United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development/
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
National Coastal
Condition Report
&EPA
EPA-620/R-01/005
September 2001
www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/NCCR/index
USDA
Impaired Human
nd Aquatic
Life Use
23%
Impaired
Aquatic
Life Use
Poor
I Overall National
I Coastal Condition
A
fel
-------
Sanctuary's dedication ceremony, the entire community was invited to participate
in a Native Hawaiian fish gathering activity known as a"hukilau."The Maui Sanctuar;
office sits in front of one of the last remaining Native Hawaiian fishponds in South
Maui. Prior to the Sanctuary's official approval, many people from the fishing
community feared the imposition of additional Sanctuary regulations. On the
contrary, however, fishing is not regulated in the Sanctuary but rather encouraged
and welcomed throughout its waters (Photo:Jeff Alexander).
sonal catch of herring in Tomales Bay (Photo
-------
Acknowledgments
COaStal repOrt was prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water and
Office of Research and Development (ORD). The EPA Project
Manager for this document was Barry Burgan, who provided
overall project coordination as well as technical direction. The
principal author for this document was Kevin Summers, Technical
Director of ORD's National Coastal Assessment Program. EPA was
supported in the development of this document by RTI and
Johnson Controls World Services. The content of this report was
contributed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and
the Department of Interior in cooperation with several other local,
state, and federal agencies. Special appreciation is extended to the
following team, who provided technical information, reviews, and
recommendations throughout the preparation of this document.
Barry Burgan, EPA Office of Water
Darrell Brown, EPA Office of Water
Edward Stets, EPA Office of Water
Dan Farrow, NOAA National Coastal Assessment Branch
Andrew Robertson, NOAA National Ocean Service
Jeff Hyland, NOAA National Ocean Service
Mark Jacobsen, NOAA, Special Projects Office
Rick Hooper, U.S. Geological Survey
Steve Robb, U.S. Geological Survey
Jennifer A. Greiner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Coastal Program
Thomas E. Dahl, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Branch
of Habitat Assessment
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Contents
Executive Summary xiii
Summary of the Findings xv
Describing Coastal Condition xvii
Coastal Monitoring Data xx
Assessment and Advisory Data xxi
Shortcomings of Available Data xxiii
Chapter 1—Introduction l
Why Are Coastal Waters Important? 2
Our Nation's Coasts Are Valuable and Productive Natural Ecosystems .. 2
More Than Half of the U.S. Population Lives on the Coast 3
Why Be Concerned about Coastal Condition? 4
Indicators of Coastal Condition 5
Shortcomings of Available Data 6
Coastal Monitoring Data 6
How the Indicators Are Calculated 7
Water Clarity 8
Dissolved Oxygen 9
Coastal Wetland Loss 9
Eutrophic Condition 10
Sediment Contaminants 11
Benthic Condition 11
Fish Tissue Contaminants 12
Assessment and Advisory Data 13
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d) Assessments 13
State Fish Consumption Advisories 14
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters 14
Beach Closures 15
Purpose of This Report 16
Federal Programs and Initiatives That Address Coastal Issues 17
CWAP: Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy 17
National Coastal Assessment—Coastal 2000 17
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 18
Coastal Zone Management Program 19
National Marine Sanctuary System 20
National Estuary Program 21
NOAAs National Estuarine Research Reserve System 22
NOAAs National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program 23
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service National
Habitat Program 24
EPA's Great Waters Program 25
USGS National Streamgaging Program 26
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program 27
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory 28
EPA's BEACH Watch Program 28
Chapter 2—National Coastal Condition 29
Coastal Monitoring Data 32
Water Clarity 32
Dissolved Oxygen 32
Coastal Wetland Loss 33
Eutrophic Condition 36
Sediment Contaminants 37
Benthic Condition 44
Fish Tissue Contaminants 48
Assessments and Advisories 49
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d) Assessments 49
State Fish Consumption Advisories 54
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters 56
Beach Closures 56
Highlights
Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen 34
Water Quality in the National Estuarine Research Reserves 35
Index of Watershed Indicators 40
Unified Watershed Assessments 41
Coastal Habitat Losses and Gains—Developing a National Strategy 42
Exotic Species in Coastal Environments 46
Coral Reefs in the United States 52
Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries—How Much Is Enough? 58
Developing a Nationwide Strategy for Marine Protected Areas 60
Chapter 3—Northeast Coastal Condition 63
Coastal Monitoring Data 66
Water Clarity 66
Dissolved Oxygen 66
Coastal Wetland Loss 67
Eutrophic Condition 67
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Sediment Contaminants 70
Benthic Condition 71
Fish Tissue Contaminants 73
Assessments and Advisories 76
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d) Assessments 76
State Fish Consumption Advisories 80
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters 81
Beach Closures 82
Summary 83
Highlights
Water Quality of the Near Coastal Mid-Atlantic Waters 68
Massachusetts Bay 69
Casco Bay Estuary Project 74
Delaware River Basin Commission 75
Coastal Habitat Study of the Gulf of Maine 78
Comprehensive Study of Habitat Complexes of the New York
Bight Watershed 79
The Chesapeake Bay Program 84
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen 86
Chapter 4—Southeast Coastal Condition 87
Coastal Monitoring Data 90
Water Clarity 90
Dissolved Oxygen 91
Coastal Wetland Loss 91
Eutrophic Condition 92
Sediment Contaminants 93
Benthic Condition 94
Fish Tissue Contaminants 95
Assessments and Advisories 97
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d) Assessments 97
State Fish Consumption Advisories 98
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters 99
Beach Closures 99
Summary 102
Highlights
Eutrophication Studies in the Neuse River Estuary 100
South Carolina Estuarine and Coastal Assessment Program 101
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5—Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition 103
Coastal Monitoring Data 106
Water Clarity 106
Dissolved Oxygen 106
Coastal Wetland Loss 108
Eutrophic Condition 109
Sediment Contaminants 112
Benthic Condition 113
Fish Tissue Contaminants 114
Assessments and Advisories 118
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d) Assessments 118
State Fish Consumption Advisories 120
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters 121
Beach Closures 124
Summary 125
Highlights
A National Strategy To Address Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico 110
Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana's Troubled Urban Estuary 116
Seagrass Meadows in Laguna Madre 117
Mercury Contamination of Fishery Resources 122
Lavaca Bay, TX—A Case Study 123
Habitat Improvements in the Gulf Coast—The Tampa Bay
Estuary Program 126
Alabama Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 127
Chapter 6—West Coastal Condition 129
Coastal Monitoring Data 131
Overall West 132
Coastal Wetland Loss 132
Eutrophic Condition 132
Small Estuaries of the West Coast 132
Water Clarity 133
Dissolved Oxygen 133
Sediment Contaminants 133
Benthic Condition 133
Southern California Bight (Offshore) 134
Water Clarity 134
Dissolved Oxygen 134
Sediment Contaminants. .135
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Benthic Condition 136
Fish Tissue Contaminants 136
San Francisco Bay 137
Water Clarity 137
Dissolved Oxygen 137
Sediment Contaminants 140
Benthic Condition 142
Fish Tissue Contaminants 142
Puget Sound (Northern Sound Only) 143
Water Clarity 144
Dissolved Oxygen 144
Sediment Contaminants 144
Benthic Condition 145
Fish Tissue Contaminants 145
Assessments and Advisories 145
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d) Assessments 145
State Fish Consumption Advisories 148
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters 149
Beach Closures 150
Summary 151
Highlights
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) 138
Lower Columbia River 139
San Francisco Bay Estuary Project 152
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 153
Chapter 7—Great Lakes Coastal Condition 155
Coastal Monitoring Data 158
Water Clarity 158
Dissolved Oxygen 158
Coastal Wetland Loss 158
Eutrophic Condition 158
Sediment Contaminants 162
Benthic Condition 163
Fish Tissue Contaminants 164
Assessments and Advisories 165
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) and 303(d) Assessments 165
State Fish Consumption Advisories 166
Beach Closures 167
Summary 168
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Highlights
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Issues Fish
Consumption Information for Tribal Members 160
The International Joint Commission 161
The Great Lakes National Program Office 169
Chapter 8—Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii,
and Island Territories 171
Alaska 173
Hawaii 176
Puerto Rico 177
Other Island Systems 179
Summary 180
Highlights
Cook Inlet Information Management & Monitoring System 174
Cook Inlet, Alaska 175
Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii—A Coastal Intensive Research Site 181
Marine Alien Species Workshop in Hawaii 182
Chapter 9—The Future - A National Strategy 183
Objectives of Research and Monitoring within an Integrated
Assessment Framework 188
Monitoring 190
Characterization of the Problem (Tier I) 191
Diagnosis of Large-Scale Causes (Tier II) 192
Diagnosis of Interactions and Forecasting (Tier III) 193
Research 194
Research To Support Characterization of the Problem (Tier I) 195
Research To Support Diagnosis of Large-Scale Causes (Tier II) 196
Research To Support Diagnosis of Interactions and Forecasting
(Tier III) 197
Research To Support Development of Policy and Environmental
Remediation Programs 197
Summary 198
Chapter 10—References 199
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Acronyms
ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management
ALAMAP-C Alabama's Monitoring and Assessment Program-Coastal
ANS Aquatic Nuisance Species
AOC Great Lakes Areas of Concern
AVHRR advanced very high resolution radiometer
BEACH EPA's Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Program
C2000 EPA's National Coastal Assessment
CAST Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
CCMP NEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
CENR Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
CIIMMS Cook Inlet Information Management and Monitoring System
CISnet Coastal Intensive Site Network
CRTF U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
CU cataloging unit
CWAP Clean Water Action Plan
CWPPRA Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
CZM Coastal Zone Management
DCE 1,2-dichloroethane
DDD dichloro bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethane
DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DIN dissolved inorganic nitrogen
DO dissolved oxygen
DOI Department of the Interior
DRBC Delaware River Basin Commission
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFH essential fish habitat
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EMAP-E Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program-Estuaries
ERL Effects Range Low (concentration of a contaminant potentially having adverse
effects)
ERM Effects Range Medium (concentration of a contaminant associated with adverse
effects on organisms)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
CIS geographic information system
GLIFWC Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Acronyms
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
GMP Joint Gulf States Comprehensive Monitoring Program
GNP Gross National Product
IJC International Joint Commission
IWI EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators
LaMP Lakewide Management Plan
MODMON Neuse Monitoring and Modeling Project
MPA Marine Protected Area
MPN most probable number
MWRA Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
NAS nonindigenous aquatic species
NASQAN National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network
NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment
NEP National Estuary Program
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
NLFWA National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NMS National Marine Sanctuary
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS NOAAs National Ocean Service
NOX nitrogen oxides
NRC National Research Council
NS&T National Status and Trends Program
NSTC National Science and Technology Council
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWIFC Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
OST EPA's Office of Science and Technology
OWOW EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyl congeners
POTW publicly owned treatment works
PSAMP Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RMP Regional Monitoring Program
SAV submerged aquatic vegetation
SCB Southern California Bight
SCBPP Southern California Bight Pilot Project
SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Acronyms
SCECAP South Carolina Estuarine and Coastal Assessment Program
SFEP San Francisco Estuary Project
SJBEP San Juan Bay Estuary Program
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SVOC semivolatile organic compounds
SWMP NERRS System-Wide Monitoring Program
TCE tetrachloroethane
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
UWA Unified Watershed Assessments
VOC volatile organic compounds
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WDOE Washington Department of Ecology
WSRI Wild Stock Restoration Initiative
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and seven other federal
agencies developed a Clean Water Action Plan to protect public
health and restore our nation's waterways through 111 key actions.
Included in those waterways are our coastal waters, and the Action
Plan contains several key actions related to coastal waters. Key Action
No. 60 calls for the development of a comprehensive report on the
condition of the nation's coastal waters. This National Coastal
Condition Report fulfills that key action of the Clean Water Action
Plan and also serves as a foundation for the current administration's
efforts to protect, manage, and restore coastal ecosystems. Four federal
agencies and several state and regional/local organizations have come
together to report on the current condition of the nation's coasts.
This National Coastal Condition report compiles several available
data sets from different agencies and areas of the country and
summarizes them to present a broad baseline picture of the
condition of coastal waters. Although data sets presented in this
report do not cover all coastal areas with respect to all ecological
issues of concern, they do tell a story about coastal conditions
from a multiregional perspective. For example, EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has monitoring data
for the Virginian, Louisianian, and Carolinian provinces, which
encompass 70% of continental U.S. estuarine acreage (or about 18%
of U.S. estuarine acreage if Alaska is included). This report will serve
-------
Executive Summary
as a useful benchmark for analyzing the
progress of coastal programs in the future and
will be followed in subsequent years by reports
on more specialized coastal issues.
Currently, comprehensive and nationally
consistent data on the condition of coastal
waters are not available for all coastal regions
of the United States. However, we can begin
to describe the condition of our nation's coasts
using data for some variables that have been
measured consistently across a number of
regions. These data are derived largely from
a combination of ongoing federal and state
coastal monitoring programs. In this report,
the condition of coastal waters is described
based primarily on data from estuaries, which
are the productive transition areas between
freshwater rivers and the ocean.
>verall National
Coastal Condition
Although the objective of this report is
to evaluate the condition of coastal resources
(in this case, primarily estuaries) on a national
level, there is sufficient information to assess
completely only northeastern, southeastern,
and Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Partial assess-
ments are possible for West Coast estuaries
and the Great Lakes, and no assessment is
currently possible for the estuarine systems
of Alaska, Hawaii, and island territories
(Figure ES-1). In order to do a complete
assessment of coastal resources for a region
of the country, data that are representative of
the entire resource are required. Obtaining the
data needed for estuarine assessment generally
requires a particular type of monitoring that
is now used in all 24 coastal states, but not yet
in the Great Lakes region.
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
No indicator data available.
** Does not include the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf of Mexico waters
Figure ES-I. Overall national coastal condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Summary of the Findings
Thousands of pieces of information on the
condition of the estuarine and Great Lakes
resources of the United States were collected
from 1990 to 1997. Many of these data were
analyzed to develop the assessment described
in this report. Statistically and ecologically
consistent and representative data were
collected representing all of the estuarine
resources in the Northeast, Southeast, and
Gulf of Mexico, and data representing selected
locations were collected throughout the
remainder of the country. The resulting
ecological assessment of the nation's estuaries
using these mked data sets shows estuaries
to be in fair to poor condition, varying from
poor conditions in the Northeast to fair
conditions in the Southeast. No overall
assessments were completed for Alaska,
Hawaii, or the island territories. New
ecological monitoring programs, both
proposed and in place, will permit a
comprehensive and consistent overall
assessment of all the nation's coastal
resources by 2005.
The major findings of the 1990 to 1997
study period are as follows:
• Overall condition of the nation's
estuaries was fair based on seven basic
indicators of ecological condition—
water clarity, dissolved oxygen, loss of
coastal wetlands, eutrophic condition,
sediment contamination, benthic
condition, and accumulation of
contaminants in fish tissue.
• Fifty-six percent of assessed estuarine
resources were in good condition while
44% were characterized by impaired
human use or impaired aquatic life use.
• Generally, the nation's coastal areas
were rated as poor if the mean
conditions for these seven indicators
showed that greater than 20% of the
estuarine area in that region was
degraded.
• Indicators that showed the poorest
condition throughout the United States
were coastal wetland loss, eutrophic
condition, and benthic condition.
Indicators that showed the best
condition generally were water clarity
and dissolved oxygen concentrations.
• These areal estimates represent over
70% of the estuarine area of the
conterminous United States (all areas
except New England and the West
Coast). Consistent and comprehensive
surveys are currently being conducted
throughout all coastal states (including
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico), and
the results of these surveys will be
available in 2004. Consistent and
comprehensive surveys of the nation's
offshore waters (0-12 miles) are being
planned for 2002, and the results will
be available (assuming survey
completion) in 2005.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Tables ES-1 and ES-2 summarize the
estimates of areal degradation by region and
nationally and the rating scores, respectively,
for each indicator.
Table ES-I. Percent Area of Degradation3 by Indicator and Region
Indicator
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetland
Loss
Contaminated
Sediments
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Contaminants0
Eutrophic
Condition
Overall
Northeast
6
5
39
41
23
30
60
43
Southeast
12
2
40
13
17
9
13
46
Gulf of Mexico West
22
-------
Executive Summary
Overall
National
Good Fair
Poor
B
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure ES-2. The overall
estuarine condition for
the nation is fair
Describing
Coastal
/
Condition
This report presents two types of data: (1) coastal
monitoring data from programs like EMAP and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) National Status & Trends Program (NS&T)
that have been analyzed for this report and used to
develop indicators of condition and (2) assessment
and advisory data provided by states or other
regulatory agencies and compiled in nationally
maintained databases. Because the assessment
and advisory data are contributed by different
agencies that use different methodologies and
criteria for assessment, they cannot be used for a
broad-based comparison between different coastal
areas. The data are presented in this report because
they provide information about designated use
support (e.g., is it safe to swim in an estuary),
which affects public perception of coastal condition.
These data also present coastal condition as it relates
to public health.
The overall condition of the nation's coasts
based on available data is fair (Figure ES-2). This
assessment was made based on (1) EMAP sampling
of environmental variables over 8 years (1990-1997)
at more than 1,000 random probability-based sites
representing 70% of all estuarine areas in the
continental United States and (2) other monitoring
and advisory data from EPA, NOAA, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and state and tribal programs.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Seven primary indicators are used to rate
coastal condition in this report: water clarity,
dissolved oxygen, coastal wetland loss,
eutrophic condition, sediment contamination,
benthic index, and fish tissue contaminants
(Table ES-3). Supplemental information (e.g.,
algae concentrations, sediment toxicity, fish
pathology data) are also presented throughout
the report where available. The seven
indicators were assigned a score of good,
fair, or poor for each coastal area of the
United States (Northeast, Southeast, Gulf of
Mexico, West Coast, and Great Lakes areas)
(Figure ES-2). The indicator scores were then
averaged to create an indicator score for
overall condition of each coastal area. The
assessments for each coastal area were
combined to form national scores
by calculating an average weighted by the
amount of estuarine area in each coastal
region (excluding Alaska).
The use of indicators to describe coastal
condition is experimental in nature. In this
report, the overall condition for each coastal
area is assessed using a straightforward
combination of the seven indicator scores.
Continued research is necessary to establish
the most appropriate indicators to use in
describing coastal condition and the appro-
priate weighting factors for combining them
for an overall assessment.
Sediment Contaminant Criteria
ERM (Effects Range Medium) —
The concentration of a contaminant
that will result in ecological effects
approximately 50% of the time
based on literature studies.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—The
concentration of a contaminant that
will result in ecological effects about
10% of the time.
Caution
about
Indicator
Data
Using indicators to compare
estuarine conditions
throughout the nation
can be misleading because
the natural state of estuaries
varies throughout the nation.
For example, estuaries in the
Southeast tend to have poor water
clarity due to high turbidity that results from
naturally high productivity and strong sediment
transport and resuspension processes. So
the "fair" water clarity rating in southeastern
estuaries does not necessarily mean that water
quality is poor or degraded.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Table ES-3. Indicators Used To Assess Coastal Condition
Icon
Water Clarity
O2
Dissolved
Oxygen
Coastal
Wetland
Loss
IEutrophic
Condition
Sediment
Contamination
&
Benthic Index
-
Fish Tissue
Contaminants
Poor Condition
Water clarity is considered poor if less
than 10% of surface light reaches a depth
of 1 meter.
Dissolved oxygen levels are considered
poor when concentrations are less than
2 ppm.
Areas with a greater than 40% decline in
wetland acreage from 1 780 to 1 980 and/or
a greater than 10% decline from the
mid- 1 970s to the mid- 1 980s are
considered to be in poor condition.
Eutrophic condition is a measure
developed by NOAA that examines six
different eutrophication symptoms and
assigns a value of low, moderate, or high.
High eutrophic condition is equivalent
to poor condition for this indicator.
Sediment contamination is evaluated
using ERM and ERL criteria. ERM is the
concentration of contaminant that will
result in ecological effects 50% of the time.
ERL is the concentration of contaminant
that will result in ecological effects 10%
of the time. An estuary is in poor condition
if it exceeds one ERM criterion or five
ERL criteria.
A poor benthic index score indicates that
benthic communities are less diverse than
expected, populated by greater than
expected pollution-tolerant species, and
contain fewer than expected pollution-
sensitive species.
An estuary is in poor condition for fish
tissue contaminants if more than 10% of
fish sampled have tissue residues greater
than FDA and international criteria or
more than 20% of fish sampled have tissue
residues greater than EPA Guidance Values.
Ranking
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal waters have poor
light penetration.
Fair: 10% to 25% of the coastal waters have poor light
penetration.
Poor: More than 25% of the coastal waters have poor
light penetration.
Good: Less than 5% of the coastal waters have poor
dissolved oxygen.
Fair: 5% to 1 5% of the coastal waters have poor
dissolved oxygen.
Poor: More than 1 5% of the coastal waters have poor
dissolved oxygen.
Good: Less than 25% decline in wetland acreage from
1780 to 1980 and/or less than 5% decline
from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s.
Fair: Between 25% and 40% decline from 1780 to 1980
and/or between 5% and 10% decline from the
mid- 1 970s to the mid- 1 980s.
Poor: Greater than 40% decline from 1780 to 1980
and/or greater than 10% decline from the
mid- 1 970s to the mid- 1 980s.
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal waters have
high eutrophic condition.
Fair: 1 0% to 20% of the coastal waters have
high eutrophic condition.
Poor: More than 20% of the coastal waters have
high eutrophic condition.
Good: Less than 5% of the coastal waters exceed
one ERM criterion or five ERL criteria.
Fair: 5% to 1 5% of the coastal waters exceed one
ERM criterion or five ERL criteria.
Poor: More than 1 5% of the coastal waters exceed
one ERM criterion or five ERL criteria.
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal waters have
a low benthic index score.
Fair: 1 0% to 20% of the coastal waters have a low
benthic index score.
Poor: More than 20% of the coastal waters have
a low benthic index score.
Good: Less than 2% of the coastal waters have poor
fish tissue condition.
Fair: 2% to 10% of the coastal waters have poor
fish tissue condition.
Poor: More than 1 0% of the coastal waters have
poor fish tissue condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Coastal Monitoring Data
About 56% of the estuarine area in the
continental United States is in good condition
for supporting aquatic life use (animal and
plant communities) and human uses (such
as drinking water, agriculture, swimming,
and boating) (Figure ES-3). About 34% of
the estuarine area shows evidence of impaired
aquatic life use, and 33% of the area shows
evidence of impaired human use. In fact,
23% of estuarine area in the continental
United States is degraded for both aquatic
life and human uses.
Unimpaired
56%
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
23%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
11%
Impaired Human Use
10%
Figure ES-3. National estuarine condition (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
The overall water clarity of the nation's
estuaries is rated as good. Water clarity is good
in West Coast and northeastern estuaries as
well as the Great Lakes, but fair in the Gulf of
Mexico and southeastern estuaries. Dissolved
oxygen condition (using occurrence of
hypoxia as a standard) in the nation's
estuaries is generally good.
Coastal wetland losses throughout the
United States have been significant, and this
indicator receives a poor rating. During the
200-year period from 1780 to 1980, nearly
50% of the existing wetlands in the
conterminous United States were lost.
The overall score for eutrophic condition
of estuarine waters for the nation is poor.
Eutrophication in estuarine waters is
increasing throughout much of the United
States. All coastal areas are in poor condition
as rated by eutrophic condition, except for the
Southeast, which is in fair condition, and
Alaska and Hawaii, which were not evaluated.
Sediment contaminant concentrations
are generally poor throughout the estuaries
and Great Lakes of the United States. Eleven
to thirty percent of estuarine sediments in the
United States show concentrations of
contaminants (polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons [PAHs], polychlorinated biphenyls
[PCBs], pesticides, and metals) that are above
guidance levels (concentrations that are likely
to result in biological effects). Most of the
sample sites that displayed the greatest
exceedances are in the Northeast. Measure-
ments of sediment enrichment due to human
sources show that 40% of U.S. estuarine
sediments are enriched with metals, 45% are
enriched with PCBs, and 75% are enriched
with pesticides (note that these percentages
exclude Alaska, Hawaii, and the Great Lakes).
Benthic condition is poor in estuaries
throughout the United States, largely due
to contaminated sediments, low dissolved
oxygen conditions, habitat degradation,
and eutrophication. Benthic condition
in the Great Lakes is also poor.
The overall rating for fish tissue contaminants
for the nation is fair. Fish tissue contaminant
concentrations are generally low throughout
the estuarine waters of the United States with
the exceptions of the northeastern estuaries,
the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Assessment and Advisory Data
The nation's Clean Water Act Section
305(b) reporting process largely agrees with
the assessment based on coastal monitoring
data. States and tribes rate water quality for
Clean Water Act reporting by comparing
available water quality data to their water
quality standards (water quality standards
include narrative and numeric criteria that
support specific designated uses, such as
swimming and aquatic life use). Each state has
different monitoring resources and uses a
different methodology for assessment, so this
information is not nationally consistent
and is often incomplete. State 1998 water
quality reports suggest that 44% of assessed
estuaries and 12% of assessed coastal
shoreline in the United States (excluding
Alaska) was impaired by some form of
pollution or habitat degradation. The most
frequent use impairments were for aquatic
life support, primary contact recreation
(swimming), and fish consumption.
The leading stressors resulting in these
impairments were pathogens, oxygen-
depleting substances (oxygen is consumed
during the degradation of organic matter
and the oxidation of some inorganic matter),
metals, and nutrients (Figure ES-4). The
primary sources of impairing pollutants
reported by states were municipal point
sources, urban runoff or storm sewers,
atmospheric deposition, industrial
discharges, and agriculture.
The number of coastal and estuarine
waters under fish consumption advisories
represents an estimated 71% of the coastline
miles of the contiguous 48 states, including
92% of the Atlantic Coast, 100% of the
Total Estuaries
90,465 Square Miles
Assessed Estuaries
28,687 Square Miles
12,482
Square
Miles
Leading Pollutants/Stressors of Estuary Impairment
Pathogens (Bacteria)
Oxygen-Depleting Substances
47%
41%
Metals
Nutrients
Thermal Modifications
PCBs
Priority Toxic Organic Chemicals
27%
23%
18%
I 1%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
Leading Sources of Estuary Impairment
Municipal Point Sources
Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers
Atmospheric Deposition
Industrial Discharges
Agriculture
Land Disposal of Wastes
Combined Sewer Overflow
28%
J 23%
11%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Impaired Estuarine Square Miles
Figure ES-4. 1998 305(b) water quality assessment data for estuaries.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Gulf Coast, and 10% of the Pacific Coast. An
estimated 82% of the estuarine square miles
also were under advisory, including 81% of
Atlantic Coast estuaries, 64% of Gulf Coast
estuaries, and 30% of Pacific Coast estuaries
(Figure ES-5).
In 1995,4,230 individual shellfish-growing
areas containing 24.8 million acres of
estuarine and nonestuarine growing waters
were classified in 21 coastal states. Sixty
percent of waters were classified as approved
(Figure ES-6). The top five pollution sources
reported as contributing to harvest limitations
were urban runoff, upstream sources, precipi-
tation-related runoff of animal wastes from
high-wildlife-concentration areas (e.g., water
fowl), individual wastewater treatment
systems, and wastewater treatment plants.
EPA's review of coastal beaches (U.S. coastal
areas, estuaries, and the Great Lakes) showed
that, of the 1,444 beaches responding to the
survey, more than 370 beaches, or 26%, had an
advisory and/or closing in effect at least once
during 1999 (Figure ES-7). Approximately
13% of the coastal beaches experienced at
least one closure. Beach closures were issued
for a number of different reasons, including
sewage, elevated bacterial levels, and
preemptive reasons. The major causes
of beach closures included stormwater
runoff, pipeline breaks, combined sewer
overflows, and unknown causes.
t<3
*^
o
Hawaii
4-
American Samoa
Number of
Advisories per
USGS Cataloging
Unit
I
2-4
5-9
No Advisories
Figure ES-5. The number of coastal and estuarine fish consumption advisories per USGS cataloging unit. This count does not include
advisories that may exist for noncoastal or nonestuarine waters. Alaska did not report advisories (U.S. EPA NLFWA, 2000c).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
Approved
60%
Prohibited 11%
Unclassified 13%
Restricted 9%
Conditionally
Approved 7%
Fair
Figure ES-6. 1995 classification of shellfish-growing waters
(NOAA).
Shortcomings of
Available Data
Very little information to support the kind
of analysis used in this report (i.e., spatial
estimates of condition based on indicators
measured consistently across broad regions)
exists for estuarine conditions in Alaska.
Nearly 75% of the area of all the bays, sounds,
and estuarine areas in the United States is
located in Alaska, and no national report on
estuarine condition can be truly complete
without information on the condition of
living resources and use attainment of these
waters. Similarly, little information to support
estimates of conditions based on the indicators
Of beaches
responding to the
survey, the percent
closed in each
state at least once
in 1999:
Q 0-10
Q 11-50
| 51-100
nNo Data
Available
% Beach Closure
in 1999
Figure ES-7. The percentage of beaches responding to the survey that closed at least once in 1999. There were no BEACH survey
responses from Alaska (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Executive Summary
used in this report is available for Hawaii
and the Caribbean/Pacific commonwealths.
Although these latter systems make up only
a small portion of the nation's estuarine area,
they do represent a unique set of estuarine
subsystems (such as coral reefs and tropical
bays) that are not located anywhere else
in the United States with the exception of
the Florida Keys and the Flower Gardens.
These unique systems should not be excluded
from future national assessments, and plans
are already under way for monitoring
programs in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
Attaining consistent reporting in all of
the coastal ecosystem in the United States
depends on our ability to focus fiscal and
intellectual resources on the creation of a
national coastal monitoring program. The
conceptual framework for such a program is
outlined in the National Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy (www.cleanwater.gov).
This Strategy calls for a national program
organized at the state level and carried out
by a partnership between federal agencies
(EPA, NOAA, USGS, U.S. Department of the
Interior [DOI], and USDA) and state natural
resource agencies, as well as with academia
and industry. This monitoring program would
provide the capability to measure, understand,
analyze, and forecast ecological change at
national, regional, and local scales. A first
step in the development of this type of
program was the initiation of EPA's Coastal
2000 program, a national estuarine moni-
toring program organized and executed
at the state level. However, this program is
merely a starting point for what is needed
to achieve a comprehensive national coastal
monitoring program that can offer a
nationwide coastal assessment.
This report represents our current best
effort to characterize and assess the condition
of the nation's estuarine resources; however,
the report is incomplete because it cannot
represent all estuarine regions of the United
States or all of the appropriate spatial scales
(national, regional, and local) necessary
to assess the condition of estuaries. This
assessment is also based on a limited number
of ecological indicators for which there are
consistent data sets available to support
estimates of ecological condition on regional
and national scales. Through a multiagency
and multistate effort over the next decade,
a truly consistent, comprehensive, and
integrated national coastal monitoring
program can be realized. Only through
the cooperative interaction of the key federal
agencies and coastal states will our next
effort to gauge the health of America's
coastal ecosystem be successful.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter
Introduction
The Clean Water Action Plan (U.S. EPA, 1998) is intended to "protect
public health and restore our nation's waterways" by setting strong goals
and providing states, tribes, communities, and individual land owners
with the tools and resources to meet these goals.
Several coast-related action items
are recommended in the Action Plan's
111 key actions. This report is designed
to fulfill action No. 60, which calls for the
development of a comprehensive report
to the public on the condition of the
nation's coastal waters to be prepared by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the Department of the Interior (DOI),
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in cooperation with other
federal agencies, states, and tribes.
The current condition of our nation's coasts can be explored using
data provided by several existing coastal programs. For example, EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and NOAA's
Status and Trends Program (NS&T) provide data for many indicators of
coastal condition for nearly 70% of the estuarine area of the conterminous
United States.
-------
Why Are Coastal
Waters Important?
Our Nation's Coasts Are
Valuable and Productive
Natural Ecosystems
Coastal waters are productive and diverse, including
estuaries, coastal wetlands, coral reefs, mangrove forests,
and upwelling areas. Critical coastal habitats provide
spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for fmfish,
shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. Our coasts also provide
essential nesting, resting, feeding, and breeding habitat for
85% of waterfowl and other migratory birds.
Estuaries are bodies of water that are balanced
by freshwater and sediment influx from rivers and
the tidal actions of the oceans, thus providing transition
zones between the fresh water of a river and the saline
environment of the sea. This interaction produces
a unique environment that supports wildlife and
fisheries and contributes substantially to the economy
of coastal areas.
Wetlands are the vegetated interface between the aquatic
and terrestrial components of estuarine systems. Wetland
habitats are critical to the life cycles of fish, shellfish,
migratory birds, and other wildlife, and they help improve
surface water quality by filtering residential, agricultural,
and industrial wastes. Wetlands also serve to buffer coastal
areas against storm and wave damage. Because of their close
interface with terrestrial systems, wetlands are vulnerable
to land-based sources of pollutant discharges and other
human activities.
Female humpback whales and their calves
are sometimes accompanied by a single
adult male humpback whale, otherwise
known as an "escort" whale.This escort
protects the female and her calf from
other whales and may sometimes attempt
to mate with her (Photo: Joseph Mobely -
NMFS Permit #810).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
More Than Half of
the U.S. Population
Lives on the Coast
Coastal areas are the most developed areas
in the nation. This narrow fringe—only 17%
of total contiguous U.S. land area—is home
to more than 53% of the nation's population
(Figure 1-1). This means that over half of the
U.S. population lives in less than one-fifth of
its total area (NRG, 2000). Further, this coastal
population is increasing by 3,600 people
per day, giving a projected total increase of
27 million people between now and 2015.
This rate of growth is faster than that for
the nation as a whole (Figure 1-2).
Figure l-l. Population
distribution in the United
States (NRC, 1993).
• Coastal
D Noncoastal
Photo: ® JohnTheilgard
In addition to being a popular place
to live, the U.S. coasts are a source of many
other valuable commodities. Almost 31%
of the Gross National Product (GNP) is
produced in coastal counties. Almost 85%
of commercially harvested fish depend on
estuaries and nearby coastal waters at some
stage in their life cycle (NRC, 1997). Beaches
have become one of the most popular vacation
destinations in America, with 180 million
people using the coast each year (Cunningham
and Walker, 1996). Estuaries supply water,
provide a point of discharge for municipalities
and industries, and support agriculture,
commercial and sport fisheries, and
recreational uses such as swimming,
diving, and boating.
Year
Figure 1-2. Population density from 1960 to 201 5 (NOAA, 1998).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
U.S. coastal waters are the largest economic and
environmental zone of the nation in terms of surface
area. These valuable coastal resources provide
• Habitat for a wide range of plant and animal
species that are essential to the global ecosystem
• Fish and shellfish that support the majority
of commercial and recreation fisheries
• Reserves of oil, gas, and other minerals
• Travel ways for coastal and international shipping
and maneuvering area for the U.S. Navy
• Outdoor recreational opportunities such as
swimming and boating
• A basis for tourism and recreation industries.
(ADEM, 1998)
Why Be Concerned about Coastal Condition?
Because a disproportionate percentage of the
nation's population lives in coastal areas, the activities
of municipalities, commerce, industry, and tourism have
created environmental pressures that threaten the very
resources that make the coast desirable. Population
pressures include increased solid waste production, higher
volumes of urban nonpoint runoff, loss of green space and
wildlife habitat, declines in ambient water and sediment
quality, and increased demands for wastewater treatment,
potable water, and energy supplies.
Development pressures have resulted in substantial
physical changes along many areas of the coastal zone.
Coastal wetlands continue to be lost to residential and
commercial development, while the quantity and timing
of freshwater flow, critical to river and estuarine function,
continue to be altered.
In 1998, states reported that
the leading pollutants!stressors
impairing estuaries were
• Pathogens
• Oxygen-depleting substances
• Metals
• Nutrients
• Thermal modifications
• PCBs
• Priority toxic organic
chemicals
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Indicators of
Coastal Condition
This report examines several available data sets from different
agencies and areas of the country and summarizes them to present a
broad baseline picture of the condition of coastal waters. Two different
types of data are presented in this report:
• Coastal monitoring data from programs like EMAP and NOAA NS&T
that have been analyzed for this report and used to develop indicators
of condition
• Assessment and advisory data provided by states or other regulatory
agencies and compiled in national databases.
Available coastal monitoring information is presented on a national
scale for the conterminous United States; these data are then broken
down and analyzed at four geographic levels: Northeast Coast, Southeast
Coast, Gulf Coast, and West Coast (Figure 1-3). Chapters presenting
Great Lakes
Coastal Area
Northeast
Coastal
Area
Southeast
Coastal
Area
\\\
Gulf Coastal Area
v-i
Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Figure 1-3. Coastal areas presented in the chapters of this report.
available data for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories, as well as the
Great Lakes, are also included. The assessment and advisory data are
presented at the end of each chapter. Although inconsistencies in the
way different agencies collect and provide data to these national
programs prevent their use for comparing conditions between coastal
areas, the information is valuable in that it helps identify and illuminate
some of the causes of coastal impairment and the impacts of these
impairments on human uses.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Shortcomings of
Available Data
Very little information to support the kind
of analysis used in this report (i.e., spatial
estimates of condition based on indicators
measured consistently across broad regions)
exists for estuarine conditions in Alaska.
Nearly 75% of the area of all the bays, sounds,
and estuarine areas in the United States is
located in Alaska, and no national report
on estuarine condition can be truly complete
without information on the condition of
living resources and use attainment of these
waters. Similarly, little information to support
estimates of conditions based on the indicators
used in this report is available for Hawaii and
the Caribbean/Pacific commonwealths.
Although these latter systems make up only
a small portion of the nation's estuarine area,
they do represent a unique set of estuarine
subsystems (such as coral reefs and tropical
bays) that are not located anywhere else
in the United States with the exception of
the Florida Keys and the Flower Gardens.
These unique systems should not be excluded
from future national assessments, and plans
are already under way for monitoring
programs in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.
Attaining consistent reporting in all of
the coastal ecosystems in the United States
depends on our ability to focus fiscal and
intellectual resources on the creation of a
national coastal monitoring program. The
conceptual framework for such a program is
outlined in the National Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy (www.cleanwater.gov).
This Strategy calls for a national program
organized at the state level and carried out
by a partnership between federal departments
and agencies (EPA, NOAA, DOI, and USDA)
and state natural resource agencies, as well as
with academia and industry. This monitoring
program would provide the capability to
measure, understand, analyze, and forecast
ecological change at national, regional, and
local scales. A first step in the development
of this type of program was the initiation
of EPA's Coastal 2000 program, a national
estuarine monitoring program organized
and executed at the state level. However, this
program is merely a starting point for what
is needed to achieve a comprehensive national
coastal monitoring program that can offer a
nationwide coastal assessment.
Coastal Monitoring Data
Data from several programs are used to
evaluate coastal condition throughout this
report. A large percentage of the data come
from programs administered by EPA and
NOAA. EPA's EMAP provides data on biota
(plankton, benthos, and fish) as well as
environmental stressors (water quality,
sediment quality, and tissue bioaccumulation).
NOAA's NS&T provides data on toxic
contaminants and their ecological effects.
NOAA also conducted the National Estuarine
Eutrophication Assessment in the mid-1990s
to assess the effects of nutrient concentrations
based on existing data and expert opinion.
Coastal condition is also evaluated using
information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI). The NWI provides information on
the status of the nation's wetlands.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Data from these programs were used to
evaluate overall coastal condition with respect
to seven primary indicators: water clarity,
dissolved oxygen, coastal wetland loss,
eutrophic condition, sediment contaminants,
benthic condition, and fish tissue contam-
inants. These indicators were selected because
of the availability of relatively consistent data
sets for these indicators for most of the
country. These indicators do not address all
characteristics of estuaries and coastal waters
that are valued by society, but they do provide
information on both ecological condition
and human use of estuaries. In some areas,
additional information, such as algae
concentration and sediment toxicity data,
is also available. These data are also presented
where available to help provide an overall
picture of the condition of the estuaries.
If multiple programs provided data for
the same indicator (e.g., dissolved oxygen),
program information that was quantitative
was used over qualitative data in the assess-
ment. If multiple sets of quantitative data
existed, information based on quantitative
field measurements was used over question-
naire data in this assessment.
How the Indicators Are Calculated
Overall condition for each coastal area was
calculated by summing the scores for the seven
indicators and dividing by 7, where good = 5,
fair = 3, and poor = 1. The Gulf Coast, for
example, received the following scores:
02
^
• -, ;•'
m
•**•
Indicator
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetland Loss
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment Contamination
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Score
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
Total Score Divided by 7 =
Overall Score
13/7= 1.86
To create the national indicator numbers,
a weighted average for each of the seven
indicators was calculated. The indicator scores
are weighted by the percent area contributed
by each geographic area (Figure 1-4). For
example, the weighted average for water clarity
would be calculated by summing the products
of the regional water clarity scores and the
area contributed by each region.
Surveying the submerged habitat of Cordell Bank (Photo:
Cordell Bank Expeditions).
Great Lakes
28%
West
10%
Northeast
21%
Southeast
16%
Gulf of Mexico
25%
Figure 1-4. Percent estuarine area contributed by
each geographic area assessed in this report.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
The overall national score was calculated
by summing each national indicator score
and dividing by seven, similar to the method
described in Table 1-1.
Table l-l. Calculating the Water Clarity Indicator ^^^1
on a National Scale H^l^l
Coastal
Area
Northeast
Water
Clarity
Score
5
Percent of
Area
Contributed
by Region
21
Product of
Score and
Percent Area
105
V
Ck
:ontr
Southeast
Gulf of Mexico
West
Great Lakes
16
25
10
28
64
75
50
140
Sum of Products Divided by Total Area 4.34/100 = 4.34
= National Water Clarity Score (Good)
Characterizing coastal areas using each
of the seven indicators involves two value
determinations. The first value is the
definition of "poor" for an indicator. The
definition of poor condition for each indicator
is based on existing criteria, guidelines, or
interpretation of scientific literature. For
example, dissolved oxygen conditions are
considered poor if dissolved oxygen
concentrations are less than 2 ppm (2 parts of
oxygen per million parts of water). This value
is widely accepted as representative of hypoxic
conditions, so this benchmark for poor
condition is strongly supported by scientific
evidence (Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995; U.S. EPA,
2000a). The second determination is how
widespread a "poor" condition must be to
result in a poor rating for an area as measured
by the indicator. For example, in order for an
area to be rated as poor with regard to the
dissolved oxygen indicator, more than 15%
of a coastal area must have dissolved oxygen
measured at less than 2 ppm. The percent areas
used for each indicator are value judgments and
were largely determined by informally surveying
environmental managers, resource experts, and
the knowledgeable public.
Water Clarity
Clear waters are valued by society and
contribute to the maintenance of healthy and
productive ecosystems. Light penetration into
estuarine waters is important for submerged
aquatic vegetation, which serves as food and
habitat for the resident biota. EMAP-Estuaries
(EMAP-E) estimates water clarity using
specialized equipment that compares the amount
and type of light reaching the water surface to
the light at a depth of 1 meter. Water clarity is
considered poor if less than 10% of surface light
reaches 1 meter. (This is equivalent to being able
to see your hand 1 meter from your face under
water.) The water clarity data presented
throughout the report were collected by the
EMAP-E program unless otherwise noted. This
measure is used to determine water quality for
an area as follows:
Good
Fair
Poor
Less than 10% of the coastal
waters have poor light penetration.
10% to 25% of the coastal waters
have poor light penetration.
More than 25% of the coastal
waters have poor light penetration.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
, ,. Using indicators to compare estuarine conditions throughout the nation can be misleading
/Caution\ because the natural state of estuaries varies throughout the nation. For example, estuaries in
about \ the Southeast tend to have poor water clarity due to high turbidity that results from
Indicator/ naturally high productivity and strong sediment transport and resuspension processes.
So the "fair" water clarity rating in southeastern estuaries does not necessarily mean that
water quality is poor or degraded.
~ XX wai
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a fundamental
requirement for all estuarine life. A threshold
concentration of 4 to 5 ppm (5 parts of
oxygen per million parts of water) is used
by many states to set their water quality
standards. Concentrations below approximately
2 ppm are thought to be stressful to many
estuarine organisms (Diaz and Rosenberg,
1995; U.S. EPA, 2000a). These low levels most
often occur in bottom waters and impact the
organisms that live in the sediments. Low
levels of oxygen (hypoxia) or lack of oxygen
(anoxia) often accompany the onset of severe
bacterial degradation, sometimes resulting in
the presence of algal scums and noxious
odors. However, in some estuaries, low levels
of oxygen, at least periodically, are part of the
natural ecology. Therefore, while it is easy to
show the conditions of the nation's estuaries
concerning oxygen concentrations, it is
difficult to interpret whether the observed
effects are the result of natural processes or
human intervention. The DO data presented
throughout the report were collected under
the EMAP-E program unless otherwise noted.
This indicator is used to measure water quality
for an area as follows:
Fair
Poor
I
I
Less than 5% of the coastal waters
have less than 2 ppm DO.
5% to 15% of the coastal waters
have less than 2 ppm DO.
More than 15% of the coastal
waters have less than 2 ppm DO.
Coastal Wetland Loss
Wetlands are the vegetated interface
between aquatic and terrestrial components
of estuarine ecosystems. Wetland habitats
are critical to the life cycles of fish, shellfish,
migratory birds, and other wildlife. These
habitats also filter and process residential,
agricultural, and industrial wastes, thereby
improving surface water quality. Wetland
habitats also buffer coastal areas against
storm and wave damage. An estimated 95%
of commercial fish and 85% of sport fish
spend a portion of their life cycles in coastal
wetland and estuarine habitats. Adult stocks
of commercially harvested shrimp, blue crabs,
oysters, and other species throughout the
United States are directly related to wetland
quality and quantity (Turner and Boesch,
1988). Wetlands throughout the United States
have been and are being rapidly destroyed
by human activities (e.g., flood control,
agriculture, waste disposal, real estate
development, shipping, commercial fishing,
oil/gas exploration and production) and
natural processes (e.g., sea level rise, sediment
compaction, droughts, hurricanes, floods).
Data on wetland acreage are available
for all coastal states for the 1780s (estimated)
and 1980s (surveyed) and for the southeastern
and Gulf states for the mid-1970s to mid-
1980s. The indicator that has been used to
characterize estuarine wetland condition is
the percentage change for the 200-year period
from 1780 to 1980 and the 10-year period
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s. The
indicator used to measure the condition
of coastal wetlands is as follows:
Good
Fair
Poor
Less than 25% decline in wetland
acreage from 1780 to 1980 and/or
less than 5% decline from the mid-1970s
to mid-1980s.
Between 25% and 40% decline from
1780 to 1980 and/or between 5% and
10% decline from the mid-1970s to
mid-1980s.
Greater than 40% decline from 1780 to
1980 and/or greater than 10% decline
from the mid-1970s to mid-1980s.
*§ Phytoplankton Bloom
£ • * thrives on nutrients
» \ Dissolved Oxygen
trapped in
lighter layer
Dissolved Oxygen
from wave action
and photosynthesis
Less dense
freshwater
. Dissolved Oxygen used up
* by microorganism respiration
Fish will avoid
hypoxia if possible
released by bottom sediments
Dissolved Oxygen consumed
Shellfish
and other
benthic
organisms
unable
to escape
hypoxia
Decomposition of organic
matter in sediments
Eutrophic Condition
Some nutrient inputs to coastal waters are
necessary for a healthy, functioning estuarine
ecosystem. When nutrients from various sources
such as sewage and fertilizers are introduced
into an estuary, the concentration of available
nutrients will increase beyond natural back-
ground levels, resulting in a process called
eutrophication, which may result in a host
of undesirable conditions (Figure 1-5).
Eutrophication due to the accelerated input
of nitrogen and phosphorus can promote a
complex array of symptoms such as excessive
growth of algae that may lead to other more
serious problems. For its National Estuarine
Eutrophication Assessment, NOAA developed
a system that evaluates several symptoms of
eutrophication in an estuary to provide a single
categorical value to represent the status of overall
eutrophic condition for each estuary (Bricker et
al., 1999). This value is the measure of eutrophic
condition presented in this report. The primary
symptoms examined for this value are
chlorophyll a, macroalgal abundance, and
epiphyte abundance. Secondary symptoms
include loss of submerged aquatic vegetation,
harmful algae, and low dissolved oxygen. This
indicator is used to measure water quality for
an area as follows:
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 1-5. Eutrophication is when the concentration
of available nutrients increases beyond normal levels.
Less than 10% of the coastal waters have
symptoms indicating a high potential for
eutrophication.
10% to 20% of the coastal waters have
symptoms indicating a high potential for
eutrophication.
More than 20% of the coastal waters have
symptoms indicating a high potential for
eutrophication.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Sediment Contaminants
Evaluation of the potential effects
of contaminated sediments on estuarine
organisms is difficult because few applicable
state or federal regulatory criteria exist
to determine "acceptable" sediment concen-
trations of all substances. Guidelines such
as effects range low (ERL) and effects range
medium (ERM) values provide environmental
managers with benchmarks to determine if
contaminated sediments have the potential
to affect aquatic organisms adversely. The
ERM criterion is the concentration of a
contaminant that will result in ecological
effects approximately 50% of the time based
on literature studies. A more protective
indicator of contaminant concentrations is
the ERL criterion, which is the concentration
of a contaminant that will result in ecological
effects about 10% of the time. A poor rating
for sediment quality is given to an estuary if
the ERM criteria for one or more contaminants
are exceeded or if the ERL criteria for five or
more contaminants are exceeded. The
sediment contaminants data presented
throughout the report were collected by
the EMAP-E program unless otherwise noted.
This indicator is used to measure water quality
for an area as follows:
Good
Fair
Poor
Less than 5% of the coastal
waters exceed one ERM criterion
or five ERL criteria.
5% to 15% of the coastal waters
exceed one ERM criterion or five
ERL criteria.
More than 15% of the coastal
waters exceed one ERM criterion
or five ERL criteria.
The ERL/ERM guidelines were first developed
by NOAA researchers in 1990 (Long and Morgan,
1990) and further modified and improved over
the next 10 years (Long et al., 1995; Long et al.,
1998a; and Long et al., 1998b). However, these
guidelines are still considered experimental,
and several publications have questioned
their reliability in assessing sediment toxicity
(O'Connor et al., 1998).
Benthic Condition
The worms, clams, and crustaceans that
inhabit the bottom substrates of estuaries are
collectively called benthic macroinvertebrates
or benthos. These organisms play a vital role
in maintaining sediment and water quality
and are an important food source for bottom-
feeding fish, shrimp, ducks, and marsh birds.
Benthos are often used as indicators of
disturbances in estuarine environments
because they are not very mobile and thus
cannot avoid environmental problems. Benthic
population and community characteristics
are sensitive indicators of contaminant and
dissolved-oxygen stress, salinity fluctuations,
and disturbance and serve as reliable indicators
of estuarine environmental quality. EMAP-E
developed a benthic index of environmental
condition for estuaries that incorporates
changes in diversity and populations of
indicator species to distinguish degraded
benthic habitats from undegraded benthic
habitats (Engle and Summers, 1999; Engle et al.,
1994; Van Dolah et al., 1999; Weisburg et al.,
1997). This index reflects changes in benthic
community diversity and the abundance of
pollution-tolerant and pollution-sensitive
species. A high benthic index rating for
benthos means that samples taken from an
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
estuary's sediments contain a wide variety of
species, a low proportion of pollution-tolerant
species, and a high proportion of pollution-
sensitive species. A low benthic index rating
indicates that the benthic communities are less
diverse than expected, are populated by more
than expected pollution-tolerant species, and
contain fewer than expected pollution-
sensitive species. The benthic condition
data presented throughout the report were
collected by the EMAP-E program unless
otherwise noted. This indicator is used to
measure regional water quality as follows:
Good
Fair
Poor
Less than 10% of the coastal
waters have a low benthic index score.
10% to 20% of the coastal waters
have a low benthic index score.
More than 20% of the coastal
waters have a low benthic index score.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Chemical contaminants may enter a marine
organism in several ways—direct uptake from
contaminated water, consumption of contam-
inated sediment, or consumption of previously
contaminated organisms. Once these contam-
inants enter an organism, they tend to remain
in the animal tissues and so may build up with
subsequent feedings. When fish consume
contaminated organisms, they may "inherit"
the levels of contaminants in the organisms
they consume. This same "inheritance" of
contaminants occurs when humans consume
fish with contaminated tissues. Contaminant
residues are examined in target fish and
shellfish species and are compared to Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria,
international standards, and EPA Guidance
Values. In this report, if more than 10% of fish
sampled have tissue residues greater than FDA
and international criteria or 20% of fish
sampled have tissue residues greater than EPA
Guidance Values, then the estuary is deter-
mined to be in poor condition. The fish tissue
contaminant data presented throughout the
report were collected by the EMAP-E program
unless otherwise noted. This indicator is used
to measure regional water quality as follows:
Good
Fair
Poor
Less than 2% of the coastal estuaries have
significant numbers of contaminated fish
(> 10% sampled).
2% to 10% of the coastal estuaries have
significant numbers of contaminated fish
(> 10% sampled).
More than 10% of the coastal estuaries
have significant numbers of contaminated
fish (>IO% sampled).
The FDA and international criteria have
some limitations, as these values were devel-
oped to protect the average consumer from
contaminated fish and shellfish sold in
interstate commerce. These criteria are not
intended to be protective of recreational,
tribal, ethnic, and subsistence fishers who
typically consume larger quantities of fish
than the general population and often harvest
the fish and shellfish they consume from the
same local waterbodies repeatedly over many
years. EPA has developed more stringent
screening values to protect consumers from
contaminants in noncommercial fish (e.g.,
recreational and subsistence) based on a
human health risk assessment methodology
(U.S. EPA, 2000b). This EPA methodology
is currently used by most states to identify
waterbodies where contaminant levels in
locally caught fish may pose human health
risks and is described in the following
Assessment and Advisory Data section under
State Fish Consumption Advisories.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Assessment and Advisory Data
The following programs maintain databases
that are repositories for information about
how well coastal waters support their
designated or desired uses. These uses are
important factors in public perception of
the condition of the coast and also say a lot
about the condition of the coast as it relates
to public health.
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
and 303(d) Assessments
States report water quality assessment
information and water quality impairments
under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act. States and tribes rate water quality
by comparing data to their state and tribal
water quality standards. Water quality
standards include narrative and numeric
criteria that support specific designated uses
and also specify goals to prevent degradation
of good quality waters. States and tribes use
their numeric criteria to evaluate whether the
designated uses assigned to waterbodies are
supported. The states then consolidate their
more detailed uses into general categories so
that EPA can present a summary of state and
tribal data. The most common designated
uses are
• Aquatic life support
• Drinking water supply
• Recreation, such as swimming, fishing,
and boating
• Fish consumption.
After comparing water quality data to the
criteria set by water quality standards, states
and tribes classify their waters into the
following categories:
Fully
Supporting
These waters meet applicable water quality
standards, both criteria and designated use.
These waters currently meet water
Threatened quality standards, but states are concerned
they may degrade in the near future.
Partially I These waters meet water quality
Supporting I standards most of the time, but exhibit
I occasional exceedances.
Not I These waters do not meet water
Supporting quality standards.
Waters classified as partially supporting
or not supporting their uses are categorized
as impaired. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act requires states to submit a list of these
impaired waters. These waters are targeted
for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
development. A TMDL is a calculation of
the maximum amount of a pollutant that
a waterbody can receive and still meet water
quality standards and an allocation of that
amount to the pollutant's sources. A TMDL
is the sum of the allowable loads of a single
pollutant from all contributing point and
nonpoint sources. The calculation must
include a margin of safety to ensure that the
waterbody can be used for the purposes the
state has designated.
The 305(b) assessment data reported by the
states are stored in EPA's National Assessment
Database (U.S. EPA, 2000d). Impaired waters
are reported on state 303(d) lists, and the data
are stored in EPA's TMDL Tracking System.
These data are useful for analyzing whether
or not efforts to improve water quality within
a state are successful. Unfortunately, each state
monitors water quality parameters differently,
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
so it is difficult to make generalized statements
about the condition of the nation's coasts
based on these data alone.
State Fish Consumption Advisories
The 50 states, U.S. territories, and Native
American tribes (hereafter referred to as
states) have primary responsibility for
protecting their residents from the health risks
of consuming contaminated noncommercially
caught fish and shellfish. (Sale of commercial
fish in interstate commerce is regulated by the
FDA.) States do this by issuing consumption
advisories for the general population,
including recreational and subsistence fishers,
as well as for sensitive subpopulations (such
as pregnant women, nursing mothers, and
children). These advisories inform the public
that high concentrations of chemical contam-
inants (such as mercury and polychlorinated
biphenyls or PCBs) have been found in local
fish and shellfish. The advisories include
recommendations to limit or avoid consump-
tion of certain fish and shellfish species from
specific waterbodies or, in some cases, from
specific waterbody types within a state
(e.g., all coastal waters).
The 2000 National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) is a database—
available from EPA—that can be searched on
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish.
This database contains fish advisory
information provided to EPA by the states.
The NLFWA database can generate national,
regional, and state maps that illustrate any
combination of advisory parameters.
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters
NOAA's National Shellfish Register is
published to summarize the status of the
shellfish-growing waters around the country
(Table 1-2 defines the classifications). Seven
Registers have been published since 1966.
The 1995 Register characterizes over 4,200
shellfish-growing waters in 21 coastal states,
reflecting an assessment of nearly 25 million
acres of estuarine and nonestuarine waters.
Over 77 million pounds (meat weight) was
harvested from these waters in 1995, with
a dockside value of $200 million. The 1995
Register data are available on the Internet
at http://sposerver.nos.noaa.gov/projects/
95register. The 1995 Register will be the
last published version. NOAA is currently
investing their efforts into making state
shellfish advisory data available on-line.
Table 1-2. Classifications for Shellfish-Growing Waters
Approved
Waters
Shellfish may be harvested for direct marketing.
Fecal coliform median or geometric mean most
probable number (MPN) does not exceed 14
per 100 ml, and not more than 10% of samples
exceed MPN of 43 per 100 ml for 5-tube
decimal dilution test.
Conditionally Growing waters meet approved classification
Approved standards under predictable conditions. Open to
Waters harvest when water quality standards are met,
but closed at other times. Fecal coliform
standards are the same as for Approved.
Restricted Shellfish may be harvested only if they are relayed
Waters or depurated before direct marketing. Fecal coli-
form median or geometric mean MPN does not
exceed 88 per 100 ml, and not more than 10%
of the samples exceed MPN of 260 per 100 ml.
Conditionally Growing waters do not meet the criteria for
Restricted restricted waters, but may be harvested if shellfish
Waters are subjected to a suitable purification process.
Fecal coliform standards same as for Restricted.
Prohibited
Waters
Shellfish may not be harvested for marketing
under any conditions.
Unclassified Waters that are part of a state's shellfish program
Waters but are inactive, and the state does not conduct
I any water quality monitoring or maintain a
I sanitary survey.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Program
You can view maps of the nation's 303(d) listed
waters and associated impairments at EPA's Total
Maximum Daily Load website. You can view local
information and download geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) and database files from this
site as well:
http://www.epo.gov/owow/tmd/
The NLFWA database
includes information on
• Geographic location of each advisory
• Species and size ranges of fish and shellfish
included in each advisory
• Chemical contaminants identified
in the advisory
• Geographic extent of advisories in estuaries
(square mileage) and coastal areas (miles)
• Population for whom the advisory was issued
(general population or subpopulations).
http://www.epo.gov/ost/flsh
EPA's BEACH Watch Website
EPA has created a new website called "BEACH
Watch" to serve as an online directory of
information about the water quality at beaches
nationwide and about local protection programs.
The website address is
http://www.epo.gov/ost/beoches
Beach Closures
There is growing concern in the United
States about public health risks posed by
polluted bathing beaches. Scientific evidence
documenting the rise of infectious diseases
caused by microbial organisms in recreational
waters continues to grow. However, there is
not enough information currently available
to define the extent of beach pollution
throughout the country. A primary goal of
EPA's Beaches Environmental Assessment,
Closure, and Health (BEACH) Program,
established in 1997, is to work with state,
tribal, and local governments to compile
information on beach pollution to define
the national extent of the problem.
A few states have comprehensive beach
monitoring programs to test the safety of
water for swimming. Many other states have
only limited beach monitoring programs, and
some states have no monitoring programs
linked directly to water safety at swimming
beaches. What we do know is that beach
pollution is a persistent problem, based on the
number of beach closings and swimming
advisories that continue to be issued annually.
In 1999, there were over 1,830 beach closures
and advisories in coastal and Great Lakes
waters. This represents a substantial increase
over previous years, although changes in the
number of closures may result from improved
monitoring and reporting activities.
Photo:® John Theilgard
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of this report is to present
a broad baseline picture of the condition of
estuaries across the United States and, where
available, snapshots of the condition of
offshore waters. This report uses currently
available data sets to discuss the condition
of the nation's coasts. This report is not
intended to be a comprehensive literature
review of coastal information. The data sets
presented in this report can begin to tell a
story about coastal condition. For example,
EMAP has monitoring data on a variety of
indicators for the Virginian, Louisianian, and
Carolinian provinces, which make up 70% of
U.S. estuarine acreage. This report will serve as
a useful benchmark for analyzing the progress
of coastal programs in the future and will be
followed in subsequent years by reports for
more specialized coastal issues. It will also
serve as a reminder of the data gaps and other
pitfalls that we are constantly faced with and
must try to overcome in the future in order
to make more reliable assessments of how the
condition of our nation's coastal resources
may be changing with time.
This report also highlights several
exemplary programs at the federal, state,
tribal, and local levels that show coastal
conditions at various regional scales.
These highlights are not intended to be
comprehensive or exhaustive of all coastal
programs, but are presented to show that
information about the health of coastal
systems is being collected for decision-
making at these local and regional levels.
NOAA's State of the Coast Report
Assessing the Health of the Nation's
Coastal Resources
NOAA's State of the Coast Report is an
account of the status of the environmental
condition for the nation's coastal areas and
resources. The report consists of a series of
essays on important coastal issues ranging from
population growth to the extent and condition
of U.S. coral reefs to efforts to reduce the
impacts of coastal hazards. The essays present
information from the national, regional, and
local perspectives. Each essay also includes
the responses and opinions of an expert panel
on two key questions relevant to the issue.
Essays are currently available for 16 topics.
http://stote-of-coost.nooo.gov
The Heinz Center
Designing a Report on the State
of the Nation's Ecosystems
Selected Measurements for Croplands,
Forests, and Coasts & Oceans
The Heinz Center Report on the State
of the Nation's Ecosystems, funded by USDA,
DOI, Departments of Defense and Energy,
EPA, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, NOAA, and the National Science
Foundation, presents a framework for reporting
ecological condition and applies this framework
to coasts and oceans. The purpose of the report
is to identify and present a suite of measures that
can be used to gauge the condition and use of
the nation's natural resources. One of the major
findings of the report is that national data are
available for only about one-third of the
measures of condition for coasts and oceans.
http:llwww. os-ecosystems. org
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Federal Programs and Initiatives That Address
Coastal Issues
Restoring &
I^otectmg
' Water*
CI.KAN WATER
ACTION PLAN
CWAP: Coastal
Research and
Monitoring Strategy
http:llwww.cleanwater.
gov
The National Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy was developed to
address the lack of nationally consistent data
for analyzing the status and trends of coastal
conditions. The objectives of the strategy
are to
• Document the status and trends in
environmental conditions at scales
necessary for scientific investigation and
policy development
• Evaluate the causes and consequences of
changes in environmental status and trends
• Assess environmental, economic, and
sociological impacts of alternative policies
for dealing with these changes
• Implement programs and policies to correct
observed environmental problems.
The key attributes of the proposed Coastal
Research and Monitoring Strategy include co-
funding by federal and state programs; nested
designs that allow state-specific issues to be
addressed in a national context; and attention
to specific state issues, collective reporting,
and cross-system comparisons.
Figure 1-6. Twenty-four
states and Puerto Rico are
participating in Coastal 2000,
National Coastal
Assessment -
Coastal 2000
http:llwww. ep a.gov/
emfiultelnca
EPA's National Coastal Assessment (also
known as Coastal 2000 or C2000) is a 5-year
effort led by EPA's Office of Research and
Development to evaluate the assessment
methods it has developed to advance the
science of ecosystem condition monitoring.
This program will survey the condition of
the nation's coastal resources (estuaries and
offshore waters) by creating an integrated,
comprehensive coastal monitoring program
among the coastal states to assess the coastal
ecological condition.
The strategy for Coastal 2000 focuses on
a strategic partnership with NOAA, USGS,
and all 24 U.S. coastal states. Using a compat-
ible, probabilistic design and a common set
of survey indicators, each state will conduct
the survey and assess the condition of its
coastal resources independently, yet these
estimates can be aggregated to assess condi-
tions at EPA Regional, biogeographical, and
national levels. The map in Figure 1-6 shows
the states (and Puerto Rico) that are included
in the survey, the intended number of
sampling sites in each state for 2000-01,
and the stage of development of the survey.
I
Alaska
Hawaii
Number of Sample Sites
0 50-100
a 101-200
D 201-500
Puerto Rico
Participation
n Present and Continuing Participation
• Intended Participation in 2000-01
D Intended Participation in 2001
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) conducts
annual surveys to measure indicators of
the health of plants and animals, the quality
of their surroundings, and the presence
of pollutants. The program, at present, is
developing the appropriate designs and sets
of indicator measurements to characterize
the condition of the nation's resources. Once
these developmental issues are addressed, the
goal of the program is long-term monitoring
activity that will provide information on the
overall health of the environment and the
effectiveness of pollution prevention and
control measures.
EMAP-Estuaries (EMAP-E), implemented
through partnerships between EPA, NOAA,
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), coastal states,
and academia, will provide information on the
ecological condition of the nation's estuaries
as part of this larger program. Ecological
health is being assessed by investigating the
regional distributions of fish and bottom-
Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program
http:Hwww. epo.gov/emop
dwelling organisms. EMAP-E is determining
what portions of estuaries can support these
plants and animals and finding out why
certain areas do not support them.
The EMAP-E approach places all coastal
waters, bays, and estuaries into defined areas
for study (Figure 1-7). From 1990 to 1993,
EMAP-E investigated the ecological condition
of the estuaries of the Middle Atlantic states
from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Cape
Henry, Virginia (Virginian Province), and
the estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico from
Anclote Anchorage, Florida, to the Rio
Grande, Texas (Louisianian Province).
EMAP-E conducted provincewide monitoring
in the Carolinian province from 1994 to 1995.
The estuarine resources in these three
provinces represent 70% of the estuarine
acreage of the United States. EMAP-E also
conducted monitoring of North Carolina's
estuaries from 1994 to 1997 and site-specific
sampling of the Neuse River during 1998
and 1999.
Columbian
Californian
Acadian
Virginian
Carolinian
West Indian
Figure 1-7. EMAP-Estuaries study areas.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
I
Coastal Zone Management Program
http://www.ocrm.nos.nooo.gov/czm
The Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
Act of 1972 established a voluntary
partnership between federal and state
governments for management of the coast.
The program provides funding through
NOAA to coastal states (including the Great
Lakes states) and territories (see Figure 1-8)
for the development and implementation
of measures to conserve and develop coastal
resources (NRG, 1997). The CZM program
focuses on efforts to protect the nation's
coastal zones, assists states in their responsi-
bilities for coastal zone management,
develops special area management plans,
and encourages the participation and
coordination of all public and private
stakeholders who affect the coastal zone.
States have the flexibility to address their
most pressing coastal issues, and many states
have supported the revitalization of urban
waterfronts and the reuse of waterfront sites
impaired by contamination. States develop
and implement coastal zone management
programs with enforceable policies designed
to meet national objectives (NRG, 2000).
Over 99.7%, or 95,093 miles, of U.S. shoreline
is managed by federally approved state coastal
zone management programs (NRG, 2000).
D U.S. Virgin Islands
I Puerto Rico
I American Samoa
Figure 1-8. Coastal Zone Management Program.
State/Territorial CZM
Programs
EH 33 Approved
CH I in Development
d I Inactive
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARIES .
National Marine Sanctuary System
http://www.sonctuories.nos.nooo.gov
The National Marine Sanctuary (NMS)
System, a network of 13 marine protected
areas, was established in 1972 in response to
public concern over ocean pollution and its
impact on marine mammals and ecosystems
(Figure 1-9).
National marine sanctuaries embrace part
of our collective riches as a nation. Within
their protected waters, giant humpback whales
breed and calve their young, coral colonies
flourish, and shipwrecks tell the story of
our maritime history. The Sanctuary System
is today administered under the National
Ocean Service of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. The
objectives of the NMS System program are to
• Identify and designate areas of special
national significance as sanctuaries
• Develop and implement coordinated
protection and managements plans
for sanctuaries
• Facilitate public and private uses insofar
as they are compatible with resource
protection
• Support scientific research and public
education in sanctuaries (NRC, 1997).
The system's objectives work to conserve,
protect, and enhance the biodiversity,
ecological integrity, and cultural legacy of our
nation's oceans and Great Lakes. Marine
sanctuaries contain natural classrooms for
students and scientists, cherished recreational
spots, and valuable cultural artifacts. National
Marine Sanctuaries are committed to protect-
ing American's ocean treasures for this and
future generations.
Olympic
Coast
Gulf of^
Farallones'
/
Monterey Bay^
Channel Islands
Stellwagen
Thunder Bay Bank
Designated
Gray's Reef
Flower Garden
Banks
Florida Keys
Figure 1-9. National Marine Sanctuaries.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
I
ESTUARY
iPROGRAMl
National Estuary Program
http://www.epo.gOv/ov/ov//estuor/es
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was
established under Sections 317 and 320 of
the Water Quality Act of 1987 (amendments
to the Clean Water Act) to:
• Identify potentially significant estuaries
that are threatened by pollution,
development, or overuse
• Promote comprehensive planning for,
and conservation and management of,
nationally significant estuaries
• Encourage the preparation of management
plans for estuaries of national significance
and enhance the coordination of estuarine
research
• Create a monitoring program to evaluate
the management plan's effectiveness.
The mission of the NEP is to protect
and restore the health of estuaries while
Puget Sound
Lower Columbia
Estuai
Tillamook Bay
San Francisco
Estuary
Morro Bay
Santa Monica Bay"
supporting economic and recreational
activities. To achieve this, EPA designates
local NEPs to develop partnerships among
the government agencies that oversee
estuarine resources and the people who
depend on these resources for their livelihood
and quality of life. Each NEP brings together
officials at the federal, state, and local levels;
interest group representatives; the scientific
and academic communities; and private
citizens to work together as a management
conference to develop a Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
Twenty-eight estuary programs are currently
working to safeguard the health of some of
our nation's most important coastal waters
(Figure 1-10).
Year Entered the Program
• 1987 • 1990
D 1988 • 1993
• 1995
Casco Bay
Massachusetts Bay
Buzzards Bay
arragansett Bay
Peconic Bay
Long Island Sound
New York/New Jersey Harbor
Barnegat Bay
Delaware Inland Bays
Delaware Estuary
Maryland Coastal Bays
Albemarle-Pamlico
Sounds
o
Coastal Bend Bays
& Estuaries
Mobile Bay
Tampa Bay'
Sarasota Bay'
Charlotte Harbor
VI
Figure I-10. Locations of the 28
National Estuary Program estuaries.
Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuarine Complex
San Juan Bay
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve System
http:Hinlet.geoLsc.edulcdmohome.html
The National Estuarine Research Reserve
System (NERRS) is a network of protected
areas established to develop and provide
information that promotes informed resource
management (Figure 1-11). The reserve system
was created by the Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972. Currently, there are 25 reserves
in the system representing the wide range of
estuarine and coastal habitats found in the
United States.
The reserves implement a System-Wide
Monitoring Program (SWMP) to detect
physical and biological change in estuaries.
The SWMP provides critical information on
national estuarine trends and allows flexibility
to assess coastal issues of regional or local
concern. The SWMP makes onsite research
easier and promotes use of the reserves as
demonstration sites for new approaches to
estuarine management. The SWMP provides
valuable long-term data and information
to researchers, natural resource program
managers, and other coastal decision makers.
The SWMP is an integrated monitoring
program that consists of three components
(phased in over several years):
• Estuarine water quality monitoring
• Biodiversity monitoring
• Land use and habitat change analysis.
Further details on SWMP and preliminary
results are presented in a highlight on page 37
in Chapter 2.
Padilla Bay
Wells
South Slough
San Francisco Ba
Elkhorn Slough
Tijuana River
Kachemak Bay
St. Lawrence River
Wolk
Great Bay
.Waquoit Bay
Narragansett Bay
Hudson River
Jacques Cousteau
(Mullica River and Great Bay)
Delaware
Chesapeake Bay, MD
Chesapeake Bay, VA
North Carolina
North Inlet - Winyah Bay
ACE Basin
Sapelo Island
Guana Tolomato Matanzas
Apalachicola Bay Rookery Bay
Figure I-I I. Locations of the 25 NERRS sites (NOAA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
I
NOAA's National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program
http:llccmaserver.nos.noaa.govlNSandTINew_NSandT.html
In 1984, NOAA initiated the National Status
and Trends (NS&T) Program to determine
the current status of, and to detect changes
in, the environmental quality of our nation's
estuarine and coastal waters. NS&T sites are
identified in Figure 1-12. The NS&T
• Conducts long-term monitoring of contam-
inants and other environmental conditions
at more than 350 sites along the U.S. coast
• Studies biotic effects intensively at more
than 25 coastal ecosystems
• Partners with other agencies in a variety
of environmental activities
• Advises and participates in local, regional,
national, and international projects related
to coastal monitoring and assessment.
The NS&T Program comprises several
projects: the Mussel Watch Project, the
Quality Assurance Project, the Specimen
Banking Project, Sediment Toxicity Surveys,
Biomarkers, Environmental Indices, and
Regional Assessment. Information from
the NS&T Program is synthesized and
reported to those responsible for managing
coastal natural resources and to the public.
Bioeffects Survey
• Mussel Watch
Puerto Rico
Figure 1-12. NOAA NS&T sites.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service National
Habitat Program
http://www.nmfs.nooo.gov/hob/tot/index.htm/
The Office of Habitat Conservation,
within NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), together with the five
NMFS Regions make up the National Habitat
Program. The Program works to manage,
conserve, restore, and enhance habitats
for fishery resources and protected marine
species. Through research and management,
the National Habitat Program's primary
mandates focus on ensuring that living
marine resources have sufficient healthy
habitat to sustain populations of fish and
shellfish. Those mandates emphasize
wetlands, anadromous fish habitat, and
habitat of managed fish species and invariably
include close partnerships with state and
federal agencies, industry, environmental
groups, and academia (Figure 1-13).
Since the enactment of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996, the Program has worked
with regional fishery management councils in
identifying habitats essential to the long-
term sustainability of the nation's fishery
resources. The identification of this essential
fish habitat (EFH) supports the conservation
and enhancement of habitat through coordi-
nation and consultation with other federal
and state agencies that undertake activities
affecting EFH. The Program is working to
stem the tide of wetland loss in Louisiana,
which is beset by the highest rate of coastal
wetland loss in the nation. Through its
mandated role in the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act
(CWPPRA), the NMFS works to develop
and implement habitat projects to restore salt
marshes lost to erosion, subsidence, and hydro-
logical alterations. The Program also seeks to
restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of
resources injured as a result of discharges of
oil or hazardous substances or other human-
induced environmental disturbances.
Northw
California
Western
Pacific
o
In Partnership with
Fish America Foundation
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
EPA Five Star
Restore America's Estuaries
National Fisheries Institute
NOAA
Figure 1-13. National Habitat Program.
National Coastal Condition Report
New England
"lid-Atlantic
outh Atlantic
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Office of
Air Quality Planning
ana Standards
EPA's Great Waters Program
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gr8vyater
I
On November 15,1990, in response
to mounting evidence that air pollution
contributes to water pollution, Congress
amended the Clean Air Act and included
provisions that established research and
reporting requirements that related to the
deposition of hazardous air pollutants to the
"Great Waters." The waterbodies designated
by these provisions are the Great Lakes, Lake
Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, and certain other
coastal waters (identified by their designation
as NEP or NERRS sites, Figure 1-14). The
amendments require EPA to establish
deposition monitoring networks in the Great
Waters, as well as conduct additional studies,
such as assessing sources and deposition rates,
evaluating adverse affects, and researching
monitoring methods and biotic sampling. The
amendment also requires EPA to report its
findings to Congress in periodic reports. These
reports to Congress address three main issues:
• Contribution of atmospheric deposition
to total pollutant loading to the Great
Waters
• Adverse effects on human health
and the environments
• Sources of the pollutants.
The third report to Congress was completed
in June 2000.
Chesapeake
Lake
Lake Huron Champlain
Lake
Ontario
Great Waters Designated by Name
• EPA National Estuary Program (NEP) Sites
• NOAA NERRS Designated Sites
Q Existing EPA and NOAA NERRS Designated Sites
D Existing EPA and NOAA NERRS Proposed Sites
Figure 1-14. EPA's "Great Waters" as designated by the Clean Air Act.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
USGS
National Streamgaging Program
http:llwater. usgs.gov/os w
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
National Streamgaging Program provides
freshwater inflow data for estuary subsystems
across the nation. Freshwater inflow, a major
determinant of the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of most estuaries, is
measured by USGS river gauges. Freshwater
inflow affects the concentration and retention
of pollutants, the distribution of salinity, and
the stratification of fresh and salt water within
an estuary. These characteristics help define
the ecological processes and habitats within an
estuary and determine how human activities
affect an estuary's overall condition.
The National Stream Water Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN, Figure 1-15)
collects water chemistry and sediment data
along the nation's largest streams that can
be used to characterize large subbasins of
these rivers and identify regional sources for
the contaminants and sediments carried by
the stream. NASQAN stations are sampled
frequently enough to characterize variations
in chemical and sediment concentrations that
occur during a year, particularly the variation
that occurs between low and high flows,
during different seasons of a year, and during
different hydrologic regimes such as periods
when snowmelt dominates river discharge.
By sampling a river under these different
conditions, the amount of material that
passes a station, known as the mass flux
of a constituent (expressed as tons per day),
can be reliably determined by multiplying
the concentration of a constituent by the
stream discharge.
Constituent mass fluxes can be compared
among stations and across spatial scales. For
example, yields of contaminants (expressed
as tons per square mile) can be compared
between stations; gains or losses in a river
reach can be determined between any two
stations; and amounts of materials delivered
to a reservoir or estuary can be calculated.
The ability to determine these three values—
source, transport, and delivery of constit-
uents—enables a broad range of scientific and
policy issues to be addressed.
Figure 1-15. USGS
NASQAN active station
locations.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
U.S.
FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program
http://www.fws.gov/cep/coostv/eb.htm/
I
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal
Program works with partners to conserve
coastal habitats for the benefit of fish, wildlife,
and people. Coastal Program biologists
provide technical and financial assistance
to a wide variety of partners, including other
federal agencies, state and local governments,
conservation organizations, local land trusts
and watershed councils, businesses, and
private landowners. The program forms
cooperative partnerships that
• Restore coastal wetlands, uplands,
and riparian areas
• Protect coastal habitats through voluntary
conservation easements and fee-title
acquisition from willing sellers
• Remove or retrofit barriers to fish passage
in coastal watersheds
• Control exotic invasive species that threaten
estuarine health. Program funds are more
Region 7
\
Alaska
than tripled through leveraging with
partners, and the focus is achieving
on-the-ground results.
From 1994 to 1999, Coastal Program
partnerships restored more than 46,550
acres of coastal wetlands, 17,130 acres of
coastal uplands, and 320 miles of riparian
habitat; protected more than 166,000 acres
of coastal habitat through conservation
easements and acquisition; and reopened
2,260 miles of coastal streams for access
by anadromous fish.
In FY2000, the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Coastal Program funded activities
in 14 coastal watersheds around the country:
Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, San Diego
Bay, Galveston Bay, South Florida, South
Carolina, Albemarle/Pamlico Sound,
Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, New York
Bight, the Gulf of Maine, the Great Lakes,
Alaska, and the Pacific Islands (Figure 1-16).
Gulf of Maine
i
S. New England/
NY Bight
Delaware Bay
Chesapeake Bay
Albemarle/Pamlico
Sound
Pacific Islands
Figure 1-16. Location of Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program activities.
South Carolina
Coast
Everglades/
South Florida
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
U.S.
FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
National Wetlands
Inventory
http:llwetlands.
fws.gov
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service produces
information on the characteristics, extent, and
status of the nation's wetlands and deep water
habitats. This information is used by federal,
state, and local agencies, academic institutions,
U.S. Congress, and the private sector. The
Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986
directs the Service to map the wetlands of
the United States. The NWI has mapped 89%
of the lower 48 states and 31% of Alaska.
The Act also requires the Service to produce
a digital wetland database for the United
States. About 39% of the lower 48 states'
wetlands and 11% of Alaska's wetlands are
digitized. Congressional mandates require
the NWI to produce status and trends reports
to Congress at 10-year intervals. In 1982, the
NWI produced the first comprehensive and
statistically valid estimate of the status of the
nation's wetlands and wetland losses and in
1990 produced the first update. Future
national updates are scheduled for 2000,
2010, and 2020. In addition to the status and
trends reports, the NWI has produced over
130 publications, including manuals, plant and
hydric soils lists, field guides, posters, wall-size
resource maps, atlases, and state reports and
has had numerous articles published in
professional journals.
EPA's BEACH
Watch Program
http'.llwww. epa.
govlostlbeaches
EPA's BEACH Program was established in
1997 to strengthen U.S. beach water protection
programs and water quality standards, better
inform the public, and promote scientific
research to further protect the health of
beachgoers. The BEACH Program is designed
to encourage government agencies at the
federal, state, tribal, and local level to
strengthen beach water quality standards and
testing methods, use predictive water pollution
models to better inform the public about
beach water quality conditions, and make
information about the risks associated with
swimming in contaminated beach water
available to the public. Under the BEACH
Program, EPA will improve laboratory test
methods for detecting contaminants in beach
water; invest additional resources in beach
water quality health and testing methods
research; and help state, local, and tribal
government agencies adopt and carry out
effective water quality monitoring programs.
The Beaches Environmental Assessment and
Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) was passed
in 2000 and amended the CWA to require that
states with recreational beaches adopt new or
revised water quality standards for pathogens
and pathogen indicators. The BEACH Act
amendment also authorizes EPA to award
grants to states to help them develop and
implement beach monitoring and public
notification programs for pathogens. If a
state does not have a monitoring program
that meets EPA criteria, the BEACH Act
requires EPA to perform the monitoring and
notification activities in that state's coastal
recreational waters.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter
National
Coastal
Condition
-------
Chapter 2
National Coastal
Condition
Overall, the condition of ti
estuaries in the United States (Atlantic, Pacific,
Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes, excluding
Alaska and Hawaii) is fair, with four of the seven
indicators receiving a "poor" rating, one receiving
a "fair" rating, and two with a "good" rating.
Figure 2-1 summarizes U.S. estuarine conditions.
Water clarity is good in western and northeastern estuaries
and the Great Lakes but fair in Gulf of Mexico and southeastern
estuaries. Dissolved oxygen conditions are generally good throughout
the estuaries of the United States. Eutrophic condition, sediment
contaminant conditions, and benthic
community conditions are generally
poor throughout U.S. estuaries.
Condition as measured by fish tissue
contaminant concentrations is poor in
northeastern, Gulf of Mexico estuaries
and in the Great Lakes. The fish tissue
contaminants indicator is good
in southeastern estuaries and fair
in western estuaries.
More specifically, about 56%
of assessed estuarine area is in good
condition for supporting plants,
animals, and human uses (Figure 2-2).
About 34% of the area of the nation's
estuarine resources have poor
conditions for aquatic life while 33%
u 4. ui i i r u BEACH Watch volunteers document the live and dead
have unacceptable levels for human- ,., ,, ., ,., c .. c
animals of the Gulf of the harallones Sanctuary
related uses based on the available (Photo: Gulf of the Farallones NMS).
E •
T.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Overall National
oastal Condition
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
* No indicator data available.
** Does not include the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf of Mexico waters.
Figure 2-1. Overall national coastal condition.
indicators. Most of the aquatic life
in poor condition are benthic communities
(bottom-dwelling organisms). Aquatic life
is categorized as poor based on measures
of biodiversity, increased abundances of
pollution-tolerant species, and decreased
abundances of pollution-sensitive species.
These impaired communities occur in areas
exhibiting low dissolved oxygen, eutrophic
conditions, sediment contamination, and
habitat degradation.
Unimpaired
56%
Fair
Poor
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
23%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
11%
Impaired Human Use
10%
Figure 2-2. National estuarine condition (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data
Note: The data presented in this section exclude
the Great Lakes because of sampling design
differences in the data sets. No areal estimates
for the Great Lakes can be determined. The
Great Lakes data are presented in Chapter 7.
Water Clarity
The overall water clarity of the nation's
estuaries is rated as good. EMAP estimates
water clarity using specialized equipment that
compares the amount and type of light reaching
the water surface to the light at a depth of
1 meter. Water visibility of only 10% (10%
of surface light reaches 1 meter) is used to
represent poor conditions. This is equivalent
to being unable to see your hand in front of
your face at a depth of 1 meter. As shown in
Figure 2-3, poor light penetration is a problem
in only about 4% of estuarine waters.
2j Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the nation's
estuaries are good. Both EMAP and NOAA's
National Eutrophication Assessment examined
the extent of estuarine waters with low
dissolved oxygen. Often low dissolved oxygen
occurs as a result of large algal blooms that
sink to the bottom and use oxygen during the
process of decay. Dissolved oxygen is a
fundamental requirement for all estuarine life.
Low levels of oxygen often accompany the
onset of severe bacterial degradation,
sometimes resulting in algal scums, fish kills,
and noxious odors, as well as loss of habitat
and aesthetic values. This, in turn, results in
decreased tourism and recreational water use.
EMAP estimates that only about 4% of
bottom waters have low dissolved oxygen
(Figure 2-4). However, low dissolved oxygen is
Water Clarity
National Coast
Not
Measured
Not
Measured
32% 10-25%
Good
Fair
Figure 2-3. Light penetration data and locations for sites with < 10/6 light
penetration (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Dissolved Oxygen
National Coast
Not
Measured
Not
Measured
16% 2-5 ppm
Good
Figure 2-4. Estuarine sites with low dissolved oxygen and the distribution
of dissolved oxygen data for all sampled sites (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
As the heavier materials from the mountains make their way
through the plateau and piedmont in the streams, creeks, and
rivers of the water transport system, silts and clay are picked
up as well. By the time the heavier materials reach the coast,
they have become sand and settle just offshore, while the
lighter silts and clays settle in the calmer waters behind the
barrier islands to become the black anaerobic mud of the
marshes. These marshes are some of the most productive
acres on earth. They supply an enormous amount of nutrients,
which make our waters rich in marine life. At the same time,
these nutrients make our water turbid. Frequently the visibility
at Gray's Reef is poor due to the tremendous amounts of
nutrients in the water and the huge volume of sediments that
are being flushed from the mainland, especially during periods
of heavy rain (Photo: Gray's Reef NMS).
a problem in some individual estuarine systems like
the Neuse River Estuary, parts of Chesapeake Bay,
and the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia zone.
Coastal Wetland Loss
The loss of wetland habitats in the United States
is significant and, as a condition indicator, has
received a poor rating. During the 200-year period
from 1780 to 1980, nearly 50% of the existing
wetlands of the conterminous United States were
lost (Figure 2-5). Proportional losses along the West
Coast have been the largest (68%), although the
actual number of acres lost there is among the
smallest. Absolute and proportional acreages lost in
the Great Lakes and Gulf of Mexico coast are also
high (about 50% of wetlands existing in 1780). Even
in more recent years (mid- to late 1990s), wetland
losses in southeastern and Gulf of Mexico states
continue at a high rate (more than 1% per year).
Currently, surveys are conducted only to estimate
the amount of acreage of wetlands every 10 years.
No surveys examine, at a national level, the
ecological condition of these critical coastal
habitats.
Alaska
Hawaii Center- All U.S.
minous U.S.
Figure 2-5. Proportion of total wetland acres existing in 1780 lost by 1980 in areas of the
United States (Dahl, 1990;Turner and Boesch, 1988).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen
Atmospheric deposition occurs when
pollutants fall out of the air (in the form
of rain, snow, or microscopic particles,
for example) onto the land or water.
Pollutants can be released into the air
from a variety of sources, including
the burning of fossil fuels, industrial
processes, cars and trucks, fertilizer,
and the volatilization of animal wastes.
Some may be carried by wind patterns
for long distances away from their place
of origin before they are deposited.
250 r
200
; iso
i
100
50
GDP
Population
VMT
Total Fuel Consumption
VOC and NOx Emissions
SO2 Emissions
70 72 74 76 78 '80 '82 '84 '86
Year
'90 '92 '94 '96 '98
Trend in gross domestic product, population,
vehicle miles traveled, total fuel consumption,
combined volatile organic compound and
nitrogen oxides emissions, and sulfur dioxide
emissions, 1970 to 1998.
Many coastal waters have experienced eutrophication problems related to excess
nitrogen in the water. Atmospheric deposition is a large contributor to the nitrogen
load of many coastal waters. Depending on the waterbody and watershed being
considered, it is estimated that roughly one-quarter of the nitrogen in an estuary
comes from air deposition.
Nitrogen oxide (NOX) is one of the prevalent forms of nitrogen emitted to the air
from human activities. The majority of NOX pollution comes from mobile sources
such as cars and heavy-duty trucks and electric utilities, primarily coal-fired power
plants. Combined emissions of several pollutants have decreased since 1970, even as
the economy and population have grown (see graph). NOX emissions specifically
increased between 1970 and 1997, followed by a slight decline in 1998.
Numerous measures are planned or are already in place to help curb NOX
pollution, including a new EPA rule that will require most states in the eastern half
of the country to submit plans to reduce NOX emissions, which travel downwind
and cross state borders, contributing to smog formation in the eastern United States.
It is expected that many states will target electric utilities for reductions. Acid rain
reduction measures, strengthened tailpipe emission standards, and more stringent
emission standards for heavy-duty vehicles will also help reduce NOX pollution.
More information about air quality is available in the EPA document National Air
Pollution Emission Trends, available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/trends/trends98/trends98.pdf.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Water Quality in the National
Estuarine Research Reserves
The NERRS System-Wide Monitoring
Program (SWMP) has measured water
quality (pH, conductivity, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and water
level) at 30-minute intervals in 22 Reserves
since 1995. This program provides
important information on habitat and
10
OJ
P
6-
Super-saturation
Hypoxia
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Seasonal patterns of percent of time that dissolved
oxygen is less than 28% saturation (hypoxia) or more
than 120% saturation (supersaturation) across all
NERRS sites during 1997 and 1998.
water quality conditions at spatial and temporal scales not represented by other
national, regional, or state monitoring programs. Standardized protocols and data
management techniques developed for the Reserves ensure that data collection is
comparable among sites so that the resulting data are of high quality.
Measurement of water quality parameters at short time intervals over extended
periods provides a valuable way of characterizing the episodic nature and trends
in environmental conditions that are not captured in point-in-time sampling
techniques. These data are also used to evaluate key ecosystem processes like gross
production and system metabolism. Examination of dissolved oxygen data collected
by SWMP indicates that few sites have chronic problems with hypoxia (too little
oxygen) or supersaturation (too much oxygen) (see graph). Considerable year-
to-year variability exists in the frequency and severity of dissolved oxygen levels
at several Reserves. Such large annual changes in hypoxia and supersaturation
appear to be related to site-specific circulation patterns, land use, climatic
conditions, pollution levels, and environmental conditions.
Reserve water quality data are used to evaluate key ecological processes such as
system gross production, respiration, and net ecosystem metabolism. Production and
respiration vary by a factor of 20 among reserves. In most of the reserves, more
oxygen (and carbon) was consumed than was produced (i.e., were heterotrophic).
Variability in metabolic rates may be affected by factors such as temperature regime,
salinity fluctuations, nutrient concentration, and algal abundance. Not surprisingly,
most of the sites showed a positive relationship between temperature and respiration
and production (higher rates at higher temperatures).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Eutrophic Condition
Data from NOAA's National Estuarine
Eutrophication Assessment (Bricker et al.,
1999) indicate that the nation's estuaries
exhibit strong symptoms of eutrophication,
which result in a rating of poor. When data
on the symptoms of eutrophication are
combined, they suggest that 40% of the
surface area of the nation's estuarine waters
exhibit high expression of eutrophic condition
(Figure 2-6). Many of these waters are in the
Mid-Atlantic and Gulf regions of the United
States. Moreover, based on expert opinion,
eutrophic conditions are expected to worsen
in 70% of U.S. estuaries by 2020 (Bricker et al.,
1999).
One of the symptoms measured to
determine the eutrophic condition in estuaries
is the expression of chlorophyll a (as measured
by concentration, spatial coverage, and
duration). Chlorophyll a is a measure used to
indicate the amount of microscopic algae,
called phytoplankton, growing in a water-
body. High expressions of chlorophyll a
indicate problems related to overproduction
of algae. High expressions of chlorophyll a
occurred in 39 estuaries throughout the
United States, representing approximately 40%
of estuarine area (Figure 2-7). Approximately
46% of estuarine area has moderate
expressions of chlorophyll a, although many of
these areas are expected to show worsening
eutrophic conditions over the next 20 years
(Bricker et al., 1999).
Eutrophic Condition
National Coast
Not
Measured
• Sites with High
Expression of
Eutrophic Condition
High
40%
Good
Fair
Poor
Moderate
25%
Figure 2-6. Eutrophic condition data and locations of estuaries with high
expressions of eutrophic condition (NOAA/NOS).
Expression of Chlorophyll a
National Coast
Not
Measured
• Sites with High
Expression of
Chlorophyll a
High
Expression
High Expression = generally high
chlorophyll a concentrations over a
large spatial area and/or over a long
period of time
Moderate to Low Expression =
generally lower concentrations of
chlorophyll a over smaller areas or
for a shorter period of time
Moderate
to Low
Expression
60%
Figure 2-7. Chlorophyll a data and locations of estuaries with high
expressions of chlorophyll a (NOAA/NOS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
National estuarine conditions, as
measured by sediment contamination, are
poor. Figure 2-8 shows the enrichment of
sediments due to human sources. These
measurements show that 40%, 45%, and 75%
of U.S. estuarine sediments are enriched with
metals, PCBs, and pesticides from human
sources. One of the challenges of assessing the
magnitude of sediment contamination is
differentiating between contaminants such as
organics and metals that may occur naturally
in the earth's crust from those that are added
from human activities. Pesticides and PCBs are
relatively easy to evaluate, as they can only
come from human activities. However,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and
Southern
California
Gulf of Mexico
South Florida
Southeast
Mid-Atlantic
U.S.
JSO
J82
J29
T28
75
153_
J99
J93
34
59
46
63
77
40
45
J75
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent Area
Metals n PCBs d Pesticides
metals can and do naturally occur in estuarine
sediments. The approach used to determine
these percentages is based on the methods
described in Windom et al. (1989). This
approach uses regression relationships
between natural sources of aluminum in
sediments and concentrations of other heavy
metals to determine the expected levels of
metals naturally occurring in estuarine
sediments. The extent of the difference
between the observed concentration of heavy
metals and the expected concentrations
(derived from the regressions) is the basis
for the determination of whether the
"contamination" is due to human sources.
Concentrations of heavy metals exceeding the
95% confidence level of the regression are
deemed affected by human sources.
National and regional monitoring programs
conducted by EPA and NOAA provide
baseline information on the concentrations of
contaminants found in estuarine sediments
throughout the United States. Surface
sediments have been or are being examined
Figure 2-8. Regional sediment enrichment due to human sources.
Bottom samples from the Olympic Coast Sanctuary help researchers
map communities of bottom-dwelling organisms (Photo: Olympic Coast
NMS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
in over 2,000 locations throughout the
estuaries of the United States. Measurements
of over 100 contaminants have been taken at
each site including over 25 PAHs, 22 PCBs,
total PCBs, over 25 pesticides, and 15 metals.
One to two percent of estuarine sediments
in the United States show concentrations of
contaminants (PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and
metals) that are above ERM guidelines
(mid-range concentrations of contaminants
above which adverse effects on marine
organisms are likely to occur), while 10%
to 29% of sediments have contaminant
concentrations between the ERM and lower-
level ERL guidelines (concentrations below
which adverse effects on marine organisms are
not likely to occur) (Figure 2-9).
Figure 2-10 shows that most of the
locations exceeding the ERM guidelines are
in the Northeast coastal area, while the Gulf of
Mexico Coast contains many locations with
exceedances of the ERL for five or more
contaminants.
Pesticides
,>ERM
70% < ERL
29% > ERL < ERM
Metals
I % > ERM
76% < ERL
23% > ERL < ERM
PAHs/PCBs
I % > ERM
!0%>ERL< ERM
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
NCAA's NS&T program has collected
samples of shellfish tissue (mussels and
oysters) from over 200 locations since 1986 to
assess the bioavailability of sediment and
waterborne contaminants. Information from
selected sites throughout the United States
shows that little change has occurred in the
bioavailability of contaminants to shellfish
since 1986 (83% of contaminants have not
changed in bioavailability). Of contaminants
measured, 14% showed decreases in
availability and only 3% showed increases
(Figure 2-11).
Chemical analyses of sediments can provide
information on the concentrations and
mixtures of potentially toxic substances in
sediment samples. However, information
gained from these analyses alone provides no
direct measure of the lexicological significance
of the chemicals. It is now possible to do an
analysis of tissue residues based on the critical
body residue concept. This could be used in
the future as an indicator of the lexicological
condition of bioaccumulated residues.
National Status and Trends Program: Bioaccumulation in Shellfish
National
Seattle
a 100
| 80
E
60
o 40
•K 20
74
23
Increasing No Change Decreasing
San Francisco
Increasing No Change Decreasing
San Diego
J3 100
| 80
E
60
o 40
•K 20
81
15
Increasing No Change Decreasing
C
a
c
|S
O
u
uu •
8U •
60-
40-
in .
A -
83
3
14
| |
Increasing No Change Decreasing
Boston
o 40.
•K 20H
n
Increasing No Change Decreasin
New York
& 100
| 80-
E
o 40
•K 20
75
24
Increasing No Change Decreasin
Charleston
8 100
*? an
Increasing No Change Decreasing
Galveston
% of Contaminant
SJ -fc. ON CO C
3 O O O O C
1
84
9
Increasing No Change Decreasing
J3 100-
c 80-
I 60-
c
O 40 •
U
"o 20-
** 0-
Tampa
0
91
9
Increasing No Change Decreasing
Figure 2-11. Trends in the bioaccumulation of contaminants in shellfish (NOAA/NOS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Index of Watershed Indicators
EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators
• v/f (IWI) combines 16 different indicators of the
"v^vr Ci- health of the nation's water resources. Seven
indicators draw on monitoring data or other
information sources that document the condition
of the aquatic resources in USGS Cataloging Unit
(CU) watersheds. The other nine indicators are
viewed as documenting a watershed's vulnerability
and susceptibility to pollution. These vulnerability
indicators are not based directly on water quality
monitoring data or assessments, but instead draw on whether watersheds have
shown major shifts in population, the intensity of agricultural land uses, or the
results of screening models. The indicator shows that 34% of the nation's coastal
watersheds suffer from more serious water quality problems, while only 15%
are categorized as having "better water quality." Few coastal watersheds have
insufficient data.
EPA's IWI national and watershed-level indicators are found on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/iwi.
http://www.epa.gov/iwi
Distribution of Assessed USGS
CUs in the Overall IWI Categories
60
50-
Percent of 40 -
Assessed
USGS 30-
CUs 20-
10-
0
15%
52%
34%
CU Better Water Quality
CZI Less Serious Water Quality
CU More Serious Water Quality
CU Data Sufficiency Threshold Not Met
The overall watershed characterization is a compilation of condition and vulnerability indicators.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Unified Watershed Assessments
Of coastal watersheds, 81 % were
classified as needing restoration.
The Clean Water Action Plan
in February 1998 announced the
opportunity for states and tribes
to provide Unified Watershed
Assessments (UWAs). The current process of water quality assessment for federal
agencies, states, and tribes is the use of multiple reporting mechanisms focused on
various water program areas. UWAs bring together the different water quality
assessment processes to better identify priorities for watershed restoration and
protection. The primary focus is to identify and assemble background data on
watersheds where nonpoint source pollution issues are major factors contributing to
water quality problems. The aim was to characterize watersheds, where suitable data
were available, into four categories:
• Watersheds Needing Restoration
• Watersheds Meeting Water Quality Standards or Goals
• Watersheds with Exceptionally High Quality Needing Protection Measures
• Watersheds Where Data Are Not Presently Available To Assign UWA Categories.
More information on Unified Watershed Assessments is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Coastal Habitat Losses and
Gains - Developing a
National Strategy
Habitat loss and degradation remain
serious concerns for the health of the nation's
coastal areas. Scientists estimate that we lost
more than 50% of the nation's original
wetland area between 1790 and 1980 (Dahl,
1990; Turner and Boesch, 1988). Passage of
the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000
enhances the strong federal commitment to
estuarine habitat restoration. Many federal
programs are already working to reverse the
centuries-old trend of habitat decline in the
United States. Federal agencies are involved
in activities ranging from habitat protection
and restoration to tracking acreage losses and
gains. However, we lack a national system to
monitor and evaluate the condition of
coastal habitats, which prevents using habitat
quality as an indicator of the status of our
coastal wetlands.
The Estuaries and Clean Water Act of 2000 promotes local conservation efforts and
aims to restore 1 million acres of estuarine habitat by 2010. The legislation authorizes
$275 million in federal matching funds over the next 5 years to support local restoration
efforts. The measure also creates a council that will review project proposals for funding and
develop a national strategy for estuarine habitat restoration.
The Clean Water Action Plan of 1998 makes wetland restoration a high priority and sets a
national goal of increasing wetland area by 100,000 acres per year by 2005. At least 20 federal
offices and programs play a role in achieving this goal by protecting, restoring, and tracking
the status of coastal habitats (see sidebar). Although these programs have been successful in
restoring thousands of acres of wetlands, the quality of these restored habitats remains
largely unknown.
Several large-scale programs focus on protecting and restoring coastal habitat. For
example, the Coastal Habitat Conservation Program, which is administered by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, has succeeded in restoring over 63,000 acres and protecting over
166,000 acres of habitat in 14 high-priority sites around the country. Also, the USDA
administers a program to encourage voluntary wetland preservation and rehabilitation on
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Coastal Habitat Conservation Program
National Park Service
Bureau of Land Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management
Damage Assessment and Restoration Program
National Habitat Plan
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Estuarine Research Reserves
National Marine Sanctuary Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Great Waters Program
National Estuary Program
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Wetland Reserve Program
Water Bank Program
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Defense Environmental Restoration
Program
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
agricultural land. Although no data are available to determine the amount of coastal habitat
protected under this program, over 5,000 contracts have been enrolled in this nationwide
effort.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Damage Assessment Restoration
Program rehabilitates coastal habitat damaged by oil or other hazardous material spills. This
program has rehabilitated 26 sites nationwide, including Prince William Sound in Alaska.
The EPA's National Estuary Program has
protected or restored over 400,000 acres
of coastal habitat in 28 estuaries around
the country (see bar chart).
Tracking the change in wetland
acreage is critical to assessing whether
we are achieving our restoration goals.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
administers a program known as the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI),
which determines the location and
extent of our nation's wetlands. While
200-
150-
100-
50-
A-
• Protected
D Restored
n i
—
—
—
Baseline Year 2 Year 4 Year 6 Year 8
Combined total of habitat acres restored or protected
in connection with the National Estuary Program.
Because the 28 programs began in 5 separate years, the
time period refers to years since a program's inception.
this effort has produced extensive data
on the types and locations of wetland resources, it does not provide the information
necessary to assess the status, trends, or condition of wetlands on a national basis. Another
program, the NWI Status and Trends Program, reports on wetland gains and losses
nationally every 10 years. Detailed regional level information is available for a few areas,
including the Texas coastal wetlands (see pie chart), Great Lakes wetlands, the Mid-Atlantic
region, Florida, and Alaska.
While these efforts have helped us track wetland acreage, they do not provide information
on the health or condition of the nation's wetlands. EPA has established monitoring of
wetland condition as a national priority and is working with states and tribes to help
develop and implement monitoring programs to assess the effectiveness of wetland
protection programs. This information will tell us about the condition of our wetlands and
will help us understand whether coastal wetland protection and restoration efforts are
producing high-quality habitats.
Lost 9%
(59,700 acres)
Baseline
(61 3,000 acres)
Loss of Texas coastal wetlands from the mid-1950s to
early 1990s.While NWI has mapped a large percentage
of the lower 48 states, this level of detail is available in
only a few areas around the country.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition
The condition of benthic communities
in the nation's estuaries is poor. Figure 2-12
shows that 22% of estuarine sediments are
characterized by benthic communities that are
in poor condition (i.e., the communities are
less diverse or abundant than expected,
populated by greater than expected pollution-
tolerant species, or contain fewer than
expected pollution-sensitive species as
measured by multimetric benthic indices).
Largely these differences appear to result from
contaminated sediments, hypoxic conditions,
habitat degradation, and eutrophication.
Benthic organisms are also used in tests of
sediment toxicity. The NS&T Program and
EMAP have been conducting surveys of
sediment toxicity throughout the United States
since 1981. Over 2,500 locations have been
tested using a benthic organism as a test
animal (Ampelisca abdita, an amphipod that
naturally occurs in estuarine sediments).
EMAP test results show that 10% of the
sediments in the estuaries of the United States
are toxic (resulting in significant mortalities)
to amphipods exposed to the sediments for
10 days (Figure 2-13). NS&T bioeffects surveys
of 22 major estuaries throughout the United
States show a similar figure of 11% of the
sediments in these estuaries are toxic to the
amphipod. The NS&T surveys also examined
two alternative toxicity tests using sea urchin
fertilization and microbial organisms as
indicators of chronic effects on estuarine
organisms (nonlethal effects). The results
showed that 43% to 62% of sediments in these
estuaries showed some toxic effects on
estuarine organisms (Table 2-1).
Benthic Index
National Coast
Not
Measured
Data
Collected
in 2000;
Available
in 2002
• Sites with Poor
Benthic Conditions
Not
Measured
Poor
Condition
/-- -\ 22%
Good
Condition
56%
Fair
Condition
22%
Figure 2-12. Benthic index condition data and locations with poor benthos
(U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Sediment Toxicity
National Coast
Not
Measured
Not
Measured
• Sites that
Are Toxic
to Amphipods
Toxic to Amphipods
10%
Not
Toxic to
Amphipods
90%
Figure 2-13. Amphipod data and locations of sites with toxic sediments
(U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Table 2-1. Spatial Extent of Sediment Toxicity in Each of
22 Estuaries Using Three Toxicity Tests (Long et al., 1996)
Percent of Area Toxic
Sea Urchin
Estuary
Boston Harbor
Long Island Sound
Hudson-Raritan Estuary
Newark Bay
Winyah Bay
Charleston Harbor
Leadenwah Creek
Savannah River
St. Simons Sound
Biscayne Bay
Tampa Bay
Apalachicola Bay
St. Andrews Bay
Choctawhatchee Bay
Pensacola Bay
Sabine Lake
Southern California
Estuaries
San Pedro Bay
Mission Bay
San Diego River
San Diego Bay
Tijuana River
U.S. Estimate
Ampelisca
10
51
38
85
0
0
0
1
-------
Exotic Species in Coastal Environments
Spartina alterniflora
D States in Native Range
0 States with Nonnative Records
The spread of Spartina alterniflora to West Coast estuaries
threatens native habitats in California, Oregon, and
Washington.
Scientists believe the spread of
exotic species is one of the five
most critical issues facing marine
environments (Wilcove et al.,
1998). Exotic species, also called
nonindigenous, nuisance, or
invasive species, or biotic invaders,
are "species that establish a new
range in which they proliferate,
spread, and persist to the
detriment of the environment"
(Ecological Society of America,
1999).
Over the past decade, an
increasing number of nonindigenous aquatic fauna like the zebra mussel, Asian
clam, Japanese shore crab, Chinese mitten crab, European green crab, and Asian
green mussel; plant species such as Spartina alterniflora, purple loosestrife, Brazilian
pepper, and Australian paperbark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia); and pathogens like
cholera have been unintentionally introduced into nonnative coastal environments
with consequent harmful, sometimes devastating, ecological, public health, and
socioeconomic effects.
These species can upset the balance of coastal ecosystems through predation or
displacement of native species, as in the case of Spartina alterniflora, an East Coast
native that has spread rapidly and displaced native wetland species in northern
California, Oregon, and Washington state estuaries (see map). Exotic species can also
cause major disruption to power plants as well as to municipal and industrial water
treatment and distribution systems by clogging those systems' intake pipes. For
instance, water users in the Great Lakes region now must bear the cost of tens of
millions of dollars spent each year to remove zebra mussels from the Great Lakes
and their tributaries.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Distribution of the Chinese mitten crab in the San Francisco Estuary and its watershed. Solid
blue area or lines indicates presence of the crab (California Department of Fish & Game).
Unintentionally introduced pathogens can be deadly, especially when these
introductions go unnoticed. An introduced strain of cholera bacteria, possibly
released in the bilge water of a Chinese freighter, caused the deaths of 10,000 people
in Latin America in 1991. This cholera strain was then transported to the United
States from Latin America in the ballast tanks of ships that anchored in the port of
Mobile, Alabama. Fortunately, cholera bacteria were detected in oyster and finfish
samples in Mobile Bay. A public health advisory was issued, and no additional deaths
occurred from exposure to this pathogen.
In the United States, the Aquatic
Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force (Task
Force), an intergovernmental organization
co-chaired by the Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA, is the main federal body dedicated to
coordinating efforts nationwide that target
prevention, research, outreach/education,
and management of coastal and estuarine
lebra
Mussel
Japanese Shore Crab
Task
Force
PttffeifM) 10 ffio pmtatiw ttxt control of iqtatK aaJaxt sgeoti
www.ANSTaskForce.gov
exotic species. Information about Task Force activities can be found on the Internet
at http://www.ANSTaskForce.gov. Together with the Task Force, the U.S. Geological
Survey has organized a National Nonindigenous Aquatic Species (NAS) Information
Center that maintains updated information on nonindigenous aquatic species found
throughout the United States. Through the Center, lists of nonindigenous aquatic
species are available by state and by watershed for each of the major animal groups.
Those lists can be accessed on the Internet at http://nas.er.usgs.gov. In addition,
Sea Grant's National Aquatic Nuisance Species Clearinghouse maintains a library
that includes a searchable electronic database of published research and other
documentation on aquatic nuisance species. Sea Grant's Clearinghouse can be
accessed on the Internet at http://www.cce.cornell.edu/programs/nansc/nan_ld.cfm.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Fish Tissue Contaminants
National estuarine conditions as
measured by fish tissue contamination are fair.
Figure 2-15 shows that 26% of estuarine fish
populations sampled show elevated levels of
contaminants in their edible tissues. Moreover,
of this 26%, 22% were fish with elevated levels
of arsenic represented by organic arsenobetaines
that are not considered toxic to humans. Thus,
only 4% of examined fish have nonarsenical
toxic compounds at significant concentrations
in their edible flesh to be of concern to
humans.
The frequency and type of gross pathologies
on fish taken in trawls in estuarine waters are
indicators of overall condition of fish
populations. All fish collected by EMAP were
examined for evidence of disease, parasitism,
tumors, and lesions on the skin; malformations
of the eyes; gill abnormalities; and skeletal
curvatures. Nearly 100,000 fish were examined
from U.S. estuaries; only 454 of the fish (0.5%)
had external abnormalities (Table 2-2). Of the
fish examined, bottom-feeding fish (e.g.,
catfish) had the highest frequency of disease.
The number of fish with multiple gross
pathologies increased in areas where the
sediments contained high levels of multiple
contaminants.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
National Coast
Not
Measured
Data
Collected
in 2000;
Available
in 2002
• Sites with
Contaminated
Fish Tissue
No
Contaminants
74%
All Other
Contaminants
4%
Arsenic
22%
Figure 2-15. Contaminants in edible fish tissue (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Table 2-2. Fish Pathologies by Province
(U.S. EPA/EMAP)
Province
Number of
Fish
Percent of
Pathologies
Virginian
13,421
0.4
Carolinian
I 3,304
0.3
Louisianian
and West Indian
64,100
0.7
United States
90,825
0.5
The American lobster (Homarus americanus) finds homes
in rock piles or digs holes in muddy places. Its claws, used
for catching and crushing prey, can be regenerated if lost, as
is the case here. Lobsters come in a variety of colors, including
mottled reddish brown, white, and blue. (Photo: Dann
Blackwood and Page Valentine, USGS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Assessments and Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
and 303(d) Assessments
Note: Great Lakes data are not included here.
The Great Lakes 305(b) assessment is presented
in Chapter 7.
Of the 27 coastal states and territories,
22 rated general water quality conditions in
some of their estuarine waters. Information
was also submitted by the District of Columbia,
the Delaware River Basin Commission, and
the Interstate Sanitation Commission.
Together, these states assessed 28,687 square
miles of estuarine waters, which equals 32% of
the 90,465 square miles of estuarine waters in
the nation. Of these 27 coastal states, 15 rated
general water quality conditions for ocean
shoreline. They assessed 3,130 miles,
representing 5% of the nation's coastline
including 44,000 miles of coastline in Alaska,
or 14% of the 22,419 miles of national
coastline excluding Alaska.
States reported that 46% of the assessed
estuarine waters have good water quality that
fully supports designated uses (Figure 2-16).
Of these waters, 10% are threatened for one or
more uses. Some form of pollution or habitat
degradation impairs the remaining 44% of
assessed estuarine waters. Most of the assessed
ocean shoreline miles (2,753 miles, or 88%)
have good water quality that supports a
healthy aquatic community and public
activities (Figure 2-17).
I
Photo® John Theilgard
Fully
Supporting
46%
Impaired
44%
Fair
Threatened
10%
Figure 2-16. Water quality in assessed estuaries
(U.S. EPA).
Impaired
12%
Fully
Supporting
80%
Good Fair Poor
Threatened
8%
Figure 2-17. Water quality in assessed shoreline
waters (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
After comparing water quality data to
standards, states and tribes classify the waters
into the following categories:
Fully
Supporting
These waters meet applicable water quality
standards, both criteria and designated use.
These waters currently meet water
quality standards, but states are concerned
they may degrade in the near future.
Threatened
Partially
Supporting
I These waters meet water quality
[standards most of the time but exhibit
I occasional exceedances.
Not I These waters do not meet water
Supporting quality standards.
For the purposes of this report, waters
classified as partially supporting or not
supporting their uses are categorized as
impaired. Twenty-five states reported the
individual use support of their estuarine
waters (Figure 2-18). States provided limited
information on individual use support in
ocean shoreline waters (Figure 2-19). General
conclusions cannot be drawn from such a
small fraction of the nation's ocean shoreline
waters. Significantly, 11 states have adopted
statewide coastal fish consumption advisories
for mercury, PCBs, and other pollutants. These
advisories are not represented in the use
support numbers.
Included in the 1998 303(d) list of impaired
waters are 1,402 waters located on the coast of
the conterminous United States (Figure 2-20).
These coastal waters represent 6% of the
nation's total number of 303(d) listed waters
(22,010). The major stressors that impair
303(d) listed waters are sedimentation,
nutrients, pathogens, toxics/metals/inorganics,
toxics/organics, mercury, and pesticides.
in
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
in
-------
Coral Reefs in the United States
Coral reefs are among the most diverse and biologically complex ecosystems on
earth. Now under threat from multiple stresses, coral reefs are deteriorating
worldwide at alarming rates. It is difficult to generalize about the condition of coral
reefs in the United States because of their broad geographic distribution and the lack
of long-term monitoring programs that document environmental and biological
baselines. However, it is clear that coral reefs are threatened wherever they are close
to large concentrations of people. Data are available to evaluate the status and trends
of coral reefs at only a few sites.
The only emergent coral reefs found off the continental United States are located
in the Florida Keys and the Gulf of Mexico. Coral reefs are also found in the
Hawaiian Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories in the
Pacific including American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.
A number of small U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific also have significant reef
habitats in their waters, including the islands of Howland, Baker, Jarvis, Johnston
Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Kingman Reef, and Wake. Few surveys of these reefs exist. All
are within the 200 nautical mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
The United States is one of many nations around the world working to halt the
coral reef crisis and protect, restore, and sustainably use coral reef ecosystems for
current and future generations. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (CRTF) was
established in June 1998 to lead the U.S. response to this growing global
environmental crisis. The CRTF is responsible for developing and implementing
coordinated efforts to
• Map and monitor U.S. coral reefs
• Research the causes and solutions to coral reef degradation
• Reduce and mitigate coral reef degradation from pollution, overfishing, and
other causes
• Implement strategies to promote conservation and sustainable use of coral
reefs internationally.
Members of the CRTF include the heads of 11 federal agencies (including EPA
and NOAA) and the governors of 7 states, territories, or commonwealths with
responsibilities for coral reefs. The CRTF has produced a National Action Plan
(available on the Internet at http://coralreef.gov) that outlines its approach to
conserve coral reefs within the United States. More information on federal
programs to study and conserve coral reefs is also available on the Internet at
http://www.coralreef. noaa.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
A Brief Introduction to Coral Reefs of the United States
Florida—The coral reefs immediately off the Florida Keys are part of the world's third
largest barrier reef ecosystem, stretching 139 mi2 from south of Miami to the Dry Tortugas.
A major monitoring program is in place to collect information about the condition of coral
reef resources in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the effectiveness of various
management strategies.
Hawaii—The main Hawaiian Islands contain a large area of coral reefs (340 mi2) located
in both federal and state waters. In general, coral reefs in state waters are overfished and some
reefs are degraded due to coastal development.
Texas/Louisiana—In the Gulf of Mexico, well-developed coral reefs are found 110 miles
south of the Texas/Louisiana border. These reefs, designated as the Flower Garden Banks
National Marine Sanctuary in 1992, are less impacted by most fishing and diving pressures
due to their remote location.
Puerto Rico—Well-developed shallow reefs are located around the islands of Puerto Rico,
Mona, Culebra, and Vieques, where coral cover is up to 20%, and along the southwest coast
near LaParquera with about 20% coverage. Reefs in parts of Puerto Rico such as the Jobos Bay
National Estuarine Research Reserve, however, are in poor condition due to sewage disposal
and coastal erosion, and coral cover averages less than 5%.
U.S. Virgin Islands—In general, the amount of living coral on these reefs has declined
and the amount of algae has increased in the last two decades. Hurricanes in 1989 and 1995
and white band disease produced the most damage to reefs; however, sedimentation from
runoff and overfishing through the use of fish traps are also problems.
Guam—Nearly all coral reefs surrounding Guam are located within territorial waters and
are generally overfished and degraded as a result of various human activities, especially coastal
development leading to sedimentation. The commercial fish catch has declined over 70% in
the past 15 years.
Northern Mariana Islands—A chain of 16 volcanic islands starting about 100 miles
northeast of Guam and extending over 900 miles north, the Northern Mariana Islands
includes fringing reefs along most islands. The condition of the coral reefs varies due to
physical disturbances from storms and outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish, but because the
region is sparsely populated, human-caused disturbances such as overfishing and pollution are
most evident on the southernmost islands. Several marine reserves were established in 1997.
American Samoa—This U.S. territory includes five volcanic islands and two coral atolls.
The more remote islands are in good condition, with far more live coral cover and species
richness than the main island (Tutuila Island). Rose Atoll, located over 149 miles east of
Tutuila, is one of the world's most isolated and least disturbed atolls and is protected as a
National Wildlife Refuge.
Source: NOAA State of the Coast Report, 1998.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
State Fish Consumption Advisories
A total of 79 fish consumption advisories
were in effect for estuarine and coastal marine
waters of the United States in 2000, including
71% of the coastal waters of the contiguous
48 states (Figure 2-21). There are also 32 fish
consumption advisories in the Great Lakes
and their connecting waters. An advisory may
represent one waterbody or one type of
waterbody within a state's jurisdiction. Some
of the advisories are issued as single statewide
advisories for all coastal estuarine and/or
marine waters within the state (Table 2-3).
While the statewide coastal advisories have
placed a large proportion of the nation's
coastal waters under advisory, these advisories
are often issued for the larger size classes of
predatory species (such as bluefish and king
mackerel) because larger, older individuals
have had more time to be exposed to and
accumulate one or more chemical contami-
nants in their tissues than younger individuals.
The number and geographic extent of
advisories can serve as indicators of the level
Table 2-3. Summary of Statewide Advisories for
Coastal/Estuarine Waters
State
Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Pollutants
Mercury
PCBs
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Dioxins
PCBs
Mercury
PCBs
PCBs, cadmium,
dioxins
Cadmium, dioxins
Mercury
PCBs
Mercury
Mercury
Species Under
Advisory
King mackerel
Striped bass
Bluefish
Shark
King mackerel
King mackerel
King mackerel
Striped bass
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Lobster (tomalley)
King mackerel
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
American eel
Striped bass
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Lobster (tomalley)
Blue crab
(hepatopancreas)
King mackerel
Striped bass
Bluefish
King mackerel
King mackerel
-0
o
Hawaii
^
American Samoa
Number of
Advisories per
USGS Cataloging
Unit
Figure 2-21. The number of coastal and estuarine fish consumption advisories per USGS cataloging unit.The count does not include
advisories that may exist for noncoastal or nonestuarine waters. Alaska did not report advisories (U.S. EPA NLFWA, 2000c).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
of contamination of estuarine and marine fish
and shellfish, but a number of other factors
must be taken into account. For example, the
methods and intensity of sampling and the
contaminant levels at which advisories are
issued often differ among the states. In the
states with statewide coastal advisories, one
advisory may cover many thousands of square
miles of estuarine waters and many hundreds
of miles of coastal waters.
Although advisories in U.S. estuarine and
coastal waters have been issued for a total of
20 individual chemical contaminants, most
advisories issued have resulted from four
primary contaminants. These four chemical
contaminants—PCBs, mercury, DDT and its
degradation products DDE and ODD, and
dioxins/furans—were responsible for 77%
of all fish consumption advisories in effect in
estuarine and coastal marine waters in 2000
(Figure 2-22, Table 2-4). These chemical
contaminants are biologically accumulated
(bioaccumulated) in the tissues of aquatic
organisms to concentrations many times higher
than concentrations in seawater (Figure 2-23).
Concentrations of these contaminants in the
tissues of aquatic organisms may be increased
at each successive level of the food chain. As a
result, top predators in a food chain may have
concentrations of these chemicals in their
tissues that can be a million times higher than
the concentrations in seawater. A direct
comparison of fish advisory contaminants and
Dioxins
10%
Mercury
19%
Figure 2-22.
Percentage of
estuarine and
coastal marine
advisories issued
for each
contaminant
(U.S. EPA
NLFWA, 2000c).
Table 2-4. Four Bioaccumulative Contaminants Were
Responsible for 77% of Fish Consumption Advisories in
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters in 2000.
Contaminant
Number of
Advisories
Comments
PCBs
48 Five northeastern states
(CT, MA, NH, NJ, and Rl)
had statewide advisories.
Mercury
24 Eight states (AL, FL, GA,
LA, MS, NC, SC,TX) had
statewide advisories in
their coastal marine
waters; 6 of these states
also had statewide
advisories for estuarine
waters.
DDT, DDE,
and ODD
Dioxins
and Furans
13
12
All DDT advisories were
in effect in California (12)
or the Territory of
American Samoa (1).
Statewide dioxin advisories
were in effect in ME, NJ,
and NY. Historically,
dioxin/furan advisories
have been associated with
pulp and paper mill
effluents as the source
of contamination.
Lake Trout
Chinook Salmon <
Sculpin
Bacteria and Fungi
Figure 2-23. Bioaccumulation (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
sediment contaminants is not possible because
states often issue advisories for groups of
chemicals. However, five of the top six
contaminants associated with fish advisories
(PCBs, DDT, dieldrin, chlordane, and dioxins)
are among the contaminants most often
responsible for a Tier 1 National Sediment
Inventory classification (associated adverse
effects to aquatic life or human health are
probable) of waterbodies based on potential
human health effects (U.S. EPA, 1997).
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters
In 1995,4,230 individual shellfish-growing
areas containing 24.8 million acres of estuarine
and nonestuarine waters were classified in
21 coastal states. This represents an increase of
2.1 million acres and 1,058 shellfish-growing
areas compared to the 1990 Register. The
increase is due primarily to the rise in the
number of states classifying nonestuarine
waters—in the 1995 Register, every state
except Alabama reported classified areas in
nonestuarine waters. Sixty percent of waters
were classified as approved (Figure 2-24).
Approved
60%
Prohibited 11%
Unclassified 13%
Restricted 9%
Conditionally
Approved 7%
Poor
Figure 2-24. Classification of shellfish-growing waters (1995
Shellfish Register; NOAA, 1997).
The top five pollution sources reported as
contributing to harvest limitations were urban
runoff, upstream sources, wildlife, individual
wastewater treatment systems, and wastewater
treatment plants. Compared to the 1990
Register, there is a significant decrease in
the acreage that is harvest-limited due to
contributions from industry, wastewater
treatment plants, and direct discharges. There
is an increase in the acreage limited by boating
and marinas, urban runoff, and agricultural
runoff.
State shellfish management personnel
reported almost 500 shellfish restoration
activities taking place in harvest-limited waters
in 1995. Nineteen of the 21 coastal states were
engaged in at least one restoration activity.
Restoration of shellfish-growing areas includes
activities that improve water quality, restore
habitat, or enhance shellfish stocks. Examples
of restoration projects include connecting
residences with malfunctioning or failing
septic systems to a sewage collection system
to improve water quality, planting cultch to
increase suitable habitat, and releasing
hatchery-raised, disease-resistant spat
to increase production.
Beach Closures
EPA gathered information on 2,051 beaches
nationwide (both coastal and inland) through
the use of a voluntary survey. The survey
respondents were almost exclusively local
government agencies from coastal counties,
cities, or towns bordering the Atlantic Ocean,
Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, or the Great
Lakes, although a few respondents were state
or regional (multiple-county) districts. Data
are available only for those beaches for which
officials participated in the survey. EPA will
conduct the survey each year and display the
results on the BEACH Watch website.
EPA's review of coastal beaches (U.S. coastal
areas, estuaries, and the Great Lakes) showed
that, of the 1,444 coastal beaches responding
to the survey, more than 370 beaches or 26%
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
had an advisory and/or closing in effect
at least once during 1999 (Figure 2-25).
Approximately 13% of the coastal beaches
experienced at least one closure. Beach
closures were issued for a number of different
reasons, including sewage, elevated bacterial
levels, and preemptive reasons. The major
causes of beach closures included stormwater
runoff, pipeline breaks, combined sewer
overflows, and unknown causes.
The majority of beach closings in the
United States are due to indications of the
presence of high levels of harmful micro-
organisms found in untreated or partially
treated sewage. Most of this sewage enters
the water from combined sewer overflows,
sanitary sewer overflows, and malfunctioning
sewage treatment plants. Untreated storm
water runoff from cities and rural areas can
be another significant source of beach water
pollution. In some areas, boating wastes and
malfunctioning septic systems can also
be important local sources of beach water
pollution. People who swim in water near
storm drains can be at increased risk of
becoming ill. A recent epidemiological study
in Santa Monica Bay, California, revealed that
individuals who swam in areas adjacent to
flowing storm drains were 50% more likely
to develop a variety of symptoms than those
who swam farther away from the same drain.
Swimmers who did not avoid the drains
experienced an increased risk for a broad
range of adverse health effects.
Discovering treasures in the tidepools at Fitzgerald Marine Reserve
in Moss Beach (Photo: Joe Heath).
Of beaches
responding to the
survey,the percent
closed in each
state at least once
in 1999:
Q 0-10
Q 11-50
B S|-|0°
nNo Data
Available
9 Beach Closure
in 1999
Figure 2-25. The percentage of beaches responding to the survey that closed at least once in 1999. Percentages are based on the
number of beaches in each state that reported information, not the total number of beaches. There were no BEACH Watch Survey
responses from Alaska (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries—How Much Is Enough?
The productive habitat of an estuary relies on a balance between freshwater
coming from inland sources and saltwater coming from coastal bays and the ocean.
Seasonal flooding flushes marsh wetlands, transports food materials from the
marshes into the estuaries, and removes or limits pollutants, parasites, bacteria, and
viruses in the marshes. However, increasing demand is being placed on freshwater
resources in the United States as a result of population growth, agriculture, and
industrial needs, and it is not unusual for one river to be diverted in several locations
to supply water to different communities. This can have consequences on the
amount of freshwater that flows into an estuary and can cause alterations to the
water quality (e.g., salinity) as well as to the quality of the area's habitat. A decrease
in freshwater inflow can result in a decrease in the quantity of low-salinity wetlands,
changes in tidal-flow patterns, and losses of vital estuary habitats. The timing of the
arrival of freshwater to estuarine areas is important to plants and animals. Their life
cycles are often triggered by or conditional to the salinity of the water. A few estuary
programs, such as the Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National Estuary Program, have
problems with increased freshwater inflow due to hurricanes, large rain storms, or
the draining of areas previously not connected to the estuarine system. Where too
much freshwater inflow occurs, diversion of streams may be used to mitigate the
problem.
The issue of freshwater inflow is so important that several federal programs,
including EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP), consider freshwater inflow a
priority problem that must be addressed. According to a survey of directors from
the 28 NEPs conducted in the fall of 1999, the Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National
Estuary Program, Charlotte Harbor, and the San Francisco Estuary Project are the
only NEPs that list freshwater inflow as a high-priority action item. Several other
estuaries list freshwater inflow as a concern but not as a top priority.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
In Florida, Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), part of the
national program run by NOAA, is leading efforts to restore natural freshwater
inflows to estuaries in south Florida. Rookery Bay staff received support from the
Florida Coastal Management Program to develop a watershed restoration and
management plan for local, state, and federal agencies. The plan identifies historic
and current surface water inflows in the reserve and makes specific recommendations
for restoring surface water flow.
Rookery Bay NERR is also working to understand the effects of freshwater inflows
on fish species. Research by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
indicates that alterations in freshwater inflows during Hurricane Andrew and other
major storm events damaged estuarine habitats within the reserve. Human impacts,
such as the construction of weirs (or dams), alter the flow of freshwater and nutrients
flowing into estuaries. The reserve recently received funding from the National
Marine Fisheries Service to restore natural freshwater inflow patterns. The reserve
proposes to computerize a weir on Henderson Creek, which would allow for more
natural flow of freshwater into the estuary. It is hoped that the studies associated with
this project will enable water management districts to facilitate more natural water
flow impact on downstream salinity and aquatic communities in southwest Florida.
The computerization of the weir will provide for a more natural habitat for fish
populations.
Source: NOAA State of the Coast Report, 1998.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Developing a Nationwide
Strategy for Marine Protected
Areas
Since the 1950s, a combination of
legislation, voter initiatives, and regulations
has created a complex collection of Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs). Federal agencies
alone manage over 300 areas that may meet
the MPA definition. On May 26, 2000,
President Clinton signed Executive Order
13158, intended to protect significant
natural and cultural resources within the
marine and Great Lakes environments. The
Order establishes a national system and
inventory of MPAs consisting of a
coordinated network of local, state, tribal,
and federal sites.
leffreys Ledge
venile Protection Area
tellwagen Bank NMS
Cape Cod NS
Marine Protected Areas near Cape Cod, MA.
This map shows examples of several types of MPAs
including a National Seashore, National Wildlife
Refuge, National Marine Sanctuary, and a Juvenile
Protection Area managed by the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
The Order defines MPAs as "any area of
the marine environment that has been
reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal,
or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of the natural
and cultural resources therein." Under this definition, MPAs could include a wide
variety of sites established for different purposes in areas of coastal and ocean waters,
the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, and submerged lands in areas of U.S.
jurisdiction. Areas fitting this description include national marine sanctuaries, some
national parks and national wildlife refuges, national estuarine research reserves,
national estuary programs, some state and local marine parks, and some fishery
management areas (see the figure). Federal agencies will use this definition to create
an inventory of all U.S. MPAs, one of the steps needed to help build a nationally
consistent system.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
The order outlines actions to be taken by
federal agencies to improve the management of
MPAs (see sidebar). Federal agencies will work
with an Advisory Committee composed of
nonfederal scientists, resource managers, and
other interested persons and organizations and
will establish a National MPA Center to meet
these goals.
Goals outlined by Executive Order I 3 158
to improve the management of Marine
Protected Areas.
• Strengthen the management,
protection, and conservation of
existing MPAs
• Establish new or expanded MPAs
• Develop a science-based national
system of MPAs representing
diverse U.S. marine ecosystems
and the nation's natural and
cultural resources
• Avoid causing harm to MPAs
through federal activities
• Provide state, territorial, tribal,
and local governments with MPA
information, technology, and
management strategies to
establish and manage MPAs
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
-------
Chapter
Northeast
Coastal
Condition
-------
"
Chapter 3
Northeast Coastal
Condition
r
Ecological conditions
in northeastern estuaries are border-
line poor (Figure 3-1). EMAP data were
collected in the Virginian province from
1990 to 1993. Over half of the area surveyed (57%) showed undegraded
ecological conditions (Figure 3-2). However, 23% of the sediments were
characterized by degraded biology, and 30% of the estuarine area had
impaired human uses. These areas were widespread but were especially
common in the Chesapeake Bay (and its tributaries),
the Delaware River, the Hudson River, and western
Long Island Sound.
Northeastern coastal areas represent an extremely
important commercial, population, and tourism
center for the United States. The population of
coastal counties on the Northeast Coast increased
52% between 1970 and 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1996). Northeastern coasts are also a critical
ecological habitat for many important species of
fish and migratory birds. This area includes two
biogeographic provinces: the Virginian and the
Acadian. The Virginian biogeographic province
extends from Cape Henry, Virginia, at the mouth
of the Chesapeake Bay to Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
The Acadian province reaches from Cape Cod to
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Overall
Northeast
Good Fair
Poor]
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 3-1. The overall
condition of northeastern
estuaries is borderline poor
Undegraded
57%
Degraded Biology and
Human Use
10%
Degraded
Biology
13%
Degraded Use
20%
Fair
Poor
Figure 3-2. The condition of estuaries
on the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Figure 3-3. The Northeast
Coastal Region includes
the Virginian and Acadian
provinces and extends from
Cape Henry, VA, to the
Maine-Canada border
the Maine-Canada border (Figure 3-3).
Coastal monitoring data exist for the north-
eastern United States from EMAP, NOAA's
NS&T Program, and NOAA's National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment.
EMAP data are available for the Virginian
biogeographic province, and NOAA's
programs cover the Virginian province and the
Acadian province to the U.S.-Canada border.
Coastal 2000 monitoring information will be
available for the Acadian province in 2002.
The Virginian province contains more than
9,073 mi2 of estuarine area. Approximately
70% of estuarine surface area is in 12 large
(MOO mi2) estuaries, including 4,427 mi2
in Chesapeake Bay, 1,291 mi2 in Long Island
Sound, and 795 mi2 in Delaware Bay. A
number of large urban and industrial centers
(e.g., New York City, Philadelphia, and
Baltimore) are close to the coast. In the
Virginian province, coastal areas are densely
populated, ranging from over 250 people per
square mile in Delaware to almost 1,500 people
per square mile in New York and Pennsylvania
(Culliton et al., 1990). Coastline areas in the
Virginian province are used extensively for
industrial developments, port facilities,
residential and commercial establishments,
and recreational activities.
The Acadian province extends along the
Northeast Atlantic Coast from the Avalon
Peninsula at the Canadian border to Cape
Cod and is characterized by well-developed
algal and biotic communities. The shoreline
is heavily indented and frequently rocky.
This region is not as densely populated
as the Virginian province, but it does contain
several population centers such as Portland,
Maine, and Boston, Massachusetts. Some
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
coastal counties of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire have almost 1,300 people per
square mile, and populations are projected to
grow as much as 25% by 2015 (Culliton et al.,
1990). Although no EMAP data exist for this
biogeographic province, the NOAA National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment examined
the trophic state of 18 estuaries encompassing
approximately 2,008 mi2 in this region.
Coastal Monitoring Data
Water Clarity
Water clarity for the Northeast received
a rating of good. EMAP data show degraded
water clarity (less than 10% light penetration
to 1 meter depth) in 6% of estuarine waters
in the Virginian province and reduced water
clarity (less than 25% light penetration to
1 meter depth) in 21% of estuarine waters
in this region (Figure 3-4).
Water clarity can affect ecosystem health
in coastal and estuarine habitats. Submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) requires sunlight for
photosynthesis and is particularly sensitive
to reductions in water clarity. SAV provides
habitat for a number of estuarine and near-
shore species—especially for juvenile fish—
and is thus critical for maintaining the
ecological integrity of these systems. Loss
of SAV was reported in 12 of the 22 estuaries
surveyed in NOAA's National Estuarine
Eutrophication Assessment. Severe loss of SAV
is occurring in the main stem Chesapeake Bay,
Patuxent River, Choptank River, Tangier/Poco-
moke Sounds, and Gardiners Bay. Degraded
water clarity was found in tributaries to the
Chesapeake Bay, the Delaware River, western
Long Island Sound, and the Hudson River.
Water Clarity
Northeast Coast
Figure 3-4. Light penetration data and locations for sites with < 10%
light penetration along the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Dissolved Oxygen
Overall, levels of dissolved oxygen in
Northeast estuaries are fair. EMAP studies
found fair oxygen conditions (between 2.0
and 5.0 ppm O2) in 20% of the bottom waters
sampled and poor levels of dissolved oxygen
(less than 2.0 ppm O2) in 5% of bottom
waters (Figure 3-5). Severe oxygen deficien-
cies occurred primarily within main stem
Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac River, with
isolated occurrences in the Rappahannock
River (Virginia), western Long Island
Sound, and the waters near Providence,
Rhode Island.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Coastal Wetland Loss
Wetland losses in the Northeast are
high—nearly 40% of all wetlands existing
in 1780 disappeared by 1980 (Figure 3-6).
Losses ranged from 9% in New Hampshire
to nearly 75% in Connecticut and Maryland
(Dahl, 1990).
Eutrophic Condition
Estuaries in the Northeast are in poor
condition according to measures of eutrophic
condition. Eutrophic conditions are high in
60% of the estuarine area (Figure 3-7),
including Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries,
Delaware Inland Bays, Barnegat Bay, Great
South Bay, Boston Harbor, Narraguagus Bay,
Casco Bay, Sheepscot Bay, Englishman Bay,
Cobscook Bay, and the St. Croix River.
IUU
1
o 80
DO
rt
5!
< 60
1 40
4-1
§ 20
(D
Q_
-
-
20
n9
(D (D
C s-
'5 -c
Zw
CL.
£
28
i
u
74 73
37
60
—
54
39
42 39
~Ui^ _^>x(i)-D rt <-"
"D r- Q) > /^ 5~ -5
Figure 3-6. Percent wetland habitat lost from 1780 to 1980
by state and for the Northeast Coast overall (Dahl, 1990;
Turner and Boesch, 1988).
Dissolved Oxygen
Northeast
Coast
Eutrophic
*' Condition
Northeast Coast
Not
Included
in Survey
Sites with High
Expression of
Eutrophic Condition
• Low Dissolved
Oxygen
Figure 3-5. Dissolved oxygen data for sampled sites and locations for
sites with less than 2 ppm for the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Good Fair
Figure 3-7. Eutrophic condition data and locations of estuaries
with high expression of eutrophic condition along the Northeast Coast
(NOAA/NOS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Water Quality of the Near Coastal Mid-Atlantic Waters
The near coastal waters of the Mid-Atlantic are significantly affected by discharges
from three major coastal systems—the Hudson, the Delaware, and the Chesapeake.
The Delmarva Peninsula is uniquely positioned between two of these major
systems, where it serves as a major zone of influence on the near coastal water
quality conditions of the Mid-Atlantic. As in most coastal areas, a wide range
of point and nonpoint sources contribute nutrient enrichment to the marine
waters of the Mid-Atlantic. Changes over time in coastal waters are likely
to be related to activities in the contributing watersheds. Population growth,
development, and changes in land use patterns (see figure) can all have
consequences on the condition of coastal waters.
An 18-year study on the state of the Mid-
Atlantic near-shore coastal waters, summarized
in a forthcoming report from EPA, showed that,
although phosphorus levels were declining, the
levels of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN)
in the area revealed significant increases in the
range of 7% to 35% per year. Over the 10-year
period from 1982 to 1992, DIN increased
significantly in the Mid-Atlantic Bight overall,
which implies that biological productivity
in the area may be affected and perhaps lead
to eutrophic conditions. The increasing DIN
concentrations in the Mid-Atlantic Bight are
cause for some concern because the situation
may eventually threaten both the economic
and aesthetic value of the region.
Land cover of the Mid-Atlantic region (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Massachusetts Bay
Boston Harbor, once one of the most polluted waterways in the nation, is
in the final stages of a major cleanup. For 300 years, the harbor was the waste
disposal site for a growing metropolitan center. By the 1980s, harbor fish were
diseased, shellfish beds were closed, and swimming beaches were periodically
unsafe. A $3.8 billion cleanup program, begun by the Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority (MWRA), has significantly improved the environmental
quality of the harbor. Since 1989, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has
been conducting research to understand and predict the fate of contaminants
introduced to Massachusetts' coastal waters.
OLD
HARBOR OUTFALL
NEW
BAY OUTFALL
4
2
I
1/2
1/4
1/8
1/16
1/32
Computer simulations of effluent dilution from old
and new outfalls (USGS).
Earth Science Applied
to Public Concerns
Relocating the sewage outfall from
the harbor mouth to a new location
9 miles offshore in Massachusetts Bay
was a controversial step in the cleanup
program. Stellwagen Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, which supports commercial
and recreational fisheries and is home to
endangered species of whales, sea turtles,
and birds, is within 15 miles of the new
sewage outfall. Concern that the new sewage
outfall might threaten the environmental
quality of the Bay prompted a series of
computer simulations by the USGS. The
simulations of effluent dilution indicated that the effluent concentrations from the
new outfall would remain low throughout most of Massachusetts Bay (see figure).
What Is the Future of Contaminants?
Understanding this coastal system and conducting long-term monitoring
are essential in order to assess environmental change. Despite cleaner waters,
pollutants that settle to the bottom with sediments can accumulate in the eco-
system, creating the potential for long-term problems. USGS studies in Boston
Harbor and Massachusetts Bay are designed to provide an understanding of how
sediments and associated contaminants are transported and where they accumulate
in the Massachusetts Bay system. The results of these ongoing studies and maps
and simulations can be accessed on the Internet at http://geology.wr.usgs.gov/wgmt/
bostonharbor/boston.html. Additional information about coastal systems in the
Northeast can be accessed on the Internet at http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
NOAA's National Estuarine Eutrophication
Assessment divides estuaries of the Northeast
into two distinct zones: the North Atlantic
and Mid-Atlantic. This division follows the
division between the Acadian and Virginian
biogeographic provinces with estuaries of the
North Atlantic including all estuaries from
Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Cobscook Bay,
Maine, near the U.S.-Canada border. The
Mid-Atlantic region includes estuaries from
Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, to Tangier
and Pocomoke Sounds near the mouth of
Chesapeake Bay. Many northeastern estuaries
exhibit eutrophic conditions. Of the 52 estuaries
constituting the Northeast in the NOAA
assessment, 16 (58% of estuarine area)
exhibited elevated levels of chlorophyll a
(Figure 3-8). However, in the far Northeast
(Acadian province), these conditions are
believed to be a natural occurrence with
human inputs being only a minor contri-
bution. Human impact is believed to be high
in Boston Harbor and Plum Island Sound.
Eutrophic condition in Mid-Atlantic
estuaries tells a very different story. Human
impacts are believed to be high in 16 of the
22 estuaries assessed. Nearly half of the
estuaries displayed high levels of eutrophi-
cation, and all estuaries showed at least some
symptoms of eutrophication. Every estuary
reported at least moderate expression of
elevated chlorophyll a concentrations and
all estuaries reported some problems with low
oxygen. Thirteen of the estuaries experienced
nuisance algae blooms with severe problems
in Barnegat Bay, Delaware Inland Bays, and
the Patuxent River. The Choptank River,
Tangier/Pocomoke Sounds, and Long Island
Sound showed some expression of all six
symptoms assessed in NOAA's study.
Expression of Chlorophyll a
Northeast Coast
High Expression = generally high
chlorophyll a concentrations over a
large spatial area and/or over a long
period of time.
Moderate to Low Expression =
generally lower concentrations of
chlorophyll a over smaller areas or
for a shorter period of time.
• Sites with High
Expression of
Chlorophyll a
Moderate
to Low
Expression
42%
High
Expression
58%
Figure 3-8. Chlorophyll a data for surveyed estuaries along the
Northeast Coast and locations of estuaries with high expression
of chlorophyll a (NOAA/NOS).
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment contaminant conditions in
Northeast estuaries are poor. Sediments
collected in EMAP sampling were analyzed
for pesticides, metals, PCBs, and PAHs.
For metals, ERM was exceeded in 4% of
the area of estuarine sediments and ERL
was exceeded in 41% of the area of estuarine
sediments (Figure 3-9). This translates into
more than 3,668 mi2 of sediments within
the Virginian province with metals at
concentrations high enough to cause effects
in 10% of animals exposed. PCBs and PAHs
exceeded ERM in 3% of the sediments of
northeastern estuaries and exceeded ERL in
27% of these sediments. Sediment pesticide
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminant Criteria
ERM (Effects Range Medium) -
The concentration of a contaminant
that will result in ecological effects
approximately 50% of the time
based on literature studies.
ERL (Effects Range Low) - The
concentration of a contaminant that
will result in ecological effects about
10% of the time.
concentrations exceeded ERM in 2% of the
area of estuarine sediments and exceeded
ERL in 25%. In other words, over 2,317 mi2
of sediments within the Virginian province
contained elevated concentrations of PCBs,
PAHs, or pesticides that were high enough to
cause biological effects. Sediments exceeding
ERM levels occurred throughout the Northeast
but tended to be concentrated at the head of
the Chesapeake Bay, the lower Hudson River
and western Long Island Sound, and the
Delaware River. Multiple ERL exceedances
occurred in these same areas but also included
regions of the upper Potomac River, the James
River, the mid-Chesapeake Bay, and the
western half of Long Island Sound.
Benthic Condition
Benthic communities in northeastern
estuaries are in poor condition (Figure 3-10).
For the locations that showed poor benthic
community quality, the co-occurrence of poor
Not
Included
in Survey
Sediment
Contaminants
Northeast Coast
II III
80
60
40
20
• >ERM D>ERL
- ^ 25
- jj 2|
0 ' '
41
jj
PAHs/PCBs Pesticides Metals
Figure 3-9. Sediment contamination for sampled sites and locations of sites
with 5 > ERL or I > ERM along the Northeast Coast
(U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Not
Included
in Survey
Benthic Index
Northeast
Coast
Fair
Condition
12%
Fair
Figure 3-10. Benthic index condition data and locations with poor
benthos along the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
environmental quality (exposure) is shown
in Figure 3-11. Of the 23% of the northeastern
estuarine area that had poor benthos, 21%
also showed hypoxic conditions, 35% showed
contaminated sediments, 9% showed sediment
toxicity, and 2% showed poor light conditions
(high levels of total suspended solids).
One-third of the locations that showed
poor benthic community conditions had
no sediment or water quality degradation
(as measured by the EMAP program),
although several of these sites are suspected
of having poor nutrient water quality. These
locations were spread throughout the nine
Mid-Atlantic states.
A bioassay for sediment toxicity showed
less than 80% survival of Ampelisca in 9%
of the area sampled throughout the region.
Again, these stations tended to cluster in the
Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River, Raritan Bay,
and Long Island Sound. However, the highest
incidence of sediment toxicity occurred in
small estuaries, where 13% of sediments were
toxic to the test organism (Figure 3-12). Severe
toxicity (less than 60% survival) occurred in
2% of the estuary sediments assayed.
Poor Water/Sediment
Quality Indicators that Co-Occur
with Poor Benthic Condition
Northeast Coast
Toxic Sediments
/
Not
Included
in Survey
Northeast Coas
r
• Sites Where
Survival of
Amphipods
Was Less
Than 80%
Sediment
Contaminants
35%
Light
2% Toxicity
Not
Included
in Survey
Ampelisca Survival <
Virginian Province 1990-1993
IUU
80
60
40
20
0
9 10 3 13
River Small
Figure 3-11. Indicators of poor water/sediment quality that co-occur
with poor benthic condition in northeastern estuaries (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Province Large
Province = Entire Area
Large = Estuaries > 97 mi2
River = Tidal Rivers > 97 mi2
Small = Estuaries < 97 mi2
Figure 3-12. Amphipod data and locations with toxicity > 20% along
the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Conditions of estuaries in the Northeast
as measured by fish tissue contaminants are
poor. Analyses for tissue residue contaminants
in the edible portions of selected fish were
conducted throughout the Virginian province.
Toxic levels of contamination were detected
in the filets of fish caught at four locations
within the Delaware River, several locations
in the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay, and
single sites in Raritan Bay, Narragansett Bay,
and Buzzards Bay, amounting to about 30%
of the fish examined (Figure 3-13). However,
almost all of these elevated concentrations
were for arsenic (21%) and almost all arsenic
ingested by fish is converted to a nontoxic
form (arsenobetaines). Thus, 9% offish
examined (white perch, weakfish, catfish,
and Atlantic croaker) contained elevated levels
of contaminants (primarily metals). Only
0.4% of over 13,000 fish examined showed
signs of external pathologies.
Not
Included
in Survey
Edible Fish Tissue
Contaminants
Northeast Coast
Sites with
Contaminated
Fish Tissue
All Other
Contaminants
9%
Arsenic
21%
No
Contaminants
70%
Figure 3-13. Contaminants in edible fish tissues for sampled sites alon£
the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
_
•
This flounder is one of
several flatfish species found on
the banks and in the basins of
the Stellwagen Bank National
Marine Sanctuary
(Photo: Dann Blackwood and
Page Valentine, USGS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Casco Bay
Pollution
Sources
Key
National Pollution Discharge
System Points (effluent)
DEP-Licensed Overboard Discharges
Combined Sewer Outflows
Prohibited SheUfish Areas
Restricted or Conditional Shellfish
Areas
Shellfish Areas
Casco Bay Estuary Project
The Casco Bay Estuary Project is a
cooperative effort between concerned
citizens and local, state, and federal
governments to protect Casco Bay,
which lies at the heart of Maine's most
populated area. Although the Casco
Bay watershed represents only 3% of
Maine's total land mass, it holds nearly
25% of the state's population. Residents
depend on the bay and its watershed
for multiple needs such as drinking
water, recreation, food, transportation,
industry, and waste disposal. However,
when the Casco Bay Estuary Project
began in 1990, few scientific studies
had assessed the human impact on the
pollutant levels of Casco Bay. Little was
known about the pollutants in the sediments, the circulation patterns, or the sources
of pollution (see figure). To ensure a better scientific basis for making policy decisions,
the Casco Bay Estuary Project commissioned several major studies.
One study used Maquoit Bay as an example of predicting loadings of nitrogen and bacteria
through the use of water quality loading models. Maquoit Bay is small, shallow, free from point
sources of pollution and extensive urban development, and subject to excess concentrations
of fecal coliform bacteria, and it suffered from a harmful algal bloom in 1988. Marine algal
blooms are often triggered by excess nitrogen, so a model was developed to assess Maquoit
Bay's potential sources of nitrogen (e.g., agricultural and residential runoff, sewage). The study
found that septic systems, particularly failing ones, and manure or fertilizer were the largest
sources of nitrogen and bacteria entering the bay. This finding provided a basis for developing
measures to reduce pollutant loading to the bay.
Visit the Casco Bay Estuary Project on the Internet at http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu.
Pollution sources of Casco Bay (Casco Bay Estuary Project).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
"fewl
Delaware River Basin Commission
Approximately 6.4% of the nation's population
relies on the waters of the Delaware River Basin for
drinking and industrial use, and the Delaware Bay
is only a day's drive away for about 40% of the
U.S. population; yet the basin drains only 0.4%
of the total continental U.S. land area. These
figures indicate the tremendous potential for
anthropogenic pressures to be placed on the
estuary and the need for a strong governing
body to manage and protect the water quality
of the river and estuary.
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC)
was formed in 1961 by the signatory parties to the
Delaware River Basin Compact (Delaware, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the federal
government) to share the responsibility of
managing the water resources of the Basin. The Compact created a regional
body with legal powers to oversee a unified approach to managing the river
system without regard to political boundaries.
Today, the cleanup of the Delaware is hailed as one of the world's top water
quality success stories. As a result of cleanup efforts, shad and other fish species
are increasing in number. Currently, there is a major program on PCBs under way,
resulting in fish consumption advisories covering the Delaware Bay and estuary.
Other recent action by the DRBC has targeted certain toxic pollutants to ensure
that stream quality objectives in the tidal Delaware River are met as part of a
continuing program to protect human health and aquatic life. Two of the pollutants,
1,2-dichloroethane (DCE) and tetrachloroethene (TCE), have been identified by
EPA as "probable human carcinogens." Under the resolution adopted by the DRBC,
dischargers of DCE and TCE will be required to collect 1 year of effluent data
to measure the magnitude and variability of these pollutants. This will be done
before wasteload allocations are established for individual discharges.
The DRBC also plays an active role in community outreach and education
efforts and conducts an annual water quality "snapshot" effort in which community
participants are asked to collect and analyze water samples for water quality
indicators such as dissolved oxygen and nitrates. This event and the resulting
report bring attention to the Basin and to the public's interest and commitment
to protecting its water resources.
Visit the DRBC online at www.state.nj.us/drbc.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Assessments and Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
and 303(d) Assessments
The states on the Northeast Coast assessed
11,791 (77%) of their 15,173 estuarine square
miles for their 1998 305(b) reports. Forty-eight
percent of the assessed estuarine waters fully
support their designated uses, 16% are
threatened for one or more uses, and the
remaining 36% are impaired by some form
of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 3-14). Individual use support
for estuaries is shown in Figure 3-15.
Fully
Supporting
48%
Impaired
36%
Fair
Threatened
16%
Figure 3-14. Water quality in assessed estuaries
on the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA).
' V
' - -:-
12,000
10,000-
«> 8,000 -
v
rt
6,000 -
4,000 -
2,000 -
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Impaired
Tl
Aquatic Life
Support
Fish
Consumption
Shellfishing
Designated Use
Primary
Contact -
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
Figure 3-1 5. Individual use support in assessed estuaries on the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
The states on the Northeast Coast assessed
401 (5%) of their 7,669 shoreline miles.
Ninety-five percent of the assessed shoreline
miles fully support their designated uses and
no uses are reported as threatened, but 5% are
impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 3-16). Individual use
support for the Northeast shoreline is shown
in Figure 3-17.
Impaired
5%
Fully
Supporting
95%
Threatened
0%
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 3-16. Water quality in assessed shoreline
waters on the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA).
The states reported individual use support
for their assessed estuarine and coastal waters
as shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Individual Use Support for Assessed Coastal
Waters Reported by the States on the Northeast Coast
under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
Individual Assessed Estuaries Assessed Shore-
Uses Impaired (mi2) line Impaired (mi)
Aquatic Life
Fish
Consumption
Shellfish
Harvesting
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
1,875 (I8%)a
3,934 (36%)
1,488 (14%)
272 (3%)
40.2 (2%)
0
18 (36%)
18 (7%)
0
0
1 Represents percentage of assessed waters impaired for each
individual use.
1J
-------
Casco Bay Seabird habitats, showing sensitive areas
in yellow. Source: U.S. FWS Gulf of Maine Program.
Seabird Habitats
(Common Eider, Common Tern)
Coastal Habitat Study
of the Gulf of Maine
The Gulf of Maine watershed includes
more than 43,000 square miles of land in
Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.
The watershed includes the biologically
productive Gulf of Maine as well as coastal
habitats (salt marshes, mudflats, sandy
beaches, intertidal zone, and islands) and
inland streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, bogs,
deciduous and coniferous woodlands,
grasslands, and alpine tundra. The Gulf
of Maine watershed provides productive
nurseries for many marine fish; riverine
pathways for historically abundant populations of anadromous fish; important
habitat for breeding, migratory, and wintering waterbirds and neotropical migrants;
and vital habitat for nationally threatened and endangered species. Unfortunately,
increasing habitat loss and degradation from sprawling development, wetland and
associated upland loss, overharvesting, oil spills, pollution, and other cumulative
effects of development threaten the integrity of the Gulf of Maine watershed.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Gulf of Maine Coastal Program has initiated a
comprehensive project to identify, map, and rank important fish and wildlife habitat
for priority species throughout the Gulf of Maine watershed. Biologists selected
more than 60 species that regularly inhabit the Gulf of Maine watershed and are
experiencing decline. Biologists are identifying, ranking, and mapping habitat for
all of these species—from actual sitings or by developing habitat suitability models
reflecting the environmental requirements for each species. Once species-specific
maps are created using in-house geographic information system (GIS) technology
(see figure), composite maps ranking habitats for all species will be developed. All
of the data collected are available on a CD-ROM that will help land use planners
and decision makers focus conservation efforts in areas of greatest biological value
(Contact: Stewart Fefer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gulf of Maine Coastal
Program, 207-781-8364).
More information is available on the Internet at http://gulfofmaine.fws.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Areas of the coastal habitat project in the New York
Bight watershed (U.S. FWS Coastal Program).
Comprehensive Study
of Habitat Complexes
of the New York Bight
Watershed
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Southern New England-New York Bight
Coastal Program study Significant Habitats
and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight
Watershed identifies and describes essential
habitats of key marine, coastal, and terrestrial
species inhabiting the New York Bight
watershed study area to help guide
ecologically sound land use decisions
and land protection efforts. This habitat
assessment includes 20 million acres of
habitat, ranging from deep marine waters
to freshwater wetlands and encompasses New
York-New Jersey Harbor, the tidal waters of the Hudson River, the watersheds
of the harbor and tidal Hudson, and the upland drainages of New Jersey and
southern Long Island (see map).
The GIS analysis of habitat data identified 35 large, landscape-scale habitat
complexes, such as barrier beaches, coastal lagoons, unfragmented blocks of forest
or wetland areas, pine barrens, and freshwater tidal marshes. These large habitat
complexes contain individual habitat units identified as important to a single
species, multiple species, or communities.
Specific site narratives describe the location, boundaries, ecological communities
and processes, various habitat subunits, general ownership or protected status,
and the ecological significance or uniqueness for each large habitat complex. Site
narratives also assess threats to the long-term integrity of both species populations
and the physical structure of the habitat and recommend conservation consider-
ations and protection/restoration strategies. The report's overview chapters discuss
physiographic regions, marine zones, regionally significant populations, species
groups, and natural communities.
You can view the New York Bight study on the Internet at
http://www.fws.gov/r5snep/snep5.htm.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
1998 303(d) Impairments for the Northeast Coast
s
r Pesticides
Listed Miles
\6%
Mercury 1 3%
Toxics/Organics 1 9%
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients
Sedimentation
\7%
^33%
|46%
] 13%
3 SO 100
Pesticides
Mercury
Toxics/Organics
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients
Sedimentation
(
Listed Area
0%
]3%
0%
\3%
^20%
\7\%
0%
) SO 100
Percent Impaired Percent Impaired
Miles Square Miles
Figure 3-18. 303(d) listed waters on the Northeast Coast and the percentage of miles impaired by the major pollutant categories
(note that a listing may be impaired by multiple pollutants) (U.S. EPA).
There are 697 waters located on the
Northeast Coast that are listed as impaired
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
The percentage of listed waters impaired by
each of the major pollutant categories is
shown in Figure 3-18.
State Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2000, 7 of the 10 Northeast Coast states
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode
Island) had statewide consumption advisories
for fish in coastal waters, placing 100% of their
coastal and estuarine areas under advisory.
Due in large part to these statewide advisories,
an estimated 81% of the coastal miles of the
Northeast Coast and 67% of the estuarine area
were under fish consumption advisories. A
total of 36 different advisories were active in
2000 for the estuarine and marine waters of
the Northeast Coast (Figure 3-19).
- Long Island Sound
New York Harbor
Chesapeake Bay
Number of
Advisories per
USGS Cataloging
Unit
| | 5-9
No Advisories
Figure 3-19. The number offish consumption advisories on
the Northeast Coast active in 2000 (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Advisories in the Northeast were in effect
for 10 different pollutants (Figure 3-20). The
majority of the listings (51%) were for PCBs.
The James River estuary in Virginia was listed
for kepone, while Boston Harbor was listed for
multiple pollutants.
PCBs 51%
Arsenic 3%
Cadmium 5%
Chlordane 5%
Other 7%
Mercury 7%
Dioxins 22%
Figure 3-20. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in northeastern coastal waters (U.S. EPA NLFWA,
2000c).
These species were under advisory in 1999 for at least some
part of the Northeast Coast:
White catfish
American eel
Largemouth bass
Smallmouth bass
Striped bass
Bluefish
Common carp
Channel catfish
Flounder
Goldfish
Atlantic needlefish
White perch
Scup
Blue crab
Bivalves
Lobster
Lobster (tomalley)
Rainbow smelt
Tautog
Walleye
Blue crab (hepatopancreas)
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters
In the Northeast, 9.6 million acres of
shellfish waters (44% of the national total)
were classified for shellfish harvest in 1995
(Figure 3-21). Of the classified acreage, 82%
were approved and 18% were harvest-limited.
Of the region's classified acreage, 37% is
located in estuarine waters and 63% in
nonestuarine waters. The top four pollution
sources affecting harvest limitation in
estuarine and nonestuarine waters are
wastewater treatment plants, urban runoff,
direct discharges, and upstream sources.
Two of the top shellfish species in the
Northeast (rated high or medium in abun-
dance) are hard clams (1.2 million acres)
and surf clams (1.5 million acres). Twelve
percent of surf clams and 28% of hard clams
are located in waters that do not allow direct
harvesting (i.e., restricted, conditionally
restricted, and/or prohibited).
Total classified acreage in the Northeast has
increased by over 1.5 million acres since the
1990 Register. While all three North Atlantic
states (Maine, New Hampshire, and
Prohibited 11%
Restricted 4%
Conditionally Restricted <0.1%
Conditionally Approved 2%
Figure 3-21. Classification of shellfish-growing waters for
the Northeast (1995 Shellfish Register; NOAA, 1997).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Massachusetts) reported increases in the
total amount of classified acreage, the biggest
change occurred in Massachusetts, where
classified nonestuarine acreage almost tripled.
In the Mid-Atlantic states (Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia), approved waters
increased from 79% in 1990 to 84% in 1995.
Five of the eight Mid-Atlantic states reported
a decline in classified acreage located in
estuarine waters.
Beach Closures
Of 566 coastal beaches in the Northeast
that reported information to EPA, only 8.8%
(50 beaches) closed for any period of time
in 1999. The highest percentage of closed
beaches was in New York, where 19% of the
26 beaches providing information were closed
at least once in 1999. Figure 3-22 shows the
percentage of beaches in each county that
were closed at least once in 1999 and the
locations of beach closures. Four states
(Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, and
Virginia) did not have any coastal beach
closings in 1999.
Over 98% of the beaches in the Northeast
that reported information have monitoring
programs. Virginia had the lowest percentage
of monitored beaches in 1998, but in 1999 five
of the six beaches reporting from Virginia had
a monitoring program in place.
Causes for beach closures in the Northeast
were primarily related to elevated bacteria
levels. The sources of bacteria were generally
different types of runoff, such as stormwater,
and sewer overflows. In a number of cases,
the elevated bacteria levels were thought to
have been caused by wildlife. Often beaches
were preemptively closed due to the threat
of potentially high bacteria levels. In New
Jersey, a number of beaches were closed
due to raw sewage spills.
Percentage of
beaches closed
per county:
0-10
11-50
51-100
No Data
Available
Beach Closure
in 1999
O
Figure 3-22. Percentage of beaches in each county that
were closed at least once in 1999, of those beaches providing
information to EPA.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
Summary
Ecological conditions in northeastern estuaries are borderline
poor (Figure 3-23). The primary problems in northeastern
estuaries are sediment contamination, high eutrophic condition,
significant loss of wetlands, and poor fish and benthic condition.
Over 25% of sediments are enriched or exceed the ERL/ERM
guidance. Sixty percent of the northeastern estuarine area has a
high potential of increasing eutrophication or existing high
concentrations of chlorophyll a. About 10% of fish have elevated
levels of contaminants in their edible tissues. Nearly 40% of all
wetlands along the Northeast Coast were eliminated between 1780
and 1980. Although some of these problems are improving, benthic
community degradation, fish tissue contamination, and increasing
eutrophic condition are worsening. Figure 3-23 displays the
condition of the major indicators of ecological condition in
northeastern estuaries. Although hypoxia issues exist in the deep
trough of the Chesapeake Bay, dissolved oxygen conditions are
generally fair for northeastern estuaries. Water clarity is generally
in good condition. However, benthic community condition is
borderline poor in these estuaries and appears to be worsening.
Eutrophic condition, sediment contamination, and fish tissue
contamination are considered to be in poor condition throughout
the Northeast. The condition of these resources indicates that the
estuaries of the Northeast Coast are among the most threatened in
the country. However, major programs are being implemented and
designed to address the existing problems. Continued monitoring
is also necessary to track the progress of cleanup efforts and to
prevent the worsening of conditions throughout the Northeast.
Overall
Northeast
Fair
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 3-23. The overall condition of
northeastern estuaries is borderline poor
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
The Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional
partnership directing and conducting the restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay since the signing of the historic Chesapeake
Bay Agreement of 1983. The Chesapeake Bay Program
partners are the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia; the District of Columbia; the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, a tri-state legislative body; and EPA.
In the late 1970s, scientific and estuarine research on the Bay pinpointed three
areas requiring immediate attention: nutrient overenrichment, dwindling underwater
bay grasses, and toxic pollution. Once the initial research was completed, the Bay
Program evolved as the means to restore this exceptionally valuable resource, with
its highest priority being the restoration of the Bay's living resources—its finfish,
shellfish, bay grasses, and other aquatic life and wildlife.
The second Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1987, which created the
infrastructure and policy vision for which the Chesapeake Bay Program is known.
The centerpiece of the 1987 Agreement was a goal to reduce nutrients entering the
Bay by 40% by 2000. This history of setting strong numerical goals within a date-
certain timeframe has become a hallmark of the Bay Program and is repeated in
the new Chesapeake 2000 agreement.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 \ Northeast Coastal Condition
The Chesapeake 2000 agreement lays the foundation and sets the course for the Bay's
restoration and protection for the next decade and beyond. Highlights include
• Water Quality - "By 2010, correct the nutrient and sediment related problems
in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries sufficiently to remove [them]
from the list of impaired waters under the Clean Water Act."
• Sprawl and Growth Commitments - A commitment to reduce the rate of
harmful sprawl development of forests and farms by 30% by 2012 and to
permanently preserve 20% of the Bay watershed by 2010 (currently about
16.4% is preserved).
• Mixing Zone Elimination - Voluntary elimination of mixing zones for both
bioaccumulative and persistent chemicals by 2010.
• Wetlands - Commits to a "no net loss" of existing wetlands, a net gain of
25,000 acres by 2010, and a commitment to develop and implement locally
generated wetlands preservation plans on 25% of the land area of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed by 2010.
• Education and Public Access - Provide every school student in the Bay
watershed with an outdoor Bay or stream experience by the time he or she
graduates from high school. Also, increase public access to the Bay and its
tributaries by 30% by 2010 and add 500 miles of water trails by 2005.
• Oysters/Crabs - The new agreement commits to a tenfold increase in the
oyster population by 2010 and to setting of new Baywide harvest targets
for blue crabs in 2001.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Long Island Sound Dissolved Oxygen
Timing and Duration of Hypoxia in Long Island Sound
1987 - 1990 University of Connecticut
1991 - 1999 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
The Long Island Sound drainage basin is one of the most densely populated
areas in the country. Approximately 8.4 million people live within the basin,
including 3.5 million in New York City. Intense resource use and human population
pressures have placed a significant strain on Long Island Sound. Passage of the Clean
Water Act has led to measurable improvements in water quality, and many sources
of pollution are now regulated. However, the problem of low dissolved oxygen
remains a significant concern to the overall health of the sound.
Low dissolved oxygen
occurs primarily during
the summer months in the
central and west portions
of Long Island Sound. When
dissolved oxygen levels fall
below 3 mg/L, the health
of aquatic life tends to suffer.
Water in Long Island Sound
tends to be highly stratified
in the late summer months
and has probably always
experienced some periods of low dissolved oxygen. However, human inputs of
nutrients add to the problem, resulting in more significant damage to ecologically
and economically important organisms.
A time series of
average dissolved oxygen
concentrations in Long
Island Sound shows generally
decreasing measurements
from 1963 to 1993. Condi-
tions appear to improve from
1987 to 1993, but remain
substantially degraded with
31
Jan
61
Feb
92 122 153 183
Mar April May June
SO;
214 244 275
July Aug Sept
Hypoxic (<3.0 mg/L) Period
305
Oct
336
Nov
366
Dec
I960
1965
1970 1975
1980
1985
1990
1995 2000
respect to measurements
made prior to 1970.
National Coastal Condition Report
Average Bottom Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L)
from 1963 to 1993. Yearly averages reveal generally decreasing
dissolved oxygen concentrations with stabilizing conditions from
1973 to 1987 and a slight recovery from 1987 to 1993.
-------
Chapter
Southeast
Coastal
Condition
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal
Condition 6&&
The condition of southeastern estuaries
is fair, although monitoring has shown evidence of human-induced
stress in some areas (Figure 4-1). From 1994 to!995, EMAP collected
environmental stressor and response data from approximately
200 locations throughout southeastern estuaries. In 1996 and
1997, a smaller number of sites were examined in North Carolina.
Approximately 54% of the estuarine area of the southeastern United
States was in good ecological condition, meaning that, in the most
stressful period of the year, neither environmental stressors (nutrients,
contaminants, etc.) nor conditions for aquatic life showed any signs
of impairment (Figure 4-2). Alternatively, 35% of the estuarine area
showed indications of impaired aquatic life use and 17% showed
impairments to human use.
The estuaries of the southeastern United States (Carolinian province)
extend from Cape Henry, Virginia, through the southern end of the
Indian River Lagoon along the east coast of Florida (Figure 4-3).
Also included in southeastern estuaries is a region of the West Indian
province from Indian River Lagoon through Biscayne Bay. The popu-
lation of coastal counties along the Southeast Coast increased 64% from
1970 to 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). The estuarine resources
are diverse and extensive, covering an estimated 4,487 square miles.
' V I
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Overall TT
SoutheastX 7
Good Fair
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 4-1. The
overall condition of
southeastern estuaries
is fain
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
6%
Unimpaired
54%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
29%
Good
Fair
Poor
Impaired
Human Use
11%
Figure 4-2. The condition of estuaries on the
Southeast Coast; estimates are within + 10/6 based
on 4 years of sampling (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Figure 4-3. Southeastern
estuaries (Carolinian province).
There is an increasing need for effective
management of these resources given the
predicted influx of people and businesses to
southeastern coastal states over the next few
decades and the ensuing pressures on the
coastal zone of this region. Culliton et al.
(1990) estimated that the coastal population
in the southeastern United States will have
increased by 181% over the 50-year period
from 1960 to 2010 (the largest percentage
increase in the country).
To help support resource management
needs, EPA and NOAA initiated a compre-
hensive study of the quality of southeastern
estuaries in 1994 by coordinating components
of two nationwide monitoring efforts, the EPA
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program and the NOAA National Status and
Trends Program. The southeastern study was
designed to provide yearly estimates of the
condition of estuaries based on a variety
of biological, chemical, lexicological, and
aesthetic indicators (see Hyland et al., 1996;
Hyland et al., 1998). Prior to this study, there
was no comprehensive regionwide ecological
information available. In addition to this
monitoring effort, the Coastal 2000 initiative
includes follow-up monitoring in the four
southeastern states (North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida). Also, since
the late 1980s, NOAAs NS&T Program and
its Intensive Bioeffects Surveys have collected
contaminant bioavailability and sediment
toxicity data from several southeastern
locations (Long et al., 1996).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data
Water Clarity
Water clarity in southeastern estuaries
is fair. Water clarity was estimated by light
penetration through the water column using
a Secchi disc. Poor water visibility was defined
as a Secchi depth of less than 0.5 m. This is
equivalent to 10% of surface light reaching
1 meter. About 4% of southeastern estuaries
had a Secchi depth of less than 0.5 meter
(Figure 4-4).
The presence of debris introduced by
humans ("trash") in surface and bottom
waters provides an obvious sign of degra-
dation. Floating debris was observed in
about 2% of southeastern estuaries, and
bottom debris was observed in about 17%
(Figure 4-5). Two other indicators of human
disturbance are the presence of oil and grease
and the presence of noxious odors. Oil
was observed in 4% of the sediments in
southeastern estuaries, and noxious odors
were detectable in 24% of these sediments.
Water Clarity
Southeast
Coast
Figure 4-4. Light penetration data and locations for sites with a Secchi
depth of <0.5 m (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
The sand makes a temporary
rest in the broad deltas that
form where the outflowing
freshwater collides head-on
with the incoming saltwater
(Photo: Grays ReefNMS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in
southeastern estuaries are generally good.
EMAP estimates for southeastern estuaries
show that about 2% of the bottom waters
in southeastern estuaries have low dissolved
oxygen (less than 2 ppm) on a continuing
basis in late summer (Figure 4-6). Most of
this 2% is in the Neuse River and southern
portions of Pamlico Sound.
Anthropogenic Debris, Presence of Oil,
and Noxious Sediment Odors
in Southeastern Estuaries
100
80
60
40
20
0
D Bottom Debris Present
n Surface Debris Present
17
13 13
22
Province
Large
River
Small
IUU
80
60
40
20
• Oil
• ON
-
-
-
4
1^-^
0
Present in Sediments
Present on Surface
15
. •
Province
Large
River
Small
100
60
40 -
20
• Odor Present
24
7
24
55
Province
Large
River
Small
Province = Entire Area
Large = Estuaries > 97 mi2
Rivers = Tidal Rivers > 97 mi2
Small = Estuaries < 97 mi2
Figure 4-5. The presence of anthropogenic debris provides
an obvious sign of degradation.
Coastal Wetland Loss
Wetland losses in the Southeast are high-
40% of all wetlands existing in 1780 had
disappeared by 1980 (Figure 4-7). Losses
ranged from 23% in Georgia to nearly
50% in North Carolina (Dahl, 1990).
From the 1970s to the 1980s, acreage
of wetlands has continued to decline
Dissolved Oxygen
Southeast
Coast
Fair
Figure 4-6. Dissolved oxygen data for sampled sites and locations for
sites with less than 2 ppm for the Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Coastal Wetland Habitat Loss from 1780 to 1980
f60
§
b- S0
< o
*£ 40
C 2 20
1) +J
V. 8 10
** 0
49 D Percent Wetland Loss
46
27
23
40
II
North South Georgia Florida Southeast
Carolina Carolina
Figure 4-7. Percent wetland habitat lost from 1780 to 1980
by state and for the Southeast overall (Dahl, 1990;Turner and
Boesch, 1988).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal Condition
throughout all the states in the Southeast
(Figure 4-8). These losses range from 1%
decline in this decade for Georgia to a 16%
decline in North Carolina.
Eutrophic Condition
The condition of southeastern estuaries as
measured by eutrophic condition is fair. High
eutrophic conditions were observed in only
13% of the area of southeastern estuaries
(Figure 4-9). However, estimates predicted
an expected increase in eutrophic condition
in nearly all southeastern estuarine waters
by 2020. Expression of eutrophic condition
was high in four North Carolina estuarine
river systems (Pamlico, Pungo, Neuse, and
New Rivers) and in the St. Johns River in
Florida. No estuarine systems in Georgia or
South Carolina or the remainder of the east
coast of Florida expressed high eutrophic
conditions, although five others showed
moderate conditions.
High expressions of chlorophyll a were
observed during NOAA's National Estuarine
Eutrophication Assessment for about 14% of
the area of southeastern estuaries. These high
expressions were observed predominantly in
estuaries in North Carolina and for a single
estuary in Florida (Figure 4-10).
Coastal Wetlands Habitat Loss from 1970 to 1980
Z IB
0
Wetland Acreage L
j
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
The condition of southeastern estuaries as
measured by sediment contamination is fair.
Sediment contaminants have been estimated
by EMAP and NOAA (bioeffects surveys) for
the estuaries of the southeastern United States.
Sediment contaminant concentrations
measured by NOAA NS&T bioeffects surveys
rarely exceeded ERM guidelines (Long et al.,
1996), with exceedances occurring only for
pesticides in two estuarine systems (Mud River
and Cumberland River, Georgia, Figure 4-11).
EMAP reported that ERL guidelines were
exceeded for all of the major groups of
sediment contaminants, albeit at low rates
(5% of area) for PAHs and PCBs. There were
greater ERL exceedances for pesticides (33%)
and heavy metals (39%), although most of
the pesticide ERL exceedances were for DDT
metabolites, dieldrin, and lindane. Total DDT
(DDT plus metabolites DDE and ODD)
exceeded 6 ppm in nearly 27% of estuarine
sediments and ranged from 0 to 214 ppm.
Lindane exceeded its ERL value in 12% of
sediments. Concentrations of some chemicals
(pyrene, chlordane, DDT and its metabolites,
dieldrin, and lindane) were found in the
EMAP survey in excess of upper-level ERM
guidelines in a few places (similar to the low
incidence of ERM exceedances found in
NOAAs NS&T bioeffects surveys). While con-
centrations of most sediment contaminants
are relatively low, enrichment rates for south-
eastern estuarine sediments range from 11%
(PCBs) to nearly 99% (PAHs) (Figure 4-12).
Only three contaminants (total DDT, arsenic,
and nickel) exceeded ERL guidelines for
more than 15% of the southeastern estuarine
sediments. Therefore, sediment contamination
is rated fair for the Southeast.
Sediment Contaminant Criteria
ERM (Effects Range Medium) - The
concentration of a contaminant that will
result in ecological effects approximately
50% of the time based on literature studies.
ERL (Effects Range Low) - The
concentration of a contaminant that will
result in ecological effects about 10% of
the time based on literature studies.
Sediment
Contamination
Southeast
Coast
IUU
80
60
40
20
• > ERL
33
5
0
39
| |
PAHs- Pesticides Metals
PCBs
Figure 4-11. Sediment contamination for sampled sites and locations
of sites with 5 > ERL along the Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
100
80
60
40
20
0
99
34
PAHs PCBs Pesticides Metals
Figure 4-12. Percentage of estuarine sediments in
southeastern estuaries that are enriched and range from
I I % (PCBs) to nearly 99% (PAHs) (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition
Benthic indicators in southeastern estuaries
are fair. Benthic index estimates (Hyland et
al., 1996; Hyland et al., 1998; Van Dolah et al.,
1998), based on EMAP surveys, indicate that
17% of the estuarine area has highly degraded
benthic resources (Figure 4-13). Of the
4,487 square miles in the Carolinian province,
nearly 772 square miles were ecologically
degraded with respect to benthos. Exami-
nation of the distributions of the benthic
index in the three sampling strata within the
southeastern United States (large estuaries,
large rivers, and small estuaries/rivers) showed
that large tidal rivers (Neuse and Pamlico
Rivers and Indian River Lagoon) had the
largest proportion of their estuarine bottom
area represented by poorer than expected
benthic communities (about 70%), while large
estuaries (open areas such as Pamlico Sound)
had the smallest proportional representation
(about 5%). Degraded benthic conditions
were observed throughout the Southeast.
Sediment toxicity from EMAP and
NOAA NS&T bioeffects data show that
small proportions of southeastern sediments
are toxic based on bioassays with the marine
amphipod Ampelisca abdita (Figure 4-14).
NOAA bioeffects surveys of Winyah Bay,
Charleston Harbor, Leadenwah Creek,
Savannah River, and St. Simons Sound
showed 0 to 1.2% of their sediments to be
toxic. EMAP surveys generally confirm these
findings, but show no toxicity associated with
sediments from Savannah River or St. Simons
Sound. In addition, EMAP surveys showed
significant sediment toxicity associated with
the Chowan River, some small estuaries in
North Carolina, and Newfound Harbor
on the Indian River Lagoon in Florida.
Benthic Index
Southeast
Coast
Fair
Condition
14%
Figure 4-13. Benthic index condition data and locations with poor
benthos along the Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Toxic Sediments
Ampelisca Test
Southeast Coast
Ampelisca Survival < 80%
Carolinian Province 1994-1997
Nontoxic
96%
Figure 4-14. Amphipod data and locations with toxicity > 20% along
the Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
For the locations that showed poor benthic
community quality, the co-occurrence of poor
environmental quality (exposure) is shown in
Figure 4-15. Of the 20% of the southeastern
estuarine area that had impaired benthic
assemblages, 61% also showed contaminated
sediments, 1% showed sediment toxicity, 17%
showed hypoxia, and 1% showed poor light
conditions (high levels of total suspended
solids). Of the locations that showed poor
benthic community conditions, 20% had
no sediment or water quality degradation (as
measured by the EMAP program). Locations
without obvious associations between adverse
biological and exposure conditions occurred
primarily in Pamlico Sound and Indian River
Lagoon. Recently, Pamlico Sound has displayed
some tendencies to hypoxic conditions in late
summer, and Indian River Lagoon has shown
increasing nutrient concentrations.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
The condition of southeastern estuaries
as measured by fish tissue contaminants is
good. Samples of spot, Atlantic croaker, blue
crab, and penaeid shrimp were analyzed for
presence of contaminants in edible tissues.
All measured analytes in these samples were
below corresponding Food and Drug
Administration action levels for PCBs,
pesticides, and mercury. Using international
guidelines for other metals and pesticides,
it was shown that arsenic guidelines were
exceeded at 16% of sampled locations or in
about 8% of the fish population examined
(Figure 4-16). Arsenic found in fish and
shellfish is almost completely altered into
organic arsenobetaines that are not toxic to
humans. Thus, only one location (about 1%
of fish examined) showed elevated levels of
nonarsenical contaminants in edible tissues.
Poor Water/Sediment
Quality Indicators that
Co-Occur with Poor Benthic
Condition Southeast Coast
O None
O DO
O Sediment
Contaminants
• Toxicity
• Light
DO
17%
Sediment
Contaminants
61%
Toxicity
1%
Edible Fish Tissue
Contaminants
Southeast
Coast
All Other
Contaminants
|% Arsenic
8%
• Sites with
Contaminated
Fish Tissue
Figure 4-1 5. Indicators of poor water/sediment quality that co-occur
with poor benthic condition in southeastern estuaries (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Figure 4-16. Contaminants in edible fish tissues in sampled sites along
the Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal Condition
Less than 0.1% of the approximately
14,586 fish and shellfish examined from the
region in 1995 had visible pathologies (Hyland
et al., 1998) (Table 4-1). Growths, ulcerations,
and fin rot were observed in 0.2% of fish, with
white perch showing the highest incidence
(3.4%). Shellfish showed shell disease in
0.2% of blue crabs and cotton disease in
0.07% of white and brown shrimp.
In summary, available data show that about
54% of southeastern estuaries are in good
condition. The remaining 46% are showing
some signs of environmental stress, although
no obvious connections between adverse
biological and exposure conditions related to
human activities could be detected throughout
much of this area. For example, co-occurrences
of degraded benthos and adverse exposure
conditions (high sediment contamination
in excess of sediment bioeffects guidelines
and/or significant sediment toxicity based
on standard assays) were much less extensive,
occurring in only about 12% of the total area
of these estuaries. While the overall level
of degradation in southeastern estuaries
is moderate, it occurred frequently enough,
with respect to spatial extent and number
of indicators, that condition should be
measured periodically to ensure that
increasing degradation does not occur.
Programs like the Coastal 2000 Program
implemented throughout North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida will
provide this continuing surveillance.
Table 4-1. Number of Fish and Shellfish with Gross Pathologies
in Southeastern Estuaries
Species
Number Number Percent Standard
of of with Error of
Pathologies Fish Pathologies Estimate
Atlantic Croaker
White Perch
Spadefish
I
3,564
0.03
146
3.40
74
1.40
483
0.20
3,390
0.10
543
0.20
0.01
0.10
0.30
0.03
0.01
0.02
The dusky flounder
(Syadum papilbsurri) is
usually left unnoticed buried
and camouflaged by sand
(Photo: Dean De Philipo/
Passage Productions).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Assessments and Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
and 303(d) Assessments
The states on the Southeast Coast assessed
5,616 (63%) of their 8,956 estuarine square
miles for their 1998 305(b) reports. Of the
assessed estuarine waters on the Southeast
Coast, 74% fully support their designated uses,
4% are threatened for one or more uses, and
the remaining 22% are impaired by some
form of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 4-17). Individual use support for
assessed estuaries is shown in Figure 4-18. The
states on the Southeast Coast did not assess
Fully
Supporting
74%
Impaired
22%
Threatened
4%
Figure 4-17. Water quality in assessed estuaries on
the Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA).
any of their 9,070 shoreline miles. Although
Florida reports water quality information for
coastal waters for 305(b), it is not possible
from that report to distinguish between
Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast listings. So
305(b) assessment information for Florida
is included in its entirety in this section.
Table 4-2 shows individual use support
reported by states for their assessed estuarine
and coastal waters.
Table 4-2. Individual Use Support for Assessed Coastal
Waters Reported by States on the Southeast Coast
under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
Individual
Uses
Aquatic Life
Fish
Consumption
Shellfish
Harvesting
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
Estuaries
Assessed as
Impaired (mi2)
504
340
874
361
333
Percent of
Total Area
Assessed
30%
29%
34%
22%
23%
u-
1 ,600 -
1 ,400 -
1 200 -
1 ,000 -
800-
600-
400-
200-
o-
L~H Fully Supporting
L~H Threatened
LTI Impaired
i
—
i i
i — i
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary
i — i
i
Secondary
Support Consumption Contact - Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 4-18. Individual use support for assessed estuaries on the Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal Condition
There are 134 waters on the Southeast
Coast that are listed as impaired under Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The percentage
of listed waters impaired by each of the major
pollutant categories is shown in Figure 4-19.
1998 303(d) Impairments
for the Southeast Coast
•4V
*7 Pesticides
Mercury
Toxics/Organics
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients
Sedimentation
0%
0%
2%
]s%
3%
0%
|88%
0 SO 100
Percent of Listed
Miles Impaired
Figure 4-19. 303(d) listed waters on the Southeast Coast and the
percentage of listed waters impaired by the major pollutant categories
(note that a listing may be impaired by multiple pollutants) (U.S. EPA).
State Fish Consumption Advisories
Eight fish consumption advisories were
active in the coastal waters of the Southeast
in 2000 (Figure 4-20). All four coastal states
had statewide advisories covering all coastal
waters and estuaries to warn citizens against
consuming large quantities of king mackerel
because of potential mercury contamination.
Because of these statewide advisories, 100%
of the total coastline miles of the Southeast
were under advisory.
The following species were under advisory for at least some
portion of the Southeast Coast during 2000:
Spotted sea trout
Largemouth bass
Atlantic croaker
Red drum
Black drum
Mussels
Silver perch
Jack crevalle
Flounder
Ladyfish
Clams
Blue crab
Oysters
King mackerel
The majority of fish consumption
advisories on the Southeast Coast (64%)
were the result of mercury contamination
(Figure 4-21). Advisories were only issued
for two other pollutants, PCBs and dioxins.
All PCB advisories were in Georgia, and the
one dioxin advisory was in North Carolina's
Albemarle Sound.
Albemarle
Sound
Number of
Advisories per
USGS Cataloging
Unit
| | 2-4
No Advisories
Indian River
Lagoon
Figure 4-20. The number offish consumption advisories per
USGS Cataloging Unit in southeastern coastal waters. These data
are for 2000 (U.S. EPA NLFWA, 2000c).
Dioxins
9%
Mercury
64%
Figure 4-21. Pollutants responsible for fish
consumption advisories in coastal waters of
the Southeast (percent of 2000 advisories issued
for each pollutant) (U.S. EPA NLFWA, 2000c).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters
Shellfishing plays an important role in
the ecology and economy of southeastern
states. In the Southeast, 3.9 million acres
were classified for shellfish harvest in 1995.
Of these, 71% of waters were approved, 16%
were harvest-limited, and 13% were unclassi-
fied (Figure 4-22). Nationally, the Southeast
Coast ranks second in the percentage of
approved waters. Of the classified acreage,
64% is located in estuarine waters and 36% in
nonestuarine waters. The top three pollution
sources affecting harvest limitation are wild-
life, urban runoff, and agricultural runoff.
Prohibited 13%
Approved
71%
Unclassified 13%
Restricted < I %
Conditionally
Approved 2%
Fair
Poor
Figure 4-22. Classification of shellfish-growing
waters for the Southeast (1995 Shellfish Register;
NOAA, 1997).
The top two shellfish species (rated high
or medium in abundance) in the Southeast
are hard clams (463,711 acres) and eastern
oysters (417,483 acres). Hard clams and
eastern oysters are found at high or medium
relative abundance in 11% of the region's
shellfish-growing waters. Nine percent
(43,179 acres) of hard clams and 27%
(111,327 acres) of eastern oysters are located
in waters that do not allow direct harvesting
(i.e., restricted, conditionally restricted,
and/or prohibited).
Beach Closures
A total of 127 beaches in the Southeast
reported information to EPA's BEACH
Program on beach monitoring activities
and beach closings during 1999. The only
beach closings reported on the Southeast
Coast (seven beaches) occurred in Florida
(Figure 4-23). All of the reported beach
closures resulted from elevated bacteria levels
due to storm water runoff, pipeline breaks,
and boat discharges.
All of the beaches reporting information
in North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georgia had monitoring programs in 1999.
However, only 61% of beaches reporting from
the east coast of Florida had monitoring in
place for bacteria levels. None of the beaches
in Georgia contributed information to the
EPA survey because the state did not have
a monitoring or beach closure program;
however, Georgia began a monitoring
program in 1999 and reported monitoring
information from four beaches.
Percentage of
beaches closed
per county:
[] 0-10
^\ 11-50
| 51-100
• No Data
— Available
~) Beach Closure
in 1999
Figure 4-23. The only beach closings in 1999 reported
to EPA for the Southeast Coast occurred in Florida. Other
closings may have occurred but were not reported to EPA.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Eutrophication Studies in
the Neuse River Estuary
Neuse Hiver Estu^rv
•-.-".' I
MO DM0 N
The Neuse River Estuary is home to some
of North Carolina's most economically valuable
commercial and recreational fish and shellfish, in addition to being a highly valued
recreational and industrial resource. However, the slow-flowing waters of the estuary
provide near perfect conditions for algal blooms and eutrophication when combined
with the increased nitrogen loading that has taken place in the last 3 to 4 decades.
Recently, the state legislature mandated a 30% reduction in nitrogen loading to
reduce the unwanted symptoms of eutrophication (nuisance algal blooms, hypoxia,
fish kills). Because it is often difficult to predict or identify the effects of water
quality management decisions, the plan to reduce nitrogen loading by 30%
has created an opportunity for scientists to conduct a large-scale experiment
using data collected before, during, and (eventually) after the reduction.
The multidisciplinary Neuse Modeling and Monitoring (MODMON) project
was designed to collect monitoring data to establish the status and trends of water,
sediment, and habitat quality in the estuary. Another aspect of MODMON was to
create short-term and long-term water quality models such as the Neuse Estuary
Eutrophication Model (see figure). Results of different model scenarios can be
found on the Internet: http://www.marine.unc.edu/neuse/modmon.
Rivers, Creeks,
Groundwater Atmosphere Pamlico Sound
Neuse
Estuary
Eutrophication
Model
This model simulates the processes used to predict water quality in the Neuse River for various nutrient
loading and hydrologic scenarios.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
South Carolina Estuarine
and Coastal Assessment Program
In 1999, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) and
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC)
initiated a major new collaborative coastal monitoring program. The goal of the
South Carolina Estuarine and Coastal Assessment Program (SCECAP) is to monitor
the condition of the state's estuarine habitats and associated biological resources
annually. This program significantly expands current ongoing monitoring efforts
being conducted by SCDNR and SCDHEC by drawing upon the expertise of both
in a cooperative effort. SCECAP integrates measures of water and sediment quality
with multiple measures of biological condition at a large number of sites throughout
the state's coastal zone. It also expands historical monitoring activities that have
focused primarily on open water habitats (e.g., bays, sounds, tidal rivers) to include
an assessment of conditions in tidal creeks, which serve as important nursery habitat
for most of the state's economically valuable species (see figure). Many of these tidal
creeks are also the first point of entry for nonpoint source runoff from upland areas
and, therefore, can provide an early indication of anthropogenic stress.
SCECAP Stations
1999
Station Locations
• Creek
OOpen
Sampling sites for SCECAP in 1999.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal Condition
Summary
Ecological conditions in southeastern estuaries
are fair (Figure 4-24). The primary problem in
southeastern estuaries in the 1990s has been wetland
loss and sediment contamination. Sediment contam-
ination received a rating of fair, with high levels of
contaminants being detected over moderate areas,
but with additional low-level contamination detected
over broader areas (particularly for pesticides and
metals). Resulting health of resident benthic fauna
was considered fair, with evidence of impaired benthic
assemblages detected in about 17% of these estuaries.
Wetland losses in the Southeast are substantial and
receive a fair rating. Dissolved oxygen conditions
are considered good and the condition of fish is
also considered good, based on the low occurrence of
contaminated tissues in fish sampled in southeastern
estuaries. Increasing population pressures in this region
of the country will require additional programs and
increasing environmental awareness in order to correct
existing problems and ensure that indicators that
appear to be in fair condition do not worsen.
Overall J~1
Southeast^ 7
ood Fair
Poor |
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 4-24. Ecological conditions in southeastern
estuaries are fain
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter
Gulf of
Mexico
Coastal
Condition
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico
Coastal Condition
The overall
condition of
Gulf Coast
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is visited by several marine mammal
species, including the endangered West Indian manatee (Photo: Laurel Canty-Ehrlich).
estuaries is fair to poor
(Figure 5-1). From 1991
to 1995, EMAP collected
environmental stressor
and response data from
500 locations from
Florida Bay, Florida, to
Laguna Madre, Texas.
Fifty-one percent of the
assessed estuaries of the
Gulf of Mexico were in
good ecological condition, meaning that, in the most stressful period of
the year, neither environmental stressors (nutrients, contaminants, etc.)
nor aquatic life communities showed any signs of degradation
(Figure 5-2). Another 37% showed indications of poor aquatic life
conditions and 27% were impaired for human uses.
Gulf of Mexico estuaries (Figure 5-3) provide critical feeding, spawning,
and nursery habitats for a rich assemblage of fish, wildlife, and plant
species. Hundreds of species of birds, recreational and commercial fish
and shellfish species, native cypress and mangroves, and threatened and
endangered species such as sea turtles, Gulf sturgeon, beach mice, and
manatees can be found in Gulf estuary habitats. These estuaries support
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary encompasses over
2,800 square nautical miles of ocean waters from the mangroves
and beaches of the Keys all the way out to the deep ocean.The
Sanctuary is home to a wide diversity of organisms and serves
as a resting place for migrating animals at different times of the
yean The hawksbill turtle (Eretmoche/ys imbricata), an endangered
species, can occasionally be seen on the reefs of the Keys resting
or feeding on sponges and jellyfish (Photo: Jerry Burcham).
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Overall
Gulf
Fair
Poo
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 5-1.
The overall condition
of Gulf of Mexico
coastal resources
is fair to poor
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
15%
Unimpaired
51%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
22%
Good
Fair
Poor
Impaired
Human Use
12%
Figure 5-2. The condition of estuaries on the Gulf of
Mexico Coast; estimates +6/6 based on 5 years of sampling
(U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Figure 5-3. Gulf of Mexico estuaries.
submerged aquatic vegetation communities
that stabilize shorelines from erosion, reduce
nonpoint source loadings, improve water
clarity, and provide habitat.
The population of coastal counties along
the Gulf Coast increased 52% between 1970
and 1990 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).
Despite the increasing human impacts on the
Gulf Coast, relatively little attention has been
focused on the environmental concerns of
the Gulf of Mexico estuaries or upon the
condition of its estuarine resources. EMAP
focused its coastal monitoring efforts on the
Gulf of Mexico estuaries from 1991 to 1999
(Macauley et al., 1999; U.S. EPA, 1999). The
Joint Gulf States Comprehensive Monitoring
Program (GMP, 2000) began in 2000 in
conjunction with EPA's Coastal 2000 Program.
In addition, since the late 1980s, NOAAs
NS&T Program has collected contaminant
bioavailability and sediment toxicity data
from several Gulf of Mexico locations (Long
etal., 1996).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data
Water Clarity
Water clarity in Gulf Coast estuaries
is fair. Water clarity was estimated by light
penetration through the water column. For
approximately 22% of the waters in Gulf
of Mexico estuaries, less than 10% of surface
light penetrated to a depth of 1 meter
(Figure 5-4).
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in Gulf Coast
estuaries are generally good, except in a few
highly eutrophic regions. EMAP estimates for
Gulf of Mexico estuaries show that about 4%
of the bottom waters in the Gulf estuaries have
hypoxic conditions or low dissolved oxygen
(<2 ppm) on a continuing basis in late
summer (Figure 5-5). These areas are largely
associated with Chandeleur and Breton
Sounds in Louisiana, some shoreline regions
of Lake Pontchartrain, northern Florida Bay,
and small estuaries associated with Galveston
Bay, Mobile Bay, Mississippi Sound, and the
Florida panhandle.
While hypoxia resulting from anthropo-
genic activities is a relatively local occurrence
in Gulf of Mexico estuaries, accounting for less
than 5% of the estuarine bottom waters, the
occurrence of hypoxia in the Gulf's shelf waters
is much more significant (Figure 5-6). The Gulf
of Mexico hypoxic zone is the largest zone of
anthropogenic, or human-caused, coastal
hypoxia in the Western Hemisphere (CAST,
1999). Since 1993, midsummer bottom water
hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico has
been larger than 3,861 square miles, and in
1999, it reached 7,722 square miles (CENR,
2000) (Figure 5-7). This hypoxia occurs in
Water Clarity
Gulf Coast
Figure 5-4. Light penetration data and locations for sites with < 10%
light penetration along the Gulf Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Dissolved Oxygen
Gulf Coast
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 5-5. Dissolved oxygen data and locations for sites with less than
2 ppm for the Gulf Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Source: Rabalais et al., 1999
Figure 5-6. Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin and Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone.
1 15,000
i>
£
0
2 10,000
51
1 5,000
oo
n
— ,
—
rt
Q
0
_i — i ^
, — ,
—
-
-
n
n
'85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99
Year
Figure 5-7. Areal extent of mid-summer hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico (1985-1999) (CENR, 2000).
the Gulf of Mexico waters receiving flow from
the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin and
results from (1) nutrients delivered from
the watershed that foster large-scale phyto-
plankton production in shelf waters or (2)
decomposition of organic material delivered
from that watershed. Sediment cores from
the hypoxic zone show that shelf algal repro-
duction was significantly lower in the first
half of the 20th century, suggesting that
anthropogenic changes to the basin and its
discharges have resulted in the increased
hypoxia (CENR, 2000).
Since 1980, the basins providing discharge
to this portion of the Louisiana shelf have
averaged nearly 2 million tons of nitrogen
to the Gulf annually. Increases have been
observed since the 1950s, primarily of nitrate
nitrogen with total nitrate flux tripling from
the 1960s and 1970s to the 1980s and 1990s.
Over half of the nitrogen load comes from
nonpoint sources north of the confluence
of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, with much
of the loading coming from the drainage of
agricultural lands (CENR, 2000). Gulf of
Mexico ecosystems and fisheries are affected
by the widespread hypoxia. Mobile organisms
leave the hypoxic zone for more oxygen-
rich waters, and those that cannot leave
frequently die.
Estimates of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia have
not been included in the estimates of Gulf
estuarine hypoxia. Thus, a determination of
a low proportion of estuarine bottom waters
having hypoxic conditions and, consequently,
a "good" rating in estuaries for dissolved
oxygen should not be indicative of offshore
conditions. Using similar standards (similar
to those for estuarine waters), Gulf of Mexico
shelf bottom waters would be rated "poor"
for dissolved oxygen conditions.
Much of this discussion of Gulf hypoxia
is taken from six science topic reports and
an integrated scientific assessment of Gulf
of Mexico hypoxia produced by the National
Science and Technology Council Committee
on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR, 2000). The six topic reports under-
went rigorous peer review with oversight by
an independent editorial board. The report,
integrated assessment, and the comments are
available on the Internet at http://www.nos.
noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html. The
Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology (CAST) also produced a report
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
that provides recommendations to help better
understand all aspects of hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico and to decrease the Gulf hypoxic
zone. This report is available on the Internet
at http://www.cast-science.org/castpubs.htm.
Specific action to address this environmental
issue is highlighted in this chapter.
Coastal Wetland Loss
The coastal wetlands indicator for the Gulf
of Mexico receives a score of poor. Wetland
losses along the Gulf of Mexico from the
1780s to 1980s are among the highest in the
nation (Figure 5-8). Losses over the 200-year
Coastal Wetland Habitat Loss from 1780 to 1980
o 100
CO
o
ON
o
-U
o
nt
K»
o
46
-
SO
59
46
SO
Florida Alabama Missis- Louisiana Texas
sippi
SO
1
Gulf of
Mexico
Figure 5-8. Percent wetland habitat loss from 1780 to 1980 by
state and for the Gulf of Mexico region overall (Dahl, 1990;Turner
and Boesch, 1988).
timespan were 50% throughout the Gulf
and ranged from 46% declines in Florida
and Louisiana (although the absolute losses in
these states were the highest) to a 59% decline
in Mississippi. During the 1970s to 1980s, the
Gulf lost 5% of its wetlands, with the largest
declines seen in Texas (Figure 5-9). Not all of
the wetland losses in the Gulf of Mexico are
due to coastal development. Sea-level rise,
coastal subsidence, and interference with
normal erosional/depositional processes
also contribute to wetland loss.
The red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), the colonizing
mangrove, is the largest of the mangroves and is usually
the first tree found when coming ashore in the Florida Keys.
The red mangrove has prop roots often characterized as
"walking" roots due to their resemblance to a person's legs
while walking. The black mangrove (Av/cenn/o germinanas)
is found upland of the red mangrove. This tree has
pneumataphores, aerial roots that resemble limbs growing
upwards, that assist the tree in obtaining oxygen in its
anaerobic substrate. The white mangrove (Laguncularia
racemoso) grows farther inland and is not continuously
inundated with saltwater It does feel the effects of the salty
environment though, and has two pores at the base of its
leaves that excrete the excess salt (Photo: Florida Keys NMS).
Coastal Wetland Habitat Loss from 1970 to 1980
o 10
11
Florida Alabama
Missis- Louisiana Texas
sippi
Gulf of
Mexico
Figure 5-9. Percent decline in acreage of wetlands from the
1970s to 1980s by state and for the Gulf of Mexico region overall
(Hefner et al., 1994).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Eutrophic Condition
The condition of Gulf Coast estuaries as
measured by eutrophic condition is poor.
Expression of eutrophic condition was high in
38% of the area in Gulf estuaries (Figure 5-10).
The symptoms of eutrophic condition are
expected to increase in over half of Gulf of
Mexico estuaries by 2020.
High expressions of chlorophyll a were
determined for about 30% of the estuarine
area of the Gulf of Mexico. The areas with
high chlorophyll a were largely in Louisiana,
Laguna Madre, Tampa Bay, and Charlotte
Harbor (Figure 5-11).
One area worthy of discussion is Florida
Bay, which has a high eutrophic condition but
low chlorophyll a. Concentrations of about
50 ^g/L were used to classify an estuary as
having a high concentration of chlorophyll a.
Chlorophyll a concentrations in Florida Bay
as low as 20 ^g/L have been shown to be
potentially eutrophic due to the physical,
chemical, and ecological dynamics of
that system.
Scientists from other local, state, regional, and national
governmental resource protection agencies, universities, and
nongovernment organizations conduct much of the research
in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary In this picture,
photomonitoring of the corals is being done as part of a long-
term monitoring program used to indicate changes and trends
in the health of the coral reef (Photo: Mike White, Florida
Keys NMS).
Eutrophic
SI Condition
Gulf Coast
• High Expression
of Eutrophic
Condition
Moderate
33%
Figure 5-10. Eutrophic condition data and locations of estuaries with
high expression eutrophic condition along the Gulf Coast (NOAA/NOS).
Expression of Chlorophyll a
Gulf Coast
Sites with High
Expression of
Chlorophyll a
High Expression = generally high
chlorophyll a concentrations over a
large spatial area and/or over a long
period of time.
Moderate to Low Expression =
generally lower concentrations of
chlorophyll a over smaller areas or
for a shorter period of time.
Moderate to
Low Expression
70%
Figure 5-11. Chlorophyll a data in surveyed estuaries along the Gulf
Coast and locations of estuaries with high expressions of chlorophyll a
(NOAA/NOS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Mississippi
Liver
A National Strategy To Address
Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico
The best current science indicates that excessive
nutrient input, particularly nitrogen, from the
31-state Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin
contributes to the annual formation of a hypoxic
zone in the northern Gulf of Mexico. This low-
oxygen condition, which threatens the vast
ecological habitat, has averaged about 5,405 square
miles over the past 5 years (1995-2000). Detailed information on the size of the
hypoxic zone and nitrogen inputs from almost two-thirds of the United States is
presented in this chapter. Concern over the environmental and economic impacts
of this annual event has led to a national effort to assess and address the causes and
solutions for reducing its adverse effects.
In 1998, Congress passed the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act, which contained specific requirements for addressing Gulf of Mexico
hypoxia. The first requirement was to produce an integrated assessment of causes
and consequences, and the second was to produce a plan of action to reduce,
mitigate, and control hypoxia. As a result of this legislation, NOAA, as directed
by the National Science and Technology Council, led a scientific assessment team
to investigate the causes and effects of the hypoxic zone as well as approaches for
reducing its size and consequences. Teams with experts from within and outside the
government developed and produced six interrelated, peer-reviewed reports that
became the foundation for the overall integrated assessment published in May 2000.
T
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
To fulfill the second requirement, the National Science and Technology Council
requested that an existing group, the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed
Nutrient Task Force, lead the effort for developing the plan of action. EPA provided
leadership for this Task Force, which included senior management members from
9 states, 2 tribes, and 10 federal agencies. Using the information provided in the
scientific assessment along with other supplemental information, the Task Force
produced a draft action plan that is available on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/fr-actionplan.html).
Following an October 2000 meeting in Baton Rogue, Louisiana, the Task Force
finalized the action plan for delivery to the White House and ultimately to Congress.
The final action plan includes a coastal goal for reducing the 5-year running average
areal extent of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxia to less than 1,930 square miles by the year
2015. This will be accomplished through implementation of specific, practical, and
cost-effective voluntary actions by all partners within the Basin aimed at achieving a
30% reduction (from the average discharge in the 1980-1996 time frame) in nitrogen
discharges to the Gulf. Approaches for accomplishing the reductions include
creating and restoring wetlands, increasing the efficiency of agricultural and urban
non-point-source nutrient management practices, upgrading sewage treatment
facilities for nitrogen removal, and continuing research and monitoring efforts
within the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf of Mexico. These efforts will all
contribute to overall improved water quality within the Mississippi River Basin
and reduction of the hypoxic condition in the Gulf of Mexico.
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
The condition of Gulf Coast estuaries as
measured by sediment contaminants is poor.
Sediment contaminant concentrations were
rarely observed at greater than ERM guidelines
(Long et al., 1996), but northern Galveston
Bay and the Brazos River in Texas showed
high sediment contaminant concentrations.
EMAP reported that ERL guidelines were
exceeded for all of the major groups of
sediment contaminants, albeit at very low
rates (less than 1% of area) for PAHs and
PCBs (Figure 5-12). There are greater ERL
exceedances for pesticides (43%) and heavy
metals (32%), although most of the pesticide
ERL exceedances are for dieldrin and endrin
(both pesticides have ERL levels approxi-
mating their detection limits). The next
pesticides with the largest areal exceedances of
their ERL values are DDT (a chemical banned
since 1972) at 12% and chlordane at 4%.
However, while concentrations of all
sediment contaminants are relatively low,
enrichment rates for Gulf of Mexico estuarine
sediments range from 34% (heavy metals) to
nearly 99% (PAHs and PCBs) (Figure 5-13).
Sediment Contaminant Criteria
ERM (Effects Range Medium) - The
concentration of a contaminant that will
result in ecological effects approximately
50% of the time based on literature studies.
ERL (Effects Range Low) - The
concentration of a contaminant that will
result in ecological effects about 10% of
the time based on literature studies.
Sediment
Contamination
Gulf Coast
Percent Area
K» -U ON CO O
5 O O O O O
0 5 > ERL
0 1 > ERM
_6_, |
43
32
1
Alkanes PAHs PCBs Pesticides Metals
Figure 5-12. Sediment contamination for sampled sites and locations of
sites with 5 > ERL or I > ERM along the Gulf Coast. (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
on
60
40
20
n
99
99
80
34
PAHs
PCBs Pesticides Metals
Figure 5-13. Sediment enrichment rates in Gulf of Mexico
estuaries.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition
The condition of benthic indicators in
Gulf Coast estuaries is poor. Benthic index
estimates (Engle and Summers, 1999) based
on EMAP surveys indicate that 23% of the
estuarine area has degraded benthic resources
(Figure 5-14). Of the 9,932 mi2 in the
Louisianian Province (Tampa Bay, Florida,
to Laguna Madre, Texas) and of the 2,054 mi2
of the West Indian Province located along the
Gulf Coast, over 4,247 mi2 were ecologically
degraded with respect to benthos. Examina-
tion of the distributions of the benthic index
in the three sampling strata within the Gulf
of Mexico (large estuaries, large rivers, and
small estuaries/rivers) showed that the
Mississippi River had the largest proportion
of its estuarine bottom area represented by
poorer than expected benthic communities
(82%), while large estuaries had the smallest
proportional representation (18%). With the
exception of the Big Bend and Ten Thousand
Islands regions of Florida, most Gulf of
Mexico estuarine regions showed some
level of benthic degradation.
For the locations that showed poor benthic
community quality, the co-occurrence of poor
environmental quality (exposure) is shown in
Figure 5-15. Of the 23% of the Gulf of Mexico
estuarine area that had poor benthos, 70%
also showed contaminated sediments, 1%
showed sediment toxicity, 7% showed hypoxia,
and 12% showed poor light conditions (high
levels of total suspended solids). Only 10%
of the locations that showed poor benthic
community conditions had no sediment or
water quality degradation. These locations
Benthic Index
Gulf Coast
Sites with Poor
Benthic Conditions
Fair
Condition
28%
Good
Fair
Figure 5-14. Benthic index condition data and locations with poor
benthos along the Gulf Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Poor Water/Sediment Quality Indicators
that Co-Occur with Poor Benthic Condition
Gulf Coast
Sediment
Contaminants
70%
O None
O DO
O Sediment Contaminants
• Toxicity
• Light
Figure 5-15. Indicators of poor water/sediment quality that co-occur
with poor benthic condition in Gulf of Mexico estuaries (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
were spread throughout the five Gulf
of Mexico states, although several of these
sites are suspected of having poor nutrient
water quality.
Sediment toxicity from EMAP and NOAA
bioeffects data show that small proportions
of Gulf of Mexico sediments are toxic (6% of
sediments causing greater than 20% mortality
in test organisms) (Figure 5-16). NOAA
bioeffects surveys of Tampa Bay, Apalachicola
Bay, St. Andrews Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay,
Pensacola Bay, and Sabine Lake showed less
than 1% of sediments to be toxic. EMAP
surveys generally confirm these findings,
although their surveys showed toxicity
associated with Choctawhatchee River
sediments, Bayou Texar in Pensacola Bay,
and the Sabine Lake Canal. In addition,
EMAP showed toxic sediments in several
Toxic Sediments
Ampelisca Test
Gulf Coast
• Sites Where
Survival of
Amphipods
Was Less
Than 80%
Percent Area
100
80
60
40
20
Ampelisca Survival < 80%
Gulf Coast 1994-1995
^f]^
Province = Entire Area
Large = Estuaries > 97 mi2
Rivers = Tidal Rivers > 97 mi2
Small = Estuaries < 97 mi2
Province Large River Small
Big Bend, Florida, estuaries, lower Mississippi
River and Atchafalaya River sediments,
portions of Galveston Bay, western Lake
Pontchartrain, as well as several other small
estuarine systems in the Gulf of Mexico.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Figure 5-16. Amphipod data and locations with toxicity > 20% along
the Gulf Coast (U.S. EPA/EMAP).
The condition of Gulf Coast estuaries based
on fish tissue contaminants is poor. Based on
FDA limits for 15 of the 49 contaminants
examined by EMAP, contaminant concen-
trations in edible fish and shellfish were low
for all pesticides tested. However, guidance
concentrations for metals were exceeded in all
species examined. Concentrations of arsenic,
chromium, copper, and selenium exceeded
guidance values for 4% of shrimp, 9% of
Atlantic croaker, and 32% of catfish. An
estimated 20% of fish examined contained
concentrations of metals exceeding guidance
criteria (Figure 5-17), although 80% of these
exceedances were for arsenic (16% offish
examined). Arsenic found in fish and shellfish
is almost completely altered into organic
arsenobetaines that are not toxic to humans.
Thus, only about 4% of fish examined showed
elevated levels of contaminants, with about
3% of catfish, 4% of shrimp, and 5% of
croakers (Figure 5-18) showing elevated
concentrations in edible tissues.
Less than 1% of the approximately
64,100 fish examined from the region had
visible pathologies (Fournie et al., 1996)
(Table 5-1). External pathologies were
prevalent in upper trophic level fish (e.g.,
sea trout and permit) (1%), while demersal
species exhibited an incidence of external
pathologies in about 0.5% of the fish
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Edible Fish Tissue
Contaminants
Gulf Coast
Edible Fish Tissue
Contaminants
Gulf Coast
Sites with
Contaminated
Fish Tissue
Sites with
Contaminated
Fish Tissue
All Other
Contaminants
4%
No
Contaminants
80%
Figure 5-17. Contaminants in fish tissue, including arsenic
(U.S. EPA/EMAP).
Catfish Shrimp Croaker
Figure 5-18. Contaminants in fish tissue, not including arsenic
(U.S. EPA/EMAP).
examined. The estimation error associated
with these percentages is about 0.0001%.
In summary, ecological conditions in the
Gulf of Mexico show that about 50% of
estuaries are in good condition. The remaining
50% are showing some signs of degradation;
however, these signs are generally being seen
in benthic communities and often represent
chronic effects (e.g., changes in biodiversity
and community structure) due to prolonged
exposures to low levels of contaminants,
increasing nutrients, and habitat degradation.
While the level of estuarine degradation in
Gulf of Mexico estuaries is low, it occurs
relatively frequently and must be measured
periodically to ensure that increasing
Table 5-1 . Number of Fish with Gross Pathologies in Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries
Group
Demersal
Upper Trophic
Commercial/
Recreational
Pelagic
Number
of
Pathologies
198
43
151
163
Number
of
Fish
44,781
4,179
14,217
1 3,299
Percent
with
Pathologies
0.442
1.028
1.062
1.225
Standard
Error of
Estimate
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
degradation does not occur. Programs like the
Joint Gulf States Comprehensive Monitoring
Program jointly sponsored by the Gulf of
Mexico states and EPA's Gulf of Mexico
Program and Coastal 2000 will provide
this continuing surveillance.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana's
Troubled Urban Estuary
Concentrated rapid population growth in the area between Lake Pontchartrain
and the Mississippi River began nearly 300 years ago with the influx of European
settlers. Development and urbanization in the New Orleans area is projected to
continue and place even greater stress on the Pontchartrain Basin environment.
Today, the Basin faces many challenges, including continued loss of wetlands and
estuarine habitats, pollution of water and sediments, and potential impacts on the
circulation patterns of Lake Pontchartrain from future freshwater diversions from
the Mississippi River. The U.S. Geological Survey conducts a number of long-term
studies in Lake Pontchartrain to provide scientific information to help managers
and planners deal with these environmental challenges.
The opening of the Bonnet Carre'Spillway, which connects the Mississippi River
to Lake Pontchartrain, serves as one example of the human-induced environmental
challenges in the estuary. In March 1997, the Spillway was opened to help divert
flood waters from the Mississippi into Lake Pontchartrain. Satellite imagery revealed
an increase in suspended material in the lake as a result of the diversion of flood-
waters. Below are images derived from the Advanced Very High Resolution
Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument onboard National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration polar-orbiting satellites. The images illustrate the increase in
suspended material in the lake as a result of the diversion of floodwaters. Dark
red indicates more suspended sediment.
March 6,1997
March 23,1997
April 7,1997
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Seagrass Meadows
in Laguna Mad re
Laguna Madre is a very shallow, naturally
hypersaline (saltier than seawater) coastal
body of water located in southern Texas
near the Mexican border (see map). It covers
over 600 square miles and averages only
2.5 feet in depth, but the deepest areas are
over 5 feet deep. Seagrasses currently cover
over 70% of both the upper and lower
Laguna Madre. However, dramatic changes
are taking place in the coverage and species
composition of the seagrass communities.
Corpus Christi Bay
Upper Laguna Bay
The Texas coast.
N
1988
I I Bare
I I Shoal Grass
I I Manatee Grass
^H Clover Grass
I I Turtle Grass
ns Not Sampled
Increased turbidity and changes
in salinity are leading to dramatic
changes in the seagrass meadows
of the lower Laguna Madre
(Onuf, 1995).
The upper Laguna Madre saw large increases
in seagrass coverage from 1967 to 1988. Since 1988,
seagrass meadows have been declining, particularly
in the deeper areas of the lagoon. Current research
suggests that recent declines are due to a persistent
bloom of the phytoplankton Aureoumbra lagunensis
(Texas brown tide). The bloom reduces water clarity
and results in shading of deeper seagrasses, which
are then unable to survive.
Seagrass coverage in the lower Laguna Madre is
also declining, and species composition is changing
rapidly. Historically, shoal grass (Halodule wrightii)
dominated seagrass meadows in Laguna Madre.
These meadows serve as overwintering grounds
for redhead ducks (Aythya americana) that feed on
shoal grass during the winter months. Since 1988,
however, shoal grass coverage has been reduced 60%
(left). Bare areas in the lagoon are increasing and
shoal grasses are being replaced by manatee grass
(Syringodium filiforme) and turtle grass (Thalassia
testudinum). While declines appear largely due to
brown tides, sediments suspended by maintenance
dredging may have also contributed to reducing the
amount of light reaching seagrasses and damaging
the meadows.
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Assessments and Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
and 303(d) Assessments
Gulf Coast states assessed 7,276 (48%)
of the 15,316 square miles that make up the
Gulf Coast estuaries for their 1998 305(b)
reports. Although Florida reports water quality
information for coastal waters for 305(b), it
is not possible from that report to distinguish
between Atlantic Coast and Gulf Coast
listings, so 305(b) assessment information
for Florida is included in its entirety in this
section. Thirty-two percent of the assessed
estuarine waters on the Gulf Coast fully
support their designated uses, and 6% are
threatened for one or more uses (Figure 5-19).
The remaining 62% of assessed estuarine
waters on the Gulf Coast are impaired by
some form of pollution or habitat degradation.
Individual use support for estuaries is shown
in Figure 5-20.
Of the 2.5 million visitors to the Florida Keys each yean 17% participate
in some type of fishing activity during their visit (Photo: Page Guill,
Florida Keys NMS).
Fully
Supporting
32%
Threatened
6%
Impaired
62%
Figure 5-19. Water quality in assessed Gulf Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA).
4,000
3,500 -
3,000 -
I 2,500 H
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Impaired
Aquatic Life
Support
Fish
Consumption
Shellfishing
Primary
Contact -
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
Designated Use
Figure 5-20. Individual use support for assessed estuaries on the Gulf Coast (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
The Gulf Coast states assessed only 184
miles (0.02%) of their 10,063 coastal shoreline
miles. Of the assessed shoreline miles, 60%
fully support their designated uses, 2% are
threatened for one or more uses, and 38%
are impaired by some form of pollution or
habitat degradation (Figure 5-21). Individual
use support for assessed shoreline is shown
in Figure 5-22.
Fully
Supporting
60%
Poor
Impaired
38%
Threatened
2%
Figure 5-21. Water quality for assessed shoreline on
the Gulf Coast (U.S. EPA).
120
100
in
£ 80 i
f
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
There are 233 waters located on the Gulf
Coast that are listed as impaired under Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The percentage
of listed waters impaired by each of the major
pollutant categories is shown in Figure 5-23.
1998 303(d) Impairments for the Conterminous United States
Listed Miles Listed Area
Pesticides 6%
Mercury
Toxics/Organics
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients
Sedimentation 7%
39%
54%
22%
Pesticides
Mercury
Toxics/Organics
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients
Sedimentation
0%
0%
]9%
|72%
|84%
|8S%
184%
SO
100
so
100
Percent Impaired
Miles
Percent Impaired
Square Miles
Figure 5-23. 1998 303(d) listed waters on the Gulf Coast and the
percentage of listed waters impaired by the major pollutant categories
(Note: A 303(d) listing may be impaired by multiple pollutants.) (U.S. EPA).
State Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2000,14 fish consumption advisories
were in effect for the estuarine and marine
waters of the Gulf Coast. The majority of the
advisories (10) were issued for mercury, and
each of the five Gulf states had one statewide
coastal advisory in effect for mercury in king
mackerel (for fish greater than 39 inches).
The statewide king mackerel advisories
covered all coastal and estuarine waters in
Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama, but covered
only coastal waters in Texas and Louisiana.
As a result of the statewide advisories, 100%
of the coastal miles of the Gulf Coast were
under advisory and 63.7% of the estuarine
square miles were under advisory in 2000
(Figure 5-24).
Advisories placed on specific waterbodies
included additional pollutants and fish species
(Figure 5-25). For example, Bayou d'Inde
in Louisiana, a small estuary, was under an
Number of
Advisories per
USGS Cataloging
Unit
Figure 5-24. The number offish consumption advisories active in
2000 (U.S. EPA NLFWA, 2000c).
Dioxins
7% PCBs
7%
Mercury
72%
Figure 5-25. Percentage of estuarine and coastal marine
advisories issued for each contaminant on the Gulf Coast
(U.S. EPA NLFWA, 2000c).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
advisory for all fish and shellfish due to the
risk of contamination by PCBs, mercury,
hexachlorobenzene, and hexachlorobutadiene.
Florida had four additional mercury adviso-
ries, in addition to the statewide coastal
advisory. In Texas, the Houston Ship Channel
was under advisory for catfish and blue crabs
due to the risk of contamination by
dioxins/furans.
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters
In the Gulf of Mexico region, 7.6 million
acres (35% of the national total) were
classified for shellfish harvest in 1995
(Figure 5-26). Of the classified acreage, 47%
were approved and 53% were harvest-limited.
Nationally, the Gulf Coast ranks first in the
total amount of classified waters and last in
the percentage of approved waters. Of the
Gulf's classified acreage, 83% is located in
estuarine waters and 17% in nonestuarine
waters. The top three pollution sources
affecting harvest limitation are upstream
sources, individual wastewater treatment
systems, and wildlife.
Unclassified
15%
Approved
40%
Prohibited 11%
Conditionally Restricted 1%
Restricted 18%
Conditionally
Approved
15%
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 5-26. Classification of shellfish-growing waters in the
Gulf of Mexico (1995 Shellfish Register; NOAA, 1997).
The Gulf's top shellfish species, the
eastern oyster, was rated high or medium
in abundance in 3 million acres (39% of the
region's growing waters). Seventeen percent
(517,459 acres) of eastern oysters are located
in waters that do not allow direct harvesting
(i.e., restricted, conditionally restricted,
and/or prohibited).
Total classified acreage in the Gulf of
Mexico has increased by over half a million
acres since the 1990 Register. All of this new
acreage is located in nonestuarine waters.
Approved waters decreased slightly, from
48% in 1990 to 47% in 1995. All five Gulf of
Mexico states reported a decline in classified
acreage located in estuarine waters. At the
same time, Florida and Louisiana each added
over half a million acres of classified shellfish-
growing areas in nonestuarine waters.
Summary of fish and shellfish under advisory for at least
some part of the Gulf Coast:
Ladyfish
Catfish
Gafftopsail catfish
Jack crevalle
Shark
King mackerel
Spanish mackerel
Spotted sea trout
Shellfish
Crab
Blue crab
Atlantic thorny-oyster (Spondylus americanus) are seen filter feeding on all three
banks of the Flower Gardens as well as on the underwater structures of the
platforms (photo: Frank and Joyce Burek).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Mercury Contamination
of Fishery Resources
Mercury cycles in the environment as a result of natural sources and human
activities. It accumulates most efficiently in the aquatic food web, and many
recreational and commercial fish species at the top of the food chain can accumulate
high concentrations of mercury.
The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP), a partnership of federal agencies, the
Gulf states, citizens, and the private sector, was established to manage and protect
resources of the Gulf and has recently released a collection of data on the occurrence
of mercury in Gulf coastal fishery resources. The data were compiled from numerous
sources, including fish tissue monitoring programs in all five Gulf states, EPA's
EMAP, NOAAs NS&T Program, the National Marine Fishery Service, and the
scientific literature.
The results of the GMP data summary show that three species (king mackerel
larger than 39 inches, bluefish, and blacktip shark) have a Gulfwide mean mercury
concentration between 0.81 and 1.0 ppm. Fish consumption advisories are issued
at different levels in each state, but generally a mercury level of 1.0 ppm will trigger
an advisory for the general public to limit consumption. Special populations, such as
children and pregnant women, may be advised to limit consumption when mercury
levels reach 0.5 ppm. Other species with mercury levels greater than 0.5 ppm include
Spanish mackerel, jack crevalle, and sand sea trout. Find the Gulfwide Mercury in
Tissue Database on the Internet at http://www.duxbury.battelle.org/gmp/hg.cfm.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Alcoa/Lavaca Bay Superfund Site.
Lavaca Bay, TX -
A Case Study
The Aluminum Company of
America (ALCOA) Point Comfort
Operations (PCO) Plant is located in _
Calhoun County in southeast Texas
near the city of Point Comfort. The
Plant is bordered by Lavaca Bay on
the west, and Cox Creek/Cox Lake
on the east. From 1966 into the
1970s, ALCOA operated a chlorine-alkali plant that produced chlorine gas and
sodium hydroxide. Part of this process involved the use of mercury cathodes.
Wastewater containing mercury was discharged into Lavaca Bay through outfalls
located on an offshore gypsum lagoon located on Dredge Island. Dredge spoils,
contaminated with mercury, were disposed of in several areas on the site. Bay
sediments are now contaminated with the waste mercury.
In March 1994, EPA and ALCOA signed an Administrative Order of Consent
for ALCOA to conduct a Remedial Investigation, risk assessment, and feasibility
study for the site. Major sampling conducted during the Remedial Investigation
included an evaluation of sediments and surface water in the "Closed Area" of
Lavaca Bay (see figure) and the remainder of Lavaca Bay (including Cox Lake, Cox
Marsh, and portions of western Matagorda Bay) as well as sampling and analysis
of finfish, shellfish, and prey items from Lavaca Bay. The primary contaminants
of concern for the bay system include mercury and PAHs.
In April 1988, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) issued an order prohibiting
the taking of finfish and crabs from the "Closed Area" of Lavaca Bay due to levels of
mercury in fish tissue above Food and Drug Administration standards. In January
2000, the TDH reduced the size of the "Closed Area" based on the reductions of
mercury contamination in fish tissue.
Following the completion of the Remedial Investigation, the feasibility study, and
a baseline risk assessment, a Proposed Plan will provide the EPA's proposed remedial
action for the site. The remedial action decided upon will be presented in a Record
of Decision (ROD) following public meetings and public comment. The ROD will
present the cleanup measures determined to be protective of human health and the
environment. These cleanup measures should eventually result in TDH rescinding
the Fish Closure order. This would enable the community to keep fish and shellfish
from all areas of Lavaca Bay.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Beach Closures
Four of the five Gulf Coast states reported
information about monitoring and beach
closures to EPA in 1999 (Louisiana did not).
Overall, a total of 85 beaches responded, with
the majority of the respondents (85%) located
in Florida. Of these 85 Gulf beaches, 79%
(67 beaches) had a water quality monitoring
program (Figure 5-27).
In Florida, 81% of the beaches responding
reported that monitoring was conducted in
1999. It is estimated that at least 60 miles
of beach coastline were covered by this
monitoring. Ten beaches (14% of reporting
beaches) on Florida's Gulf Coast reported
closing at least once in 1999 (Figure 5-28).
The primary reason for beach closures was
elevated bacteria levels due to storm water
and other runoff.
In Mississippi, only one coastal beach
responded to EPA's survey. The Mississippi
beach reported the existence of a monitoring
program that covered the entire 40 miles of
beach coastline and was partially closed twice
in 1999. One beach in Louisiana, on the south
shore of Lake Pontchartrain, was closed
throughout the year in 1998 due to elevated
bacterial levels from sanitary sewer overflows
and pipe breaks. However, in 1999, no
Louisiana beaches reported information
to EPA.
Beaches Conducting Monitoring
LA
58
AL
0
20
40
60
80
Figure 5-27. Number of beaches in each state that
responded to the survey versus the number of beaches
that are monitored (U.S. EPA).
Percentage of
beaches closed
per county:
0-15
15-35
35-100
No Data
Available
Beach Closure
in 1999
Figure 5-28. Locations of beaches for which information
is available. Of the beaches submitting information, I 3/6 were
closed at least once in 1999.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Summary
Ecological conditions in Gulf estuaries are fair to poor
(Figure 5-29). The primary problems in Gulf Coast estuaries in
the 1990s are sediment contamination, wetland losses, poor benthic
conditions, and high expression of eutrophic condition. Over
25% of sediments are enriched or exceed ERL guidance. Although
this problem may be improving, benthic community degradation
(23% of sediments), expression of eutrophic conditions (currently
32%), and wetland losses (currently about 5% per decade) are
worsening. Unless these problems are addressed in the early
21st century, improvements in sediment contaminant quality
will be overshadowed by decreases in the quality of biotic
communities and increases in coastal eutrophication. Although
eutrophic condition is an issue for many estuaries, dissolved oxygen
conditions are good in Gulf of Mexico estuaries (excluding the
hypoxia issues on the Gulf of Mexico shelf off of Louisiana). Fish
condition is poor with several consumption advisories throughout
the Gulf Coast. Because population growth in coastal areas along the
Gulf of Mexico is expected to increase in the 21st century, many (if
not all) of these environmental problems will be exacerbated in the
next 10 to 20 years. The Gulf Coast of Florida alone is home to more
than 4 million people and is currently experiencing explosive growth
and development. Clearly this is a region of the country requiring
continued monitoring and environmental programs to clean up
existing problems and prevent the worsening of conditions
throughout the Gulf.
Overall
Gulf
Fair
Poor)
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 5-29. The overall condition of Gulf of Mexico coastal resources is fair to poor
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Habitat Improvements in the Gulf Coast -
The Tampa Bay Estuary Program
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the ecological condition of Tampa Bay
declined dramatically. Polluted wastewaters, dredging and filling of habitat,
and rapid development of the shoreline posed
serious threats to the future of the bay. The
Tampa Bay Estuary Program estimates that
more than 40% of the seagrass meadow acreage
was lost from 1950 to 1984. A centerpiece of
Florida's Gulf Coast, Tampa Bay is home to
more than 2 million residents, receives 8 million
visitors each year, and contributes almost $5
billion annually to the area's economy (Liner
et al., 1994).
50
40
-§ 30
U
d)
gp 20
I 10
Assessment of Historical Trends
Hillsborough Bay
Chlorophyll a
1970 1980
Year
Source: EPC of Hillsborough County
1990
2000
Average annual concentration of chlorophyll a in
Hillsborough Bay, a section of Tampa Bay, dropped steadily
as wastewater management plans were implemented.
Assessment of Historical Trends
Hillsborough Bay
Measured as Secchi Depth
f
Initiatives to improve wastewater
management and treatment led to dramatic
improvements in water quality and, eventually,
bay habitat. Beginning in 1984, the frequency
and duration of phytoplankton blooms declined,
water clarity and oxygen levels began to
improve, and seagrasses began to recover.
Improvements in water quality can be seen
in long-term trends in chlorophyll a—a measure
of the amount of phytoplankton in the water
(top right). Reductions in chlorophyll a also
correspond to increases in water clarity,
presented here as Secchi depth (bottom right).
Historical trends also show a marked recovery
in seagrass meadows. Surveys record over
5,000 acres of recovered seagrass meadow in
Tampa Bay since 1984. Although the rate of
seagrass expansion has decreased in some areas of the bay in the last few years,
current baywide expansion rates are approximately 350 acres of seagrass per year.
2.0
1.5
i.o
0.5
1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Source: EPC of Hillsborough County
Water clarity improved throughout the 1980s and most
of the 1990s in Hillsborough Bay.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Alabama Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
In 1993, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) initiated an
environmental monitoring and assessment program (ALAMAP-C) for Alabama's coastal
waters. The goal of ALAMAP-C is to provide information on the overall health of the
coastal environment and to track changes over time. ALAMAP-C has conducted annual
surveys of estuaries to measure various coastal water quality parameters. Ecological health
is assessed by investigating the spatial distribution of physical, biological, and chemical
indicators of water quality. ALAMAP-C determines the portions of estuaries that support
conditions favorable for both aquatic life and human use. ALAMAP-C also attempts to
determine why certain areas may not be favorable
for either aquatic life or human use.
Alabama Estuaries
Sampling Station
Locations
Summer 1993-1995
Sampling Stations
by Year
• 1993
• 1994
• 1995
ALAMAP-C sampling stations.
The overall sampling design and strategy for
monitoring indicators of ecological condition
was inspired by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's EMAP-Estuaries efforts in the Gulf of
Mexico (see map). ALAMAP-C has successfully
completed sampling efforts during the summer
months of 1993-2000 in all of Alabama's near-
coastal waters. During the period 1993-1999,
ALAMAP-C investigated the ecological condition
of Alabama's estuarine waters, including Mobile Bay,
Perdido and Wolf Bays, the Alabama section of Mississippi Sound, and the tidal/delta
portions of the Mobile and Tensaw Rivers. In 2000, ALAMAP-C became an integral
part of EPA's Coastal 2000 Program and the Gulf of Mexico Program's Joint Gulf
States Comprehensive Monitoring Program.
In 1998, ADEM published A Report on the Condition of
the Estuaries of Alabama in 1993-1995: A Program in Progress,
describing the initial years of the program. The 1998 report
represents the first in a planned series of reports on the state
of Alabama's coastal waters based on the information collected
by ALAMAP-C. As the program progresses, subsequent reports
will seek to strengthen the statistical certainty and provide a series
of documents portraying the changing conditions of Alabama's
coastal waters. In 2001, ADEM will publish the second in its series
of continuing reports covering the years 1996 to 1999.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
-------
Chapter
West
Coastal
Condition
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
Just beyond the Golden Gate of San Francisco lies an ocean wilderness awaiting discovery
(Photo: Gulf of the Farallones NMS).
Ecological
in western estuaries
are fair, based on the information available from various
monitoring efforts (Figure 6-1). The estuaries of the West Coast
of the United States represent a valuable resource that
contributes to the local economies of the area and enhances the
quality of life for those who work in, live in, or visit there. The
population of coastal counties on the West Coast increased
45% between 1970 and 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996).
The western coastline comprises 410 estuarine systems
(4,648 mi2) although three systems — San Francisco Bay,
Columbia River, and Puget Sound — make up 72% of the total
surface area. Smaller estuarine systems associated with these
large systems make up another 28% of the total surface area.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Overall
West
Good Fair
Poor I
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 6-1. The overall
condition of western
estuaries is fain although
dissolved oxygen and water
clarity conditions are good.
The West Coast
Probabilistic surveys like those completed for the
Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf Coasts do not exist for
the estuarine areas of the West Coast except in selected
areas.Therefore, spatial estimates of ecological condition
consistent with those described in earlier chapters cannot
be determined except for the Southern California Bight
and Puget Sound. However, monitoring data from other
programs have been used to assess ecosystem condition to
the extent possible.The Coastal 2000 program is collecting
probabilistic data from all West Coast estuarine systems in
1999-2000.
A sea star uses its tube feet to feed on sediments,
bivalves, fish, and even other sea stars! These active
scavengers are found on both sandy bottoms and
rocky reefs (Photo: Laura Francis).
Coastal Monitoring Data
Very little consistent monitoring has been
completed on the West Coast to examine
estuarine condition. Unlike condition
estimates developed for East and Gulf Coast
estuaries, there are no consistent surveys of
condition in the West Coast estuaries. Limited
available data have been used to provide a
qualitative, but statistically unsupported,
estimate of condition. Estuarine-specific
surveys for San Francisco Bay and Puget
Sound have been completed, and these
waterbodies continue to be monitored. In
1999, the Washington Department of Ecology,
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Southern California Coastal Water
Resources Project, and California Fish and
Game jointly assessed the 400 small estuaries
and small tidal rivers making up the West
Coast (Washington, Oregon, and California)
by using a probabilistic design to sample
210 locations within these systems. Sampling
was completed in 1999 for water quality,
sediment quality, and biota. Information for
dissolved oxygen, light penetration, and
sediment toxicity is currently available.
Information for sediment contaminants, tissue
residues, fish community parameters, and
benthic communities was collected in 2000 and
will be available in 2002.
Relatively few "national" programs have
monitoring stations in western estuaries.
NOAA's NS&T Program and Bioeffects
Surveys have data for several western
locations, but these sites are not representative
of all western estuaries. EMAP began sampling
in western estuaries in 1999, and only a small
amount of information is currently available.
NOAA's National Estuarine Eutrophication
Assessment examined a number of
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
eutrophication variables for western estuaries
through the use of a survey questionnaire. In
addition, EMAP-like surveys have been
completed in the Southern California Bight
(SCCWRP, 1998). This offshore survey
represents the only probabilistic survey of
ecological condition for nearshore coastal
waters to date.
The following discussions will be broken
into five categories—overall west, small
estuaries of the West Coast, San Francisco Bay,
Puget Sound, and Southern California Bight.
Overall West
Regional data were available for two of the
seven indicators for the West Coast—coastal
wetlands and eutrophic condition.
Coastal Wetland Loss
During the 200-year period from the 1780s
to the 1980s, the West Coast experienced the
greatest proportional losses of wetlands of
anywhere in the United States (Figure 6-2),
however, the absolute losses are not as large as
in most other regions. Throughout the West
Coast, wetland losses of 68% were observed,
ranging from 31% in Washington to 91%
in California.
q 100
60
40
« 20
91
38
31
Caifornia Oregon Washington West Coast
Figure 6-2. Percent wetland habitat loss from 1780 to 1980
by state and for the West Coast overall (Dahl, 1990;Turner and
Boesch, 1988).
Eutrophic Condition
The condition of West Coast estuaries as
measured by expression of eutrophic condition
is poor. Estuaries with high expression of
eutrophic condition represent 20% of the
surface area of western estuaries (Figure 6-3).
Eutrophic
Condition
West Coast
Sites with High
Expression of
Eutrophic Condition
Low/Unknown
29%
Moderate
51%
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 6-3. Eutrophic condition data for West Coast estuaries and
locations of sites with high expression of eutrophic condition (NOAA/NOS).
Small Estuaries
of the West Coast
Small estuaries along the West Coast are
defined as those that are less than 97 square
miles in size and are not part of Puget Sound
or San Francisco Bay. These small estuaries
make up about 28% of the estuarine area of
the West Coast (excluding Puget Sound and its
small systems, San Francisco Bay and its small
systems, and the Columbia River).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Water Clarity
Water clarity in small estuaries on the West
Coast is good. Light penetration was poor at
only one of the 210 sites sampled, representing
less than 1% of the total area of these small
systems (Figure 6-4). This number represents
water clarity only in late summer and does not
represent high-flow springtime conditions.
The poor water clarity site is located on Grass
Creek, Washington.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in small
estuaries on the West Coast are good.
Dissolved oxygen was never measured below
2.0 ppm.
Sediment Contaminants
No data are currently available for small
West Coast estuaries. Sediment contaminant
data were collected in 2000 and will be
available in 2002.
Benthic Condition
No data are currently available for small
West Coast estuaries. Benthic index data were
collected in 2000 and will be available in 2002.
Sediment toxicity was determined for these
small estuaries using a static 10-day acute
Ampelisca abdita bioassay. Greater than 15%
control-corrected mortality would result in a
sediment's being deemed toxic. For small
estuaries along the West Coast (Washington
and California only), 25% of sediments were
toxic to the amphipod (Figure 6-5). These
toxic sediments were located largely in Grays
Harbor, Willapa Bay, and Grays Bay in
Water Clarity
West Coast
Figure 6-4. Sites with
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
Washington and in San Luis Obispo Bay, Santa
Monica Harbor, and several small river
systems (e.g., Smith River, Garcia River,
Klamath River, Los Angeles River, and San
Diego River) in California.
Southern California Bight
(Offshore)
The Southern California Bight (SCB) is
defined as the 186 miles of recessed coastline
between Point Conception, California, and
Cabo Colnett, Mexico. Figure 6-6 shows the
U.S. portion of the SCB. The dramatic change
in the angle of the coastline creates a large
backwater eddy in which equatorial waters
flow north nearshore and subarctic waters
flow south offshore. This unique oceano-
graphic circulation pattern creates a biological
transition zone between warm and cold waters
that contains over 500 marine fish species
and more than 5,000 invertebrate species.
Human uses of the coastline and ocean
waters of the Bight include recreation,
tourism, aesthetic enjoyment, sport and
commercial fishing, coastal development,
and industry. Ocean-dependent activities
• Storm Water
Discharge Areas
• POTW Outfall
Areas
Dume
Los Angeles
Dane
Point
Inset:
Santa Monica Bay
contribute approximately $9 billion to
the economies of coastal communities
surrounding the SCB and support over
175,000 jobs. The area bordering the SCB is
also home to nearly 20 million people, making
it one of the most densely populated
shorelines in the United States. Almost
the entire SCB coastline has been subjected
to development, waste discharges, or other
forms of resource utilization.
Prior to 1994, the Southern California
Coastal Water Resources Project (SCCWRP)
conducted monitoring programs at numerous
sites within the SCB amounting to $10 million
in monitoring annually. However, this moni-
toring could not address concerns about the
ecological condition of the Bight and the
direct effects of discharges on the SCB (only
5% of the area was represented in sampling).
In 1994, recognizing the need for integrated
assessment of the SCB, 12 government
organizations (including the four largest
municipal wastewater dischargers) colla-
borated to complete the first comprehensive
regional monitoring survey of the SCB under
the name of the Southern California Bight
Pilot Project (SCBPP). SCBPP sampled 261
sites in the SCB between July and August 1994.
Sampling sites included all coastal and oceanic
areas within the Bight between 98 and
2,133 feet in depth.
Water Clarity
Water clarity was good throughout the SCB.
Figure 6-6. The Southern California Bight (SCB).
• Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the SCB are
good. Almost all of the surface waters were
fully saturated with oxygen and more than
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
99% of SCB waters met California Ocean Plan
water quality objectives for temperature, pH,
light transmittance, and dissolved oxygen.
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment contaminant conditions in the
Southern California Bight are poor. ERM
values were exceeded in 12% of SCB
sediments with most exceedances due to DDT.
Over half (55%) of SCB sediments were
characterized by contaminant concentrations
greater than the ERL guideline but less than
the ERM. With 67% of sediments having
contaminants that could potentially have
ecological effects, the SCB has the most
contaminated sediments in the United States
(Figure 6-7). Sites exceeding the ERL and
ERM thresholds were widespread throughout
the SCB. The constituent that had the greatest
area! extent for potential biological
impairment was total DDT, exceeding
screening levels in 64% of SCB sediments
(866 mi2 > ERL) and 10% of sediments
exceeding ERM. Total PCBs was the next
constituent with greatest areal extent
(1% > ERM and 15% > ERL).
Figure 6-7. Sites exceeding ERL (small circles) and ERM (large
circles) were widespread throughout the Southern California Bight
(SCBPP).
Sediment Contaminant Criteria
ERM (Effects Range Medium) -
The concentration of a contaminant
that will result in ecological effects
approximately 50% of the time
based on literature studies.
ERL (Effects Range Low) - The
concentration of a contaminant that
will result in ecological effects about
10% of the time based on literature
studies.
Sediment contaminants introduced by
human activity were present in 89% of the
SCB. The pesticide DDT was the most
widespread contaminant. It was found in
82% of the SCB sediments (Figure 6-8). The
highest concentrations of DDT occurred on
the Palos Verde shelf. Most of the observed
DDT represents DDT metabolites and is the
result of chemical degradation from DDT
discharges over the past 40 to 50 years.
Elevated levels of PCBs and trace metals were
found in approximately half of the sediments
of the SCB. The highest metal concentrations
were typically found in Santa Monica Bay.
80
60
40
20
n
82
46 S0
DDT
PCBs
Metals
Figure 6-8. Sediment contaminants introduced by human
activity were present in 89% of the Southern California Bight
(SCBPP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition
Benthic communities in the Southern
California Bight are in good condition.
Benthic communities showed degradation in
only 9% of SCB sediments compared to
reference sites (Figure 6-9). Of these degraded
communities, most (7%) showed minor
deviations representing small shifts in
community composition. Only 2% showed
losses in biodiversity. These observations
support the toxicity findings, showing that,
although the sediments are contaminated, the
contamination is resulting in few biological
and/or lexicological effects.
While extensive sediment contamination
was observed in SCB sediments, acute toxicity
tests using Ampelisca abdita showed none of
the sediments to be significantly more toxic
than control sediments. The toxicity results
from the SCBPP, when compared to results
from studies performed in bays and estuaries
throughout the United States, indicate that the
quality of the sediments in the SCB is
generally higher than that in the remainder of
the United States. This apparent contradiction
is explained by the fact that, although the SCB
sediments are among the most contaminated
in the United States, they are not biologically
available because of the way in which they are
bound to the sediments.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
The condition of SCB as measured by fish
tissue contaminants is poor. Contaminants in
fish tissues were widespread—the livers of
nearly all individuals of two target species of
flatfish (Pacific sanddab and longfin sanddab)
contained DDT and PCBs (Figure 6-10). All
samples of a third flatfish, Dover sole, were
contaminated by DDT. The three highest
observations of DDT and PCB concentrations
in fish livers occurred in fish collected from or
near the Palos Verde shelf. However, both DDT
and PCB concentrations found in fish livers
throughout the SCB were 95% lower than
those measured in the 1970s. Both DDT and
PCB concentrations in fish livers from
reference areas were 5% of the concentrations
observed during the last two decades. No other
contaminants were observed in fish tissues
in 1994.
Benthic Infaunal Communities
^
o
L)
0.
80
60
40
20
n
91
1 — I JL o o
No Marginal Loss in Loss in Defaunation
Difference Deviation Biodiversity Community
Function
Figure 6-9. Benthic communities showed degradation in only
9% of SCB sediments compared to reference sites (SCBPP).
Fish Contamination
80
60
40
20
n
.
-
100
88
96
• DDT
D PCBs
3
Pacific Sanddab
Dover Sole
Figure 6-10. Contaminants were found in the livers of nearly
all individuals of two target species of flatfish (SCBPP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Fish communities in the SCB were largely
healthy, and their status has improved
noticeably over documented conditions in the
1970s. External fish diseases and pathologies
were prevalent in the 1970s and were virtually
absent in 1994.
San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay is one of the largest
single estuarine resources along the western
coastline of the United States. Because of its
tectonic development, San Francisco Bay is
unlike many estuaries in the United States and
has its own, relatively unique circulation and
depositional patterns and exchange rates with
the Pacific Ocean. In addition, significant
water withdrawal for agricultural use from the
San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers results in
increased movements of high-saline waters
into areas of the Bay that were traditionally
mesohaline or oligohaline. Monitoring and
assessment efforts in the San Francisco Bay
have been active since the early 1990s. The San
Francisco Estuary Institute (http://www.sfei.
org), in collaboration with the San Francisco
Bay Estuary Project (http://www.abag.ca.gov/
bayarea/sfep), is examining and assessing
water quality, sediment quality, and fish tissue
residues as part of the Regional Monitoring
Program (RMP) (May et al., 2000).
Water and sediment provide habitat for
most of the estuary's biota, including the
foundation of the estuarine food web—
phytoplankton. Surveys to date have
concentrated on whether water quality
and sediment quality meet contaminant
guidelines, the condition of benthic
communities, and the tissue residue
concentrations in selected fish populations.
For water, the guidelines consider both
laboratory studies and field observations and
are aimed at protecting a particular set of
qualities valued by the society. For sediment
quality, guidelines were based on concentra-
tions shown to result in adverse effects (Long
et al., 1995). For fish tissue residues, guidelines
were calculated by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board in conjunction with EPA and
are intended to protect the fish-consuming
population.
Water Clarity
The water clarity data available for San
Francisco Bay are not included in this report
due to differences in the sampling design
used to collect the data. These data are not
comparable to the data used to establish
indicators for the other coastal regions
throughout the report.
Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen data available for San
Francisco Bay are not included in this report
due to differences in the sampling design
used to collect the data. These data are not
comparable to the data used to establish
indicators for the other coastal regions
throughout the report.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
LV^
Highly susceptible
to water quality
degradation; very
low dissolved
oxygen has been
measured
Moderately
susceptible to water no measure of
quality degradation; low dissolved
low dissolved oxygen
oxygen has been
measured
Puget Sound
marine waters
sensitive to
water quality
degradation
from nutrient
Puget Sound Ambient
Monitoring Program (PSAMP)
The protected marine waters of Puget Sound provide
valuable habitat for fish and wildlife, and they also
support one of the leading trade centers on the West
Coast. The region's natural and economic resources
have led to booming population growth, which places
increasing stress on Puget Sound. As pressures on the
environment of the Sound become greater, the need for a
coordinated monitoring program to direct management
goals and actions is clear. The Puget Sound Ambient
Monitoring Program (PSAMP) is a long-term effort to
investigate environmental trends and to improve
environmental management decision-making. PSAMP is
conducted by local, state, and federal agencies including
the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and
Wildlife, and Health and Natural Resources; EPA; and the
National Marine Fisheries Service. Through PSAMP studies, data on marine and
fresh waters, fish, sediments, and shellfish in Puget Sound have been collected since
1989; surveys of nearshore habitat have been conducted since 1991; marine bird
populations have been surveyed since 1992; and marine bird contamination has
been studied since 1995.
PSAMP releases a report on the status and trends of Puget Sound environmental
variables every 2 years. According to the 2000 Puget Sound Update report (available
at www.wa.gov/puget_sound on the Internet), 23 areas of Puget Sound (representing
54% of the areas that are monitored) show either low dissolved oxygen or
susceptibility to eutrophication (see figure), although general water quality is
considered to be improving. The 2000 report identifies pollution, loss of habitat, and
continuing development as the greatest threats to the health of the Sound. Despite
improvements such as the reopening of several commercial shellfishing areas and the
declining trend of PCBs found in harbor seals, a number of indicators show that the
health of the Sound remains threatened. For instance, the levels of fecal coliform
bacteria violate the state standards at more than half of the river and stream monitoring
stations in the basin, and the populations of many fish species living in the Sound,
such as Pacific herring and chinook salmon, are in peril. In 1999, chinook salmon
in Puget Sound were listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.
National Coastal Condition Report
Susceptible but
Areas of Puget Sound sensitive
to eutrophication (PSAMP).
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Columbia River
Portland
Willamette Riv
The Lower Columbia River
Lower Columbia River
htt p ://www. I c re p. o rg
The Lower Columbia River is home to
some of the most spectacular scenery on the
North American continent. Over 2.5 million
people live and work in this region. This area
is extremely rich in living resources including
shellfish, Dungeness crabs, sturgeon, anadromous fish, and nearly 175 species
of shorebirds. The Columbia River also supports the world's largest hydroelectric
system and the second largest port area on the West Coast. Six major pulp and paper
mills line the lower Columbia River. The Lower Columbia River Estuary Program
has developed a management plan designed to balance human interests while
safeguarding this area's wealth of natural resources.
Human activity over the last century has strained the natural resources. The
lower 46 miles of the Columbia River have lost as much as 70% of their tidal wetland
acreage since 1948 (see chart). Resource managers estimate that salmon stocks are
currently less than 10% of their historic size, and artificial stocks make up 75% of
the returning salmon. Twelve species of anadromous fish, including five species of
salmon, are either threatened or endangered in the Lower Columbia River. In all,
the Lower Columbia River system contains 25 threatened or endangered species.
Current trends suggest that the human population in this region will increase 30%
by 2010. Accommodating human population growth while preserving this area's
natural wealth is a challenge for resource managers.
The Lower Columbia River Estuary Program has developed a management plan
to address these issues. The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
emphasizes habitat restoration, education, and environmental monitoring. The
Management Plan calls for 16,000 acres to be
restored or protected by 2020. The Program also
places priority on education programs for young
citizens. By building the capacity of existing
education activities, the Program hopes to fill
information gaps about the river. To measure the
health of the river over time, the Program is also - m8 |96, |973 |983 ,99,
implementing a long-term monitoring program. Loss of wetland acreage in the lower 46 miles of
the Columbia River since 1948 (Lower Columbia
River Estuary Program).
Wetland Loss in the Estuary from River Mile 0 to 46
1948 to 1991
«, 12,000 n
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment contaminant conditions in San
Francisco Bay are poor. All samples taken from
1993 to 1998 at each of 16 sites within San
Francisco Bay exceeded sediment guidelines
for at least one contaminant (Figure 6-11).
These exceedances generally occur for 10%
to 35% of contaminants measured in
sediments (about 30 contaminants at each site)
(Figure 6-12). Of sediment quality parameters
measured, 39% exceeded levels set by sediment
quality guidelines.
Using the same approach, 40% to 100%
of samples (6 to 16 samples) taken from San
Francisco Bay from 1993 to 1998 exceeded
water quality guidelines (Figure 6-13) for one
or more contaminants. Figure 6-14 shows the
percentage of measurements (45 contaminants
measured at each site) that were over guideline
values. Approximately 5% to 20% of all
contaminant measurements in water exceeded
guidelines in the period 1993 to 1998.
Sites Where
Sediment
Quality Samples
Were Taken
Figure 6-11. All samples taken from 1993 to
1998 at each of the 16 sites within San Francisco
Bay exceeded sediment guidelines for at least one
contaminant. Four to 12 samples were taken at each
site (from San Francisco Bay RMR May et al., 2000).
Percentage of Criteria
Exceeding Guidelines
• 0-10%
O I I -20%
• 21-30%
• 31 -40%
Percent of Sediment Measurements
Exceed Guidelines (Percent Toxic
Measurements) 1993-1998
That
Figure 6-12. The percentage of sediment quality parameters that exceeded guideline values. A total of I 19
to 354 measurements were taken at each site (from San Francisco Bay RMR May et al., 2000).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Percentage of Samples
Taken Exceeding
One or More Water
Quality Guidelines
• 40-55%
O 56-70%
• 71-85%
086-100%
Figure 6-13. Of samples taken from 1993 to 1998 at
each of I 6 sites within San Francisco Bay 40% to 100%
exceeded water quality guidelines for at least one
contaminant. Six to I 8 samples were taken at each site
(from San Francisco Bay RMR May et al., 2000).
O
Percentage of Criteria
Exceeding Guidelines
OO-5%
O 6-10%
O M-15%
O 16-20%
• 21 -25%
Figure 6-14 shows the percentage of water
quality parameters that exceeded guidelines
for water for each of the major contaminants
examined. Of water quality parameters
measured, 18% exceeded levels set by water
quality guidelines. Table 6-1 shows the trend
in the percentage of contaminants meeting
the guidelines.
Table 6-1. Contaminants Meeting Water Quality Guidelines
from 1 994 to 1 998
Contaminant
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
PAHs
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Chlordanes
DDTs
PCBs
1994
(%)
94
83
79
83
96
100
96
61
93
80
100
98
7
1995
(%)
91
85
80
83
94
100
98
69
100
96
93
92
13
1996
(%)
93
88
87
85
96
100
99
53
94
94
84
90
8
1997
(%)
85
90
67
81
90
97
92
59
100
55
87
88
19
1998
(%)
82
97
75
84
92
99
92
25
100
87
89
91
20
Source: May et al., 2000.
Percent of Water Measurements That
Exceed Guidelines (Percent Toxic
Measurements) 1993-1998
Silver
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Selenium
Zinc
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
Pesticides
0%
0%
0%
121%
Z|IO%
121%
| 30%
mio%
0%
^9%
147%
185%
H7%
Toxicity | ||Q%
Overall ••[3%
20
40
60
80 100
Percent
Figure 6-14. The percentage of water quality parameters that exceeded guideline values (from San Francisco Bay
RMR May et al., 2000).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition
The benthic condition data available for
San Francisco Bay are not included in this
report due to differences in the sampling
design used to collect the data. These data are
not comparable to the data used to establish
indicators for the other coastal regions
throughout the report.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
The condition of San Francisco Bay
in terms of fish contaminants is poor. In
1997, the RMP examined over 300 fish for
contaminant residues. The fish in the estuary
contain several contaminants at levels high
enough to raise concern for the health
of both humans and wildlife (e.g., harbor
seals). Exceedance of the "screening values"
(developed to reflect the potential for human
health concerns and a need for further study)
showed that over 50% of fish examined
exceeded these values for mercury and PCBs
(Figure 6-15). Seven fish were subsampled to
analyze for dioxin concentrations, and 100%
of those fish examined exceeded the dioxin
screening value. Screening values for DDT,
chlordane, and dieldrin were exceeded in
15% to 37% of the fish sampled. PCBs and
pesticides were highest in white croaker and
shiner surfperch, while mercury was highest
in striped bass and leopard sharks. The fish
collected from the Oakland Harbor region
contained the highest concentrations of
contaminants.
Some estuarine contaminants in San
Francisco Bay are clearly reduced from peak
levels seen in earlier decades (May et al.,
2000). Nevertheless, there are several
indications that the level of contamination is
still high enough to impair the health of the
San Francisco Bay estuary. As a whole, the
estuary would be assessed as being moderately
contaminated. Overall, the sites in the lower
South Bay, the Petaluma River mouth, and San
Fish Contamination in the San Francisco Bay- 1997
White Shiner California Striped White Leopard
Croaker Surfperch Jacksmelt Halibut Bass Sturgeon Shark
>
I
> " ' » » fc
l r r
Proportion of Measurements that Exceeded Guidelines
Figure 6-15. The fish in the estuary contain several contaminants at levels high enough to raise concern for the health
of both humans and wildlife (from San Francisco Bay RMR May et al., 2000).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Pablo Bay are more contaminated than other
Bay sites. Of the contaminants measured by the
RMP, mercury, PCBs, diazinon, and chlorpyrifos
are of the highest concern, followed by copper,
nickel, zinc, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin, dioxins,
and PAHs. In 2000, the RMP initiated an
intensive characterization of the water quality,
sediments, and biota of the estuary with EPA.
One hundred eighty locations will be
examined during this characterization.
Puget Sound
(Northern Sound Only)
Washington's Department of Ecology
(WDOE— http://www.ecy.wa.gov) and the
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
(PSAMP—http://www.wa.gov/puget_sound/
Programs/PSAMP.htm) have been monitoring
Puget Sound using fixed stations since 1989
and using probabilistic sites for the benthic
triad since 1997. The PSAMP monitoring
effort (1989-1995) sampled 34 sites annually
and 42 additional sites on a 3-year rotational
basis. Sediments were analyzed to determine
the extent of chemical contamination,
sediment toxicity, and the structure of
macroinvertebrate communities. In 1997,
WDOE, jointly with NOAA, examined the
bioeffects associated with toxicants in Puget
Sound with 100 sites sampled annually using
a stratified random sampling approach. This
monitoring effort was divided into three
1-year efforts—north Puget Sound (1997)
(Figure 6-16), mid-Puget Sound (1998),
and south Puget Sound (1999) (Figure 6-17).
Results from the north Puget Sound have
been completed (Long et al., 1999), and results
from the remaining areas will be completed
by 2001.
Marine
Sediment
Monitoring
Stations
Northern
Range
• CORE
X ROTATIONAL
• LONG TERM
Figure 6-16. Marine sediment monitoring stations in the
northern range of Puget Sound.
Marine
Sediment
Monitoring
Stations
Middle and
Southern Range
• CORE
X ROTATIONAL
• LONG TERM
70
Figure 6-17. Marine sediment monitoring stations in
mid-Puget Sound and south Puget Sound.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
In 1999-2000, the WDOE, in conjunction
with EPA and NOAA, resampled a subset
of the 1997-1999 Puget Sound sites and
approximately 40 additional sites to examine
water quality, fish community structure, and
tissue residues. In addition, in 1999, WDOE
sampled 50 non-Puget Sound sites throughout
coastal Washington to examine water quality,
sediment quality, and biotic conditions. These
data will be available in 2001-2002.
Water Clarity
The water clarity data available for Puget
Sound are not included in this report due
to differences in the sampling design used
to collect the data. These data are not
comparable to the data used to establish
indicators for other coastal regions
throughout the report.
Dissolved Oxygen
The dissolved oxygen data available for
Puget Sound are not included in this report
due to differences in the sampling design used
to collect the data. These data are not
comparable to the data used to establish
indicators for other coastal regions throughout
the report
Sediment Contaminants
The condition of Puget Sound as measured
by sediment contaminant concentrations is
good. Chemical analyses of sediments at these
sites indicated a relatively wide range of
concentrations across the sampled area.
However, only a small proportion of the
samples had elevated concentrations of
pesticides/PCBs (Figure 6-18). Overall,
chemical concentrations were highest in
sediments from the two most urbanized
embayments in northern Puget Sound—
Everett Harbor and Bellingham Bay. This
pattern was evident for several trace metals
and two classes of PAHs. Lower concentrations
of PAHs (greater than ERL) were found in
Fidalgo Bay.
Pesticides/PCBs
kO.I%>ERM
99.9% < ERM
Metals
98.8% < ERM
!.2%>ERM
PAHs
99.9% < ERM
0.1% > ERM
Fair Poor
Figure 6-18. Sediment concentration in Northern Puget
Sound.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition
Benthic index scores in Puget Sound are
generally very good, with only isolated pockets
of degraded conditions. Benthic community
composition indicated a wide variety of
abundance and diversity throughout the
100 sampling locations. Several indices of
benthic structure showed strong relationships
to sediment contaminant concentrations and
sediment toxicity.
Results from four sediment toxicity tests
using macroinvertebrate survival rates
indicated that a very small proportion (5%)
of the northern Puget Sound survey area was
highly toxic. Everett Harbor showed the
greatest toxicity. Drayton Harbor, Whatcom
Waterway, portions of Bellingham Bay, inner
Padilla Bay, March Point, Fidalgo Bay, Port
Susan, and Port Gardner showed less severe
sediment toxicity.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
The fish tissue contaminant data available
for Puget Sound are not included in this
report due to the differences in the sampling
design used to collect the data. These data are
not comparable to the data used to establish
indicators for other coastal regions throughout
the report.
Assessments and
Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
and 303(d) Assessments
The states on the West Coast assessed
3,413 (83%) of their 4,118 estuarine square
miles for their 1998 305(b) reports. Of the
assessed estuarine miles on the West Coast,
32% fully support their designated uses, 1%
are threatened for one or more uses, and 67%
are impaired by some form of pollution or
habitat degradation (Figure 6-19). Individual
use support for the West Coast estuaries is
shown in Figure 6-20.
Fully
Supporting
32%
Threatened
1%
Impaired
67%
Fair
Poor
Figure 6-19. Water quality in assessed West Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
3,000 -
2,500 -
in
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
900
800-
700-
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Impaired
Aquatic Life
Support
Fish
Consumption
Shellfishing
Primary
Contact -
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
Designated Use
Figure 6-22. Individual use support for assessed shoreline on the West Coast (U.S. EPA).
There are 340 waters on the West Coast
that are listed as impaired under Section
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The percentage
of listed waters impaired by each of the major
pollutant categories is shown in Figure 6-23.
1998 303(d) Impairments for the West Coast
Listed Miles Listed Area
Pesticides
Mercury
Toxics/Organics
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients
Sedimentation I 2%
0 50 100
Percent Impaired
Square Miles
Pesticides
Mercury
Toxics/Organics
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients
Sedimentation
'v
|25%
]7%
|s%
^12%
^|l9%
]6%
|50%
3 50
100
Percent Impaired
b Miles
|82%
|77%
]s%
• 18%
2%
|82%
|99%
Figure 6-23. 303(d) listed waters on the West Coast and the percentage of listed waters impaired by the major
pollutant categories (note that a listing may be impaired by multiple pollutants) (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
State Fish Consumption Advisories
There were 43 fish consumption advisories
active in 2000 for the estuarine and coastal
waters of the West Coast (Figure 6-24). Only
9.5% of the coastal miles were under advisory,
with half of these miles located in southern
California and the other half coastal shoreline
in Washington's Puget Sound. A total of 29.8%
of the estuarine square miles of the West Coast
was under advisory in 2000, and all of the
estuarine area under advisory was located
within the San Francisco Bay/Delta region or
within Puget Sound. None of the West Coast
states (California, Oregon, or Washington) had
statewide coastal advisories in effect in 2000.
Oregon did not list any fish consumption
advisories for estuarine or coastal waters.
There were 13 different contaminants or
groups of contaminants responsible for West
Coast fish advisories in 2000, and 10 of those
contaminants (representing 32% of advisories)
were listed only in the waters of Puget Sound
and bays emptying into the Sound (dioxins,
chlorinated pesticides, creosote, industrial
and municipal discharge, metals, PAHs,
pentachlorophenol, tetrachloroethylene,
vinyl chloride, and VOCs). PCBs in California
and Washington were responsible for 35%
of advisories (Figure 6-25). Twelve advisories
for DDT (28%), all in California, were active
in 2000.
Dioxins
2%
Other
30%
Mercury
5%
Figure 6-25. Contaminants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in the waters of the West Coast in 2000 (U.S. EPA
NLFWA, 2000c).
Puget Sound -*
San Francisco Bay
Number of
Advisories per
USGS Cataloging
Unit
I
2-4
5-9
No Advisories
The following species were under advisory in at least some
part of the coastal waters of the West Coast in 1999:
Kelp bass White croaker Sculpin
Striped bass Black croaker Shark
Bullhead Gobies Shellfish
Corbina Queenfish Crab
Croaker Rockfish Surfperch
Figure 6-24. The number offish consumption advisories per
USGS cataloging unit for the West Coast (U.S. EPA NLFWA,
2000c).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Classified Shellfish-Growing Waters
On the West Coast, 423,000 acres (2% of
the national total) of shellfish waters were
classified for shellfish harvest in 1995. Of those
classified, 49% were approved and 51% were
harvest-limited. Nationally, the West Coast
ranks last in the total amount of classified
waters, with only 29% of the waters classified,
as shown in Figure 6-26. Of the classified
acreage, 84% is located in estuarine waters and
16% in nonestuarine waters. The top three
pollution sources affecting harvest limitation
are upstream sources, agricultural runoff, and
individual wastewater treatment systems.
The top three shellfish species (rated high
or medium in abundance) on the West Coast
are softshell clams (55,625 acres), Pacific
oysters (42,212 acres), and native littleneck
Unclassified
71%
Prohibited 9%
Restricted 2%
Conditionally
Approved 4%
Approved
14%
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 6-26. The majority of shellfish-growing waters on the
West Coast were unclassified (1995 National Shellfish Register;
NOAA, 1997).
clams (25,049 acres). Softshell clams are found
at high or medium relative abundance in 13%
of the region's shellfish-growing waters, Pacific
oysters in 10%, and native littleneck clams in
6%. Eighty-seven percent (48,575 acres) of
softshell clams, 13% (5,607 acres) of Pacific
oysters, and 24% (6,069 acres) of native
littleneck clams are located in waters that
do not allow direct harvesting (i.e., restricted,
conditionally restricted, and/or prohibited).
Total acreage of approved waters decreased
from 52% in 1990 to 49% in 1995. Both
Oregon and Washington reported increases
in the total amount of classified acreage; how-
ever, the biggest change occurred in California,
where total classified acreage decreased from
130,000 acres in 1990 to 24,000 acres in 1995.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6
West Coastal Condition
Beach Closures
Of the three West Coast states, only
California and Washington submitted beach
monitoring and closing information to EPA in
1999. Ninety-eight percent of the West Coast
beaches reporting are in California. There is
no regular water quality monitoring of ocean
and bay recreational beaches for swimming or
for other water contact activities in Oregon.
Of 243 beaches in California that reported
information to EPA, 59 (24%) were closed at
least once during 1999. The two counties with
50% of the closed beaches were San Diego and
Los Angeles Counties (Figure 6-27).
All but five of the California beaches
responding to EPA's survey reported the
existence of beach monitoring programs in
1999. Beach closings were primarily the result
of sewage and elevated bacteria levels caused
by pipeline breaks and storm water or other
unknown causes.
Kids experience the fun of body boarding in the surf of the Gulf
of the Farallones Sanctuary (Photo: Gulf of the Farallones NMS).
Percentage of
beaches closed
per county:
0-10
I I-SO
51 -100
No Data
Available
Beach Closure
in 1999
Washington did not report monitoring
information for any beaches in 1998. However,
in 1999, Washington reported the existence of
water quality monitoring programs for five
beaches. None of these beaches experienced
closures in 1999.
Figure 6-27. Percentage of beaches, of those reporting to
EPA, that were closed at least once in 1999.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Summary
Based on available data, ecological conditions in western
estuaries are fair (Figure 6-28). Although currently data are
not available for all estuarine systems, consistent information
throughout western estuarine systems (like that shown earlier for
East Coast and Gulf of Mexico estuaries) will be available in 2002.
The available data indicate that the primary problem in western
estuaries and the Southern California Bight in the 1990s is
sediment contamination. Over 25% of sediments are enriched
or exceed ERL/ERM guidelines. While problems with sediment
contamination are decreasing, the potential for benthic community
degradation and fish contamination in selected estuaries is
increasing. Concentrations of contaminants in fish tissue in some
western estuaries are elevated, creating poor conditions. Dissolved
oxygen conditions (except in some isolated regions of Puget
Sound) and water clarity are considered good for western estuaries.
Contaminant concentrations in fish tissue, benthic community
condition, and eutrophic condition are fair in these estuaries but
appear to be worsening. Clearly, this is a region of the country
where increasing population pressures (particularly in the Seattle-
Tacoma region, San Francisco Bay, and southern California)
require continued environmental awareness and programs to
correct existing problems and to ensure that environmental
indicators in fair condition do not worsen.
Overall
West
ood Fair
Poor]
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 6-28. Overall ecological condition
of estuaries on the West Coast.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Francisco
P*
San Francisco Bay Estuary Project
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/sfep
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary is a rich and treasured resource. It is the
largest estuarine system on the west coasts of North and South America and includes
the waters of San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Suisun Bay, and the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta. The Estuary drains over 40% of California's land, provides
drinking water to two-thirds of California's 34 million people, and irrigates
4.5 million acres of farmland and ranches.
Because of its highly dynamic and complex environmental conditions, the estuary
supports an extraordinarily diverse and productive ecosystem. Half of the birds
migrating along the Pacific Flyway use the estuary's wetlands for wintering. In
certain seasons, the estuary's mudflats and saltflats support more than 1 million
shorebirds. Hundreds of thousands of native and hatchery-bred salmon migrate
through the Bay-Delta waters on their way to spawning grounds upriver. The Bay-
Delta also supports many important economic activities including commercial and
sport fishing, shipping, industry, agriculture, recreation, and tourism.
The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary has been described as the major estuary
in the United States most modified by human activity. The San Francisco Estuary
Project (SFEP) was created by EPA's National Estuary Program to develop a more
coordinated approach to dealing with the estuary's varied management issues such
as intensified land use, decline of biological resources, freshwater diversions, and
altered flow regime. The SFEP has enacted a long-term management plan calling
for stronger planning, improved regulation, and increased acquisition and
restoration of wetlands in the Bay area.
Since its inception, the SFEP has developed a network of demonstration projects
for watershed protection and is fast growing into a model of how to make local
actions have regional impact. The most notable improvements include declining
rate of wetland loss, reduced pollutant loads of municipal and industrial sources,
and improved regulation of dredging. Over 26,000 acres of wetlands have been
acquired and over 28,000 acres of wetlands restored since 1993. Urban expansion,
however, continues to deplete the stock of valuable upland wildlife habitats,
wetlands, and riparian areas and to increase loadings of many point and nonpoint
pollutants. Population growth fuels the increasing demand for fresh water. Water
development projects continue to influence the estuary's primary productivity
and habitat quality and to adversely affect populations of valuable commercial
and sport fish and other species.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coastal Condition
Northwest Indian Fisheries
Commission
During the past 2 decades there has been a
steady decline of many wild salmon stocks http://www.nwifc.wa.gov
originating from Puget Sound and the Washington coast, brought about in part by
the loss of critical wild salmon spawning and rearing habitat. As a result of the
decline in wild salmon stocks, in 1999 the National Marine Fisheries Service listed
Puget Sound chinook salmon, Lake Ozette sockeye, and Hood Canal summer chum
stocks as "threatened" under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), an organization of the
treaty Indian tribes in western Washington, responded to the salmon ESA listings by
intensifying their watershed recovery efforts through the state/tribal cooperative
Wild Stock Restoration Initiative (WSRI) program. The aim of the effort is to
inventory local salmon stocks and habitat, then develop guidelines to restore the
most critical stocks and habitats. Indian tribes and the Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have cooperatively developed a joint assessment of the
status of salmon and steelhead stocks in Washington State in response to concerns
about declining populations.
The tribes and WDFW created the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative in 1991 in
response to wild salmon and steelhead stock concerns. The following approach was
established to address wild stock status and recovery:
• Inventory status of stocks and their habitat
• Review management strategies (harvest, habitat, and hatcheries)
• Develop recovery and management plans
• Monitor and evaluate.
Tribal, state, and federal governments and their fisheries managers realize the need
for a more focused approach to protect, restore, and manage this resource. Fisheries
managers have responded to salmon declines with historic cutbacks in fisheries—as
much as 80% in the last decade. But fishery closures and reductions have resulted in
severe economic hardship for tribal fishermen on reservations, where unemployment
runs as high as 80%.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
-------
Chapter
Great Lakes
Coastal
Condition
-------
Chapter 7
Great Lakes
Coastal Condition
Based on
available information
from various
monitoring efforts,
ecological conditions
in the Great Lakes are
borderline poor
(Figure 7-1). The
open waters of the
approximately
290,000 square miles
of the Great Lakes are
monitored annually
by EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), in
conjunction with NOAA and USGS. A fixed site design has been used to
characterize water quality and, in recent years, the composition of the
phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic communities. The limnology
(lake science) program provides information on key environmental
factors that influence the aquatic ecosystem of the Great Lakes. Annual
monitoring began in 1983 for Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie; in 1986
for Lake Ontario; and in 1992 for Lake Superior (Figure 7-2). The
sampling strategy is to collect water and biota samples at specific water
depths from a select set of locations in each lake twice a year. The
limnology program focuses on the open lake basins (water greater than
98 feet in depth and greater than 3 miles from shore). At key stations,
and as part of special studies, sediment samples are taken as well. For
known or suspected problem areas, such as the Great Lakes Areas of
Concern, sampling is also performed in the nearshore zone. This zone
includes numerous bays and rivers connecting the lakes.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Overall
Great Lakes
| Good
Fair
Poo
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 7-1. Overall
condition of the Great
Lakes as measured by
the seven indicators.
Green Bay
Manitowoa
Sheboygan
Milwaukee
Ludington
Bay City
Port Huro
Muskegon
O 1 Detroit
oo
O
Duluth
Figure 7-2. Monitoring
stations used by the Great
Lakes Limnology Program.
• Master Stations
O Surveillance Stations
• Cities
Chicago
Probabilistic surveys like those completed
for the Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf Coasts
do not exist for the Great Lakes region.
Therefore, spatial estimates of ecological
condition consistent with those calculated
in earlier chapters cannot be determined.
However, existing monitoring data from long-
standing programs have been used to assess
ecosystem condition to the extent possible.
Fishing from the Great Lakes
shore (Courtesy of USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service).
National Coastal Condition
-------
Chapter 7
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data
Coastal Wetland Habitat Loss
Water Clarity
Water clarity in the Great Lakes is good.
Water clarity, as measured by a Secchi disc, has
increased in all lakes except Lake Erie over the
last decade. Lake Ontario Secchi disc depths
have increased nearly 100%. In Lake Ontario,
for example, light penetration has increased
from 3.1 meters (pre-1990 measurements) to
6.7 meters (post-1990 measurements).
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the
Great Lakes are generally good. However,
dissolved oxygen in Lake Erie continues to be
a persistent problem. Anoxic conditions (less
than 0.5 mg/L) often occur in late August and
continue until turnover occurs in fall.
Although the frequency and extent of oxygen
depletions have decreased considerably from
the 1970s and 1980s, that trend leveled off in
the late 1990s.
Coastal Wetland Loss
During the 200-year period between the
1780s and the 1980s, 51% of wetlands in the
Great Lakes area were lost (Figure 7-3). The
largest reductions were observed in Ohio
(90%) and the smallest in Minnesota (42%).
Eutrophic Condition
The Great Lakes were not included in
NOAA's National Estuarine Eutrophication
Assessment, so data similar to those used in
„ 100
3
I 8°
< 60
J> 40
90
New Ohio Michigan Indiana Illinois Wisconsin Minnesota Great
York Lakes
Figure 7-3. Percent wetland habitat loss from 1780 to 1980
by state and for the Great Lakes overall (Dahl, 1990;Turner
and Boesch, 1988).
previous chapters to assess eutrophic
condition are not available. However,
chlorophyll a concentrations (a symptom of
eutrophication potential) are stable
throughout the lakes with the exception of the
central and western basins of Lake Erie.
Data are also available for nutrient input
into the Great Lakes. Nitrate and silica
continue to increase in all lakes. Phosphorus
concentrations have stabilized in all lakes
with the exception of Lake Ontario, where
phosphorus continues to decline at a slow rate
of 0.3 mg/L per year. Only Lake Erie exceeds
the phosphorus objectives set by the United
States and Canada (15 mg/L), by about 60% in
the western basin and by about 10% to 20% in
the central and eastern basins. Input of
chloride compounds from human activities
(brines, road salt, etc.) has resulted in
increased chloride concentrations in the Great
Lakes. The rate of increase is slow (0.1 mg/L
per year) in Lakes Michigan, Huron, and
Superior (Figure 7-4), and it is decreasing
from previously elevated levels in Lakes Erie
and Ontario. Overall water quality in Lakes
Superior, Michigan, and Huron is good, with
elevated chloride levels being observed in
Lake Ontario and elevated phosphorus
concentrations observed in Lake Erie.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Predicted Adjusted Chloride Concentration
for the Years 1975-2000
oc
3 ^
•Bb
E on -
to
*-M
rt I c
_^^_
^^^^^^^*
Lake Erie
^^S**"^^!! l^^^^ti^K ^r
Lake Michigan -.-. '» "
Lake Huron —^
Lake Superior _%
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
75 1980 1985 1990 1995 2C
Estimated Chloride Loads
Lake kg/day ton/yr
c c
Superior 7.76(1 Ob) 2.84(1 Ob
Michigan 2.46(1 06) 9.01 (IOS
Huron 1 18(10^) 431(10"*
Erie 4.63(1 06) I.69(I06
Ontario 5.05(1 06) I.84(I06
Error bars indicate data for years
1983-1993,+! standard deviation.
Dashed lines indicate predicted values.
Solid lines indicate actual values.
00
Time (year)
Figure 7-4. Predicted chloride concentrations in the Great Lakes from 1975 to 2000.
Photo: ® JohnTheilgard
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
http://www.GLIFWC.org
Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission Issues
Fish Consumption Information
for Tribal Members
Eleven sovereign tribal governments,
located in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
Michigan, make up the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC).
The Commission's purpose is to protect and
enhance treaty-guaranteed fishing on the
Great Lakes and inland territories ceded
under the Chippewa treaties and to provide
cooperative management of these resources.
As part of its responsibilities, the GLIFWC publishes booklets and reports to
inform tribal members of the health benefits and risks of consuming fish caught
in the wild. Eating a diet rich in fish offers many health benefits, including the
prevention of heart disease by regular consumption of omega-3 fatty acids found
in fish. Consuming fish can also be potentially harmful because of the levels of
contaminants such as mercury that are found in fish from some Great Lakes areas.
The GLIFWC website (www.GLIFWC.org) provides access to reports, pamphlets,
and maps to help tribal members decide where to fish, how much fish to eat, and
what types of fish to eat. For example, the GLIFWC has developed maps of mercury
contamination in walleye for a number of different fishing areas. The maps, which
are available on the website and in seasonal publications from the GLIFWC, indicate
the locations where walleye of certain sizes may contain harmful levels of mercury.
The publications also issue specific advice for sensitive subpopulations, such as
women of childbearing age and children under age 15, who are more susceptible
to harm from contaminants.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
The International
Joint Commission
Formed under the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty, the International Joint Commission (IJC)
acts as an objective advisor to both the United
States and Canada in the management of
transboundary waters. IJC is involved in issues
affecting all transboundary waters including the
Columbia River Basin, Red River Basin, and
Great Lakes/St. Lawrence River Basin. The IJC
provides a comprehensive assessment every
2 years of progress made to meet the goals set in
the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA). It accomplishes this through the
actions of several councils, including the
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, Great Lakes
Water Quality Board, and Council of Great Lakes
Research Managers. The IJC releases biennial
reports on the progress of the parties in meeting
the terms of the Agreement; these are followed
up by review meetings called by the parties to
undertake actions under the terms of the
Agreement. Additionally, the Annex 2 Advisory
Committee provides guidance and review of
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) and Lakewide
Management Plans (LaMPs) developed
under GLWQA.
International Joint Commission
Commission mixte Internationale
Members of the International
Joint Commission
• Annex 2 Advisory Committee
• Council of Great Lakes
Research Managers
• Great Lakes Science Advisory
Board
• Great Lakes Water Quality
Board
• International Lake
Champlain Board of Control
• International Lake Superior
Board of Control
• International Niagara Board
of Control
• International St. Lawrence
River Board of Control
• International Air Quality
Advisory Board
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office has determined that polluted sediments
remain as the largest major source of
contaminants to the Great Lakes food chain.
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, the governments of the United
States and Canada identified 43 Areas of
Concern having significant impairments of
beneficial use (Figure 7-5). Over 2,000 miles
(20%) of the shoreline are considered
impaired because of sediment contamination,
and fish consumption advisories remain in
place throughout the Great Lakes. On the
U.S. side of the border, sediments have been
assessed at 26 Great Lakes locations, and over
1.3 million cubic yards of contaminated
sediments have been remediated over the past
3 years. However, the challenge is so great
that sediment remediation has so far been
completed at only 1 of the 43 Areas of
Concern.
Areas Receiving or Awaiting Remediation for
Sediment Contamination in the Great Lakes
12
Awaiting Remediation
2. Torch Lake 35.
Deer Lake 36.
Muskegon Lake 37.
White Lake 38.
Clinton River 39.
Cuyahoga River 41.
Ashtabula River 42.
Presque Isle Bay 43.
Eighteen Mile Creek 44.
Rochester Embayment 45.
Oswego River 46.
Bay of Quinte
Port Hope
Metro Toronto
Hamilton Harbour
Wheatly Harbour
Severn Sound
Spanish River Mouth
Peninsula Harbor
Jackfish Bay
Nipigon Bay
Thunder Bay
Some Remediation Completed
13.
St. Louis River 17.
St. Mary's River 18.
Manistique River Harbor 21.
Menominee River 22.
Fox River 23.
Sheboygan River/Harbor 24.
Milwaukee Estuary 25.
Waukegan Harbor 29.
Grand Calumet River/ 30.
Indiana Harbor 34.
Kalamazoo River
• Remediation Completed
40. Collingwood Harbour
Figure 7-5. Great Lakes Areas of Concern receiving or awaiting remediation for sediment contamination.
Saginaw River
St. Clair River
Rogue River
Detroit River
River Raisin
Maumee River
Black River (Ohio)
Buffalo River
Niagara River
St. Lawrence River
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition
The condition of the Great Lakes according
to benthic indices is poor. Benthic invertebrate
communities were sampled during the
summers of 1997 and 1998 (Figure 7-6). Deep
water sites in the Great Lakes support
relatively taxa-poor benthic assemblages. Lakes
Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie support
fairly distinct benthic communities with
significant similarity among sampling sites
within each lake. In contrast, Lake Ontario
benthic assemblages varied greatly from site to
site. Recent studies undertaken in cooperation
with NOAA and others have revealed
precipitous declines in populations of certain
benthic invertebrates, particularly a small
shrimp-like crustacean (Diporeia spp), which
resides at the base of the benthic food chain.
Diporeia populations in Lake Michigan, for
example, have plummeted in all 10 sites
sampled; further studies are under way to
identify the causes.
Much more data are available for biotic
communities sampled in open water in the
Great Lakes. Diatom collections were
completed in all five lakes in the spring and
summer of 1998 (Figure 7-7). Diatoms are
used in the Great Lakes monitoring as an
overall indicator of ecological condition.
Phytoplankton populations in spring were
overwhelmingly dominated by centric
diatoms with the exception of Lake Superior.
Within-lake communities were relatively
homogeneous with the exception of Lake Erie.
Both diatom dominance and species richness
decreased in the summer, as would be
expected. Zooplankton surveys were
completed in conjunction with the diatom
Figure 7-6. Sites sampled for benthic invertebrates in 1997 and 1998.
Figure 7-7. Sampling stations used for diatom collection in 1998.
sampling. Zooplankton represent an indicator
of primary consumers in Great Lakes food
chains and are food items for many fish
species. Unlike phytoplankton communities,
zooplankton communities exhibited very low
species richness in the spring throughout the
Great Lakes. All lakes were dominated by
copepods with abundances and species
richness increasing through the summer
months.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Invasion of the lakes by the zebra mussel
(Dreissena polymorpha) in the 1980s has
dramatically altered the food web of the Great
Lakes and considerably altered the community
composition of phytoplankton, zooplankton,
and benthos, favoring some fish species at the
expense of others and changing the pathways
and impacts of bioaccumulative contaminants.
Populations of certain lesser-known invertebrate
invaders, such as the spiny water flea
(Bythotrephes cederstroemi) and the fishhook
flea (Cercopagis pengoi), are also burgeoning in
some locations, with Cercopagis outnumbering
all other zooplankton species in specific parts
of Lake Ontario in a 1999 survey. These
species both compete with and prey upon
native zooplankton, while serving as less
desirable forage for most Great Lakes fish.
Overall, the condition of phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and benthic communities in the
Great Lakes varies considerably from lake to
lake and within each lake. Lake Superior
appears healthy and diverse, in part because of
its upstream location and because it is too
cold to favor certain invading organisms, such
as the zebra mussel. The condition of the
biotic communities of the lower four lakes is
more mixed. More information on Great Lakes
National Program Office (GLNPO) indicators
is available on the Internet:
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/monitor.html.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
The condition of the Great Lakes as
measured by fish tissue contaminants is poor,
although levels of contaminants in fish and
wildlife have declined dramatically from peak
levels in the 1970s and 1980s. Chemical
contamination resulting in fish consumption
advisories is one of the greatest environmental
problems in the Great Lakes.
In summary, the overall condition of the
Great Lakes has improved dramatically despite
local occurrences of sediment contamination
and lake-by-lake fish advisories. However,
ecological conditions of the Great Lakes are
still in question as the continuing impacts of
invasive species are sorted out. The success of
efforts to remediate sediments in these areas
will continue to be realized in further
reductions in fish tissue contaminant
concentrations—although advisories are still
in effect throughout the lakes. Substantial
challenges remain and conditions must be
measured periodically to ensure that
improvement continues. Programs like the
multiagency Coastal Monitoring and Research
Strategy (part of the Clean Water Action Plan)
and Coastal 2000 will support GLNPO in
providing this continuing surveillance.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Assessments and Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
and 303(d) Assessments
The Great Lakes states assessed 4,950 miles
(90%) of their 5,521 miles of Great Lakes
shoreline for their 1998 305(b)water quality
reports. Only 2% of the assessed shoreline
waters fully support their designated uses, 2%
are threatened for one or more uses, and the
remaining 96% are impaired by some form of
pollution or habitat degradation (Figure 7-8).
Individual use support for Great Lakes
shoreline is shown in Figure 7-9.
Fully Supporting
Threatened . 2%
t5
^^ Impaired
96%
Fair Poor
Figure 7-8. Water quality for assessed Great
Lakes shoreline (U. S. EPA).
in
-------
Chapter 7
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
The states reported the following individual
use support for their assessed estuarine
and coastal waters (Table 7-1). Figure 7-10
shows the leading pollutants that cause use
impairments.
Table 7-1. Individual Use Support for Assessed Coastal
Waters Reported by States on the Great Lakes under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
Individual
Uses
Shoreline Assessed
as Impaired (mi)
Aquatic Life
210
Fish
Consumption
4,747
Swimming
101
Agriculture
of Total Shore-
line Assessed
12%
96%
3%
Secondary
Contact
Drinking
Water
41
80
1%
2%
State Fish Consumption Advisories
Fishing in the Great Lakes area is a way
of life and a valued recreational and
commercial activity for many people. To
protect their citizens from the risks of eating
contaminated fish, the eight states bordering
the Great Lakes had a total of 32 fish
consumption advisories in effect in 2000 for
waters of the lakes and the connecting waters.
Every Great Lake was under at least one
advisory, covering 100% of the U.S. coastline
(Figure 7-11). Michigan, which borders four of
the five Great Lakes and encompasses four of
the six connecting waterbodies, issued the
greatest number of advisories (eight).
Great Lakes fish consumption advisories
were issued for a total of five pollutants:
mercury, mirex, chlordane, dioxins, and PCBs.
1998 305(b) Impairments
for the Great Lakes Shoreline
Metals h 3%
Oxygen-Depleting — I .„,
Substances — 1
Pathogens (Bacteria) H 4%
Nutrients
Pesticides
Priority Toxic
| 5%
I 21%
|2I%
|29%
D IS 30
Figure 7-10. The leading pollutants that cause
use support impairment of assessed Great Lakes
shoreline (U.S. EPA).
Number of
Advisories per
USGS Cataloging
Unit
I
2-4
5-9
No Advisories
Figure 7-11. 100% of U.S. Great Lakes shoreline was under
fish consumption advisory in 2000.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Most of the advisories (48%) were issued for
PCBs (Figure 7-12). Lake Superior, Lake
Michigan, and Lake Huron were under
advisory for three pollutants each in 1999
(Table 7-2). It should be noted that some of
the advisories were of limited geographic
extent, and advisories in most locations apply
primarily to larger, older specimens high
in the food chain.
Dioxins
12%
Mercury
17%
Mi rex
Chlordane
14%
Figure 7-12. Great Lakes advisories were issued
for five pollutants (U.S. EPA NLFWA, 2000c).
Table 7-2. Fish Advisories Issued for Contaminants in Each
of the Great Lakes
Great Lakes
PCBs Dioxins Mercury Chlordane Mirex
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
• •
• •
• •
* *
Species under fish consumption advisory in 1999 in at least
one of the Great Lakes or connecting waters:
Largemouth bass
Rock bass
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Bloater
Bowfin
Brown bullhead
Burbot
Common carp
Quillback carpsucker
Catfish
Channel catfish
Chub
Black crappie
Round goby
American eel
Lake herring
White perch
Yellow perch
Northern pike
Redhorse
Silver redhorse
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Pink salmon
Gizzard shad
Smelt
Lake sturgeon
Freshwater drum
Bluegill sunfish
Brook trout
Brown trout
Lake trout
Rainbow trout
Siscowet trout
Splake trout
Steelhead trout
Walleye
Whitefish
Lake whitefish
White sucker
Longnose sucker
Beach Closures
EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office
has conducted a beach closures monitoring
program since 1983. Since 1998, the program
has been merged into EPA's national tracking
program. Health authorities in all eight Great
Lakes states submitted beach monitoring and
closing information to EPA in 1999. Of the
583 beaches on the U.S. side of the Great
Lakes, information was submitted on 327.
About 20% of the 327 reported beaches
(67 beaches) were closed at least once during
the 1999 season (Figure 7-13). Of the
reporting beaches that had closures, all but
one had monitoring programs in place. Most
beach closures were the result of elevated
bacteria levels and sewage caused by runoff,
stormwater, wildlife, sanitary and combined
sewer overflows, or other unknown causes. A
few beaches were closed because of weather,
wave action, or presence of aquatic weeds.
Percentage of
beaches closed
per county:
^\ 0-15
Zl 15-35
j 35-100
—I No Data
^B Available
Q Beach Closure
in 1999
Figure 7-13. Great Lakes beach closings in 1999.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Summary
Ecological conditions in the Great Lakes, based on available
information, are borderline poor (Figure 7-14). The primary
problems in the Great Lakes in the 1990s were sediment
contamination, benthic community condition, coastal wetland loss,
and fish contaminants. Over 25% of sediments are enriched or
exceed ERL/ERM guidance, benthic communities are in poorer
than expected condition, and contaminant levels in fish tissue
result in numerous advisories. While some improvements in these
areas are being observed, there is still the potential for further
degradation of benthic communities, increased fish contamination
in selected areas, and decreases in dissolved oxygen.
Figure 7-14 displays the condition of the major indicators of
ecological condition in the Great Lakes. Sediment contamination,
benthic community condition, coastal wetland loss, and fish tissue
contaminant concentrations are considered in poor condition
throughout sampled portions of the Great Lakes. Dissolved oxygen
conditions and water clarity are considered good for the Great
Lakes. Significant strides have been made in improving the
condition of the Great Lakes. However, these efforts must be
continued and potentially strengthened throughout the lakes to
ensure continued environmental improvement.
Overall
Great Lakes
ood Fair
Poor]
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
Figure 7-14. Ecological conditions
in the Great Lakes are borderline
poor The primary problems in the
Great Lakes are sediment
contamination, benthic community
condition, coastal wetland loss, and
fish contaminants.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
The Great Lakes National Program Office
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO), established by Congress in
1987 under Section 118 of the Clean Water Act, provides an institutional framework
for efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes ecosystem in the United States.
Current GLNPO activities include
• Conducting open-lake sediment, biota, and water quality monitoring
• Funding habitat restoration and protection projects
• Coordinating Great Lakes protection efforts at all levels of government
• Working with both its Canadian counterparts and the International Joint
Commission to negotiate and implement the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
As part of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, GLNPO and Environment
Canada convene a biennial conference called the State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC). Following the conferences, State of the Great Lakes reports
were issued in 1995,1997, and 1999. In 1998, a suite of 80 indicators was proposed to
be "necessary and sufficient" to adequately represent the major Great Lakes
ecosystem components, including the nearshore and offshore waters, coastal
wetlands, nearshore terrestrial, human health, societal, and land use. In 2000,
summary reports were prepared for 31 of the 80 indicators. These reports are
available on the Internet on the SOLEC website (http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/solec) by
following the links to each SOLEC conference. Additional information on SOLEC
and the indicators project is available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec.
Working with state and provincial governments, GLNPO and Environment
Canada have identified 42 Areas of Concern (AOC) throughout the Great Lakes.
These are the most polluted areas that will require the most immediate action. For
each AOC, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is to be prepared by the cognizant
jurisdiction, usually a state (on the U.S. side), with local involvement. For each
Great Lake, a Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) is to be prepared to address
contaminant and habitat issues on a whole-lake scale. Five of the RAPs and four of
the LaMPs are binational, and the LaMP for Lake Erie involves three EPA regions.
The LaMPs are to be prepared cooperatively among the governments and
jurisdictions with EPA as the U.S. lead.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
-------
Chapter
Coastal
Condition
for Alaska,
Hawaii,
and Island
Territories
-------
Chapter 8
Coastal Condition
for Alaska, Hawaii)
and Island Territories
The dazzling peaks off the
island of Kahoolawe are just
one of the many types of
coastlines throughout
Hawaii. Shorelines range
from white sandy beaches
on Oahu to the tallest
sea cliffs in the world on
Molokai. Each island offers
its own unique habitat for
marine life (Photo: Marc
SI Hodges).
Monitoring of coastal resources m Alaska,
Hawaii, and the island territories (e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands) is largely nonexistent. Although EPA Regions 2 (Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands), 9 (Hawaii and Pacific Islands), and 10
(Alaska) and the attendant state resource agencies conduct some water
quality monitoring, no consistent programs covering all coastal
resources exist. Efforts through EPA's Coastal 2000 Program are
intended to fill this void for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. No plans
exist for the development of coastal monitoring efforts in the Pacific
Islands (beyond Hawaii). This chapter examines the available
information for these areas.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapters Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Alaska
The surface area of the coastal resources of
Alaska dwarfs the coastal resources that exist
in the remaining 49 states. The total surface
area of estuarine resources for the continental
United States is 33, 211 square miles; for
Alaska, it is 97,838 square miles. Unfortunately,
most monitoring strategies have excluded
Alaska because of the logistical problems in
implementing a monitoring program there.
However, no estimate of U.S. coastal condition
can be complete without information
concerning Alaska.
The vast majority of Alaska's coastal
resources are presumed to be in relatively
pristine condition due to Alaska's size, sparse
population, and general remoteness. However,
the past 20 years have seen a general increase
in Alaskan populations in coastal areas, and
several environmental accidents have occurred
in coastal regions (e.g., the Exxon Valdez oil
spill). Water quality has been found to be
impaired in coastal areas surrounding port
facilities along Prince William Sound, seafood
processing facilities in the Aleutian Islands,
and cruise ship docking facilities and corridors
near Juneau and along the southeastern
coastline. At present, the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation assesses
less than 1% of its total coastal
resources. Of the assessed
resources, 99% are impaired for
one or more uses. No consistent
information is available for the
remaining estuarine resources.
In 2002, EPA's Office of
Research and Development,
Region 10, and Alaska's
Causes of Impairment for Alaska's 1998 303(d)
Listed Waters
Debris
Dissolved oxygen
Fecal coliform
Metals
Petroleum products
Phosphorus
Sediment
Turbidity
Residue
Seafood residue
Toxic and other
deleterious substances
Alaska did not report any fish consumption advisories
in 1999 or beach closings in 1998.
Department of Environmental Conservation
will initiate a comprehensive pilot monitoring
program to examine water quality, sediment
quality, and condition of biotic resources in
the coastal ecosystems of south-central Alaska.
The Alaska-National Coastal Assessment
Program will sample approximately 70
locations throughout the south-central region
(Figure 8-1). Information from this survey
should be available in 2003.
For its 1998 305(b) report, Alaska assessed
237 (1%) of its 33,257 estuarine square miles.
Alaska reports on an Overall Use Support
classification only, and 235 square miles (99%
of assessed waters) are impaired for Overall
Use Support. It should be noted that Alaska's
assessment data are biased toward those waters
with known impairments. Efforts are under
way to assess other waters across the state.
Alaska has 43 coastal 1998 303(d) listed waters.
Figure 8-1. Proposed Coastal 2000 sampling design for Alaska.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Cook Inlet Information Management
& Monitoring System
CIIMMS ^^^^^^^J
COOK INLET INFORMATION M AN AGEMENT'M ONITORIN G SYSTEM
.
Cook Inlet Information Management & Monitoring System (CIIMMS) is
an Internet-based clearinghouse of data pertaining to the Cook Inlet watershed.
Funded by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, the project seeks to provide
stakeholders and decision makers with access to a broad range of data pertaining
to the ecological health and management of the Cook Inlet Watershed.
The Cook Inlet Basin
Environmental management on an ecosystem or watershed level
information on
a range of topics covering a
relatively large area. CIIMMS
seeks to foster greater
integration and coordination
of projects within the Cook
Inlet watershed by connecting
decision makers with data
relevant to management
and recovery of Cook Inlet
habitats and resources. The
CIIMMS database is available
on the Internet at
http://info.dec.state.ak.us/ciimms.
requires
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapters Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Cook Inlet, Alaska
Slimy sculpin (Cottos cognatusj
Species assayed for presence of organic
contaminants and trace elements.
U.S. Geological Survey assessed the condition of waters composing the Cook Inlet
watershed as part of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program.
Work began on Cook Inlet in 1997 and is scheduled to continue until 2002. The
Cook Inlet watershed is more than 38,610 square miles and has a human population
of approximately 347,000, with 254,000 being concentrated in the Municipality
of Anchorage. The watershed includes Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Valley,
part of Denali National Park, and sections of
the Kenai Peninsula. The well-known salmon
runs in this area make it a popular location
for recreational fishing. The Kenai River,
for example, experienced an estimated
321,000 angler-days in 1997. Water quality
was generally good but did suffer in several
highly populated locations.
Tests for organic compounds showed very low contamination throughout the
watershed with several notable exceptions within Anchorage. Of 32 organochlorine
pesticides assayed, only 3 were detected: dieldrin, DDE (a metabolic product of
DDT), and hexachlorobenzene. Only hexachlorobenzene exceeded minimum
reporting limits. However, Chester Creek in Anchorage, Alaska, showed
concentrations of PAHs, phenols, and phthalates that were nearly 50 times greater
than the national median. In all, 24 organic contaminants, including PCBs, were
detected in the tissue of
sculpins from Chester Creek.
The results place Chester Creek
in the highest 25% of stations
tested nationally for organic
compounds. Throughout the
Cook Inlet basin, the number of
organic contaminants detected
at each location correlated
strongly with human
population density (r2=0.86).
<£ 0)
It
K «
Oco
W ^r
O °
05?
>o
35
30
25
20
;« 15
E-H
•s 10
r2 = 0.86
Cook Inlet
Basin
50 100 150 200 250 300
Population Density, in People per Square Mile
350
Comparison of population density and semivolatile organic
compounds (SVOC) detections among selected NAWQA
study units.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8
Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Hawaii
Hawaii does not have a comprehensive
coastal monitoring program. Some monitoring
is done on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii
and some monitoring is planned for Hawaiian
coral reefs, but no comprehensive programs
are currently operating. Most monitoring
efforts in Hawaii have been targeted to specific
problem areas—nonpoint source runoff,
offshore discharges, or specific bays. For
example, Kaneohe Bay is rather heavily studied
in comparison to other Hawaiian coastal
resources; however, there is still not enough
data to determine the spatial extent of its
problems. Another example is Mamala Bay,
where an intensive examination of the public
wastewater outfalls from Oahu into the bay
showed that the areas adjacent to the
discharges were not statistically different from
reference areas. However, no comprehensive
spatial examination of Mamala Bay was
conducted so that these findings could be
placed in a regional or statewide context. The
Coastal 2000 efforts in Hawaii in 2001 will
examine the coastal resources throughout the
island chain (main islands only) and examine
the condition of Mamala Bay, its inland
estuarine resources, and the nearshore effects
of these inland features on Mamala Bay's
ecological condition.
In 2001, the Coastal 2000 effort will be
undertaken by EPA's Office of Research and
Development, Region 9, the University of
Hawaii, and state and local resource agencies
in Hawaii. This effort will be the first
comprehensive survey of the ecological
conditions of the coastal resources of Hawaii.
The survey will examine water quality,
sediment quality, and biotic condition at
50 locations throughout the primary island
chain (Figure 8-2). Information from this
survey should be available in 2003.
Kauai
Niihau
Oahu
Molokai
O Sampling Location
Hawaii
Figure 8-2. Proposed Coastal 2000 sampling design for Hawaii.
The state of Hawaii assessed 54.8 square
miles of estuaries (100%) and 884 (84%) of its
1,052 miles of shoreline for its 1998 305(b)
report. Of the assessed estuaries, 43% fully
support their designated uses, 1% are
threatened for one or more uses, and 56% are
impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 8-3).
Fully Supporting
43%
Impaired
56%
Threatened
1%
Fair
Poor
Figure 8-3. Water quality in assessed estuaries
in Hawaii (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapters Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Of assessed shoreline, 89% fully supports
its designated uses, 1% is threatened for one
or more uses, and 10% is impaired by some
form of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 8-4). Hawaii did not report on
individual use support.
Impaired
10%
Threatened
1%
Fully Supporting
89%
Figure 8-4. Water quality for assessed shoreline
in Hawaii (U.S. EPA).
Hawaii has 18 waters that are listed as
impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act. The percentage of listed waters
impaired by each of the major pollutant
categories is shown in Figure 8-5.
1998 303(d) Impairments for the
Hawaiian Islands
Pesticides
Mercury
Toxics/Organics
Toxics/Metals/
Inorganics
Pathogens
Nutrients |
Sedimentation
0%
0%
0%
] 10%
\4%
•
|98%
t?
0 SO 100
Percent of Listed
Miles Impaired
Figure 8-5. 1998 303(d) listed waters in Hawaii and the
percentage of miles impaired by the major pollutant
categories (note that a listing may be impaired by multiple
pollutants) (U.S. EPA).
Hawaii and American Samoa each had one
active fish consumption advisory for estuarine
waters in 2000. Pearl Harbor in Hawaii was
listed for PCBs, and Inner Pago Pago Harbor
in American Samoa was listed for chromium,
copper, DDT, lead, mercury, PCBs, and zinc in
2000. Both of these advisories warned of
contaminant levels in all species of fish and
shellfish within the designated waterbodies.
Hawaii is the only state that continues to grow geographically each
year Here, a spectacular display of molten lava pouring into the
ocean off the southern coast of the Big Island (Photo: Susan Scott).
Puerto Rico
No consistent monitoring program for
coastal resources exists for Puerto Rico. A
National Estuary Program, the San Juan Bay
Estuary Program (SJBEP), was established in
1992. Some monitoring with regard to water
quality and tissue residue burdens has been
completed by Region 2, SJBEP, and the
Caribbean Environmental Protection Division,
although these surveys focus almost exclusively
on the San Juan area. The primary environmental
concerns for coastal regions in Puerto Rico
include pathogens, toxic contaminants, nutrient
addition, and habitat loss.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8
Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
In 2000, EPA's Office of Research
and Development, Office of Water, and
Region 2 initiated a comprehensive survey of
Puerto Rico's estuarine ecosystems to examine
water quality, sediment quality, and biotic
condition. The survey consists of 50 locations
throughout the estuaries of Puerto Rico
(Figure 8-6). Information from this survey
will be available in 2002.
O Sampling Location
Figure 8-6. Coastal 2000 sampling design for Puerto Rico.
Puerto Rico assessed 175.4 square miles
of estuaries and 550 miles of shoreline
(100%) for its 1998 305(b) reports. Of
estuarine square miles, 15% fully support
their designated uses, 84% are threatened for
one or more uses, and 1% are impaired by
some form of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 8-7). Of ocean shoreline, 60% fully
support its designated uses, 33% is threatened
for one or more uses, and 7% is impaired by
some form of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 8-8). Individual use support for
assessed shoreline in Puerto Rico is shown
in Figure 8-9.
Fully Impaired
Supporting 1%
Threatened
84%
Fair
Poor
Figure 8-7. Water quality in assessed estuaries in
Puerto Rico (U.S. EPA).
Impaired
7%
Fully
Supporting
60%
Threatened
33%
Fair Poor
Figure 8-8. Water quality for assessed shoreline in
Puerto Rico (U.S. EPA).
600-
500-
in
.« 400-
f
0>
rt 30°"
W 200-
100-
o-
D Fully Supporting
D Threatened
D Impaired
A
—
vqu
Su
i_
itic Life Prirr
sport
iar)
5wi
_
-O
mrr
• ,
antact -
ing
Sec
C(
1
ondary
antact
Designated Use
Figure 8-9. Individual use support for assessed shoreline in Puerto Rico
(U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapters Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Other Island Systems
No consistent coastal monitoring programs
exist for Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the
Northern Mariana Islands, or American
Samoa. At present, no plans exist for the
development of coastal monitoring systems
for these territories.
The U.S. Virgin Islands assessed 727 (79%)
of its 921 estuarine square miles and 173 miles
(100%) of coastal shoreline for its 1998 305(b)
reports. Of its estuarine waters, 73% fully
support their designated uses, 27% are
threatened for one or more uses, and 0.1% are
impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 8-10). Of its shoreline
miles, 73% fully support their designated uses,
21% are threatened for one or more uses, and
6% are impaired by some form of pollution or
habitat degradation (Figure 8-11). Individual
use support for assessed U.S. Virgin Island
shoreline is shown in Figure 8-12.
Fully
Supporting
73%
Good Fair Poor
Threatened
27%
Impaired
0% (0.9 mile)
Figure 8-10. Water quality in assessed estuaries in the
U.S.Virgin Islands (U.S. EPA).
Impaired
6%
Fully
Supporting
73%
Threatened
21%
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 8-11. Water quality for assessed shoreline miles
in the U.S.Virgin Islands (U.S. EPA).
600
500
in
.2 400
f
22
rt
300-
200-
100-
Aquatic Life
Support
Fish
Consumption
Fully Supporting
Threatened
Impaired
Primary
Contact -
Swimming
Designated Use
Secondary
Contact
Figure 8-12. Individual use support for assessed estuaries in the Virgin Islands (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8
Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Summary
The U.S. Virgin Islands has nine waters
listed as impaired under Section 303(d)
of the Clean Water Act.
Guam assessed 14 miles (12%) of its
117 miles of ocean shoreline waters for its
1998 305(b) report. All 14 miles of assessed
waters are impaired for swimming.
Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands reported
on beach closings for EPA's BEACH Watch
Program. In Guam, information was reported
for 35 beaches, and all but one had a monitor-
ing program in place in 1999 to test water
quality. There were no beach closings in
Guam in 1999. Information on 27 beaches
on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands was
reported to EPA, and each of the 27 beaches
was closed at least once in 1999.
Causes of Impairment for the Virgin Islands 1998
303(d) Listed Waters
Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen
Benthic Impacts
Turbidity
Pathogens
Phosphorus
Ulua, also known as Skipjack (Caranx ignoblis),
are large predatory fish found in deeper
waters around Hawaii.The Ulua is considered
a delicacy to local residents (Photo: U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service).
Ecological conditions of the
coastal resources in Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands are largely unknown.
Alaska assesses less than 1% of
its coastal estuaries and shoreline.
Hawaii's 305(b) data suggest that
56% of Hawaii's estuarine area
is impaired by some form of
pollution or habitat degradation,
while only 10% of its coastal
shoreline is impaired. Hawaii's
sampling effort in estuaries is
focused on known areas of
concern, so it is difficult to
interpret these results. Surveys
planned for 2001 will provide
a less biased view of estuarine
condition. Hawaii's 1998 303(d)
data suggest that the primary
causes of estuarine impairment are
increased concentrations of total
suspended solids and nutrients.
Coastal resources in Puerto Rico
are believed to be in good
condition but are threatened to
become impaired, based on Puerto
Rico's 305(b) data. The 305(b)
information for the U.S. Virgin
Islands suggests that its estuarine
and coastal resources are in good
condition.
-------
ghlight
Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii -
A Coastal Intensive Research Site
Kaneohe Bay, characterized as "one of the most intensively studied coral reef
systems in the world," is located on the windward coast of Oahu, Hawaii. The Bay is
also one of the most oligotrophic embayments in the United States, and land use in
the watershed ranges from urban to agricultural, presenting a variety of effects on
the water quality of the Bay. Kaneohe Bay is protected from the ocean by a barrier
coral reef, which, together with the patch reefs inside the Bay, provide habitat and
shelter to coral reef fishes, invertebrates, algae, and seagrasses.
A long-term project to
monitor water quality and
sediment processes in
Kaneohe Bay was initiated
in 1998. This project is part
of the nationwide Coastal
Intensive Site Network
(CISNet) program, a
cooperative effort funded
by EPA, NOAA, and the
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
(NASA). CISNet was
designed to research the ecological responses to anthropogenic stresses in coastal
environments, to examine the relationships between changes in environmental
stressors, and to provide intensively monitored sites for development and evaluation
of change in coastal systems.
The specific focus of the Kaneohe Bay CISNet project is to examine the linkages
between watershed land use patterns and events and the responses of the Kaneohe
estuarine/coral reef ecosystem. Another important goal of the project is to serve as a
central clearinghouse for environmental data related to Kaneohe Bay and to begin
other projects that might make use of these data sets.
Recently collected data on water column and sediment parameters, such as
chlorophyll and nutrient profiles, are available on the Internet:
www.hawaii.edu/cisnet.
Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii (Photo: Frank Stanton)
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ghlight
Marine Alien Species Workshop in Hawaii
Recent investigations of the introduction of nonnative marine species indicate
that up to 20% of all marine organisms found within the harbors of the main
Hawaiian Islands are alien species. To raise the level of understanding about
the impact of these marine alien species in Hawaii and provide a forum for
the discussion of control and management methods, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service led a workshop on May 18, 2001, in Honolulu. The workshop brought
together federal and state agency representatives, local conservation groups, and
academics. A follow-up meeting was held on October 5,2001.
The workshop and accompanying literature included information on the
following: lists of established marine alien species of fish, invertebrates, and algae
in Hawaii's waters; habitat types most frequently invaded; avenues of introduction;
likely future marine alien invaders; impacts that established alien species have on
native ecosystems; potential control methods for established marine aliens; and
interdiction methods to minimize further introductions. More detailed information
and wet-lab samples will be provided for selected species.
Results of the workshop will be made available in booklet and CD-ROM formats.
The booklet and CD-ROM are intended to be evolving documents that will be
revised periodically to reflect updated information about current alien species as well
as information about as-yet unintroduced species. Also, the following guidebook was
completed using grants from the Packard Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the National Marine Fisheries Service to the B.P. Bishop Museum and the
University of Hawaii: "A Guide of Introduced Marine Species in Hawaii," edited by
L.G. Eldredge and C.M. Smith. Bishop Museum Technical Report 21, August 2001.
For more information, contact Kevin Foster, Marine Alien Species Coordinator,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands Region, (808) 541-3441.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter
The
Future -
A National
Strategy
-------
Chapter 9
The Future —
A National Strategy
r
CIV&CIS (\T€- among the most popular places to live
and locate industry in the United States. The coastal zone, defined as all
areas within 50 miles of the shoreline, constitutes 17% of the U.S. land
area and is inhabited by more than 53% of the nation's population.
Coastal populations continue to grow, a trend that could result in
75% of the U.S. population living in the coastal zone by 2020. The high
density of people and industry in coastal areas is a potential threat to
the ecological condition of our nation's coastal environments.
Currently, no single comprehensive monitoring program provides the
data necessary to produce an integrated assessment of the ecological
condition of the nation's coastal areas. Even when data are compiled
from existing federal and state coastal monitoring programs, there are
still large data gaps and data collection inconsistencies that make it
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
difficult to generalize about the condition of
the nation's coasts as a whole. Competing
objectives, levels of funding, and varying
scopes of interest have resulted in a
proliferation of data in some areas (like
Chesapeake Bay), while data are sparse or
nonexistent in other areas (like Alaska).
There are several national programs that
can contribute information about the nation's
coasts, but they cannot be used to formulate a
complete picture of the nation due to
limitations in the scope of parameters assessed
or area monitored. EMAP's regional surveys
provide consistent data for the mid-Atlantic,
Southeast, and Gulf of Mexico coasts;
however, budget constraints precluded the
implementation of these regional surveys in
other regions of the United States (e.g., the
West Coast, Alaska). Data from the Coastal
2000 program will address many of these
issues. NOAA's National Status and Trends
(NS&T) Program provides information for
representative locations across the United
States on a specific set of environmental
parameters focused on toxic contaminants.
This program is designed only to monitor
contaminant levels and trends in sentinel
organisms and sediments. The NS&T Program
is not designed to support probability-based
estimates of the spatial extent of degraded
versus nondegraded resources across regional
to national scales.
EPA's Clean Water Act Section 305(b) water
quality data for coastal resources are reported
by coastal states, which use a variety of
approaches for data collection. Data reported
range from environmental parameters
collected at specific locations with known
problems to larger-scale characterization of
state watersheds based on evaluations of
existing data and professional judgment. Many
states do not have the resources to conduct
comprehensive coastal monitoring to collect
data for their 305(b) assessments. States like
Alaska, Washington (excluding Puget Sound),
Oregon, California (north of San Francisco
Bay), North Carolina, Georgia, and Maine
have little or no coastal monitoring in place
and receive little or no financial support to
create comprehensive coastal monitoring
programs. The lack of monitoring data for
Alaska is particularly bothersome because
Alaskan estuaries represent nearly 75% of all
U.S. estuarine resources, yet very little
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
The CWAP Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy
outlines a plan to develop a comprehensive integrated
framework for assessing the condition of the nation's coasts.
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN:
COASTAL RESEARCH
AMD MONITORING STRATEGY
information to support the kind of analysis
used in this report is available (i.e., spatial
estimates of condition based on indicators
measured consistently across broad regions).
Due to the current state of information, we
are unable to characterize quantitatively the
condition of all of the nation's coastal waters.
Moreover, at present, the assessments must be
based on a limited number of ecological
indicators for which there are consistent data
sets available to support estimates of condition
over as broad an area as possible.
In this report, we have compiled existing
information to provide a preliminary picture
of the condition of estuarine waters in the
United States. Although it may appear that this
report accomplishes that goal, it falls short of
the "comprehensive report on the condition of
the nation's coastal waters" called for by the
Clean Water Action Plan due to a lack of
nationally consistent data. What has been
accomplished is the best assessment of coastal
condition that can be made with existing data.
Figure 9-1 represents our best perspective of
ecological condition in estuaries. It is based on
substantial information on the Mid-Atlantic,
Southeast, and Gulf of Mexico Coasts but
scattered and sparse information from New
England, the West Coast, Alaska, the Pacific
Islands, and the Caribbean. One of our
greatest needs for the 21st century is a
coordinated, comprehensive, and integrated
coastal monitoring program that examines all
aspects of coastal condition at national,
regional, state, and estuary-specific scales. The
program should include estuaries, beaches,
coastal wetlands, the Great Lakes, and coastal
waters throughout the 24 coastal states and the
Pacific and Caribbean commonwealths. The
Clean Water Action Plan: Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy (www.cleanwater.gov),
established under authority of the Clean Water
Action Plan (U.S. EPA, 1998), presents the
conceptual framework for coastal monitoring
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
and research to be conducted in partnership
among federal agencies, state resource
agencies, and academia. The framework will
guide the direction of coastal monitoring and
research across federal agencies to address
current and future environmental issues of the
coast. The recommended coordination and
Overall National
Coastal Condition
collaboration of federal agencies will permit
future coastal research and monitoring
activities to benefit from the specific
knowledge and experience of each agency—
the resulting decision-making capability will
be greater than the sum of the parts.
Overall
Great Lakes
Overall
Northeast
Good Fair Poor
Good Fair Poor
Ecological Health
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen*
Overall FT
Southeast^ 7
Coastal Wetlands
Eutrophic Condition
Sediment
Benthos
Fish Tissue
* No indicator data available.
** Does not include the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf of Mexico waters.
Figure 9-1. Overall national coastal condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
Objectives of Research
and Monitoring within
an Integrated Assessment
Framework
The complex and changing nature of the
coastal waters, bays, estuaries, and wetlands
often requires the integration of physical,
chemical, biological, and ecological data to
assess coastal environmental conditions and
often requires the integration of research with
monitoring to improve or extend our
assessment capabilities. For the past decade,
academic, federal, state, and private sector
scientists have been working on new
approaches to this integration (Messer
et al., 1991; NSTC, 1997). These integrated
assessment efforts appear to have roughly the
same common goal:
Provide the national, regional,
and local capabilities to measure,
understand, analyze, and forecast
ecological change (natural and
anthropogenic) that can affect coastal
economies, public safety, and the
integrity and sustainability of the
nation's coastal ecosystems.
Due to the unique marine environment
surrounding the Channel Islands, the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) is
home to a diverse array of marine life, making
the region highly valuable to scientific
research.The CINMS routinely conducts
research to monitor; preserve, and protect the
Sanctuary's rich resources. In 1998, the
CINMS participated in a regional monitoring
survey of the Southern California Bight
coordinated by the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP).
Trawl and sediment samples from randomly
selected sights around the islands were
collected to measure the distribution and
health of the island's marine life (Photo:
Channel Islands NMS).
Integrated assessments provide an effective
format for bridging science and policy and,
therefore, are the appropriate context for
designing a research and monitoring strategy.
Integrated assessments have the following
objectives:
• Document status and assess trends in
environmental conditions at the necessary
scales for scientific investigation and policy
development.
• Evaluate the causes and consequences of
changes in environmental status and trends.
• Assess environmental, economic, and
sociological impacts of alternative policies
for dealing with these changes.
Research is necessary to improve both the
assessment techniques and the monitoring
done to support these assessments. The
research necessary to support these activities
includes
• Predict change and create an early warning
detection system.
• Analyze environmental, economic, and
sociological impacts of coastal policy. A
large number of national, state, and tribal
policies direct the expenditure of billions of
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
dollars of public and private money to
protect the coastal zone. It is important to
understand if these investments are well
spent—if the coastal zone has been
protected or restored.
• Understand coastal physical and ecological
processes. An understanding of the
physical and ecological processes of the
coastal zone underlies all of the other
objectives. Investments in research to
improve this understanding are paid back
directly or indirectly by our increasing
ability to truly understand current status,
predict future trends, and determine the
significance of change.
• Improve or enhance monitoring and
assessment tools. Our ability to perform the
above objectives rests on our ability to use
federal investments wisely. Advancements in
field monitoring and observation, remote
sensing, and data management and display
technology have created opportunities to
acquire, manage, and disseminate coastal
environmental data more efficiently and
economically than was thought possible
10 years ago. The challenge is to select
wisely from or improve upon the
traditional, new, or emerging technologies
that will provide information needed for
policy or management decisions.
The effective integration of monitoring and
research will enable comprehensive assessments
of the nation's coastal resources and eventual
remediation of the problem. This approach is
essential to differentiate between actual and
perceived environmental issues in the coastal
zone so that (1) we address all major coastal
environmental issues appropriately and in a
timely manner and (2) we avoid unnecessary
environmental regulation or environmental
damage. It follows that an integrated
monitoring and research strategy focused on
supporting the comprehensive management of
our coastal resources requires an integration
of key assessment and management elements
with monitoring and research objectives
(Figure 9-2). Monitoring is crucial to
documenting status and assessing trends,
determining associations between stressors
and impacts, and assessing the effectiveness of
management actions. Research is an important
part of environmental monitoring and is
particularly important for improving our
ability to interpret monitoring data and
improve our assessment capability. Additionally,
research is key to predicting impacts as a result
of emerging trends and to forecast and assess
the impacts and benefits of management
actions.
Monitoring
Remediation
Assessment
Policy/Program
Development
Figure 9-2. Monitoring-research-assessment-remediation
cycle that gauges coastal ecological condition and the
effectiveness of remediation policies and programs.
These objectives capture the intent of the
Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy—
to observe coastal status and to differentiate
between real and perceived coastal water issues
and to provide informed and expert judgment
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
necessary for coastal policy and management.
The objectives are, to a large extent, derived
from national environmental monitoring and
research objectives presented in Integrating the
Nation's Environmental Monitoring and
Research Networks and Programs, the national
framework established by the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC, 1997). The
NSTC objectives, as modified to address
specific issues of coastal waters, overlap with
charters of the departments and agencies
represented in the Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy Workgroup.
To be effective, an integrated assessment
strategy for monitoring and research activities
must be designed to accomplish all of these
objectives. Only by addressing all components
can the effectiveness of management actions
be tracked.
Monitoring
The Gulf of the Farallones has over 100 dedicated volunteers
for the BEACH Watch program. BEACH Watch volunteers
survey their designated sanctuary beaches once a month and
receive 80 hours of classroom and field training (Photo: Gulf
of the Farallones NMS).
The Coastal Research and Monitoring
Strategy addresses the physical, chemical,
biological, and ecological conditions of coastal
waters, bays, estuaries, beaches, wetlands, and
the Great Lakes. A national coastal monitoring
strategy must simultaneously meet the needs
of the nation, the coastal states, and tribal
nations. This strategy is the most effective way
to satisfy needs at these scales, but it is also
essential to receive the necessary cooperation
from the coastal states and tribes. Only
through this cooperation can the longevity of
any national coastal monitoring effort be
assured. The mechanisms to achieve this
interaction are beyond the scope of this
strategy. However, key attributes of the
proposed approach should include cofunding
by federal and state programs, nested designs
to allow state-specific issues to be addressed in
a national context, a uniform reporting
protocol to facilitate data and information
exchange, and further attention to specific
state issues, collective reporting, and
cross-system comparisons.
The coastal ecosystems addressed by this
strategy include estuaries, coastal waters,
beaches, wetlands, and the Great Lakes.
Because the scale and dimensions of these
systems vary considerably, the "optimal"
monitoring design is one that allows
adaptation to each ecosystem while
maintaining a similar core design that would
allow intercomp arisen and tiered estimates of
condition. Attempts to design one program
that fits all cases generally fail because all
temporal and spatial scales are pertinent and
important. Therefore, the design proposed
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
here incorporates a flexible, nested strategy
that uses a base design (common to all), with
details designed by the appropriate
stakeholders at each level.
The strategy for a national coastal
monitoring design is based on the three-tiered
approach developed by EPA (Messer et al.,
1991) and recommended by NSTC (1997).
The three-tiered monitoring strategy addresses
several of the major attributes of an integrated
assessment:
• Characterization of the problem
• Diagnosis of causes
• Remediation actions
• Assessment of effectiveness of actions
• Reevaluation of causes
• Continued assurance of effectiveness of
actions.
These attributes, in combination with the
formulation of management actions, create the
cycle of monitoring and attendant research
necessary to identify, solve, correct, and
manage environmental problems. The
proposed three-tiered national coastal
monitoring design features:
• Characterization of the Problem (Tier I)—
Broad-scale ecological response properties
as a base determined by survey, automated
collection, and/or remote sensing.
• Diagnosis of Causes (Tier II)—Issue- or
resource-specific surveys and observations
concentrating on cause-effect interactions.
• Diagnosis of Interactions and Forecasting
(Tier III)—Intensive monitoring and
research index sites with higher spatial and
temporal resolution to determine specific
mechanisms of interaction needed to build
cause and effect models.
Data and information generated at each
tier help in the interpretation of results
from the other tiers. For example, Tier I
(characterization) data provide geographic
context for data collected at Tiers II and III
(e.g., how widespread is the problem and how
much of the nation's resources are affected by
its occurrence?). Tier II (diagnosis of causes)
and Tier III (diagnosis of interactions) aid in
understanding the seriousness of a particular
relationship or issue. Tier III also aids in
interpreting results at Tiers I and II and links
process research with long-term ecological and
environmental measurements to strengthen
cause and effect linkages and predictive
models that relate stresses and environmental
responses.
As more locations are studied for invasive species
and as the protocols for monitoring become more
standardized, more systematic knowledge will be
gained of anecdotally known regional variations in
invasion rates and species. Intensive study at specific
locations where invasions have taken place, as well
as at ecologically and climatically similar locations
with invasion observed to a different extent or by
different species, will help establish what factors put
a particular area at risk from what species or types
of species.
Characterization of the Problem
(Tier I)
Measurements in Tier I are designed to
characterize problems by tracking the natural
dynamics of coastal ecosystems in order to
identify large-scale existing and emerging
issues. Therefore, these measurements focus
on the first step of integrated assessments—
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
documenting status and trends in order
to characterize the problem(s). Tier I
measurements would generally be taken at
fairly coarse spatial and temporal scales based
on probabilistic approaches except for those
that can be generated by remote platforms
(e.g., satellites) where coverages may be
complete. This approach is state-oriented
and, through consistency of design and
measurements, produces a national coverage.
In accordance with the most recent work in
this area (CENR, 2000), indicators to be
measured in Tier I include (1) measures of
community and ecosystem structure and
function (productivity, abundances and
distributions of plants and animals, diversity,
and important attributes of nutrient and
chemical cycling) and (2) environmental
stressors (primary stressors of coastal
ecosystems) and habitat variables (measures
required to interpret natural variability in
rapidly changing coastal environments).
Many measurements in Tier I can be
derived through automated sensors (e.g.,
satellites, aircraft reconnaissance, and buoys).
However, several measurements must still be
conducted through field sampling and
laboratory analysis. These measures, collected
using an integrated probabilistic design
including all coastal states, would provide a
comprehensive, integrated assessment of the
"health" of each state and, through integration,
the nation's coastal resources. The number of
sites likely to be included at this level would be
50 for each coastal state for each coastal
environment (e.g., wetlands, estuaries, beaches,
Great Lakes, offshore).
Diagnosis of Large-Scale Causes
(Tier II)
To assess the causes of problems identified
in Tier I, Tier II monitoring would be
conducted only in areas identified as impacted
by Tier 1 monitoring or through other
available databases (e.g., the TMDL Tracking
System). This "national" sampling tier would
be stratified by environmental issue, with a
monitoring program associated with each
stratum. Examples of strata are
• Eutrophic condition
• Contamination by metals and organics
• Contamination by microbial organisms
• Invasive species
• Habitat degradation
• Fisheries declines
• Harmful algal blooms
• Hypoxia.
The primary purpose for the collection of
monitoring data at the Tier II level would be
to quantify the relationships among ecosystem
response variables (e.g., productivity, benthic
abundance, bird abundance) and environ-
mental stressors (e.g., nutrients, low dissolved
oxygen, habitat loss) in order to diagnose the
cause(s) of the observed environmental
problem. It is through this quantification that
better stewardship and better correctional
operations can be determined. The number of
sampling sites for each issue stratum would be
determined largely by the number of locations
and regions displaying the particular issue,
although an expectation of about 100 to 250
sites per issue stratum seems to be reasonable.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
Tier II alone is not sufficient for understanding
relationships well enough to develop
predictive capabilities. The integration of
Tiers II and III should provide that predictive
power.
Diagnosis of Interactions and
Forecasting (Tier III)
Monitoring at Tiers I and II provides
information that can be used to develop
policies and actions to correct the
environmental problems found throughout
the nation. However, many problems are the
result of complex interactions of stressors,
habitats, natural environments, and
anthropogenic activities. To determine these
interactions and forecast the likely
environmental response of these interactions,
this strategy proposes the development of
Tier III sites. At these sites, measurements are
spatially and temporally intensive and are
completed at few locations over relatively
short time periods (weeks to years). Much of
the research necessary to develop indicators or
indices with forecasting power will be
accomplished at these sites in conjunction
with the intensive monitoring. Approximately
25 to 50 of these sites would be identified.
The data and information generated at each
tier helps in interpretation at the remaining
tiers. Tier I information places Tiers II and III
information into perspective—how broad a
problem is the issue and how much of the
nation's resources are affected by its occur-
rence, correction, and understanding? Tiers II
and III provide an understanding of the
seriousness of a particular relationship or
issue. At Tier I, all problems are, in essence,
r
Scientists retrieve aTucker net, which has three nets to sample
different depths and obtain discrete samples of tiny organisms
that make up the base of the food web in the Cordell Bank
Sanctuary (Photo: Jamie Hall).
treated equally, but work at Tiers II and III
may show that losses of some species
distributions are more important than others.
Tier III aids in interpreting results at Tiers I
and II and links process research with long-
term measurements of ecological and
environmental measures to strengthen cause
and effect linkages and predictive models
relating stresses and ecosystem response.
These three monitoring tiers correspond to
the characterization of the problem and
diagnosis of causes and interactions of existing
environmental problems within the integrated
assessment model. Regardless of the
requirements for specific spatial and/or
temporal scales, these monitoring tiers provide
information for the assessment of the
effectiveness of actions and continued
assurance of that effectiveness.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
Research
The interaction of research in the
development, execution, and revision of
monitoring coastal ecosystems is a closely
paired activity. Integrated assessments adapt
current monitoring approaches by taking
advantage of information that has been
accumulated over time such as previous
monitoring results, research that has been
completed to enhance the measurement of
indicators, new understanding of cause and
effect relationships, and improved sampling
approaches to reduce uncertainty.
Research activities must occur at all three
tiers, but represent distinct research programs.
Indicator research and development of survey
methods and tools enhances our ability to
characterize ecosystem condition (Tier I).
Initial monitoring activities to characterize
(Tier I) must, of necessity, be based on
available, tested, proven, and understandable
indicators. This does not imply that they are
the best indicators of ecosystem condition, just
the best available, and continuing research
should produce better, more certain
indicators. Cause and effect research drives
our understanding of what the information
collected during monitoring represents. This
research, whether at the larger scale (Tier II)
or intensive scale (Tier III), provides the
necessary interpretive information to bridge
the gap between status and trend information
and management actions.
Prediction of environmental problems is the
long-term goal of the monitoring and research
interaction. Currently, our monitoring
approaches and research programs must be
reactive—monitoring results driving the
The Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary is recognized for its
profound ecological value. The Sanctuary's parent agency, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), commits significant
technical resources, including its research ships (like the McArthur, shown
here), to understand how ecological processes work (Photo: Olympic
Coast NMS).
research agenda and the research results
modifying the monitoring approach. As cause
and effect monitoring and research progresses,
the results will provide the basis for predictive
modeling, forecasting emerging environmental
problems, and separating changes due to
natural variability from those resulting from
anthropogenic stress. Once forecasting abilities
can be verified, the interactive roles of
monitoring and research (particularly at
Tiers II and III) will change, adapting to these
new abilities to focus efforts in an unbiased
manner rather than approaching the coastal
environment as one large population.
After characterizing the coastal environment,
predicting the probability of change from
human activity, and diagnosing the likely
causes of these changes, environmental
managers and stakeholders must make
decisions on future policies, programs, and
actions. Decisions include continuation of
current activity (no action), control of future
inputs, remediation of environmental
contamination, or restoration of the coastal
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
ecosystem to a desired state. Some of the
uncertainties associated with these decisions
are based on a lack of understanding of coastal
system response. Research is needed to
support the management decision element of
the integrated assessment model, including:
• Development of standardized protocols for
environmental remediation and restoration,
which ensure consistent outcomes.
• Evaluation of costs and effectiveness of
management actions.
• Development of decision analysis methods
to help managers establish relevant goals
and to facilitate consistent cost-effective
decisions.
Therefore, research plays a vital role in
interpreting outputs from, and methods used
in, monitoring programs and represents a key
to the integrated assessment model. Research
supports all phases of the assessment process.
Characteristic research activities that support
the integrated assessment process are
described in the remainder of this section.
A Cordell Bank
Expeditions
research diver
over a bed of
filter-feeding
invertebrates.
The food-rich
currents over
Cordell Bank
offer habitat
for filter-feeding
animals (Photo:
Cordell Bank
Expeditions).
Research To Support Characterization
of the Problem (Tier I)
In addition to improving our ability to
document status and trends, research at this
level can also establish a means to provide
early warnings. Ecological characterization is a
description of particular attributes at points in
space and time and comparison of those
attributes with expectations or criteria. It
is clearly impossible to do this for all
environmental parameters and their changes,
so indicators of these parameters are often
sought. Indicators are properties that
summarize elements of environmental change
and provide the greatest information return
for the least investment. The key question in
indicator research is defining which
parameters serve as appropriate surrogates for
system condition and response. This is a
challenge because ecosystem processes are
poorly understood, the distribution and
intensity of stressors and their threats to
ecological resources are uncertain, and it is
not known which stressors place ecosystems at
the most serious risk or the extent to which
critical ecological processes are being
impaired. Another important issue is
reliability/predictability. It is important to
select biological indicators, for example, that
are able to predict stress where stress should
be occurring (due to presence of pollutants) in
a high percentage of cases.
To help characterize systems, research is
needed to address four basic questions:
• What should be measured? Answering this
question requires an understanding of the
important components of structure and
function of the system (i.e., a conceptual
model), an evaluation of the appropriate
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
levels of biological organization relevant to
the monitoring purpose, and the classes of
stressors that are potentially important for
that resource and scale.
• How should the indicator be measured?
The answer to this question requires that a
standard protocol be defined.
• How responsive is the indicator? It is
important to determine the degree to which
a particular indicator actually responds to
various stressor gradients at multiple scales
or if a stressor indicator responds to
modification of input.
• How variable is the indicator? Ecological
condition reflects the combined effects of
natural variability and anthropogenic stress.
Research is needed to determine methods
by which natural or introduced fluctuations
can be distinguished to allow detection of
actual status and trends in ecological
conditions.
Research To Support Diagnosis of
Large-Scale Causes (Tier II)
This step determines the causes and
consequences of detected changes. Cause and
consequence are usually determined by
integrating relevant process-oriented research
with tools to diagnose and predict system
dynamics. This step determines the causes and
consequences of detected changes. Cause and
consequence are usually determined by
integrating relevant process-oriented research
with tools to diagnose and predict system
dynamics. Once conditions and trends for an
ecological system have been described, it is
important to identify which parts of the
system are changing, why they are changing,
and whether particular environmental policies
will be effective in dealing with those changes.
To answer these questions, it is necessary to
understand and be able to predict how a
system will respond to individual or multiple
stresses (i.e., develop a "load-response"
relationship that describes how properties of
concern relate to changes in natural and
human inputs). To couple monitoring results
with causes of system change and to predict
system responses, research must address three
basic questions:
• How are measures extrapolated across
scales of organization? Historically, much of
the stressor-effects data used in ecological
assessment have been obtained from
laboratory tests focused on responses at
lower levels of biological organization. An
implicit assumption in applying such results
at the ecosystem level is that processes and
mechanisms occurring at lower levels of
organization are sufficient to describe the
behavior of systems at higher levels of
organization. This may have limited utility
to identify properties that emerge only at
higher levels. Greater understanding is
needed about how impacts measured at
lower levels of ecological organization
reflect impacts at higher levels. Further
research is also needed to evaluate how
impacts measured in one estuary can be
extrapolated to other estuaries.
• How do human activities propagate
through the ecosystem? For many human
activities, pathways of transmission and
adaptation in ecosystems are poorly
understood, hindering development of
accurate assessment of ecological effects due
to human activities. Additional research is
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
L
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
Seagrass is one of the most productive and important ecosystems
in the Keys, and it is being destroyed at an alarming rate. Much of
this damage is due to recreational boaters operating in shallow
water Propeller scars can take up to 10 years to recover
(Photo: Harold Hudson).
needed to understand how human-induced
changes in the landscape alter hydrologic
and biogeochemical cycles in the coastal
areas, and how adaptations or buffers in the
system mitigate those changes.
• What changes in system structure and
function are due to changes in inputs?
Addressing this question requires a sound
basis to link an ecological response and a
change in input. In large, complex systems,
these links are usually developed based on
observation of co-occurrence of input and
response and analysis of the strength and
consistency of that co-occurrence. Due to
lack of appropriate data at large scales, our
current understanding is insufficient to
ensure correct identification of the cause of
change in many systems or to predict the
result of human activities on an ecosystem.
Research To Support Diagnosis of
Interactions and Forecasting (Tier III)
This step determines the causes,
consequences, and interactions of detected
changes at small or local spatial scales,
particularly with regard to natural
environmental changes. Cause and
consequence, at this scale, are usually
determined by integrating relevant process-
oriented research at specific locations with
tools to diagnose and predict system
dynamics. The research questions at Tier III
are identical to those at Tier II with the
exception that at Tier III the scale is local, the
importance of interactions may be greater, and
the role of natural variability may be greater.
Because of this similarity, the specific research
questions for Tier III will not be repeated here.
Research To Support Development
of Policy and Environmental
Remediation Programs
Although this research does not specifically
correspond to one of the monitoring tiers, it is
essential to the integrated assessment process.
This level of research helps to determine if
coastal environmental policies are having the
desired effect, or if the same goals could be
achieved in another manner. While monitoring
can determine if management actions are
achieving their desired goal, research is needed
to reduce the uncertainties in ecological cause
and effect relationships—the basis of
predictions. Also, because management actions
often involve behavior modification, it is
important that economic and social consider-
ations, inherent in the decision-making
process, are assessed. Specific questions that
must be addressed include the following:
• How are multiple management options
evaluated to select the best option? This
requires development of methods to model
coastal ecosystem responses to changes so
that future scenarios under different
management alternatives can be simulated.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 The Future -A National Strategy
Summary
• How are ecological services and capital
reserves valued in the decision process?
This requires the ability to integrate and
predict economic consequences of
ecological change in coastal areas. Methods
to assess and predict nonmonetary benefits
and impacts to society, such as aesthetic or
cultural requirements, are also needed.
• How is human response to management
actions measured? Achieving desired results
from many management decisions rests on
the willingness and efficacy of humans to
change behavior. Indicators are needed to
measure this change in behavior.
While the objectives and the conceptual
framework for the Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy have been finalized,
important aspects of the Strategy can be
defined only as the Strategy evolves into a
workable program. The Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy identifies the program-
matic actions identified by the Workgroup as
next steps; further development of action
plans for each of the following recommenda-
tions and implementation of those recom-
mendations is beyond the charter of the
Workgroup.
This report compiles available
information to describe the overall
ecological condition of the estuarine
waters of the United States. The
characterization is based on the use
of information to create an
impression of existing condition. At
times, that impression is based on
large amounts of information (e.g.,
Chesapeake Bay); at other times, it is
based on a paucity of information
(e.g., Alaska).
One outcome of this report has
been to demonstrate that we do not
have adequate information to make
clear and encompassing statements
regarding ecological condition for
the nation's coastal resources
regardless of spatial scale (national,
regional, state, estuary). However, it
should also be clear that federal and
state programs exist to collect much
of this information in some areas
but are nonexistent in others. In
order to realize its full potential,
coastal monitoring must be
addressed through new and
innovative partnerships among
federal agencies, state agencies, and
local municipalities. No single
agency can accomplish this task.
Only through a coordinated and
integrated effort can coastal
monitoring be successful at all the
levels at which it is necessary to
preserve, protect, manage, and
enhance the coastal resources
of the United States.
We are all drawn to the ocean's edge to wonder at life's most
basic questions and marvel at the ocean's astonishing diversity
(Photo: Olympic Coast NMS).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
-------
Chapter 10 References
References
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 1998. A Report
on the Condition of the Estuaries of Alabama in 1993-1995: A Program in
Progress. Alabama Monitoring and Assessment Program-Coastal. Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, Mobile Field Office, Mobile, AL.
Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999.
National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment
in the Nation's Estuaries. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Special Projects
Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD.
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). 2000. Integrated
Assessment of Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and
Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST). 1999. Gulf of Mexico
Hypoxia: Land and Sea Interactions. Task Force Report No. 134.
Culliton, T.J., M.A. Warren, T.R. Goodspeed, D.G. Remer, C.M. Blackwell, and JJ.
McDonough, III. 1990. 50 Years of Population Change Along the Nation's
Coast. The second report of a Coastal Trends Series. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessments
Division, Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD.
Cunningham, C., and K. Walker. 1996. "Enhancing Public Access to the Coast
Through the CZMA." Current: The Journal of Marine Education 14(1):8-12.
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S.
Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 1995. "Marine benthic hypoxia: A review of its
ecological effects and the behavioural responses of benthic macrofauna."
Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 33:245-303.
Ecological Society of America. 1999. Issues in Ecology Technical Report: Biotic
Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, Global Consequences, and Control.
Engle, V.D., and J.K. Summers. 1999. "Refinement, Validation, and Application of a
Benthic Condition Index for Northern Gulf of Mexico Estuaries." Estuaries
22(3A):624-635.
Engle, V.D., J.K. Summers, and G.R. Gaston. 1994. "A Benthic Index of
Environmental Condition of Gulf of Mexico Estuaries." Estuaries 17:372-384.
Fournie, J.W, J.K. Summers, and S.B. Weisberg. 1996. "Prevalence of Gross
Pathological Abnormalities in Estuarine Fishes." Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 125(4):581-590.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 10 References
Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP). 2000. A Framework for an Integrated and
Comprehensive Monitoring Plan for the Estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico.
EPA-620/R-00/005.
Hefner, J.M., B.C. Wilen, I.E. Dahl, and W.E. Prayer. 1994. Southeast Wetlands Status
and Trends, mid-1970s to mid-1980s. United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service and United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Hyland, J.L., TJ. Herrlinger, T.R. Snoots, A.H. Ringwood, R.F. Van Dolah, C.T.
Hackney, G.A. Nelson, J.S. Rosen, and S.A. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental
Quality of Estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. NOAA Tech. Memo.
NOS ORCA 97. Silver Spring, MD.
Hyland, J.L., L. Balthis, C.T. Hackney, G. McRae, A.H. Ringwood, T.R. Snoots, R.F.
Van Dolah, and T.L. Wade. 1998. Environmental Quality of Estuaries of the
Carolinian Province: 1995. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS ORCA 123. Silver Spring,
MD.
Liner E.B., H.P. Hatry, and S. Rossman. 1994. Measuring Progress of Estuary
Programs: A Manual. EPA-842-B-94-008. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Long, E.R., and L.G. Morgan. 1990. The Potential for Biological Effects of
Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends
Program. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 52. Seattle, WA.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and ED. Calder. 1995. "Incidence of
Adverse Biological Effects Within Ranges of Chemical Concentrations in
Marine and Estuarine Sediments." Environmental Management 19(l):81-97.
Long, E.R., A. Robertson, D.A. Wolfe, J. Hameedi, and G.M. Sloane. 1996. "Estimates
of the Spatial Extent of Sediment Toxicity in Major U.S. Estuaries."
Environmental Sciences & Technology 30(12):3585-3592.
Long, E.R., LJ. Field, and D.D. MacDonald. 1998a. "Predicting Toxicity in Marine
Sediments with Numerical Sediment Quality Guidelines." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 17(4):714-727.
Long, E.R., G.I. Scott, J. Kucklick, M. Fulton, B. Thompson, R.S. Carr, K.J. Scott, G.T.
Chandler, J.W Anderson, and G.M. Sloane. 1998b. Magnitude and Extent of
Sediment Toxicity in Selected Estuaries of South Carolina and Georgia. NOAA
Tech. Memo. NOS ORCA 128. Silver Spring, MD.
Long, E., J. Hameedi, A. Robertson, M. Dutch, S. Aasen, C. Ricci, and K. Welch. 1999.
Sediment Quality in Puget Sound: Year 1, Northern Puget Sound. Washington
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 221 pp.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 10 References
Macauley, J.M., J.K. Summers, and V.D. Engle. 1999. "Estimating the Ecological
Condition of the Estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico." Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment 57'(1):59-83.
May, M., J. Davis, B. Thompson, and R. Hoenicke. 2000. The Pulse of the Estuary:
Tracking Contamination with the Regional Monitoring Program 1993-1998.
San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. http://www.sfei.org/rmp.
Messer, J.J., R.L. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. 1991. "An EPA Program for
Monitoring Ecological Status and Trends." Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 17:67'-78.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1988. Federal
Plan for Ocean Pollution Research Development and Monitoring: Fiscal Years
1988-1992. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National
Oceanic Pollution Program Office, Rockville, MD.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1997. The
1995 National Shellfish Register of Classified Growing Waters. Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments
Division, Silver Spring, MD. 398 pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998 (online).
"Population: Distribution, Density and Growth" by Thomas J. Culliton.
NOAAs State of the Coast Report. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA.
http://state-of-coast.noaa.gOv/bulletins/h tml/pop_01/pop.html.
National Research Council (NRG). 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban
Areas. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRG). 1997. Striking a Balance: Improving Stewardship
of Marine Areas. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.
National Research Council (NRG). 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and
Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. National Academy Press.
Washington, DC.
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 1997. Integrating the Nation's
Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed
Framework. Final Report of the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources, Environmental Monitoring Team, Washington, DC. 96 pp.
O'Connor, T.P., K.D. Daskalakis, J.L. Hyland, J.F. Paul, and J.K. Summers. 1998.
"Comparisons of Sediment Toxicity with Predictions Based on Chemical
Guidelines." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17(3):468-471.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 10 References
Onuf, C.P. 1995. "Seagrass Meadows of the Laguna Madre of Texas." In: Coastal and
Marine Ecosystems. In: Our Living Resources—A Report to the Nation on the
Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, National Biological
Service.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch and WJ. Wiseman, Jr. 1999.
Characterization of Hypoxia: Topic 1 Report for the Integrated Assessment
of Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program
Decision Analysis Series No. 15. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program,
Silver Spring, MD. 167 pp.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 1998. Southern
California Bight 1994 Pilot Project. Volumes I-V. Westminster, CA.
Turner, R.E., and D.F. Boesch. 1988. "Aquatic Animal Production and Wetland
Relationships: Insights Gleaned Following Wetland Loss or Gain." pp. 25-39. In:
The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Vol. 1. Ecology of Wetlands. Timber
Press, Portland, OR.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1996. Population in Coastal Counties: April 1,1990
and July 1,1994. Population Distribution Branch.
http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/9094cstl.txt.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Address by Vice President Al
Gore on the 25th Anniversary of The Clean Water Act. October 18,1997, The
White House, Office of The Vice President.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Clean Water Action Plan:
Restoring America's Waters. EPA-840-98-001. 87 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Ecological Condition of
Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA-620-R-98-004. Office of Research and
Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000a. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras.
EPA-822-R-00-012. Office of Water (4304), Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000b. Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk
Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. EPA-823-B-00-008. Office of Water.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 10 References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000c. National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA). Office of Science and Technology, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2000d. National Water Quality
Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. EPA-841-R-00-001. 413 pp.
Van Dolah, R.F., J.L. Hyland, A.F. Holland, J.S. Rosen, and T.R. Snoots. 1999. "A
Benthic Index of Biological Integrity for Assessing Habitat Quality in Estuaries
of the Southeastern USA." Marine Environmental Reseach 48:(4-5):269-283.
Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.D. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, RJ. Diaz, and
J.B. Frithsen. 1997. "An Estuarine Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) for
Chesapeake Bay." Estuaries 20(1):149-158.
Wilcove, David S., David Rothstein, Jason Dubow, Ali Phillips, Elizabeth Losos.
1998. "Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States: Assessing
the Relative Importance of Habitat Destruction, Alien Species, Pollution,
Overexploitation, and Disease." BioScience 48(8):607-615.
Windom, H.L., SJ. Schropp, ED. Calder, J.D. Ryan, R.G. Smith, L.C. Burney, EG.
Lewis and C.H. Rawlinson. 1989. "Natural Trace Metal Concentrations in
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Sediments of the Southeastern United States."
Environmental Science & Technology 3:314-327.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
1
------- |