Yearly Avg. Light Attenuation Coefficient (k)
1.2 1.3
Figure 17. Depth limits of seagrasses in Sarasota Bay as a function of
segment-wide annual average light attenuation coefficient
(Tomasko, 1993).
It is important to again point out the distinction between identifying
likely causes of priority problems under technical characterization and
establishing absolute cause-effect relationships. The former involves the
development of hypotheses, using the best available evidence, concerning
cause-effect relationships. The latter typically requires the collection of field
or laboratory data under controlled conditions; an effort that is often beyond
the timeframe available for NEP characterization.
28
-------
Task 5; Provide input to the Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan
As was noted previously in this document, the fundamental goal of
technical characterization in the NEP is to provide information on which
tobase decisions and propose actions in the CCMP. This technical information
is provided by establishing the status and trends of estuarine resources,
identifying impacts being experienced, and determining the likely causes of
those impacts. However, to be useful, the technical characterization must be
linked with the management characterization, resulting in the direct
development of management recommendations in the CCMP. This linkage
occurs at two important points in the process (Figure 4). First, priority
problems identified under Task 3 of the technical characterization provide the
initial focus for evaluating the existing management structure of the estuary.
Second, the likely causes identified under Task 4 indicate the kinds of
programs, controls, and tools that should be evaluated during the management
characterization. In addition, any gaps in coverage between the causes of
priority problems and existing management programs may highlight a need to
recommend new authorities or programs in the CCMP.
During this task, the conference scientists must glean and present to the
conference the key findings of technical characterization, the important
information that will help the managers and decision makers decide on the
management actions. Generally, this results in three types of products:
• Individual project reports
• Characterization report
• CCMP public summary
These products vary in their level of detail depending on the audience,
as described below.
Individual Project Reports
The products generated during technical characterization will include
reports that present the conclusions of various studies commissioned by the
management conference to accomplish Tasks 1-4. The content of these reports
will most often be technical in nature, intended to provide a scientific basis for
recommendations developed in the CCMP. It is important for these reports to
be well written and, as much as possible, to emphasize the application of the
findings to actual decision making. A clear set of conclusions at this stage
helps the conference scientists, as well as the managers and the public, in
determining the key findings of these studies. These individual technical
reports will generally address fairly specific issues identified by the
management conference. For example, the Barataria-Terrebonne National
Estuary Program funded a survey of vegetation damage caused by nutria
29
-------
feeding in the Barataria and Terrebonne basins. Individual project reports may
also include syntheses of existing information on the estuary, such as the
review and synthesis of historical water quality data funded by the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program (TBNEP, 1992).
Characterization Report
To convey a complete picture of the estuary, it is useful to combine the
results of the technical characterization process in a single characterization
report that contains the findings from the various individual project reports
described above. This report should address all five tasks of the process,
outlining the conditions of the valued resources and uses of the estuary, the
priority problems being experienced, and the likely causes of those problems.
Although members of the management conference may be familiar with the
estuary's problems, the general public may not be as well informed. Thus, the
characterization report can be an effective tool for building public support for
the NEP in general, as well as recommendations made in the CCMP. In
serving this function, the characterization report should clearly explain why the
management conference has chosen to focus on the priority problems and
provide sound scientific justification for the actions that are recommended in
the CCMP.
The characterization report should address the following elements:
• Description of the valued resources and uses of the estuary.
• Measurable parameters that reflect the conditions of the
resources/uses and the processes that affect those parameters.
Important factors and relationships should be identified and their
roles presented.
• Assessment of the trends in water quality, natural resources, and
uses of the estuary.
• Final list, historic description, and background information on
priority problems to be addressed in the CCMP. Background
information should include the relationship between observed effects
and economic, recreational, and aesthetic values.
• Description of the impacts of the problem on the resources and uses.
• Discussion of the strengths of the relationships between parameters,
and the uncertainties in analyses. Knowledge of uncertainties in the
data can be used to direct further data gathering and research efforts
and is important to the development of an effective sampling design
in the post-CCMP monitoring program.
• Hypotheses of cause-effect relationships for the priority problems,
and research necessary to establish relationships.
30
-------
It is essential that the conference committees, and management
committee in particular, be briefed on the characterization report results and
recommendations.
Characterization Summary
As described above, the characterization report makes recommendations
for the management actions and provides the scientific justification for the
recommendations. In communicating these recommendations, the
characterization summary is an invaluable tool. Public meetings and
workshops are extremely useful ways to ensure that the public summary
reaches a wide audience.
Under the requirements of the Clean Water Act, technical
characterization is intended to fulfill management conference purposes 1-3
(Figure 1). Documentation that these purposes have been met must be
presented in the CCMP when it is submitted to the Administrator for approval
(EPA, 1992b). To meet this requirement, each CCMP must include a plain-
English summary of the technical characterization findings. This summary
should describe the following:
• The estuary's priority problems and the selection criteria used to
determine them.
• The environmental quality goals and objectives established for the
estuary. These goals and objectives form the basis for the
monitoring program developed to evaluate the effectiveness of
actions implemented under the CCMP.
• The status and trends of the estuary's water quality, natural
resources, and uses.
• The likely causes of the priority problems, including data on toxics,
nutrients, and natural resources.
• The linkages between pollutant loadings and changes in the estuary's
water quality, uses, and natural resources.
• As much as possible, some prediction of the estuary's conditions
under different management scenarios.
Each CCMP should also clearly reference studies conducted as part of
the technical characterization effort. Copies of technical studies generated
must be available upon request.
The characterization summary can be used as a public outreach
document, or can be the basis for other public outreach documents that
condense the technical characterization results even further and present them in
31
-------
a manner that is more useful for public involvement purposes. For example,
the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program's report titled "Sarasota Bay:
Reclaiming Paradise" (SBNEP, 1993) presents a 42-page "summary of the
Sarasota Bay Program's key findings, options for Bay improvement, and an in-
depth discussion of the Bay's conditions." These kinds of reports do not take
the place of the more technically-based reports, but rather they bring the
results of the technical studies to a broader audience to solicit public
understanding and support for recommendations made in the CCMP.
Relationship to Monitoring
Technical characterization directly assists the design of the monitoring
program, developed under purpose 6 of the management conference, to assess
the effectiveness of actions implemented under the CCMP. The first step in
designing the monitoring program is the establishment of specific monitoring
objectives (EPA, 1992a), identified through technical characterization. At a
minimum, characterization provides the management conference with a
baseline for monitoring (i.e., status analysis) and a concept of historical
changes (i.e., trends analysis). A more sophisticated technical characterization
provides a basic understanding of important physical, chemical, and biological
processes in the estuary. This information helps to specify a set of parameters
and ecological processes that can be used to detect changes in the estuary in
response to management actions in the CCMP.
The protocols used in the data collection activities of the monitoring
program should, as much as possible, follow the protocols used in the data
collection and analysis activities during technical characterization. This allows
for direct comparison of historical, current, and future data and illustrates the
need for long-term planning, particularly if characterization leads to new data
collection. In addition, the monitoring program may also be designed to
address information gaps that are identified during the technical
characterization process.
EPA's policy on managing environmental data in the NEP (EPA, 1994)
states that:
1. Submission of data in ODES format to OCPD is no longer required.
2. OCPD will continue, either directly or indirectly, to provide access
to and support for ODES, until ODES data are migrated into the
modernized STORET system.
3. Responsibility for identifying and selecting data management
systems and processes remains with the management conferences.
4. Grants and cooperative agreements awarded with NEP funds should
require that the recipient organize and maintain all environmental
data generated with NEP funds in a manner that allows potential
32
-------
users of NEP data to readily identify data of interest, access those
data for use, and determine the suitability of those data for other
uses, based on readily available QA/QC and methodology
summaries.
This policy gives individual management conferences freedom to use
various data management systems and processes to meet the goal of on-going,
easy access to data of known quality.
33
-------
HI. MANAGING THE TECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION PROCESS
Roles in the Process
Like any other part of the NEP approach, advance planning and
organization are key to successful completion of the technical characterization
process. Because the characterization results help guide many decisions of the
management conference, their timely integration into the conference is crucial.
Likewise, each committee's involvement early in the characterization process
is essential. In that regard, a management conference should plan to address
five distinct roles that factor into completion of the tasks outlined in this
document:
• Process management
• Scientific/technical direction and review
• Management/policy direction and review
• Public participation
• Technical work
Various members of the management conference, the program office,
and principle investigators selected by the management conference assist in
fulfilling these roles. In addition to federal, state, and public input, local
governments are a critical contributor to the characterization process. Local
governments should be factored into all five of the roles in the characterization
process because they are often best suited to providing insight on the local
issues and needs of the estuary's watershed, and are key to implementation of
the actions.
Process Management
Because the sequence of technical characterization tasks can occur over
different time periods (depending on the availability and quality of data for the
valued resources and uses), completing the tasks requires attention to process
management. A "big picture" view of the entire technical characterization
process must be maintained in planning and implementing the process while
specific technical issues are being investigated. Management of the process
occurs at two levels. First, decisions that occur within each of the tasks are
made by the Management Committee, with input from the advisory
committees, as described below. These decisions may include the selection of
priority problems, the identification of technical studies and other
characterization projects to be conducted, and the selection of principal
investigators to conduct the studies.
34
-------
Second, most of the day-to-day management of the technical
characterization process is the responsibility of the NEP program office.
These responsibilities may include:
• Tracking progress
• Preparation of annual work plans that include the technical work
identified by the Management Committee
• Identification of scientific experts and sources of technical
information
• Oversight of principal investigators selected by the Management
Committee to conduct technical work
• Preparation and dissemination of background information for
management conference and public consumption
• Coordination of peer review processes for management conference
products
• Management of data storage and synthesis, where needed
• Composition and/or review of draft and final products
• Release and distribution of final reports
In addition, the program office is often in the best position to oversee
production of the characterization report. Active participation of program
office staff, who are familiar with all aspects of the estuary program, helps to
ensure coordination across all parts of this activity.
Scientific/Technical Direction and Review
Throughout the technical characterization process, there is a need for
sound direction from scientists participating in the management conference
who have first-hand experience working in the estuary. In addition to the
general expertise in estuarine research these scientists bring to the process,
their specific experience related to the estuary program's study area is an
invaluable source of historical and practical information. In addition, there is
a continuing need throughout the technical characterization process to
recommend, evaluate, and interpret the results of technical studies
commissioned by the management conference.
This role of providing scientific direction and review is typically played
by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. Although the Scientific
and Technical Advisory Committee oversees the quality of the science, this
does not exclude members of other management conference committees with
scientific expertise from contributing to this role. For example, the San
Francisco Estuary Project management conference created subcommittees that
35
-------
included a cross section of the management conference committees to address
five technical issues (intensified land use, decline of biological resources,
freshwater diversion and altered flow regime, increased pollutants, and
dredging and waterway modification). Status and trends reports were then
developed by each of the subcommittees. These subcommittees provided for a
diversity of input to technical discussions, and also facilitated support from the
major committees for technical conclusions by involving them in the
development of those conclusions.
Management/Policy Direction and Review
The technical characterization process must include input from entities
familiar with and responsible for the resource management framework of the
estuary program's study area. This input provides a critical reality check to
the process, since recommended actions that result from the characterization
effort will be implemented from within this framework. In addition, this
aspect of the process makes it possible to recommend enhancements to the
existing resource management framework, if such changes are necessary to
achieve the goals established under Task 1.
The role of providing policy direction and review is played by the
Management Committee. This direction includes general guidance over the
process, with particular attention paid to timing and decisions concerning the
use of characterization findings. The management committee typically consists
of representatives of participating federal, state, and local agencies, as well as
representatives of the estuary's user community, environmental advocacy
groups, and the chairs of the Citizen Advisory Committee and the Scientific and
Technical Advisory Committee.
The Management Committee of the Massachusetts Bays Program
develops program goals and workplans, approves documents and reports, and
serves as a forum for discussion of environmental issues. This committee has
two standing subcommittees: the Workplan Subcommittee, which pulls all
program work together each year for a unified budget proposal; and the
Implementation Subcommittee, which guides CCMP development and action
plan implementation. Establishment of the two standing subcommittees allows
a focus to be maintained concerning the two primary areas of attention for the
Management Committee (i.e., work planning and CCMP implementation).
This provides continuity over time, since a core group of participants that
carries a historical perspective is involved from meeting to meeting.
Public Participation
Because the NEP represents a consensus approach to management of
the nation's estuaries, it is important to provide public access to the technical
characterization process. This enables the public to participate in identifying
and ranking priorities for action. The management conference benefits from
this in two ways. First, the interested public is a source of knowledge about
36
-------
the estuary and the threats to its valuable resources. Second, the general
public has an important stake in the actions recommended in the CCMP.
Their inclusion in the technical characterization process will increase
awareness and, ultimately, build support for CCMP implementation.
The Galveston Bay NEP has had a characterization symposium each
year called the "State of the Bay Symposium". GBNEP's CAC worked
closely with the STAC to organize these yearly workshops. These workshops
not only provided the public with early results of characterization, and an
opportunity to interact with the scientists conducting the studies and comment
on the early findings, but helped solidify the scientific community as well.
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project has effectively used the
Citizen Advisory Committee (referred to as the Public Advisory Committee) as
a mechanism to maintain this two-way communication throughout the
characterization process. The Public Advisory Committee has worked with the
scientists participating on the management conference to develop outreach
products that keep the public aware of progress and in-step with current issues.
These products have included written reports and fact sheets, as well as public
events such as beach clean up days and meetings.
Technical Work
It is often necessary for the management conference to fund specific
activities in support of the technical characterization effort. These activities
may include synthesis of existing data, collection of new data, report writing,
and support for the process itself, such as meeting support and facilitation.
Projects should be strictly limited to those that will achieve the stated
objectives of the program. The tendency to perform unnecessary studies to
satisfy unwarranted scientific or public interests must be avoided.
The scopes of work for these activities are developed by appropriate
members of the management conference. For example, they can be developed
by members of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee or program
office staff. Principal investigators to conduct these activities are typically
selected through a competitive process, with the actual selection made by the
Management Committee, based on recommendations from the advisory
committees. With regard to the selection of principal investigators,
management conferences should incorporate guidelines in their bylaws to
outline proper procedures for management conference participants who wish to
compete for technical work under the NEP. The Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program included the following article in the Management Committee bylaws:
No member of the Management Committee or staff representative shall
participate in any decision or vote which would constitute a conflict of
interest under Federal or State law. Members must clearly state any
potential conflicts of interest prior to any discussion and abstain from
such discussions.
37
-------
Regardless of the vehicle used to procure technical support (e.g.,
contract, cooperative agreement, grant), adequate oversight of that vehicle by
the program office must be assured. Proper management is critical to obtain a
high quality product, within time and budget constraints, that meets the needs
of the management conference. This requirement should be considered when
staffing the program office, and when selecting individuals to lead projects.
Time Frame for Technical Characterization
The timeframe for technical characterization must be linked to both the
management characterization (Figure 4: Task 3 and 4) and development of the
CCMP (Figure 4: Task 5). To accomplish this nested scheduling, an overall
vision of the entire NEP approach must be maintained from the time the
management conference is convened. This vision is reflected in the
Conference Agreement, which outlines all of the anticipated milestones leading
to development of the CCMP. The Conference Agreement should provide a
road map for completing the technical characterization tasks, as well as for
ensuring that results are available in time for recommendations to be developed
for the CCMP.
Soon after establishing the milestones in the Conference Agreement, the
management conference should establish milestones for scientific work needed
to complete technical characterization. Some broad-based activities that should
be planned for include:
• Gathering of historical data
• Collection of new data
• Analysis or evaluation of data
• Synthesis of information
• Development of hypotheses of causes and effects of priority
problems
• Preparation of status and trends reports
• Preparation of characterization reports
The timing of all of these activities should allow for peer review and
revision for the final product. This timeframe for characterization activities
should then be followed fairly closely by the management conference during
the characterization process. It should be noted that, as results of various
projects become available, minor changes in characterization milestones may
be required. However, major changes in direction should be avoided because
of the time constraints of the NEP.
38
-------
As has been noted frequently throughout this guidance, completing the
tasks of technical characterization can occur at different rates, depending on
the availability and quality of information for each of the valued resources and
uses. This idea is presented graphically in Figure 18 for two hypothetical
resources/uses. Resource/Use A had been studied thoroughly prior to
convening the management conference, data are of good quality, and the
availability of the data is fairly complete. On the other hand, not much prior
work had been conducted relative to Resource/Use B, requiring more effort in
the review of existing information, as well as new data collection activities to
fill gaps in information.
In the hypothetical situation shown in Figure 18, the technical
characterization tasks can proceed in an independent fashion, making it
possible to evaluate and recommend management actions for Resource/Use A
much earlier than for Resource/Use B. However, as was described under
Task 4, there is often a close linkage between two or more resources/uses
(e.g., submerged aquatic vegetation and fisheries), tying the progress of
characterizing one resource/use to the completion of tasks for another. These
linkages must be considered early in mapping out the technical characterization
process.
In addition, the review of existing information under Tasks 2 and 4
may indicate an unavoidable need to conduct more detailed research to address
specific issues identified by the management conference. For example, such
research may be necessary under Task 4 to establish cause-effect relationships
to the satisfaction of the management conference. Decisions to conduct such
research must be considered with respect to the NEP timeframe. Because
funding for the development of the CCMP is only available for a limited
period, it may be advisable to include an "unfinished agenda" in the CCMP,
indicating continuing research needs relative to each of the estuary's priority
problems. This tool can be used as a means to maintain progress towards
action on those issues that are well understood, while highlighting those issues
that require further attention in future years. The unfinished agenda should be
addressed in CCMP implementation plans developed by the management
conference.
39
-------
Resource/Use A
TIME
Resource/Use B
Task 1: Identify Resources/Uses
Review existing information
Tack 2: Determine Conditions
Task 3: Identify Priority
Problems
Review existing information
Task 4: Identify Likely Causes
& Possible Solutions
Task 5: Provide Input to CCMP
Task 1: Identify Resources/Uses
' iforr
Review existing information
Address data gape
Task 2: Determine Conditions
Task 3: Identify Priority
Problems
Review existing information
i
Address data gaps
Task 4: Identify Likely Causes
& Possible Solutions
Task 6: Provide Input to CCMP
Figure 18. Hypothetical timefnames for characterizing two estuarine
resources/uses.
40
-------
REFERENCES
DELEP. 1990. Informal Report of a Workshop Held 30-31 March 1990 to
Identify Uses and Values for the Delaware Estuary in 2020. Prepared
for the Delaware Estuary Program by COAST Institute of the Marine
Sciences Research Center, University of Stony Brook.
EPA. 1989. Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Primer for Establishing and
Managing Estuary Projects. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water. EPA/503/8-89-001.
EPA. 1992a. Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA/842-B-92-
004.
EPA. 1992b. National Estuary Program Guidance: Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans: Content and Approval
Requirements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water. EPA/842-B-92-002.
EPA. 1993. National Estuary Program Guidance: Base Program Analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. EPA/842-B-
93-001.
EPA. 1994. "ODES Data Submission Requirements for NEP Management
Conferences" Policy memorandum issued by OCPD/EPA. March 1994
GBNEP. 1994. The State of the Bay: Characterization of the Galveston Bay
Ecosystem. Eds: F.S. Shipley and R.W. Keisling. GBNEP Publication
No. 44. March 1994.
Kelly, J.R., 1991. Nutrients and Massachusetts Bay: A synthesis of
eutrophication issues. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Technical Report No. 91-10.
LISS. 1990. Long Island Sound Study: Status Report and Interim Actions for
Hypoxia Management.
NBP. 1987. Narragansett Bay Issue Assessment: Public Perceptions. Prepared
for Narragansett Bay Project by Center for Environmental Studies,
Brown University.
NRC. 1990. Managing Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine Environmental
Monitoring. Washington, DC. National Academy Press.
PSWQA. 1988. State of the Sound Report. Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority.
41
-------
SBNEP. 1993. Sarasota Bay: Reclaiming Paradise.
Tomasko, D.A. 1993. Assessment of seagrass habitats and water quality in
Sarasota Bay. Pp 25-36. In: (L.J. Morris and D.A. Tomasko, eds.)
Proceedings and Conclusions of Workshops on: Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation and Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Special Publication
SJ93-SP13. Palatka, FL: St. Johns River Water Management District.
Tomasko, D.A., CJ. Dawes, M.O. Hall, (in review). The effects of
anthropogenic nutrient enrichment on turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum)
in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Estuaries.
TBNEP. 1992. Review and Synthesis of Historical Tampa Bay Water Quality
Data. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Report #7-92.
TBNEP. 1993. Status and Trends. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Treat, S.F., J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis, and R.L. Whitman (eds). 1985.
Proceedings: Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium. Sea
Grant project No. IR/82-2. Grant No. NA 80AA-D-00038.
42
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Characterization Report:
Report developed by an NEP management conference that presents the
results of technical characterization, summarizing the conditions of the
valued resources and uses of the estuary, the priority problems being
experienced, and the likely causes of those problems.
Citizen Advisory Committee:
Committee within an NEP management conference that represents the
public viewpoint and oversees mechanisms for broader public
participation in the NEP process. This committee represents a
spectrum of resource user and interest groups, as well as the general
public.
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP):
A CCMP summarizes the estuary's problems and indicates which ones
will be addressed. Through a collaborative process, the management
conference establishes program goals and objectives, determining
desirable and allowable uses for the estuary and its various segments.
Specific pollution control and resource management plans, designed to
meet each objective, are the core of the CCMP.
Conceptual Model:
A diagrammatic method for describing the best understanding of an
estuaries ecosystem resources (e.g., wetlands, fish, sediments),
processes (e.g., predation, turbulent mixing), and factors controlling
their interactions. A well-constructed conceptual model can plainly
represent and communicate the complex interactions and processes
characteristic of estuaries.
Conference Agreement:
Written agreement between EPA and appropriate state and local
governments participating in an NEP management conference. The
agreement outlines the activities, products, and schedules by which
management conferences will complete their CCMPs.
Correlation Analysis:
Analysis of the relationship between two parameters, as well as the
strength of that relationship.
43
-------
Estuaries:
Biologically productive waterways where fresh water drained from the
land mixes with salt water from the ocean (bays, harbors, sounds,
etcetera).
Management Committee:
Committee within an NEP management conference that provides
ongoing policy direction and review. This direction includes general
guidance over the process, with particular attention paid to timing and
decisions concerning the use of characterization results. The
management committee typically consists of representatives of
participating federal, state, and local agencies, as well as
representatives of the estuary's user community, environmental
advocacy groups, and the chairs of the Citizen Advisory Committee and
the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.
Management Conferences:
The management structure convened by the Administrator of EPA to
provide a forum for consensus building and problem solving among
interested agencies and user groups. The management conference
studies environmental conditions and trends in the estuary and their
likely causes, identifies the most significant problems, and develops an
action-oriented plan to address high-priority problems.
National Estuary Program (NEP):
Section 320 of the Clean Water Act established the National Estuary
Program (NEP) to identify nationally significant estuaries threatened by
pollution, development, or overuse and to promote the preparation of
comprehensive management plans to ensure their ecological integrity.
The program's goals are protection and improvement of water quality
and enhancement of living resources.
Nomination Package:
Documentation submitted by one or more states requesting that a
management conference be convened for a specific estuary. The
nomination package includes information that demonstrates the national
significance of the estuary, the need for a management conference, and
the likelihood of success. If the estuary is selected for the NEP, the
information in the nomination package is subject to review, evaluation,
and redirection by consensus of the management conference.
44
-------
ODES:
Ocean Data Evaluation System~A data management and analysis
package originally developed by EPA to support monitoring programs
that are implemented under Clean Water Act section 301(h) in
connection with waivers from ocean outfall secondary treatment
requirements. ODES has been expanded to contain NEP data, as well
as data for other EPA programs.
Parameters:
A measurable characteristic.
Program Office:
Staff office established to provide ongoing support to the management
conference during the CCMP development process.
Regression Analysis:
Analysis that allows one to make predictions about dependent
parameters or variables using interval-level data.
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee:
Committee within an NEP management conference that provides
scientific review and direction. This committee typically includes
scientists from universities and research organizations familiar with the
estuary and its systems, as well as technical staff from participating
state and federal agencies.
Segmentation:
The division of an estuary into subareas based on homogeneous
conditions such as bottom type, salinity, or water temperature.
Physical, chemical, and/or biological data for the estuary are then
aggregated based on these segments. Segmentation represents a
compromise between the difficulty of resolving the physical detail of an
entire estuary and the expediency of dealing with a small number of
geographical units.
Status and Trends:
Analysis of the past and current conditions of an estuary, as well as
predictions concerning the future conditions of the estuary should
current trends continue.
45
-------
Streamline:
The application of lessons learned under the NEP, resulting in new
management conferences being convened by EPA with an expectation
that a CCMP will be completed in less time. In convening streamlined
management conferences, EPA focuses on thoses estuaries where:
• Significant problem characterization is complete;
• A management framework analogous to a management conference
already exists; and
• Key state and local agencies have already committed to participate
in and support the NEP process.
Watershed:
The geographic region that drains into a particular stream, river, or
body of water. Since all land within a watershed drains to a common
place, all activities on the land have the potential to affect the entire
watershed.
46
------- |