United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development/
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-620/R-03/002
December 2004
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2/
National Coastal
Condition Report II
-------
Lighthouse cover photo by Kim Ferguson, Waynesville, North Carolina
-------
Acknowledgments
lS COttStttl TCpOTt was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Water (OW). The EPA Project Manager for this
document was Barry Burgan, who provided overall project coordination. The principal author for this document
was Kevin Summers, Technical Director of ORD s National Coastal Assessment (NCA) Program within the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). EPA was supported in the development of this
document by Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and Johnson Controls World Services. The content of this report
was contributed by the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with many other local, state, and
federal agencies. Special appreciation is extended to the following team, who provided written materials, technical
information, reviews, and recommendations throughout the preparation of this document.
EPA
Kevin Summers, Office of Research and Development
Barry Burgan, Office of Water
Darrell Brown, Office of Water
Jeff Bigler, Office of Water
Gerald Pesch, Office of Research and Development
Henry Walker, Office of Research and Development
John Kiddon, Office of Research and Development
James Harvey, Office of Research and Development
Corey Garza, Office of Research and Development
Virginia Engle, Office of Research and Development
Lisa Smith, Office of Research and Development
Linda Harwell, Office of Research and Development
Walter Nelson, Office of Research and Development
Henry Lee, Office of Research and Development
Janet Lambertson, Office of Research
and Development
NOAA
Thomas O'Connor, National Ocean Service
Gary Matlock, National Ocean Service
Kenneth Sherman, National Marine
Fisheries Service
Tony Pait, National Ocean Service
Jeff Hyland, National Ocean Service
Donna Busch, National Marine
Fisheries Service
Marie-Christine Aquarone, National Marine
Fisheries Service
FWS
Thomas Dahl, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
Jimmy Johnston, U.S. Geological Survey
Pete Bourgeois, U.S. Geological Survey
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Executive Summary ES-1
Summary of the Findings ES-3
Describing Coastal Condition ES-4
Coastal Monitoring Data ES-4
Offshore Fisheries ES-7
Assessments and Advisories ES-7
Shortcomings of Available Data ES-9
Comparisons to the First National Coastal Condition Report ES-10
Chapter 1—Introduction 1
Why Are Coastal Waters Important? 1
Coastal Waters Are Valuable and Productive Natural Ecosystems 1
Coastal Waters Have Many Human Uses 2
Why Be Concerned about Coastal Condition? 3
Indices Used to Measure Coastal Condition 3
Purpose of This Report 5
Shortcomings of Available Data 6
Coastal Monitoring Data 7
Calculating Aquatic Life Use and Human Use Attainment 8
Aquatic Use Indices 8
Human Use Indices 16
How Indices Are Summarized 21
Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Fisheries Data 31
Assessment and Advisory Data 33
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 23
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories 23
Beach Advisories and Closures 23
Connections with Human Uses 24
Appendices 25
Chapter 2—National Coastal Condition 26
Coastal Monitoring Data 28
Water Quality Index 28
Sediment Quality Index 33
Benthic Index 45
Coastal Habitat Index 45
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index . . 47
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 49
Recovery from Biomass Depletion in Large Marine Ecosystems 49
Assessment and Advisory Data 50
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 50
Fish Consumption Advisories 58
Beach Advisories and Closures 61
Chapter 3—Northeast Coastal Condition 72
Coastal Monitoring Data 75
Water Quality Index 75
Sediment Quality Index 83
Benthic Index 89
Coastal Habitat Index 91
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 91
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 94
Demersal Fisheries 94
Pelagic Fisheries 95
Northeast Shelf Ecosystem Invertebrate Fisheries 97
Assessments and Advisory Data 98
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 98
Fish Consumption Advisories 100
Beach Advisories and Closures 101
Summary 108
Chapter 4—Southeast Coastal Condition 110
Coastal Monitoring Data 114
Water Quality Index 114
Sediment Quality Index 117
Benthic Index 122
Coastal Habitat Index 123
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 123
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 125
Reef Fish Resources 125
Sciaenids Fisheries 126
Menhaden Fishery 126
Mackerel Fisheries 127
Shrimp Fisheries 127
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Assessment and Advisory Data 130
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 130
Fish Consumption Advisories 131
Beach Advisories and Closures 132
Summary 134
Chapter 5—Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition 136
Coastal Monitoring Data 138
Water Quality Index 138
Sediment Quality Index 147
Benthic Index 152
Coastal Habitat Index 154
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 154
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 155
Reef Fish Resources 158
Menhaden Fishery 158
Mackerel Fisheries 159
Shrimp Fisheries 159
Assessment and Advisory Data 166
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 166
Fish Consumption Advisories 167
Beach Advisories and Closures 167
Summary 169
Chapter 6-—West Coastal Condition 172
Coastal Monitoring Data 173
Water Quality Index 174
Sediment Quality Index 175
Benthic Index 186
Coastal Habitat Index 187
Fish Tissue Contaminants 187
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 188
Salmon Fisheries 188
Pelagic Fisheries 188
Nearshore Fisheries 189
Groundfish Fisheries .189
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Assessment and Advisory Data 194
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 194
Fish Consumption Advisories 195
Beach Advisories and Closures 196
Summary 198
Chapter 7—Great Lakes Coastal Condition 200
Coastal Monitoring Data 201
Water Quality Index 202
Sediment Quality Index 203
Benthic Index 204
Coastal Habitat Index 205
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 206
Drinking Water Quality 206
Air Toxics Depositions 206
Assessments and Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 208
Fish Consumption Advisories 209
Beach Advisories and Closures 210
Summary 213
Chapter 8—Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii,
and Island Territories 216
Alaska Coastal Monitoring Data 217
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 219
Gulf of Alaska and East Bering Sea Ecosystems 219
Oceanographic and Climate Forcing in the East Bering Sea Ecosystem . . .219
Salmon Fisheries 222
Pelagic Fisheries 222
Groundfish Fisheries 222
Shellfish Fisheries 223
Nearshore Fisheries 224
Alaska Assessments and Advisories 225
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 225
Fish Consumption Advisories 225
Beach Advisories and Closures 225
Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Data 226
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 227
Invertebrate Fisheries 227
Coral Fisheries 227
Bottomfish Fisheries 228
Armorhead Fisheries 228
Nearshore Fisheries 229
Hawaii Assessment and Advisory Data 230
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 230
Fish Consumption Advisories 231
Beach Advisories and Closures 231
Puerto Rico Coastal Monitoring Data 232
Water Quality Index 233
Sediment Quality Index 236
Benthic Index 236
Coastal Habitat Index 238
Puerto Rico Assessment and Advisory Data 239
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 239
Fish Consumption Advisories 239
Beach Consumption Advisories 239
Other Island Systems Coastal Monitoring Data 242
American Samoa 242
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 242
Assessment and Advisory Data 242
Guam 243
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 243
Assessment and Advisory Data 243
Northern Mariana Islands 244
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 244
Assessment and Advisory Data 244
U.S. Virgin Islands 244
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 244
Assessment and Advisory Data 244
Summary 245
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 9—Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use 248
Overview of Galveston Bay 248
What Does Society Want Galveston Bay to Look Like? 249
How Well Are These Uses Being Met? 250
Marine Transportation 250
Oil and Gas Production 252
Manufacturing 252
Recreational Activities 252
Wildlife Habitat 252
Status of Fisheries in Galveston Bay 283
Commercial Fisheries 254
Recreational Fisheries 256
Can the Fish Be Eaten? 257
Human Uses and National Coastal Condition Report
Environmental Indicators 257
Appendix A 259
Appendix B 265
Appendix C 267
List of References 273
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Executive Summary
Coastal waters in the United States include estuaries, coastal wetlands, coral
reefs, mangrove and kelp forests, seagrass meadows, and upwelling areas. Critical
coastal habitats provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food for fmfish,
shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. The nation's coastal resources also provide
nesting, resting, feeding, and breeding habitat for 85% of waterfowl and other
migratory birds. Estuaries are bodies of water that provide transition zones
between the fresh water from rivers and the saline environment of the ocean.
This interaction produces a unique environment that supports wildlife and
fisheries and contributes substantially to the economy of the United States.
Section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act requires that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) report periodically on the condition of the nation's
waters. As part of this process, coastal states provide valuable information about
the condition of their coastal resources to EPA. However, because the individual
states use a variety of approaches for data collection and evaluation, it is difficult
to compare this information between states or on a national basis.
To better address questions about national coastal condition, EPA,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) agreed to participate in a multiagency effort to assess the condition
of the nation's coastal resources (U.S. EPA, 1998). The agencies chose to assess
condition using nationally consistent monitoring surveys in order to minimize
the problems created by compiling data collected using multiple approaches.
The results of these assessments are compiled periodically into a National Coastal
Condition Report.
The first National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR I), published in 2001,
reported that the nation's estuarine resources were in fair condition. The NCCR I
used available data from 1990 to 1996 to characterize about 70% of the nation's
estuarine resources. Agencies contributing these data included EPA, NOAA, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and USDA. This second National Coastal
Condition Report (NCCR II) is based on available data from 1997 to 2000.
These data are representative of 100% of estuarine acreage in the conterminous
48 states and Puerto Rico, and they show that the nation's estuaries continue
to be in fair condition. Agencies contributing data to this report include EPA,
NOAA, FWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Several state, regional,
and local organizations also provided information on the current condition of
the nation's coasts.
i *
-------
With each National Coastal Condition Report, the
collaborating agencies strive to provide a more compre-
hensive picture of the nation's coastal resources. The
NCCR II builds on the foundation provided by the
NCCR I, and efforts are under way to assess even more
areas using comparable and consistent methods.
Although the NCCR II provides some condition data for
Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. island commonwealths and territo-
ries, and the Great Lakes, these data are not comparable
with data provided for other regions. Current monitoring
efforts in Alaska, Hawaii, and the island common-
wealths and territories, however, will allow comparisons
in future National Coastal Condition Reports.
The NCCR II presents three main types of data:
(1) coastal monitoring data, (2) offshore fisheries data,
and (3) assessment and advisory data. The ratings of
coastal condition in the report are based primarily on
coastal monitoring data because these are the most
comprehensive and nationally consistent data available
related to coastal condition. One source of coastal
monitoring data is obtained through EPA's National
Coastal Assessment (NCA) Program, which provides
information on the condition of coastal estuaries for
most regions of the United States. The NCCR II relies
heavily on NCA estuarine data in assessing coastal
condition and uses NCA and other data to evaluate
five indicators of condition—water quality, sediment
quality, benthic community condition, coastal habitat
loss, and fish tissue contaminants—in each region of
the United States (Northeast Coast, Southeast Coast,
Gulf Coast, West Coast, Great Lakes, and Puerto Rico).
The resulting ratings for each indicator are then used to
calculate both the overall regional ratings and an overall
national rating of coastal condition. This national
assessment applies to 28 coastal states (20 ocean states,
6 Great Lakes states, and 2 ocean/Great Lakes states)
and Puerto Rico (Figure ES-1).
In addition to rating coastal condition based on
coastal monitoring data, the NCCR II summarizes
available information related to offshore fisheries and
Overall National
Coastal Condition
^
Water Quality Index
$£i Sediment Quality Index
4^ Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Surveys completed, but no indicator
data available until the next report.
11 Surveys completed, but no indicator
data available until the next report.
Figure ES-1. Overall national coastal condition based on results of the NCA Program, the Great Lakes State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference (SOLEC) Program, and FVVS's National Wetland Inventory (1997-2000).
ES.2 National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Executive Summary
beach advisories and closures. This information,
together with descriptions of individual monitoring
programs, paints a picture of the overall condition of
coastal resources in the United States.
Summary of the
Findings
This report is based on the large amount of moni-
toring data collected between 1997 and 2000 on the
condition of the estuarine and Great Lakes resources
of the United States. Ecological assessment of these data
shows that the nation's estuaries are in fair condition,
with poor conditions in the Northeast Coast and Puerto
Rico regions and fair conditions in the Southeast Coast,
Gulf Coast, Great Lakes, and West Coast regions. No
overall assessments were completed of Alaska, Hawaii,
Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana
Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands; however, surveys
of Alaska and Hawaii have been completed, samples are
being analyzed, and data will be available in 2004. New
ecological monitoring programs will permit a compre-
hensive and consistent assessment of all of the nation's
coastal resources by 2006.
The major findings of the 1997—2000 study period
are as follows:
• Overall condition of the nation's estuaries is fair. This
rating is based on five indicators of ecological condi-
tion: water quality index (including dissolved oxygen,
chlorophyll a, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water
clarity), sediment quality index (including sediment
toxicity, sediment contaminants, and sediment total
organic carbon [TOC]), benthic index, coastal
habitat index, and a fish tissue contaminants index.
Twenty-one percent of assessed resources are
unimpaired (good condition), whereas 35% are
impaired (poor condition) and 44% are threatened
(fair condition) for aquatic life use or human use.
Twenty-five percent of estuarine waters are impaired
for swimming, based on the water clarity data
presented in this report. Water clarity represents
the aesthetic component of this human use. The
suitability of estuarine waters for swimming is best
measured using microbial measures, which are not
included in this report.
Twenty-two percent of estuarine waters are impaired
for fishing, based on the risk-based noncancer guide-
lines for moderate consumption. Suitability of waters
for fishing is measured using the fish tissue contami-
nants index in this report.
Twenty-eight percent of estuarine waters are impaired
for aquatic life use. Suitability of waters for aquatic
life use is measured using the water quality, sediment
quality, benthic, and habitat loss indices in this report.
The indicators that show the poorest conditions
throughout the United States are coastal habitat
condition, sediment quality, and benthic condition.
The indicators that generally show the best condition
are the individual components of water quality—
dissolved oxygen and dissolved inorganic nitrogen
(DIN) (Table ES-1).
Table ES-I. Rating Scores3 by Indicator and Region
Northeast
Indicator Coast
Water Quality Index 2
Sediment Quality
Index 1
Benthic Index 1
Coastal Habitat
1 Index 4
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index 1
Overall Condition 1 .8
Southeast
Coast
4
4
3
3
5
3.8
Gulf West Great Puerto
Coast Coast Lakes Rico
3C 3 3 3
3211
2321
1 1 2 — d
3 1 3 — d
2.4 2.0 2.2 1.7
United
States"
3.0
2.1
2.0
1.7
2.7
2.3
a Rating scores are based on a S-point system, where I is poor and S is good.
b The U.S. score is based on an aerially weighted mean of regional scores.
c This rating score does not include the impact of the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf Coast waters.
d No coastal habitat index loss or fish tissue contaminants index results were available for Puerto Rico.
National Coastal Condition Report II ES.3
-------
Table ES-2. Percent Area in Poor Condition3 by Indicator (except Coastal Habitat Index) and Region
Northeast
Indicator Coast
Water Quality lndexb
Sediment Quality
lndexd
Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat
Index6
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index'
Overall Poor
Condition^
19
16
22
1.00
31
40h
Southeast
Coast
5
8
II
1.06
5
23
Gulf
Coast
9C
12
17
1.30
14
40
West Great
Coast Lakes
3 —
14 —
13 —
1.90 —
27 —
23 —
Puerto United
Rico States
9 II
61 13
35 17
— 1.26
— 22
77 35
a The percent area of poor condition is the percentage of total estuarine surface area in the region or the nation (proportional area
information is not available for the Great Lakes).
b The water quality index is based on a combination of water quality measurements (dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a, nitrogen, phosphorus,
and water clarity).
c The area of poor condition does not include the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf Coast waters.
d The sediment quality index is based on a combination of sediment quality measurements (sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants,
and sediment TOC).
e The coastal habitat index is based on the average of the mean long-term, decadal wetland loss (1780-1990) and the present decadal wetland
loss rate (1990-2000).
f The fish tissue contaminants index is based on analyses of whole fish (not fillets).
g The overall percentage is based on the overlap of the five indicators and includes estuarine area for all of the conterminous 48 states
(by region and total) and Puerto Rico.
h In Northeast Coast estuaries, at least one of the five indicators is rated poor at sites representing 40% of total estuarine area.
Describing Coastal
Condition
Three types of data are presented in this report:
• Coastal Monitoring Data—data from programs
such as EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) and the NCA
Program, NOAA's National Status and Trends
(NS&T) Program, and FWS's National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI), as well as Great Lakes information
from the State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
(SOLEC). These data are used in this report to
develop indicators of condition that are then
used to calculate regional and national ratings
of coastal condition.
• Offshore Fisheries Data—data from programs
such as NOAA's Marine Monitoring and Assessment
Program (MARMAP) and Southeast Area Monitoring
and Assessment Program (SEAMAP). These data are
used in this report to assess the condition of coastal
fisheries in large marine ecosystems (LMEs).
• Assessment and Advisory Data—data provided by
states or other regulatory agencies that are compiled
in nationally maintained databases. The agencies
contributing data use different methodologies and
criteria for assessment; therefore, the data cannot be
used to make broad-based comparisons among the
different coastal areas. These data provide informa-
tion about designated use support, which affects
public perception of coastal condition as it relates
to public health.
Coastal Monitoring Data
About 21% of the estuarine area in the contiguous
48 states and Puerto Rico is in good condition for
supporting aquatic life and human uses (Figure ES-2).
About 28% of the estuarine area shows evidence of
impaired aquatic life use, and 22% shows evidence of
ES.4 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Executive Summary
impaired human use. An additional 44% of estuarine
waters show threatened aquatic life and human uses.
For EPA, issues regarding coastal condition can
often be reduced to three simple questions: Are the
waters swimmable? Are the waters fishable? Do the
waters support aquatic life? This report can address
all three questions.
• Swimming. Suitability for swimming is best
analyzed using a measure of microbial contamination
of estuarine waters or sediments. However, the NCA
has not been able to develop a microbial indicator
that is consistently collected throughout U.S.
estuarine waters that can meet all quality assurance
requirements. The most applicable indicator
measured by the NCA that can be used to address
swimming is water clarity (an aesthetic indicator).
About 25% of estuarine waters assessed have poor
water clarity.
• Fishing. Twenty-two percent of sites sampled for
fish in the United States exceed risk-based noncancer
guidelines for consumption of four 8-ounce meals
per month. An additional 15% of sites show conta-
minant concentrations within the range of these
noncancer guidelines. The suitability of waters for
fishing is measured using the fish tissue contaminants
index, which received a national rating of fair.
• Aquatic Life Use. Based on the water quality index,
sediment quality index, benthic index, and coastal
habitat index, 28% of U.S. estuarine surface area
is impaired for aquatic life use.
Threatened
44%
Unimpaired
21%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
13%
Impaired Human Use
7%
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
15%
Figure ES-2. National estuarine condition (U.S. EPA/NCA).
The overall condition of the nation's estuarine waters
is fair (Figure ES-3). This rating is based on the combi-
nation of the five component indicators: water quality
index, sediment quality index, benthic index, coastal
habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants index.
Supplemental information (e.g., information on water
clarity, dissolved oxygen, DIN, dissolved inorganic
phosphorus [DIP], chlorophyll a, sediment contami-
nants, sediment toxicity, and sediment TOC), when
available, is also presented throughout this report
according to the rating criteria presented in Table ES-3.
These five indicators were assigned a good, fair, or poor
rating for each coastal region of the United States. The
ratings were then averaged to create an overall score for
each coastal area.
Figure ES-3.
The overall estuarine
condition for the
nation is fain
Overall National I I
Coastal Condition V 7
(2.3) V
| Good
Fair
Poor |
[g| Water Quality Index (3.0)
L^J Sediment Quality Index (2.1)
[^] Benthic Index (2.0)
J Coastal Habitat Index (1.7)
\+A Fish Tissue Index (2.7)
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).
National Coastal Condition Report II ES.5
-------
Table ES-3. Indicators Used to Assess Coastal Condition (NCA)
Icon
Sediment
Quality
Index
Water Quality Index is an index that is based on five water quality measurements (dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity).
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: No measures are rated poor, and
a maximum of one is rated fair.
Fair: One measure is rated poor, or
two or more measures are fair.
Poor: Two or more measures are
rated poor.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of coastal waters are in poor condition,
and less than 50% of coastal waters are in combined
poor and fair condition.
Fair: Between 10% and 20% of coastal waters are in poor
conditioner more than 50% of coastal waters are in
combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: More than 20% of coastal waters are in poor condition.
Sediment Quality Index is an index that is based on three sediment quality measurements (sediment toxicity,
sediment contaminants, and sedimentTOC).
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: No measures are rated poor, and
the sediment contaminants
indicator is rated good.
Fair: No measures are rated poor,
and the sediment contaminants
indicator is rated fair.
Poor: One or more measures are
rated poor.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 5% of coastal sediments are in poor condition,
and less than 50% of coastal sediments are in combined
poor and fair condition.
Fair: Between 5 and 15% of coastal sediments are in poor
conditioner more than 50% of coastal sediments are
in combined poor and fair condition.
Poor: More than 15% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
Benthic Index (or a surrogate measure) is an indicator of the condition of the benthic community (organisms living
in estuarine sediments) and can include measures of benthic community diversity, the presence and abundance of
pollution-tolerant species, and the presence and abundance of pollution-sensitive species.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good, fair, and poor were
determined using regionally
dependent benthic index scores.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of coastal sediments have a poor benthic
index score, and less than 50% of coastal sediments have a
combined poor and fair benthic index score.
Fair: Between 10% and 20% of coastal sediments have a poor
benthic index score, or more than 50% of coastal sedi-
ments have a combined poor and fair benthic index score.
Poor: More than 20% of coastal sediments have a poor benthic
index score.
Coastal Habitat Index is evaluated using the data from the NWI (NWI,2002). The NWI contains data on estu-
arine-emergent and tidal flat acreage for all coastal states (except Hawaii and Puerto Rico) for 1780 through 2000.
Ecological Condition by Site
The average of the mean long-term, decadal
wetland loss rate (1780-1990) and the
present decadal wetland loss rate (1990-
2000) was determined for each region of the
United States and multiplied by 100 to create
a coastal habitat index score.
Ranking by Region
Good: The coastal habitat index score is less than 1.0.
Fair: The coastal habitat index is between 1.0 and 1.25.
Poor: The coastal habitat index is greater than 1.25.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index concentrations are an indicator of the level of chemical contamination in
target fish/shellfish species.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: Composite fish tissue contaminant
concentrations are below the EPA
Guidance concentration range.
Fair: Composite fish tissue contaminant
concentrations are in the EPA
Guidance concentration range.
Poor: Composite fish tissue contaminant
concentrations are above the EPA
Guidance concentration range.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of estuarine sites are in poor condition,
and less than 50% are in combined fair and poor
condition.
Fair: From 10 to 20% of estuarine waters are in poor condi-
tioner more than 50% are in combined fair and poor
condition.
Poor: More than 20% of sites have poor condition.
ES.6 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Executive Summary
A summary of each indicator is presented below.
• "Water Quality Index; This index is rated fair
throughout the United States; however, a slightly
larger proportion of waters in Northeast Coast
estuaries are in poor condition (19%), resulting
in a rating of fair to poor.
• Sediment Quality Index; This index is rated fair
to poor for the United States. Sediment quality is
poor for the Northeast Coast, Great Lakes, and
Puerto Rico. Sediment quality in the remainder
of the country's estuarine waters is in fair condition.
Many regions of the United States have significant
sediment degradation, including contaminant
concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesti-
cides, and metals that are above EPA Guidance
levels. Most of these exceedances occur in Northeast
Coast and Puerto Rico estuaries. High concentra-
tions of sediment TOC (often associated with the
deposition of human, animal, and plant wastes) are
observed in 44% of Puerto Rico estuaries.
• Benthic Index; Benthic condition is fair to poor in
most of the United States. Poor condition is observed
in Northeast Coast and Puerto Rico estuaries, largely
as a result of degraded sediment quality; however, in
some cases, it is associated with poor water quality
conditions, low dissolved oxygen, and elevated
nutrient concentrations.
• Coastal Habitat Index; This index is rated poor for
the nation's estuaries. Coastal wetland losses from
1780 to 2000 were greater than or equal to 1% per
decade in each region. The index score was greater
than 1.25 in coastal wetland areas of the West Coast
and the Gulf of Mexico.
• Fish Tissue Contaminants Index; The overall rating
for fish tissue contaminants for the nation is fair. Fish
tissue contaminant concentrations are above EPA
Guidance levels in fish captured in Northeast Coast
and West Coast estuaries for 4 of the 75 contami-
nants measured (total PCBs, total PAHs, total
dichloro-diphenyltrichlorethane [DDT], and
mercury). Projections in fillets based on whole-body
concentrations show that mercury concentrations in
fillets are likely to exceed EPA Guidance levels for
about 42% of sites in the United States. Fish tissue
contaminant concentrations were not available for
estuaries in Puerto Rico, Florida, and Louisiana.
Offshore Fisheries
Currently, the only comprehensive, nationally consis-
tent data on the condition of offshore coastal waters are
fisheries resource data from NOAA surveys. In 2001,
NOAA's Office of Sustainable Fisheries reported on the
status of 595 marine fish and shellfish stocks out of 951
total stocks (NMFS, 2002). Eighty-one stocks were
overfished (compared with 92 in 2000), and 67 of these
(83%) were steadily rebuilding. Twenty more stocks had
sustainable harvest rates in 2001 than did in 2000.
Sixty-five stocks experienced catches exceeding allowable
harvest levels. The National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) has approved rebuilding plans for the majority
of overfished stocks. Of the 81 stocks that are over-
fished, 67 have an approved rebuilding plan and 9
have plans under development.
Assessment and Advisory
Assessment information from the 2000 305(b) report
(data submitted by the states in 2000) is available for
36% of the nation's estuaries and 6% of the nation's
shoreline waters. Available information suggests that
51% of assessed estuaries and 14% of assessed shoreline
waters in the United States (excluding Alaska) are
impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degrada-
tion (Figure ES-4). This information is consistent with
the national coastal monitoring data presented in this
report. States and tribes rate water quality for CWA
Figure ES-4. Water quality for assessed estuaries of the United
States (US EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report II ES.7
-------
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. Aquatic life support, primary contact recre-
ation (swimming), and fish consumption are the desig-
nated uses that were most frequently impaired. The
leading stressors resulting in these impairments are
metals, pesticides, oxygen-depleting substances (oxygen
is consumed during the degradation of organic matter
and the oxidation of some inorganic matter), toxic
chemicals, PCBs, and dissolved solids.
The number of coastal and estuarine waters under
fish consumption advisories represent an estimated 74%
of the shoreline miles of the United States, including
92% of East Coast, 100% of Gulf Coast, and 11% of
West Coast shoreline miles. An estimated 50% of the
estuarine square miles also are under advisory, including
78% of East Coast estuaries, 23% of Gulf Coast estu-
aries, and 20% of West Coast estuaries (Figure ES-5).
Every Great Lake is under at least one advisory, and
advisories covered 100% of the Great Lakes shoreline
(U.S. EPA, 2003c).
EPA's review of coastal beaches (U.S. coastal areas,
estuaries, and the Great Lakes) showed that of the 1,813
marine or Great Lakes beaches responding to the survey,
529 beaches, or 29%, had an advisory or closing in
effect at least once during 2002 (Figure ES-6). Beach
closures were issued for various reasons, including
sewage contamination, elevated bacterial levels, and
preemptive reasons. The major sources of contamina-
tion were stormwater runoff, sewerline problems, sewer
overflows, and in many cases, unknown sources.
Number of
advisories per USGS
cataloging unit in 2002
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, 2003c).
ES.8 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Executive Summary
Percentage of
reporting beaches
with at least one
advisory or closure
in 2002:
Figure ES-6. Percentage of marine and Great Lakes beaches reporting with at least one advisory or closure in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Shortcomings of
Available Data
This report focuses on coastal regions for which
nationally consistent and comparable data are available.
Such data are currently available only for the contermi-
nous 48 states and Puerto Rico. Alaska has 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).
Nearly 75% of the area of all the bays, sounds, and
estuaries 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 is available for Hawaii,
the Caribbean, or the Pacific territories to support
estimates of conditions based on the indicators used in
this report. Although these latter systems make up only
a small portion of the nation's estuarine area, they do
represent a 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 off the Louisiana/
Texas coast. These unique systems should not be
excluded from future national assessments, and initial
condition surveys have already been completed for
monitoring programs in Hawaii and portions of Alaska.
This report tries to make the best use of available
data in order to characterize and assess the condition
of the nation's estuarine resources; however, the report
cannot represent all individual estuarine systems of the
United States or all of the appropriate spatial scales
(e.g., national, regional, and local) necessary to assess
the condition of estuaries. This assessment is based on
a limited number of ecological indicators for which
consistent data sets are available to support estimates
of ecological condition on regional and national scales.
Through a multiagency and multistate effort over the
continuing 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 the next
effort to gauge the health of the coastal ecosystems in
the United States be successful.
National Coastal Condition Report II ES.9
-------
Although most of the chapters in this report use
ecological indicators to address the condition of coastal
resources in each region, the last chapter addresses
coastal condition in the context of how well estuaries
are meeting the uses that humans expect of them.
Only one estuary, Galveston Bay, was considered
for this report. In this case, it appears that human uses
for commerce, fishing, and recreation are being met.
The exception is that fish consumption advisories
are required at the upper end of Galveston Bay
near Houston.
Comparisons to the First
-*•
National Coastal
Condition Report
A primary goal of the National Coastal Condition
Reports is to provide a benchmark of coastal condition
in order to measure the success of coastal programs over
time. To achieve this end, the conditions reported in
each report need to be comparable. For the first two
reports (NCCRI and NCCR II), there is insufficient
information to examine the potential trends in estuarine
condition that might be related to changes in environ-
mental programs and policies. In the next report (antici-
pated in 2006), the information from 1990 through
2002 will be evaluated for potential trends.
Comparing data between the NCCR I and NCCR
II is complicated because, in some cases, indicators
were changed in order to improve the assessment. For
example, in the NCCR I, seven indicators were used,
including multiple indicators for water quality, whereas
a single water quality indicator is used in the NCCR II.
In addition, reference conditions for some of the
indicators were modified to reflect regional differences.
In order to facilitate a comparison between these two
reports, the values reported in the NCCR I Executive
Summary were recalculated, to the extent possible,
using the approaches followed in the NCCR II and
are shown in Table ES-4. The table shows that overall
condition in U.S. estuaries is essentially the same as in
the NCCR I. A more detailed comparison of the results
reported in the two reports appears in Appendix C.
Table ES-4. Rating Scores3 by Indicator and Region Comparing the 2001 and 2004 National Coastal Condition
Reports, but Calculated with 2004 Methods.
Indicator
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Overall Condition
Northeast
Coast
vlc
1
2
1
3
2
1.8
v2c
2
1
1
4
1
1.8
Southeast
Coast
vl
4
4
3
2
5
3.6
v2
4
4
3
3
5
3.8
Gulf
Coast
vl
1
3
1
1
3
1.8
v2
3
3
2
1
3
2.4
West
Coast
vl
1
2
3
1
3
2.0
v2
3
2
3
1
1
2.0
Great
Lakes
vl
1
1
1
1
3
1.4
v2
3
1
2
2
3
2.2
Puerto United
Rico States'5
v 1 v2 v 1
— 3 1.5
1 2.3
— 1 1.5
-d 1.6
3.1
1 .7 2.0
v2
3.0
2.1
2.0
1.7
2.7
2.3
a Rating scores are based on a S-point system, where I is poor and 5 is good (scores for Puerto Rico are only available for 2004 report).
b U.S. score is based on an areally weighted mean of regional scores.
c y\ = NCCR I,v2 = NCCR II
d No coastal habitat index or fish tissue contaminants index results are available for Puerto Rico.
IES.10 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
•
Chapter 1
Introduction
The second National Coastal Condition Report (NCCRII), a comprehensive
report on the condition of the nation's estuarine waters and coastal fisheries, is
a collaborative effort between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in coop-
eration with other agencies representing states and tribes.
In the first National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR I; U.S. EPA,
2001 b), the condition of the nation's coasts was assessed using data from
1990 to 1996 that were provided by several existing coastal programs,
including EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP),
FWS's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and NOAA's National Status and
Trends (NS&T) Program. The NCCR II is similar to the NCCR I, but
contains more recent data from these programs (1997—2000), as well as data
from EPA's National Coastal Assessment (NCA) Program and NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) surveys (but with no changes in
collection methodologies). The data provided by these programs allowed for
the development of coastal condition indicators for 100% of the estuarine area
of the conterminous 48 states and Puerto Rico. Surveys for portions of Alaska
and Hawaii were completed in 2002. The information from those surveys will
be available in 2005 and will be presented in the next National Coastal
Condition Report in 2006. No NCA surveys have been completed for the
Great Lakes region; therefore, regional non-probability assessments of those
waters, based on judgmental sites, have been included in this report.
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Why Are Coastal Waters Important?
Coastal Waters are Valuable and
Productive Natural Ecosystems
Coastal waters include estuaries, coastal wetlands,
seagrass meadows, coral reefs, mangrove and kelp
forests, and upwelling areas. Critical coastal habitats
provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food
for finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. The coasts
also provide essential nesting, resting, feeding, and
breeding habitat for 85% of U.S. waterfowl and other
migratory birds.
Estuaries are bodies of water that receive freshwater
and sediment influx from rivers and tidal influx from
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 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 buffer
coastal areas against storm and wave damage; however,
because of their close interface with terrestrial systems,
wetlands are vulnerable to land-based sources of
pollutant discharges and other human activities.
Coastal Waters Have Many
Human Uses
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
more than one-half of the U.S. population lives in less
than one-fifth of the total area of the conterminous 48
states (NRC, 2000). Further, this coastal population is
increasing by 3,600 people per day, giving a projected
total increase of 27 million people by 2015- This rate of
growth is faster than that of the nation as a whole
(Figure 1-2).
The Brown Pelican (Pe/econus ocddentalis), an endangered
species, feeds on schooling fish near the ocean's surface by
plunging beak-first from the air In the 1960s, chemical
dichlorodiphenyltrichlorethane (DDT) almost caused the
demise of the brown pelican. Pelicans exposed to DDT laid
eggs with thin or non-existent shells that broke during
nesting, thus reducing the number of surviving offspring.
Since DDT was banned in 1972, brown pelicans have
made a remarkable recovery and there are permanent
brown pelican nesting colonies on both Anacapa and Santa
Barbara Islands, (photo: Shane Anderson)
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
I
Figure l-l. Population distribution
in the United States, based on 2000
U.S. Census Bureau data.
In addition to being a popular place to live, the U.S.
coasts are of great recreational value. 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). Sport
fishing, boating, and diving are enjoyed by millions, as
is the simple pleasure of visiting the shore.
Human use of coastal areas also provides commercial
services. Almost 31% of the U.S. gross national product
(GNP) is produced in coastal counties, and roughly
85% of commercially harvested fish depend on estuaries
and nearby coastal waters at some stage in their life
cycle (NRC, 1997). Estuaries supply water for industrial
uses; lose water to freshwater diversions for drinking
and irrigation; are the critical terminals of the nation's
marine transportation system and Navy; provide a point
of discharge for municipalities and industries; and are
the downstream end of nonpoint source runoff.
The average U.S. marine fisheries annual catch of
7 million metric tons (mt) is approximately 4.5% of the
world's annual catch. The waters adjacent to the estu-
aries and wetlands of the United States, from 3 to 200
350
300
250
200
ISO
100
SO
A
/
--
1
-
-
—
—
r
£3
—
—
r
—
o
Year
Figure 1-2. Population density from 1 960 to 20 1 5 (NOAA,
I998b).
nautical miles, constitute the federal Exclusive
Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ). The waters within and
adjoining the U.S. EEZ have been designated as large
marine ecosystems (LMEs), based on their distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophic
relationships (NOAA, 1988b).
National Coastal Condition Report II 3
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Why Be Concerned about Coastal Condition?
Because a disproportionate percentage of the nation's
population lives in coastal areas, the activities of munici-
palities, 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 source runoff, loss of green
space and wildlife habitat, declines in ambient water
and sediment quality, and increased demands for waste-
water treatment, irrigation and 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, and the quan-
tity and timing of freshwater flow, critical to riverine
and estuarine function, continue to be altered. In effect,
the same human uses that are desired of coastal waters
also have the potential to lessen their value. This report
not only discusses indicators of coastal condition that
gauge the extent to which coastal habitats and resources
have been altered, but also addresses connections
between coastal condition and the ability of coastal
areas to meet human expectations for their use.
4 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Indices Used to Measure 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. Three types of data
are presented in this report:
• Coastal monitoring data from programs such as
EPA's EMAP and the NCA Program, NOAA's
NS&T Program, FWS's NWI, and data from the
Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
have been analyzed for this report and used to
develop indices of condition
• Fisheries data for LMEs from the NMFS
• 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 48 states and
Puerto Rico; these data are then broken down and
analyzed at six geographic levels: Northeast Coast,
Southeast Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, Great Lakes,
and Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories (Figure 1-3).
These geographic regions are comparable to the LME
classifications used by NOAA (Table 1-1). The assess-
ment and advisory data are presented at the end of each
chapter. Although inconsistencies in the way different
state agencies collect and provide assessment and advi-
sory data prevent their use for comparing conditions
between coastal areas, the information is valuable
because it helps identify and illuminate some of the
causes of coastal impairment, as well as the impacts of
these impairments on human uses.
West
Coastal
Area
and LME
Northeast
Coastal Area
and LME
Southeast
Coastal Area
and LME
Alaska, Hawaii, and
Island Territories
Figure 1-3. Coastal and large marine ecosystem areas presented in the chapters of this report.
Table l-l. Comparison of NCA's Reporting Regions and NOAA's Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)
NCA Reporting Regions NOAA's LMEs
Northeast Coastal Area
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
Southeast Coastal Area
Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
Gulf Coastal Area
Gulf of Mexico LME
West Coastal Area
California Current LME
Alaska, Hawaii, and
Island Territories
East Bering Sea LME, Gulf of Alaska LME, Chukchi Sea LME, Beaufort Sea LME,
Insular Pacific-Hawaii LME, Caribbean Sea LME
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Three sources of estuarine information use nationally
consistent data-collection designs and methods—NCA,
NS&T, and NWI. The NCA Program collects these
data from all coastal areas in the United States, except
the Great Lakes region, and the data are representative
of all estuarine waters. The NS&T Program collects
data from all coastal regions in the United States;
however, the design of this survey does not permit
extrapolation of the data to represent all coastal waters.
The NWI provides estimates of wetland acreage
(including coastal wetlands) by wetland type based on
satellite reconnaissance of all U.S. states and territories.
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of the NCCR II is to present a broad
baseline picture of the condition of estuaries across the
United States for 1997 to 2000 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, and it is not intended
to be a comprehensive literature review of coastal
information. Instead, the report uses NCA and other
monitoring data on a variety of indicators to provide
insight into current coastal condition. The NCCR II
will serve as a continuing benchmark for analyzing the
progress of coastal programs and will be followed in
subsequent years by reports on more specialized coastal
issues. It will also serve as a reminder of the data gaps
and other pitfalls that assessors face and must try to
overcome in order to make reliable assessments of how
the condition of the nation's coastal resources may
change with time. Chapter 9 explores the connections
between the condition indicators and human uses of
coastal areas. Although the type of assessment described
in Chapter 9 cannot be conducted on scales larger than
a single estuary, it is important to address coastal condi-
tion at several spatial scales (e.g., national, regional, state,
and local). Chapter 9 provides an approach that
complements the national/regional approach by exam-
ining the same national/regional monitoring informa-
tion with additional site-specific information for a
specific estuary, Galveston Bay, in order to evaluate
conditions with regard to human uses.
This report also includes special highlight sections
that describe several exemplary programs related to
coastal condition at the federal, state, and local levels.
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 the
local and regional levels.
Shortcomings of Available Data
Estuarine condition in Alaska is difficult to assess
because very little information is available to support
the kind of analysis used in this report (i.e., spatial
estimates of condition based on indicators measured
consistently across broad regions). Nearly 75% of the
area of all the bays, sounds, and estuaries in the United
States is located in Alaska, and no national report on
estuarine condition can be complete without informa-
tion on the condition of living resources and use attain-
ment of these waters. Similarly, information to support
estimates of conditions based on the indicators used in
this report is limited for Hawaii, the Pacific territories,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Although these latter
systems make up only a small portion of the nation's
estuarine area, they 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 off the Texas/Louisiana coast.
Surveys of Puerto Rico were completed in 2000
and are also included in this report. Collection surveys
were completed for Hawaii and portions of Alaska in
2002 and will be included in the next National Coastal
Condition Report. In addition, new surveys of ecolog-
ical coastal condition for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific territories were
planned for 2004.
In order to attain consistent reporting in all of
the coastal ecosystems in the United States, fiscal
and intellectual resources need to be invested in 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
(http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/H2Ofin.pdf).
This strategy calls for a national program that is
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 academia and industry.
6 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
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 NCA Program, a national estuarine
monitoring program organized and executed at the state
level. However, the NCA Program is merely a starting
point for developing a comprehensive national coastal
monitoring program that can offer a nationwide coastal
assessment at all appropriate spatial scales. One
approach for examining coastal data at a more local
scale—an individual estuarine system—is presented
in Chapter 9-
Coastal Monitoring Data
A large percentage of the data used in this assessment
of coastal condition comes from programs administered
by EPA and NOAA. EPA's NCA Program provides
representative data on biota (e.g., plankton, benthos,
and fish) and environmental stressors (e.g., water
quality, sediment quality, and tissue bioaccumulation)
for all coastal states and Puerto Rico (except states in
the Great Lakes region). NOAA's NS&T Program
provides site-specific data on toxic contaminants and
their ecological effects for all coastal regions and Puerto
Rico. Coastal condition is also evaluated using informa-
tion from the FWS's NWI, which provides information
on the status of the nation's wetlands acreage.
Five primary indices were created using data available
from national coastal programs: water quality index,
sediment quality index, benthic index, coastal habitat
index, and fish tissue contaminants index. These indices
were selected because of the availability of relatively
consistent data sets for these indicators for most of the
country. These indices 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.
Characterizing coastal areas using each of the five
indicators involves two steps. The first step is to assess
condition at an individual site for each indicator. For
each indicator, site condition rating criteria are deter-
mined based on existing criteria, guidelines, or the
interpretation of scientific literature. For example,
dissolved oxygen conditions are considered poor if
dissolved oxygen concentrations are less than 2 mg/L
(2 milligrams of oxygen per liter of water). This value is
widely accepted as representative of hypoxic conditions;
therefore, this benchmark for poor condition is strongly
supported by scientific evidence (Diaz and Rosenberg,
1995; U.S. EPA, 2000a).
The second step is to assign a regional rating for the
indicator based on the condition of individual sites
within the region. For example, in order for a region
to be rated poor with regard to the dissolved oxygen
indicator, more than 15% of the coastal area in the
region must have dissolved oxygen measured at less than
2 mg/L. The regional criteria boundaries (i.e., percent-
ages used to rate each regional condition indicator) were
determined as a median of responses provided through
a survey of environmental managers, resource experts,
and the knowledgeable public.
Scientists retrieve aTucker net. ATucker net is comprised of three
nets to collect sample plankton from different water depths
(Jamie Hall).
National Coastal Condition Report II 7
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Calculating Aquatic Life Use and Human
Use Attainment
The results of the regional and national evaluations
of estuarine condition were used to assess aquatic life
use and human use attainment. If any of four indicators
of condition—water quality condition, sediment
quality, benthic condition, or habitat loss—received a
poor rating at a given site, then the site was assessed as
impaired for aquatic life use. Threatened aquatic life use
was assessed as the overlap of fair conditions of these
same indicators. For example, if two or more indicators
were rated as fair and none as poor, then the site was
listed as threatened (all sites had at least one fair rating
because the regional ratings for coastal habitat loss were
fair in all regions). A site was determined to be unim-
paired for aquatic life use if all four indicators were
rated good, or only one indicator was rated fair and no
indicators were rated poor.
National and regional evaluations for fish tissue cont-
aminants were used to assess human use attainment. If
the fish tissue contaminant concentrations exceeded the
concentration criteria ranges for risk-based consumption
of four 8-ounce meals per month for any contaminant,
the site was assessed as impaired for human use. A site
was considered to be threatened for human use if the
fish tissue contaminant concentrations fell within the
criteria ranges for risk-based consumption of four 8-
ounce meals per month. Sites were considered unim-
paired for human use if fish tissue concentrations fell
below the risk-based concentration guidance ranges for
consumption for all contaminants.
All spatial areas in a region or the nation were
assigned a category of (1) impaired for aquatic life use
only, (2) impaired for human use only, (3) impaired for
both aquatic life use and human use, (4) threatened (for
one or both uses), or (5) unimpaired (for both uses).
Aquatic Use Indices
The following indices examine coastal condition as it
relates to use by aquatic organisms.
E Water Quality Index
The water quality index is made up of five indica-
tors: nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, water clarity,
and dissolved oxygen. Some nutrient inputs to coastal
waters (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) are necessary
for a healthy, functioning estuarine ecosystem. When
nutrients from various sources, such as sewage and
fertilizers, are introduced into an estuary, the concentra-
tion of available nutrients will increase beyond natural
background levels. This increase in the rate of supply
of organic matter is called eutrophication, which may
result in a host of undesirable water quality conditions
(Figure 1-4). Excess nutrients can lead to excess plant
Phytoplankton Bloom
A thrives on nutrients
.%••
Sv
» \ Dissolved Oxygen
trapped in
lighter layer
matej'ia^
settl
^""" Decomposition
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
Figure 1-4. Eutrophication can occur when the concentration
of available nutrients increases beyond normal levels.
8 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
production, and thus, to increased chlorophyll, which
can decrease water clarity and lower concentrations of
dissolved oxygen.
The water quality index used in this report is
intended to characterize acutely degraded water quality
conditions. It does not consistently identify sites experi-
encing occasional or infrequent hypoxia, nutrient
enrichment, or decreased water clarity. As a result, a
rating of poor for the water quality index means that
the site is likely to have consistently poor condition
during the monitoring period. If a site is designated as
fair or good, the site did not experience poor condition
on the date sampled, but could be characterized by poor
condition for short time periods. In order to assess the
level of variability in the index at a specific site,
increased or supplemental sampling is needed.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and dissolved
inorganic phosphorus (DIP) are necessary and natural
nutrients required for the growth of phytoplankton.
However, excessive DIN and DIP can result in large,
undesirable phytoplankton blooms. For the NCCR I,
DIN and DIP information was determined through
a survey of estuarine experts conducted by NOAA
(Bricker et al., 1999). In the NOAA report, surface
maximum DIN values were assessed as high if they were
equal to or greater than 1 mg/L; medium if they were
less than 1 mg/L, but equal to or greater than 0.1 mg/L;
and low if they were less than 0.1 mg/L. Surface
maximum DIP values were assessed as high if they
were equal to or greater than 0.1 mg/L; medium if they
were less than 0.1 mg/L, but equal to or greater than
0.01 mg/L; and low if they were less than 0.01 mg/L.
The NOAA report included data from all months of
the year.
For the NCCR II, DIN and DIP were determined
chemically through the collection of filtered surface water
at each site. NCA surveys were conducted in late summer
(not the most likely period for maximal nutrient values
in East Coast and Gulf Coast estuaries, summer is the
period of expected peak concentrations for West Coast
estuaries). As a result, the DIN and DIP reference surface
concentrations used to assess condition in this report are
generally lower than those in the NOAA report because
of the natural reduction in nutrient concentrations due
to uptake by phytoplankton from spring to summer for
the production of chlorophyll.
Chapter 1 Introduction
Coastal monitoring sites were rated good, fair, or
poor for DIN and DIP using the criteria shown in
Tables 1-2 and 1-3- These ratings were then used to
calculate an overall rating for each region.
Table 1-2. Criteria for Assessing Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen
I
Area
Good
Fair
Poor
East/Gulf <0.l mg/L 0.1-0.5 mg/L >0.5 mg/L
Coast sites
West Coast
sites
Hawaii,
Puerto Rico,
and Florida
Bay sites
Regional
Scores
<0.5 mg/L
<0.05 mg/L
Less than 1 0%
of the coastal
area was in
poor condi-
tion, and more
than 50% of
the coastal
area was
in good
condition.
0.5- 1.0 mg/L
0.05-0.1 mg/L
10% to 25%
of the coastal
area was in
poor condi-
tion, or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area was
in combined
poor and fair
condition.
>l mg/L
>0.l mg/L
More than 25%
of the coastal
area was
in poor
condition.
Table 1-3. Criteria for Assessing Dissolved Inorganic
Phosphorus
Area
East/Gulf
Coast sites
West Coast
sites
Hawaii,
Puerto Rico,
and Florida
Bay sites
Regional
Scores
Good
0.05 mg/L
>0.l mg/L
>O.OI mg/L
More than 25%
of the coastal
area was
in poor
condition.
National Coastal Condition Report II 9
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chlorophyll a
For this report, surface concentrations of chlorophyll a
were determined from a filtered portion of water
collected at each site and were rated good, fair, or
poor using the criteria shown in Table 1-4. These
ratings were then used to calculate an overall rating
for each region.
Table 1-4. Criteria for Assessing Chlorophyll a
Area
East/Gulf,
West Coast
sites
Hawaii,
Puerto Rico,
Florida Bay
sites
Regional
Scores
Good
<5 ug/L
<0.5 ug/L
20 ug/L
>l Mg/L
>5 ug/L
More than 20%
of the coastal
area was
in poor
condition.
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 (SAV), which serves
as food and habitat for the resident biota. The NCA
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, as well
as by using a Secchi disk. Water clarity varies naturally
among various parts of the nation; therefore, the water
clarity indicator (WCI) is based on a ratio of observed
clarity to regional reference conditions: WCI =
(observed clarity at 1 meter)/(regional reference clarity
at 1 meter). The regional reference conditions were
determined by examining available data for each of the
U.S. regions. Conditions were set at 10% of incident
light available at a depth of 1 meter for normally turbid
locations (most of the United States), 5% for naturally
highly turbid conditions (Louisiana, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Delaware Bay), and 20% for regions of
the country with significant SAV beds or active
programs for SAV restoration (southern Laguna Madre,
the Big Bend region of Florida, the region from Tampa
Bay to Florida Bay, the Indian River Lagoon, and
portions of Chesapeake Bay). Table 1-5 summarizes the
rating criteria for water clarity for each monitoring
station and for the regions.
Table 1-5. Criteria for Assessing Water Clarity
Area
Individual
sampling
sites
Regional
Scores
Good
WCI ratio is
greater than
2.
Less than 1 0%
of the coastal
area was in
poor condi-
tion, and more
than 50% of
the coastal
area was
in good
condition.
Fair
WCI ratio is
between
1 and 2.
10% to 25%
of the coastal
area was in
poor condi-
tion, or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area was
in combined
poor and fair
condition.
Poor
WCI ratio is
less than 1 .
More than 25%
of the coastal
area was
in poor
condition.
WCI= (observed clarity at I meter)/(regional reference clarity at
I meter)
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is necessary for all estuarine life.
Many states use a threshold average concentration of
4 to 5 rng/L to set their water quality standards.
Concentrations below approximately 2 mg/L 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 affect
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. In some estuaries, however, low levels
of oxygen occur periodically or may be a part of the
natural ecology. Therefore, although it is easy to show
a snapshot of the conditions of the nation's estuaries
concerning oxygen concentrations, it is difficult to
interpret whether this snapshot is representative of all
summertime periods (e.g., representative of variable
daily conditions in Narragansett Bay) or the result of
natural physical processes. Unless otherwise noted, the
dissolved oxygen data presented in this report were
10 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
collected under the NCA Program. Dissolved oxygen
was rated good, fair, or poor using the criteria shown
in Table 1-6.
Table 1-6. Criteria for Assessing Dissolved Oxygen
Area Good Fair Poor
Individual
sampling
sites
Regional
Scores
> 5 mg/L
Less than 5%
of the coastal
area was in
poor condi-
tion, and more
than 50% of
the coastal
area was
in good
condition.
2-5 mg/L
5% to 1 5%
of the coastal
area was in
poor condi-
tion, or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area was
in combined
poor and fair
condition.
< 2 mg/L
More than 1 5%
of the coastal
area was
in poor
condition.
Calculating the Water Quality Index
Once DIN, DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity, and
dissolved oxygen were assessed for a given site, the water
quality index rating was calculated for the site based on
these five indicators. The index was rated good, fair, or
poor using the criteria shown in Table 1-7-
Table 1-7. Criteria for Determining the Water Quality
Index Rating by Site
Rating Criteria
Good
A maximum of one indicator is fair, and no
indicators are poor.
Fair One of the indicators is rated poor, or two
or more indicators are rated fair.
Poor
Two or more of the five indicators are
rated poor.
Missing Two components of the indicator are missing,
and the available indicators do not suggest a
fair or poor rating.
The water quality index was then calculated for each
region using the criteria in Table 1-8.
Table 1-8. Criteria for Determining the Water Quality
Index Rating by Region
Rating
Good
Fair
Poor
1
1
Criteria
Less than 10% of coastal waters are in poor
condition, and less than 50% of coastal waters
are in combined poor and fair condition.
10% to 20% of coastal waters are in poor
condition, or more than 50% of coastal waters
are in combined fair and poor condition.
More than 20% of coastal waters are in poor
condition.
Sediment Quality Index
Another issue of major environmental concern in
estuaries is the contamination of sediments with toxic
chemicals. A wide variety of metals and organic
substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesti-
cides, are discharged into estuaries from urban, agricul-
tural, and industrial sources in the watershed. The cont-
aminants adsorb onto suspended particles and eventu-
ally accumulate in depositional basins where they can
disrupt the benthic community of invertebrates, shell-
fish, and crustaceans that live in or on the sediments. To
the extent that the contaminants become concentrated
in the organisms, they pose a risk to organisms
throughout the food web—including humans.
Several factors influence the extent and severity of
contamination. Fine-grained, organic-rich sediments are
likely to become resuspended and transported to distant
locations and are also efficient at scavenging pollutants.
Thus, silty sediments high in total organic carbon (TOC)
are potential sources of contamination. Conversely,
organic-rich particles bind some toxicants so strongly
that the threat to organisms can be greatly reduced. The
NCA Program measured the concentrations of 91
chemical constituents in sediments and evaluated sedi-
ment toxicity by measuring the survival of the marine
amphipod Ampelisca abdita following exposure to the
sediments. The results of this research may be used to
identify the most polluted areas and give clues regarding
the sources of contamination.
The physical and chemical characteristics of surface
sediments are the result of interacting forces that control
chemical input and particle dynamics at any particular
site. In assessing coastal condition, researchers measure
the potential for sediments to affect bottom-dwelling
organisms. The sediment quality index is based on three
indicators of sediment condition: direct measures of
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and the sedi-
ment TOC concentration.
Some researchers and managers would prefer that the
sediment triad (sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity,
and benthic communities) be used to assess sediment
condition (poor condition would require all three
elements to be poor), or that poor sediment condition
be determined based on the joint occurrence of elevated
National Coastal Condition Report II 11
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
sediment contaminant concentrations and high
sediment toxicity (see text box). Benthic community
attributes are included in this assessment of estuarine
condition as an independent variable rather than as a
component of sediment quality.
In this report, the focus of the sediment quality
index is on sediment condition, not just sediment
toxicity. Attributes of sediments other than toxicity can
result in unacceptable changes in biotic communities.
For example, organic enrichment through wastewater
disposal can have an undesired effect on biota, and
elevated contaminant levels can have undesirable
ecological effects (e.g., changes in benthic community
structure) that are not directly related to acute toxicity
(as measured by the Ampelisca test). For these reasons,
the sediment quality index used in this report uses the
combination of sediment toxicity, sediment contami-
nants, and sediment TOC to assess sediment condition.
The condition of estuarine sediment is assessed as poor
(high potential for exposure effects on biota) if any one
of the elements is categorized as poor; condition is
assessed as fair if the sediment contaminants indicator is
fair; and condition is assessed as good if all three indices
are at levels that would be unlikely to result in adverse
biological effects due to sediment quality.
Alternative Views for a Sediment Quality Index
Some resource managers object to using effects range
median (ERM) and effect reange low (ERL) values to
calculate the NCCR II sediment quality index because
the index is also based on actual measurements of
toxicity. Because ERMs are acknowledged to be no
greater than 50% predictive of toxicity, these managers
believe that the same weight should not be given to a
nontoxic sample with an ERM exceedance as is given
to a sample that is actually toxic. O'Connor et al.
(1998), using a 1,508-sample EPA and NOAA database,
found that 38% of ERM exceedances coincided with
amphipod toxicity (i.e., were toxic), 13% of the ERL
exceedances (no ERM exceedance) were toxic; and
only 5% of the samples that did not exceed ERL values
were toxic. O'Connor and Paul (2000) expanded the
1,508-sample data set to 2,475 samples, and the results
remained relatively unchanged (41% of the ERM
exceedances were toxic, and only 5% of the nonex-
ceedances were toxic). As a result, these researchers
and managers believe that the sediment quality index
used in this report should not result in a poor rating if
sediment contaminant criteria are exceeded, but the
sediment is not toxic.
Sediment Toxicity
Researchers applied a standard direct test of toxicity
at thousands of sites to measure the survival of
amphipods (commonly found, shrimp-like benthic
crustaceans) exposed to sediments for 10 days under
laboratory conditions. As in all tests of toxicity, survival
was measured relative to that of amphipods exposed to
reference sediment. The criteria for rating sediment
toxicity based on amphipod survival for each sampling
site are shown in Table 1-9- Table 1-10 shows how these
site data were used to evaluate the region.
Table 1-9. Criteria for Assessing Sediment Toxicity
by Site
Rating Criteria
Good
Poor
\
The amphipod survival rate is greater than
or equal to 80%.
The amphipod survival rate is less than 80%.
Table 1-10. Criteria for Assessing Sediment Toxicity
by Region
Rating
Criteria
Good I Less than 5% of coastal areas are in
I poor condition.
Poor I More than 5% of coastal areas are in
I poor condition.
Sediment Contaminants
There are no absolute chemical concentrations that
correspond to sediment toxicity, but ERL and ERM
values are used as guidelines in assessing sediment cont-
amination (Table 1-11). ERM is the median concentra-
tion of a contaminant observed to have adverse biolog-
ical effects in the literature studies examined. A more
protective indicator of contaminant concentration is the
ERL criteria, which is the 1 Oth percentile concentration
of a contaminant represented by studies demonstrating
adverse biological effects in the literature. Ecological
effects are not likely to occur at contaminant concentra-
tions below the ERL criterion. The criteria for rating
sediment contaminants at individual sampling sites are
shown in Table 1-12. Table 1-13 shows how these data
were used to create a regional rating.
12 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Sediment Contaminant Criteria
(Longetal., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined for each
chemical as the 50th percentile (median) in a database
of ascending concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined values for
each chemical as the I Oth percentile in a database of
ascending concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
1 Table l-l 1. ERM and ERL Guidance Values in
Sediments (Long et al., 1995)
Metal3
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Analyteb
Acenaphthene
Acenapthylene
Anthracene
Flourene
2-Methyl napthalene
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Low molecular weight PAH
High molecular weight PAH
Total PAHs
4,4'-DDE
Total DDT
Total PCBs
ERL
8.2
1.2
81
34
46.7
0.15
20.9
1
ISO
ERL
16
44
85.3
19
70
160
240
261
430
384
63.4
600
665
552
1,700
4,020
2.2
1.6
22.7
ERM
70
9.6
370
270
218
0.71
51.6
3.7
410
ERM
500
640
1,100
540
670
2,100
1,500
1,600
1,600
2,800
260
5,100
2,600
3,160
9,600
44,800
27
46.1
180
Table 1-12. Criteria for Assessing Sediment
Contaminants by Site
Rating
Good
Fair
Poor
Criteria
INo ERM concentrations are exceeded, and less
than five ERL concentrations are exceeded.
Five or more ERL concentrations are exceeded.
IAn ERM concentration is exceeded for one or
more contaminants.
Table 1-13. Criteria for Assessing Sediment
Contaminants by Region
Rating
Good
Fair
Poor
Criteria
ILess than 5% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
5% to 1 5% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
IMore than 1 5% of coastal sediments are in
poor condition.
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Sediment contaminant availability or organic enrich-
ment can be altered in areas where there is considerable
deposition of organic matter. Sediment toxicity from
organic matter is assessed by measuring TOC. The
criteria for rating TOC for individual sampling sites are
shown in Table 1-14. Table 1-15 shows how these data
were used to create a regional ranking.
Table 1-14. Criteria for Assessing Sediment TOC by
Site (concentrations on a dry-weight basis)
Rating Criteria
Good
The TOC concentration is less than 2%.
Fair
The TOC concentration is between 2% and 5%.
Poor I The TOC concentration is greater than 5%.
Table 1-15. Criteria for Assessing Sediment TOC by
Region
Rating Criteria
Good I Less than 20% of coastal areas are in poor
condition.
a Units are ug/g dry sediment, equivalent to ppm.
b Units are ng/g dry sediment, equivalent to ppb.
Fair 20% to 30% of coastal areas are in poor
condition.
Poor | More than 30% of coastal areas are in poor
condition.
National Coastal Condition Report II 13
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Calculating the Sediment Quality Index
Once sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and
sediment TOC were assessed for a given site, the sedi-
ment quality index rating was calculated for the site
based on these three indicators. The sediment quality
index was rated good to poor for each site using the
criteria shown in Table 1-16.
Table 1-16. Criteria for Determining the Sediment
Quality Index by Site
Rating
Good
Fair
Poor
1
1
Criteria
None of the individual components are poor,
and the sediment contaminants indicator
is good.
No measures are poor, and the sediment
contaminants indicator is fair.
One or more of the component indicators
is poor.
The sediment quality index was then calculated for
each region using the criteria shown in Table 1-17-
Table 1-17. Criteria for Determining the Sediment
Quality Index by Region
Rating Criteria
Good Less than 5% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition, and less than 50% of coastal
sediments are in combined poor and fair
condition.
Fair 5% to 15% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition, or more than 50% of coastal
sediments are in combined poor and fair
condition.
Poor
More than 15% of coastal sediments are
in poor condition.
Benthic Index
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 sediment distur-
bance and serve as reliable indicators of estuarine envi-
ronmental quality. EMAP and NCA have developed
regional (Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf coasts) benthic
indices of environmental condition for estuaries that
reflect changes in diversity and population size of indi-
cator species to distinguish degraded benthic habitats
from undegraded benthic habitats (Engle et al., 1994;
Weisberg et al., 1997; Engle and Summers, 1999; Van
Dolah et al., 1999). These indices reflect 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 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 pollution-tolerant
species than expected, and contain fewer pollution-
sensitive species than expected. The benthic condition
data presented throughout this report were collected
by the NCA Program unless otherwise noted. Indices
vary with region because species assemblages depend
on prevailing temperatures, salinities, and the silt-clay
content of sediments. Benthic index was rated poor
when the index values for the Northeast, Southeast, and
Gulf coasts' diversity or species richness, abundance of
pollution-sensitive species, and abundance of pollution-
tolerant species fell below a certain threshold.
Not all regions included in this report have
developed benthic indices. Indices for the West Coast
and Puerto Pvico, as well as Alaska and Hawaii, are
being developed and are not available for reporting
at this time. As a surrogate for a benthic index, benthic
community diversity was determined for each site.
Values for community diversity were examined
regionally to determine if diversity varied directly
with either salinity or sediment silt-clay content (the
two natural variables most likely to influence estuarine
benthic diversity). If there was no significant relation-
ship between diversity and these natural gradients in
the region (as in Puerto Pvico), then a surrogate benthic
index was used based on the lower 95% confidence
14 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
limit for the mean benthic diversity measures. If there
was a significant relationship between diversity and
either of these natural gradients in the region (as in the
West Coast), then a surrogate benthic index was used
based on the ratio of observed to expected diversity.
Expected diversity was determined based on the statis-
tical relationship of site diversity to site salinity (or silt-
clay content). Poor condition was defined as less than
75% of the expected benthic diversity at a particular
salinity (expected diversity was determined by a regres-
sion between diversity and salinity). More detailed
descriptions of these surrogate analyses are provided in
the West Coast chapter (Chapter 6) and the Puerto
Rico chapter (Chapter 8). Table 1-18 shows the good,
fair, and poor rating criteria for the different regions of
the country. These ratings were used to calculate an
overall rating for each region.
The relationship between poor benthic condition
(poor index values) and environmental stressors (i.e.,
water quality and sediment quality indices and their
component measurements) is examined using the
co-occurrence of these factors in each region. In all
Table 1-18. Criteria for Assessing Benthic Index
Chapter 1 Introduction
regions, some sites with poor benthic community
condition did not co-occur with high levels of environ-
mental stressors measured by NCA. The sites that do
not co-occur with the poor water quality and sediment
quality indices may be the result of physical habitat
degradation (not measured by NCA).
Coastal Habitat Index
Coastal wetlands are the vegetated interface between
aquatic and terrestrial components of estuarine ecosys-
tems. 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, and 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
Area
Northeast Coast
Southeast Coast
Gulf Coast
West Coast
(compared to
expected diversity)
Puerto Rico
(compared to upper
95% confidence
interval for mean
regional benthic
diversity)
Regional Scores
Good
Benthic index score
is greater than 0.0.
Benthic index score
is greater than 2.5.
Benthic index score
is greater than 5.0.
Benthic index score is
more than 90% of the
lower limit (lower 95%
confidence interval) of
expected mean for a
specific salinity.
Benthic index score is
more than 90% of the
lower limit (lower 95%
confidence interval) of
mean diversity in
unstressed habitats in
Puerto Rico.
Less than 1 0% of coastal
sediments have a poor
benthic index score, and
less than 50% of coastal
sediments have a
combined poor and fair
benthic index score.
Fair
N/A
Benthic index score is
between 2.0 and 2.5.
Benthic index score is
between 3.0 and 5.0.
Benthic index score is
between 75% and 90%
of the lower limit of
expected mean diversity
for a specific salinity.
Benthic index score is
between 75% and 90%
of the lower limit of
mean diversity in
unstressed habitats in
Puerto Rico.
1 0% to 20% of coastal
sediments have a poor
benthic index score, or
more than 50% of
coastal sediments have
a combined poor and
fair benthic index score.
Poor
Benthic index score
is less than 0.0.
Benthic index score
is less than 2.0.
Benthic index score
is less than 3.0.
Less than 75% of
observations had
expected diversity.
Benthic index score
is less than 75%
of the lower limit
of mean diversity
for unstressed
habitats in
Puerto Rico.
More than 20% of
coastal sediments
have a poor
benthic index
score.
National Coastal Condition Report II 15
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
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). In the late 1970s and
early 1980s, the country was losing wetlands at an esti-
mated rate of 300,000 acres per year. The Clean Water
Act, state wetland protection programs, and programs
such as Swampbuster (USDA) have helped decrease
wetland losses to an estimated 70,000 to 90,000 acres
per year. Strong wetland protection must continue to be
a national priority; otherwise, fisheries that support
more than a million jobs and contribute billions of
dollars to the national economy are at risk (Turner and
Boesch, 1988; Stedman and Hanson, 2000), as are the
ecological functions provided by wetlands (e.g., nursery
areas, flood control, and water quality improvement).
The NWI (2002) contains data on estuarine emer-
gent and tidal flat wetland acreage for all coastal states
for 1990 and 2000 except Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Data for Hawaii and Puerto Rico are available for 1980
and 1990. The proportional change in regional coastal
wetlands over the 10-year time period was determined
for each region of the United States (Northeast Coast,
Southeast Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, and Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) and combined with the
long-term decadal loss rates for the period 1780 to
1990. The average of these two loss rates (historic and
present) multiplied by 100 is the regional value of the
coastal habitat index. The national value of the coastal
habitat index is a weighted mean that reflects the
extent of wetlands existing in each region (different
than the distribution of the extent of estuarine area).
Table 1-19 shows the rating criteria used for the
coastal habitat index.
The NWI estimates represent regional assessments
and do not apply to individual sites or individual
wetlands. Before individual wetland sites can be
assessed, rigorous methodologies for estimating the
quantity and, particularly, the quality of wetlands must
be developed. Until these methods are available and
implemented, only regional assessments of quantity
losses can be made. Although a 1% loss rate per decade
may seem small (or even acceptable), continued wetland
losses at this rate cannot be sustained indefinitely and
still leave enough wetlands to maintain their present
ecological functions.
Table 1-19. Criteria for Determining the Coastal
Habitat Index
Rating Criteria
Good
The index score is less than 1.0.
Fair
The index score is between 1.0 and 1.25.
Poor I The index score is greater than 1.25.
Human Use Indices
Human use attainment is assessed using the national
and regional evaluations for fish tissue contaminants;
however, the fish tissue contaminant data used in the
assessment are not always from fish species that are
widely consumed and that are of market length. If the
available fish tissue contaminant values from the NCA
surveys exceed the risk-based concentration guidance
ranges for consumption of four 8-ounce meals per
month for any contaminant (U.S. EPA, 2000c), the
site is assessed as impaired for human use. A site is
considered threatened for human use if the available
fish tissue contaminant information falls within the
guidance ranges for consumption of four 8-ounce meals
per month. Sites are considered unimpaired for human
use if fish tissue concentrations are less than the risk-
based guidance concentration range.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Chemical contaminants may enter a marine
organism in several ways: direct uptake from contami-
nated water, consumption of contaminated sediment,
or consumption of previously contaminated organisms.
Once these contaminants enter an organism, they tend
to remain in the animal tissues and may build up with
subsequent feedings. When fish consume contaminated
organisms, they may "inherit" the levels of contami-
nants in the organisms they consume. This same
"inheritance" of contaminants occurs when humans
consume fish with contaminated tissues. Contaminant
residues can be examined in the fillets, whole-body
portions, or specific organs of target fish and shellfish
16 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
species and are compared with risk-based EPA fish
contaminant guidance values (U.S. EPA, 2000c).
For the NCA surveys, target fish were collected
from all sites where fish were available, and whole-body
contaminant burdens were determined. No EPA
Guidance criteria exist to assess the ecological risk
of whole-body contaminants for fish, but the EPA
Advisory Guidance can be used as a basis for estimating
advisory determinations, even if the data are based on
whole-fish or organ-specific body burdens (U.S. EPA,
2000c) (Table 1-20). The whole-fish contaminant infor-
mation collected by NCA for U.S. estuaries was
compared with risk-based thresholds based on the
Table 1-20. Risk Guidelines for Recreational Fishers
(U.S. EPA,2000c)
Concentration Concentration
Screening Rangeb Range0
Contaminant Value3 (PPm) (PPm)
(ppm) (noncancer) (cancer)
Arsenic
(inorganic)d
Cadmium
Mercury
Selenium
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
epoxide
Hexachloro-
benzene
Lindane
Mi rex
Toxaphene
1 .2/0.0266
4.0
0.4
20.0
2.0/0.114
2.0/0.117
0.2/0.0025
24.0
1.2
0.052/0.00439
3.2/0.025
1.2/0.0307
0.8
1.0/0.0363
3.5-7.0
0.35-0.70
0.12-0.23
5.9-12.0
0.59-1.2
0.059-0. 1 2
0.059-0. 1 2
7.0-14.0
0.35-0.70
0.015-0.031
0.94-1.9
0.35-0.70
0.23-0.47
0.29-0.59
PAH 0.00547
(Benzo(a)pyrene)
0.008-0.016
0.03-0.07
0.035-0.069
0.00073-0.0015
0.0013-0.0026
0.0073-0.015
0.009-0.018
0.0 II -0.021
0.0016-0.0032
PCB
0.08/0.02
0.023-0.047 0.0059-0.012
a Screening value for recreational fishers.
b Range of concentrations associated with noncancer health
endpoint risk for consumption of four 8-ounce meals per month.
c Range of concentrations associated with cancer health endpoint risk
for consumption of four 8-ounce meals per month.
d Inorganic arsenic estimated as 2% of total arsenic.
e 1.2 and 0.026 are the screening values for inorganic arsenic for
noncancer and cancer health endpoints, respectively.
Chapter 1 Introduction
consumption of four 8-ounce meals per month for
selected contaminants (approach used by most state
advisory programs) and assessed for noncancer and
cancer health endpoints (U.S. EPA, 2000c). Table 1-21
shows the rating criteria for the fish tissue contaminants
index for each site. Table 1-22 shows how these data
were used to create a regional rating.
Table 1-21. Criteria for Determining the Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index by Site
Rating Criteria
Good The index score falls below the range of the
Guidance criteria for risk-based consumption
associated with four 8-ounce meals per month.
Fair The index score falls within the range of the
Guidance criteria for risk-based consumption
associated with four 8-ounce meals per month.
Poor | The index score exceeds the maximum value
of the range of the Guidance criteria for
risk-based consumption associated with four
8-ounce meals per month.
Table 1-22. Criteria for Determining the Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index by Region
Rating
Criteria
Good
Less than 10% of estuarine sites are in poor
condition, and less than 50% are in combined
fair and poor condition.
Fair 10% to 20% of estuarine sites are in poor
condition, or more than 50% are in combined
fair and poor condition.
Poor
More than 20% of estuarine sites are in poor
condition.
Summary of Rating Criteria
The rating criteria used in this report are summa-
rized in Tables 1-23 (index indicators) and 1-24 (index
components).
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Table 1-23. Indicators Used to Assess Coastal Condition (NCA)
Icon
Water
Quality
Index
Water Quality Index is an index that is based on five water quality measurements (dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity).
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: No measures are rated poor, and
a maximum of one is rated fair.
Fair: One measure is rated poor, or
two or more measures are fair.
Poor: Two or more measures are
rated poor.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of coastal waters are in poor condition,
and less than 50% of coastal waters are in combined
poor and fair condition.
Fair: Between 10% and 20% of coastal waters are in poor
conditioner more than 50% of coastal waters are in
combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: More than 20% of coastal waters are in poor condition.
Sediment Quality Index is an index that is based on three sediment quality measurements (sediment toxicity,
sediment contaminants, and sediment TOC).
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: No measures are rated poor, and
the sediment contaminants
indicator is rated good.
Fair: No measures are rated poor,
and the sediment contaminants
indicator is rated fair.
Poor: One or more measures are
rated poor.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 5% of coastal sediments are in poor condition,
and less than 50% of coastal sediments are in combined
poor and fair condition.
Fair: Between 5 and 15% of coastal sediments are in poor
conditioner more than 50% of coastal sediments are
in combined poor and fair condition.
Poor: More than 15% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
Benthic Index (or a surrogate measure) is an indicator of the condition of the benthic community (organisms living
in estuarine sediments) and can include measures of benthic community diversity, the presence and abundance of
pollution-tolerant species, and the presence and abundance of pollution-sensitive species.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good, fair, and poor were
determined using regionally
dependant benthic index scores.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of coastal sediments have a poor benthic
index score, and less than 50% of coastal sediments have a
combined poor and fair benthic index score.
Fair: Between 10% and 20% of coastal sediments have a poor
benthic index score, or more than 50% of coastal sedi-
ments have a combined poor and fair benthic index score.
Poor: More than 20% of coastal sediments have a poor benthic
index score.
Coastal Habitat Index is evaluated using the data from the NWI (NWI,2002). The NWI contains data on estu-
arine-emergent and tidal flat acreage for all coastal states (except Hawaii and Puerto Rico) for 1780 through 2000.
Coastal
Habitat
Index
Ecological Condition by Site
The average of the mean long-term, decadal
wetland loss rate (1780-1990) and the
present decadal wetland loss rate (1990-
2000) was determined for each region of the
United States and multiplied by 100 to create
a coastal habitat index score.
Ranking by Region
Good: The coastal habitat index score is less than 1.0.
Fair: The coastal habitat index is between 1.0 and 1.25.
Poor: The coastal habitat index is greater than 1.25.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index concentrations are an indicator of the level of chemical contamination in
target fish/shellfish species.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: Composite fish tissue contaminant
concentrations are below the EPA
Guidance concentration range.
Fair: Composite fish tissue contaminant
concentrations are in the EPA
Guidance concentration range.
Poor: Composite fish tissue contaminant
concentrations are above the EPA
Guidance concentration range.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of estuarine sites are in poor condition,
and less than 50% are in combined fair and poor
condition.
Fair: From 10 to 20% of estuarine waters are in poor condi-
tioner more than 50% are in combined fair and poor
condition.
Poor: More than 20% of sites have poor condition.
18 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Table I -24. Criteria for Measurements Used as Components of Index Indicators Used To Assess Coastal Condition
(NCA)
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) levels are measured as part of the water quality index.
I
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: Surface concentrations are less than O.I mg/L
(NE, SE, Gulf), 0.5 mg/L (West), or 0.05 mg/L (tropical).
Fair: Surface concentrations are 0.1-0.5 mg/L (NE, SE,
Gulf), 0.5-1.0 mg/L (West), or 0.05-0.1 mg/L (tropical).
Poor: Surface concentrations are greater than 0.5 mg/L
(NE.SE.Gulf), 1.0 mg/L (West), or O.I mg/L (tropical).
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of coastal area is in poor
condition, and less than 50% of coastal waters are
in combined poor and fair condition.
Fair: From 10% to 25% of coastal area is in
poor conditioner more than 50% of coastal area
is in combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: More than 25% of coastal area is in poor
condition.
Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus (DIP) levels are measured as part of the water quality index.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: Surface concentrations are less than 0.01 mg/L
(NE.SE, Gulf), 0.01 mg/L (West), or 0.005 mg/L(tropical).
Fair: Surface concentrations are 0.01-0.05 mg/L (NE, SE,
Gulf), 0.01 -O.I mg/L (West), or 0.005-0.0 1 mg/L (tropical).
Poor: Surface concentrations are greater than 0.05 mg/L
(NE.SE, Gulf), O.I mg/L (West), or 0.0 1 mg/L (tropical).
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of coastal area is in poor
condition, and less than 50% of coastal area is
in combined poor and fair condition.
Fair: From 10% to 25% of coastal area is
in poor condition, or more than 50% of coastal
area is in combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: More than 25% of coastal area is in poor
condition.
Chlorophyll a is one of the measurements used in the water quality index.
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Surface concentrations are less than 5 ug/L
(less than 0.5 ug/L for tropical ecosystems*, except to
less than 1.0 ug/L for Florida Bay).
Good: Less than 10% of coastal area is in poor condition,
and less than 50% of coastal area is in combined poor
and fair condition.
Fair: Surface concentrations are between 5 ug/L and
20 ug/L (between 0.5 ug/L and I ug/L for tropical
ecosystems, except to between 1.0 to 5.0 ug/L for Florida Bay).
Fair: From 10% to 20% of coastal area is in poor
conditioner more than 50% of coastal area is in
combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: Surface concentrations are greater than 20 ug/L
(greater than I ug/L for tropical ecosystems, except to
greater than 5 ug/L for Florida Bay,).
Poor: More than 20% of coastal area is in poor condition.
'Tropical ecosystems include Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Florida Bay sites.
Water Clarity is part of the water quality index.A water clarity indicator (WCI) is calculated by dividing observed clarity
at I meter by a regional reference clarity at I meter.This regional reference is 10% for most of the United States,
5% for areas with naturally high turbid conditions, and 20% for areas with significant SAV beds or active SAV
restoration programs.
Good: WCI
Ecological Condition by Site
ratio is greater than 2.
Fair: WCI ratio is between 1 and 2.
Poor: WCI
ratio is less than 1 .
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of coastal area is in poor condition,
and less than 50% of coastal area is in combined poor
and fair condition.
Fair: From 10% to 25% of coastal area is in poor
condition, or more than 50% of coastal area is in
combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: More than 25% of coastal area is in poor condition.
(continued)
National Coastal Condition Report II 19
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Table I -24. Criteria for Measurements Used as Components of Index Indicators Used To Assess Coastal Condition
(NCA) (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen is one of the measurements used in the water quality index.
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Concentrations are greater than 5 mg/L.
Good: Less than 5% of coastal area is in poor condition
and less than 50% of coastal area is in combined poor
and fair condition.
Fair: Concentrations are between 2 mg/L and 5 mg/L.
Fair: From 5% to 15% of coastal area is in poor
condition, or more than 50% of coastal area is in
combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: Concentrations are less than 2 mg/L.
Poor: More than 15% of coastal area is in poor condition.
Sediment Toxicity is evaluated as part of the sediment quality index using a 10-day static toxicity test with the ampiphod
Ampelisca abdita.
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Mortality* is less than or equal to 20%.
Good: Less than 5% of coastal sediments have greater
than 20% mortality in toxicity tests.
Poor: Mortality is greater than 20%.
Poor: More than 5% of coastal sediments have greater
than 20% mortality in toxicity tests.
*Test mortality is adjusted for control mortality.
Sediment Contamination is evaluated as part of the sediment
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: No ERMs are exceeded, and fewer than five ERL
guidelines are exceeded.
Fair: No ERMs are exceeded, and five or more ERL
guidelines are exceeded.
Poor: One or more ERM guidelines are exceeded.
quality index using ERM and ERL guidelines.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 5% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
Fair: From 5% to 1 5% of coastal sediments are in
poor condition.
Poor: More than 1 5% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
Sediment Total Organic Carbon is measured as part of the sediment quality index.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: The TOC concentration is less than 2%.
Fair: The TOC concentration is between 2% and 5%.
Poor: The TOC concentration is greater than 5%.
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 20% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
Fair: From 20% to 30% of coastal sediments are in
poor condition.
Poor: More than 30% of coastal sediments are in poor
condition.
The picturesque wetlands ofTomales Bay California,
stretch inshore and provide important habitat for
birds on the Pacific flyway (Dan Howard).
20 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
How the Indices Are Summarized
Overall condition for each region was calculated by
summing the scores for the available indicators and
dividing by the number of available indicators (i.e.,
equally weighted), where good = 5; fair = 4, 3, or 2
(based on position in percent range); and poor = 1.
The Southeast Coast, for example, received the
following scores:
Indicator
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Score
4
4
3
3
5
Total Score Divided by 5 =
Overall Score
19/5 = 3.8
To create the national indicator numbers, a weighted
average was calculated for each of the five indicators.
The indicator scores were weighted by the percentage
of total area of estuaries contributed by each geographic
area (Figure 1-5). For example, the weighted average for
the water quality index was calculated by summing the
products of the regional water quality index scores and
the area contributed by each region. These weighting
factors are used for all indicators except the coastal
habitat index, which uses the geographic distribution of
(Puerto Rico
< 1%)
Gulf of Mexico
25%
Southeast
16%
Great Lakes
27%
Northeast
21%
Figure 1-5. Percentage of estuarine area contributed by each
geographic region assessed in this report.
total area of coastal wetlands (Figure 1-6). The overall
national score was then calculated by summing each
national indicator score and dividing by five.
Great Lakes
15%
Gulf of Mexico
57%
Northeast
Southeast
14%
Figure 1-6. Percentage of coastal wetland area contributed by
each geographic region assessed in this report.
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
Data
In addition to coastal monitoring data, a second type
of data used to assess coastal condition in this report is
LME fisheries data from the NMFS. The waters adja-
cent to the estuaries and wetlands of the United States,
from 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore, constitute the
U.S. EEZ. Waters within and adjoining the U.S. EEZ
have been designated as LMEs, based on their distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and trophic rela-
tionships (NOAA, 1988). The NMFS regulates fisheries
on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico coasts.
Information on the status of the fish stocks comes from
NMFS assessment data for the Northeast Shelf LME,
the Southeast Shelf LME, and the Gulf of Mexico
LME. Ultimately, the Secretary of Commerce has
management responsibility for most marine life in the
U.S. waters. Fishery resources are managed largely by
fishery management councils through extensive consul-
tation with state and federal agencies, affected industry
sectors, public interest groups, and in some cases, inter-
national science and management organizations.
Information provided for this report on U.S. living
marine resources and the three Atlantic LMEs was
compiled from NMFS productivity data and
National Coastal Condition Report II 21
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Our Living Oceans (NMFS, 2003), a report issued
periodically by NMFS covering most living marine
resources of interest for commercial, recreational,
subsistence, and aesthetic or intrinsic reasons to the
United States.
Marine Fisheries Fuel the U.S. Economy
More than one-fifth of the world's most productive
marine waters lie within the LMEs of the U.S. EEZ. The
value of both commercial and recreational fishing is
significant to the U.S. economy, to thousands of private
firms, and to individuals, families, and communities.
• More than 170,000 people and 123,300 commercial
fishing vessels are employed by the commercial
fishing industry in the United States, the world's fifth
largest seafood-producing country.
• In 2001, U.S. commercial fishermen landed 9.8 billion
pounds offish and shellfish, valued at $3.3 billion.
• The industry contributed an estimated $28.6 billion
(in value added) to the U.S. GNP.
• Recreational fishing added another $25 billion to
the U.S. GNP.
Assessment and Advisory Data
Assessment and advisory data provided by states or
other regulatory agencies are the third set of data used
in this report to assess coastal condition. Several EPA
programs, including the Clean Water Act Section
305(b) Assessment Program, the National Listing of
Fish and Wildlife Advisories (NLFWA) Program, and
the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and
Health (BEACH) Program, 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 address the condition of
the coast as it relates to public health. The data for these
programs are collected from multiple state agencies, so
data collection and reporting methods differ among
states. Because of these inconsistencies, data generated
by these programs are not included in the estimates of
coastal condition.
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (CINMS) part-
nered with scientists from the University of California at Santa
Barbara to study impacts of the El Nino Storms.The project,
named "Plumes and Blooms", investigates the nutrient-rich brown
sediment plumes that, in turn, produce green marine algal blooms.
(photo: Channel Islands NMS)
22 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
States report water quality assessment information
and water quality impairments under Section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act. States and tribes rate water quality
by comparing measured values 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 degra-
dation of good-quality waters. States and tribes use their
numeric criteria to determine how well the designated
uses assigned to waterbodies are supported. The states
then consolidate their more detailed uses into general
categories so that EPA can summarize 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.
Threatened
Not
Supporting
I
These waters currently meet water
quality standards, but states are concerned
that they may degrade in the near future.
These waters do not meet water
quality standards.
The 305(b) assessment data (submitted by the
states in 2000) are stored in EPA's National Assessment
Database and are summarized in the National Water
Quality Inventory 2000 Report (U.S. EPA, 2002).
These data are useful for evaluating the success of
state water quality improvement efforts. Unfortunately,
each state monitors water quality parameters differently,
so it is difficult to make generalized statements about
the condition of the nation's coasts based on these
data alone.
National Listing of Fish and Wildlife
Advisories
States, U.S. territories, and tribes have primary
responsibility for protecting their residents from the
health risks of consuming contaminated, noncommer-
cially caught fish and shellfish. (Sale of commercial fish
in interstate commerce is regulated by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration [FDA].) Resource managers
protect residents by issuing consumption advisories for
the general population, including recreational and
subsistence fishers, as well as for sensitive groups (e.g.,
pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, and indi-
viduals with compromised immune systems). These
advisories inform the public that high concentrations
of chemical contaminants (such as mercury and PCBs)
have been found in local fish and shellfish. The advi-
sories include recommendations to limit or avoid
consumption of certain fish and shellfish species from
specific waterbodies or, in some cases, from specific
waterbody types (e.g., all coastal waters within a state).
The 2002 NLFWA is a database— available from
EPA and searchable on the Internet at http://www.epa.
gov/waterscience/fish— that contains fish advisory
information provided to EPA by the states and tribes.
The NLFWA database can generate national, regional,
and state maps that illustrate any combination of
advisory parameters.
Beach Advisories and 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, not enough infor-
mation is currently available to define the extent of
beach pollution throughout the country. EPA's BEACH
Program, established in 1997, is working with state and
local governments to compile information on beach
pollution that will help 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 swimmable
beaches. The number of beach closings and swimming
National Coastal Condition Report II 23
-------
Chapter 1 Introduction
advisories that continue to be issued annually, however,
indicate that beach pollution is a persistent problem. In
2002, there were 529 beach closures and advisories in
coastal and Great Lakes waters.
Connections with Human Uses
The water quality index, sediment index, benthic
index, and coastal habitat index are all measures of
ecological condition. The fish tissue contaminants index
directly affects human uses of coastal waters and is also
a measure of the condition of estuarine fish populations.
The final chapter of this report (Chapter 9: Health of
Galveston Bay for Human Use) presents a case study
that outlines how these indicators of coastal condition
connect with human uses. Although this report does
not address bacterial contamination as a condition indi-
cator, it does present the areal extent of shellfishing
restrictions and swimming advisories based on
exceedances of indicator bacteria concentrations in
coastal waters. The type of assessment described in
Chapter 9 cannot be done on scales larger than a single
estuary; however, it is important to address coastal
condition at several spatial scales (e.g., national,
regional, state, and local). Chapter 9 provides an assess-
ment approach that complements the national/regional
approaches by examining the same national/regional
monitoring information, as well as additional site-
specific information for an individual estuary
(Galveston Bay) in order to evaluate conditions with
regard to human uses.
Appendices
Three appendices are provided at the end of this
report. Appendices A and B assess the quality of data
from EPA's NCA Program, the primary source of infor-
mation for this report. These appendices evaluate the
planning, sampling collection, laboratory processing,
and auditing aspects of the program, as well as list
the uncertainty levels for the estimates provided in
Chapters 2 through 8. The appendices also compare
these levels with the desired levels of certainty
developed through the data quality objective
(DQO) process.
Appendix C compares the results of the NCCR I
(covering the period 1990 to 1996) with the results
of this report (1997—2000). Because of changes in
indicators and the availability of different types of data,
the comparison cannot be as straightforward as the
reader might desire (i.e., direct comparison of the
ranking in NCCR I to the ranking in NCCR II). In
Appendix C, the estimates and ranking for NCCR I
are recalculated using the approaches and methodolo-
gies developed in NCCR II. This recalculation allows
for a more direct comparison of the two reports.
Giant sea bass (Stereolepis gigas) are mainly bottom dwellers, but
will come into mid-waters when searching for food.This species
was once abundant throughout Southern California, before it was
overfished.The giant sea bass eats spiny lobsters, rock crabs, and
squid (Mark Conlin).
24 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2
National Coastal
Condition
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
National Coastal Condition
The overall condition of estuaries in the United
States is fair. Only one of the five indicators of estuarine
condition received a poor overall rating, the coastal
habitat index. The water quality index and the fish
tissue contaminants index received a fair rating, and the
benthic index and sediment quality index were rated
fair to poor (Figure 2-1 summarizes U.S. estuarine
condition). These ratings are based on samples collected
at 2,073 estuarine sites in the conterminous 48 states
(Figure 2-2) between 1997 and 2000 (about 90% of the
samples were collected in 1999 and 2000). Of the five
summary indicators (water quality index, sediment
index, benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish
tissue contaminants index), only the fish tissue
contaminants index was rated good for any region
of the United States.
The water quality index is rated fair throughout the
estuaries of the United States, although estuarine waters
in the Northeast Coast region appear to have poorer
water quality conditions than those in other regions of
the country. The sediment index is poor in Northeast
Coast and Puerto Rico estuaries and in the Great Lakes;
Overall National
Coastal Condition
m
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Fish Tissue Index
Overall
Grant Liili=i£i
II \ ^
z? \ t=r^~ '
S/^b &
Surveys completed, but no indicator
data available until the next report.
reAl
Good Fair Poor
*E
Surveys completed, but no indicator
data available until the next report.
Figure 2-1.Overall national and regional coastal condition between 1997 and 2000.
26 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
I
Figure 2-2 Sampling stations for the 1999-2000 NCA Program and for the coastal portion of the 1997-1998 Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (U.S. EPA/EMAP and NCA).
borderline fair in West Coast estuaries; fair in the Gulf
Coast estuaries; and borderline good in Southeast Coast
estuaries. The benthic index shows that conditions are
poor in the Northeast Coast and Puerto Rico, border-
line fair in the Gulf Coast and Great Lakes, and fair
in the Southeast Coast and West Coast. Condition
as measured by fish tissue contaminants is poor in
Northeast Coast and West Coast estuaries and fair
to good in the remainder of the country.
More specifically, 21% of estuarine area in the
United States (excluding the Great Lakes) is unimpaired
for human and/or aquatic life uses (Figure 2-3). About
28% of estuarine area is impaired for aquatic life use,
22% is impaired for human use, and an additional 44%
is threatened for both uses. Impaired aquatic life use
was indicated by lower-than-expected biodiversity,
increased abundance of pollution-tolerant species,
decreased abundance of pollution-sensitive species, poor
water quality condition, poor sediment quality, and
coastal wetland losses. Impaired human use was defined
as exceedances of fish tissue contaminant risk-based
guidelines for consumption (based on four 8-ounce
meals per month). Threatened use is equivalent to fair
overall condition for any of the indicators.
Threatened
44%
Unimpaired
21%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
13%
Impaired Human Use
7%
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
15%
Figure 2-3. National estuarine condition (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 27
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data
This section presents the monitoring data used to
rate the five indices of estuarine condition. These calcu-
lations do not include proportional area and location
data for the Great Lakes. Due to sampling design differ-
ences in the data sets, no areal estimates for the Great
Lakes can be determined. Although the Great Lakes
data are not presented in this section, they are addressed
when discussing condition in specific regions of the
country. Chapter 7 provides further details of the Great
Lakes monitoring data.
Water Quality Index
Data from EPA's NCA Program indicate that the
condition of the nation's estuaries, as measured by the
water quality index, is fair. This index indicates that
11% of the surface area of the nation's estuaries is in
poor water quality condition and an additional 49% is
in fair water quality condition (Figure 2-4). Combined,
these categories show that 60% of the nation's estuaries
are experiencing a moderate-to-high degree of water
quality degradation. Poor condition is generally charac-
terized by degradation in water quality response vari-
ables (e.g., increased chlorophyll a concentration or
decreased dissolved oxygen concentration). Fair condi-
tion is characterized by some degradation in response
variables, but is more likely to be characterized by
degradation due to environmental stressors (e.g.,
increased nutrient concentrations and reduced water
clarity). Water quality condition in Northeast Coast
estuaries was the poorest in the nation (regionally), with
19% of estuarine waters in poor condition and another
42% in fair condition.
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA Program has
been designed to estimate the percent of estuarine area
(nationally or in a region or state) in varying conditions
and is displayed as pie diagrams. Many of the figures in
this report illustrate environmental measurements
made at specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the value of the
indicator specifically at the time of sampling. Additional
sampling may be required to define variability and to
confirm impairment or the lack of impairment at
specific locations.
Water Quality Index - National (1997-2000)
Good Fair
Figure 2-4. National water quality index data (U.S. EPA/NCA).
28 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Dissolved inorganic nutrient concentrations for
summertime conditions in the nation's estuaries were
rated good for DIN and DIP. As a result of phyto-
plankton uptake and growth, nutrient concentrations in
summer are expected to be generally lower than at other
times of the year, except on the West Coast, where
Pacific upwelling events in summer often produce the
year's highest nutrient concentrations. Because of the
expectation for lower nutrient concentrations, the refer-
ence conditions were modified (reduced by 50%) for
East Coast and Gulf Coast estuaries. This reduction in
reference concentration better represents the "higher,
worst-case" conditions generally observed in these
regions in the spring.
DIN concentrations were uniformly low throughout
U.S. estuaries, with only 5% of waters characterized as
having poor condition (Figure 2-5). Most DIN concen-
trations that exceeded reference conditions were in
Northeast Coast estuaries. DIP concentrations exceeded
the regional reference conditions in 9% of estuarine
waters (Figure 2-6). These elevated summer DIP
concentrations were most often observed in Southeast
Coast, West Coast, and Gulf Coast estuaries. Elevated
DIN and DIP concentrations in Puerto Rico, Northeast
Coast, and Gulf Coast estuaries generally correspond to
the areas of elevated chlorophyll a concentrations.
Nitrogen - National (1997-2000)
I
pood Fair Poor
Figure 2-5. National DIN concentration data (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 29
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Phosphorus - National (1997-2000)
Fair
38%
Chlorophyll a
One of the symptoms of degraded water quality
condition is the increase of phytoplankton production,
as measured by the concentration of chlorophyll a.
Chlorophyll a is a measure used to indicate the amount
of microscopic algae (or phytoplankton) growing in a
waterbody High concentrations of chlorophyll a indi-
cate the potential for problems related to overproduc-
tion of algae. High concentrations of summertime
chlorophyll a occurred in only 8% of estuarine waters
(Figure 2-7), resulting in an overall national rating of
good. Moderate concentrations occurred in an addi-
tional 41% of estuarine waters. Only one region of
the country, Puerto Rico, received a rating of poor, with
29% of its waters exceeding the summertime reference
condition. Moderate increases in summertime chloro-
phyll concentrations occurred most often in Southeast
Coast (with 83% of estuarine waters exceeding poor or
fair guidelines), Northeast Coast (50%), and Gulf Coast
(46%) estuaries. None of the estuaries in these regions
experienced large expanses of poor conditions
(Southeast = 3%, Northeast = 15%, and Gulf of
Mexico = 8%.)
Water Clarity
The overall water clarity of the nation's estuaries is
rated fair. Three different regional reference conditions
were established for measuring conditions:
Area Type
rence Condition
(ambient surface
light that reaches a
depth of I meter)
5%
Areas having high natural levels
of suspended solids in the water
(e.g., Louisiana, Delaware,
Mobile Bay, Mississippi estuaries)
or extensive wetlands (e.g.,
South Carolina, Georgia).
20%
Areas having extensive SAV beds
(e.g., Florida Bay, Indian River
Lagoon, and southern Laguna
Madre) or desiring to reestablish
SAV (e.g.,Tampa Bay).
10%
The remainder of the country.
Good Fair Poo
Figure 2-6. National DIP concentration data (U.S. EPA/NCA).
NCA estimates indicate that 25% of the nation's
estuaries do not meet these reference conditions (Figure
2-8). Locations with poor water clarity are distributed
throughout the country, but the regions with the
30 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Chlorophyll a - National (1997-2000)
Water Clarity - National (1997-2000)
Fair
41%
Figure 2-7. National chlorophyll a concentration data (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
I
Good Fair Poor
Figure 2-8. National water clarity condition (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 31
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
greatest proportion of total estuarine area not meeting
this condition are in West Coast (36%), Gulf Coast
(29%), Northeast Coast (23%), and Puerto Rico
(20%) estuaries.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the nation's estuaries
are good. 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. In addition, low
dissolved oxygen concentrations can be the result of
stratification due to strong freshwater discharge.
Dissolved oxygen is a fundamental requirement for all
estuarine life. Low levels of oxygen often accompany the
onset of severe bacterial degradation, sometimes result-
ing in algal scums, fish kills, and noxious odors, as well
as loss of habitat and aesthetic values. This, in turn, can
result in decreased tourism and recreational water use.
The NCA estimates that only about 4% of bottom
waters in the nation's estuaries have low dissolved
oxygen (Figure 2-9). This estimate describes conditions
only during daylight hours. All systems have dissolved
oxygen cycles in which higher values are observed
during daylight (accompanying oxygen production by
phytoplankton) and lower values at night (with only
respiration occurring). The NCA estimates do not apply
to "dystrophic" systems, in which dissolved oxygen
levels are acceptable during daylight hours, but decrease
to low (even unacceptable) levels during the night.
Many of these systems and the biota associated with
them are adapted to this cycle—a natural process of
oxygen production during the day and respiration at
night—which is common in wetland, swamp, and
blackwater ecosystems.
The guideline used in the NCA analysis for poor
dissolved oxygen condition is a value below 2 mg/L in
bottom waters. The majority of coastal states either use
a different criterion, ranging from an average of 4 to
5 mg/L throughout the water column to a specific
concentration (usually 4 or 5 mg/L) at mid-water, or
include a frequency or duration of time that the low
dissolved oxygen concentration must occur (e.g., 20%
of observed values). The NCA chose to use 2 mg/L in
bottom waters because this level is clearly indicative of
potential harm to estuarine organisms. Because so many
state agencies use higher concentrations, the NCA
evaluated the proportion of waters that have dissolved
Dissolved Oxygen - National (1997-2000)
Puerto Rico,
Figure 2-9. National dissolved oxygen concentration data (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
32 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
oxygen concentrations below 5 rng/L in bottom waters
as being in fair condition (i.e., threatened). About 24%
of bottom waters have dissolved oxygen concentrations
below 5 mg/L (Figure 2-9). Northeast Coast estuaries
showed the greatest number of locations experiencing
low dissolved oxygen.
The NCA surveys measure dissolved oxygen condi-
tions only in estuarine waters and do not include obser-
vations of dissolved oxygen concentrations in offshore
coastal shelf waters. The occurrence of hypoxia in Gulf
of Mexico shelf waters is a well-known and documented
phenomenon. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the
largest zone of anthropogenic coastal hypoxia in the
Western Hemisphere (CAST, 1999). Between 1989
and 1999, midsummer bottom-waters hypoxia
increased to include nearly 8,000 square miles. In
2000 (the year of the Gulf of Mexico survey), the
hypoxic zone was greatly reduced to less than 1,800
square miles; however, the hypoxic zone returned to
about 8,000 square miles in 2001. The reduction in the
size of the zone in 2000 corresponds to severe drought
conditions in the Mississippi River watershed and,
presumably, decreased flow and loading to the Gulf
of Mexico from the river mouth. A complete discussion
of the hypoxic zone is provided in Chapter 5, Gulf
of Mexico Coastal Condition.
Interpretation of Instantaneous Dissolved
Oxygen Information
Although NCA survey results do not suggest that dis-
solved oxygen concentrations are a pervasive problem,
the instantaneous measurements on which these results
are based may have underestimated the magnitude and
duration of low dissolved oxygen events at any given
site. Longer-term observations by other investigators
have revealed increasing trends in frequency and areal
extent of low-oxygen events in some coastal areas. For
example, extensive year-round or seasonal monitoring
data over multiple years in such places as the Neuse
and Pamlico rivers in North Carolina and the Narragan-
sett Bay in Rhode Island (see Highlight in Chapter 3)
have shown a much higher incidence of hypoxia than is
depicted in the present NCA data.These data show
that while hypoxic conditions do not exist continuously,
they can occur occasionally to frequently for generally
short durations of time (hours).
Sediment Quality Index
National estuarine conditions, as measured by
sediment quality, are rated fair to poor. The sediment
quality index is based on sediment toxicity, sediment
contaminant concentrations, and the proportion of
TOC in the sediments. About 13% of sediments in the
nation's estuaries received a poor rating for one of these
index components (Figure 2-10). The regions showing
the largest proportional areas with poor condition were
Puerto Rico (61%), Northeast Coast (16%), and West
Coast (14%) estuaries. Although there are no areal
estimates for poor sediment conditions in the Great
Lakes, non-probabilistic surveys of that region
conducted locally resulted in sediment quality
being given a poor rating.
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment toxicity in the nation's estuaries is rated
poor. During the NCA survey, researchers determined
sediment toxicity by exposing the organisms to sedi-
ments from each location and evaluating the effects
of these sediments on the survival of the organisms.
Sediment toxicity tests, which were conducted using
the benthic amphipod Ampelisca abdita, showed
significant mortalities associated with 6% of estuarine
sediments in the United States (Figure 2-11). Sediment
toxicity was observed most often with sediments
from West Coast (17%) and Northeast Coast (8%)
estuaries. This indicator does not have a fair category;
sediments were determined to be either toxic (poor)
or non-toxic (good).
I
A sub-bottom profiler allows geologists to get data about the
seafloor and the structure below, (photo: Dan Blackwood, USGS)
National Coastal Condition Report II 33
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Sediment Quality - National (1997-2000)
Sediment Toxicity - National (1997-2000)
Non-Toxic
94%
|Good Fair Poor
Figure 2-1 I. National sediment toxicity data (U.S. EPA/NCA).
JGood Fair
Figure 2-10. National sediment quality index data
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
34 National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
A Report to the Nation on the Condition of Coral Reefs
In 1998, growing concerns for the health of coral reefs prompted the issuance of a Presidential
Order (E.O. 13089) for the protection of coral reefs, establishing the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
(USCRTF) and requiring a report to the nation every two years on reef condition.
The United States has jurisdiction over tropical coral reefs that cover an estimated 7,607 square
miles. In the Atlantic and Caribbean, these reefs include shallow-water coral reefs off Florida,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Navassa Island National Wildlife Refuge near Haiti.
In the Pacific, they include extensive coral reefs off the Hawaiian archipelago, American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
Wake Atoll, and six remote National
Wildlife Refuges. The Pacific Freely
Associated States (Republic of Palau,
Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the
Federated States of Micronesia) have some
of the richest coral reefs in the world,
covering an estimated 7,250 square miles
(Wilkinson, 2002). Once U.S. protec-
torates, and now associates through formal
pacts, these states asked to be included in
U.S. coral reef activities. Scientist conducts coral reef survey (James Maragos, USFWS).
Since the issuance of E.O. 13089, the first required biennial report, The State of Coral Reef
Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002 (Turgeon et al., 2002), has
been published. In 2000, the USCRTF issued its National Plan for Action to Conserve Coral Reefs
(National Action Plan) that called for a mapping and monitoring program to help assess the
condition of U.S. coral reefs. Since then, Congress has appropriated substantial funding each
year for coral reef conservation. In addition, the Coral Reef Conservation Act of 2000 further
integrated international, federal, state, and territorial agency efforts to map, monitor, conduct
research on, restore, and manage the U.S. coral reef ecosystems.
To provide reliable assessments of reef health, the National Action Plan called for the mapping
of all shallow-water reefs by 2009, the establishment of a nationally coordinated coral reef moni-
toring network, and the initiation of new monitoring to fill information gaps. Presently, 46%
(6,894 square miles) of U.S. shallow-water coral reef habitats have been surveyed. Digital maps are
available for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Hawaii (http://biogeo.nos.noaa.gov/), and much
of the Florida Keys. NOAA has awarded cooperative grants each year since fiscal year 2000 to
state and island agencies to build local capacity and fill gaps in monitoring. NOAA also awarded
grants to the Pacific Freely Associated States in fiscal year 2002. Data collected under these grants
and data from the National Coral Reef Monitoring Network (http://coris.noaa.gov/) will be the
basis for the next biennial report on coral reefs in 2004.
National Coastal Condition Report II 35
-------
ghlight
Atlantic Coast Environmental Indicators Consortium
The Atlantic Coast Environmental Indicators Consortium (ACE INC)
is developing broadly applicable, integrative indicators of ecological
condition, integrity, and sustainability across four distinct and represen-
tative estuarine systems on the Atlantic coast of the United States. These
estuarine systems include the nation's two largest estuarine complexes, the
Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia and the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound
in North Carolina; a small estuary, the Parker Pviver, situated in the Plum Island
National Science Foundation Long-Term Ecosystem Research (LTER) site in Massachusetts; and
a river-dominated system in the southeast Atlantic Bight, the North River Inlet in South Carolina.
These sites are representative of three primary producer bases (intertidal marsh—Plum Island
and North Inlet; plankton dominated—Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle-Pamlico Sound; and
seagrass dominated—portions of Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle-Pamlico Sound). They also
have ongoing, long-term water quality and/or habitat monitoring programs in place that provide
data for indicator development and testing. These systems each contain both pristine and
impaired waters.
Because different types of coastal systems likely differ in their response to man-made or
naturally induced stresses, a framework is required to assess status and to predict responses for
each of the major system types. ACE INC is working to produce concise and accurate representa-
tions of ecosystem function and health, based on key variables, to detect trends in ecosystem
health and to use indicators to predict the effects of human actions versus natural variability across
a variety of systems, both regionally and nationally. ACE INC defines an indicator as a sign or
signal that relays a complex message, potentially from numerous sources, in a simplified and useful
manner. An ecological indicator is a measure, an index of measures, or a model that characterizes
one or more critical components of ecosystem structure and function. With a foundation of diag-
nostic research, an ecological indicator may also be used to identify major ecosystem stress
(Jackson et al., 2000). The present lack of established regional and national bioindicators, despite
extensive monitoring at thousands of sites nationwide and specific community efforts to develop
bioindicators, is testimony to the magnitude and complexity of the task. Prior efforts to achieve
this goal have suggested that the most promising avenue to success is to link theoretical models
with empirical relationships.
Current ACE INC research activities address the following primary objectives:
• Use remotely sensed data and time-series information on key water quality and habitat
condition variables to enhance the archive of existing data for these systems
• Apply detailed knowledge of ecosystem structure and function to analyze the existing data
archive and develop candidate indicators
• Test the ability of these indicators to gauge ecosystem health and clearly detect trends
resulting from both natural variability and man-made stresses in multiple estuaries.
36 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
The ACE INC research plan includes the following tasks:
• Development of indicators for microalgal and macrophyte functional groups that control
much of estuarine and coastal primary production
• Development of indicators for plankton and fish community structure (organization)
and function, specifically indices that relate to trophic transfer and sustainable higher
trophic levels
• Coupling of biological indicators with physical-chemical and remote sensing assessments
of ecosystem function, trophic state, and change
• Development and application of indicators within a national coastal indicator framework
(EPA Estuarine and Great Lakes Ecological Indicators [EaGLe] Program).
ACE INC is examining the indicators that form the backbone of monitoring and modeling
efforts for ecosystems, regional and national water quality, habitats, and living resources. These
indicators are used to calibrate and ground truth aircraft and satellite remote sensing of estuarine
and coastal resources in terms of plant community structure, function, and ecological health.
ACE INC is linking phytoplankton, marsh, and seagrass proxies with metrics of trophic structure
to provide indicators for the status of living resources.
For more information on ACE INC, visit http://www.aceinc.org.
I
National Coastal Condition Report II 37
-------
ghlight
Table 2-1.Spearman correlation coefficients
between molluscan concentration and the
number of people living within 12 miles of
each site, as per 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data.
For silver, copper, and zinc, concentrations in
oysters must be analyzed separately from
those in mussels because oysters naturally
accumulate those elements to a much greater
extent than do mussels.
Status and Trends of Chemical
Concentrations in Mussels and Oysters
in the United States
NOAA created the NS&T Program to assess the impact of
human activities on the quality of coastal and estuarine areas.
In 1986, NS&T's Mussel Watch Project began to monitor
chemical contamination by analyzing mussel and oyster tissues
collected at fixed sites throughout the coastal United States.
The term "Mussel Watch" usually refers to a program that uses
mollusks as environmental sentinels to monitor chemical cont-
amination. Mollusks are good indicators of contamination
because they concentrate chemicals from their surroundings
in their tissues. This makes chemical analyses an integrated
measurement of contamination over time, rather than a snap-
shot. Measurements of chemical contaminants concentrated in
mollusk tissues are also less prone to error than measurements
of lower concentrations of contaminants in water.
The NS&T sites for the Mussel Watch Project were chosen
to be representative of their surroundings. Because the sites
must support an indigenous community of mollusk, the sites
were not selected randomly and were not located in "hot spots"
directly influenced by particular sources of contamination.
Details on the NS&T sampling strategy, site and species
descriptions, quality assurance methods, chemical methods,
data analysis information, raw data, and a list of NS&T publi-
cations available on the Internet can be found at http://nsandt.noaa.gov.
Distributions of Concentrations
The Mussel Watch Project samples more than 220 sites regularly. In 1990, it sampled 214 sites,
and the sampling results, together with 1990 U.S. Census Bureau data, illustrate a trend in the
distribution of chemical concentrations that has persisted throughout the program. Table 2-1 lists
correlations between chemical concentrations and the number of people living within 12 miles of a
site. There are fairly strong connections between human population density and chemical concentra-
tions in oysters and mussels for total chlordane, total DDT, total PCBs, total butyltin, total high
molecular weight (HMW) PAHs, and lead, with Spearman correlation coefficients that are greater
than 0.5 (Table 2-1). These findings are not surprising. The first four chemicals are synthetic chemi-
cals whose concentrations would be zero in the absence of human activity. Although total HMW
PAHs and lead would normally be found in mollusks, their present concentrations are almost
entirely due to human actions. For total dieldrin, total low molecular weight (LMW) PAHs, and the
elements silver, mercury, and zinc, the national-scale correlations are low, but more than 40% of the
Chemical Spearman Correlation
Coefficient
Total PCBs
Lead
Total organotins
Total chlordane
Total DDT
Total HMW PAHs
Zinc (oyster)
Silver (mussel)
Total PAHs
Copper (mussel)
Total LMW PAHs
Copper (oyster)
Chromium
Mercury
Zinc (mussel)
Total dieldrin
Silver (oyster)
Arsenic
Nickel
Selenium
Cadmium
0.623
0.598
0.585
0.598
0.553
0.520
0.486
0.458
0.473
0.288
0.252
0.193
0.181
0.179
0.174
0.153
0.044
-0.024
-0.107
-0.140
-0.3 1 2
38 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
3.0
2.8-
2.6-
2.4-
2.2-
2.0-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
Figure 2-12. Trends in contaminants concentrations measured
in NOAA's Mussel Watch Project since 1986 (Developed by
NOAA for NCCR II).
high concentrations (those above the 85th percentile)
are found among the 15% of sites with 800,000 or
more people living within 12 miles. For other elements,
there was no evident tendency for high concentrations
to be driven by human actions.
Trends
The national trends in contamination for each chem-
ical measured in the Mussel Watch Project have been
described in various publications and on the Web. For
each chemical, the national-scale trends have shown
either a decrease or no trend at all over the last decade.
The only trace element to show a trend (decrease) has
been cadmium. All the chlorinated organic compounds
whose use has been banned have been showing a
decrease. The results for organic chemicals for 1986 through 2002 are shown in Figure 2-12. All the
chlorinated compound concentrations continue to show statistically significant decreasing trends,
and at this point, there are also evident decreasing trends for LMW and HMW PAHs.
Concentrations above Public Health Advisories
The intent of the Mussel Watch Project is to monitor the status and trends of coastal contamina-
tion, regardless of whether chemical concentrations present a hazard to marine biota or to human
consumers of seafood. One indicator of coastal condition, nonetheless, is the suitability of seafood
for human consumption. The FDA prohibits the interstate shipment and sale of seafood containing
more-than-specified concentrations of mercury and certain chlorinated hydrocarbons. FDA guide-
lines also suggest that mollusks not be consumed if concentration limits are exceeded for chromium,
nickel, lead, cadmium, and arsenic. Among the 4,000 mussel and oyster samples analyzed in the
Mussel Watch Project, no mollusks collected in any year exceeded the FDA limit or guideline
for mercury, chromium, nickel, or arsenic. For chlorinated hydrocarbons, only total PCBs at the
Angelica Rock site in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, exceeded concentration limits. The limit for
cadmium (for humans eating shellfish at the 90th percentile consumption rate) was exceeded in
1991 at the site on Lake Ponchartrain in New Orleans, Louisiana. In several years, mollusks at 36
of the sites had lead concentrations that exceeded the 0.8 ug/g wet weight guideline for children
consuming mollusks at the 90th percentile rate. Fewer sites had lead in excess of the 1.4 ug/g wet
weight limit for children consuming at the mean rate or pregnant women consuming at the 90th
percentile rate. No sites had lead concentrations in excess of guidelines for adult consumption.
The guidelines set by EPA for human health are generally more stringent than those set by FDA.
For example, although the FDA mercury limit of 1 ug/g wet weight has not been exceeded at any
NS&T site, the EPA limit of 0.4 ug/g has been exceeded at least once at 25 sites. Exceedances of the
EPA guideline for arsenic depend on how much of the total arsenic in a sample is assumed to be
inorganic. With an assumption of 10%, the EPA arsenic guideline has been exceeded in all samples
and in all years. With an assumption that only 1% of the total arsenic is in the inorganic form
(most toxic form), the guideline has been exceeded in some or all years at 47 sites. Major differences
between EPA and FDA limits are evident for dieldrin, total PCBs, and benzo(a)pyrene, the last
of which has no FDA limit. For the 222 sites sampled in 2001 and 2002, there were 7 exceedances
of EPA guidelines for dieldrin, 47 for total PCBs, and 45 for benzo(a)pyrene.
I
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
The sediment contaminant indicator in the nation's
estuaries is rated fair. National and regional monitoring
programs conducted by EPA and NOAA provide infor-
mation on the concentrations of contaminants found in
estuarine sediments throughout the United States.
Measurements of nearly 100 contaminants, including
25 PAHs, 22 PCBs, 25 pesticides, and 15 metals, have
been taken at each site. Long et al. (1995) developed
ERM and ERL values that were used as guidelines to
determine sediment condition. Poor condition was
determined to be an exceedance of one or more ERMs,
and fair condition was determined to be an exceedance
of five or more ERLs. Poor sediment contaminant
condition was observed in 7% of the estuarine sedi-
ments in the nation, and fair condition was observed in
an additional 8% (Figure 2-13). The highest proportion
of regional sediments exceeding these ERM guidelines
occurred in Puerto Rico (23%), Gulf Coast (11%), and
Northeast Coast (8%) estuaries.
Sediment Contaminant Criteria (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined for each
chemical as the 50th percentile (median) in a database of
ascending concentrations associated with adverse biological
effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined values for each
chemical as the I Oth percentile in a database of ascending
concentrations associated with adverse biological effects.
Sediment Contaminants - National (1997-2000)
Many of the activities that take place on land can also
effect the marine life in the Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary. Agriculture, an important multi-billion
dollar industry can also deliver pesticides and sediment
loads to the sanctuary during periods of heavy rainfall.
Good
Fair
Figure 2-13. National sediment contaminants data
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
40 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Endocrine Disruption in Fish: An Assessment of Recent Research
and Results
Concern has arisen that certain environmental contaminants, as well as some naturally occur-
ring compounds, have the potential to affect the endocrine system in animals. The endocrine
system regulates a number of vital life processes, including reproduction, growth, development,
and metabolism, through the production and action of hormones. Compounds that can either
mimic or antagonize the action of endogenous hormones are termed endocrine disrupting
compounds (EDCs), or endocrine disrupters. Studies on the identification and effects of EDCs
have become an important area of human and environmental health research.
NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science completed an assessment of recent labora-
tory and field investigations into endocrine disruption in freshwater and saltwater species of fish.
Most of the research to date in fish in the United States and elsewhere has concentrated on repro-
ductive endocrine disruption, although other areas of the endocrine system, such as thyroid
hormone balance and function, may also be targets for EDCs. Laboratory studies revealed that
a number of chemicals—including certain industrial intermediates (e.g., alkyl phenols and
bisphenol-A), PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, dioxins, trace elements, and plant sterols—can interfere
with the endocrine system in fish. The potency of these EDCs, however, is typically hundreds
to thousands of times lower than that of naturally occurring hormones. Environmental endocrine
disruption in fish can result in the presence of female egg proteins in males and reduced levels
of natural hormones in males and females, as well as in the presence of both male and female
gonadal tissue (intersex fish) in normally separate-sex species. Overt endocrine disruption does not
appear to be a widespread environmental phenomenon in fish, particularly in the United States,
but rather it is more likely to occur in locations adjacent to sewage treatment plants (STPs), near
pulp and paper mills, and in areas of high organic chemical contamination. Some of the most
severe impacts, including the presence of intersex fish, have been seen adjacent to STPs, particu-
larly near certain facilities in the United Kingdom. Effects near STPs are thought to be caused
primarily by natural and synthetic estrogens and to a lesser extent by degradation products of alkyl
phenolic surfactants. Effects in fish near pulp and
paper mills include reduced hormone levels and
masculinization of females, and they have been
linked to the presence of 6-osteral, a plant sterol
released during the paper-pulping process. In
areas of heavy industrial activity and contamina-
tion, reduced levels of estrogens and androgens, as
well as reduced gonadal development, have been
seen in fish and are thought to be linked to the
presence of PAHs, PCBs, and possibly dioxin.
For more information visit
http://nsandt.noaa.gov/index_endocrine.htm.
A mixed-species school of rockfish in the ocean above
Cordell Bank, CA. (photo: Cordell Bank Expeditions)
National Coastal Condition Report II 41
-------
ghlight
Pre- 1 972
0 Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning
O Paralytic shellfish poisoning
D Ciguatera
D Fish kills
Harmful Algal Blooms
The term "harmful algal blooms" (HABs) describes a diverse array of marine algae blooms
that cause toxic effects in humans and other organisms; physical impairment of fish and shellfish;
nuisance conditions from foul odors to discoloration of waters; overwhelming effects on ecosys-
tems, such as severe oxygen depletion; and overgrowth of bottom populations. For some HAB
species, concentrations of only a few algae cells per liter may produce toxic effects that cause illness
or death to humans, marine mammals, and other marine life.
HABs have been responsible for an estimated $1 billion in economic losses over the past few
decades. These blooms have decimated the scallop fishery in Long Island's estuaries; closed shell-
fisheries on Georges Bank, from North
Carolina to Louisiana, and throughout
the Pacific Northwest; killed hundreds
of manatees in Florida, sea lions in
California, and dolphins in the northern
Gulf of Mexico; and caused significant
respiratory illness in coastal residents
and vacationers.
HABs are found in the waters of
almost all coastal and Great Lake states,
and they have been increasing in
number and extent. Nationwide, there
are more HAB species, more HAB
events, more algal toxins, more areas — ^ Post-1972
affected, more fisheries affected, and
higher economic losses today than there
were 25 years ago. The reason for the
apparent increase in HAB rates is uncer-
tain. Some reports of new HAB events
may simply reflect better detection
methods and more monitoring rather
than new species introductions or
dispersal events. Today, more researchers
and managers are surveying a greater
number of waterways for the presence of
HAB species, using more sensitive and
more accurate tools than ever before.
O P/jesterio-like organisms
O Macroalgae
A Brown tide
A Amnesiac shellfish poisoning
9 Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning
O Paralytic shellfish poisoning
D Ciguatera
D Fish, bird, mammal, and submerged
aquatic vegetation kills
Since 1972, the number and distribution of HAB species and events in
U.S. waters have increased (CENR.,2000).
42 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Both natural events and human activities may also be responsible for the apparent increase in
HAB rates. In addition, natural events, such as hurricanes, may play a role in the spread of HABs
by dispersing the algae population and their nutrient sources via wind and water movement.
Humans may also contribute to the expansion of species by transporting toxic species to new port
areas in ships' ballast water.
Several causes of HABs have been identified—some natural, others man-made—and research
continues to identify and distinguish these causes. Excess nutrients delivered to coastal waters may
act as fertilizer and stimulate blooms in populations of naturally occurring algae.
Currently, management options are limited; they include developing methods to reduce the
incidence and extent of HABs containing blooms and minimizing the impact of the blooms.
Where possible, preventing the growth of HABs is preferable to treating the symptoms. It may be
possible to prevent growth of some HABs (1) by controlling the nutrient inputs to HAB species
that are stimulated by nutrient, (2) by using clays to precipitate algal cells, or (3) by using viruses
to attack the algal cells.
For more information visit http://www.hab.nos.noaa.gov.
U.S. estuaries with reported moderate to high levels of nuisance or
toxic blooms, cited as symptoms of high eutrophication conditions
that are caused primarily by nutrients (Bricker et al., 1999).
National Coastal Condition Report II 43
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Although TOC exists naturally in estuarine
sediments and is the result of the degradation of
autothonous and allochthonous organic materials
(e.g., phytoplankton, leaves, twigs, dead organisms),
anthropogenic sources of TOC materials (e.g., organic
industrial wastes, untreated or only primary-treated
sewage) can significantly elevate the level of TOC in
sediments. TOC in estuarine sediments is often a source
of food for some benthic organisms, and high levels of
TOC in estuarine sediments can result in significant
changes in benthic community structure and in the
predominance of pollution-tolerant species. Increased
levels of sediment TOC can also reduce the general
availability of organic contaminants (e.g., PAHs, PCBs,
pesticides); however, increases in temperature or
decreases in dissolved oxygen can sometimes result in
the release of these "TOC-bound" and "unavailable"
contaminants. Nationally, the level of TOC in estuarine
sediments was rated good, with only 3% of estuarine
sediments being rated poor (Figure 2-14). The only
exception to this rating was Puerto Rico, where estu-
arine sediments showed high levels of TOC, with
44% of sediments having TOC levels higher than 5%
(poor condition).
Total Organic Carbon - National (1997-2000)
Fair (2-5%TOC)
20%
Good (< 2% TOC)
77%
[Good Fair Poor
Figure 2-14. National sediment TOC data (U.S. EPA/NCA).
44 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Benthic Index
The condition of benthic communities in the
nation's estuaries is fair to poor. Figure 2-15 shows that
17% of estuarine sediments are characterized by benthic
communities that are in poor condition (i.e., the
communities have lower-than-expected diversity, are
populated by greater-than-expected pollution-tolerant
species, or contain fewer-than-expected pollution-
sensitive species as measured by multimetric benthic
indices). Estuaries in the Northeast and Puerto Rico
were rated poor, with 22% and 35% of sediments
in those regions having poor benthic communities.
Estuaries along the Gulf Coast were rated borderline
fair, with 17% of sediments rated poor and an addi-
tional 26% rated fair for benthic communities.
For the locations that showed poor benthic commu-
nity quality or reduced benthic diversity, the co-occur-
rence of poor environmental quality (exposure from
degraded water quality or sediment quality variables)
is shown in Figure 2-16. Of the 17% of the nation's
estuarine area that had poor benthos, 70% also showed
indicators of sediment quality and 42% showed indica-
tors of water quality. These figures indicate generally
that impaired benthic condition co-occurred in areas
with degraded sediment conditions. This co-occurrence
does not imply causation. In fact, numerous sites with
documented water and sediment quality degradation
showed healthy, unimpaired benthic communities,
suggesting that the interaction is complex and that
increased environmental stress will not always result
in degraded aquatic life. However, the converse—the
occurrence of poor benthic community conditions—
mostly occurred in areas of environmental degradation.
Coastal Habitat Index
Although the loss of wetland habitats in the United
States has been significant over the past 200 years, only
small losses of coastal wetlands were documented from
1990 to 2000 (Table 2-2). The coastal habitat index
score is the average of the mean long-term, decadal loss
rate of coastal wetlands (1780-1990) and the present
decadal loss rate of coastal wetlands (1990-2000).
During the decade from 1990 to 2000, the United
States lost approximately 13,210 acres of coastal
Benthic Index - National (1997-2000)
I
Fair
13%
Good Fair Poor
Figure 2-15. National benthic index condition (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 45
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Poor Water/Sediment Quality Indicators that Co-Occur with Low Benthic Diversity- National (1997-2000)
None
20%
Sediment and
Water Quality
33%
Sediment Quality
38%
Water Quality
9%
Sediment Quality
Water Quality
Sediment and Water Quality
None
Figure 2-16. Indices and indicators of degraded water/sediment quality that co-occur with poor benthic condition in U.S. estuaries (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
wetlands (exclusive of the Great Lakes region). This is a
loss rate of about 0.2%. Averaging this recent rate of
decadal wetland loss with the mean long-term, decadal
loss rate (2.3%) results in a national rating of poor for
estuarine condition on the coastal habitat index. The
largest index scores were seen in West Coast estuaries
(1.90) and in Gulf Coast estuaries (1.30). Because Gulf
Coast wetlands constitute two-thirds of the coastal
wetlands in the conterminous 48 states and the Gulf
Coast index score is high, the overall national rating for
the coastal habitat index is poor (1.26). For the Great
Lakes region, researchers used other measurement
approaches to assess wetland losses and rated them fair
to poor.
Table 2-2. Changes in Marine and Estuarine Wetlands, 1780 to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 (Dahl, 1990; Dahl, 2003).
Coastline
or Area
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Northeast Coast
Southeast Coast
Gulf Coast
West Coast
Conterminous
48 States Total
Total (all areas)
Area 1990
(acres)
2, 1 32,900
31,150
1 7,300
452,310
1,107,370
3,777,120
320,220
5,657,020
7,838,370
Area 2000
(acres)
2,132,000
No data
No data
45 1 ,660
1,105,170
3,769,370
318,510
5,644,710
7,825,160
Change 1990-2000
(acres) (%)
-900 (0.04%)
—
—
-650(0.14%)
-2,200 (0.20%)
-7,750(0.21%)
-1,710(0.53%)
-12,310(0.22%)
-13,210(0.17%)
Mean Decadal Loss
Rate 1780- 1990
0.05%
0.06%
—
1.86%
1.91%
2.39%
3.26%
2.30%
1.25%
Index Value
0.05
—
—
1.00
1.06
1.30
1.90
1.26
0.71
46 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
National estuarine condition as measured by fish
tissue contaminants is poor based on the NCA survey
alone; however, incorporating information from the
Great Lakes region (Chapter 7) increases the national
ranking from poor to fair. Figure 2-17 shows that 22%
of all sites sampled through the NCA survey showed
contaminant concentrations in fish tissues above EPA
guidelines. This percentage may have been increased in
part due to the use of juvenile fish rather than fish of
commercial size. In most states, NCA surveys collected
fish for analysis of whole-body burdens of contaminants
(i.e., contaminants from the entire fish—fillets, head,
skin, organs). The use of juvenile-sized fish could
increase the likelihood of higher, whole-body concentra-
tions of contaminants, especially for those contaminants
not found in muscle tissue. In a few states, both edible
fillets and whole-body burdens were examined. EPA
Guidance describing risk-based concentrations of
concern for recreational and subsistence fishers (U.S.
EPA, 2000c) applies to fillet, whole-body, and organ-
specific concentrations. Whole-body contaminant
concentrations for many contaminants (e.g., pesticides,
cadmium, PAHs) are higher than the concentration in
muscle tissue (fillets); however, mercury concentrations
can be severely underestimated using the whole-body
concentration data. For example, mercury concentra-
tions can be three to five times more concentrated in
muscle tissue than in whole-body samples. About one-
third of coastal states often use whole-body concentra-
tions to set advisories for waters where consumer groups
eat whole fish. Few contaminant guidelines exist for
wildlife protection.
The NCA survey data examined whole-body
composite samples (5 to 10 fish of a target species per
site) for 90 specific contaminants from 653 sites
throughout the estuarine waters of the United States
(except from Louisiana, Florida, and Puerto Rico). For
most contaminants, whole-body concentrations overes-
timate the risk of consuming only the fillet portion of
the fish unless the contaminant is concentrated in
muscle tissue (e.g., mercury), and the findings should
be considered accordingly. In addition, most analyses
were conducted on juvenile fish (non-market-size fish),
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Tissue Contaminants - National (1997-2000)
I
Good Fair
Poor
Figure 2-17. National fish tissue contaminants index data (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 47
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
which are known to have accumulated contaminant
levels that are lower than those in larger, market-
sized fish.
The whole-body contaminant concentrations in fish
and shellfish were compared with the range of concen-
trations for EPA guidelines. At least one of the analyzed
contaminants exceeded the maximum of the range in
22% of estuarine waters sampled in the United States
(Figure 2-17). An additional 15% of estuarine waters
had fish or shellfish tissue concentrations within the
noncancer range for at least one contaminant. Areas of
poor and fair condition were dominated by total PCBs
(39%), total DDT (16%), total PAHs (6%), and
mercury (1%). Fish and shellfish analyzed included
Atlantic croaker, white perch, catfish, flounders, scup,
blue crab, lobster, shrimp, whiffs, mullet, tomcod, spot,
weakfish, halibut, soles, sculpins, sanddabs, basses, and
sturgeon. In the Northeast Coast region, 31% of sites
where fish were captured were in poor condition, and
29% were in fair condition (the Northeast Coast was
the only region that showed poor or fair condition for
more than 50% of the sites yielding fish). Exceedances
in the Northeast Coast region occurred largely for total
PCBs (51%), PAHs (14%), DDT (9%), and mercury
(3%). In West Coast estuaries, 27% of sites where fish
were captured were in poor condition, and 11 % were in
fair condition, with exceedances primarily seen in total
PCBs (30%) and DDT (17%). Approximately 90% of
these sites were in San Francisco Bay, the Columbia
River, and the Puget Sound system. Exceedances in
Gulf Coast estuaries occurred at 22% of sites, primarily
for PCBs (16%) and DDT (10%).
A factor of three was used to correct whole-body
concentrations of mercury to approximate fillet concen-
trations, based on a comparison of the ratio of whole
fish to fillet mercury concentrations found in scientific
literature, and 42% of estuarine sites that yielded fish in
the United States exceeded EPA Guidance values for
mercury (Table 2-3). These exceedances included 48%
of estuarine sites where fish were captured in the
Northeast Coast, 43% in the West Coast, 18% in the
Gulf Coast (excluding Florida and Louisiana), and 10%
in the Southeast Coast.
Table 2-3. Projected Exceedances of Noncancer Health Endpoints for Associated Four 8-Ounce Fillet
Meals per Month for Mercury (Based on Three Times the Observed Whole-Body Concentrations)
(U.S.EPA/NCA).
Region
Northeast Coast
Southeast Coast
Gulf Coast
West Coast
Total United States
Proportion of Region
within the
Concentration Range
(0.12-0.23 ppm)(Fair)
34%
7%
12%
19%
24%
Proportion of Region
above the Upper
Limit of the
Concentration Range
(> 0.23 ppm)(Poor)
14%
3%
6%
24%
18%
Proportion of Region
in Poor and
Fair Condition
48%
10%
18%
43%
42%
The snook (Centropomus
undeimalis) is popular in the
recreational fishing industry
of the Florida Keys.This
species, usually found in the
Florida Bay and around the
mangroves of the Keys, has
also been spotted out on the
reef, (photo: Bob Care -
Florida Keys NMS)
48 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
As of 2001, many marine fish stocks in LMEs
around the country were healthy, and other stocks were
rebuilt. Despite this progress, a number of the nation's
most significant fisheries face serious challenges,
including West Coast groundfish, the Southeast
Coast snapper-grouper complex, and Northeast Coast
mixed species.
In 2001, NOAA's Office of Sustainable Fisheries
reported on the status of 595 marine fish and shellfish
stocks out of 951 total stocks (NMFS, 2002). Eighty-
one stocks were overfished (compared with 92 in 2000),
and 67 of these (83%) were steadily rebuilding. Twenty
more stocks in 2001 had sustainable harvest rates than
stocks in 2000. Sixty-five stocks experienced catches
exceeding allowable harvest levels. The NMFS has
approved rebuilding plans for the majority of over-
fished stocks. Of the 81 stocks that are overfished,
67 have an approved rebuilding plan, and 9 have plans
under development.
Recovery from Biomass Depletion in
Large Marine Ecosystems
Mandated management actions of the Northeast
Shelf LMEs are reversing declines in bio mass yields that
have occurred over the last several decades. Since 1994,
reductions in fishing effort increased the spawning stock
biomass levels of cod, haddock, yellowtail flounder, and
other species in the U.S. Northeast Shelf ecosystem.
In the 1990s, herring and mackerel stocks began to
recover and establish higher stock sizes. This recovery
was due in part to a decrease in the amount of foreign
fishing for these species, as well as to more than a
decade of low fishing mortality. Bottom trawl survey
indices for both species increased dramatically, with
more than a tenfold increase in abundance (average of
1977-1981 vs. 1995-1999) by the late 1990s. Stock
biomass of herring increased to more than 2.5 million mt
by 1997- For mackerel, total stock biomass has continued
to increase since the closure of the foreign fishery in the
late 1970s. Although absolute estimates of biomass for
Top 10 Commercial Species Landed in 2001
Top 10 by Quantity Top 10 by Value
Rank Species
1 Pollock
2 Menhaden
3 Salmon
4 Cod
5 Hakes
6 Flounders
7 Shrimp
8 Tunas
9 Herring
10 Crabs
Metric Tons
1 ,446,260
789,900
327,870
229,028
225,504
159,830
147,182
150,185
1 36,300
1 23,490
Species
Shrimp
Crabs
Lobsters
Pollock
Salmon
Tunas
Scallops
Clams
Cod
Halibut
Dollars (thousands)
$568,547
$381,667
$275,728
$236,923
$208,926
$207,300
$175,416
$161,992
$150,157
$115,169
Recreational Fishing Statistics for 2001
I 2.1 million anglers: 52% Atlantic, 25% Gulf of Mexico, 21% Pacific (excluding Alaska), 2% Puerto Rico
86.8 million trips: 61 % Atlantic, 26% Gulf of Mexico, I I % Pacific, 2% Puerto Rico
444.2 million fish caught: 55% Atlantic, 36.5% Gulf of Mexico, 8% Pacific, 0.5% Puerto Rico
National Coastal Condition Report II 49
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
the late 1990s are not available for mackerel, recent
analyses place the stock at or near a historic high in
total biomass and spawning stock biomass. In addition,
recent evidence indicates that, following mandated
substantial reductions in fishing effort, both haddock
and yellowtail flounder stocks are responding to the
catch reductions favorably, with substantial growth
reported in spawning stock biomass size since 1994
for both species. In addition, a very strong year-class
of yellowtail flounder was produced in 1998, and a
strong year-class of haddock was produced in 1999
(see Figure 2-18).
m
1)
p «
a.I
§1
CQ ^
J^ c
u a)
^1
^0
c - ""v/ ^ y
^^ Spawning Stock Biomass ^^
^^ Recruitment ', <% ^r .
Exploitation *^^'
>
ImJ
— ^ s
JLL^nnnn
-0.35
-0.30 oj
-0.25^
-0.20 1
•0.15 1
•0.10 m
•0.05
- nnn
1975
1980
1985
Figure 2-18. Spawning stock biomass, recruitment, and
exploitation rate of Georges Bank haddock (Sherman et al.,
2002).
During the last two decades, herring and mackerel
stocks have undergone unprecedented levels of growth,
approaching an historic high in combined biomass.
This growth is taking place during the same period that
the fishery-management councils for the New England
and Mid-Atlantic areas of the Northeast Shelf LME
have sharply curtailed fishing effort on haddock and
yellowtail flounder stocks. Studies of primary produc-
tivity and zooplankton biomass suggest that there are
ample food resources for these stocks. The "carrying
capacity" of zooplankton that support herring and
mackerel stocks and larval zooplanktivorous haddock
and yellowtail flounder appears to be sufficient to
sustain the strong year-classes reported for 1998
(yellowtail flounder) and 1999 (haddock).
The zooplankton component of the Northeast Shelf
LME is in robust condition, with biomass levels at or
above the levels of the long-term median values of the
past two decades. This zooplankton community
provides a suitable prey base for supporting a large
biomass of pelagic fish (herring and mackerel), while
providing sufficient zooplankton prey to support strong
year-classes of recovering haddock and yellowtail
flounder stocks. No evidence has been found in the fish,
zooplankton, temperature, or chlorophyll component to
indicate any large-scale oceanographic regime shifts of
the magnitude reported for the North Pacific or
Northeast Atlantic Ocean areas.
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
Twenty-three of the 27 coastal states and territories
(hereafter, states and territories will be referred to as
states), the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Delaware
River Basin Commission rated general water quality
conditions in some of their estuarine waters. Altogether,
these states assessed 31,072 square miles of estuarine
waters, or 36% of the 87,369 square miles of estuarine
waters in the nation. Of these 27 coastal states, 14 rated
general water quality conditions in some of their coastal
waters. They assessed 3,221 miles of ocean shoreline,
representing 5-5% of the nation's coastline (including
Alaska's 36,000 miles of coastline), or 14% of the
22,618 miles of coastline excluding Alaska.
The states reported that 45% of their assessed
estuarine waters have good water quality that fully
supports designated uses (Figure 2-19). Of the assessed
waters, nearly 4% are threatened for one or more uses.
Figure 2-19. Water quality in assessed estuaries of the United
States (U.S. EPA, 2002).
50 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Supporting
1
These waters meet applicable water quality
standards, both criteria and designated use.
These waters currently meet water
Threatened quality standards, but states are concerned
I — that they may degrade in the near future.
These waters meet water quality standards most
of the time, but exhibit occasional exceedances.
These waters do not meet water
quality standards.
Some form of pollution or habitat degradation impairs
the remaining 51% of assessed estuarine waters. Most of
the assessed ocean shoreline miles (2,755 miles, or 86%)
have good quality and support a healthy aquatic
community and public activities (Figure 2-20). Of the
assessed waters, 79% fully support designated uses and
7% are threatened for one or more uses. Some form of
pollution or habitat degradation impairs the remaining
14% of the assessed shoreline.
After comparing water quality data with water
quality standards, states and tribes classified the waters
into the following categories:
For the purposes of this report, waters classified as
partially supporting or not supporting their uses are
categorized as impaired. Twenty-two states reported
the individual use support of their estuarine waters
(Figure 2-21). States also provided limited information
on individual use support in coastal waters (Figure 2-22).
General conclusions cannot be drawn from such a small
fraction of the nation's coastal waters. Significantly,
Threatened
7%
Impaired
14%
Figure 2-20. Water quality in assessed shoreline waters of the
United States (U.S. EPA, 2002).
11 states had adopted statewide coastal fish consump-
tion advisories for mercury, PCBs, and other pollutants
as of the 2000 305 (b) reporting period. These advisories
are not represented in the use support numbers.
The major stressors that impair assessed estuarine
waters are metals, pesticides, oxygen-depleting
substances, toxic chemicals, PCBs, and dissolved solids.
The states reported that pathogens, oxygen-depleting
substances, turbidity, suspended solids, oil and grease,
metals, and nutrients are the major stressors causing
impairment to assessed ocean shoreline miles.
I
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 2-2 I. Individual use support for assessed estuaries of the
United States (U.S. EPA, 2002).
2,500
2,000 •
1,500 •
1,000 •
500 •
0
-n
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 2-22. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters of the United States (U.S. EPA, 2002).
National Coastal Condition Report II 51
-------
ghlight
Mercury in Marine Life - A Complex Story
How big a problem is mercury in marine life? Although scientists do not know how much
of a problem mercury in marine life poses to humans, they do know that mercury in the human
diet comes primarily from fish. Exposure to too much mercury via fish consumption can lead to
neurological effects in the developing fetus, children, and adults and can increase the risk of heart
disease in adults. Scientists also know that some of the larger predatory fish commonly consumed
by humans, such as sharks, swordfish, and king mackerel, have high levels of mercury in their
tissues. It is uncertain, however, whether these concentrations are getting higher or lower over
time, because there is no national baseline for mercury concentrations in saltwater species.
How do we characterize the transport of mercury in estuarine and marine environments?
First, although atmospheric deposition is not the only source of mercury in estuaries and coastal
waters, it is a primary source. Mercury that is deposited in estuaries and coastal waters may have
originated as air emissions from a nearby source, from a source within the state, from a regional
source outside the state, or from a source outside the country, and identifying the correct source
can be difficult. Second, conditions in the sediments in coastal areas affect the speed at which
inorganic mercury is converted to methylmercury, the most toxic chemical form of mercury that
enters the food chain. Scientists are currently unable to determine which coastal areas are more
likely to produce methylmercury at high rates and which will have relatively low rates.
Unfortunately, even less is known about how mercury is transformed in the deep ocean. Third,
although there is some information on the concentrations of mercury in fish and shellfish species,
the migratory nature of many marine species requires additional information on where particular
species feed and what they eat in order to determine how they are exposed to mercury. Finally, fish
move globally in international commerce. Fish consumed in the United States may have been
harvested in a foreign country, and fish that people in other countries consume may have been
harvested in U.S. waters.
Pacific (2,570)
Atlantic (5,674)
States with data in the Mercury in Marine Life Database (U.S. EPA, 2003b).
52 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
What kind of monitoring data do we have? Many of the data collected on mercury from
long-term monitoring programs are collected by sampling small fish that serve as prey for larger
commercial and recreational species. Although the mercury concentrations are not very high in
these small fish, concentrations are higher in the larger predator fish that consume these small fish,
and these larger fish are typically the fish preferred by people. Data collected from a variety of
sources—5 federal, 4 regional, and 26 state monitoring programs—and assembled by EPA provide
a recent snapshot of mercury concentrations in fish and shellfish. The data show that mercury
concentrations are relatively high in some species popular among recreational fishers, but data are
limited or unavailable for several popular recreational species. In addition, the data show that less
information is available for many of the popular commercial species.
I
Atlantic crocker
Bluefish
Dolphin*
King mackerel
Red drum
Red snapper*
Sheepshead
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Summer flounder*
0
-L
1
^=.
I
1
i
1
1
1
• Mean
a
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.
Mercury Concentration (ppm wet weight)
''Small sample size
Mercury concentrations in the top 10 recreational species in the United States. The arrow at 0.12 ppm
represents the lower acceptable concentration limit based on EPA Guidance for consumption of 4
meals/per month (U.S. EPA, 2003b).
What does it mean? For samples of king mackerel collected on the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico coasts combined, the mean and median mercury concentrations are 1.06 and 0.85 ppm
mercury (wet weight), respectively. These are some of the higher concentrations observed in
recreational species; however, this is only a starting point. Scientists still need to understand how
the mercury is getting into these fish. That is why understanding how mercury is transported
among organisms in the marine environment is a complex challenge.
For more information about the data set, contact John Wilson at wilson.john@epa.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ghlight
National Land Cover Data
The USGS and EPA created a nationwide land cover data set, National Land Cover Data
(NLCD), for the conterminous 48 states based on early to mid-1990s, 30-meter Landsat
Thematic Mapper satellite imagery. This NLCD was initially created to meet the needs of six
federal environmental monitoring programs that formed a partnership called the Multi-Resolution
Land Characterization Consortium. The consortium consists of agencies that produce or use land
cover data as part of their missions: USGS, EPA, NOAA, USDA, and the U.S. Forest Service
(USES), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). In addition to these federal agencies, other federal, state, and local govern-
ment agencies and various environmental groups require recent intermediate-scale land cover data
to perform their missions. Before the NLCD was created, USGS had compiled an intermediate
land cover data set for the conterminous 48 states based on 1970s aerial photography. Although
the 1970s data set can still be used for some applications, many land cover changes have taken
place over the past 20 or more years. The NLCD provides a relatively current, consistent, and
accurate land cover data set for a variety of applications: calculating land cover statistics, planning
land use, deriving landscape pattern metrics, developing land management policies, and assessing
ecosystem status and health.
The NLCD consists of 21 classes of land cover categories applied in a consistent manner across
the 48 states (http://landcover.usgs.gov/index.asp). The NLCD developers established standard
procedures to classify the Landsat Thematic mapper satellite imagery that was used, in conjunc-
tion with ancillary data sets, to refine the classification process.
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlani
Northeast
West
Coast
Commercial, Industrial,
Transportation
High Intensity Residential | 0.26%
Low Intensity Residential H| 1.02%
Water
25% 30%
NLCD data for the 48 conterminous states, with a chart depicting percentage of total land cover for
selected categories (USGS, 1999).
54 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Land Cover Area Totals
Category Land Cover
Low-intensity residential
High-intensity residential
Commercial, industrial, transportation
Woody wetland
Emergent herbaceous wetland
Square
Miles
31,696.13
8,127.12
17,550.95
85,419.40
37,984.70
Percentage
of National
Total Area
1.02
0.26
0.56
2.75
1.22
Source: USGS, 1999
Total acreage values were calculated for
the conterminous 48 states based on the
NLCD's 21 classes. The area and percentage
of the national total for five land cover
categories (low intensity residential; high
intensity residential, commercial, industrial,
and transportation; woody wetland;
and emergent herbaceous wetland) are
summarized in the table at right.
For the NCCR II, areas of interest were extracted and evaluated for the five coastal regions
(outlined in red on the map) of the conterminous 48 states. Analyses and comparisons can be
made within and among these regions. The five land cover categories highlighted comprise only
5.81% of the total national land cover; however, these highlighted categories are well represented
in the nation's coastal regions. The bar graphs show that the combined coastal regions account
for the following percentages of the nation's land cover totals, reported by category: 32.97% of
commercial, industrial, transportation; 46.67% of high-intensity residential; 45.6% of low-
intensity residential; 52.45% of emergent herbaceous wetland; and 47-87% of woody wetland.
For more information about the NLCD, contact Jimmy Johnston at jimmy_johnston@usgs.gov.
Great Lakes by Category
Northeast by Category
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetland
Woody Wetland
Commercial, Industrial,
Transportation
High Intensity Residential
Low Intensity Residential
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetland
Woody Wetland
Commercial, Industrial,
Transportation
High Intensity Residential
Low Intensity Residential
J 32.53
D % of Total Coastal Areas
• % of Total National Area:
10 20 30 40 SO 60
Percent of Area
West by Category
| 0.93
0.49
0.39
0.19
D%ofTotal Coastal Are;
• % of Total National Are
10 20 30 40 SO 60
Percent of Area
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetland
Woody Wetland
Commercial, Industrial,
Transportation
High Intensity Residential
Low Intensity Residential
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetland
Woody Wetland
Commercial, Industrial,
Transportation
High Intensity Residential
Low Intensity Residential
Gulf Coast by Category
Emergent Herbaceous
Wetland
Woody Wetland
Commercial, Industrial,
Transportation
High Intensity Residential
Low Intensity Residential
C
57.791
130.31
^i= |28'35
pi. "''2
1 D% of Total Coastal Areas
|765 ' •' •%ofTotal National Areas
10 20 30 40 SO 6
Percent of Area
Source: USGS, 1999
National Coastal Condition Report II 55
-------
ghlight
Monitoring in the National Marine Sanctuaries
The National Marine Sanctuary Program is developing a System-Wide Monitoring Program
(SWMP) for the nation's 13 marine sanctuaries. The goal of the SWMP is to provide a consistent
approach to the integrated design, implementation, and reporting of environmental data from
individual sanctuaries, sanctuary networks, and the sanctuary system as a whole. The design
process allows for tailored monitoring in all sanctuaries, developing information critical to
management while contributing to and benefitting from other local, regional, and national moni-
toring programs. It also provides a means to design monitoring programs to address networks of
sanctuaries, specific issues, or resource types. Driven by scale-specific questions based on existing
threats to water quality, habitat and living resources, as well as system questions applicable at all
sanctuaries, monitoring programs will be developed and implemented at multiple spatial scales,
with priority given to sanctuary-based monitoring.
Key partners operating at relevant spatial scales will support the programs. Local, regional,
and national reports will document results at appropriate levels of specificity and incorporate
an icon-based scheme to summarize the status and trends for key indicators. The most detailed
technical information, and that most applicable to site management, will be reported for
individual sanctuaries.
One of the reporting methods that the National Marine Sanctuary Program is considering is
a method derived from the format used in the NCCR I. This format consists of customized icons
that use color (green, yellow, and red) to show status and shapes (squares and upward- or down-
ward-pointing triangles) to
show trends. The use of
changing colors in the trian-
gular icons provides a forecast
of pending condition based on
the judgment of analysts,
whereas square icons are used
to illustrate static conditions.
The icons include pictures or
symbols that refer uniquely to
elements that affect or compose
the sanctuary system. This
report card approach summa-
rizes detailed monitoring results
for specific sites and provides
useful information to audiences
with a general interest in
marine sanctuaries.
Rating System for Icon Reports
Good
Overall ^a'C
Rating ' S
Pbor
-
^V Deteriorating from "good" to "poor"
/\ Improving from "fair" to "good"
| "Poor" and stable
Water
Stressors
Eutrophic
Condition
Human
Health
Human
Impacts
Habitat
Abundance/
Distribution
Contaminants Structure
Human
Impacts
Living Resources
Invasives
Extracted
Species
Biodiversity
Human
Impacts
Condition
56 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Sanctuary Report: Flower Garden Banks NMS
Good
Fair
Existing data were used to generate an example of this type of report for the Flower Garden
Banks National Marine Sanctuary in the northwest Gulf of Mexico. The diagram below illustrates
the good overall condition of the bank's reef resources, as well as several areas of concern to sanc-
tuary management. Text adjacent to the icons indicates specific aspects of the environment that
analysts deemed responsible
for the resource's condition.
For example, the mass
mortality of a dominant
herbivorous sea urchin,
Diadema antillarum, in the
mid-1980s remains a signifi-
cant potential disruption to
the reef ecosystem (indicated
by the yellow box). Recovery
of Diadema populations has
not occurred, yet their mass
mortality in the mid-1980s
has not resulted in significant Poor. i
long-term changes in the
Flower Gardens.
Another concern in the Flower Gardens is that various discharges may threaten sanctuary water
and living resources. Charter dive vessels and oil and gas production facilities in the vicinity are
the primary sources of the discharges, which include sewage, bilge water, food, and produced
water from wells. High levels of scuba diving activity at certain mooring buoy locations also put
stress on some reef areas. In addition, illegal fishing in the sanctuary's deeper areas and mechanical
damage caused by anchoring, tow cables, and fishing gear present additional potential threats to
the system. Although most of these activities have had minimal consequences on the sanctuary
thus far, sanctuary staff are taking steps to characterize and monitor certain contaminants that
may act as indicators of problems, and to monitor particular locations because trends indicate
that changes may occur in the near future.
Additional information on the National Marine Sanctuary Program is available at
http ://sanctuaries. noaa. gov/.
I
Water
u
W^ Algae
T Mooring
Locations
U-^=T7 Rig. Platform, &
\/ Ship Discharges
Habitat
V Moo ring
H Abundance/
Distribution
PAHs
\~?y Heavy Metals
Antifoulants
Anchoring
lb>7 Divers
V Fishing Gear
Living Resources
*
\Y/ Illegal Longlining
* Diadema
\*/ Tubastrea
\R/ Coral Diseases
V Visitation
Fishing
Oil and Gas Ops
National Coastal Condition Report II 57
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Fish Consumption Advisories
A total of 82 fish consumption advisories were in
effect for estuarine and coastal marine waters of the
United States in 2002, including 74% of the coastal
waters of the contiguous 48 states (Figure 2-23)- In
addition, 30 fish consumption advisories were in effect
in the Great Lakes and their connecting waters. An
advisory may represent one waterbody or one type of
waterbody within a state's jurisdiction, or one or more
species offish. Some of the advisories are issued as
single statewide advisories for all coastal estuarine or
marine waters within the state (Table 2-5). Although
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 contaminants in their tissues than have
younger individuals.
The yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), abundant in the
waters of the Florida Keys, is the center of a large commercial
and recreational fishing industry. Found in the water column
above the reef this is usually one of the first species a diver or
snorkeler will see upon entering the water (photo: Jim Raymont -
Florida Keys NMS)
Number of
advisories per USGS
cataloging unit in 2002
I
2-4
5-9
No Advisories
Figure 2-23.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 for 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
58 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Table 2-4. Summary of States with Statewide
Advisories for Coastal and Estuarine Waters
(U.S. EPA,2003c)
State Pollutants
Alabama Mercury
Connecticut PCBs
Florida Mercury
Georgia Mercury
Louisiana Mercury
Maine Dioxins
Mercury
PCBs
Massachusetts Mercury
PCBs
Mississippi Mercury
New Hampshire PCBs
New Jersey PCBs
Cadmium
Dioxins
New York Cadmium
Dioxins
PCBs
North Carolina Mercury
Rhode Island PCBs
Mercury
South Carolina Mercury
Texas Mercury
Species
under Advisory
King mackerel
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
Bluefish
Cobia
Greater amberjack
Jack crevalle
King mackerel
Little tunny
Shark
Spotted sea trout
King mackerel
King mackerel
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
King mackerel
Lobster (tomalley)
Shark
Swordfish
Tilefish
Tuna
King mackerel
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
American eel
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
American eel
Blue crab
(hepatopancreas)
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
King mackerel
Shark
Bluefish
Shark
Striped bass
Swordfish
King mackerel
King mackerel
The number and geographic extent of advisories
can serve as indicators of the level of contamination
of estuarine and marine fish and shellfish, but a number
of other factors must also 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 shoreline waters. Although
advisories in U.S. estuarine and shoreline waters have
been issued for a total of 23 individual chemical conta-
minants, most advisories issued have resulted from four
primary contaminants. These four chemical contami-
nants—PCBs, mercury, DDT and its degradation
products DDE and DDD, and dioxins/furans—were
responsible at least in part for 91% of all fish consump-
tion advisories in effect in estuarine and coastal marine
waters in 2002 (Figure 2-24, Tables 2-6 and 2-7). These
chemical contaminants are biologically accumulated
(bioaccumulated) in the tissues of aquatic organisms to
concentrations many times higher than concentrations
in seawater (Figure 2-25). Concentrations of these
contaminants in the tissues of aquatic organisms may
be increased at each successive level of the food web.
As a result, top predators in a food web 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 conta-
minants and 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 water-
bodies based on potential human health effects (U.S.
EPA, 1997).
National Coastal Condition Report II 59
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
PCBs
Other
| Mercury
o
U
Dioxin
DDT and DDE
Table 2-5. The Four Bioaccumulative Contaminants
Responsible, at Least in Part, for 9 I % of Fish Consumption
Advisories in Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters in 2002
(U.S. EPA,2003c)
Contaminant
Number
of
Advisories Comments
PCBs
53 Seven northeast states (CT, MA,
ME, NH,NJ, NY,and Rl) had
statewide PCB advisories, and
seven states and the Territory of
American Samoa had advisories
for specific portions of their
coastal waters.
Mercury
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percent ofTotal Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 2-24. Percentage of estuarine and coastal marine advi-
sories issued for each contaminant. An advisory can be issued for
more than one contaminant, so percentages may not add up to
100 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
29 Eleven states (AL, FL, GA, LA, MA,
ME, MS, NC, Rl, SC, and TX) had
statewide mercury advisories in
their coastal waters; six of these
states also had statewide mercury
advisories for their estuarine
waters. Seven states and the
Territory of American Samoa had
advisories for specific portions of
their coastal waters.
DDT, DDE, 14 All DDT advisories were issued in
and DDD California (12), Delaware (I), and
the Territory of American Samoa
(I)-
Dioxins 12 Statewide dioxin advisories were in
effect in three states (ME, NJ, and
^^^^1 NY). Five states had dioxin
advisories for specific portions of
their coastal waters.
Table 2-6.The Four Bioaccumulative Contaminants
Responsible, at Least in Part, for 91% of Fish Consumption
Advisories in Estuarine and Coastal Marine Waters in 2002
(Great Lakes) (U.S. EPA,2003c)
Contaminant
Number
of
Advisories Comments
PCBs
30 Eight states (IL, IN, Ml, MN, NY,
OH, PA, and Wl) had PCB
advisories for all five Great Lakes
and several connecting waters.
Mercury
I I Three states (IN, Ml, and PA)
had mercury advisories in their
Great Lakes waters for Lakes Erie,
Huron, Michigan, and Superior,
and several connecting waters.
DDT, DDE,
and DDD
Figure 2-25. Bioaccumulation process (U.S. EPA, 1995).
One state (Ml) had a DDT
advisory in effect for Lake
Michigan
Dioxins
14 Dioxin advisories were in effect
in three states (Ml, NY, and Wl)
that included all five Great Lakes
and several connecting waters.
60
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
EPA gathered information on the 2002 swimming
season at 2,823 beaches nationwide (both coastal
and inland) through the use of a voluntary survey.
The survey respondents were state agencies and local
government agencies from coastal counties, cities, or
towns bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico,
Pacific Ocean, the Great Lakes, and Hawaii, as well as
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. A few of these respondents
were regional (multiple-county) districts. Data are
available only for those beaches for which officials
participated in the survey. EPA conducts the survey
each year and displays the results on the BEACH
Watch Web site at www.epa.gov/OST/beaches. All data
cited in this report were derived from data collected by
the EPAs BEACH Watch Program during the 2002
swimming season.
EPAs review of coastal beaches (U.S. coastal areas,
estuaries, the Great Lakes, and coastal areas of Hawaii
and the U.S. territories) showed that, of the 2,823
beaches responding to the survey, 2,031 were marine
or Great Lakes beaches. Of these coastal beaches, 581
(or 29%) had an advisory or closing in effect at least
once during the 2002 swimming season (Figure 2-26).
Percentage of
reporting beaches
with at least one
advisory or closure
in 2002:
Figure 2-26. Percentage of beaches with advisories/closures by coastal state in 2002. Percentages are based on number of beaches in
each state that reported information, not the total number of beaches.There were no BEACH Watch Program survey responses from
Alaska, Mississippi, or American Samoa (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
National Coastal Condition Report II 61
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Beach advisories or closings were issued for a number of
different reasons, including elevated bacterial levels in
the water, preemptive reasons associated with rainfall
events or sewage spills, and other reasons (Figure 2-27).
Some of the major causes of public notifications for
beach advisories and closures were stormwater runoff,
wildlife, sewerline problems, boat discharges, publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs), and in many cases,
unknown sources (Figure 2-28).
Preemptive
Closure
(Sewage) Other
3% \ 5%
Preemptive
Closure
(Rainfall)
13%
Elevated
Bacteria
Levels
79%
Figure 2-27. Reasons for beach advisories or closures for the
nation's coastal waters (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
rCSO 1%
SSO3%
Other
Unknown
54%
POTW2%
Septic System 2%
Sewer Line Problem 3%
Boats 2%
Stormwater
Runoff
17%
Wildlife
8%
Figure 2-28. Sources of beach contamination for the nation's
coastal waters (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
A beach volunteer records the numbers and species of birds present at his designated beach
watch, (photo: Gulf of the Farallones NMS)
62 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
Oct 1999
Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor (SeaWiFS)
The coastal ocean is constantly affected by natural cycles of nutrient and sediment inputs, as
well as the impact of increased human population and changing land uses. Rainfall and runoff,
usually during the spring, provide nutrients that promote algal blooms. This nutrient flow can
affect both estuaries and the coastal ocean. In addition, variations in yearly rainfall can alter the
magnitude of algal blooms. Understanding the movement and impact of nutrients and runoff on
the coastal zone requires analysis of drainage patterns, pollution transport, concentrations of algae,
and sedimentation.
Satellite-borne sensors can provide synoptic data on algae and sediments over large areas, greatly
enhancing field programs. A key tool for this application is the Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View
Sensor (SeaWiFS), which has provided imagery during most cloud-free days over the past
5 years. SeaWiFS was developed by Orbimage to support NASA's global climate programs. With
a 1-kilometer pixel size, it can monitor large estuaries and the coastal ocean. NOAA's Center for
Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA) has developed new methods for analyzing SeaWiFS
data that have allowed it to be ^^^^^^^^^^
used to assess the coastal zone.
For instance, the SeaWiFS images
above show the seasonal difference
in the Texas coast for two different
years, 1999 and 2001. A spring
algal bloom is evident in March
of both years, with higher chloro-
phyll along the coast. However,
conditions vary between years,
with chlorophyll concentrations
greater in 2001 than in 1999 for
both spring and fall. Precipitation
in the region was also higher in
2001 than in 1999- The CCMA is
examining these patterns in detail
for the entire U.S. coastal area for
September 1997 to present in
order to determine patterns and
variability along the coast.
For more information, visit
http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/rsd/welcome.html.
I
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ghlight
Microbial Source Tracking
Urbanization has caused increased point and nonpoint source runoff into estuaries and may
increase fecal coliform pollution. Shellfish harvesting areas are opened or closed based on the
number of fecal coliforms, mainly E. coli, present in seawater and shoreline surveys that identify
sources of fecal contamination. These indicators protect the public from disease-causing microor-
ganisms associated with human waste. Unfortunately, fecal coliform standards for shellfish
harvesting are sometimes exceeded when no obvious source of contamination can be identified.
This often results in shellfish harvesting areas being closed without a specific identified
pollution source.
Bacterial pollution sources within coastal areas have three general sources: wildlife, domestic
animals, and humans. Fecal coliforms quantified using traditional approaches can be from any
of those sources, but human illnesses have generally been only associated with bacterial pollution
from human sources. One method that has been developed as a potential technique for bacteria
source tracking is the use of antibiotic resistance testing of E. coli bacteria. The rational of this
method is that fecal coliform bacteria from humans will have acquired multiple antibiotic
resistance (to three or more antibiotics) due to the large number of antibiotics used in medical
treatment. Wildlife generally will not harbor antibiotic resistant pathogens due to the absence of
their use in wildlife species. Domestic animals (e.g., cattle, hogs, and chickens) and pets will
generally be more intermediate in their overall antibiotic resistance.
The Urbanization in Southeast Estuarine Systems (USES) study has evaluated the impact of
urbanization on estuarine water quality in terms of fecal coliform bacterial effects by comparing
water quality in highly urbanized Murrells Inlet and pristine North Inlet in coastal South
Carolina. Significant differences were found between these areas in fecal coliform densities and
bacterial species comprising the coliform group. Elevated fecal coliform densities were found in
the inner and outer regions of the urban estuary, and E. coli accounted for 83% of all bacterial
species. In pristine North Inlet, the highest coliform densities were found in the inner regions,
adjacent to deciduous hardwood forest, and wildlife were the primary pollution source. E. coli was
the dominant bacterial species detected, but only accounted for 59% of all bacterial species
present. Nonetheless, E. coli was the dominant species in the coliform group in surface waters of
both areas, and it was not possible on that basis alone to identify pollutant sources.
The Multiple Antibiotic Resistance (MAR) method was able to differentiate among pollution
sources. MAR results found that 2.5% of E. coli bacteria in Murrells Inlet were resistant to
multiple antibiotics. The majority of sites had resistance to only a single antibiotic (either ampi-
cillin or penicillin). Only one site had MAR that matched human wastewater treatment plant
samples within the region, suggesting a human source. These results compared favorably with
64 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
other highly urbanized coastal regions of South Carolina including Broad Creek in Hilton Head,
where 3% of the E. coli were antibiotic resistant. MAR was much lower (<1%) in a rural water-
shed in Beaufort County, the Okatee River, and in North Inlet. In addition, the MAR index
values in urbanized Murrells Inlet (2.47) and Broad Creek (3-40) were higher than in the rural
Okatee River (1.04) or North Inlet (<1) watersheds. Similarly, the total number of antibiotics to
which E. coli exhibited resistance was much higher in urbanized Murrells Inlet (8 antibiotics) and
Broad Creek (8 antibiotics), when compared to rural Okatee River (2 antibiotics). Analysis of
"Presumptive" Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) estimates indicated that the remaining
human waste load for Murrells Inlet was less than 1% of the pet waste load estimated for dogs
and cats. These findings, when taken in toto for Murrells Inlet, suggest that the vast majority of
bacteria in Murrells Inlet is from domestic animals rather than human sources. Thus, to reduce
fecal coliform loadings in Murrells Inlet and other coastal areas, it will be important to develop
programs to control pet waste loads.
Bacterial closure sign prohibiting shellfish harvesting.This single issue
is often a lightning rod at galvanizing public response to changes in
environmental conditions within coastal areas.
National Coastal Condition Report II 65
-------
ghlight
Condition of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is a network of 25 protected
areas representing different biogeographic regions of the United States. These protected areas, or
reserves, are estuarine areas established to promote long-term research, environmental monitoring,
education, and coastal stewardship. NERRS was established by the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amended, and is a partnership program between NOAA and the coastal states. NOAA
provides funding and national guidance, and a lead state agency or university is responsible for
managing the reserve with input from local partners.
Padilla Bay
Kachemak Bay
South Slough
San Francisco Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Tijuana River
Hudson River
acques Cousteau/Mullica River
Old Woman Creek
Chesapeake Bay MD
North Inlet-Winyah Bay
St. Lawrence
River
Wells
Great Bay
Waquoit Bay
Narragansett Bay
Delaware
Chesapeake BayVA
Estuarine Research Reserves
O Designated
O Proposed
Grand Bay
Weeks Bay
Apalachicola
North Carolina
ACE Basin
Sapelo Island
GuanaTolomato Matanzas
Rookery Bay
Jobos Bay
Prepared by NOAA's Ocean Service, Estuarine Reserves Division, for the National Coastal Condition Report I.
In the mid-1990s, NERRS initiated a monitoring program to improve coastal zone manage-
ment. The SWMP tracks short-term variability and long-term changes in coastal ecosystems
represented in the NERRS. The initial phase of the SWMP began in 1996 and focuses on
monitoring of water quality and atmospheric parameters. Future phases of the program will
include biodiversity monitoring and land use habitat-change analyses.
66 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
The data collected by the program thus far have been used to measure the success of restora-
tion projects and to analyze water quality conditions related to oyster diseases. NERRS has
conducted two assessments on water quality data collected through the SWME These assessments
evaluated water quality data from 22 of the 25 NERRS between 1995 and 2000 and analyzed
different aspects of the data collected, including the frequency and duration of hypoxic events,
ecosystem metabolism, and the impacts of coastal storms on water quality. Reports documenting
the methods and results from these assessments can be downloaded from http://www.ocrm.
nos.noaa.gov/nerr/monsys.html. Results from the North Carolina and North Inlet—Winyah Bay,
South Carolina, estuaries showed that short-term changes to salinity and depth during the passage
of tropical storms were variable and dependent on the fetch (area over which the winds blew) of
approaching storms. With a few exceptions for salinity, changes to water quality parameters were
abrupt and short-lived.
I
Effect of storms on mean daily salinity at the North Carolina (noczi) and North Inlet-Winyah Bay (niwol),
South Carolina, NERRS sites in 1996 (Sanger et al.,2002).
More information about the NERRS program is available at http://www.ocrm.nos.
noaa.gov/nerr. Monitoring data for each reserve are available from NERR's Centralized Data
Management Office at http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu.
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ghlight
Nonindigenous Species
Nonindigenous species, also known as "exotics" because they are often transported from other
countries, are a major threat to biodiversity around the world. The daily inundation of nonindige-
nous species on the nation's coastlines is a continual concern to environmentalists. Many of the
species are transported to the United States by foreign ships, which discharge millions of gallons of
ballast water at large commercial shipping ports. Ballast discharges release everything from bacteria
and viruses to mussels, crabs, fish, and algae. Although some species do not survive the long
voyage, others do, and as ships get faster, the survival rate of these exotic species increases.
The West Coast of the United States, particularly San Francisco Bay, has a very large number
of nonindigenous species. One reason for this is that the United States engages in a tremendous
amount of trade with Asian countries, and this trade brings many nonindigenous species of Asian
origin to the West Coast. Also, San Francisco Bay is a large estuary that is sheltered from the
dynamic wave action of the open ocean, and although the West Coast seems to have more
nonindigenous species than the East Coast, many more surveys have been conducted along the
West Coast to determine what exotic species are present. Recently, however, scientists have been
looking at the major ports and estuaries of the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico to obtain similar
information. Intracoastal transfer of exotic species is also a concern. Progress is being made in
ballast water research and legislation to significantly reduce the number of living organisms being
transported from overseas.
| Range Established
I I States with Records
_l States without Records
Myriophyllum spicatum distribution in the United States as of April 2003. Map
indicates recorded presence in at least one site within the drainage, but does
not necessarily imply occurrence throughout that drainage (USGS).
68 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition
• Fishes
D Mollusks
D Crustaceans
• Other Invertebrates
D Plants
Hawaii
IS 23
o
45
39
Gulf of Mexico
3
14
37
Number of nonindigenous species by taxa in coastal regions of the United States (USGS).
Although many nonindigenous species were transported by ships, most aquatic plants known
to be invasive did not arrive in ship ballast water, but were imported intentionally through the
aquarium and water garden trade. Submerged aquatic vegetation has a well-founded reputation of
vigorous invasiveness and can become permanently established where introduced. Eurasian water-
milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is a prime example. In the United States, Eurasian water-milfoil
grows in every state except Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, and Wyoming. Although it has long
been established in freshwater lakes and rivers of the Northeast and Great Lakes regions, this plant
is a newcomer to arid western states, where aquatic systems are often stressed and vulnerable. In
many estuarine rivers, fresh to brackish marshes, tidal creeks, and protected bays scattered along
the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, the Eurasian water-milfoil has thrived and has often become
the dominant submerged aquatic plant.
Information about coordinated agency efforts against nonindigenous species can be found at
www.anstaskforce.gov. The USGS maintains a geographic database of nonindigenous aquatic
species for the United States at http://nas.er.usgs.gov. For more information, contact Amy Benson
at amy_benson@usgs.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
-------
1
Chapter 3
Northeast Coastal
Condition
v
mf^^m
m
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Northeast Coastal Condition
The overall condition of Northeast Coast estuaries
is poor (Figure 3-1)- Twenty-seven percent of estuarine
area is impaired for aquatic life (poor condition), 31%
is impaired for human use, and an additional 49%
is threatened for aquatic life use (Figure 3-2). The
Northeast Coast region contains diverse landscapes,
ranging from mountains and forests and rocky coastal
headlands in Maine to coastal plain systems in the
Mid-Atlantic. The Northeast Coast is the most densely
populated coastal region in the United States and
includes the coastal waters of Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia (Figure 3-3). In the Northeast Coast region,
the ratio of watershed drainage area to estuary water
area is relatively small when compared to the ratios
in the Southeast Coast and Gulf Coast regions. The
by-products of past and current human activities
in Northeast Coast watersheds are washed to the
sea, affecting coastal conditions in the region. The
highest levels of sediment contamination are found
in depositional environments near urban centers,
reflecting current discharges and the legacy of past
industrial practices.
Anthropogenic nutrients delivered by rivers to the
coast come from a variety of sources. In New England,
nutrient inputs from agricultural activity are relatively
small. Much of the nutrient delivery to the coast in the
nonurban areas of northern Maine results from atmos-
pheric deposition onto watersheds (Boyer et al., 2002).
Northeast
Overall
Score (1.8)
Good Fair Poor
Water Quality Index (2)
I Sediment Quality Index (I)
Benthic Index (I)
I Coastal Habitat Index (4)
Fish Tissue Index (I)
Figure 3-1.The overall
condition of Northeast Coast
estuaries is poor
Unimpaired
11%
Threatened
49%
©'
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
9%
Impaired Human Use
13%
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
18%
Figure 3-2. Northeast Coast estuarine condition
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
2000 Population Density:
Persons per Square Mile
< 25
25 -50
50 - 125
> 125
Figure 3-3. Human population density by county for watersheds
that drain to the Northeast Coast (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
72 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
In urbanized coastal settings, from Casco Bay, Maine,
through Long Island Sound, wastewater treatment
facilities that discharge directly into coastal waters are
the major source of anthropogenic nitrogen input. In
the Mid-Atlantic, in addition to atmospheric and urban
sources, agricultural operations from crops, poultry
farms, and manure from other animal operations are
important additional sources of nutrients. (Roman et
al., 2000) provide a recent and detailed review of the
geological history of the Northeast and the effects of
human activity along coastal New England. A review
of the geologic history and geomorphology of Mid-
Atlantic estuaries and subsequent human alterations
can be found in Paul (2001).
In New England, successive glacial advances shaped
the landscape, soils, and coastline. The major estuaries
are former river valleys (Connecticut and Hudson) that
were scoured by glaciers and submerged following rapid
melting of the most recent large ice sheet between
17,000 and 13,000 years ago. Thicker soils are found
in the Mid-Atlantic, due in part to the lack of glacial
scouring, and contribute to relatively higher sediment
delivery to coastal waters, which reduces the water
clarity from New Jersey southward. The resulting reduc-
tions in light penetration usually limit seagrass meadows
to depths less than 7 feet in Southeast coastal plain estu-
aries. In contrast, seagrass meadows can exceed 33 feet
in depth in the clearer waters of New England (Thayer
et al., 1984; Roman et al., 2000). The coastal waters
from New York southward are relatively shallow, with
samples of marine organisms collected at an average
depth of 21 feet, contrasting with an average depth of
57 feet for collection of benthic organisms from the
waters from New York northward through Maine.
I
Woods Hole Yacht Club, Great Harbor at Woods Hole,
Massachusetts (Edgar Kleindinst, NMFS Woods Hole Laboratory).
National Coastal Condition Report II 73
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Cape Cod represents a major biogeographic transi-
tion area that divides the more boreal waters to the
north of Cape Cod (Acadian Province) from the
warmer, temperate waters to the south of Cape Cod
(Virginian Province) (Figure 3-4). The relatively larger
average tidal ranges of 7 to 13 feet in the Acadian
Province contribute to greater tidal mixing and flushing,
in contrast to the tidal ranges of 7 feet or less in the
coastal waters of the Virginian Province. Chesapeake
Bay is considered microtidal in character, having average
tidal ranges of less than 3 feet (Hammar-Klos and
Thieler, 2001).
Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United
States, initially formed as a result of an impact when a
bolide (a large extraterrestrial object, such as an asteroid
or comet) crashed into shallow seas 35 million years
ago (Poag, 1999). Along the western shore of Chesa-
peake Bay, the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James rivers
cut into the side of this crater and currently contribute
80% of the bay's fresh water. As the most recent ice
sheet to the north melted, the sea once again entered
and flooded former river valleys around the crater's edge
(Poag, 1999).
Currently, Chesapeake Bay has a total area of 4,404
square miles, representing 59% of the Northeast Coast
water area. The large size and volume of the bay and the
relatively small tidal range contribute to a freshwater
residence time of 7-6 months, much longer than that of
other estuaries in the region (Nixon et al., 1996). In
contrast, Delaware Bay, Narragansett Bay, and Boston
Harbor have freshwater residence times of 3-3, 0.85,
and 0.33 months, respectively (Dettmann, 2001).
Because of the size of Chesapeake Bay, conditions
heavily influence area-weighted statistical summaries
of Northeast Coast conditions.
NCA sampling sites for the Northeast Coast
are shown in Figure 3-4. From Delaware northward
through Maine, sampling locations are based on
probabilistic sampling designs targeting 100% of the
coastal waters over a 2-year sampling period. Stations
sampled from the 2000 summer field season were
included in this analysis and are shown in Figure 3-4.
Because these stations are randomly and uniformly
distributed throughout the region, they represent
the entire area; however, because there were only one-
half as many per unit area, their weighting factors were
Passamaquoddy
Bay
Casco Bay ^ Penobscot Bay
Great Bay Acadian
Province
Massachusetts Bay
Cape Cod
oQ
Narragansett Bay
Long Island Sound
Buzzards Bay
Delaware Bay
• Maryland Coastal Bays
Virginian
Province
Sediment Samples
O Sampling stations
Chesapeake Bay
Figure 3-4. Sampling stations on the Northeast Coast used for NCA and Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA) data (U.S. EPA/NCA).
74 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
doubled in calculations. The design of Maryland coastal
bays called for 100% sampling of coastal waters in
2000; thus, the weighting factors were not altered. In
Chesapeake Bay, the water quality and benthic data
measured by the Chesapeake Bay Program in 2000
were used for this analysis. All of the Chesapeake Bay
sediment chemistry data and fish tissue contaminant
data used in this report are based on the Mid-Atlantic
Integrated Assessment (MALA) 1997 survey (U.S.
EPA, 2002).
Several of the coastal states participating in the
NCA surveys also have their own separate monitoring
networks. For example, New Jersey has shellfish, water
quality, and chlorophyll monitoring networks. New
Jersey's monitoring networks have a higher density of
stations in coastal waters and are monitored at greater
frequency than those used in the broad NCA surveys
(Baldwin-Brown et al., 2003). These networks are not
probabilistically designed, and sites are located largely
based on best scientific judgment; however, some sites
are essentially placed at random in an area. Some of
these random sites have been incorporated in the NCA
monitoring design. Such complementary monitoring
programs provide essential additional information
for the interpretation of time-varying coastal conditions
(particularly those that vary over short time scales),
as well as provide the additional information needed
to document areas of local impairment.
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA Program has
been designed to estimate the percent of estuarine area
(nationally or in a region or state) in varying conditions
and is displayed as pie diagrams. Many of the figures in
this report illustrate environmental measurements
made at specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the value of the
indicator specifically at the time of sampling. Additional
sampling may be required to define variability and to
confirm impairment or the lack of impairment at
specific locations.
Coastal Monitoring Data
Water Quality Index
The condition of Northeast Coast estuaries as
measured by the water quality index is fair to poor.
Poor water quality condition was found in 19% of the
Northeast Coast estuarine area during the summer of
2000 (Figure 3-5) Most of the stations rated poor were
concentrated in a few estuarine systems, in particular
New York Harbor, some tributaries of Delaware Bay
the Delaware River, the coastal bays of Maryland and
Delaware, and the western and northern tributaries of
Chesapeake Bay. Fair condition was observed in 42% of
Northeast Coast estuaries. The water quality index indi-
cates that water quality degradation was more prevalent
in the coastal waters of the Virginian Province (south of
Cape Cod) than in the coastal waters of the Acadian
Province (north of Cape Cod), but signs of degraded
water quality condition were also noted throughout the
Acadian Province. Generally, the relatively open rocky
coasts; cold, salty waters; and high tidal ranges of the
Acadian Province favor well-mixed conditions that
Water Quality Index - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition
• Good = No more than I is fair
OFair = I is poor or 2 or
more are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
O Missing
Poor
19%
Figure 3-5. Water quality index data for Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 75
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
minimize accumulation of nutrients or organic
matter, which lead to the undesirable effects associated
with water quality degradation. In contrast, the histori-
cally unglaciated parts of the Virginian Province have
extensive watersheds to funnel nutrients, sediment, and
organic material into secluded, poorly flushed estuaries
that are much more susceptible to eutrophication.
The pattern of eutrophication also closely reflects the
distribution of population density (Figure 3-3).
Further analyses are based on the spatial patterns
of the five component indicators used in the NCA
water quality index. For local management applications,
the results summarized in this report should be
interpreted in the context of additional information,
such as site-specific criteria and state water quality
standards. There are few estuarine water quality
standards for nitrogen or chlorophyll a. For this
regional/national assessment, a single set of guidelines
was used throughout the region, except when assessing
specific indicators (e.g., water clarity).
Assessing Water Quality Condition in Individual
Estuarine Systems
Water quality responses can be complicated and cannot
be described by a simple index for all estuarine systems.
An index that may work well throughout most of a region
may not describe the eutrophic conditions in a specific
estuary. For example, Delaware Bay has naturally high
concentrations of suspended solids, and DIN concentra-
tions remained high during the sampling period when
phytoplankton production was light-limited. Water quality
degradation in much of the open portion of Delaware
Bay is not considered to be a problem in late summer.
In this report, selected tributaries of Delaware Bay and
many parts of the Delaware River received poor ratings
on the water quality index for specific sites, whereas
open water areas in the Delaware Bay received fair or
good ratings. For such local situations, less weight could
be given to nutrient concentrations measured in late
summer and greater weight to phytoplankton production
(chlorophyll a) or dissolved oxygen concentrations. The
water quality index used in this report is intended for
regional and national assessments and may not be suitable
for every individual estuary. Indicators that account for
local ecological conditions may need to be measured, in
addition to the standard set of NCA indicators, to provide
a better picture of water quality in certain estuarine
systems. The NCA data used for the national and regional
assessments in this report are of known quality and can
be queried using different weighting factors and indicator
combinations that may be more representative of specific
estuary conditions.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorous
Figures 3-6 and 3-7 show the concentration ranges of
DIN and DIP in surface waters in the Northeast Coast.
From a regional perspective, the overall rating for DIN
is fair (11% of the estuarine area is in poor condition),
and the overall rating for DIP is good (5% of the estu-
arine area is in poor condition). DIP is more likely to
promote algal growth in tidal-fresh parts of estuaries,
whereas DIN is the nutrient type most responsible for
eutrophication in open estuarine and marine waters.
The highest nutrient concentrations in the Northeast
Coast were found in New York Harbor and Maryland
coastal bays, Narragansett Bay (Rhode Island), and
several tributaries in the Chesapeake and Delaware
estuaries. Fair to poor conditions were measured in
Delaware Bay, Narragansett Bay, and Great Bay (New
Hampshire). Good conditions were notable in the
Chesapeake mainstem, Long Island Sound (for DIN),
and much of the Acadian Province. Thus, even during
the late-summer NCA sampling period, up to 38%
of the Northeast Coast had moderate to high levels
of nutrients.
Nitrogen - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: DIN concentration
• Good = < 0.1 mg/L
OFair = O.I -0.5 mg/L
• Poor = > 0.5 mg/L
OMissing
Poor
11%
Fair
17%
Figure 3-6. DIN concentration data for Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
76 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Benthic Condition in Chesapeake Bay Declines When Dissolved
Oxygen Declines
Changes in the number and types of benthic macroinvertebrate communities (BMC) can
help document ecological conditions. Degraded BMCs often have lower species diversity and can
include opportunistic species that occur in great abundance. BMC data can be summarized using
a BMC index (Paul et al., 2001), which is designed to discriminate between healthy and degraded
sites within a region or state. BMC index variations can be analyzed in relation to known stressors
(e.g., the probability of degraded benthic conditions in relation to low dissolved oxygen in
bottom waters). Using data collected from 1990 to 1993 from the open waters of Chesapeake
Bay, there is an increasing probability of BMC impairment (BMC index values <0) at sites with
progressively lower dissolved oxygen concentrations. The EPA acute and chronic criteria for
dissolved oxygen shown below are based on independent laboratory testing with marine organisms
(U.S. EPA, 2000a). This laboratory versus field survey comparison provides some confidence in
the validity of the BMC index.
I
£ §
1.0
0.8
-00 00
IE c °'6
I-g
CD
•5 | 0.4
fro
||0.2
Q_ ^
0.0
° Acute Criterion
Chronic Criterion
0 0
2468
Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Chesapeake Bay 1990-1993 Virginian Province Data, large systems
(Paul etal.,2000).
National Coastal Condition Report II 77
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Phosphorus - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: DIP concentration
• Good = < 0.01 mg/L
OFair = 0.01 -0.05 mg/L
• Poor = > 0.5 mg/L
O Missing
Fair
33%
Figure 3-7. DIP concentration data for Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Chlorophyll a
The concentration of the plant pigment chlorophyll
a is used to estimate the quantity of algae suspended in
the surface water. About 15% of estuarine area in the
Northeast Coast is rated poor for this indicator, which
results in an overall rating of fair for chlorophyll in the
region (Figure 3-8). Generally, the broad pattern of
pigment concentration is similar to that of nutrients,
with concentration much higher to the south of Cape
Cod than to the north. Chlorophyll a concentrations
mirror nutrient levels in the Maryland coastal bays,
Chesapeake tributaries, and much of the Northeast
Coast coastal waters; however, there is little apparent
spatial correlation between chlorophyll a and nutrients
in the Chesapeake mainstem, Delaware Estuary, or New
York Harbor region. Spatial patterns in nutrient levels
and chlorophyll a differ for a number of reasons. One
reason is that algae may not be able to use nutrients
effectively in very turbid water (e.g., in low-light envi-
ronments, such as the Delaware Bay) or in regions with
high flushing rates. As a result of nutrient uptake by
phytoplankton blooms, dissolved nutrients may be low.
Locations of peak nutrient and bio mass concentrations
may coincide in space or time.
Chlorophyll a - Northeast (2000)
Fishing boats in the harbor at Smith Island, Chesapeake Bay
Maryland (Mary Hollingen NODC biologist, NOAA).
Site Criteria: Chlorophyll a
concentration
• Good = < 5 [jg/L
OFair = 5 - 20 [jg/L
• Poor =
OMissing
Good
Fair
Poor |
Figure 3-8. Chlorophyll a concentration data for Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
78 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
1937 Delaware Statewide Aerial Photography
The ability to assess land use changes over time is a valuable tool for resource managers. Altered
shorelines, urban and suburban sprawl, reductions in agricultural acreage, and changes in habitat
types are just some land use issues that concern resource managers. In an effort to trace such land
use changes, planners in the state of Delaware will soon be able to visually compare current aerial
views of the state with historic photos from more than 60 years ago .
Delaware Coastal Programs, in a cooperative effort with the state's Natural Heritage Program,
Natural Areas Program, and Forest Service, is undertaking a project that will assist in identifying
land use changes by compiling a complete aerial image of the state as it looked in 1937. By
comparing these photographs to ones taken in 1997, resource managers will be able to review
a 60-year timeframe within which to assess land use changes.
For this project, approximately 700 aerial images of Delaware taken in 1937 were obtained
from the National Archives. These photographs were scanned and georeferenced to Delaware
State Plane Coordinates, North American Datum 83 meters using ERDAS IMAGINE software.
Spatially referenced mosaics were created for each of Delaware's three counties, and any distorted
edges, fiducial marks, and photograph borders were cropped. These mosaics enable comparative
analysis with existing 1997 statewide Digital Ortho-Quarter Quads. Geographic information
systems (GIS) technologies were utilized to identify land use changes.
One analysis currently underway involves evaluating changes in forest cover. In Delaware,
older-growth forests are one of the most biologically diverse habitat communities. For the purpose
of this effort, older-growth forests are defined as areas that have not been clear cut for 50 years or
more. The forest canopy, canopy gaps, and understory of these areas harbor a high number of
state-listed rare and endangered species when compared to most upland habitat areas.
To better assess valuable older-growth habitats, forested areas in the 1937 photos were
on-screen digitized using ArcGIS software. This coverage will be converted to a grid that
can be directly compared with recent photos using spatial analysis techniques to ascertain the
location and extent of forest area in 1997 that also existed in 1937- These locations will be used
to determine the most likely areas of historic forests. Upon field verification, this information will
enable planners and resource managers to prioritize and strengthen conservation efforts of these
critical habitats.
Planned future projects include habitat trends and beach extent analysis. Other potential
projects using 1937 imagery are also under development.
National Coastal Condition Report II 79
-------
ghlight
Coastal Water Quality in New England
Cooperating state programs have, for the first time, collected and documented regional
gradients in New England coastal waters using a consistent set of indicators. Gradients for most
of the water quality variables were ranked in the highest 25% (upper quartile), the middle 50%,
and the lowest 25% (lower quartile). The figure of coastline traces shown on the following page
ranks DIN (sum of nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia), phytoplankton pigment (chlorophyll a), light
transparency (Secchi depth), water column stratification (delta Sigma-t), and dissolved oxygen
with water quality through the use of colored dot markers. These coastal water conditions are
based on samples collected in the summer and fall of 2000. Annual Total Nitrogen (TN) loading
estimates come from the New England Sparrow model and are based on conditions in the early
1990s. These estimates are shown in the left-most coastline trace on the figure.
Excess nutrient loading can contribute to elevated water column nutrient concentrations,
higher levels of phytoplankton pigments, and reduced transparency to light. The red dots indicate
data in the upper 25% for DIN and chlorophyll a. In contrast, red dots illustrate the lower
quartile for light transparency.
When lighter freshwater floats on top of denser saline water, the water column is stratified.
In such a water column, the mixing of oxygen to depth is diminished. The red dots indicating
surface to bottom water column density difference (delta Sigma-t) illustrate the degree of stratifica-
tion, with sampling locations falling in the upper 25% (most stratified) colored in red and the
lower 25% (least stratified) colored in green. In a well-mixed water column, stratification is
absent, and oxygen can be transported from the surface to water at deeper depths.
The far right coastline trace illustrates regional gradients in the dissolved oxygen content of
water sampled near the bottom of the water column. Marine water quality criteria for dissolved
oxygen are used to define the dot colors. Oxygen concentrations that fall below the EPA acute
criterion level of 2.3 rng/L are illustrated with red dots. Yellow dots are used to represent the loca-
tions where oxygen concentrations were higher than the acute level, but less than or equal to the
EPA chronic criterion level of 4.8 mg/L (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
80 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Regional scale gradients in dissolved oxygen can be noted in these coastline traces. In the
Acadian Province north of Cape Cod, dissolved oxygen concentrations measured during the
summer 2000 NCA survey were consistently greater than 4.8 mg/L. Water temperatures in the
Acadian Province are relatively cold, and consequently, the water holds more oxygen. Tidal ranges
are usually greater than 2 meters, promoting increases in tidal currents and an increased mixture
of oxygen from the surface to depth. Waters are warmer south of Cape Cod, with tidal ranges less
than 2 meters resulting in reduced tidal currents, and consequently, a decreased mixture of oxygen
from the surface to depth than locations farther north. Dissolved oxygen concentrations fall below
4.8 mg/L for some of the bottom waters in the area south of Cape Cod, including upper
Narragansett Bay, western Long Island Sound, and along the New Jersey shore. Oxygen concen-
trations persistently below this chronic dissolved oxygen criterion can adversely impact sensitive
marine organisms (Coiro et al., 2000).
Secchi Dissolved
TN Loading DIN Chlorophyll a Depth Sigma-t Oxygen
TN (kg/y * 1 0 6)
• >7.9
O > 3.0 -7.9
0 > I.I -3.0
. £0.2
DIN (mg/L)
• > 0.3 1
0 >O.OI -0.31
• £ 0.01
Chl-o(re;i_)
• > 5.8
0 > 1.6-5.8
• £ 1.6
Secchi (m)
• >2.4
0 > 0.9 - 2.4
• < 0.9
Sigma-t
• > 1.05
0 > 0.03 -1.05
• £ 0.03
DO (mg/L)
• >48
0 > 23 - 4.8
• & 2.3
Source: Moore et al., 200-4
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Water Clarity
Poor water clarity may be attributed to a number
of sources, including suspended sediments, organic
material (especially living or dead algae), and dissolved
tannins. Estuaries are naturally turbid environments.
Turbid waters supply building material for maintaining
estuarine structures and provide food and protection
to resident organisms; however, the extensive particle
loads of turbid waters are harmful if they bury benthic
communities, inhibit filter feeders, or block light
needed by seagrasses. Because 23% of the Northeast
Coast estuarine area has poor water clarity, the overall
rating for the region is fair (Figure 3-9).
Water Clarity - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Light
penetration at I meter depth
• Good = > 20% in NE
> 25% in CB
> 10% in DB
10% to 20% in NE
20% to 25% in CB
5% to 10% in DB
< 10% in NE*
< 20% in CB*
< 5% in DB*
OFair
OPoor
OMissing
Figure 3-9. Water clarity condition for Northeast Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA). *NE represents sampling sites in the Northeast
Coast region except for those sites located in Chesapeake Bay
(CB) or Delaware River/Bay (DB).
Reference Condition
forWater Clarity
(Percentage of Incident Light
Reaching I Meter in Depth)
Estuarine Systems
Chesapeake Bay
system
20%
Delaware River/Bay
system
5%
All remaining
Northeast Coast
estuarine systems
10%
Large mussels dot the shoreline at Edgar M.Tennis Preserve, Deer
Isle, Maine (Captain Albert E.Theberge, NOAA Corps, ret).
Dissolved Oxygen
The final indicator for the water quality index is
the concentration of dissolved oxygen measured 1 meter
above the sediment. This indicator is rated fair for
Northeast Coast estuaries. Oxygen levels may become
depleted in isolated bottom regions when excess organic
material sinks and decays, especially if the water column
is stratified. Most states use 5 mg/L of dissolved oxygen
as the criterion for designating unacceptable water
quality. Sensitive organisms can tolerate dissolved
oxygen concentrations below 2 mg/L (hypoxia) for only
a few days before dying. Hypoxia (and often anoxia)
was evident in 10% of the Northeast Coast estuarine
area, almost exclusively in the deep, isolated trenches of
the Chesapeake mainstem (Figure 3-10). Fair conditions
(2—5 mg/L dissolved oxygen) were measured in another
18% of the region, notably in the Chesapeake Bay,
Long Island Sound, and Narragansett Bay. Dissolved
oxygen levels were acceptable in two-thirds of Northeast
Coast estuarine area. The areal extent of low dissolved
oxygen in larger estuarine systems in 2000 may have
been reduced by drought, which leads to reduced fresh-
water and nutrient input (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, Long
Island Sound).
82 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Temporal variations in dissolved oxygen depletion
can have adverse biological effects (Coiro et al., 2000).
Stressful hypoxia may occur for a few hours before
dawn in productive surface waters, when respiration
depletes dissolved oxygen faster than it is replenished.
The NCA Program does not measure these events
because most samples are taken later in the day. As a
result of a variety of factors, year-to-year variations in
dissolved oxygen in estuaries can be substantial, includ-
ing variations in freshwater inflow, factors affecting
water column stratification, and changes in nutrient
delivery. A recent review of factors affecting the extent
of hypoxic bottom water in Chesapeake Bay can be
found in Hagy (2002) and Hagy et al. (2004). The
Highlight "Use of a Hybrid Monitoring Design in
Rhode Island," found at the end of this chapter, focuses
on temporal variations in oxygen depletion in upper
Narragansett Bay, which are modulated by predictable
variations in tidal range. In the summer of 2000, the
NCA survey detected dissolved oxygen concentrations
below 5 rng/L (yellow dots in Figure 3-10). More
intensive and complementary monitoring programs in
upper Narragansett Bay documented episodic dissolved
oxygen depletion events (dissolved oxygen <2 mg/L)
during short time periods. These short-duration events
can be accompanied by fish kills.
Dissolved Oxygen - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Dissolved oxygen
concentration
• Good = > 5 mg/L
OFair =2-5 mg/L
• Poor = < 2 mg/L
O Missing
Fair
18%
Figure 3-10. Dissolved oxygen concentration data for Northeast
Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment condition as measured by the sediment
quality index in Northeast Coast estuarine areas is rated
poor. Sixteen percent of Northeast Coast estuarine
sediments received a poor rating (Figure 3-11), meaning
that at least one of the component indicators (sediment
toxicity, sediment contaminants, or sediment TOC) at
each of the sites received a poor rating. Regions that are
relatively unimpaired include the Acadian Province
(other than Great Bay, New Hampshire), eastern Long
Island Sound, and the open regions of the Delaware
and Chesapeake bays.
Sediment Quality Index - Northeast (2000)
I
Site Criteria: Number and
condition of component indicators
• Good = None are poor and sediment
contaminants is good
OFair = None are poor and sediment
contaminants is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Fair
10%
Figure 3-1 I.Sediment quality index data for Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Portsmouth area, New Hampshire (Mr Sean Linehan, NOAA,
NGS, Remote Sensing).
National Coastal Condition Report II 83
-------
ghlight
Changes in Organic Contamination in Mussels in New York Harbor
after September 11, 2001
The September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) resulted in a massive
plume of dust and smoke that blanketed lower Manhattan Island and the adjacent harbor area.
The NOAA has been monitoring five Mussel Watch Project sites in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary
since 1986 for a series of organic chemicals, including PAHs, DDT and other chlorinated pesti-
cides, and PCBs (additional information is available at http://nsandt.noaa.gov). In 1995, those
analyses were augmented with measurements of dioxins, furans, and coplanar PCBs, and in 1999,
polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), commonly found in flame retardants, were also quantified. In
December 2001, mussels were collected at the five Mussel Watch sites, as well as at four additional
sites. Despite the attack on the WTC, the general pattern of improving environmental conditions,
continued and was documented
by NOAA's Mussel Watch
Project. This conclusion holds for
PAHs, DDT, chlordane, dieldrin,
PCBs, furans, and PBBs. The
chemical exceptions are dioxins
and polybrominated diphenyl
ethers (PBDEs).
Staten Jamaica Swin-
Island Bay burne
bland
Sandy
Hook
Liberty Shore Ft.Wads- Ellis
Island Road worth Island
Battery
Park
Concentrations (ng/g dry weight) of PDBEs following geographic
gradient, increasing from Staten Island towards the Battery Park site
closest to the WTC (developed by NOAA for the National Coastal
Condition Report II).
Dioxin concentrations in
December 2001 were generally
higher than in 1995- Of the
sites sampled, Sandy Hook,
Ellis Island, Staten Island,
and Shore Road all had higher
dioxin mussel tissue concentrations than the highest concentration reported for 1995- The highest
concentration of 913 pg/g was found at Shore Road, one of the December 2001 special collection
sites and the site located furthest from the WTC.
PBDEs are widely used as flame retardants in items such as furniture and are some of the most
likely contaminants to have been mobilized by the WTC disaster. PBDEs have not previously
been measured by the Mussel Watch Project; therefore, there are no data to compare across time.
PBDE concentrations range from the vicinity from a low of 9-4 ng/g at Staten Island to a high of
119 ng/g at Battery Park. Mussel tissue concentrations of PBDEs generally follow a geographical
pattern, with sites with the lowest concentrations typically being located south of the Verrazano
Narrows Bridge. With the exception of the Liberty Island site, the general south to north increase
in mussel tissue concentrations of PBDEs continues up to the WTC site, with the highest concen-
trations detected at Battery Park, which lies adjacent to the WTC site.
84 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment toxicity in Northeast Coast estuaries is
rated poor. About 8% of estuarine sediments in the
Northeast Coast were toxic and considered in poor
condition (Figure 3-12). Regions highlighted as
impaired by this indicator include parts of Cape Cod
Bay, western Long Island Sound, New York Harbor,
and tidal-fresh parts of tributaries in lower New Jersey
and Delaware. Figures 3-12 and 3-13 and statistical
analysis reveal a generally weak relationship between
sediment contamination (ERM exceedances) and
amphipod survival. In part, this may reflect the strict
criterion of mortality used to characterize toxicity in
the amphipod assay. It also highlights the need for a
more complete analysis of the bioavailability of the
toxicants, e.g., an analysis that considers the effect of
equilibrium partitioning and the mitigating effects of
sequestering toxicants with sulfides or organic carbon
(DiToro et al., 1991; U.S. EPA, 1993; Daskalakis and
O'Conner, 1994).
Sediment Contaminants
The sediment contaminants rating for the Northeast
Coast is fair. Eight percent of estuarine area has metal or
organic contaminant concentrations that exceed ERM
limits, and 12% has concentrations that exceed metal or
organic contaminants for five or more ERL limits, but
do not exceed ERM limits (Figure 3-13). Poor condi-
tion is evident in clusters neighboring major urban
areas, including New York Harbor, western Long Island
Sound, the upper Chesapeake Bay, and Narragansett
Bay. Metals were responsible for most ERM exceedances
(primarily nickel and mercury, but also silver and zinc).
Most of the remaining ERM exceedances resulted from
PCBs and DDT. The 12% of estuarine sediments
exceeding ERLs (but not ERMs) for five or more
contaminants occurred more frequently for metals
(arsenic, chromium, mercury, and nickel) than for
organics (primarily DDT).
Sediment Toxicity - Northeast (2000)
Sediment Contaminant Criteria (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined for each
chemical as the 50th percentile (median) in a database of
ascending concentrations associated with adverse biological
effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined values for each
chemical as the I Oth percentile in a database of ascending
concentrations associated with adverse biological effects.
Site Criteria: Amphipod survival rate
I
Good
89%
od Fair Poor
Figure 3-12. Sediment toxicity data for Northeast Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Contaminants - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: ERL and ERM criteria
exceedance
• Good = Less than 5 ERLs exceeded,
no ERMs exceeded
OFair = Exceeds 5 or more ERL criteria,
no ERMs exceeded
• Poor = Exceeds I or more ERM criteria
O Missing
Figure 3-1 3. Sediment contaminants data for Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 85
-------
ghlight
Virginia Revives its Coastal Heritage and Waters through Oysters
In the early 1900s, oyster landings in Virginia
exceeded 9 million bushels annually. Today, the
total catch of the state's keystone species is less
than 1 percent of that number, and the habitat,
water quality, and economic benefits of once-
thriving oyster populations have been nearly
lost. A collaborative effort spearheaded by the
Virginia Coastal Program (VCP) has resulted
in a large-scale oyster restoration program,
with preliminary monitoring results indicating
restoration efforts may be the start of a slow
recovery process.
Since the early 1990s, a number of scientific
and environmental agencies have undertaken
small-scale oyster restoration projects in Virginia's
waters. In 1993, the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission (VMRC) began building three-
dimensional reefs stocked with disease-tolerant
oysters. When that succeeded, the VCP deter-
mined it would be worthwhile to increase the
project's scale into one large, focused effort.
Virginia Oyster
Heritage Program
1 I M II •' I .
Towles Point
Sanctuary Reefs
(Photo:Virginia Marine Resources Commission,
April 2003)
In March 1999, the VCP established the Virginia Oyster Heritage (VOH) Program, a
partnership among state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, private companies, and
local watermen. The program has managed more than $ 11 million in funds from federal, state,
and private sources. With assistance from watermen, local governments, volunteers, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), the VMRC is building 1-acre sanctuary reefs throughout
Virginia's coastal waters. These designated sanctuaries, consisting of a series of mounds of oyster
shell 8 to 10 feet high, provide the substrate necessary for oyster settlement and growth. Planted
near them are multi-acre flat beds of shells, where harvest will be allowed. Additionally, volunteer
oyster gardeners are planting and growing seed oysters on some of the reefs in conjunction with
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
During 2000 through 2002, 13 sanctuary reefs were constructed in the lower and upper
Rappahannock River, and almost 500 acres of enhanced harvest area were restored with the
addition of live oysters and cultch. A large-scale reef restoration effort surrounding Tangier and
funded by the USAGE began in 2001, with four new reefs and 200 acres of enhanced harvest
area. On the seaside of Virginia's Eastern Shore, more than 20 acres of reef also were restored,
and by the end of 2002, 8 reefs had been constructed in Tangier and Pocomoke Sounds.
86 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
A
A Completed Oyster Reef
Restoration Sites
A 2002 Oyster Reef
Restoration Sites
A
In addition to these restoration
activities, educating the public
about the role oysters play in
water quality, biodiversity, and
the coastal economy has also been
a priority Thousands of Virginians
have learned about the critical
role oysters play in keeping
coastal waters clean and providing
habitat for other marine life. The
private, non-profit Virginia Oyster
Reef Heritage Foundation has
raised hundreds of thousands of
dollars and gives businesses and
individuals an opportunity to get
involved in this initiative. A model
for other restoration efforts in the
Chesapeake Bay, the VOH
Program and its partners served as a catalyst for a bay-wide commitment to increase oyster
populations 10-fold over the next 10 years and helped galvanize a bay-wide strategy to meet this
commitment. The VOH Program has set the stage with an outdoor laboratory for comprehensive
on-the-ground monitoring. Virginia's coastal resource managers have already documented, in
numerous places, 10-fold increases in spat abundance where substrate has
been provided.
Although scientists are still trying to quantify the reefs' achievements, the partners in the VOH
Program are confident about the program's success. Optimism is high that the VOH Program is
helping to create an educated citizenry and a sustainable fishery that will benefit both the state's
economy and coastal ecosystems.
For more information on the VOH Program, contact Laura McKay at (804) 698-4323 or
lbmckay@deq.state.va.us, or Jim Wesson at (757) 247-2121 or jwesson@mrc.state.va.us. Visit
the VOH Program at http://www.deq.state.va.us/oysters/ for a map of reef-restoration sites and
highlights of monitoring, education, and volunteering activities.
Status of oyster reef restoration in Virginia's coastal zone
(Graphic prepared by theVirginia Marine Resources Commission for
NCCRII).
National Coastal Condition Report II 87
-------
ghlight
Sediment Toxicity in Delaware Bay
Sediment contamination in coastal waters is an important environmental issue because of its
potentially toxic effects on ecological resources, and indirectly, on human health. For this reason,
characterizing areas of sediment contamination and toxicity are important goals for coastal
resource management.
Pennsylvania
Delaware
Delaware Bay, whose watershed drains portions of New
York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, is one of
the largest coastal plain estuaries (907 square miles) on the
East Coast. The urban centers of Philadelphia, Trenton,
Camden, and Wilmington contain numerous sources
of contaminants, including municipal and industrial
discharges that contribute metals, PCBs, and chlorinated
pesticides to the Delaware Bay.
As part of NOAA's NS&T Program, the sediment
toxicity of Delaware Bay was measured at 73 stations using
a stratified-random sampling design. Samples were concur-
rently examined for chemical contaminants and BMC
structure. Three different toxicity tests were performed:
(1) amphipod bioassay survival during 10-day exposures to
whole sediment, (2) sea urchin fertilization success in pore
waters, and (3) bacterial bioluminescence (Microtox™) in
organic extracts of sediment.
Estimates of the area of toxicity in Delaware Bay varied
with the bioassay testing procedure used, from 1 % toxicity
based on the amphipod test to 56% toxicity based on the Microtox™ test, with the sea urchin test
resulting in a toxicity estimate of 11%. The latter two tests involve more sediment handling than
the amphipod test, and therefore, create less realistic exposures of organisms to sediment. The
results of these three tests do not necessarily mean that organisms exposed under natural condi-
tions will be adversely affected. Nonetheless, the 1% of the bay area samples found to be toxic
in the amphipod test were also the most heavily contaminated with heavy metals and PAHs.
The condition of BMCs is a response to actual field conditions rather than manipulated
laboratory exposures, but is affected by sediment characteristics beyond just chemical contamina-
tion. In Delaware Bay, indices of BMC health (e.g., taxa, density, diversity, evenness) were highly
variable and poorly correlated with bioassay results. The indices were found to vary much more
in response to salinity and to sediment grain size than to any other factors. The upper freshwater
portion of the Delaware Bay, however, where chemical contamination was high, was an area where
BMCs seem to have been affected most by contamination. For more information, visit
http://nsandt.noaa.gov/index_bioeffect.htm.
Source: Hartwell et al., 2001
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Regions of highTOC content are likely to be
depositional sites for fine sediments. If there are
pollution sources nearby, these depositional sites are
likely to be hot spots for contaminated sediments.
Figure 3-14 shows that only 2% of the area of
Northeast Coast estuarine sediments have a high TOC
content (greater than 5% TOC), and an additional
26% of the area has moderate quantities (2% to 5%
TOC). This results in an overall rating of good for
TOC in the Northeast Coast. Generally, elevated
TOC contents were found in the same locations
as contaminated sediments.
Total Organic Carbon - Northeast (2000)
• Good = <
OFair = 2%-
• Poor = >
O Missing
Fair
26%
Fair
Poor
Figure 3-14. Sediment TOC data for Northeast Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Benthic Index
Coastal condition in the Northeast Coast region as
measured by a combination of benthic indices of the
Virginian Province (Paul et al., 2001) and the Acadian
Province based on biodiversity (developed by NCA for
this report) is poor (Figure 3-15). Twenty-two percent
of estuarine sediments evaluated using variations in
benthic communities in the Northeast Coast received
a rating of poor.
Poor conditions are evident at the head of
Chesapeake Bay and in most of its major western tribu-
taries. In contrast, most of the eastern shore is in good
condition. Poor conditions are also prevalent in many
of the Maryland coastal bays, portions of Delaware Bay
New York/New Jersey Harbor, western Long Island
Sound, and upper Narragansett Bay. Conditions are
good along the northern section of the Maine coast,
with localized areas of poor conditions occurring in
Maine waters from Penobscot Bay southward.
Coastal conditions in the Acadian Province are more
oceanic and have higher bottom-water salinity than in
the Virginian Province. In these northern estuaries,
Benthic Index - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Benthic index score
• Good = > 0.0
• Poor = < 0.0
O Missing
-<-JSC=
//
-i
^
I
Poor
22%
78%
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 3-15. Benthic index data for Northeast Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 89
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Northeast Benthic Index
The Northeast Coast region contains two major
biogeographic provinces: the Virginian Province, which
includes coastal waters along the east coast of Cape
Cod and south through Chesapeake Bay, and the EMAP
Acadian Province, which includes the U.S coastal waters
in the Gulf of Maine. A benthic index (Paul et al., 2001)
was used in the Virginian Province based on EMAP
Virginian Province data from 1990 to 1993. The EMAP
Virginian Province used a level of taxonomic detail for
characterizing the benthic community composition
comparable to that currently used by the Chesapeake
Bay Program and Maryland Coastal Bays Program.
However, from Delaware northward through Maine,
the analysis of benthic communities used a lower level
of taxonomic detail. For the Northeast Coast analysis
of benthic conditions summarized in this chapter, the
taxonomic detail included in the Chesapeake Bay and
Maryland coastal bays summer 2000 surveys was aggre-
gated to the lower level of taxonomic detail so that it
would be comparable with the rest of the benthic data
for the Northeast Coast.
benthic communities were sampled at stations with an
average depth of 57 feet, 36 feet deeper than the average
depth of stations sampled in the Mid-Atlantic estuarine
waters south of Cape Cod. A calibrated benthic index
for the Acadian Province is not currently available. For
this report, the Shannon-Weiner H' diversity index was
used to characterize benthic communities in the
Acadian Province. Areas of low diversity, (Shannon-
Weiner H' < 0.63) were classified as poor. This cutoff
point was selected to include 75% of the sites in the
Acadian Province, where one or more ERMs for either
metals or organics were exceeded. Based on this crite-
rion, 9% of the coastal waters of the Acadian Province
are considered poor. Some of these areas may have low
diversity due to natural causes, including areas with
high exposure to wave action and coarse sediment grain
size, as well as mesohaline environments (<20 ppt
salinity), where lower diversity is associated with salinity
stress. A benthic index that is specifically calibrated for
use in the coastal waters north of Cape Cod and that
makes adjustments for such habitat variables is currently
being developed.
The performance of the benthic index was checked
against other indicators of coastal condition (except for
those stations located in Chesapeake Bay). Water quality
and benthic condition were sampled from the same
location for all stations. For these sites, the water quality
index was good, and the benthic index was good 85%
of the time. Also, when the benthic index was good,
DIN was good 74% of the time, DIP was good 69%
of the time, and good water clarity co-occurred 71%
of the time. Dissolved oxygen showed a very strong
association with benthic index: when dissolved oxygen
in bottom waters fell below 2.0 mg/L, indicating poor
condition, the benthic index also indicated poor condi-
tion 82% of the time. There was no statistically signifi-
cant co-occurrence between chlorophyll a and benthic
index. When the sediment condition index was poor,
benthic index was poor 57% of the time. A poor
rating for sediment TOC was accompanied by a poor
benthic index 65% of the time, and a poor sediment
contamination rating was accompanied by a poor
benthic index 67% of the time. Sediment toxicity
was found to vary independently of benthic index.
Figure 3-16 emphasizes the high degree of co-occur-
rence between poor benthic condition, poor water
quality, and poor sediment quality.
Additional refinements to the benthic indices may
provide better discrimination between good and poor
PoorWater/Sediment Quality Indicators that
Co-Occur with Low Benthic Diversity -
Northeast (2000)
OSediment Quality
OWater Quality
• Sediment and Water Quality
ONone
Figure 3-16. Indicators of poor water and sediment quality that
co-occur with poor benthic condition in Northeast Coast estuaries
(Chesapeake Bay system not included) (U.S. EPA/NCA).
90 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
conditions in specific coastal systems. Dauer et al.
(2002) provides a summary of recent efforts in using
benthic indices to discriminate between different
sources of anthropogenic stress in Chesapeake Bay.
Although benthic indices can provide important
insights about the spatial extent of affected benthos,
additional diagnostic work is often needed to attribute
observed impacts to underlying causes.
Coastal Habitat Index
Wetlands are threatened by many human activities,
including loss and destruction due to land development,
eutrophication, the introduction of toxic chemicals,
and the spread of non-native species. Ecologists estimate
that more than one-half of the Northeast's coastal
wetlands have been lost since pre-colonial times.
Although modern legislation has greatly slowed the
destruction, the Northeast Coast lost 650 acres between
1990 and 2000. This amounts to a loss of 0.14% over
10 years. Combining this average with the mean long-
term decadal wetland loss rate from 1780 to 1990 and
multiplying by 100 results in a coastal habitat index
score of 1.00. This means the coastal habitat index for
the Northeast Coast is rated fair to good. For more
information about wetlands and threats to the region,
refer to EPA's wetlands Web site, http://www.epa.gov/
owow/wetlands.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Estuarine condition in Northeast Coast estuaries is
rated poor for concentrations of contaminants in fish
tissues. Figure 3-17 shows that 31% of all sites sampled
where fish were caught (48 of 156 sites) exceeded risk-
based criteria guidelines used in this assessment. Whole-
fish contaminant concentrations may be higher or lower
than concentrations associated with fillets only. Only
those contaminants that have an affinity for muscle
tissue, e.g., mercury, are likely to have significantly
higher concentrations in fillets than in whole fish.
Concentrations for many other contaminants will be
lower in fillets than in whole fish. In Northeast Coast
estuaries, elevated contaminant concentrations were
observed in various catfish, white perch, weakfish,
lobster, flounders, scup, Atlantic tomcod, and blue crab
and most often included total PCBs, total PAHs, DDT,
and mercury.
I
Tissue Contaminants - Northeast (2000)
Site Criteria: EPA Guidance concentration
• Good = Below Guidance range
OFair = Falls within Guidance range
• Poor = Exceeds Guidance range
Great Sippewissett Marsh, West Falmouth, Massachusetts (Edgar
Kleindinst, NMFS,Woods Hole Laboratory).
Figure 3-17. Fish tissue contaminants data for Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 91
-------
ghlight
A Case Study of Contamination Assessment in New York Harbor
One of the values of the EMAP Estuaries Program is its ability to provide broad insight about
the quality of coastal waters to local managers, potentially spawning smaller, localized studies
to investigate coastal conditions. For New York Harbor, results from the EMAP sampling led
to a more intense Regional EMAP (REMAP) sampling, with results from these regional studies
triggering a more focused sampling using the Contamination Assessment and Reduction Program
(CARP). CARP is designed to identify sources of contamination in coastal waters.
EMAP 1990-1993 ERM exceedances in theVirginian Province.
f I ME
VT | New
I Hampshire
REMAP Stations
• At least one ERM
exceeded
• No ERMS exceeded
1993-1994 REMAP stations in New York Harbor exceeding ERMs.
Data from EMAP-Virginia Province 1990-1993.
92 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
To managers in the New York and New Jersey areas, it was evident that sediment contamina-
tion in the New York Harbor area was a substantial problem. When examining EMAP data using
ERM exceedances as one indicator of sediment contamination, New York stands out along the
East Coast in its concentration of "hits." As a result of this broad-scale monitoring, the New York
Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) and EPA Region 2 cooperatively developed a REMAP sampling
effort, applying the probabilistic sampling approach more intensively at the local harbor scale.
This monitoring plan was designed to assess contamination in the harbor, including sediment
degradation and its relationship to contamination or physical properties of the sediment. The plan
also examined whether this degradation is localized or widespread in New York Harbor and its
sub-basins. The REMAP results showed that half of the Harbor exceeded at least one ERM
criterion for contamination (Adams et al., 1998).
Using this REMAP information, the HEP coordinated CARP sampling to identify sources
of contaminants and to focus on areas previously identified as contaminated with management
implications of dredging activities. The goal of the HEP is to track sources of contaminants from
the land, water, and air, utilizing existing state and national programs (Trackdown and Cleanup,
Combined Sewer Overflow/Storm Water Abatement, Waste Site Inventory, Superfund, and the
Clean Air Act) to identify possible sources, such as sewer and stormwater overflows, industrial
discharges, tributary inputs, landfill leachate, accidental spills, and atmospheric deposition. Such
data can be used to generate simple and complex models to identify contaminant sources, examine
outcomes of clean-up efforts, support a long-term dredging monitoring plan, and make a
complete assessment of the dredged material.
National Coastal Condition Report II 93
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries Demersal Fisheries
The U.S. Northeast Shelf is one of the world's most
productive LMEs. The most visible natural resource
capital of the Northeast Shelf LME is its rich biodiver-
sity of fish, plankton, crustacean, mollusk, bird, and
mammal species. The coastal states from Maine to
North Carolina currently receive $1 billion of economic
benefits annually from the fisheries of the ecosystem.
Management efforts are under way to rebuild the
depleted condition of cod, haddock, flounder, and
other fish stocks to recover the economic potential
of these species.
The coastal zone draining into the Northeast Shelf
LME has an area of approximately 193,050 square
miles. Preliminary estimates suggest that about 7 billion
gallons per day of wastewater flow into the system from
municipal and industrial treatment facilities. The nitrate
and phosphate loadings in several estuaries and embay-
ments have exceeded the present "natural" capacity of
the ecosystem to adequately recycle the nutrients,
resulting in significant overproduction of phytoplankton
and contributing to the increasing frequency and extent
of HABs in near-coastal waters. Controlling the amount
of nutrient loadings and adequately treating wastewater
will reduce the threat of coastal eutrophication.
With appropriate management practices, the
ecosystem should provide the necessary capital in
natural productivity for full recovery of depleted fish
stocks. Previously, severe declines in mackerel and
herring populations due to overexploitation were
reversed by limiting the fishery for these species through
licensing and other restrictions on foreign fishing.
Northeast Shelf LME demersal (groundfish)
fisheries include about 35 species and stocks in waters
off New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. In the
New England subsystem, the groundfish complex is
dominated by members of the cod family (e.g., cod,
haddock, hakes, and pollock), flounders, goosefish,
dogfish sharks, and skates. In the Mid-Atlantic
subsystem, groundfish fisheries include mainly
summer flounder, scup, goosefish, and black sea bass.
Groundfish resources of the Northeast Shelf LME
occur in mixed-species aggregations, resulting in signifi-
cant bycatch interactions among fisheries directed to
particular target species or species groups. Management
is complex because of these interactions. This
complexity is reflected, for example, in the use of
different mesh, gear, minimum landing sizes, and
seasonal closure regulations set by the various manage-
ment bodies in the region (e.g., New England Fishery
Management Council [NEFMC], Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council [MAFMC], Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission [ASMFC], individual
states, and the Canadian government). New England
groundfish (14 species) are managed primarily under
the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, as
well as peripherally under provisions of the ASMFC's
Northern Shrimp Fishery Management Plan. Summer
flounder, scup, and black sea bass are managed under
a joint ASMFC—MAFMC fishery management plan
(FMP), and weakfish are managed under an ASMFC
FMP Demersal fisheries in New England were tradi-
tionally managed primarily by indirect methods, such as
regulating fishing gear mesh sizes, imposing minimum
fish lengths, and closing some areas. The principal
regulatory measures currently in place for the major
New England groundfish stocks are limits on allowable
days at sea for fishing, along with closure of certain
areas, trip limits (for cod and haddock), and targets for
total allowable catch that correspond to target fishing
mortality rates. The Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black
Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan includes provisions
for catch quotas aimed at restoring these stocks.
Fishermen maintaining gear on the dock, Gloucester; Massachusetts
(Nance S.Trueworthy).
94 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Extensive historical data for the Northeast Shelf
LME demersal fisheries have been derived from both
fishery-dependent (i.e., catch and effort monitoring)
and fishery-independent (e.g., NOAA research vessel)
sampling programs since 1963- The boundaries of the
Northeast Shelf LME are depicted in Figure 3-18.
Since 1989, a sea-sampling program has been
conducted aboard commercial fishing vessels to
document vessel discard rates and to collect high-
quality, high-resolution data on their catch. Despite the
past management record, some of the Northeast Shelf
LME demersal stocks (e.g., cod, yellowtail flounder,
haddock, American plaice, and summer flounder)
are among the best understood and assessed fishery
resources in the country.
Georges
Bank
South New England
Mid-Atlantic Bight
Figure 3-18. Northeast Shelf LME subareas and sampling
locations (Sherman et al., 2003).
Principal Groundfish and Flounders
The principal groundfish and flounders group
includes important species in the cod family (e.g.,
Atlantic cod, haddock, silver hake, red hake, and
pollock), flounders (e.g., yellowtail, summer, winter,
witch, windowpane, and American plaice), and redfish.
Recent annual landings of these 12 species (representing
19 stocks) have averaged 81,000 mt (69% U.S. com-
mercial, 21% Canadian, and 10% U.S. recreational
landings), compared with a combined long-term poten-
tial yield of 247,000 mt (Figure 3-19). Total revenue to
fishers from the principal U.S. groundfish and flounder
commercial landings in 2000 was $121 million,
compared with $109 million in 1997- The Northeast
groundfish complex supports important recreational
fisheries for species, including summer flounder,
Atlantic cod, winter flounder, and pollock.
I
900
800-
700-
600-
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
Commercial Landings (x 1,000 mt)
Abundance Survey Index (kg/tow)
180
• 160
• 140
• 120
• 100
•80
•60
•40
•20
I
-Q
<
I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 3-19. Landings in metric tons (mt) and abundance index
of principal groundfish and flounders, 1960-2000 (NMFS, 2003).
The abundance index for this group of species
declined by almost 70% between 1963 and 1974,
reflecting substantial increases in exploitation associated
with the advent of distant-water fleets. Many stocks in
this group declined sharply, notably Georges Bank
haddock, most silver and red hake stocks, and most
flatfish stocks. By 1974, indices of abundance for many
of these species had dropped to the lowest-ever
recorded levels.
Groundfish partially recovered during the mid-to-late
1970s because of reduced fishing efforts associated with
increasingly restrictive management. Cod and haddock
abundance increased markedly, stock bio mass of pollock
increased more or less continually, and recruitment and
abundance also increased for several flatfish stocks.
National Coastal Condition Report II 95
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
The abundance index peaked in 1978, but subsequently
declined, and fell to new lows in 1987 and 1988. The
abundance index for the principal groundfish and
flounders fell to a 30-year low in 1992, but has subse-
quently more than doubled since that year (Figure 3-19).
The most recent changes in the aggregate index are due
primarily to substantial increases (since 1996) in the
bio mass index for redfish in the Gulf of Maine subarea
(Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 200la), but also
reflect increased biomasses of haddock and yellowtail
flounder in the Georges Bank subarea (Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, 200 Ib).
Landings of most groundfish species declined
substantially during the mid-1990s. For many stocks,
landings continue to remain relatively low because
of generally poor recruitment and despite continued
restrictions on days at sea, low trip limits, and addi-
tional area closures in the Gulf of Maine. However,
for some stocks, including Georges Bank yellowtail
flounder and haddock, strong year-classes appearing
in 1997 and 1998, respectively, combined with sharp
reductions in fishing mortality, led to improved
stock conditions (Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
200Ib) and resulted in increased landings during
1999 and 2000.
Management Concerns
During most of the 1980s and early 1990s, New
England Shelf ecosystem groundfish harvests were
regulated by indirect controls on fishing mortality,
such as mesh and fish size restrictions, and some area
closures. Since 1994, these controls have been more
stringent and focused. Amendment 5 to the NEFMC's
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, implemented
in March 1994, marked the beginning of an effort-
reduction program to address the requirement to elimi-
nate the overfished conditions of cod, haddock, and
yellowtail flounder. The regulatory package included a
moratorium on new vessel entrants, a schedule to reduce
the number of days at sea for trawl and gill net vessels,
increases in regulated mesh size, and expanded closed
areas to protect haddock. Since December 1994, three
large areas have also been closed to protect the regulated
groundfish stocks; these include Closed Areas I and II on
Georges Bank and the Nantucket Lightship Closed Area.
A groundfish vessel buyout program was initiated in
1995, first as a pilot project and later as a comprehen-
sive fishing capacity-reduction project. The program
was designed to provide economic assistance to fish-
ermen adversely affected by the collapse of the ground-
fish fishery and who voluntarily chose to remove their
vessels permanently from the fishery. This reduction
in vessels helps fish stocks recover to a sustainable level
by reducing the excess fishing capacity in the Northeast
Shelf LME. The vessel buyout program, which
concluded in 1998, removed 79 fishing vessels at a cost
of nearly $25 million and resulted in an approximate
20% reduction in fishing effort in the Northeast Shelf
LME groundfish fishery.
This flounder is one of several flatfish species found on the
Stellwagen Bank and in the basin. Development of juveniles
occurs primarily within sheltered bays and estuarine areas
(Dann Blackwood and Page Valentine, USGS).
Pelagic Fisheries
The Northeast Shelf LME pelagic fisheries are
dominated by four species: Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic
herring, bluefish, and butterfish. Mackerel, herring,
and butterfish are considered to be underutilized, and
bluefish are considered to be overutilized. The abun-
dance of mackerel, herring, and butterfish is presently
above average, whereas that of bluefish is below average.
The long-term population trends for mackerel
and herring, as measured by research vessel survey
data, have fluctuated considerably during the last
25 years (Figure 3-20). The combined abundance index
for these two species reached minimal levels in the mid-
to late 1970s, reflecting pronounced declines for both
species and a collapse of the Georges Bank herring stock,
but the index subsequently increased steadily and peaked
in 1999-
96 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
CZI Total Landings (x 1,000 mt)
— Mackerel Landings (x 1,000 mt)
800
Herring Landings (x 1,000 mt)
Abundance Survey Index
18
I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 3-20. Landings in metric tons (mt) and abundance index
of principal pelagic fish stocks, 1960-2000 (NMFS, 2003).
Although historical catch data (except perhaps for
bluefish) are generally adequate for assessment purposes,
stock assessments for the Northeast Shelf LME pelagic
resources are relatively imprecise, owing to the highly
variable trawl survey indices of abundance used for
calibrating cohort analysis models, the short life span of
some stocks (butterfish), and the current low exploita-
tion rates of some species (mackerel and herring). The
development of more precise assessments will require
the use of hydroacoustic and mid-water trawl surveys
to estimate herring and mackerel abundance, as well as
alternative types of sampling surveys to estimate bluefish
abundance. In 1997, autumn hydroacoustic surveys
were implemented to improve stock assessments for
Atlantic herring by indexing spawning concentrations.
Research is under way to estimate the size of herring
spawning groups directly from these surveys and to
combine these estimates with data from traditional catch-
at-age methods.
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 in the case here.
Lobsters come in a variety of colors, including mottled reddish
brown, white, and blue (Dann Blackwood and Page Valentine,
USGS, Woods Hole, Massachusetts).
Northeast Shelf Ecosystem Invertebrate
Fisheries
Offshore fisheries for crustacean and molluscan
invertebrates are among the most valuable fisheries of
the Northeast Shelf LME. In 2000, U.S. commercial
landings of American lobster (38,300 mt) and sea
scallops (14,500 mt of shucked meats) ranked first
and second in overall ex-vessel value ($304 million and
$165 million, respectively). Landings of surf clams, ocean
quahogs, squids, and northern shrimp contributed
another roughly $100 million in revenue. Revenues
from these invertebrate fisheries exceeded those for
all Northeast Shelf LME finfish fisheries combined.
American Lobster
A recent assessment of American lobster stocks
(ASMFC, 2000) indicated that fishing mortality rates
for lobster in the Gulf of Maine were double the over-
fishing level. For the inshore resource distributed from
southern Cape Cod through Long Island Sound and for
the offshore stock on Georges Bank, fishing mortality
substantially exceeded the overfishing level. Throughout
its range, the lobster fishery has become increasingly
dependent on newly recruited animals, and commercial
catch rates have markedly declined in heavily fished
nearshore areas. In some locations, more than 90% of
the lobsters landed are new recruits to the fishery, almost
all of which are juveniles (i.e., not yet sexually mature).
Fishing mortality rates for both inshore and offshore
stocks presently far exceed the levels needed to produce
maximum yields. Lobster landings during 1998—2000
averaged 38,100 mt, with a record-high catch of 39,700
mt in 1999 (Figure 3-21). Despite overfishing, lobster
abundance has remained high due to favorable
environmental conditions for lobster reproduction
and recruitment.
45
Landings (x 1,000 mt)
LPUE - Maine Inshore Waters Index
1940
0.0
1990 2000
Figure 3-2 I. Landings of American lobster in the northeastern
United States, 1940-2000, in metric tons (mt). The index shows
the average number of legal-sized lobsters caught per trap
averaged over a 24-hour period in Maine inshore waters (NMFS,
2003). (LPUE = landings per unit effort)
National Coastal Condition Report II 97
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Sea Scallops
Sea scallops are harvested in the United States in
the Northeast Shelf LME from Cape Hatteras, North
Carolina, to the U.S./Canadian border on Georges
Bank and in the Gulf of Maine. Dredges are the
principal harvesting gear, although otter trawls take
a small proportion of the landings (Serchuk and
Murawski, 1997).
Management of the sea scallop fishery changed
markedly in 1994, when—to address overfishing—
management measures affecting the number of days at
sea, vessel crew size, and dredge-ring size were imple-
mented. Since December 1994, the harvesting of sea
scallops in two areas on Georges Bank and one area on
Nantucket Shoals (closed to protect depressed ground-
fish stocks) has been prohibited, except under highly
controlled, limited area-access provisions. In April 1998,
two areas in the Mid-Atlantic subarea were also closed
(for 3 years) to scallop fishing to protect large numbers
of juvenile scallops.
A recent stock assessment (Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, 200 Ib) indicated that sea scallop
biomass in the closed areas increased dramatically
between 1994 and 2000. Smaller but substantial
increases also occurred in areas open to fishing as a
result of reduced fishing effort and good reproductive
success. Increases in stock biomass generated large
increases in U.S. scallop landings in both 1999 and
2000 (Figure 3-22).
20
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
U.S. Landings (x 1,000 mt)
Canadian Landings (x 1,000 mt)
1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996
Year
Figure 3-22. Landings of Atlantic sea scallop in the United States
and Canada, 1940-2000, by metric tons (mt).
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
The states on the Northeast Coast assessed 10,582
(85%) of their 12,451 estuarine square miles for their
2000 305(b) reports. They used state-specific criteria,
which may differ from those used in the NCA analysis,
and found that 49% of the assessed estuarine waters
fully support their designated uses, 8% are threatened
for one or more uses, and the remaining 43% are
impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degrada-
tion (Figure 3-23). Individual use support for estuaries
is shown in Figure 3-24.
In 2000, Northeast Coast states assessed 404 (5%) of
their 7,716 shoreline miles. Ninety-two percent of the
assessed shoreline waters fully support their designated
120001
Threatened
Assessed
85%
Figure 3-23. Water quality in assessed Northeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA, 2002).
10,000
9,000 -
8,000 -
7,000 -
6,000 -
5,000 -
4,000 -
3,000 -
2,000 -
1,000-
0
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing
Support Consumption
Primary Secondary
Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 3-24. Individual use support in assessed Northeast
Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA, 2002).
98 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
uses, and no uses are reported as threatened; however,
8% are impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 3-25)- Individual use support
for Northeast Coast shoreline waters is shown in
Figure 3-26 and listed in Table 3-2.
Figure 3-25. Water quality in assessed shoreline waters of the
Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA, 2002).
300
250-
200-
1)
1 IS°-
I GO-
SO-
0
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 3-26. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters of the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Table 3-2. Individual Use Support for Assessed Shoreline Waters Reported by the Northeast Coast
States under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Assessed Estuaries Impaired
(mi2) and Percentage of Total
Area Assessed for the
Assessed Shoreline Impaired
(mi) and Percentage of Total
Area Assessed for the
Individual Uses
Aquatic life support
Fish consumption
Shellfishing
Primary contact — swimming
Secondary contact
Individual Use
2,335 (27%)
3,950 (38%)
1,665 (15%)
221 (3%)
10 (7%)
Individual Use
0
18(36%)
35 (24%)
0
0
Replanting marsh grass in an
effort to protect and rebuild
this beach near Annapolis,
Maryland (Mary Hollinger,
NODC biologist, NOAA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 99
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2002, 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 nearly all 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 56% of the estuarine area
were under fish consumption advisories. A total of
33 different advisories were active in 2002 for the
estuarine and coastal waters of the Northeast Coast
(Figure 3-27).
Advisories in the Northeast Coast were in effect for
10 different pollutants (Figure 3-28). Most of the
listings (94%) were, at least in part, caused by PCBs.
Boston Harbor was listed for multiple pollutants.
•™ Chesapeake
Bay
Number of
advisories per
USGS cataloging
unit in 2002:
I I 2-4
^1 5-9
J No advisories
Figure 3-27.The number offish consumption advisories for the
Northeast Coast active in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Chlorinated
Pesticides
0 20 40 60 80
Percent of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 3-28. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in northeastern coastal waters. An advisory can be
issued for more than one contaminant, so percentages may not
add up to 100 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
These species were under advisory in 2002 for at
least some part of the Northeast Coast:
American eel
Bluefish
Brown bullhead
Flounder
Lobster
Rainbow smelt
Smallmouth bass
Tautog
Walleye
Atlantic needlefish
Blue crab
Channel catfish
King mackerel
Lobster (tomalley)
Scup
Striped bass
Tilefish
White catfish
Bivalves
Blue crab (hepatopancreas)
Common carp
Largemouth bass
Northern hogsucker
Shark
Swordfish
Tuna
White perch
Source: U.S. EPA, 2003c
Filleting the day's catch. Patuxent Riven Maryland (Mary Hollinger,
NESDIS/NODC biologist, NOAA).
100 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 826 coastal beaches in the Northeast Coast
that reported information to EPA, only 18% (151
beaches) were closed or under advisory for any period
of time in 2002. The states with the highest percentage
of beaches with advisories/closures were Maryland and
New York, where 33% of 12 beaches and 31% of 199
beaches, respectively, indicated that they were closed
at least once in 2002. Table 3-3 presents the number
of beaches and advisories/closures for each state.
Figure 3-29 shows the percentage of beaches in each
county that had at least one advisory or closure in 2002.
Only two states in the region (New Hampshire and
Virginia) did not have any coastal beach closings in
2002. All of the beaches in the Northeast Coast that
reported information have monitoring programs.
The primary reasons why beach advisories and
closures were implemented at coastal beaches in the
Northeast were elevated bacteria levels or preemptive
closures associated with rainfall events or sewage-related
problems. Most beaches had multiple sources of water-
borne bacteria that resulted in advisories or closures
(Figure 3-30). Stormwater runoff and wildlife were
most frequently identified as sources, and unknown
sources accounted for 28% of the response (Figure 3-31).
Table 3-3. Number of Beaches and Advisories/Closures in 2002 for
Northeast Coast States (U.S. EPA, 2003a)
State
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
TOTALS
No. of
Beaches
7
13
199
74
70
199
228
IS
12
9
826
No. of
Advisories/
Closures
1
0
45
8
18
62
10
3
4
0
151
Percentage of
Beaches Affected
by Advisories/
Closures
14.3%
0.0%
22.6%
10.8%
25.7%
31.2%
4.4%
20.0%
33.3%
0.0%
18.3%
Percentage of beaches
reporting with at least
one advisory or closure
per county in 2002:
B 1-10
n 11-so
• 51-100
| | No Data Available
I
Figure 3-29. Percentage of beaches with advisory or closures
by county for the Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Other
18%
Elevated
Bacteria
Levels
43%
Preemptive
Closure
(Sewage)
Preemptive
Closure
(Rainfall)
35%
Figure 3-30. Reasons for beach advisories or closures for the
Northeast Coast (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Other
4%
Unknown
28%
Wildlife
13%
CSO2%
SS04%
POTW4%
Septic System 2%
Sewer Line Problem 2%
Boats 5%
Stormwater
Runoff
36%
Figure 3-31. Sources of beach contamination for the Northeast
Coast (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
National Coastal Condition Report II 101
-------
ghlight
Recovery from Biomass Depletion in Large Marine Ecosystems
Multi-year time series measurements of the plankton in two LMEs have shown that phyto-
plankton and zooplankton populations are in good condition, indicative of a stable and highly
productive food-web base. The robust condition of plankton enhances conditions for reversing the
declines in bio mass of demersal fish that have occurred over the last several decades. Since 1994,
mandated reductions in fishing effort led to increases in the spawning stock biomass (SSB) levels
of haddock, yellowtail flounder, and other species in the Northeast Shelf ecosystem.
Following the cessation of foreign fishing on herring and mackerel stocks in the late 1970s and
a decade of very low fishing mortality, both species began to recover to high stock sizes in the
1990s. Bottom trawl survey indices for both species increased dramatically, showing more than a
10-fold increase in abundance (1977-1981 vs. 1995-1999 averages) by the late 1990s. Stock
biomass of herring increased to more than 2.5 million mt by 1997- The total stock biomass of
mackerel has also continued to increase since the closure of the foreign fishery in the late 1970s.
Although absolute estimates of biomass for the late 1990s are not available, recent analyses place
the stock at or near a historic
high in total biomass and SSB.
Additionally, recent evidence
indicates that both haddock and
yellowtail flounder stocks are
responding favorably to catch
reductions, with substantial
growth reported in SSB size
since 1994 for haddock and
flounder. In 1998, a very strong
year-class of yellowtail flounder
was produced, and in 1999, a
strong year-class of haddock was
produced, as shown in the
figures to the right.
CD
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
120
Georges BankYellowtail
' Spawning Stock Biomass
I Recruitment
Exploitation Rate
1.0
0.8
0.6 -
o
1
0.4 °
0.2
0.0
1975
1980
1985
Year
1990
1995
2000
:- 100
O a)
8
8.2
§1
80
60
£& 40
DO ^
I "2 20
a.
oo
0
Georges Bank Haddock
i Spawning Stock Biomass
I Recruitment
Exploitation Rate
\
nllfln-J-IL
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1975
1980
1985 1990
Year
1995
2000
*mt - metric tons
102 National Coastal Condition Report I
Source: Sherman et al., 2003.
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
At the base of the food web, primary productivity provides an input of carbon that supports
important marine commercial fisheries. Zooplankton production and biomass provide the prey-
resource for larval stages of fish and the principal food source for herring and mackerel in waters
of the Northeast Shelf ecosystem. During the past 20 years, the long-term median value for the
zooplankton biomass of the Northeast Shelf ecosystem has been about 29 cubic centimeters of
zooplankton per 100 m3 of water, produced from a stable mean-annual primary productivity of
350 grams of carbon per square meter
per year (gCm yr). During the last two
decades, the zooplanktivorous herring
and mackerel stocks underwent unprece-
dented levels of growth, approaching an
historic high combined biomass. This
growth took place during the same
period that the fishery management
councils for the New England and Mid-
Atlantic areas sharply curtailed fishing
effort on haddock and yellowtail
flounder stocks. Given the observed
robust levels of primary productivity and
zooplankton biomass, it appears that the
carrying capacity of zooplankton is suffi-
cient to sustain the strong year-classes
reported for yellowtail flounder (1998)
and haddock (1999).
An undulating oceanographic recorder, towed behind a ship,
is used to collect ecological parameters needed to assess
the state of the marine ecosystem (Jerome Prezioso, NOAA
NMFS).
The zooplankton component of the
Northeast Shelf ecosystem is in a robust condition, with biomass levels at or above the levels of the
long-term median values of the past two decades. This supplies a suitable prey base for supporting
a large biomass of pelagic fish (herring and mackerel), and provides sufficient zooplankton prey to
support strong year-classes of recovering haddock and yellowtail flounder stocks. The Northeast
Shelf ecosystem is in relatively stable oceanographic condition. No evidence has been found in the
fish, zooplankton, temperature, or chlorophyll components that indicates any large-scale oceano-
graphic regime shifts of the magnitude reported for the North Pacific or northeast Atlantic Ocean
areas.
For more information, contact Ken Sherman at kenneth.sherman@noaa.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report II 103
-------
ghlight
Predicted Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loads to the New England Coast
using SPARROW Model
In the 1980s and 1990s, the USGS developed SPARROW models to assist in performing
national and regional water quality assessments (Smith et al., 1993 and 1997)- SPARROW, which
refers to Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes, uses regression equations to
relate measures of water quality condition to pollution sources and watershed characteristics.
These relations are then used to provide estimates of water quality fluxes at unmonitored waters.
In 2004, New England SPARROW models were completed by the USGS, in cooperation with
EPA and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC). The
models provide nutrient (total nitrogen [TN] and total phosphorus [TP] flux estimates for nearly
42,000 stream reaches throughout the region (Moore et. al., 2004). The models were calibrated
using nutrient measurements at nearly 70 sites where the USGS and other agencies measure water
quality conditions.
New England Model Nitrogen Load
U Kennebec River (includeds Androscoggin)
Presumpscot River
Taunton River
lerrimac River Nitrogen load sites, in
metric tons per year
o 30-10
o 100-250
• 250-1,000
O 1,000-3,000
O 3,000-8,000
• 8,000-16,200
Nitrogen loadings from New England watersheds to coastal waters as
predicted by the New England SPARROW model (Moore et al.,2004).
104 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
The New England SPARROW models have r2 values of 0.95 for the TN model and 0.94 for
the TP model. Significant predictors of TN include atmospheric deposition, developed (urban and
suburban) land area, agricultural land area, and discharges from municipal wastewater-treatment
facilities. Significant predictors of TP include agricultural land area, developed land area, forested
land area, and discharges from municipal wastewater-treatment and pulp and paper facilities.
Development of a New England SPARROW model is being used to enhance the ability of EPA
Region 1 to meet requirements under the Clean Water Act, including development of TMDL
studies for waters impaired by pollutants and development of nutrient criteria. The New England
SPARROW model will provide the following information:
• Estimated mean annual loadings of TN and TP in all 42,000 New England stream
segments for the mid-1990s time period
• Estimated TN and TP loadings contributed by pollutant sources in each stream segment
• Estimated TN and TP loadings from individual stream segments to downstream stream
TN and TP loadings within watersheds and to coastal waters
• Information on the impact of nutrient-sources (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities;
forested, urban, suburban, and agricultural lands), and watershed characteristics (e.g.,
presence of reservoirs and lakes, and stream-flow velocities) on pollutant loads
• Estimates of TN and TP fluxes to New England coastal waters for use in assessment of
coastal conditions as part of the ongoing NCA Program.
Additional information on SPARROW models nationally is available at
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/index.html, and the New England SPARROW Report can
be obtained at http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/sir/2004/5012/.
I
National Coastal Condition Report II 105
-------
ghlight
Virginia Seaside Heritage Program
Virginia's Eastern Shore—a vast system of barrier islands,
bays, and salt marshes—is a global treasure designated by
the United Nations (UN) as a Man and the Biosphere
Reserve. The intertidal and shallow subtidal areas, undevel-
oped beaches, and marshes support an incredible array of
waterfowl and shorebirds. These habitats also serve as
breeding, nursery, and foraging sites for finfish and shellfish,
which are of tremendous economic value to commercial and
recreational fishermen.
Blue-eyed bay scallop.
In the 1800s, this barrier island lagoon system was a mecca for hunting, fishing, and recreation
for people from Washington, DC, to New York. Finfish and shellfish harvests provided income to
thousands of Virginians. Unfortunately, seafood harvests of all types and shorebird populations
declined dramatically beginning in the late 1800s due to over-harvesting, disease, the environ-
ment, and loss of habitat. Destructive hurricanes and storms also hit Virginia's seaside in the
1880s, 1890s, and early 1900s, and bird populations have declined steadily due to hunting, preda-
tion, and habitat loss. Sadly, despite strong conservation efforts over the last few decades, there has
not been a great resurgence of seagrasses, oysters, scallops, finfish, and birds.
The Virginia Seaside Heritage Program (VSHP), a new public-private partnership initiated by
the VCP and its partners, is an ambitious 3-year program (2002—2004) aimed at restoration, use-
conflict resolution, and protection of the aquatic resources of the seaside. The VSHP will build on
the momentum of recent restoration success and develop the tools necessary to support long-term
restoration and management strategies for the seaside. This area holds tremendous potential to
demonstrate appropriate management of economic development and habitat restoration within a
rare and fragile ecosystem.
This 3-year program has four elements:
• Development of a comprehensive seaside inventory of natural resources and human use
patterns that will form the basis for long-term restoration and management strategies
• Restoration of seagrass acreage, scallop beds, oyster reefs, marshes, and shorebird habitats
• Development of management tools, such as a use-suitability model, improved
enforcement capabilities, and public education efforts.
• Development of sustainable ecotourism opportunities through construction or
enhancement of public access sites, creation of a canoe/kayak water trail and map,
and an ecotour guide certification course.
For more information about this project, please contact Laura McKay, VCP Manager, at (804)
698-4323 or lbmckay@deq.state.va.us. Please also visit the VSHP Web site at
http://www.deq.state.va.us/coastal/vshpweb/homepage.html.
106 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Use of a Hybrid Monitoring Design in Rhode Island
Rhode Island's monitoring program for Narragansett Bay includes random samples during the
NCA index period; measurements made from moored instrumentation recording water properties
every 15 minutes; towed instrumentation; and targeted sampling designed to document the spatial
extent of low dissolved oxygen events that often accompany minimal tidal range in summer and
early fall. The upper Narragansett Bay stratifies when the tidal range is less than 0.8 meters.
Phytoplankton often bloom in the surface layer when upper Narragansett Bay stratifies,
followed by subsurface declines in dissolved
oxygen (Bergando, In press). The August 6
sampling date was selected one year in advance of
when a low dissolved oxygen event was considered
likely, following a period of minimum tidal range.
Information from two of the moored instru-
ments in upper Narragansett Bay indicated that,
preceding the target sampling on August 6, 2002,
near—bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations fell
below EPA's (U.S. EPA, 2000a) chronic criterion
for dissolved oxygen (4.8 mg/L) for 10 days and
below the acute criterion for dissolved oxygen
(2.3 mg/L) for 5 days. This low dissolved oxygen
event was accompanied by fish kills in upper
Narragansett Bay.
I
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in Upper
Narragansett Bay,August 6,2002.
W 1.2
I
-8 0.9
f-
| 0.6
|
3 0.3
0.0
Region of De-stratification
Region of Surface Blooms and Subsurface Hypoxia
6/1 6/15 6/29 7/1 7/27 8/10 8/24 9/7 9/21
Date - 2002
Absolute tidal range - Newport, Rhode Island, (developed by
Dana Kester [deceased], formerly of URI GSO)
National Coastal Condition Report II 107
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition
Summary
The NCA Program is providing an important baseline of conditions
that can serve as the benchmark for determining how conditions change
in the 21st century. For the first time, consistently collected data sets from
cooperating state programs permit statistically valid comparisons of coastal
conditions across the region. The summary of NCA results in this chapter
is based on observations from a single survey year of the Northeast Coast
during a late-summer index period. Even without temporal replication,
dramatic geographic gradients are evident because of the geological
history, latitudinal variations in climate and tidal range, and human
activities in this region.
Problems associated with excess nutrients from human activities are
much less prevalent in the Gulf of Maine than in the waters to the south
of Cape Cod. Problems related to low oxygen levels in bottom waters are
more severe in the coastal waters of the Virginian Province. The NCA
sampling design provides a snapshot of late-summer conditions across the
Northeast Coast region. Low oxygen levels between 2 and 5 rng/L are
evident in a number of areas. Oxygen concentrations that persist below
4.8 mg/L and periodic fluctuations below 2.3 mg/L (Coiro et al., 2000)
can have an impact on benthic communities and lead to fish kills.
Clean sediments with low levels of chemical contamination, an absence
of acute toxicity, and moderate to low levels of TOC are found in 73% of
the Northeast Coast. High levels of sediment contaminants are found in
8% of the region, with the highest levels of sediment contaminants often
found in depositional environments in the vicinity of cities (Figures 3-3
and 3-13). Such sediments require special care when dredging is needed to
maintain navigation channels. Lower levels of sediment contamination are
found over an additional 12% of the region, associated with areas of high
human population density (Figure 3-3). Sediment toxicity is found only
in 8% of the Northeast Coast (Figure 3-12). In many situations where
low levels of sediment contamination are evident, sediments are found to
be nontoxic. In situations where sediment toxicity is evident, additional
Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) approaches can be used to help
diagnose causes of observed toxicity.
Assessment of communities of benthic organisms can be used to
characterize Northeast Coast ecosystem conditions. Based on the benthic
index used in this study, conditions are considered to be good along the
northern Maine coast, Cape Cod Bay, most of southeastern Massachu-
setts, near the mouth of Narragansett Bay, eastern Long Island Sound,
portions of New Jersey, and the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay. Benthic
conditions are considered to be poor in 22% of the Northeast Coast,
often in the vicinity of high human population density.
For the Northeast Shelf LME, mandated management actions have
resulted in some recovery of depleted haddock and yellowtail flounder
spawning stocks biomass and good recruitment.
108 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4
Southeast Coastal
Condition
m$
i
!3i.'
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Southeast Coastal Condition
The overall condition of Southeast Coast estuaries
is fair to good, although there is evidence of human-
induced stress in some areas. In 2000, the NCA
collaborated with state resource agencies in the region
to facilitate collection of environmental stressor and
response data from 151 locations (Figure 4-1)
throughout Southeast Coast estuaries using comparable
methods and techniques. Results indicate that most of
the estuarine area of the southeastern United States is in
fair to good ecological condition. This means that in the
late summer, when data were collected, environmental
stressors (e.g., nutrients, contaminants) and conditions
for aquatic life showed few signs of significant impair-
ment (Figure 4-2). Forty percent of the estuarine area
fully supports human and aquatic life uses, 37% is
threatened for human and aquatic life use, and 23%
is impaired for these uses (Figure 4-3).
The estuaries of the southeastern United States
(Carolinian Province) extend from Cape Henry,
Virginia, through the southern end of the Indian River
Lagoon and along the east coast of Florida (Figure 4-1)
heast
Overall
Score (3.8)
Good Fair Poor
Water Quality Index (4)
Sediment Quality Index (4)
Benthic Index (3)
Coastal Habitat Index (3)
Fish Tissue Index (5)
Figure 4-2.The overall
condition of Southeast Coast
estuaries is fair to good.
Threatened
37%
Unimpaired
40%
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use Impaired Aquatic
5% Life Use
18%
Figure 4-1. Southeast Coast sampling stations (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Figure 4-3. Southeast Coast estuarine condition (U.S. EPA/NCA).
110 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
to include part of the West Indian Province from Indian
River Lagoon through Biscayne Bay. This region of the
country is referred to as the Southeast Shelf LME. The
Southeast Coast region contains a wealth of resources,
including barrier islands such as North Carolina's Outer
Banks; busy shipping ports in Miami and Jacksonville,
Florida, Savannah, Georgia, and Charleston, South
Carolina; quiet coastal wetlands that provide a habitat
for migratory birds and other animals; and important
commercial and recreational fishery resources. North
Carolina contains the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, one
of the largest and most productive aquatic systems in
North America. The sound represents North Carolina's
key resource base for commercial fishing, recreational
fishing, and tourism. Similarly, the coastal resources in
other Southeast Coast states provide the resource base
for fishing and tourism industries and generate vast
amounts of sales tax income for those states.
I960
2000
Figure 4-4. Population of coastal counties in the Southeast Coast
states from 1960 to 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).
The population of coastal counties along the
Southeast Coast increased 64% between 1970 and
1990 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1996). In 1999, the
southern region of the United States was the most
populous area of the nation, accounting for 96 million
residents. Florida was among the five most populous
states in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001) and has
demonstrated a growth rate of almost 2% per year in
its coastal population. Figure 4-4 presents population
data for Southeast Coast counties from the U.S. Census
Bureau and shows that these coastal county populations
have more than doubled since I960.
The estuarine resources of the Southeast Coast
are diverse and extensive, covering an estimated 4,487
square miles. The coastal population in the southeastern
United States increased by 160% over the 40-year
period from I960 to 2000, the largest percentage
increase in the country. Given the influx of people and
businesses to southeastern coastal states and the ensuing
pressures on the coastal zones of this region, there is an
increased need for effective management of the
resources of the Southeast Coast.
I
This largest of the Atlantic octopus species, Octopus vulgahs,
exhibits a threat display to thwart the attention of an inquisitive
diver (Paul Goetz).
National Coastal Condition Report II 111
-------
ghlight
South Carolina's Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto Basin National Estuarine
Research Reserve System
The Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin of South Carolina has largely undeveloped tracts
of saltwater marshes, maritime forests, upland pines, and bottomland hardwoods. These ecologi-
cally important components, coupled with management goals that balance conservation of natural
resources with economic development and population growth, have focused national attention on
the ACE Basin. Colleton County, South Carolina, in which the ACE Basin study area is located,
is expected to increase from its 1990 population of 34,377 to more than 47,500 by the year 2010.
People are attracted to the ACE Basin's mild climate, rural character, affordable land prices, recre-
ational opportunities, and natural setting; however, extensive population growth and urbanization
may adversely impact the very things that draw people to this area. Stressors associated with such
population growth include habitat loss, resource depletion, nonpoint source pollution, and
nutrient loadings to estuaries and coastal waters.
s
Dorchester'
Project Area
Project Boundary
3rv
' *9tOF
5 0 5 10 Miles
Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (ACE) Basin
112 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
A major challenge for the basin's rural communities will be to strike a balance between
supporting the area's socioeconomic needs and protecting its natural resources. This will require
strong ecological research and a commitment to responsible growth. Conservation, research,
education, and cooperation have provided the basic architecture for the ACE Basin National
Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). The reserve is managed by the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and a 21-member steering committee representing
local business, education, forestry, fisheries, environmental groups, tourism, and private
landowners guides the development of research and educational activities. Funding for the ACE
Basin characterization has been provided by NOAA and the SCDNR. The SCDNR and its
Divisions of Marine Resources; Land, Water, and Conservation; and Wildlife and Freshwater
Fisheries implemented the project in partnership with NOAA's Coastal Services Center in
Charleston, South Carolina, and the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
Because of its relatively pristine nature, the ACE Basin provides ideal sites for monitoring
changes in the physical and biological aspects of the region. Interdisciplinary research provides
information for conserving biological diversity and for assessing the impacts of pollution on
ecosystems and habitats. In addition, the ACE Basin may offer a model for solving similar prob-
lems in other coastal regions. Local communities are being introduced to the idea that promoting
sustainable development and protecting natural watersheds are advantageous to the region's long-
term benefit. Outreach activities that strengthen the community's understanding of these concepts
are vital to the region's preservation.
For additional information, please visit the following Web sites: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/
acebasin/ and http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/marine/mrri/acechar/.
National Coastal Condition Report II 113
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data
E Water Quality Index
The water quality index for estuaries in the Southeast
Coast region is rated fair to good (Figure 4-5)- Only
5% of estuarine area was rated poor for water quality,
and 45% was rated fair. The water quality index was
calculated by combining the indicator values for DIN,
DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen
for Southeast Coast estuaries.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorous
High DIN and DIP concentrations in surface waters
are often indicators of high eutrophic potential. DIN
was rated good because none of the Southeast Coast
estuarine area had DIN concentrations that exceeded
0.5 rng/L (Figure 4-6). DIP received a fair rating
because 12% of the DIP concentrations exceeded
0.05 mg/L (Figure 4-7). The 12% value for DIP
is an approximation because the phosphorus sample
was based on filtered, acid-preserved phosphorus for
North Carolina samples, which provides a measure of
total phosphorus, not of DIP only. Literature suggests
that for estuaries in the Southeast Coast region, DIP
represents about 97% of the total phosphorus (Van
Dolah et al., 2002).
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA Program has
been designed to estimate the percent of estuarine area
(nationally or in a region or state) in varying conditions
and is displayed as pie diagrams. Many of the figures
in this report illustrate environmental measurements
made at specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the value of the
indicator specifically at the time of sampling. Additional
sampling may be required to define variability and to
confirm impairment or the lack of impairment at
specific locations.
Water Quality Index - Southeast (2000)
Nitrogen - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition
• Good = No more than I is fair
OFair = I is poor or 2 or more are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
Site Criteria: DIN concentration
• Good = < O.I mg/L
• Fair = O.I -0.5 mg/L
• Poor = > 0.5 mg/L
O Undetermined
-------
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a received a fair rating because 83%
of Southeast Coast estuarine area had concentrations
greater than 5 ug/L (Figure 4-8).
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Phosphorus - Southeast (2000)
Chlorophyll a - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: DIP concentration
• Good = < 0.01 mg/L
OFair = 0.01 -0.05 mg/L
• Poor = > 0.05 mg/L
O Undetermined
Undetermined
20 Mg/L
OUndetermined
Undetermined
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Water Clarity
Water clarity in Southeast Coast estuaries is fair.
Water clarity was estimated by light penetration through
the water column using either a transmissivity meter or
a Secchi disk. Eighty percent of estuaries have good
water clarity, and 12% have poor water clarity (Figure
4-9). Estuaries across the nation were divided into three
turbidity classes based on regional expectations for light
penetration related to SAV distribution—low, moderate,
and high. Highly turbid waters generally have between
5% and 10% transmission of light at 1 meter; moder-
ately turbid waters have between 10% and 25% light
transmissivity; and low turbidity waters have between
20% and 40% transmissivity. However, only two turbi-
dity classes were appropriate for most of the Southeast
Coast estuaries—high and moderate—because of the
high natural organic content of estuaries in the region.
By defining reference conditions and ranges for turbidity,
measured values can be compared with expected values,
taking into account natural causes of turbidity.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen in Southeast Coast estuaries is
good. Twenty-four percent of the bottom waters have
dissolved oxygen levels between 2 and 5 mg/L, and
74% of the bottom waters have levels above 5 mg/L
(Figure 4-10). Dissolved oxygen is one of the most
important water quality measurements because low
dissolved oxygen conditions can limit the distribution
or survival of most estuarine biota, especially if condi-
tions persist for extended time periods. Results indicate
that dissolved oxygen conditions in the Southeast Coast
are generally good, even though the NCA Program was
designed to sample during the summer index period,
when dissolved oxygen levels are at their lowest. The
dissolved oxygen measurements collected by states
approximate short-term, worst-case conditions that
may not necessarily occur for long time periods. State-
gathered data under the NCA indicate that only 2%
of the bottom waters in Southeast Coast estuaries have
dissolved oxygen levels below 2 mg/L.
Water Clarity - Southeast (2000)
Dissolved Oxygen - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Light penetration
at I meter depth
• Good = > 20% in NC, FL
> IO%inSC,GA
OFair = 10% to 20% in NC, FL
5% to 10% inSC, GA
• Poor = < 10% in NC, FL
< S% in SC, GA
O Undetermined
Undetermined
<'* Poor
12%
Fair
Fair Poof ,
Figure 4-9. Water clarity condition for Southeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Site Criteria: Dissolved oxygen
concentration
• Good = > 5 mg/L
OFair =2-5 mg/L
• Poor = < 2 mg/L
Figure 4-10. Dissolved oxygen concentration data for Southeast
Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
116 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Sediment Quality Index
The condition of Southeast Coast estuaries as
measured by the sediment quality index is fair to good.
Ninety-two percent of estuaries are rated good, and
only 8% are rated poor (Figure 4-11). The sediment
quality index is calculated using three indicators:
sediment toxicity sediment contaminants, and
sediment TOC.
Sediment Quality - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Number and
condition of component indicators
• Good = None are poor and sediment
contaminants is good
OFair
• Poor = I or more are poor
None are poor and sediment
contaminants is fair
Figure 4-11. Sediment quality index data for Southeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Toxicity
The sediment toxicity indicator in Southeast Coast
estuaries is rated good. Figure 4-12 shows that 86% of
the sediment area of these estuaries supported survival
of the marine test organism Ampelisca abdita. Fourteen
percent of the estuaries' toxicity potential was unknown
because of missing data or a control failure of the
standard toxicity test. Toxicity testing is a valuable
tool in assessing the condition of sediments. Sediments
received a poor rating if fewer than 80% of the organ-
isms used in the sediment toxicity evaluation survived.
Sediment Toxicity - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Amphipod survival rate
• Good = >
• Poor = <
O Undetermined
Undetermined
14%
Poor
Figure 4-12. Sediment toxicity data for Southeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
A banded butterfly fish is a
common inhabitant of Atlantic
coral reefs (Paul Goetz).
National Coastal Condition Report II 1
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
The condition of Southeast Coast estuaries as
measured by sediment contamination is good. For
sediment chemical contamination, a poor rating was
assigned if concentrations were above ERM values for
one or more contaminants, and a fair rating was
assigned if concentrations were above ERL values for
five or more contaminants. None of the area of
Southeast Coast estuarine sediments was rated poor
(Figure 4-13). Sediments were analyzed for as many
as 28 different chemicals, metals, or chemical classes,
and these values were compared with established
ERM and ERL values (Long and Morgan, 1990;
Longetal., 1995).
Sediment Contaminants - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: ERL and ERM criteria
exceedance
• Good = Less than 5 ERLs exceeded,
no ERMs exceeded
OFair
• Poor = Exceeds I or more ERM criteria
Exceeds 5 or more ERL criteria,
no ERMs exceeded
Figure 4-13. Sediment contaminants data for Southeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Contaminant Criteria (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined for each
chemical as the 50th percentile (median) in a database
of ascending concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined values for
each chemical as the I Oth percentile in a database of
ascending concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
The condition of Southeast Coast estuaries as
measured by sediment TOC is good. Figure 4-14 shows
that 65% of estuaries in the Southeast Coast region are
rated good for TOC, and only 7% are rated poor.
Total Organic Carbon - Southeast (2000)
Figure 4-14. Sediment TOC data for Southeast Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
118 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Sampling Array
1999-2000
South Carolina Estuarine and Coastal Assessment Program (SCECAP)
In 1999, the SCDNR and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SCDHEC) initiated a collaborative coastal monitoring program, the South Carolina
Estuarine and Coastal Assessment Program (SCECAP). This program involved several federal
partners, including EPA, NOAA's National Ocean Service, and the FWS. The goal of SCECAP is
to monitor the condition of South Carolina's estuarine habitats and associated biological resources
and to provide overview reports to both coastal
managers and the public. The program collects
multiple water and sediment quality measures
and annually monitors the biological condition
at approximately 60 probabilistically selected
sites throughout the state's coastal zone. These
measures are integrated into an overall assess-
ment of habitat condition at each estuarine site
and collectively for the state's entire coastal
zone. The program also expands the focus of
historical monitoring activities beyond open
water habitats (e.g., bays, sounds, tidal rivers)
to include tidal creeks, which serve as important
nursery habitat for many valuable species. As
many of these tidal creeks are the first point of
entry for nonpoint source runoff from upland
areas, they can provide early indications of stress
related to coastal development, agriculture, and
industrial activities.
Station Type
O Open Water
O Tidal Creek
Distribution of open water and tidal creek stations
The SCECAP Summary Report provides sampled throughout South Carolina's coastal zone
major findings from the first two years of the during 1999-2000 (SCDNER, 2002).
program. The more detailed SCECAP Technical Report provides additional data on the moni-
toring program that may be useful to coastal resource managers and
to those scientists conducting research in South Carolina's estuaries.
Study results highlight the value of evaluating tidal creek habitats
separately from larger open waterbodies. Significant differences were
observed for many of the measurements collected in each habitat.
Additionally, the study includes newly developed methods for
measuring habitat condition that have not been used previously.
Additional information on the SCECAP is available at
http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/marine/scecap/.
•
National Coastal Condition Report II 119
-------
ghlight
Comparing and Predicting PAH Concentrations in Urban and
non-Urban Sediments
Unmanaged human activity can threaten the environmental health and economic vitality of
coastal estuaries. In response to these concerns, as well as to identify the need for spatial models
and improved analytical techniques to support sustainable coastal development, a long-term study
was initiated to define, measure, and model the impacts of urbanization on high-salinity coastal
estuaries of the southeastern United States. The Urbanization and Southeastern Estuarine Systems
(USES) Project was begun by the University of South Carolina and the NOAA Center for Coastal
Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research. The complexity of estuarine problems
currently associated with coastal population growth and commercial development have led many
research and management agencies to explore new spatial analytical techniques. These new analyt-
ical techniques can provide valid and timely information to assist with productive coastal zone
management. This continuing advancement of new technologies enables scientists to design
predictive models of how ecosystems and their components respond to natural and man-made
pressures. New models and techniques are being developed that incorporate land-use patterns
and practices, integrated toxicological and risk assessment modeling, and geographic information
processing (GIF) approaches for applied coastal zone management.
Runoff of PAHs discharged from gas combustion engines in automobiles and boats are a major
contaminant source in coastal urban watersheds. PAHs were measured in sediments of Murrells
Inlet, South Carolina, and found to have distinct patterns showing that the highest PAH concen-
trations occurred at estuarine sites adjoining urban residential developments, roadways, and
marinas. PAH concentrations at estuarine sites in the middle and outer portions of Murrells Inlet
distinctly decreased as distance from land-based PAH sources increased. In contrast, at pristine
North Inlet, South Carolina, there were no spatial differences in PAH sediment concentrations
related to distance from land sources.
o
u
ouu
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
n
North Inlet
n=IO n=ll
1 1
1 1 1 1
n=6
n=!6 Murrells Inlet
n=IO
n=4
1 1
Inner
Mid
Outer Inner
Location
Mid
Outer
Comparison of PAH sediment concentrations at an urbanized
site (Murrells Inlet, South Carolina) and a pristine site (North
Inlet-Winyah Bay, South Carolina) (Fortner et al., 1996).
120 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Analysis of land use in Murrells Inlet revealed that there were several metrics, such as distance
to roadways, distance to marinas, and distance to urban development, that helped develop multi-
variate land use models to accurately predict sediment PAH contaminant levels. These findings
clearly indicate that high levels of PAHs in sediment are related to land-based pollution sources,
and predictions of PAH sediment concentrations within estuarine systems can be accurately based
upon simple land use metrics.
For additional information, visit http://www.chbr.noaa.gov/marineecotoxicology.html.
Measured and Predicted
Log Sum ERL in Murrells Inlet, SC
Legend
Predicted Log Sum ERL
Measured Log Sum ERL
Upland
Reservoir
Estuarine Water
Ocean
Wetland
Source: Fortner et al., 1996
National Coastal Condition Report II 121
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Benthic Index
The condition of Southeast Coast estuaries as
measured by the benthic index is fair. Van Dolah et al.
(1999) developed a benthic index based on several
measures of benthic community condition. This index
considers the total number of species and integrated
measures of species dominance, species abundance, and
abundance of pollution-sensitive taxa. The index shows
that 11 % of the Southeast Coast estuarine area is rated
poor (has degraded benthic resources), 10% is in fair
condition, and 79% is in good condition (Figure 4-15).
Areas rated poor included portions of North Carolina's
Neuse and Pamlico rivers and Georgia's Savannah River.
Of the 11% of estuaries with degraded benthic condi-
tion, most (93%) were associated with some measure
of adverse water or sediment quality (Figure 4-16).
Poor benthic condition co-occurred most often with
degraded sediment quality (73% of sites with poor
benthic condition).
Tybee Roads, Savannah River Entrance, Georgia (Marge Beaver;
Photography Plus).
Benthic Index - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: Benthic index score
• Good = > 2.5
OFair = 2.0-2.5
• Poor = < 2.0
.JP*
Figure 4-15. Benthic index data for Southeast Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
PoorWater/Sediment Quality Indicators that
Co-Occur with Low Benthic Diversity -
Southeast (2000)
_L
\
OSediment Quality
OWater Quality
• Sediment and Water Quality
ONone
Sediment
and
Water
Quality
46%
Water Quality
20%
Sediment
Quality
27%
.JP*
Figure 4-16. Indicators of poor water and sediment quality that
co-occur with poor benthic condition in Southeast Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
122 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal habitat index for estuaries in the
Southeast Coast region is rated fair. Wetlands in the
region diminished from 1,107,370 acres in 1990 to
1,105,170 acres in 2000, representing a loss of 2,200
acres or 0.2% (Figure 4-17). The coastal habitat index
score was calculated by averaging the mean long-term,
decadal wetland loss rate for 1780-1990 with the loss
rate for 1990-2000 and multiplying by 100 (for a score
of 1.06).
0.6
o
« 0.4
0.2
0.0
0.53
0.17
0.21
0.14
0.04
U.S. Northeast Gulf of West Alaska Southeast
Mexico
Figure 4-17. Wetland loss data. (Dahl, 2003)
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The condition of Southeast Coast estuaries based on
concentrations of contaminants in fish tissues is rated
good. Figure 4-18 shows that 5% of all sites sampled
where fish were caught (6 of 119 sites) exceeded risk-
based criteria guidelines using whole-fish contaminant
concentrations. (Whole-fish contaminant concentra-
tions can be higher or lower than the concentrations
associated with fillets. Only those contaminants that
have an affinity for muscle tissue, e.g., mercury, are
likely to have higher fillet concentrations. Fillet contam-
inant concentrations for most other contaminants will
be lower.) The only contaminants that had elevated
concentrations in fish tissues in Southeast Coast
estuaries were total PAHs and total PCBs.
Tissue Contaminants - Southeast (2000)
Site Criteria: EPA Guidance concentration
• Good = Below Guidance range
OFair = Falls within Guidance range
• Poor = Exceeds Guidance range
Figure 4-18. Fish tissue contaminants data for Southeast Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
A diver explores a WWII wreck off North Carolina which is now home
to schools of juvenile fish and other organisms (Paul Goetz).
National Coastal Condition Report II 123
-------
ghlight
Using Ferries to Monitor Estuarine
Water Quality
The Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System
(APES) is the second largest estuary in the nation.
It supports more than 75% of the commercial fisheries in the Southeast and is North Carolina's
most important recreational, tourism, and fisheries resource. However, despite its enormous
ecological and socioeconomic importance, the majority of the APES is not routinely monitored
for water quality.
This estuarine system's resources are threatened by increased pollution from urban and
agricultural development in its watersheds. To address the urgent need for rapid, cost-effective,
management-oriented water quality assessment, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
(UNC) and Duke University have partnered with the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources and the
Department of Transportation to monitor the
estuary's ecological health. The partnership,
called FerryMon, outfitted three ferries that
cross the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound and its
tributaries as cost-free "ships of opportunity"
with equipment to monitor the estuary's ecolog-
ical indicators 18 hours a day, 365 days a year.
These ferries collect real-time water quality data,
including data related to temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH, and chlorophyll.
They also collect water samples for nutrient and
diagnostic photopigment analyses. Data are
transmitted via cell phone to laboratories, water
quality management agencies, schools, environ-
mental and outreach groups, and commercial
and recreational fishing communities.
FerryMon is administered by the Carolina
Environmental Program. Principal investigators
are Hans W Paerl, Kenan Professor of Marine
and Environmental Sciences at UNC's Institute of
Marine Sciences in Morehead City, North Carolina, and Joseph S. Ramus, professor at the
Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences Marine Laboratory
in Beaufort, North Carolina.
Additional information on this program is available at http://www.ferrymon.org.
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System (APES) (map
courtesy of FerryMon, 2003)
124 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
The Atlantic coast of the United States bordering
on the Southeast Shelf LME includes diverse habitats
ranging in salinity, flora, and fauna. It includes fresh-
water and estuarine habitats, nearshore and barrier
islands, and oceanic communities. Watersheds that
drain the lower Appalachian Mountains, Piedmont,
and Coastal Plains empty into the ecosystem along the
coastlines of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
and eastern Florida. The flow of fresh water mixes along
the coast with prevailing oceanic waters to create diverse
wetlands, marsh, and mangrove habitats that transition
gradually from freshwater to brackish to saltwater areas.
From an ecosystem perspective, this thin fringe of
estuaries is dynamic, varying constantly with tidal
fluctuations and levels of runoff, and it serves as an
important habitat for waterfowl, reptiles, mammals,
fish, and invertebrates, as well as a diversity of plants.
It also serves as a natural filter to remove pollutants and
sediments from upland regions. The estuaries in this
area support diverse aquatic organisms and complex
food webs in an irreplaceable nursery system. This
system promotes the recruitment and development of
juvenile fish and invertebrate species that are important
to recreational, commercial, and ecological interests.
Reef Fish Resources
In the Southeast Shelf LME, the fishery for reef
fishes has historically been conducted within waters
that are less than 600 feet deep, or within the area that
approximates the outer edge of the continental slope.
Reef fishes are generally found on reef or reef-like, hard-
bottom habitats. Dominant reef fish species include red,
yellowtail, vermilion, and mutton snappers; red and gag
groupers; black sea bass; and greater amberjack. Reef
fish fisheries are extremely diverse, have many users
(commercial and recreational), and vary greatly by
location and species.
Combined commercial and recreational landings of
the reef fishes from the Southeast Shelf LME area have
fluctuated since 1976, showing a slightly decreasing
trend over time (Figure 4-19). Meanwhile, fishing
pressure has increased significantly. NOAA's FMP
prohibits the use of fish traps (except pots for black sea
bass) and trawl gear. Other regulations pertaining to the
management of reef fishes include minimum size limits,
permitting systems for commercial fishermen, bag
limits, quotas, seasonal closures, Special Management
Zones, and the establishment of Marine Protected Areas
prohibiting the harvest of any species.
Of the dominant reef fishes within the ecosystem of
the Southeast Shelf, the red, yellowtail, and vermilion
snappers, the red and gag groupers, and the black sea
bass stocks are currently overfished. The mutton
snapper and greater amberjack stocks are not considered
to be overfished. The regulatory measures and stock
rebuilding plans under way are designed to reduce
fishing mortality, to prevent over fishing, and to
continue or begin rebuilding of these stocks.
1 Total Landings (x 1,000 mt)
• Recreational Landings (x 1,000 mt)
16
.14-
12-
ID-
S'
1 6
4-
2-
1 Commercial Landings (x 1,000 mt)
' Gag Grouper Abundance Index
(relative value of fish per
standardized trawl)
0.8
0.6 jj
0.4 |
O.' J
1978
1983
1988
Year
1993
1998
Figure 4-19. U.S.Atlantic coast reef fish landings, 1978-2000, in
metric tons (mt).The abundance index is a relative value showing
fish per standardize haul (NMFS, 2003).
The black sea bass (Centrophstis striata), also known as the blackfish,
has short, blue-black fins with white areas on the head.The last
dorsal spines may have a dark spot at the base. It is the most
common predator at Gray's Reef, South Carolina (Karen Roeder).
National Coastal Condition Report II 125
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Sciaenids Fisheries
Fishes of the family Sciaenidae include 22 species
in the Southeast Shelf LME. Some of the more notable
members of this family of fishes include red drum
(Sciaenops ocellatus), black drum (Pogonias cromis),
Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus), weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion
nebulosus), kingfish (Menticirrhus spp.), and spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus). Sciaenids have constituted an
important fishery resource along the Atlantic coast since
the late 1800s. Currently, these fish species support
substantial harvests for both commercial and recreational
fisheries and are captured in almost every type of gear
used to fish the coastal waters of the Atlantic.
Of those sciaenid species for which an FMP has
been developed, red drum are currently classified
as overfished in some states; weakfish have high levels
of abundance; and information needed to adequately
determine stock status of the remaining species is
lacking. Regulations for sciaenid fishes in the Atlantic
range from no restrictions in some states to complicated
restrictions based on fish size and bag limits in
other states. The populations of several species of
sciaenids, most notably Atlantic croaker and spotted
seatrout, appear to be closely linked to environmental
conditions, which result in large annual fluctuations
in population levels.
Menhaden Fishery
Landings and participation (23 factories and
more than 100 vessels on the Atlantic coast) in the
menhaden fishery increased rapidly after World War II
(Figure 4-20), reaching peak harvests between 1953 and
1962 (record landings of 712,100 mt in 1956). Sharp
declines in landings thereafter resulted in plant closings
and vessel reductions. The stock rebuilt during the
1970s and 1980s, and menhaden landings climbed to
418,600 mt in 1983- In 1990, 5 reduction plants oper-
ated with about 37 vessels. During the late 1980s and
1990s, the fishery consolidated, primarily because of
low product prices. In 2003, only two plants remained
on the Atlantic coast (Reedville, Virginia, and Beaufort,
North Carolina), with a total of 12 steamers. The
Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay is currently the
center of the modern menhaden fishery. Landings since
1998 have ranged between 167,200 and 245,900 mt
(landings in 2002 were 174,000 mt).
800
CZI Atlantic Landings (x 1,000 mt)
Pond stocking of red drum fingerlings for Florida stock-enhancement
programs. Netting covering the ponds prevents bird predation on stock.
Port Manatee, Florida (Eileen McVey, NOAA Central Library).
1950 1955 I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 4-20. Landings and spawning biomass of Atlantic
menhaden, 1950-2000, in metric tons (mt) (NMFS, 2003).
Declining fishing effort (hence fishing mortality) in
recent years has likely reduced the rate at which older
menhaden are removed from the population, allowing
time for fortuitous recruitment. Relatively low survival
to the age of 1 year has been a major concern for the
Atlantic menhaden stock. The last dominant year-class
occurred in 1988, and subsequent year-classes have
generally been poor to mediocre. Recruitment appears
to be hindered largely by environmental conditions
(centered in the Chesapeake Bay area) rather than by
a lack of spawning stock. If recruitment continues to
decline, erosion of the spawning stock may follow.
126 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Mackerel Fisheries
Total catch of Southeast Shelf LME king mackerel
averaged 3,345 mt per fishing year from 1981 to 2001,
with a maximum of 4,365 mt (1985) and a minimum
of 2,570 mt (1999). In 2001, the total catch was
2,748 mt. On average, the landings are larger for the
recreational sector (66%) than for the commercial
sector (34%). Landings of king mackerel have been
below the total allowable catch limitations since 1986.
According to the 1998 and 2003 stock assessments,
this stock is not overfished, nor is overfishing occurring,
although it is near its estimated long-term potential
yield. Currently, there are restrictions for the commer-
cial sector, including annual total allocated catch restric-
tions, minimum size restrictions, gear restrictions, and
catch trip limits. For the recreational sector, restrictions
include bag limits, minimum size limits, and annual
quota allocation. Current issues affecting the Atlantic
king mackerel stock concern the bycatch of juveniles in
the shrimp trawl fishery and the allocation of landings
within the mixing zone between Atlantic and Gulf stocks.
The total catch of Southeast Shelf LME Spanish
mackerel averaged 2,307 mt per fishing year from 1984
to 2001, with a maximum of 3,188 mt (1991) and a
minimum of 1,406 mt (1995). In 2001, the total catch
was 2,305 mt; in contrast to landings for king mackerel,
most of the landings for Spanish mackerel are from the
commercial sector (69%). For the Southeast Shelf LME
Spanish mackerel, landings have also been below the
total allowable catch limitations, at least since 1991.
The 1998 and 2003 stock assessments concluded that
the Atlantic Spanish mackerel stock was not overfished
and that overfishing was not occurring, although
current estimates indicate that the stock is exploited at
its near-optimum long-term yield. At present, manage-
ment restrictions for the commercial fishery of South-
east Shelf LME Spanish mackerel include minimum size
restrictions, gear restrictions, trip limits, and quota
allocation. For the recreational fishery, there are mini-
mum size restrictions, bag limits, and charter-vessel
permit requirements. Current issues affecting this stock
include bycatch from the shrimp trawl fishery and the
allocation of landings within the mixing zone between
Atlantic and Gulf stocks.
Catch statistics indicate that commercial shrimp species are
being harvested at maximum levels.This photo shows three
commercial shrimp boats (Ralph F. Kresge).
Shrimp Fisheries
The trend in commercial landings of the major
shrimp species over the last 40 years has remained
stable, while fishing pressure has increased. The shrimp
stocks in the Southeast Shelf LME appear to be more
affected by environmental conditions than by fishing
pressure. Both pink and white shrimp populations are
affected by cold weather. The young of these species
overwinter in estuaries and can potentially "freeze out"
if water temperatures drop to lethal levels. The lower
temperatures do not affect brown and rock shrimp
because juveniles are not found in the estuaries during
cold seasons. Annual variations in white and pink
shrimp populations due to fluctuating environmental
conditions are a natural phenomenon that will likely
continue to occur despite management activities.
However, the recovery of the affected stocks can be
mediated by management practices.
The current shrimp management plan uses the
mean total shrimp landings as a reasonable proxy for
maximum sustainable yield. The harvest of shrimp in
the Southeast Shelf LME has fluctuated around stable
levels for several years. This trend in landings has
been maintained even though an increase in vessels
has been observed; therefore, it seems these stock
are fully exploited.
The latest NMFS catch statistics indicate that
commercial shrimp species are being harvested at
maximum levels. An increase in effort would most likely
not lead to an increase in catch. Although the take of
shrimp may affect future stocks in years experiencing
harsh environmental conditions, the greatest threat to
shrimp populations is the loss or destruction of habitat.
Pollution or physical alteration of the salt marsh and
inshore seagrass habitats results in changes to habitats
that are critical nursery areas for juvenile shrimp.
National Coastal Condition Report II 127
-------
ghlight
Georgia Department of Natural Resources' Red Drum Project
Conventional tagging and telemetry studies have demonstrated that the Altamaha River
delta provides an important habitat for all life stages of red drum. These studies have shown
that adult red drum exhibit spawning site fidelity. After spawning, adult red drum aggregate
at shoal and sandbar areas near the mouths of estuaries, where they are targeted by anglers in
a growing catch-and-release fishery. Adult red drum remain in these areas until mid-November,
when they move out into the open Atlantic Ocean, returning to the estuaries and nearshore
waters the following spring.
Through a 2-year age-determination study (1989 to 1991), approximately 300 red drum were
captured from the Altamaha River delta with hook-and-line and entanglement gear and then
sacrificed for otolith (ear bone) removal and collection of biological data. Evaluation of otoliths
revealed that the portion of the adult red drum spawning biomass that frequented the Altamaha
River delta was comprised of individuals ranging from age 5 to 40. Young adults (ages 5 to 10)
made up a much smaller portion of the sample than expected. As a result, researchers concluded
that unregulated harvest of juveniles and sub-adults during the 1970s and 1980s had decreased
survival to adulthood.
In the autumn of 2002, the Coastal
Resources Division repeated this study,
collecting adult red drum from four
stations located in the Altamaha River
delta using both conventional angling
and multi-hook gear with circle hooks
as terminal tackle. The goal of this
repeat study was to determine and
compare the current and historical age
structures of the red drum with the
previous 2-year study of 1989- If
management guidelines implemented
over the past decade have been
successful, then young adult red drum
should represent a larger portion of the
spawning population.
Georgia, Red Drum sampling sites (map courtesy of Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Division, 2002).
128 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
In addition, 10 randomly selected individuals (>750 mm fork length) were taken from each
of the 4 sampling stations for tissue chemistry analysis. Comparison of the tissue concentrations
with sediment chemistry data collected from random sites in 2000 and 2001 in the Altamaha
estuarine system will provide unique insight about bioaccumulation of water and sediment-
borne substances.
For more information about the Red Drum Project, contact Phillip Flournoy at
phillip_flournoy@coastal.dnr.state.ga.us.
Photo courtesy of Georgia's Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Division, 2002.
National Coastal Condition Report II 129
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
The states on the Southeast Coast assessed 8,234
(93%) of their 8,813 estuarine square miles for their
2000 305(b) reports. Of the assessed estuarine square
miles on the Southeast Coast, 81.5% fully support their
designated uses, 1.5% are threatened for one or more
uses, and the remaining 17% are impaired by some
form of pollution or habitat degradation (Figure 4-21).
Individual use support for assessed estuaries is shown in
Figure 4-22. The states on the Southeast Coast did not
assess any of their 9,070 shoreline miles. Although
Florida reports water quality information for coastal
waters for Section 305 (b) compliance, it is not possible
from that report to distinguish between Atlantic and
Gulf Coast listings; therefore, 305 (b) assessment informa-
tion for Florida is included in its entirety in this section.
Table 4-1 shows individual use support reported by
states for their assessed estuaries and shoreline waters.
Impaired
17%
Figure 4-2 I. Water quality in assessed estuaries of the
Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Wind surfer takes advantage of the coastal wind and waves for an
exciting ride (Paul Goetz).
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 4-22. Individual use support for assessed estuaries of the
Southeast Coast (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Table 4-1. Individual Use Support for Assessed Coastal
Waters Reported by the Southeast Coast States under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act for 2000 (U.S. EPA,
2002).
Estuaries Percentage of Total
Assessed as Area Assessed for
Portuguese Man-O-War frequently washup Florida's east coast during
the spring to threaten beach goers and swimmers alike with their
potent and sometimes lethal stinging tentacles (Pat Cunningham).
Individual Uses
Aquatic life support
Fish consumption
Shellfishing
Primary contact —
swimming
Secondary contact
Impaired (mi )
683
279
534
623
606
Individual Use
27%
76%
20%
25%
27%
130 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Fish Consumption Advisories
Ten fish consumption advisories were active in the
coastal waters of the Southeast Coast region in 2002
(Figure 4-23)- All four coastal states—North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida—had statewide
advisories covering all coastal waters and estuaries to
warn citizens against consuming large quantities of king
mackerel because of potential mercury contamination.
Florida and South Carolina also have statewide
advisories for other species of fish. Because of these
statewide advisories, 100% of the total coastline miles
of the Southeast Coast region were under advisory.
Most (90%) fish consumption advisories for the
Southeast Coast were issued at least in part because of
mercury contamination (Figure 4-24), with separate
advisories issued for only two other pollutants, PCBs
and dioxins. All PCB advisories were in Georgia, and
the one dioxin advisory was in North Carolina's
Albemarle-Pamlico Sound.
Number of
advisories per
USGS cataloging
unit in 2002:
Figure 4-23.The number offish consumption advisories per
USGS cataloging unit in Southeast Coast waters (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
o
U
Mercury
PCBs
Dioxin
20 40 60 80
Percent of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
100
Figure 4-24. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in Southeast Coast waters. An advisory can be issued
for more than one contaminant, so percentages may not add up
to 100 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
These species were under advisory in 2002 for at
least some part of the Southeast Coast:
Almaco jack
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blackfin tuna
Blue crab
Bluefish
Carp
Catfish
Clams
Cobia
Crevalle jack
Flounder
Greater amberjack
King mackerel
Ladyfish
Little tunny
Mussels
Oysters
Red drum
Shark
Silver perch
Snowy grouper
Spotted seatrout
A blue crab fishing boat loaded with pots and ready
to go to work. Mann's Harbor; North Carolina
(William B. Folsom, NMFS).
National Coastal Condition Report II 131
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 151 coastal beaches in the Southeast Coast
that reported information to EPA, only 15-6% (25
beaches) were closed or under an advisory for any
period of time in 2002. Table 4-2 presents the numbers
of beaches, advisories, and closures for each state. Only
South Carolina and Florida's east coast had beaches with
advisories or closures. Figure 4-25 presents advisory and
closure percentages for each county within each state.
Most beach advisories and closures were imple-
mented at beaches along the Southeast Coast because
of elevated bacteria levels (Figure 4-26). There were
multiple sources of water-borne bacteria that resulted
in advisories or closures. Stormwater runoff was most
frequently identified as a source (71%), and unknown
sources accounted for 9% of the responses (Figure 4-27).
Table 4-2. Number of Beaches and Advisories/Closures in 2002 for
Southeast Coast States (U.S. EPA, 2003a)
State
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida (East Coast)
TOTALS
No. of
Beaches
20
26
4
101
160
No. of
Advisories/
Closures
0
12
0
13
25
Percentage of
Beaches Affected
by Advisories/
Closures
0.0%
46.2%
0.0%
12.9%
15.6%
Percentage of beaches
reporting with at least
one advisory or closure
per county in 2002:
Preemptive
Closure
(Rainfall)
24%
Elevated
Bacteria
Levels
76%
Figure 4-26. Reasons for Southeast Coast beach advisories or
closures (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Figure 4-25. Percentage of Southeast Coast beaches with advi-
sories or closures by county in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
CSO
Other 5%
Unknown 9%
Wildlife 4%
nF
|2002|
SSO 1%
POTW 1%
Septic System I %
Sewer Line Problem 5%
Boats 2%
Stormwater
Runoff
71%
Figure 4-27. Sources of Southeast Coast beach contamination
(U.S. EPA, 2003a).
132 National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
GEORGIA
Georgia Beach Monitoring Program
The primary goal of the Georgia Beach Monitoring
Program is swimmer safety. The Georgia Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), Coastal Resources Division
(CRD), is developing an interagency team to address issues
that influence swimmer safety The team consists of the
CRD; the State Department of Human Resources, Division of
Public Health (DPH); and the DNR Environmental Protection
Division (EPD). The team has three primary responsibilities: (1) to monitor regular bacterial
water quality; (2) to notify the public of swimmer health risks; and (3) to investigate sources of
pollution.
CRD used the analogy of a three-legged stool to explain the team's approach. Swimmer safety is
the seat of the stool, and the stool is supported by three legs. All three legs are required to keep the
stool upright, but no single agency in Georgia has the jurisdiction to provide the information
needed for all three legs. The CRD is the leg that monitors bacterial concentration in water.
When bacterial concentrations are high, CRD notifies the DPH. The DPH is the leg that issues a
public health advisory. The third leg, the EPD, inves-
tigates the source of the bacterial contamination.
The stool requires a stable platform for
support and stability. That platform consists
of local governments, beach management agencies,
news agencies, and the general public. The CRD
has worked to educate the groups that form this
platform to provide the necessary support for the
Georgia Beach Monitoring Program in order to
increase the groups' awareness of swimmer safety
issues and to explain how their support can help
improve swimmer safety.
For more information, contact Elizabeth Cheney at elizabeth_cheney@coastal.dnr.state.ga.us.
National Coastal Condition Report II 133
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition
Summary
The overall condition of Southeast Coast estuaries is fair to good.
Monitoring by coastal states in 2000 showed that less than 5% of the
area of Southeast Coast estuaries and coastal areas is in poor condition,
based on bottom dissolved oxygen concentrations, sediment toxicity,
and sediment chemical contamination. Indices of concern include
the benthic index (11% rated poor), water quality index (50% rated
as fair or poor), and coastal habitat index (1.06 rated as fair). Although
only 3% and 12% of Southeast Coast resources were in poor condition
for chlorophyll a and phosphorus concentrations, respectively, large
percentages (80% and 24%) of resources were in fair condition for
these two indicators.
Results indicate that most of the estuarine area of the southeastern
United States is in fair to good ecological condition. Neither environ-
mental stressors (e.g., dissolved oxygen, contaminants) nor conditions
for aquatic life showed signs of serious ecological impairment during the
monitoring period. However, increasing population growth in this region
of the United States could contribute to increased susceptibility for water
quality degradation. Although the overall condition of Southeast Coast
estuaries is rated fair to good for 2000, a vigilant attitude should be
promoted and environmental education continued to protect and
preserve this resource.
Lighthouse and palmetto trees (Richard B.
Mieremet, Senior Advisor; NOAA OSDIA).
134 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
• t
• Chapter 5
Gulf of Mexico
Coastal Condition
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
The overall condition of Gulf Coast estuaries is fair
(Figure 5-1)- Thirty-five percent of the estuarine area
shows indications of impaired aquatic life use, and 14%
shows indications of impaired human use (Figure 5-2).
Twenty percent of the assessed estuaries are in good
ecological condition. In these areas of good condition,
data were collected during the most stressful period of
the year, and neither environmental stressors (e.g.,
nutrients, contaminants) nor aquatic life communities
showed any evidence of degradation. Thirty-nine
percent of estuarine area along the Gulf of Mexico was
assessed as threatened (in fair condition). The five Gulf
states—Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas—collected environmental stressor and response
data from 191 locations from Florida Bay, Florida, to
Laguna Madre, Texas, in 2000 (Figure 5-3).
Gulf
Overall V 7
Score (2.4) V
Good Fair Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (3)
Benthic Index (2)
Coastal Habitat Index (I)
Fish Tissue Index (3)
Figure 5-1. The overall
condition of Gulf Coast
estuaries is fain
Threatened
39%
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
Unimpaired
20%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
27%
Figure 5-2. Gulf Coast estuarine condition (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Gulf Coast estuaries provide critical feeding,
spawning, and nursery habitats for a rich assemblage of
fish, wildlife, and plant species. Gulf Coast wetlands
provide essential habitat for shorebirds, colonial nesting
birds, and migratory waterfowl. The Gulf Coast is also
home to an incredible array of indigenous flora and
fauna, including endangered species such as sea turtles,
the Gulf sturgeon, the Perdido Key beach mouse, the
manatee, the white-topped pitcher plant, and the
red-cockaded woodpecker. Gulf Coast estuaries support
SAV communities that stabilize shorelines from erosion,
reduce nonpoint source loadings, improve water clarity,
and provide wildlife habitat.
Gulf Coast estuaries are among the most productive
natural systems, producing more food per acre than the
most productive midwestern farmland. The Gulf Coast
region is second only to Alaska for domestic landings
of commercial fish and shellfish, with 816,466 mt in
2000, worth more than $900 million (NMFS, personal
communication). Shrimp landings in the Gulf of
Mexico accounted for 80% of the total U.S. shrimp
landings in 2000 (127,006 mt).
Shrimp boats viewed over old, barnacle-encrusted pilings at Conn
Brown Harbor; Aransas Pass,Texas (Mr William B. Folsom, NOAA,
NMFS).
136 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
The part of Cayo del Oso Creek that
empties into Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus
Christi Bay Texas (Mr William B. Folsom,
NOAA, NMFS).
Figure 5-3. Gulf Coast sampling stations for the 2000 NCA Program surveys (U.S. EPA/NCA).
The population of coastal counties in the Gulf Coast
region increased more than 100% between I960 and
2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003; Figure 5-4). EMAP
focused its coastal monitoring efforts on Gulf Coast
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. This
partnership has continued as part of the NCA Program,
with coastal monitoring being conducted by the five
Gulf states through 2004. In addition, since the late
1980s, NOAA's NS&T Program has collected contami-
nant bioavailability and sediment toxicity data from
several Gulf Coast locations (Long et al., 1996).
2000
Figure 5-4. Population of coastal counties in Gulf Coast states
from 1960 to 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003).
National Coastal Condition Report II 137
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data
E Water Quality Index
A water quality index was developed for Gulf Coast
estuaries, using information from five indicators (DIN,
DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen).
Based on the 2000 NCA survey results, the water
quality index is rated fair for Gulf Coast estuaries.
In NOAA's Estuarine Eutrophication Survey (NOAA,
1999), the Gulf of Mexico was ranked poor for
eutrophic condition, with an estimated 38% of the
estuarine area having a high expression of eutrophica-
tion. The NCA survey in 2000 showed few estuaries in
the Gulf Coast with poor water quality (9%); however,
most Gulf Coast estuaries exhibited fair to poor water
quality conditions (51%) (Figure 5-5). Estuaries with
poor water quality conditions were found in all five
states, but the contributing factors differed among
states. In Texas and Louisiana, poor water clarity and
high concentrations of DIP contributed to poor water
quality. In Florida and Mississippi, poor water clarity
and high chlorophyll concentrations were the major
contributors. Only the Houston Ship Channel in Texas
and the Back Bay of Biloxi in Mississippi had high
concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus. The
Perdido River in Alabama showed both hypoxia and
high chlorophyll a concentrations.
Coral reef researchers Carl Beaver and Hector Guittierez secure
a rack of tiles to the exposed reef rock (Ed Enns).
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorous
DIN concentrations in the surface waters of Gulf
Coast estuaries are rated good, but DIP concentrations
are rated fair. High concentrations of DIN (> 0.5 mg/L)
occurred in 2% of the estuarine area (Figure 5-6).
Florida Bay sites were rated poor if DIN exceeded 0.1
mg/L or if DIP exceeded 0.01 mg/L. This modification
was made to comply with lower expectations for nutri-
ents in tropical and subtropical waters. Only three sites
had DIN concentrations above 0.5 mg/L: Houston
Ship Channel, Texas; Calcasieu River, Louisiana; and
Back Bay of Biloxi, Mississippi.
Water Quality Index - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition
• Good = No more than I is fair
OFair = I is poor or 2 or more are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
Good Fair Poor
Figure 5-5. Water quality index data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
138 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA Program
has been designed to estimate the percent of estuarine
area (nationally or in a region or state) in varying condi-
tions and is displayed as pie diagrams. Many of the figures
in this report illustrate environmental measurements
made at specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the value of the
indicator specifically at the time of sampling. Additional
sampling may be required to define variability and to
confirm impairment or the lack of impairment at
specific locations.
Elevated DIN concentrations are not expected to
occur during the summer in Gulf Coast waters because
freshwater input is usually lower and dissolved nutrients
are used more rapidly by phytoplankton during the
summer. Elevated DIP concentrations (> 0.05 mg/L)
occurred in 11% of Gulf Coast estuaries (Figure 5-7).
Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor, Florida, have natu-
rally high DIP concentrations because of geological
formations of phosphate rock in their watersheds, but
they also have significant anthropogenic sources of DIP
in their watersheds.
Potential for
M i sinterpretati on
of Conditions for
States with Smaller
Coastlines
Alabama and Mississippi
resource agencies are
concerned that the
figures presented in
the Coastal Monitoring
Data section of this
chapter could potentially
represent their estuaries
unfairly. Both states
have at least fifty loca-
tions that were sampled
in the NCA Program's
2000 survey; however,
because of the high
density of these sites
and the small estuarine
resources of these
states, even one or two
sites rated poor (red
circles) give the appear-
ance of poor condition
dominating a large
portion of the entire
coast of these states.
Although showing the
entire Gulf Coast region
in a single graphic is
consistent with the
goals of this report,
these displays do not
provide a detailed view
of all data, particularly
for Alabama, Mississippi,
and eastern Louisiana.
Nitrogen - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: DIN concentration
• Good = < O.I mg/L
OFair = O.I -0.5 mg/L
• Poor = > 0.5 mg/L
I
Good Fair Poor
Figure 5-6. DIN concentration data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
^^^^^^^H
Phosphorus - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: DIP concentration
• Good = < 0.01 mg/L
OFair = 0.01 - 0.05 mg/L
• Poor = > 0.05 mg/L
Fair
Poor
Figure 5-7. DIP concentration data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
139
-------
ghlight
The Gulf of Mexico Seagrass Status and Trends
Summary Report
The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) is a network of citizens
dedicated to promoting the economic health of the region by
managing and protecting the resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Although administered by EPA, the GMP engages many organi-
zations across the Gulf Coast region to implement and lead
tangible projects that are environmentally and economically
sound. The GMP includes representatives from state and federal agencies, nonprofit organizations,
the scientific community, business and industry, and an organized citizens group. These members
are appointed by the five Gulf state governors. The GMP focuses on three ecological issues:
(1) public health, (2) excess nutrient enrichment, and (3) habitat degradation and loss, including
the introduction of nonindigenous species.
The GMP has long recognized seagrasses, estuaries, and coastal wetlands as vital in providing
food and shelter for plants and animals, improving water quality, sediment filtration, and flood
and erosion control. In 1999, the GMP's Habitat Team set a goal to restore, enhance, or protect
20,000 acres of important coastal habitats of the Gulf by 2009- The Habitat Team, recognizing
that seagrass beds are some of the most productive habitats in nearshore waters, set a goal to
produce a Gulf-wide Seagrass Status and Trends (S&T) Summary Report. The purpose of the
Summary Report is to provide current baseline information on the status of seagrasses in the
Gulf of Mexico.
To produce this report, the GMP's Habitat Team formed a Seagrass Subcommittee, consisting
of over 30 Gulf Coast seagrass scientists and environmental managers. Committee members
provided data on seagrass maps, seagrass S&T, causes of change in seagrass acreage, monitoring
activities, and restoration efforts important to their area. The USGS National Wetlands Research
Center also provided extensive support in the production of data, maps, and editing that will
comprise this summary. This map depicts total seagrass change from 1953 until 1992 for
St. Andrews Bay, Florida.
In 1992, the total seagrass coverage in waters of the Gulf was estimated at 2.52 million acres
(Duke and Kruczynski, 1992). The updated summary will provide a baseline for the status of
seagrasses in the Gulf, as well as provide specific area and statewide seagrass information to
scientists, managers, and decision makers.
140 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
A Seagrass Outreach document, written in layman's terms and developed for the general public,
politicians, and Gulf of Mexico stakeholders, will accompany the Seagrass S&T Summary Report.
Additional information will be available on the USGS National Wetlands Research Center's Web
site at http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov and the GMP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/.
Land
Seagrass-Continuous
Seagrass-Patchy
Water
Changes in seagrass coverage in St. Andrews Bay Systems, Florida, from 1953-1992 (produced by
the USGS National Wetlands Research Center for the NCCRII).
National Coastal Condition Report II 141
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a concentrations in Gulf Coast estuaries
are rated good. Eight percent of the estuarine area in
the Gulf Coast region had high concentrations of
chlorophyll a (Figure 5-8). Concentrations above 20
ug/L occurred in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida
estuaries. Sites in Florida Bay were rated poor if concen-
trations of chlorophyll a were greater than 5 ug/L. This
modification was made to comply with lower expecta-
tions for chlorophyll in tropical and subtropical waters.
Water Clarity
Water clarity in Gulf Coast estuaries is fair. The
amount of ambient light that reaches certain depths
underwater can be measured to provide an estimate of
water clarity in coastal waters. Water clarity is affected
by suspended sediments, particulate matter, and phyto-
plankton. A minimum level of water clarity is necessary
to sustain SAV beds. Expectations for water clarity to
sustain SAV vary across the Gulf of Mexico. In Florida
Bay and Laguna Madre, for example, SAV beds flourish,
and water clarity is usually high. In contrast, except for
some widgeongrass, and duckweed, seagrass, and rooted
SAV habitats rarely exist in estuaries in Louisiana
because these waters are naturally turbid. Water clarity
is expected to be low in Louisiana, Alabama, and
Mississippi estuaries, as well as other northern Gulf
Coast estuaries.
Water clarity was estimated from an index of
expected conditions by comparing Secchi depth with
a light-extinction coefficient. Gulf Coast estuaries were
classified based on regional expectations for light
penetration related to SAV distribution. Water clarity
was determined to be good, fair, or poor by comparing
a sample light-extinction coefficient calculated from
the measured Secchi depth to a range of reference light-
extinction coefficients. For approximately 29% of Gulf
Coast estuaries, the water clarity measured was less
than the reference standard (Figure 5-9). Lower than
expected water clarity occurred throughout Gulf Coast
estuaries, but was concentrated in the Coastal Bend
region of Texas, Mississippi, and south Florida.
Although the current NCA approach used to assess water
clarity is an improvement over the previous effort, it still
may reach inappropriate conclusions regarding water clarity
for parts of the Gulf Coast. Many of the Gulf Coast regions
have high natural silt and suspended sediment loads. To
modify the water clarity approach for this natural condition,
researchers adjusted the approach by the "expected" water
clarity levels to lower levels for much of the Gulf Coast.
While this adjustment appears to have been successful for
much of the Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana
coasts, further adjustments may be necessary for Mississippi
Sound and the Texas coast.
Chlorophyll a - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: Chlorophyll a concentration
• Good = < 5 Mg/L (less than I Mg/L South Florida
OFair = 5 - 20 Mg/L (1-5 Mg/L South Florida)
• Poor = > 20 Mg/L (greater than 5 Mg/L South Florida)
Missing
3% Poor
jGood Fair Po
Figure 5-8. Chlorophyll a concentration data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
142 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in Gulf Coast estuaries
are good. NCA estimates for Gulf Coast estuaries
show that less than 1 % of the bottom waters exhibit
hypoxia (< 2 mg/L dissolved oxygen) in late summer
(Figure 5-10). These areas are largely associated with
Mobile Bay, Alabama, which experiences regular
hypoxic events during the summer that often culminate
in "jubilees." Occurrences of jubilees, when fish and
crabs try to escape hypoxia by migrating to the edges
of Mobile Bay, have been recorded since colonial
times (May, 1973) and are most likely natural events.
Hypoxia in Gulf Coast estuaries results from stratifica-
tion, eutrophication, or a combination of these two
conditions.
Water Clarity - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: Light penetration at I meter depth
• Good = >IO%in LA,AL;>20%inTXMS,FL*;>25% inTB, FB, SLM**
O Fair = 5% to 10% in LA, AL; 10% to 20% in TX, MS, FL; 20% to 25% in TB, FB, SLM
• Poor = < 5% in LA.AL; < 10% inTX, MS, FL; <20% to 25% inTB, FB, SLM
O Undetermined
Undetermined
3%
I
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 5-9. Water clarity condition for Gulf Coast estuaries (*FL - Florida Gulf of Mexico estuaries
except Tampa Bay [TB] and Florida Bay [FB]; **SLM = southern Laguna Madre) (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Dissolved Oxygen - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: Dissolved oxygen concentration
• Good = > 5 mg/L
OFair =2-5 mg/L
• Poor = < 2 mg/L
Good Fair Poor
Figure 5-10. Dissolved oxygen concentration data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 143
-------
ghlight
Florida's Inshore Marine Monitoring and Assessment Program (IMAP)
Inshore marine resources are one of Florida's most valuable assets. These unique and diverse
waters range from major embayments and lagoons to smaller river-mouth estuaries, tidal marshes,
and mangrove forests that merge directly with the sea. The Inshore Marine Monitoring and
Assessment Program (IMAP) is a collaborative project between EPA and the Florida Marine
Research Institute (FMRI) designed to assess the environmental condition of Florida's inshore
waters using established environmental indicators. IMAP serves as the inshore marine component
of an Integrated Water Resource Monitoring Network (IWRMN). Within this network, Florida's
Department of Environmental Protection Ambient Monitoring Program samples freshwater
lakes, streams, and groundwater, while IMAP samples estuaries. These sampling schedules
are coordinated so that both programs measure the same regions during the same years. This
integrated approach allows the state of Florida to comprehensively assess the quality of all water
resources within a region.
IMAP's coastal water survey design operates both regionally and statewide. The regions corre-
spond to Florida's five water management districts. A probability-based survey design is used to
select sample locations, applying latitude-longitude coordinates to identify randomly selected
points within a network of hexagonal grids.
* 2000
• 2001
• 2002
& 2003
* 2004
Florida IMAP sampling design, 2000-2004 (FMRI, 2003, unpublished data).
144 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
IMAP's environmental data represent the quality of the state's inshore waters and are collected
from 180 sites every year (30 sites statewide, and 30 sites per one sampling unit in each water
management district). Sampling is conducted during late summer when inshore resources are
under significant stress and conditions are relatively stable. Physical-chemical indicators include
water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, nutrients, and chlorophyll), sediment
chemistry, and fish tissue chemistry. IMAP's biological indicators integrate environmental condi-
tions over larger spatial and temporal scales. These indicators include fish and benthic invertebrate
community composition, individual fish health, seagrass diversity and coverage, and the presence
of toxic algae.
In 2000, IMAP sampled Florida's Apalachicola Bay, Lake Worth, Suwannee River, Tampa
Bay, and the Nassau, St. Marys, and St. Johns rivers, as well as 30 other sites statewide. Hypoxic
conditions, defined by dissolved oxygen levels <2 mg/L, were not observed in Florida during the
summer of 2000. Sediment chemistry samples were collected only at the statewide sites, with
several metals measured at levels above the threshold effects level (MacDonald, 1994), indicating
the potential for adverse biological effects. These metals include mercury, arsenic, chromium,
lead, nickel, and copper, although high concentrations were observed at only five sites statewide.
Most organic compounds were not detected in Florida sediments. Biological samples included
fish, benthic macro invertebrates, seagrass, and toxic algae. A comprehensive assessment of the
ecological condition of Florida's coastal waters will be completed at the end of the 5-year
sampling period.
IMAP field crew using a seine to sample fish and invertebrates
(photo courtesy of FMR.1,2003).
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Although hypoxia is a relatively local occurrence in
Gulf Coast estuaries, accounting for less than 1% of the
estuarine bottom waters, the occurrence of hypoxia in
the Gulf's shelf waters is much more significant. The
Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, which occurs in waters
on the Louisiana shelf to the west of the Mississippi
River delta, is the second-largest area of oxygen-depleted
waters in the world (Rabalais et al., 2002). From 1985
to 1992, the areal extent of bottom hypoxic waters in
midsummer averaged 3,000 square miles; from 1993
to 1997, the average area doubled to 6,500 square miles
(Rabalais et al., 1999). In the summer of 2000, the area
of the hypoxic zone was reduced to 1,700 square miles,
following severe drought conditions in the Mississippi
River watershed (Figure 5-11). By 2002, the hypoxic
zone had again increased in size to 8,500 square miles.
Current hypotheses speculate that the hypoxic zone
Hypoxic Zone - Gulf Coast (2000)
30.0
29.5'
29.0-
28.5-
July 1999
94.0 93.5 93.0 92.5 92.0 91.5 91.0 90.5 90.0 89.5
30.0
£ 29.5'
9
T3,
0)
"S 29.0-
J5
28.5-
July 2000
94.0 93.5 93.0 92.5 92.0 91.5 91.0 90.5 90.0 89.5
30.0
29.5'
29.0-
28.5-
July 2001
94.0 93.5 93.0 92.5 92.0 91.5 91.0 90.5 90.0 89.5
Longitude (degrees)
Figure 5-1 I. Spatial extent of the Gulf Coast hypoxic zone during July
1999, 2000, and 2001 (U.S. EPA/NCA, based on data provided by Nancy
Rabalais, 2003, personal communication).
results from (1) water column stratification driven
by weather and river flow and (2) decomposition of
organic matter in bottom waters (Rabalais et al., 2002).
Organic matter enters the Gulf of Mexico from the
Mississippi River as either river-borne organic matter or
phytoplankton growth stimulated by riverine-delivered
nutrients (CENR, 2000). Annual variability in the area
of the hypoxic zone is most likely related to rainfall in
the Mississippi River watershed and its effect on river
flow. Sediment cores from the hypoxic zone show that
shelf algal production was significantly lower in the first
half of the twentieth century, suggesting that anthro-
pogenic changes to the basin and its discharges have
resulted in the increased hypoxia (CENR, 2000).
Since 1980, the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River basins,
which discharge to this portion of the Louisiana shelf,
have averaged 1.6 million mt of total nitrogen load
annually (Goolsby et al., 1999). Nitrate load, which
constitutes the bulk of total nitrogen load from the
Mississippi River basin to the Gulf of Mexico, has
increased 300% since 1970. Nonpoint sources
contribute most of the nitrogen load to the Gulf of
Mexico, particularly agricultural areas north of the
confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers (Goolsby
et al., 1999). Gulf of Mexico ecosystems and fisheries
are affected by the widespread hypoxia. Mobile organ-
isms leave the hypoxic zone for more oxygen-rich
waters, and frequently, those organisms that cannot
leave die.
Estimates of Gulf of Mexico shelf hypoxia have not
been included in the estimates of Gulf Coast estuaries
hypoxia; consequently, this good rating for dissolved
oxygen in Gulf Coast estuaries should not be considered
indicative of offshore conditions.
White ibis feed in the mangrove areas that support a myriad of
small crustaceans and fish on which they feed (Paul Goetz).
146 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Sediment Quality Index
The condition of Gulf Coast estuarine sediment
is fair, with 12% of the area exceeding thresholds for
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, or sediment
TOG (Figure 5-12).
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment toxicity data from the NCA show that less
than 1% of Gulf Coast sediments are toxic (i.e., cause
greater than 20% mortality in test organisms)
(Figure 5-13). A high proportion (38%) of the toxicity
data is missing because of various quality control issues.
With this high level of missing data (38%), the propor-
tion of sediments that are toxic could be greater than
1%. Previous bioeffects surveys by NOAA showed less
than 1 % toxicity in large estuaries in the Gulf (Long
etal., 1996).
Sediment Quality Index - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: Number and condition of component indicators
• Good = None are poor and sediment contaminants is good
OFair = None are poor and sediment contaminants is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
OMissing
Missing
5% Poor
12%
Fair
1%
I
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 5-12. Sediment quality index data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Toxicity - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: Amphipod survival rate
OGood = > 80%
• Poor = <
OMissing
Figure 5-13. Sediment toxicity data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 147
-------
- 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment contaminant concentrations greater than
ERM guidelines (Long et al., 1995) were observed
primarily in Texas estuaries (Figure 5-14).
Concentrations of five or more sediment contaminants
that were greater than ERL guidelines (Long et al.,
1995) occurred only in Mobile Bay, Alabama. At least
one metal exceeded ERL guidelines in 28% of the estu-
arine area, whereas only 12% to 14 % of the area
exceeded guidelines for at least one pesticide or PCB.
PAHs rarely exceeded ERL guidelines in Gulf Coast
estuaries. No contaminant exceedances were observed
in Florida's Gulf Coast estuaries.
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Only 2% of the estuarine area in the Gulf Coast
has high levels of sediment TOC (TOC > 5%;
Figure 5-15).
Sediment Contaminants - Gulf Coast (2000)
Figure 5-14. Gulf Coast estuary stations with at least one contaminant greater than ERM or at least five
contaminants greater than ERL.The bar chart shows the percent area of Gulf Coast estuaries with at least
one contaminant greater than ERL for separate categories of contaminants (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Total Organic Carbon - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: TOC concentration
• Good = < 2%
OFair = 2% - 5%
• Poor = > 5%
O Missing
Missing
6% Poor
2%
Fair
14%
Sediment Contaminant
Criteria (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range
Median)—Determined for
each chemical as the 50th
percentile (median) in a
database of ascending
concentrations associated
with adverse biological
effects.
ERL (Effects Range
Low)—Determined values
for each chemical as the
I Oth percentile in a database
of ascending concentrations
associated with adverse
biological effects.
Good Fair Poor
Figure S-1S. Sediment TOC concentration data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
148 National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Sediment Toxicity in Galveston Bay
As part of NOAA's NS&T Program, bioeffects surveys have been conducted in several
major estuarine systems. Results from 22 surveys were summarized in the first National Coastal
Condition Report; however, results from Galveston Bay were not available for publication
until now.
Sediment contamination and toxicity were measured over the entire Galveston Bay area, from
San Jacinto Park in the north out into the Gulf of Mexico, Trinity Bay, East and West Bay, and
Clear Lake. In 1996, 75 stations were sampled using a stratified-randomized design within 21
different sediment layers. Bioassay tests of survival of amphipods exposed to whole sediment for
10 days showed no toxicity at any site. Fertilization tests of sea urchin eggs exposed to pore waters
and tests of bioluminescence by bacteria exposed to organic extracts of sediment did show toxic
responses. Over the 598.5 square miles of
Galveston Bay, no whole sediment samples
were toxic to amphipods; pore water extracted
from 45% of the sites affected sea urchin
fertilization; and organic extracts from 87%
affected bacterial bioluminescence. All of these
tests require some sediment manipulation
prior to testing and do not precisely replicate
actual environmental exposures. Required
procedures for obtaining samples used in
laboratory bioassay tests create conditions
unlike those of actual exposures; thus, toxicity
measured by these techniques does not neces-
sarily represent the level of actual harm to
organisms in the field.
Gulf of Mexico
Sediment sampling sites in Galveston Bay study (Harmon et
al.,2003).
Conversely, the existing indigenous BMC
at a site does experience real exposures. Among the 75 stations, a generally increasing gradient
existed from north to south in the various ways of summarizing BMC structure, such as numbers
of species, density of individuals and species, and species diversity. The lowest values for the BMC
measures were found in Clear Lake. Using a criterion of benthic degradation as indicative of five
or fewer species per sediment sample, 8% of Galveston Bay sediment samples would be consid-
ered degraded.
For more information, visit http://nsandt.noaa.gov/index_bioeffect.htm.
National Coastal Condition Report II 149
-------
ghlight
Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Study
For 17 years, routine measurements of dissolved oxygen and nitrogen concentrations, coupled
with computer modeling, have resulted in forecasts of Midwestern nitrogen usage effect on the
northern Gulf of Mexico. Each spring and summer, extensive hypoxic regions develop in the
Gulf of Mexico with bottom dissolved oxygen levels below 2 mg/L. These regions have recently
extended from the mouth of the Mississippi River 372 miles westward past the Texas border.
These hypoxic regions averaged 3,205 square miles from 1985 to 1992 and increased to an
average of 16,178 square miles from 1993 to 2001.
The effects of nutrient loading from the Mississippi River basin on the areal extent of hypoxia
were examined using a novel application of a river dissolved oxygen model. The model, driven
by river nitrogen load and a simple parameterization of ocean dynamics, reproduced 17 years of
observed hypoxia location and extent, sub-pycnocline oxygen consumption, and cross-pycnocline
oxygen flux. The model results correlate to those of the observed hypoxic zone areal extents from
1985 to 2002, with a few notable exceptions (see figure below). Hindcasts, using nitrogen loads
between 1968 and 1984, suggest that before the mid-1970s, the nitrogen load was not sufficient
to produce significant areas of oxygen-depleted bottom waters. Hindcasts show hypoxic areas
of 1,930 to 3,860 square miles from 1973 to 1975, minimal hypoxia in 1976 and 1977, and
significant and persistent large-scale hypoxia regions between 1978 and 1985-
20,000 -
15,000-
10,000-
5,000 -
0-
Observed Hypoxia
sn
Q
ii lil
_
n
II
1-1
-
1-
n
i
It.UUU
_ 12,000-
| 10,000-
E
T 8,000 -
g 6,000 -
Z
g 4,000 -
2,000 -
n -
Simulating Gulf r
Hypoxia
[HI
TfrT H>
m
-
~
.,
-i
|-
i
-
_
-
! H
-------
Chapter 5 Northeast Coastal Condition
The Federal-State-Tribal Action Plan for reducing, mitigating, and controlling hypoxia in
the northern Gulf of Mexico (Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force,
2001) agreed on a goal to reduce the 5-year running average of hypoxic area to less than 1,930
square miles by 2015- The plan suggested that a 30% reduction from the 1980 to 1996 average
nitrogen load would be needed to achieve that objective and that most of the reduction would
have to come from nonpoint sources as far as 620 miles north of the Gulf. The target reduction
was based on current scientific information available and is similar to nutrient-reduction goals in
other coastal systems in the United States (Boesch, 2002). This new model, however, suggests that
a 30% reduction might not be sufficient to reach this goal in some years, and that it may take a
reduction of 40% to 45% to ensure the reduction is attained (see figure below). Data collection
and quantitative analyses should be continued if the success of the planned action to reduce
nitrogen loading is to be determined, thereby improving future action plans.
For more information, visit http://www.nos.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html.
20 30 40 SO
Percent Nitrogen Load Reduction
60
Effects of Reduced Nitrogen Load (Scavia et al., 2003).
National Coastal Condition Report II 151
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Benthic Index
The condition of benthic communities in Gulf
Coast estuaries is fair to poor. The composition of
benthic invertebrate communities reflects long-term
exposure to sediment condition in estuaries. Short-term
changes in benthic communities occur in response
to hypoxic events and disturbances. Indices of biotic
integrity have been developed for aquatic systems to
describe the condition of biotic communities. Engle
and Summers (1999) developed a benthic index of
condition for Gulf Coast estuaries. The benthic index
integrates measures of diversity and populations of
indicator species to distinguish between degraded and
reference benthic communities. Benthic index estimates
based on NCA 2000 surveys indicate that 17% of the
estuarine area has degraded benthic resources (Figure
5-16). Most estuarine regions in the Gulf Coast showed
some level of benthic degradation. Poor benthic condi-
tion co-occurred most often with poor water quality
and poor sediment quality (Figure 5-17).
Benthic Index - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: Benthic index score
• Good = > 5.0
OFair = 3.0- 5.0
• Poor = < 3.0
OMissing
Jjood Fair Poor
Figure 5-16. Benthic index data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Poor Water/Sediment Quality Indicators that Co-occur with Low Benthic Diversity
Gulf Coast (2000)
OSediment Quality
OWater Quality
• Sediment and Water Quality
ONone
Good
Fair
Sediment and
Water Quality
26%
Figure 5-17. Locations in Gulf Coast estuaries where poor benthic condition co-occurred with poor sedi-
ment condition, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, or poor water clarity (U.S. EPA/NCA).
1 52 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Sampling locations in Tampa Bay (TBEP,
2003, unpublished data).
Using a Benthic Condition Index to Set
Sediment Quality Targets in Tampa Bay, Florida
Identification and remedial treatment of contaminated sediments
are among the major priorities of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program
(TBEP) (Long et al., 1994). Tampa Bay is a large, urbanized estuary
in west-central Florida that is subject to the input of chemical
contaminants, including metals, organochlorine pesticides, and
the organic chemicals PCBs and PAHs (Zarboch et al., 1996).
However, the overall benthic condition of the bay is good, with low
dissolved oxygen conditions and elevated contaminants typically
found in only a few areas.
During the past 7 years, TBEP partners and a national advisory
group have worked together to implement a probabilistic benthic
monitoring program based on the EMAP design and to develop
narrative and numerical sediment quality targets for key indicators
of sediment quality. One specific goal was to develop a benthic condition index (BCI) specific to
Tampa Bay. This would allow TBEP to establish sediment quality guidelines based on the diversity
and abundance of the benthos, as opposed to using costly and time-consuming chemical analysis.
The newly developed BCI will successfully classify sediments as healthy or degraded based on
the observed benthos and will serve as a guide from which appropriate management decisions can
be made. The BCI will be a refinement of an existing Tampa Bay Benthic Index (Grabe et al.,
2002) that incorporates adjustments for salinity based on the work of Engle and Summers (1999).
The Tampa Bay BCI was found to have a 90% dissolved oxygen success rate for classifying healthy
and degraded samples based on benthos and dissolved oxygen concentration. It also classified 48%
of the benthic samples into an intermediate category between healthy and degraded. For each
intermediate sample, a numerical BCI value was calculated to quantify whether the sample was
closer to a healthy or a degraded condition.
The TBEP is currently working on approaches to incorporate this revised BCI into a sediment
quality target-setting process. One promising approach under consideration is to base sediment
quality targets on the estimated geographic extent of healthy and degraded habitats and to track
the magnitude and trends of these extents annually. The geographic extent, number of samples,
and benthic condition of the intermediate samples (i.e., those between a healthy and degraded
condition) could similarly be tracked over time. Together, these target-setting metrics can provide
the status of degraded habitats and an early warning system to detect healthy habitats moving
towards a degraded condition before they become fully degraded.
For more information, visit http://www.tbep.org
National Coastal Condition Report II 153
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal wetlands indicator for the Gulf Coast
is rated poor. Coastal wetlands, as defined here, include
only estuarine and marine intertidal wetlands (e.g., salt
and brackish marshes, mangroves and other shrub-scrub
habitats, intertidal oyster reefs, and tidal flats, such as
macroalgal flats, shoals, spits, and bars). This indicator
does not include subtidal SAV, coral reefs, subtidal
oyster reefs, worm reefs, artificial reefs, or freshwater/
palustrine wetlands. From 1990 to 2000, the Gulf
Coast region experienced a loss of 7,750 acres of
estuarine wetlands (Figure 5-18). The long-term,
average decadal coastal wetlands loss rate is 2.5%.
Averaging these two loss rates and multiplying by
100 results in a coastal habitat index value of 1.30.
Gulf Coast coastal wetlands constitute 66% of the total
estuarine wetland acreage in the conterminous 48 states.
Although the Gulf sustained the largest net loss of
estuarine wetlands in the last decade compared with
Atlantic
28%
1990
2000
Figure 5-18. Estuarine intertidal wetland estimates for the Gulf
Coast as acreage in 2000 and change in acreage from 1990 to
2000 (Dahl, 2003).
other regions of the country, the Gulf Coast region also
has the greatest total acreage of estuarine wetlands
(3,769,370 acres). Coastal development, sea-level rise,
subsidence, and interference with normal erosional/
depositional processes contribute to wetland loss along
the Gulf of Mexico coast.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Estuarine condition in Gulf Coast estuaries based on
concentrations of contaminants in fish tissues is rated
fair. Figure 5-19 shows that 14% of all sites sampled
where fish were caught exceeded the risk-based guide-
lines used in this assessment. (Whole-fish contaminant
concentrations can be higher or lower than the concen-
trations associated with fillets only. Only those contami-
nants that have an affinity for muscle tissue, e.g.,
mercury, are likely to have higher fillet concentrations.
Fillet contaminant concentrations for most other conta-
minants will likely be lower.) However, for some popu-
lations that consume whole fish, these risk calculations
are appropriate. Contaminant concentrations exceeding
EPA guidance levels were observed in Atlantic croaker,
some catfish, scianids, pigfish, pinfish, and shrimp.
In Gulf Coast estuaries, the observed contaminants
included total PCBs and DDT, and occasionally
cadmium, dieldrin, and mercury.
Tissue Contaminants - Gulf Coast (2000)
Site Criteria: EPA guidance concentration
• Good = Below Guidance range
• Fair = Falls within Guidance range
• Poor = Exceeds Guidance range
od Fair
Figure S-19. Fish tissue contaminants data for Gulf Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
154 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
The Gulf of Mexico LME bordering the United
States includes diverse habitats ranging in salinity, flora,
and fauna. It includes freshwater and estuarine habitats,
nearshore and barrier islands, and oceanic communities.
Watersheds contributing to the Gulf of Mexico LME
drain the vast interior of the continent, including the
piedmont and coastal plains as far north as the headwa-
ters of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. Along the
coasts of western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, and Texas, fresh water from upland regions
mixes with prevailing oceanic waters in the Gulf of
Mexico to create diverse wetland, marsh, and mangrove
habitats that transition from freshwater to brackish to
saltwater. This thin fringe of estuaries is very dynamic,
with constant tidal fluctuations and varying levels of
runoff. It serves as an important habitat for waterfowl,
reptiles, mammals, fish, invertebrates, and a diversity of
plants, and as a natural filter to remove pollutants and
sediments from upland regions. It also maintains diverse
aquatic communities and complex food webs in an irre-
placeable nursery system that supports the recruitment
and development of juvenile fish and invertebrate
species that are important to recreational, commercial,
and ecological interests.
Estuarine and inshore regions are largely buffered
from the destructive effects of winds, waves, and
occasional hurricanes by a long, thin system of barrier
islands extending roughly end-to-end from western
Florida to Texas. This natural system is composed
primarily of unconsolidated sand, shell, and gravel
deposited and redeposited through erosion and accumu-
lation by the dynamics of prevailing oceanic currents,
winds, and storms. A well-developed barrier island
can produce and support a variety of habitats, ranging
from coastal marine beach and maritime marsh on the
seaward and inshore sides, to fresh or brackish marsh
in the low inland areas, to dunes, shrubs, and forests
in the upland areas.
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
The Gulf of Mexico LME beyond the continental
shelf is a semi-enclosed oceanic basin connected to
the Caribbean Sea by the Yucatan Channel and to the
Atlantic Ocean by the Straits of Florida. Through the
narrow but deep Yucatan Channel, a warm current of
water flows northward, penetrating the Gulf of Mexico
LME and looping around or turning east before leaving
the Gulf through the Straits of Florida. This current of
tropical Caribbean water is known as the Loop Current,
and along its boundary, it produces numerous eddies,
meanders, and intrusions that affect much of the
hydrography and biology of the Gulf. A diversity of fish
eggs and larvae are transported in the Loop Current,
and the innumerable eddies, meanders, convergences,
and divergences along the current's boundary tend to
concentrate and transport early life stages of fish toward
estuarine nursery areas, where the young can reside,
feed, and develop to maturity.
Bearded fireworms can erect their venomous white bristles at
the approach of a diver or other predator (Pat Cunningham).
National Coastal Condition Report II 155
-------
ghlight
Florida Bay Mercury Study
The EPA's GMP report, A Survey of Mercury in the Fishery Resources of the Gulf of Mexico,
identified two regional concentrations for mercury accumulation in fish from the Gulf of Mexico.
One of these locations, Lavaca Bay, Texas, was highlighted in the previous National Coastal
Condition Report. The extensive mercury contamination in Lavaca Bay is derived from an
inactive chlor-alkali production facility.
The second concentration, located in Florida Bay, Florida, lies entirely within Everglades
National Park. Surprisingly, there is no significant industrial source of mercury to Florida Bay.
High mercury concentrations observed in fish from the Florida Bay are thought to be a result
of natural conditions in Florida Bay and its Everglades watershed, which favors the methylation
of inorganic mercury entering through nonpoint source runoff and atmospheric deposition.
The area is currently under a fish consumption advisory. Gamefish such as spotted sea trout and
jack crevalle have shown the highest mercury levels, with red drum, snook, and gray snapper also
accumulating mercury to levels of concern.
The NOAA's Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, Beaufort, North Carolina,
and the South Florida Water Management District initiated a cooperative project to understand
the sources of these high mercury concentrations. Studies have shown that the high mercury
concentrations center in the region where fresh water from the Everglades enters the eastern
Mercury concentrations observed in spotted sea trout from Florida Bay. Two transects
through the mangrove transition zone at Little Madeira Bay and Joe Bay sampled possible
inputs of mercury from the Everglades (graphic provided by David W. Evans, NOAA).
156 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
portion of Florida Bay. Much of the freshwater habitat of the Everglades is also under
a fish consumption advisory because of high mercury concentrations. This finding initially
suggested that freshwater runoff was the dominant source of elevated mercury concentrations.
Researchers conducted two surveys of this region to sample for mercury in water, sediments,
and fish and found that the watershed was not the only source of methylmercury contamination
in fish. The mangrove transition zone that separates the terrestrial Everglades from Florida Bay
produced the highest total mercury and methylmercury concentrations in water and sediments.
The USGS measured the rate of mercury methylation in sediment samples and found significant
methylmercury production occurring in the watershed, mangrove transition zone, and the bay
itself. Methylmercury in water mixes among these three source areas, and the exposed fish that
move amidst these source areas accumulate methylmercury through feeding. Through this cycle,
fish from throughout eastern Florida Bay have bioaccumulated mercury in their tissues at levels
of concern.
Such mercury concentrations in fish seem to have changed little over the past decade. This
suggests that local reductions in atmospheric mercury emissions have not translated into mercury
reductions in fish. Interest remains toward determining the properties of Florida Bay and the
environs that contribute to these surprisingly high natural concentrations of mercury in fish.
These concentrations may pose health risks for both human and wildlife consumers of fish
from Florida Bay.
For more information, contact David Evans at david.w.evans@noaa.gov.
Gray snapper in the mangrove transition zone (Don Demaria).
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Reef Fish Resources
Combined commercial and recreational landings
of the reef fishes from the U.S. Gulf of Mexico
LME have fluctuated since 1976 and show a slightly
increasing trend over time. Meanwhile, fishing pressure
in this region has increased significantly. The NOAA's
Reef Fish FMP prohibits the use of fish traps, roller
trawls, and powerheads on spearguns within an inshore
stressed area; places a 15-inch total length minimum
size limit on red snapper; and imposes data-reporting
requirements. The red snapper fishery has been under
stringent management measures since the late 1990s.
A stock rebuilding plan proposed in 2001 provides
(1) a 4,137-mt quota, and (2) bag limits, size limits, and
commercial and recreational seasons. This plan, which
will remain in effect until 2005, should provide stability
and predictability in this important fishery for both
industry and consumers. A 20% spawning-potential
ratio was established as a basis to measure overfishing.
Other regulations pertaining to the management of reef
fishes within the U.S. Gulf of Mexico LME include
minimum size limits, permitting systems for commer-
cial fishermen, bag limits, quotas, seasonal closures,
and the establishment of Marine Protected Areas that
prohibit the harvest of any species.
Of the dominant reef fishes within the U.S. waters
of the Gulf of Mexico LME, the red snapper and red
grouper stocks are currently overfished, and the gag
and greater amberjack stocks are approaching an over-
fished condition. The regulatory measures and stock
rebuilding plans currently under way are designed to
reduce fishing mortality and to continue or begin
rebuilding all these stocks.
Reef species form a complex, diverse, multispecies
system. The long-term harvesting effects on reef fishes
are not well understood and require cautious manage-
ment controls of targeted fisheries, as well as bycatch
from other fisheries within the U.S. waters of the Gulf
of Mexico LME.
Menhaden Fishery
Landings records in the Gulf Coast menhaden
fishery date back to the late 1800s, although data
to World War II are incomplete. During the 1950s
through the 1970s, the fishery grew in terms of
numbers of reduction plants and vessels, and landings
generally increased with considerable annual fluctuation
(Figure 5-20). Record landings of 982,800 mt occurred
in 1984. Landings subsequently declined to a 20-year
low of 421,400 mt in 1992. The decline in landings
was primarily due to low product prices, consolidation
within the menhaden industry, and a concurrent
decrease in fishing effort, vessels, and fish factories
in the northern Gulf of Mexico LME. Landings in
recent years (1998—2002) are less variable, ranging
between 486,200 and 684,300 mt (574,500 mt in
2002). Historically, Gulf Coast menhaden fishing
ranged from the Florida Panhandle to eastern Texas.
Currently, the fishery ranges from western Alabama
to eastern Texas, with about 90% of the harvest
occurring in Louisiana waters.
1,000
U.S. Gulf of Mexico Landings (x 1,000 mt
Gulf Spawning Biomass (x 1,000 mt)
£
o
ca
1950 1955 I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 5-20. Landings and spawning biomass of Gulf Coast
menhaden, 1950-2000, in metric tons (mt) (NMFS, 2003).
The 1999 assessment indicates that the menhaden
stock is healthy and that catches are generally below
long-term maximum sustainable yield estimates of
717,000 mt to 753,000 mt. Comparison of recent
estimates of fishing mortality to biological reference
points does not suggest overfishing. In 2003, four
factories were processing Gulf Coast menhaden in the
northern Gulf of Mexico LME (one in Mississippi and
three in Louisiana), with a total of about 40 steamers.
158 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Mackerel Fisheries
Total catch of Gulf Coast king mackerel averaged
3,467 mt per fishing year from 1981 to 2000, with
a maximum of 5,599 mt (1982) and a minimum of
1,368 mt (1987). In 2001, total catch was 3,649 mt,
with the recreational sector accounting on average for
62% of the total catch and the commercial sector for
38%. From 1986 to 1996, the landings were consis-
tently above the total allocated catch, and by 1997, the
Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council increased
the total allocated catch to 4,812 mt. Landings have
oscillated about 3-882 mt in the last 4 years. The 2002
stock assessment indicated that the stock is currently
fished at a rate near or at the maximum fishing
mortality threshold, and the stock spawning biomass
was slightly above the minimum stock-spawning
threshold. The Mackerel Stock Assessment Panel
concluded that the stock was not overfished or under-
going overfishing, although it recommended that
fishing mortality rates be decreased to avoid a high
risk of overfishing or overfished status in coming years.
At present, the commercial fishery for Gulf of Mexico
LME king mackerel has restrictions on minimum size,
regional quota allocations, and trip catch limits, as well
as gear restrictions. The recreational fishery is regulated
with restrictions on minimum size and bag limits for
Gulf of Mexico LME king mackerel.
Total catch of Gulf Coast Spanish mackerel averaged
2,081 mt per fishing year from 1984 to 2001, with a
maximum of 4,586 mt (1987) and a minimum of 995
mt (1996). Catches dropped substantially (about 50%)
in 1995—1996 because of the gill-net ban in Florida
waters, where a major portion of the commercial catch
took place. In 2001, total catch was 1,737 mt, with on
average, a split of 54% from the recreational and 46%
from the commercial sectors. Since 1989, the landings
of Gulf Coast Spanish mackerel have been consistently
below the total allocated catch, and since 1995, total
landings have been about 50% of the total allocated
catch. The 2003 stock assessment indicated that the
stock is currently exploited at the optimum long-term
yield level. At present, management restrictions for the
commercial fishery of Gulf Coast Spanish mackerel
include minimum size restrictions and quota allocation,
plus gear restrictions in state waters. For the recreational
fishery, minimum size and daily bag restrictions are in
place. Current issues affecting this stock involve mainly
the bycatch of juveniles in the shrimp trawl fishery.
Shrimp Fisheries
A general fluctuating increase in catch per unit effort
(CPUE) was observed for white and brown shrimp
from the late 1980s to 2001 (Figure 5-21). Between
I960 and the late 1980s, stocks of brown, white, and
pink shrimp had generally shown a decline. A commer-
cial shrimp-harvesting permit system for federal waters
was initiated in 2001, with a proposed control date of
December 2003- The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries
Management Council is considering additional manage-
ment measures, including measures that would poten-
tially limit entry into the shrimp fishery. Current
research is assessing the integrity of the shrimp stocks, as
well as the overall economic well-being of the industry.
The most current status of Gulf of Mexico LME
shrimp populations in U.S. waters is indicated by the
2000 and 2001 landing statistics. Catch rates of both
brown and white shrimp populations were at high levels
for the 2001 harvesting season. The 2001 CPUE for
brown shrimp was near record levels, equaling 612
Ibs/day White shrimp CPUE for 2001 was also high
at 416 Ibs/day. Pink shrimp CPUE for 2000 was near
the levels seen in the early 1990s. The current CPUE
relative to historic levels, as well as the spawning
population size indices, reveal no evidence of over-
fishing occurring within these populations.
All three of the commercial shrimp species are being
harvested at maximum levels. Maintenance of shrimp
stocks above the overfishing index levels should prevent
overfishing of these populations. Because it has been
shown that environmental factors determine produc-
tion, negative effects on habitat have the potential to
cause future reductions in shrimp catch. The loss of
habitat, such as the destruction of wetland nurseries
and the expanding dead zone in Louisiana, may cause
declines in the shrimp harvest.
I
CZl U.S. Gulf of Mexico Landings (x 1,000 mt)
Brown Shrimp Index
160-
White Shrimp Index
Pink Shrimp index
12
1980
2000
Figure 5-2 I. Gulf of Mexico shrimp landings, 1980-2000, in metric
tons (mt) (NMFS, 2003).
National Coastal Condition Report II 159
-------
ghlight
Coastal Louisiana: America's Vanishing Wetlands
The Louisiana coastline was formed by sediment the Mississippi River carried down from
31 states and 2 Canadian provinces. The Mississippi River Watershed covers 41% of the lower
48 states; however, many factors have led to massive land losses to our nation's most productive
coastlines, including actions taken upriver to improve public safety and the welfare of the
heartland's economy, our nation's energy needs, global warming impacts, and land subsidence.
According to the USAGE, dams, levees, and navigation projects built along the Mississippi River's
mainstream and major tributaries have resulted in a 67% decrease in sediment delivered to these
coastlines. Coincidently, following the flood of 1927, navigation projects upriver, which were
started in 1928 and completed in 1963, correspond to the first observations of major coastal
land loss.
USGS data, generated in conjunction with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
indicate that 878,000 acres of fresh marsh, 1.63 million acres of nonfresh marsh, and 1.15 million
acres of forested and scrub/shrub wetlands make up a total of 3-7 million acres of coastal wetlands.
Within the lower 48 states, Louisiana accounts for 30% of all coastal marshes, 45% of intertidal
coastal marshes, and 14% of coastal wetlands (marshes, mangroves, and forests).
New Orleans
SMell
Louisiana
Land Loss 1932-2000
Predicted Land Loss 2000-2050
Land Gain 1932-2000
Predicted Land Gain 2000-2050
Louisiana Land Change Study
Boundary
100+ years of land change for southeastern coastal Louisiana (Barras et al., 2004)
160 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Within the last 70 years, Louisiana has lost more than 1.22 million acres of coastal wetlands. A
new USGS model predicts that another 448,000 acres will vanish into the Gulf of Mexico in the
next 50 years. The map of the Mississippi River delta shows the area where more than 70% of this
loss has occurred in coastal Louisiana over the last 120 years. This loss exceeds the combined land
area of the state of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the Baltimore, Maryland, metropol-
itan area. On a national scale, Louisiana experiences about 90% of the total coastal marsh loss in
the lower 48 states. These losses foreshadow serious natural resource problems and a societal and
economic catastrophe, not only for Louisiana, but also for the entire nation.
Coastal Louisiana wetlands lie at the heart of an intricate ecosystem on the verge of collapse.
These wetlands support the largest commercial fishery in the lower 48 states. They provide
wintering habitat for millions of waterfowl and migratory birds, as well as a home for several
endangered and threatened species. Coastal Louisiana maintains 20 national wildlife refuges and
2 national parks totaling more than 192,000 acres. Some of these areas are experiencing wetland
losses that affect their capacity to support fish and wildlife.
A quarter of the nation relies on Louisiana wetlands as natural protection from storms and
hurricanes for both people and property. The loss of these wetlands as a buffer could devastate
the nation's energy security. Coastal Louisiana is the home of two U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve
Sites (a necessity during national emergencies), encompassing thousands of miles of pipelines,
numerous refineries, and gas production facilities. These resources provide heat and fuel to public
homes and automobiles.
To address this enormous wetland loss issue, the state of Louisiana and the USAGE, along
with other federal and state partners, are conducting the Louisiana Coastal Area Comprehensive
Coastwide Ecosystem Restoration Study. The goal of this effort is to develop a coast-wide compre-
hensive plan intended to sustain the coastal ecosystem. This ecosystem supports and protects the
environment, economy, and culture of southern Louisiana and contributes to the economy and
well-being of the nation. Final reports from this effort will be submitted to the U.S. Congress
in fiscal year 2004 for authorization of a $14 billion effort.
For additional information and status of the study, please visit http://www.lacoast.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report II 161
-------
Restoration of the Florida Everglades
The NMFS is working with the state of Florida, separate federal agencies, and local Native
American tribes in an initiative to restore the Florida Everglades and its associated coastal
ecosystems, including Florida Bay and the Florida Keys reef tract. The South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Initiative affects many of Florida's natural resource treasures, including Everglades
National Park, Biscayne National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park, Big Cypress National
Preserve, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve, and Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary.
The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Project (CERP) is the initiative's congressionally
mandated core program led by the USAGE and
the South Florida Water Management District.
CERP's major objective is to restore the vitality
and productivity of the remaining natural areas of
South Florida. This involves integrated projects to
redesign the Central and Southern Florida Flood
Control Project. Uncertainty exists about Florida's
original (pre^!870) hydrological framework, as
well as those characteristics most responsible for
maintaining former landscape patterns and the
diversity and abundance of native plants and
animals. CERP's goal is to reconstitute the natural
hydrologic regime to Florida's wetlands and to
replenish the quantity, quality, timing, and spatial distribution of freshwater flow to estuaries.
Adaptive management, a science-based strategy involving modeling and monitoring of perfor-
mance measures, is being applied to determine whether system responses are achieving these goals.
Performance measures are calculable indicator
characteristics that provide a quantitative sign of
change. Indicators and performance-measure
targets are being used to define goals and to deter-
mine whether CERP restoration efforts are being
achieved. Water resource management for estuaries
such as Florida Bay requires ecological performance
measures that are applied, through modeling, to
predict the effect of alternative design strategies
and, through monitoring, to assess the effects of
these projects once implemented. The NMFS is
developing these ecological performance measures
Pink shrimp can be substantially affected by the
range of the Florida Bay's salinity.
Florida Bay mangrove area.
162 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
and predictive models to protect and restore essential fish habitats, a major NMFS mandate.
The NMFS focus has been on key fishery species, such as pink shrimp, spotted sea trout, and gray
snapper, which use estuaries such as Florida Bay as nursery grounds. Performance measures are
also being developed for protected species, such as bottlenose dolphin, and a community of prey
species, such as dolphin, wading birds, and game fish, which help transfer energy from primary
producers to higher trophic-level species.
Developing a performance measure goes beyond the mere formulation of a metric, requiring
an analytical understanding of ecological indicators so that any changes may be measured and
interpreted correctly. For example, statistical analyses by NMFS researchers have suggested that
pink shrimp harvests in the Dry Tortugas are influenced by freshwater inputs to Florida Bay.
Adult pink shrimp spawn near the Tortugas, where they support a multi-million dollar fishery,
but juvenile pink shrimp develop in Florida Bay and other southwest coastal estuaries. NMFS
researchers, using a simulation model and laboratory tests, have determined that growth and
survival of juvenile pink shrimp can be substantially affected by the range of the bay's salinity
variation, thus identifying one possible
link between harvests and freshwater
inputs. NMFS and USGS researchers
are sampling pink shrimp postlarval
stages on both sides of Florida Bay to
identify pathways and processes
affecting immigration rates. Behavior
may also be a factor because shoreward
movement of juveniles on tidal currents
is facilitated by the juvenile shrimp
migrating vertically in the water column
(up on the flood tide and down on the
ebb tide). The salinity gradient is one
possible behavioral cue guiding this
vertical movement.
Adult pink shrimp spawning areas.
EPA's focus has been on the development of performance measures relative to water quality
indicators. Phosphorus is an indicator of concern in freshwater wetlands, whereas nitrogen is the
important indicator in some South Florida estuaries. Contaminants may also be detrimental to the
CERP restoration effort. South Florida's hydrologic system has been physically altered to such an
extent that correctly managing the water for estuaries may not automatically follow management
procedures for upstream wetlands. Special design features may be necessary to provide fresh water
in the right quantity and quality, at the right time, and at the right location to protect and restore
estuaries. Performance measures will help make this possible.
For more information, contact Nancy Thompson at nancy.thompson@noaa.gov.
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ghlight
A Pilot Study Assessing Beach Conditions in Northwest Florida
Gulf Coast beaches are a valuable local, regional, and national resource. Protection of this
resource for recreation and other purposes is an important goal for resource managers. Using an
approach similar to EPA's EMAP, EPA's Gulf Ecology Division conducted a pilot shoreline moni-
toring survey along the Florida Panhandle during August and September, 1999- The study area
covered a stretch of coastline from Perdido Key to Port St. Joe, Florida, and included public beach
areas. Researchers collected hydrographic data and water chemistry samples at 30 sites selected
using a probability-based survey design. Bacterial indicators, enterococci, and fecal coliforms were
enumerated in beach water samples according to the EPA Beaches Environmental Assessment,
Closure, and Health (BEACH) Program and Florida State guidelines.
EPA developed the BEACH Program to reduce the risk of human illness associated with
pathogens found at the nation's beaches and recreational waters through improved recreational
water protection programs, risk communication, and scientific approaches. BEACH grants
support the development and implementation of programs to inform the public about the risk
of exposure to disease-causing microorganisms in the waters of our nation's beaches. The pilot
study also measured additional indicators that included the presence or absence of primary and
secondary dunes, anthropogenic debris, and vegetation.
a a
Legend
Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen
A 0.1-0.5
A 0.5-2
A >2
No Data
Orthophosphate
• 0.03-0.1
SO. I-0.3
>0.3
No Data
Scale: 1:600,000
0 10
Concentrations of DIN and orthophosphate measured at northwest Florida beaches
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
164 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Using EMAP evaluation guidelines and Florida state criteria for Class III swimmable waters,
the survey indicated that more than 90% of the coastal beach area of northwest Florida met
criteria for designated uses. Bacterial indicators are the major criteria for the protection of human
health. Additional criteria for the ecological assessment of coastal beaches is lacking due to gaps
in data. Such baseline data can help to determine if coastal areas meet designated uses and provide
a comparative tool for evaluating future conditional trends from both a human health and an
ecological perspective. Even if designated uses are currently met, resource managers must continue
to monitor these waters to evaluate the potential for future problems, such as nutrient over-
enrichment and fecal contamination. These problems can affect not only recreational beaches,
but all shorelines. This pilot study demonstrates that the application of a probabilistic sampling
design is a valuable procedure for assessing coastal shoreline condition.
Beach monitoring of bacterial contamination protects public health (U.S. EPA, Gulf Breeze
Florida Laboratory).
National Coastal Condition Report II 165
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
Gulf Coast states assessed 11,219 (71%) of the
15,857 square miles that make up the Gulf Coast
estuaries for their 2000 305(b) reports. The 2000
305(b) reports are generally based on data collected in
the late 1990s. Although Florida reports water quality
information for coastal waters, it is not possible from
that report to distinguish between Atlantic and Gulf
Coast listings; therefore, 305(b) assessment information
for Florida is included in its entirety in this section.
Forty-one percent of the assessed estuarine waters on
the Gulf Coast fully support their designated uses, and
2% are threatened for one or more uses (Figure 5-22).
The remaining 57% 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 5-23 and Table 5-1.
Mississippi is the only Gulf Coast state that reported
on its coastal shoreline. Mississippi assessed 94 miles,
which is 1 % of the Gulf Coast's 10,063 coastal shore-
line miles. The other Gulf Coast states do monitor and
assess their coastal waters, but they chose an alternate
reporting method to meet their 305(b) requirements.
Individual use support for assessed shoreline in
Mississippi is shown in Figure 5-24. Individual use
support for assessed coastal waters reported by
Mississippi is shown in Table 5-1.
5 000 •
4,000 •
3,000 •
2,000 •
1,000-
D Fully Supporting
__ CH Threatened
D Impaired
Jk
J
i
|2000|
,—
_,
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 5-23. Individual use support in assessed Gulf Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Table 5-1. Individual Use Support for Assessed Coastal
Waters Reported by the States on the Gulf Coast
under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act for 2000
(U.S EPA, 2002).
Individual Uses
Aquatic life support
Fish consumption
Shellfishing
Primary contact -
swimming
Secondary contact
*Data from Mississippi
Assessed
Estuaries
Impaired (mi2)
4,994 (62%)
327(17%)
945 (18%)
1,256 (18%)
687(16%)
only
Assessed
Shoreline*
Impaired (mi)
0
0
89 (100%)
26 (18%)
26 (81%)
Figure 5-22. Water quality in assessed Gulf Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 5-24. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters in Mississippi (U.S. EPA, 2002).
166 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2002, 13 fish consumption advisories were in
effect for the estuarine and marine waters of the Gulf
Coast. Most of the advisories (12) were issued for
mercury, and each of the five Gulf Coast states had one
statewide coastal advisory in effect for mercury in king
mackerel (for fish longer than 39 inches). The statewide
king mackerel advisories covered all coastal and estu-
arine waters in Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama, but
covered only coastal shoreline waters in Texas and
Louisiana. As a result of the statewide advisories, 100%
of the coastal miles of the Gulf Coast and 23% of the
estuarine square miles were under advisory in 2002
(Figure 5-25).
Number of
advisories per
USGS cataloging
unit in 2002:
Figure 5-25.The number of Gulf Coast fish consumption advi-
sories active in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Summary offish and shellfish under human
consumption advisories for at least some part of
the Gulf Coast:
Barracuda
Blue crab
Bluefish
Catfish
Crab
Cobia
Gafftopsail catfish
Gag grouper
Greater amberjack
Crevalle jack
King mackerel
Ladyfish
Little tunny
Permit
Red drum
Shark
Snook
Spanish mackerel
Spotted seatrout
Wahoo
,. EPA, 2003c
Fish consumption advisories placed on specific water-
bodies included additional fish species (Figure 5-26).
Florida had eight mercury advisories in effect for a
variety of fish, in addition to the statewide coastal advi-
sory. In Texas, the Houston Ship Channel was under
advisory for catfish and blue crabs because of the risk
of contamination by dioxins.
c Mercury
c
£
(9 Dioxin
| 2002 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 5-26. Percentage of estuarine and coastal marine advi-
sories issued for each contaminant on the Gulf Coast. An advi-
sory can be issued for more than one contaminant, so percent-
ages may not add up to 100 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 176 coastal beaches in the Gulf of Mexico
that reported information to EPA, 36.9% (65 beaches)
were closed or under an advisory for some period of
time in 2002. Table 5-2 presents the numbers of
beaches, advisories, and closures for each state. As
shown in the table, Florida's west coast had the most
beaches with advisories or closures, and Mississippi did
not participate in EPA's 2002 survey. Figure 5-27
presents advisory and closure percentages for each
county within each state.
Table 5-2. Number of Beaches and Advisories/Closures
in 2002 for Gulf Coast States (U.S. EPA, 2003a)
Percentage
of Beaches
No. of Affected
No. of Advisories/ by Advisories/
State Beaches Closures Closures
I
Florida (Gulf Coast)
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
TOTALS
134
II
N/A
1
30
176
52
4
N/A
1
8
65
38.8%
36.4%
N/A
100%
26.7%
36.9%
National Coastal Condition Report II 167
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Most beach advisories and closings were imple-
mented at coastal beaches along the Gulf Coast because
of elevated bacteria levels (Figure 5-28). There were
multiple sources of water-borne bacteria that resulted in
advisories or closings. Stormwater runoff, other sources,
and wildlife were frequently identified as sources.
Unknown sources accounted for 36 percent of the
responses (Figure 5-29).
In Florida, 39% (52 of 134) of beaches responding
to the EPA reported that they had issued an advisory
or closing at least once during 2002. The primary
reasons for public beach notifications were preemptive
actions due to rainfall events or the detection of
elevated bacteria levels due a variety of sources,
including unknown sources, stormwater and other
runoff, wildlife, boat discharges, septic systems, and
POTW discharges.
In Alabama, 11 coastal beaches responded to EPA's
survey, and of these, 4 beaches (36%) reported advi-
sories or closures during 2002 from elevated bacterial
levels due to stormwater runoff, unknown sources,
wildlife, and sewerline blockage or pipe breakage. In
Louisiana, one beach, on the south shore of Lake
Pontchartrain, reported being affected by a year-long
advisory or closure during 2002 due to elevated bacte-
rial levels from POTWs, sewerline blockage or pipe
breakage, and stormwater runoff.
In Texas, 30 beaches reported information to the
EPA, and of these, 8 beaches (26%) reported advisories
or closures during 2002 due to elevated bacteria levels
from unknown sources, stormwater runoff, wildlife,
septic systems, boat discharges, sanitary sewer overflows,
and sewerline blockage or pipe breakage.
Percentage of beaches
reporting with at least
one advisory or closure
per county in 2002:
0
1-10
I I-SO
51-100
No Data Available
O Beach Closure in 2002
Figure 5-27. Percentage of Gulf Coast beaches with advisories
or closures by county in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Other
Preemptive 3%
Closure
(Rainfall)
22%
Elevated
Bacteria
Levels
75%
Figure 5-28. Reasons for beach advisories or closures on the
Gulf Coast (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
A lime-green lettuce sea slug crawls through a meadow of
mermaid's wine glass algae (Pat Cunningham).
Other
19%
Unknown
36%
i— POTW 1%
Septic System 3%
Sewer Line Problem 1%
Boats 6%
Stormwater
Runoff
24%
Wildlife
10%
Figure 5-29. Sources of beach contamination on the Gulf Coast
(U.S. EPA, 2003a).
168 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition
Summary
Based on the indicators used in this report, ecological conditions
in Gulf Coast estuaries are fair. The primary problem in Gulf Coast
estuaries in 2000 was coastal wetland loss (rated poor). Fish tissue conta-
minants, benthic condition, and sediment quality were also of concern
(rated fair). Fish tissue contaminant concentrations exceeded risk-based
EPA Guidance levels in 14% of sites in Gulf Coast estuaries sampled for
fish. These sites were dominated by elevated tissue concentrations of total
PCBs and DDT, with some instances of dieldrin, mercury, cadmium,
and toxaphene. Benthic index values were lower than expected in 17%
of Gulf Coast estuarine sediments, and elevated sediment contaminant
concentrations were found in 11% of estuarine sediments. About 2.5%
of wetlands were lost per decade from 1780 to 1980, and about 0.25%
of wetlands were lost between 1990 and 2000. The water quality index
was rated fair (9% of estuarine area in poor condition), with only
decreased water clarity and elevated DIP observed in more than 10%
of estuarine area (29% and 11%, respectively). Elevated levels of chloro-
phyll a were observed in 8% of estuaries. DIN and dissolved oxygen
concentrations rarely exceeded guidelines. Although conditions in Gulf
Coast estuaries were among the worst in the country in 1990, the overall
rating of 2.4 in this report is an increase from the rating of 1.9 observed
in the early 1990s. Some of this improvement may be the result of
modification of the water quality index to include nitrogen, phospho-
rous, and chlorophyll. Increasing population pressures in this region of
the country will require additional monitoring programs and increasing
environmental awareness in order to correct existing problems and to
ensure that indicators that appear to be in fair condition do not worsen.
National Coastal Condition Report II 169
-------
-------
\
• Chapter 6
West Coastal
Condition
aag-Uoyd
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
West Coastal Condition
Ecological conditions in West Coast estuaries are fair
to poor (Figure 6-1). Based on the 1999-2000 NCA
surveys, 14% of the estuarine area in the West Coast
region is unimpaired for aquatic life and human uses;
17% is impaired for aquatic life use; and 27% is
impaired for human use (Figure 6-2). An additional
59% is considered threatened for these uses (fair condi-
tion) ; however, these survey results do not include
benthic community data from San Francisco Bay, Puget
Sound, or the Columbia River, and the percentages
might be revised after the inclusion of that information.
The estuaries that were found to be threatened for
aquatic life use had extensive areas with elevated
phosphorus concentrations and decreased water clarity.
West
Overall V1 L,
Score (2.0) \/
Good Fair Poor
Q| Water Quality Index (3)
L**jJ Sediment Quality Index (2)
4fc Benthic Index (3)
1 Coastal Habitat Index (1)
1 Fish Tissue Index (1)
Figure 6-1. The overall
condition ofWest Coast
estuaries is fain (This rating
does not include benthic
index or fish tissue contami-
nants information from the
San Francisco Estuary,
Columbia Riven or Puget
Sound system.)
Unimpaired
14%
Threatened
59%
Impaired Human and
Aquatic Life Use
17%
Impaired
Human Use
10%
Figure 6-2. West Coast estuarine condition (U.S. EPA, NCA).
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, live, and visit there. The
population of 47 coastal and estuarine counties on
the West Coast increased 13% between 1990 and 2000
to a total of 29.3 million (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
Some counties adjacent to estuaries in the region (e.g.,
San Juan County, Washington, on Puget Sound) grew
more than 40% over the 10-year period. Population
growth rates for the counties bordering the greater
Puget Sound region between 2000 and 2020
are projected to range between 16% and 54% (Puget
Sound Water Quality Action Team, 2002). These
growth rates suggest that human pressures on coastal
resources will increase substantially in many areas of
the West Coast.
The western coastline comprises more than 410
estuaries, bays, and subestuary systems associated with
larger estuaries. Youngs Bay within the Columbia River
and South Slough within Coos Bay are examples of
subestuaries within larger estuarine systems. Such
subestuaries share a number of characteristics with
the larger estuarine system, such as climate and
biogeographic province; however, they may differ from
the larger estuarine system because of local hydrology,
geomorphology, or pollutant inputs. The total area of
the West Coast estuaries, bays, and subestuaries is 3,940
square miles, 61.5% of which is made up of the three
large systems—the San Francisco Estuary, Columbia
River, and Puget Sound system (including the Strait of
Juan de Fuca). Subestuary systems associated with these
large systems make up another 26.8% of the estuarine
area. All the other West Coast estuaries combined equal
only 11.7% of the total estuarine area. The range of
estuary types on the West Coast is illustrated by the five
order-of-magnitude range in size of the systems sampled
by EMAP in 1999 and 2000—from 0.0237 square
miles Yachats River, Oregon) to 2551 square miles
(Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca).
172 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
The EMAP West Coast study area consists of
two provinces, the Columbian and Californian
Provinces. The Columbian Province extends from
the Washington-Canada border to Point Conception,
California. Within the United States, the Californian
Province extends from Point Conception to the
Mexican border. Some investigators place the break
between the two provinces at Cape Mendocino,
California, but EMAP data suggest a stronger faunal
transition at Point Conception. There are also major
transitions in the distribution of the human population
along the West Coast. Major population centers occur
in the Seattle-Tacoma area of Puget Sound, around
the San Francisco Estuary, and generally around most
of the estuaries of southern California. In contrast,
the region of coastline north of the San Francisco
Estuary through northern Puget Sound has a much
lower population density.
Coastal Monitoring Data
In 1999, the Washington Department of Ecology
(DOE), Oregon Department Environmental Quality,
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, San Francisco
Estuary Institute, and the Southern California Coastal
Water Research Project initiated a project to assess
the condition of the approximately 400 estuaries,
subestuaries, and tidal rivers along the West Coast
(Washington, Oregon, and California). The assessment
used a probabilistic design and, in 1999, sampled 210
locations in small estuarine systems (Figure 6-3) for
dissolved oxygen, light penetration, sediment toxicity,
sediment contaminants, tissue residues, fish community
parameters, and benthic communities. In 2000, similar
data were collected from 171 locations in Puget Sound,
the San Francisco Estuary, and the lower Columbia
Pviver (Figure 6-3). In both Puget Sound and the
San Francisco Estuary, data collection involved
extensive collaboration between EPA's NCA and
NOAA's NS&T programs.
The Golden Gate Bridge as seen
from atop NOAA's Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
Office at the Presidio, San Francisco,
San Francisco Bay, California (Rich
Bourgerie, Oceanographen CO-OPS,
NOS, NOAA).
Figure 6-3. West Coast sampling stations for the 1999-2000
NCA survey (U.S. EPA, NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 173
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Relatively few national programs have monitoring
stations in West Coast estuaries. NOAA's National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NOAA, 1998a)
examined a number of eutrophication variables for West
Coast estuaries through the use of a survey question-
naire. NOAA's NS&T Program collects data for several
western locations (Long et al., 2000), but these sites are
not representative of all West Coast estuaries. In addi-
tion, EMAP-like surveys have been completed in the
Southern California Bight (SCCWRP, 1998). In com-
parison with these geographically focused studies, the
Western EMAP sampled small western estuaries in 1999
and 2001, large estuaries in 2000, the intertidal areas of
small and large estuaries in 2002, and the continental
shelf in 2003- The data reported in this chapter include
surveys of small and large estuaries from 1999 to 2000.
Water Quality Index
Water quality for West Coast estuaries, as measured
by five indicators—surface DIN and DIP, chlorophyll a,
water clarity, and bottom dissolved oxygen—is fair.
Most West Coast estuaries (69%) received fair ratings
for water quality, largely because of the levels of phos-
phorus measured. Three percent of estuaries on the
West Coast have poor water quality (Figure 6-4).
Estuaries with poor water quality were found primarily
in California, as well as in both San Francisco Bay
and its subestuaries and in other estuaries along the
California coast. The only site outside California with
poor water quality was south Hood Canal, Washington.
Low ratings for the water quality index were driven
primarily by poor conditions for phosphorus. The
finding that 3% of the West Coast estuarine area has
poor water quality should be considered preliminary
because only DIP concentrations and water clarity
were generally poor. However, most estuarine area in
the West Coast has decreased water quality (72% of
this area received a poor or fair rating).
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA Program has been
designed to estimate the percent of estuarine area (nationally or
in a region or state) in varying conditions and is displayed as pie
diagrams. Many of the figures in this report illustrate environ-
mental measurements made at specific locations (colored dots
on maps); however, these dots (color) represent the value of the
indicator specifically at the time of sampling. Additional sampling
may be required to define variability and to confirm impairment
or the lack of impairment at specific locations.
Water Quality Index -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria:
Number of component
indicators in poor or fair
condition
• Good = No more than
I is fair
OFair = I is poor or 2
or more are
fair
• Poor = 2 or more are
poor
O Missing
Good
28%
Figure 6-4. Water quality index data for West Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Looking south at the base of Haystack Rock at Cannon Beach,
Oregon (Carol Baldwin, NOAA OMAO).
174 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorous
DIN concentrations in West Coast estuaries are
rated good. High concentrations of DIN in surface
waters occurred in less than 1% of the estuarine area of
the West Coast. All sites with high nitrogen were found
along the central California coast (Figure 6-5). The
threshold for a West Coast site to be rated poor for
nitrogen was a concentration in excess of 1 mg/L, as
compared with a threshold used by the NCA of 0.5
mg/L for most other regions of the United States. The
level of 1 mg/L corresponds to the level used by the
NOAA/EPA Team on Near Coastal Waters to indicate
high nitrogen levels in its report on susceptibility of
West Coast estuaries to nutrient discharges (1991).
Along much of the West Coast, summer wind condi-
tions result in an upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water
that enters estuaries during flood tides (Landry et al.,
1989) and constitutes a potentially important natural
nutrient input for many of these West Coast estuaries.
DIP concentrations in West Coast estuaries are rated
fair. Whereas high concentrations of DIN were not
prevalent in West Coast surface waters, high concentra-
tions of DIP occurred in 10% of surface waters of the
estuarine area of the West Coast (Figure 6-6). Only 4%
of sites received a rating of good for DIP, in contrast
with nearly 93% of sites for DIN. The threshold for a
West Coast site to be rated poor for phosphorus was a
concentration in excess of 0.1 mg/L, as compared with
a threshold used by the NCA of 0.05 mg/L for most
other regions of the United States. The level of 0.1
mg/L corresponds to the level used to indicate high
phosphorus levels in the report on susceptibility of
West Coast estuaries to nutrient discharges conducted
by the NOAA/EPA Team on Near Coastal Waters
(1991). Sites with high phosphorus tended to be found
throughout California, and particularly in the San
Francisco Estuary. As with nitrogen, upwelling may
be an important contributing factor to the high DIP
concentrations on the West Coast during the summer.
Nitrogen -West (1999-2000)
Phosphorus -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria: DIN
concentration
• Good = < 0.5 mg/L
OFair = O.I -0.5 mg/L
• Poor = > 1.0 mg/L
O Missing
Good
Fair
Figure 6-5. DIN concentration data for West Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Site Criteria: DIP concen-
tration
• Good = < 0.01 mg/L
OFair = 0.01 -O.I mg/L
• Poor = > O.I mg/L
O Missing
Good
Poor
c,i^ ----- '
Fair
86%
Good Fair Poor
Figure 6-6. DIP concentration data for West Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 175
-------
ghlight
Marine Water Quality
Level of Concern
2000
• Highest Concern
O High Concern
O Moderate Concern
* Lower Concern
20
*
Port Angeles
ympia
Marine Water Quality in Puget Sound
Puget Sound's marine waters provide essential
habitat for organisms ranging from plankton to
marine fish (including salmon) to marine mammals.
Washington's DOE summarizes overall water quality
based on the strength and persistence of layers, or
stratification, in the water column; lack of nitrogen-
containing nutrients for several months; low amounts
of dissolved oxygen in the water; high ammonium
concentrations; and high fecal coliform bacteria counts.
These results are presented in terms of levels of overall
water quality concern.
Components of Marine Vf^ter Quality
The following characteristics of marine waters are
measured to determine water quality:
Fecal coliform bacteria—not agents of disease
themselves, these bacteria indicate the presence
of other disease-causing organisms from sewage,
wildlife, or agricultural contamination.
Dissolved oxygen—low dissolved oxygen levels can be harmful to some marine life,
such as fish.
DIN—some marine waters are susceptible to water quality
problems when nutrients are added from wastewater or agricultural sources.
Ammonium—high concentrations can indicate sewage or agricultural contamination.
Stratification—when marine waters develop stable layers, pollutants and nutrients cannot
be mixed, and some layers may develop water quality problems.
Status
Based on data from 1994 to 2000, the areas of greatest marine water quality concern in Puget
Sound are Budd Inlet, southern Hood Canal, and Penn Cove on Whidbey Island. Concern at
Budd Inlet is due to high fecal coliform and ammonium concentrations, strong and persistent
stratification, depleted oxygen levels, and low nutrients. Nutrient input to Budd Inlet decreased
in the late 1990s as the regional wastewater treatment plant incorporated nitrogen removal.
Southern Hood Canal and Penn Cove concerns include very low dissolved oxygen concentrations
and sensitivity to additional nutrient loadings. The DOE generally classified sampling stations
near urban areas or in areas with reduced levels of tidal flushing as areas of high concern.
For more information, visit http://nsandt.noaa.gov/index_bioeffect.htm.
Washington Department of Ecology, 2002
Marine water quality level of concern, 2000.
176 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a concentrations in West Coast
estuaries are rated good. Less than 1% of the estuarine
area on the West Coast is rated poor for chlorophyll a
(Figure 6-7)- Concentrations greater than 20 ug/L
occurred in only three locations, including two sites
in California and one site in Washington (south Hood
Canal). Although almost no areas within West Coast
estuaries showed high concentrations of water column
chlorophyll a, this may not indicate low land-based
loading of nitrogen and phosphorus. Many West
Coast estuaries have large intertidal areas, so nutrient
utilization by benthic algae may be of greater impor-
tance than nutrient uptake by phytoplankton. Results
of 2002 surveys of these intertidal areas, using benthic
algal coverage as an indicator of conversion of nutrient
loadings to chlorophyll, are not yet available to address
this issue.
Water Clarity
Water clarity in West Coast estuaries is rated poor.
Water clarity was rated poor at a sample site if light
penetration at 1 meter was less than 10% of surface
illumination. Approximately 36% of estuarine area
in the West Coast received less than 10% of surface
illumination at 1 meter (Figure 6-8). This finding
is consistent with that made by the NOAA
Eutrophication Survey (NOAA, 1998a), which
reported high turbidity in 20 of the 38 West Coast
estuaries surveyed. This number represents water clarity
only in late summer and does not represent high-flow
wet season conditions in the winter. The large tidal
amplitude found in many estuaries along the West
Coast may tend to contribute to higher levels of
turbidity in the water column. Stations with limited
water clarity were broadly distributed across the West
Coast states (Figure 6-8).
Chlorophyll a -West (1999-2000)
Water Clarity -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria: Chlorophyll a
concentration
• Good = <
OFair =5-
• Poor = > 20
O Missing
Site Criteria: Light
penetration at I meter
depth
• Good = > 20%
OFair = 10% to
• Poor = < 10%
OMissing
I
Good
48%
Figure 6-7. Chlorophyll a concentration data for West Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Figure 6-8. Water clarity condition for West Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II \~7~7
-------
ghlight
NOAA research vessel McArthur // (CDR Michele G.
Bullock/NOAA).
EMAP and NOAA Assess Condition of the Continental Shelf
of the U.S. West Coast
EPA's EMAP, in cooperation with
NOAA, conducted an assessment of soft
sediment habitat conditions on the conti-
nental shelf of the West Coast in 2003-
The assessment design included a survey
of bottom community conditions for the
five NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries
(Olympic, Cordell Banks, Gulf of
Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Channel
Islands), as compared to non-sanctuary
areas of the West Coast shelf.
Principally funded by the EPA, Office
of Research and Development, the project
involved the cooperation of numerous
organizations. NOAA was a major partner in the study, contributing ship time on the research
vessel McArthurllto the assessment effort. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center of NOAA
provided field support and analysis of fish disease conditions and cooperated with EPA to provide
fish for contaminant analysis from samples collected under the NOAA West Coast Slope Survey
Fisheries Assessment Program. State partners included the Washington DOE, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality, and the Southern California Coastal Water Resources Project
(SCCWRP). Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, under contract to SCCWRP, provided field
crews for the collection of samples in California coastal waters .
The 2003 West Coast shelf assessment included soft sediment benthic resources of the conti-
nental shelf from the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Washington to the Mexican border. A total of
150 stations were sampled at a depth range between 30 and 120 feet. Each state had a minimum
of 50 stations. In Washington, the 50 stations were split into two groups consisting of 30 stations
randomly selected within the Olympic NMS and 20 stations in the remainder of the shelf waters.
Similarly, in California, 50 stations were split into two groups consisting of 30 stations randomly
selected within the Cordell Banks, Gulf of Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands
National Marine Sanctuaries, and 20 stations distributed on the shelf in the remainder of
California, north of Point Conception. The shelf region between Point Conception and the
Mexican border was sampled for most of the same condition indicators during summer 2003 as
part of the Bight 2003 study by a consortium of agencies led by SCCWRP The Bight 2003 data
will be integrated with the EMAP data to provide an overall assessment of the condition of the
continental shelf for California and the West Coast.
178 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Environmental condition indicators that were sampled in this study (Table 1)
included
(1) general habitat condition indicators
(2) water quality indicators
(3) benthic condition indicators
(4) exposure indicators.
Table I. Environmental Indicators for the EMAP-West Coast Assessment
of Shelf Benthic Condition in 2003 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Habitat Condition Indicators
Salinity
Water depth
pH
Water temperature
Total suspended solids
Transmittance
Sediment grain size
Percent TOC
in sediments
Sediment color/odor
Presence of trash/marine debris
Water Quality Indicators
Chlorophyll a concentration
Nutrient concentrations
(nitrates, nitrites, ammonia,
and phosphate)
Benthic Condition Indicators
Infaunal species composition
Infaunal abundance
Infaunal species richness and diversity
External diseases in fish
Presence of nonindigenous species
Exposure Indicators
Dissolved oxygen concentration
Sediment contaminants
Fish tissue contaminants
National Coastal Condition Report II 179
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in West Coast estuaries
are good. NCA estimates for West Coast estuaries show
that less than 1% of the bottom waters exhibit hypoxia
(<2 mg/L dissolved oxygen) in late summer (Figure 6-9).
Out of the total of 371 stations sampled, dissolved
oxygen was measured below 2.0 mg/L at only two
station locations. Both of these stations were located
in subestuaries of Puget Sound (Dabob Bay and south
Hood Canal), which are deeper, fjord-like systems and
may often have low dissolved oxygen in bottom waters.
In addition, 25% of estuarine bottom waters were
found to be in fair condition, with dissolved oxygen
concentrations between 2 and 5 mg/L. The Puget
Sound Water Quality Action Team (2002) identified
south Hood Canal as an AOC for water quality because
it may be particularly sensitive to increased nutrient
loadings. Although conditions in the West Coast region
appear to be generally good for dissolved oxygen,
measured values reflect daytime conditions, and some
areas may still experience hypoxic conditions at night.
Sediment Quality Index
The overall condition of West Coast estuarine
sediment is fair to poor, with 14% of the area exceeding
thresholds for sediment toxicity, sediment contami-
nants, or sediment TOC (Figure 6-10). This estimate
of fair sediment condition reflects to a large extent the
metal concentrations in the San Francisco Estuary and
the metal and organic concentrations in the harbors and
bays within the Puget Sound system (e.g., Duwamish
River, Commencement Bay). Amphipod toxicity at
stations within Puget Sound, the Columbia River, and
Willapa Bay was the second most important contributor
to the areal estimate of poor condition. Several other
areas had either elevated sediment concentrations of
contaminants or high sediment toxicity (e.g., Smith
River in northern California, Los Angeles Harbor), but
these areas constituted a relatively small areal percentage
of the West Coast estuaries.
Dissolved Oxygen -West (1999-2000)
Sediment Quality Index -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria: Dissolved
oxygen concentration
• Good = > 5 mg/L
OFair = 2-5 mg/L
• Poor = < 2 mg/L
O Missing
Site Criteria: Number
and condition of component
indicators
• Good = None are poor
and sediment
contaminants
is good
OFair = None are poor
and sediment
contaminants
is fair
• Poor
O Missing
Figure 6-9. Dissolved oxygen concentration data for West
Coast estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Figure 6-10. Sediment quality index data for West Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
180 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
• 6 West Coastal Condition
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment toxicity for West Coast estuaries is rated
poor. Sediment toxicity was determined using a static
10-day acute toxicity test with the amphipods Ampelisca
abdita in marine or brackish waters or Hyalella azteca
in freshwater portions of the Columbia River. Sediment
was deemed toxic if the amphipods had less than an
80% control-corrected mean survival rate. Sediments in
17% of the estuarine area of the West Coast were toxic
to amphipods (Figure 6-11). These toxic sediments were
located largely in northern and central Puget Sound in
Washington, in the Columbia River (Washington-
Oregon), and in Los Angeles Harbor and several small
river systems (e.g., Smith River, Klamath River, Little
River) in northern California. Toxic sediments in Puget
Sound were contaminated with DDT and metals and,
in some cases, also exceeded ERLs for PAHs or PCBs.
Sediments found in several northern California small
river estuaries exceeded ERM or ERL levels for
chromium, and sediments in the lower Columbia River
(Grays Bay) exceeded ERLs for arsenic, copper, and
chromium. One highly contaminated station in Los
Angeles Harbor had 0% Ampelisca survival and
exceeded 17 ERLs and 7 ERMs for metals, PAHs, and
PCBs. Several stations in the Columbia River, Siuslaw
River (Oregon), and Willapa Bay (Washington) were
uncontaminated with the measured analytes, but had
Ampelisca or Hyalella survival rates below 80%. These
stations had very lowTOC (0 to 0.1%) and percent
fines (0 to 1.0%), which may have inhibited tube
formation and survival in Ampelisca (U.S. EPA, 1994).
For Hyalella, however, there is no known effect of grain
size orTOC on survival (ASTM, 1995).
Sediment Toxicity -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria: Amphipod
survival rate
Figure 6-11. Sediment toxicity data for West Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
The rugged California coast is dotted with an abundance of small
coves (Paul Goetz).
National Coastal Condition Report II 181
-------
ghlight
Sediment Quality and Extent of Sediment Contamination
in Puget Sound
A cooperative effort to examine the spatial distributions of sediment toxicity in Puget Sound
was recently completed by the Washington DOE and NOAA's National Centers for Coastal
Ocean Science. Environmental contaminants associated with sediments represent a potential
source of toxicity to organisms living in or on the sediments, and through the food chain, to
higher trophic level species. These contaminants enter estuarine waters through runoff, freshwater
inflow, industrial and municipal discharges, and atmospheric deposition. Once bound
to particulate materials in the water column, such contaminants can settle out and become
incorporated into surficial sediments.
The overall goal of the 3-year project was to quantify the percentage of significantly degraded
sediment quality in Puget Sound. A total of 300 sediment samples were collected using a stratified
random sampling design. A triad assessment of chemical contamination, toxicity, and benthic
infauna structure was conducted to develop a spatial characterization of the 912-square-mile
Puget Sound study area. Sediments were analyzed for 158 contaminants (including trace metals,
pesticides, and hydrocarbons) and sediment parameters, most of which are analyzed in NOAA's
NS&T Program. Toxicity tests included amphipod survival in bulk sediments, sea urchin fertiliza-
tion success in pore waters, and microbial bioluminescence activity (Microtox™) in organic
extracts of sediment. Organisms inhabiting the sediments were enumerated and identified to
the species level.
Chemical concentrations above sediment quality guidelines (SQGs) were found in 1.3%
(NOAA guidelines) to 34% (Washington State standards) of the Puget Sound study area. Only
1 in 300 samples resulted in acute toxicity in the amphipod survival test, representing an area of
less than 0.1 % of the total study area. In the other toxicity tests, significant results were recorded
in 1 to 4% of the study area. In general, the spatial extent of toxicity found in Puget Sound was
lower than results typically found in other estuarine systems in the United States.
182 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Based on the triad of sediment quality, approximately 39 samples, or 1% of the area surveyed,
displayed chemical contamination above an SQG, significant toxicity in any one of the three
toxicity tests, and altered benthic infaunal communities. These samples were collected from Everett
Harbor, the lower Duwamish River, Sinclair Inlet, Commencement Bay waterways, Olympia
Harbor, and along Seattle's waterfront. In contrast, 81 sediment samples, or 42% of the study area,
had uncontaminated sediments that were nontoxic and contained diverse and abundant benthos.
These areas were typically in deep basins or shallow bays near undeveloped lands. Results of the
study did show, however, that 180 samples, or approximately 57% of the study area in Puget
Sound, had results that were termed intermediate (i.e., one or two of the three triad parameters
were affected), indicating a need for continued monitoring of these areas to assess changes in
sediment quality over time.
Areas of Contaminated Sediment
Data from 1997-1999
Based on three separate tests
for contamination
- chemistry test
- toxicity test
- test of sediment-dwelling organisms
No consistent evidence of degradation
Degradation only in chemistry test at all stations
Degradation in two tests at all stations
Degradation in three tests at all stations
Source: Washington State
Department of Ecology, 2002
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
To assess the degree of sediment contamination in
West Coast estuaries, the sediment concentrations of
contaminants were compared with both the ERM and
ERL guidelines (Long et al., 1995) (Figure 6-12). Sites
with values exceeding an ERM for any pollutant were
classified as having poor condition. The analysis of
the West Coast estuaries excluded nickel and a PAH,
phenanthrene. Phenanthrene was excluded because
values were not available from all three states. Nickel
was excluded because the ERM value has a low relia-
bility for West Coast conditions where high natural
crustal concentrations of nickel exist (Long et al.,
1995). Because of its unreliability, nickel was also
excluded from a recent evaluation of sediment quality in
southern Puget Sound (Long et al., 2000). Additionally,
a study of metal concentrations in cores on the West
Coast determined an historical background concentra-
tion of nickel in the range of 35—70 ppm (Lauenstein
et al., 2000), which brackets the value of the ERM
Sediment Contaminants -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria: ERL and ERM
criteria exceedance
• Good = Less than 5 ERLs
exceeded, no
ERMs exceeded
OFair
Exceeds 5 or
more ERL
criteria, no
ERMs exceeded
• Poor =
Figure 6-12. Sediment contaminants data for West Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Contaminant Criteria (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined for each
chemical as the 50th percentile (median) in a database
of ascending concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined values for
each chemical as the I Oth percentile in a database of
ascending concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
(51.6 ppm). Some researchers have also suggested that
West Coast crustal concentrations for mercury may be
naturally elevated; however, no conclusive evidence is
available to support this suggestion. Therefore, mercury
data were not excluded from this assessment.
Excluding nickel, sediment concentrations exceeded
their respective ERM values at 24 stations, representing
3% of the estuarine area. Twenty of these sites were
located in California, 4 in Washington, and none in
Oregon. In California, all the concentrations that
exceeded the ERMs north of San Luis Obispo Bay,
including the small northern California rivers and the
San Francisco Estuary, were due to chromium, mercury,
or copper. In Southern California, the exceedances were
due to DDT, with the exception of the Los Angeles
Harbor, which had high concentrations of several
metals and PAHs. In Washington, three of the sediment
concentrations that exceeded the ERMs occurred in
harbors and bays within the Puget Sound system; one
was in the Columbia River. All of these exceedances
were due to either PAHs or PCBs.
Any site that had five or more compounds that
exceeded their ERL values was classified as having fair
condition. As with the ERMs, nickel was excluded from
the analysis. To ensure that the analysis was not biased
by PAHs, only one exceedance was counted if a site
exceeded the ERL for LMW PAHs, HMW PAHs, or
total PAHs. A total of 62 stations had five or more
pollutants exceeding the ERL value, of which 12 also
exceeded one or more ERMs. The 62 sites represent
21% (ERM exceedance = 3% and 5 ERL exceedances =
18%) of the area of the West Coast estuaries. Most of
these sites (45) occurred in California, 17 sites occurred
in Washington, and none occurred in Oregon. Of the
California sites, 37 were located in the San Francisco
Estuary. Six of the remaining California sites were in
184 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
harbors or bays in southern California, and the two
remaining sites were in northern California river-mouth
estuaries. In Washington, 18 of the 20 sites exceeding
these thresholds were located within the subestuaries
(e.g., Everett Harbor, Elliott Bay) within the Puget
Sound system.
To evaluate the relative contributions of different
types of pollutants, the number of individual ERL
exceedances was counted by pollutant class. Twenty-four
ERLs were evaluated at each site (8 metals, total PCBs,
4,4'-DDE, total DDT, 12 individual PAHs, and
total/LMW/HMW PAHs). Metals were the major
contributor to sediment contamination in the San
Francisco Estuary; about two-thirds of the individual
ERL exceedances resulted from arsenic, chromium,
copper, mercury, and zinc. Organic contaminants were
relatively more important in the Puget Sound system.
Total DDT exceeded ERL values at every station in
Puget Sound, as well as at every station within the
harbors and bays within the Puget Sound system.
Combined, PAHs, DDTs, and PCBs contributed about
60% of the total ERL exceedances in the Puget Sound
system, versus about 40% for the metals. The metals
with the greatest number of exceedances (excluding
nickel) in the Puget Sound system were arsenic,
chromium, and copper.
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Another measure of sediment condition is the
percent TOC: values exceeding 5% ranked poor,
values between 2% and 5% ranked fair, and values less
than 2% ranked good. Using these criteria, two sites
representing just 0.01% of the area of the West Coast
estuaries were ranked poor (Figure 6-13). One of these
sites, the Big Lagoon, borders the Redwood National
Forest in northern California. This lagoon is periodi-
cally closed to the ocean by the natural movement of
dune sands, so it is likely that the high organic content
results from the natural trapping of terrestrial and
wetland plant debris rather than from anthropogenic
inputs. The other site that was ranked poor was in the
Los Angeles Harbor, and the high organic content at
this site may well represent anthropogenic inputs.
Another 29 sites (7 sites in California, 6 in Oregon,
and 16 in Washington) were ranked fair. In total, these
sites represent 11 % of the estuarine area of the West
Coast. At several of these sites, there are no obvious
anthropogenic inputs of organic matter (e.g., Raft River,
Washington), and the elevated TOC levels may reflect
natural conditions. In other cases (e.g., ports and
harbors), the elevated levels may be indicative of
anthropogenic inputs.
Total Organic Carbon -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria: TOC
concentration
• Good = < 2%
OFair = 2% - 5%
• Poor = > 5%
O Missing
Good
89%
Fair
Figure 6-1 3. Sediment TOC data for West Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
A diver from Cordell Bank Expeditions discovers a small sediment
pocket on the bank (Cordell Bank Expeditions).
National Coastal Condition Report II 185
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Benthic Index
Sediment condition in West Coast estuaries as
measured by the benthic index is fair. Although several
efforts are under way and indices of benthic community
condition have been developed for regions of the West
Coast (e.g., Smith et al., 1998), there is currently no
single benthic community index applicable for the
entire West Coast. In lieu of a West Coast benthic
index, the deviation of species richness from an estimate
of expected species richness was used as an approximate
indicator of the condition of the benthic community.
The Iog10 transformed number of species per 0.1 m2
grab sample was regressed on bottom salinity. The
analysis was limited to the 1999 data because the 2000
benthic community data have not received final quality
assurance/quality control checks. Therefore, areal
estimates of affected benthic communities only apply
to the small West Coast estuaries and not to the San
Francisco Estuary, Puget Sound, or the main stem of
the Columbia River. The benthic condition of any
station with fewer species than 75% of the lower 95%
confidence limit of the mean from the regression was
ranked poor (Figure 6-14).
This approach requires that species richness be
predicted from salinity. A significant linear regression
between log species richness and salinity was found,
although it was not strong (r = 0.43, p < 0.01). Results
of the regression indicated that 26 sites, representing
13% of the area of the West Coast estuaries, had a
species richness of less than 75% of the lower 95%
confidence limit. Sites with lower diversity were rela-
tively evenly distributed across the three states, with 9
sites in California, 12 in Oregon, and 5 in Washington.
Results should be interpreted cautiously because
there was only moderate concordance between lower
species richness and indices of water quality or sediment
quality, the components that comprise these indices, or
individual contaminant ERLs (Figure 6-15). Only 3 of
the 26 sites low in species richness occurred at stations
Benthic Index -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria:
Compared to expected
diversity
• Good = > 90%
OFair = 75% - 90%
• Poor = < 75%
OMissing
Figure 6-14. Benthic index data for West Coast estuaries (the San
Francisco Estuary, Columbia Riven and Puget Sound system were
not included in the assessment) (U.S. EPA/NCA).
PoorWater/Sediment Quality Indicators that
Co-occur with Low Benthic Diversity -
West (1999-2000)
Sediment and
Water Quality
Figure 6-15. Indicators of poor water and sediment quality that
co-occur with poor benthic condition in West Coast estuaries (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
186 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
ranked poor for sediment contamination, high TOC
concentrations, or amphipod toxicity. There was higher
concordance of reduced diversity with indicators of
water quality; only 9 of the 26 sites with reduced
species richness occurred at a site ranked poor by
the water quality index or its individual components.
One site with low species richness also had poor ratings
for sediment contamination and water quality. Other
anthropogenic stressors, such as dredging, may have
contributed to the low diversity at some of the sites
comprising the 30% of low diversity sites not related
to sediment or water quality variables (e.g., Coos River,
Oregon). At some sites, "natural" stressors may be the
primary cause for reduced species richness. For example,
intense bioturbation by the burrowing ghost shrimp,
Neotrypaea californiensis, may have limited species
richness in the Salmon River, Oregon, an estuary that
receives very few anthropogenic inputs. The large
salinity fluctuations that the small, Pacific Northwest
river-dominated estuaries can experience over a tidal
cycle or following heavy rains may also have contributed
to the low species richness at some sites.
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal habitat index for West Coast estuaries
is rated poor. From 1990 to 2000, the West Coast
experienced a loss of 1,720 acres of estuarine wetlands
(0.54%) (NWI, 2002). The long-term, average decadal
loss rate of West Coast wetlands is 3-4%. Averaging
these two loss rates results in a coastal habitat index
value of 1.90. This is equivalent to a rating of poor.
Although the absolute magnitude of the acreage lost for
the West Coast was less than that in other regions of the
country, the relative percentage of existing wetlands lost
was the highest nationally. Western coastal wetlands
constitute only 6% of the total estuarine wetland acreage
in the conterminous 48 states; thus, any loss will have a
proportionately greater impact on this regionally limited
resource. Another factor affecting coastal resource con-
dition that is not captured in the wetland loss estimates
is the proportion of shoreline that has been altered. The
Shore Zone Inventory completed in 2000 for the state
of Washington found that almost one-third of all salt-
water shorelines in the state had some type of shoreline
modification structure, such as bulkhead or rip-rap, in
place (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, 2002).
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Estuarine condition in West Coast estuaries as
measured by concentrations of contaminants in fish
tissues is rated poor. Figure 6-16 shows that 27% of
all sites sampled where fish were caught (72 of 266
sites) exceeded risk-based criteria guidelines using
whole-fish contaminant concentrations. (Whole-fish
contaminant concentrations can be higher or lower
than the concentrations associated with fillets only.
Only those contaminants that have an affinity for
muscle tissue, e.g., mercury, are likely to have higher
fillet concentrations. Fillet contaminant concentrations
for most other contaminants will be lower.) For popula-
tions that consume whole fish, these risk calculations
are appropriate. The contaminants found in fish tissues
in West Coast estuaries most often included total PCBs,
DDT, and occasionally mercury.
Tissue Contaminants -West (1999-2000)
Site Criteria: EPA
Guidance concentration
• Good = Below Guidance
range
OFair = Falls within
Guidance range
• Poor = Exceeds
Guidance range
I
Figure 6-16. Fish tissue contaminants data for West Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 187
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
Salmon Fisheries
California Current ecosystem salmon support
important commercial and recreational fisheries in
Washington, Oregon, and California. Salmon are part
of the socio-cultural heritage of the region, having been
harvested by Native Americans for millennia. California
Current ecosystem salmon are anadromous. These fish
spawn in fresh water and migrate to the ocean, where
they may undergo extensive migrations. At maturity,
they return to their home stream to spawn and
complete their life cycle. Pacific salmon in the
California Current ecosystem include five species:
Chinook, coho, sockeye, pink, and chum salmon.
Chinook and coho salmon are harvested recreationally
and commercially in the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound,
and in freshwater rivers on their spawning migrations.
All species are harvested by Native American tribes for
subsistence and ceremonial purposes.
During the years 1995 through 1997, the average
annual commercial salmon catch was 13,100 mt,
providing revenues averaging almost $22 million at
dockside. The abundance of individual stocks of
California Current ecosystem salmon and the mixture
of stocks contributing to fisheries fluctuate considerably.
Consequently, the landings of these species fluctuate.
For all species, there is excess fishing power and over-
capitalization of the fishing fleets. Although harvest
rates in recent years have been held near or below levels
that would produce a long-term potential yield,
environmental conditions have resulted in poor ocean
survival of Chinook and coho salmon in general, as well
as some individual stocks of other species. Because of
the depressed status of many populations of Chinook
and coho salmon, these two species are considered over-
exploited, whereas the other species are considered fully
exploited. The management of this resource is complex,
involving many stocks originating from various rivers
and jurisdictions. Ocean fisheries for Chinook and
coho salmon are managed under a Pacific Fishery
Management Council (PFMC) FMP, with cooperation
from states and tribal fishery agencies. Within Puget
Sound and the Columbia River, fisheries for these two
species are managed by the states and tribes. The other
three species (pink, chum, and sockeye salmon)
are managed primarily by the Pacific Salmon
Lighthouses are essential along the rocky California coast (Paul Goetz.)
Commission (PSC), the state of Washington, and
tribal fishery agencies.
Fisheries are managed using a variety of regulations.
Ocean fisheries are managed primarily by gear restric-
tions, minimum size limits, and time and area closures,
although harvest quotas have been placed on individual
fisheries in recent years. The PSC has used harvest
quotas, updated on the basis of in-season abundance
forecasts. Cumulative impact quotas for weak stocks
have been used to regulate some Columbia River
commercial fisheries.
Pacific salmon in the California Current ecosystem
depend on freshwater habitat for spawning and rearing
of juveniles. The quality of freshwater habitat is largely
a function of land management practices; therefore,
salmon production is heavily influenced by entities
not directly involved in the management of fisheries.
Salmon management involves the cooperation of the
USFS Bureau of Land Management, FWS's Bureau
of Reclamation, the USAGE, EPA, Bonneville Power
Administration, state resource agencies, Native Ameri-
can tribes, municipal utility districts, agricultural water
districts, private timber companies, and landowners.
Status reviews have been completed by the NMFS
for most species of the California Current ecosystem
and have resulted in listings of coho salmon from
central California through coastal Oregon; Chinook
salmon in California's Central Valley and the upper
Columbia and Snake river basins; and sockeye salmon
in the Snake River Basin. In March 1999, the NMFS
announced the most comprehensive listing decision yet,
with final listings of nine evolutionarily significant units
(ESUs) of salmon (Chinook, chum, and sockeye) and
steelhead trout ranging from the upper Columbia River
through Puget Sound. These listings include the
metropolitan areas of Portland, Oregon, and Seattle,
Washington, that lie within the boundaries of the listed
ESUs. Additional information on the status of the five
species of Pacific salmon is available in Our Living
Oceans (NOAA, 1999c).
188 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Pelagic Fisheries
Several stocks of small pelagic fish species support
fisheries along the California Current ecosystem. The
major species are Pacific sardine, northern anchovy, jack
mackerel, chub (Pacific) mackerel, and Pacific herring.
Sardine, anchovy, and the two mackerels are primarily
concentrated and harvested off California and Baja
California. Pacific herring are harvested along the West
Coast from California to Washington. Sardine and
anchovy are the most prominent of the fisheries from
an historical perspective. Population of these small
pelagic fish, like Peruvian anchovy and Japanese sardine,
tend to fluctuate widely in abundance. California
sardines supported the largest fishery in the western
hemisphere during the 1930s and early 1940s, when
total catches averaged 500,000 mt. Sardine abundance
and catches declined after World War II, and the stock
finally collapsed in the late 1950s. In the mid 1940s,
U.S. processors began canning anchovy as a substitute
for sardine; however, consumer demand for canned
anchovy was low. In recent years, low prices and market
problems continue to prevent a significant U.S. reduc-
tion in the fishery for anchovy. The other small pelagic
species also have a tendency to fluctuate widely in abun-
dance. All these pelagic fishery resources are currently
under management.
Northern anchovy landings in California have
fluctuated more in response to market conditions than
to stock abundance. Landings in the United States have
varied from less than 10,000 mt to nearly 140,000 mt.
The well being of ecologically related species in the
marine ecosystem is an important factor in management
of the anchovy resource. The FMP has specified a
threshold for its optimum-yield determination to
prevent anchovy depletion and to provide adequate
forage for marine fishes, mammals, and birds. More
information on the status of pelagic fisheries in the
California Current ecosystem is available in Our Living
Oceans (NOAA, 1999c).
Nearshore Fisheries
Nearshore fishery resources are those coastal and
estuarine species found in the 0—3 nautical mile zone
of coastal state waters and for which the NMFS has
no direct management role. Nearshore resources vary
widely in species diversity and abundance. Many are
highly-prized gamefish, while others are small fishes
used for bait, food, and industrial products. The
invertebrate species of greatest interest include crabs,
shrimps, abalones, clams, scallops, and oysters. Because
the composition of the nearshore fauna is very diverse
and management authority is shared among the coastal
states and other local bodies, a detailed treatment of
the status of these species is difficult. In the California
Current ecosystem, California contributes the most
commercial landings of nearshore species at an
estimated 93,954 mt, followed by Oregon (22,198 mt)
and Washington (14,637 mt).
Groundfish Fisheries
Accurate, long-term predictions of potential yield
will require a substantial increase in knowledge about
competitive and predatory interactions in the biological
system of the California Current ecosystem, as well as
knowledge about climate effects on this community.
The target exploitation rate for most groundfish species
is designed to achieve a large fraction of maximum
potential yield and reduce the abundance of spawners
by about two-thirds (assuming that this will not reduce
the mean recruitment level). Only decades of moni-
toring the stock's performance will ascertain the long-
term feasibility of these targets, as well as the degree of
natural fluctuation that will occur while maintaining
these targets. Unfortunately, there is little historical data
on these fluctuations, and the current level of stock
assessment data is not adequate to precisely track changes
in abundance for more than a few species. In addition,
only a low level of effort is directed towards feeding
habits studies that may help predict how the interac-
tions among species may change as the abundance of
several major species is reduced below unfished levels.
Models of long-term potential yield depend on
assumptions of constant average environmental condi-
tions or an ability to predict changing conditions. There
is evidence of a decline in zooplankton abundance
within the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries
Investigations' 40-year time series, as well as of an ocean
warming during the late 1970s. Dover sole in southern
areas, bocaccio rockfish, and lingcod exhibit declines
in mean recruitment during this same period. Better
understanding of potential linkages between fish recruit-
ment and long-term changes in the ocean climate are
integral to improving the 5- to 10-year forecasts of
potential fishery yield.
National Coastal Condition Report II 189
-------
ghlight
EMAP 2002 - West Coast Intertidal Wetlands Condition Assessment
Much of the West Coast of the United States is subject to large tidal fluctuations, resulting
in extensive intertidal flats that are sometimes equal to 50% or more of the total estuarine area.
Because such fluctuations are important to many West Coast estuaries, EMAP conducted a pilot
assessment of the condition of estuarine tidelands from Puget Sound to the Mexican border in
2002. In addition to this regional assessment, localized studies in San Francisco Bay and Southern
California focused on development of a range of condition indicators for low salt marsh habitats.
These assessments of intertidal wetlands (vegetated and unvegetated habitat between mean low
water and mean high water) complement the previous EMAP subtidal assessments conducted
between 1999 and 2000, resulting in a more complete picture of estuarine condition on the
West Coast.
The intertidal sample design included 61 sites in Washington, 67 sites in Oregon, and 90 sites
in California. In California, 30 sites were randomly allocated along the coastline, with another
30 sites randomly allocated within each of the two pilot-study regions. A series of indicators
suitable for intertidal habitats, including a variety of plant community indicators (Table 1), were
sampled at all sites in the three states. Additional indicators were measured at the two intensive
studies in Southern California (Point Conception to the Mexican border) and San Francisco Bay
(Table 2). This monitoring design provides both a statewide assessment of intertidal wetland
conditions and independent assessments of Southern California and San Francisco Bay wetlands.
Table I. Environmental Condition Indicators Used for the 2002 Intertidal Wetlands
Assessment Study (U.S. EPA, NCA).
Tidal water temperature, depth, salinity
Sediment pore water salinity
Sediment bulk density
Sediment percent TOC
Sediment grain size
Sediment inorganic contaminants
Sediment organic contaminants
Sediment percent nitrogen
Sediment percent phosphorus
Infaunal species composition
• Infaunal abundance
• Infaunal species richness and diversity
• Emergent macrophyte species richness
• Emergent macrophyte species diversity
• Emergent macrophyte species maximum
stem or shoot length
• Percent of macrophyte species as
nonindigenous species
• Submerged aquatic vegetation or
macroalgal percent cover
• Submerged aquatic vegetation maximum
shoot length
190 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
The pilot studies in Southern California and San Francisco Bay provided the opportunity
to broaden the focus of the International Wetlands Asssessment Study beyond an emphasis on
sediment contamination and water quality to include issues specific to intertidal wetland habitats,
such as habitat fragmentation, threatened and endangered native species, the spread of nonindige-
nous species, the modification of tidal flushing, and the impacts of land use alteration on wetlands
(Table 2). Inclusion of these landscape and ecosystem-scale indicators should generate a more
complete and accurate assessment of the effects of stressors on West Coast estuaries.
Table 2. Environmental Condition Indicators Used in the San Francisco Bay and Southern
California 2002 Intertidal Wetlands Assessment Study (U.S. EPA, NCA).
Plant community composition and percent
cover for drainage system
Wrack line trash composition for drainage
system
Nonindigenous species plants for habitat patch
Management objectives for habitat patch
Number of recreational facilities and annual visi-
tors for habitat patch
Presence of man-made water control structures
and levees
Total annual POTW, industrial, and power plant
discharges to wetland watersheds
Human population density for watershed
Human population age structure for watershed
Habitat connectivity of tidal marsh patches
Percent attenuation of spring tide range
Intertidal channel density for habitat patch
Total acreage for habitat patch
Total perimeter for habitat patch
Shoreline development index for habitat patch
Shape index for habitat patch
Adjacent land cover for habitat patch
Size class distribution for all habitat patches
National Coastal Condition Report II 191
-------
ghlight
City and County of San Francisco Offshore Monitoring Program
The city and county of San Francisco conduct a regional monitoring program offshore of
the mouth of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco's combined sewer system collects all sanitary
and industrial wastes and stormwater runoff for treatment to primary or secondary standards
prior to being discharged to the ocean. Activities from the highly urbanized Bay Area and
agricultural Central Valley affect the environmental quality of San Francisco Bay waters, which
pass through the study area with each tidal cycle. The program includes bacterial monitoring
at beaches to provide public health data and to determine impacts from shoreline discharges.
Additionally, offshore monitoring is conducted to evaluate the impacts of treated wastewater
discharges on sediments and marine life.
Total coliform bacteria concentrations, an indicator for water-borne pathogens that could
cause illness to those involved in beach recreation, are generally low year round, with increases
correlating to rainfall and shoreline discharges. Surveys documented beach recreation as low
during or following shoreline discharges, which typically occur during severe storm events in
midwinter. Beach warnings are posted whenever a shoreline discharge occurs or when bacteria
counts are elevated. Beach water quality information and the 5-year summary report (1997—2001)
of offshore monitoring data are available on the city's Web site (http://www.sfwater.org). Water
quality information is also available on a toll free hotline (1-877-SF BEACH) and at EPA's
national Web site (http://www.earth911.org).
Bottom fish and sediment-dwelling benthic invertebrates present in the study area represent
species common in central California's nearshore, sand-bottom environments. Sediment grain
size is the primary factor influencing the composition of species that live in the sediments.
Some outfall stations showed an increase in abundance of these species compared to some
reference stations, suggestive of enrichment; however, a comparison of abundance of species
living in the sediment at outfalls and reference sites spanning the periods before and after
wastewater discharge demonstrated no significant difference. Mean grain sizes at the outfalls
have not changed significantly since predischarge and preconstruction periods, suggesting that
the wastewater discharge has not affected sediment grain size distribution.
192 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
350
Spiophanes bombyx
Spiophanes berkeleyorum
Hesionura coineaui difficHis
Sediment grain size and species composition of benthic invertebrates near
oceanside discharge outfall.
Bioaccumulation of pollutants measured in the tissues of English sole and Dungeness crab
are not significantly different between reference and outfall regions. Pollutant levels are higher
in fatty tissues (fish liver and crab hepatopancreas) than in muscle tissue. Pollutant levels measured
in sediments did not appear to affect pollutant tissue levels in organisms from the study area.
Additional information can be obtained by contacting Michael Kellogg at (415) 242-2218
or mkellogg@sfwater.org.
National Coastal Condition Report II 193
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
The West Coast states assessed 4,990 (95%) of
their 5,249 estuarine square miles for their 2000
305 (b) reports (total area of estuaries presented in the
states' 305(b) reports differs significantly from that
determined from the NCA survey). Of the assessed
estuarine square miles on the West Coast, 13%
fully support their designated uses, less than 1 %
are threatened for one or more uses, and almost 87%
are impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 6-17 and Table 6-1). Individual
use support for the West Coast estuaries is shown in
Figure 6-18.
Figure 6-17. Water quality in assessed West Coast estuaries
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 6-18. Individual use support in assessed West Coast
estuaries (U.S. EPA, 2002).
The West Coast states assessed 997 (47%) of their
2,134 shoreline miles. Seventy-eight percent of the
assessed shoreline miles fully support their designated
uses, no shoreline miles are reported as being threat-
ened, and 22% of the assessed shoreline is impaired
by some form of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 6-19). Individual use support for West Coast
shoreline miles is shown in Figure 6-20.
Figure 6-19. Water quality in assessed shoreline waters in the
West Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2002).
800-
700'
600-
500-
| 400-
300-
200-
100-
o-
D Fully Supporting
III Threatened
• Impaired
i — i
-
,—
—
|2000|
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 6-20. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters in the West Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2002).
194 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Table 6-1. Individual Use Support for Assessed Coastal
Waters Reported by the States on theWest Coast under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. (Percent impaired is
based on the total area assessed for each individual use.)
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
Individual Uses
Assessed
Estuaries
Impaired (mi2)
Assessed
Shoreline
Impaired (mi)
Aquatic life support
3,976(81%)
21 (3%)
Fish consumption
1,974(97%)
77(13%)
Shellfishing
2,395 (64%)
66 (9%)
Primary contact —
swimming
1,740(35%)
218(24%)
Secondary contact
1,501 (30%)
127(14%)
Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2002, 24 fish consumption advisories were in
effect for the estuarine and coastal waters of the West
Coast (Figure 6-21). A total of 21% of the estuarine
square miles of the West Coast were under advisory
in 2002, and all of the estuarine area under advisory
was located within the San Francisco Bay/Delta region
or within Puget Sound. Only 11% of the coastal miles
were under advisory; more than one-half of these miles
were located in Southern California, and the rest were
located on coastal shoreline in Washington's Puget
Sound. None of the West Coast states (California,
Oregon, or Washington) had statewide coastal advi-
sories in effect in 2002. Although Oregon did not list
any fish consumption advisories for estuarine or coastal
waters in 2002, there is a fish consumption advisory
for the lower Columbia River (which forms the
border between Washington and Oregon) issued
by Washington State for all species for PCBs, dioxins/
furans, and DDT.
Seventeen different contaminants or groups of conta-
minants were responsible for West Coast fish advisories
in 2002, and 14 of those contaminants were listed only
in the waters of Puget Sound and bays emptying into
the sound (arsenic, chlorinated pesticides, creosote,
dioxin, industrial and municipal discharge, metals,
multiple contaminants, PAHs, PCBs, pentachloro-
phenol, pesticides, tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride,
and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). In California
and Washington, PCBs were partly responsible for 67%
of advisories (Figure 6-22). DDT was partly responsible
for 12 advisories issued in California. Although there
were only two advisories issued for mercury on the West
Coast, the entire San Francisco Estuary was covered by
one of these advisories.
Number of
advisories per
USGS cataloging
unit in 2002:
Figure 6-2 I. The number offish consumption advisories per
USGS cataloging unit for the West Coast (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
<3
Other
PCBs
DDT
Metals |
Per
I
20 40 60
Percent of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 6-22. Contaminants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in the waters of the West Coast in 2002. An advisory
can be issued for more than one contaminant, so percentages
may not add up to 100 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
The following fish and shellfish species were
advisory in at least some part of the coastal
of the West Coast in 2002:
Black croaker
Bivalves
Bullhead
Clams
Corbina
Crab
Gobies
Kelp bass
Queenfish
Rockfish
Sculpin
Shark
Shellfish
Striped bass
Surfperch
White croaker
;under
I waters
National Coastal Condition Report II 195
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 274 coastal beaches in the West Coast region
that reported information to EPA, 65% (178 beaches)
were closed or under an advisory for some period
of time in 2002. Table 6-2 presents the numbers
of beaches, advisories, and closures for each state.
California had the most beaches responding to the EPA
survey (269), as well as the most advisories and closures.
It should be noted, however, that the total number of
beach advisories and closures may not be indicative of
increased health risks to swimmers, but is generally
indicative of more intensive bacterial sampling efforts
conducted at the surveyed beaches. In 2002, only five
beaches in Washington provided a survey response,
and no beaches in Oregon completed the EPA BEACH
survey. Figure 6-23 presents advisory and closure
percentages for each county within each state.
Most beaches had multiple sources of water-borne
bacteria that resulted in advisories or closures.
Unknown sources accounted for 74 percent of the
responses from West Coast beaches (Figure 6-24).
Percentage of beaches
reporting with at least
one advisory or closure
per county in 2002:
H 1-10
• I 1-50
• 51-100
fj No Data Available
O Beach Closure in 2002
Figure 6-23. Percentage ofWest Coast beaches with advisories
or closures by county in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Table 6-2. Number of Beaches and Coastal
Advisories/Closures in 2002 for the West Coast.
Percentage of
No. of Beaches Affected
No. of Advisories/ by Advisories/
State
California
Beaches
269
Closures
178
Closures
66.2%
Oregon - -
Washington
TOTALS
5
274
0
178
0.0%
65.0%
Source U.S. EPA, 2003a
Other
Unknown
74%
Sewer Line Problem 6%
Stormwater Runoff 9%
Wildlife 3%
Figure 6-24. Sources of beach contamination in the West Coast
region (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Clamming season opens on the Oregon
coast west of Astoria (Commander
GradyTuell, NOAA Corps).
196 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
• 6 West Coastal Condition
Southern California's Beach Water Quality
Southern California beaches are a valuable recreational resource, receiving more than
300 million visitors and contributing 9 billion dollars to the local economy annually. Southern
California beaches are also the most extensively monitored in the country, with most supervision
focused on known problem areas. To better assess overall shoreline water quality, 22 organizations
that monitor bacteriological levels along the Southern California shoreline coordinated their
efforts to conduct three integrated coastline surveys. Two of the surveys were conducted during
dry periods, and one was conducted following a rainfall event.
Multiple bacterial indicators (e.g., total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and enterococci) were
collected from nearly 300 beach sites, randomly selected using a stratified sampling design. Water
quality along coastal beaches was consistently good during dry weather, with almost 95% of the
shoreline sites meeting bacterial standards. The few open coastline samples that exceeded bacterial
standards were barely above guidelines and surpassed standards for only one of the three bacterial
indicators measured. In contrast, nearly 60% of the beaches near urban runoff outlets (storm
drains) failed water quality standards, with most of the samples failing for multiple bacterial
indicators. Effects of land-based runoff were more exaggerated during wet weather, when 58%
of the open coastline and 87% of the beaches near storm drains failed water quality standards.
The levels of these water quality standard failures were also much higher in wet weather.
Results of this study have served to reassure visitors that beach water quality monitoring
programs currently being conducted at Southern California's beaches are highly effective.
Management efforts are focused on improving urban runoff quality, with warnings not
to swim near runoff outlets currently issued for three days following storm events.
£ o
c rt
(IjcQ
1 \J\J
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
SO -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
1 — 1
Near Storm Open Near Storm Open
Drain Outlet Beaches Drain Outlet Beaches
Dry Weather
Wet Weather
Source: Noble et. al., 2003
National Coastal Condition Report II 197
-------
Chapter 6 \ West Coastal Condition
Summary
i.
The Golden Gate Bridge as seen from
atop NOAA's Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary Office at the Presidio, San
Francisco, California (Rich Bourgerie,
Oceanographen CO-OPS, NOS, NOAA).
Based on the indices used in this report, ecological conditions in
West Coast estuaries are considered fair. These results are largely driven
by results from Puget Sound and the San Francisco Estuary; most smaller
systems along the coast are estimated to be in better condition. The
NCA 1999-2000 data confirm the conclusion of the NCCRI that the
primary problems in West Coast estuaries are degraded sediment quality.
The NCA data show that 21% of estuarine sediments exceed ERL/ERM
guidelines for sediment contaminants. For most of the West Coast estu-
arine area, sediment contamination was due to exceedance of ERLs for
multiple compounds rather than for a single compound exceeding the
ERM value. There was little indication of elevated levels of organic
matter in the sediments, and although there was evidence of sediment
toxicity from amphipod bioassays, in some cases toxicity was not
explained by measured contaminants at a site. Dissolved oxygen,
chlorophyll a concentrations, and levels of nitrogen are considered good
for West Coast estuaries, except in some isolated regions of Puget Sound.
Based on the water clarity indicator, considerable areas of West Coast
estuaries have poor light penetration, but the high tidal amplitude in
much of the region may require a revaluation of the threshold levels
used for this indicator in the West. Increasing population pressures
(particularly in the Seattle-Tacoma region, the San Francisco Estuary, and
Southern California) require continued environmental awareness and
programs to correct existing problems and to ensure that environmental
indicators currently in fair condition do not worsen and become poor.
198 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7
Great Lakes
Coastal Condition
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
The overall condition of the Great Lakes is fair to
poor, based on the Great Lakes Index (Figure 7-1).
The Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO)
has been monitoring the open waters of the Great Lakes
(approximately 94,250 square miles) annually since
1983- It has collected water and biota biannually from
specified water depths from a limited number of
locations in each of the five Great Lakes. This moni-
toring effort was designed to provide data to (1) assess
the state of water quality in open lake basins (more than
100 feet in depth or more than 3 miles from shore); (2)
detect and evaluate trends and changes in chloride,
State of the Lakes
Ecosystems Indicators
1. Water Clarity
2. Dissolved Oxygen
3. Coastal Wetlands
4. Water Quality Index*
S. Eutrophic Condition
6. Sediment Contamination
7. Benthic Health
8. Fish Tissue Contaminants
9. Phosphorus Concentrations
Beach Closures
Drinking Water Quality
Air Toxics Deposition
Numerical
Rating
•
1
_2_
-
_3_
J_
5_
Figure 7-1. The overall condition of the Great Lakes based on
these indicators is fair to poor (The numbered indicators are
similar to those used in the NCA Program, with poor referenced
as I or red, and good referenced as 5 or dark green.The Water
Quality Index [#4] is not part of the SOLEC indicators and was
constructed for a more direct comparison to the water quality
indices used in this report. It is a combination of SOLEC indica-
tions—Water Clarity [# I], Dissolved Oxygen [#2], Eutrophic
Condition [#5], and Phosphorus Concentrations [#9].)
nitrate nitrogen, silica, phytoplankton, total phos-
phorus, chlorophyll a, and Secchi disk depth; (3) verify
or modify water quality models; and (4) estimate the
trophic index for each lake. The GLNPO also sampled
sediments from select shallow and deepwater locations
to characterize benthic communities. Other special-
purpose sampling programs focused on known or
suspected problem areas, such as the Great Lakes AOCs
and rivers and harbors, to determine, for example,
whether contamination was increasing or decreasing in
sediments and whether remediation efforts were feasible
and effective.
Chicago Harbor Light, Chicago Illinois (Richard B. Mieremet,
Senior Advisor, NOAA OSDIA).
200 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Lake Michigan waterfront
Chicago, Illinois (Richard B,
Mieremet, Senior Advisor;
NOAA OSDIA).
Houghton County Lake Superior; Michigan (Richard B. Mieremet, Senior
Advisor, NOAA OSDIA).
Coastal Monitoring Data
Although the Great Lakes have an extensive
monitoring network, Great Lakes monitoring is not
directly comparable with monitoring done under the
NCA Program. The Great Lakes Program uses best
scientific judgment to select monitoring sites that
represent overall condition of the Great Lakes, whereas
the NCA Program uses a probabilistic survey design to
represent overall ecosystem condition in order to attain
a known level of uncertainty. Because the two programs
use different methods, spatial estimates of coastal
condition cannot be calculated for the Great Lakes that
are consistent with those calculated for the Northeast
Coast, Southeast Coast, West Coast, and Gulf
Coast regions, nor can estimates for the Great Lakes be
compared with those for other regions with a known
level of confidence. The comparability of these estimates,
however, was recently improved by efforts of the
GLNPO and Great Lakes scientists to assess the overall
status of eight ecosystem components of the Great
Lakes, some similar to NCA indicators. The results of
these efforts, along with relevant technical information
from the SOLEC (http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/solec/)
and GLNPO (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/), are used
to quantify and categorize NCA condition indicators
for the Great Lakes. The condition values are based
primarily on expert opinion, and they are integrated
with other regional condition data to evaluate the
overall condition of the nation's coastal environment.
National Coastal Condition Report II 201
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Water Quality Index
In order to more readily compare the SOLEC
findings for the ecological condition of the Great Lakes
with the NCA findings for U.S. estuaries, several
SOLEC indicators (eutrophic condition, water clarity,
dissolved oxygen, and phosphorus concentrations)
were combined into a water quality index. Of these
indicators, one is fair to poor (eutrophic condition), two
are fair (water clarity and phosphorus concentrations),
and one is good (dissolved oxygen). The same general
approach used for NCA data to calculate water quality
index ratings was used to calculate the water quality
index rating for the Great Lakes, and water quality
is rated fair.
Eutrophic Condition
Eutrophic condition in the Great Lakes is rated
fair to poor. The GLNPO used a surface water quality
index developed by Chapra and Dobson (1981), based
on an assumed direct relationship between phosphorus
concentrations, chlorophyll a, and Secchi depth
(clarity), to describe the water quality condition
of offshore waters.
Data collected during the 1990s indicate that the
trophic condition of Lake Superior, the deepest and
coldest of the Great Lakes, is good (oligotrophic—low
in nutrients, high in water clarity, and low in produc-
tivity), and trends do not suggest future problems. For
the remaining Great Lakes, data to calculate trophic-
state indices date back to the 1980s and provide a long-
term trend. The waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron,
the second and third largest of the Great Lakes,
respectively, were determined to be good (oligotrophic),
with indications that conditions are improving. Lake
Ontario, the fourth largest lake, is oligomesotrophic
(having both oligotrophic and mesotrophic characteris-
tics over time), with indications that conditions are
improving. Lake Erie, the smallest of the Great Lakes,
has three distinct basins. The Eastern Basin, the deepest
of the three basins, is oligotrophic (good). The Central
Basin has characteristics of both oligotrophy and
mesotrophy (moderately low in nutrients, moderate
in water clarity, and of moderate productivity) and
experiences oxygen depletion at deeper depths during
the summer months. The Western Basin, the shallowest
basin, is classified as mesotrophic, with large annual
fluctuations in the index obscuring any trends.
Nutrients: Phosphorus
The condition of the Great Lakes as measured by
nutrient concentrations is fair. Average phosphorus
concentrations in the open waters of Lakes Superior,
Michigan, Huron, and Ontario are at or below guide-
line levels established by the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (Figure 7-2). Offshore waters of Lakes
Ontario and Huron meet the guidelines, but some
nearshore areas exceed the guidelines, potentially
promoting growth of nuisance algae. Phosphorus
concentrations in all three basins of Lake Erie exceed
the guidelines. Four of six lake basins have total
phosphorus concentrations at or below guideline
levels; consequently, Great Lakes scientists rank
phosphorus concentrations as fair. This indicator,
however, is measured in the open waters of the Great
Lakes. If phosphorus were measured in nearshore
coastal areas (the subject of this report) rather than
in open water, the indicator would likely rank lower
in condition.
20
18
16 -
14 -
_, 12-
"§> 10-
4 •
2-
• Erie-Central Huron
A Michigan D Ontario
O Superior
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
Figure 7-2. Total phosphorus concentrations in the open waters
of the Great Lakes (GLNPO, 2003).
Water Clarity
Water clarity, measured by Secchi disk, is good
to fair in the Great Lakes. It has increased in all lakes
over the last decade, except for Lake Erie. Secchi disk
measurements of light penetration in Lake Ontario,
for example, increased nearly 100% during the 1990s.
Increased water clarity, although visually pleasing, may
not be a good indicator of improving conditions in the
Great Lakes because increased water clarity is also an
indicator of reductions in algal populations, which are
the food base for the aquatic food chain.
202 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Turbidity data are often collected in nearshore
waters in order to measure water clarity and drinking
water quality. Based on data from 98 reporting stations
in the Great Lakes Basin collected between 1999 and
2001, the most turbid waters were from the Great
Lakes, connecting rivers, and inland rivers; inland
lakes and ground waters were less turbid. The trend
in turbidity declined during this period, with Lakes
Ontario, Superior, and Huron having the least turbid
waters during this 3-year period.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the Great Lakes
are generally good; however, dissolved oxygen in the
central basin of Lake Erie continues to be a persistent
problem. Anoxic conditions (< 0.5 mg/L) often occur
in late August and continue until turnover occurs in
the fall. The frequency and extent of oxygen depletions
decreased considerably from the 1970s, leveled off in
the late 1990s, and may now be increasing again. This
may be due to the invasion of non-native species that
have modified Lake Erie's ecosystem function and
affected dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Sediment Quality Index
The condition of sediments in Great Lakes
harbors and tributaries is poor. Contaminated
sediments currently affect beneficial uses at all 31
of the AOCs in the U.S. Great Lakes (Figure 7-3).
Sediment contamination contributes to 11 of 14
beneficial use impairments, including a wide range
of recreational, habitat, economic, and environmental
impairments. Contaminated sediments in the AOCs
are the leading cause of fish consumption advisories.
Contaminated sediments in the AOCs requiring
remediation are roughly estimated to be between
10 and 30 million cubic yards. Sediment contaminants
in the AOCs also serve as a source of contaminants
to the open waters as a result of sediment resuspension
activities, such as storm events. Great Lakes scientists
rank sediment contamination by examining the
percentage of contaminated sediment volume that
has been remediated. Sediment contamination in
the AOCs is rated poor because less than 10% of the
contaminated sediment volume has been remediated.
This poor rating only applies to the most problematic
Canada
USA
St. Lawrence River
at Massen
St. Louis River
Merominee River
Muskegon
White Lake
Clinton River
Rouge River
Kalailnazoo River
I
Lower Green Bay and Fox River
Sheboygan River
Milwaukee
Waukegan Harbor
Eighteen Mile Creek
Rochester
Buffalo River
Presque Isle Bay
Ashtabula River
Cuyahoga River
Black River
Grand Calumet River
• United States AOCs
• Canadian AOCs
O BinationalAOCs
Figure 7-3. Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) (GLNPO, 2004).
National Coastal Condition Report II 203
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Great Lakes areas and is not intended as an overall
assessment of the sediments of the Great Lakes.
The GLNPO assesses the levels of contaminants
in rivers and harbors of the Great Lakes to support
sediment-based mass balance modeling activities, to
promote remediation of sediment contaminants,
and to assist in developing sediment policies for the
Great Lakes. The results of sediment assessments
conducted in 1999 showed that approximately 60%
of the sediments sampled in Great Lakes rivers and
harbors were considered "probably toxic" because of
PCBs, 20% were considered not toxic, and 20% were
considered to have uncertain toxicity (Figure 7-3).
Benthic Index
Sediment condition in the Great Lakes as measured
by benthic condition is fair to poor. The benthic inver-
tebrates Diporiea and Hexagenia have historically been
sampled because of their importance at the base of the
food web. Diporiea is an indicator in cold, deepwater
habitats, and Hexagenia is an indicator of a healthy
mesotrophic environment. Nine monitored areas—
the deepwater environment of each lake plus four
mesotrophic habitats (western Lake Erie, the Bay
of Quinte, Saginaw Bay, and Green Bay)—provide
the basis for evaluating benthic health. Only two to
four of the monitored areas have healthy, sustainable
populations of Diporiea or Hexagenia; consequently,
SOLEC scientists rank benthic health for the Great
Lakes as poor (Figure 7-4).
The GLNPO initiated a benthic invertebrate
biomonitoring program in 1997 to complement its
ongoing surveillance sampling (Figure 7-5). All five
lakes were sampled for macroinvertebrates and sediment
chemistry at a minimum of 45 sampling stations;
nearshore (< 165 ft depth) and offshore (> 165 ft
depth) stations were sampled to evaluate both large,
basin-wide changes (offshore) and more local changes
(nearshore). The results demonstrated that, overall,
most sites were taxa poor, with a maximum of 7 to 10
taxa per site and a minimum of 1 to 5 taxa per site.
Greater numbers of taxa were found in the lower lakes,
with the greatest number in Lake Erie, most likely
because Lake Erie has a greater number of shallow
sampling sites.
• Better than SOLEC Criteria
O Meets SOLEC Criteria
• Worse than SOLEC Criteria
SOLEC Criteria
Depth <328 ft: 220-320 organisms/m2
Depth >328 ft: 30-160 organisms/m2
Figure 7-4. Diporiea abundance in relation to SOLEC criteria (GLNPO, 1998).
204 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Figure 7-5. Location of benthic sampling sites, summer 1997 (GLNPO, 1998).
Coastal Habitat Index
More than one-half of the Great Lakes coastal
wetlands were lost between 1780 to 1980, with the
largest losses in Ohio (90%) and the smallest in
Minnesota (42%) (Figure 7-6). Today, Great Lakes
scientists rate the condition of Great Lakes coastal
wetlands by examining amphibian abundance and
diversity, wetland-dependent diversity and abundance,
coastal wetland area by type, and the effects of water
level fluctuations. Based on these measures, the
condition of Great Lakes coastal wetlands is rated
fair to poor. A binational Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands
Consortium of scientists and managers is developing
a long-term monitoring program to assess trends
in the rate and extent of loss of the Great Lakes
coastal wetlands.
Figure 7-6. Percent coastal wetland habitat loss from 1780 to
1980 by state and for the Great Lakes overall (Turner and
Boesch, !988;Dahl, 1990).
Raspberry Island Lighthouse, Apostle Islands, Wisconsin (Richard
B. Mieremet, Senior Advisor, NOAA OSDIA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 205
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The condition of the Great Lakes as measured
by fish tissue contaminants is fair. Fish consumption
programs are well established in the Great Lakes
and offer advice to residents regarding the amount,
frequency, and species of fish that are safe to eat. Such
advice is based primarily on concentrations of PCBs,
mercury, chlordane, dioxin, and toxaphene in fish
tissues. These contaminants are generally declining
in fish tissues, but are still at levels that trigger fish
advisories in all five Great Lakes. Great Lakes scientists
rank fish tissue contamination as fair, based on
the application of a uniform fish protocol to PCB
concentrations in coho salmon from the Great Lakes
(contaminants in fish tissue range between 0.2 and 2.0
ppm). Each lake is ranked individually based on PCB
concentrations and the corresponding fish advisory
category; the final overall ranking is an average of all
five individual rankings.
Fish contaminant data can also be used to determine
whether fish-dependent wildlife are threatened by
toxic chemicals in the environment. Fish-dependent
wildlife consume fish as a large part of their diet, and
consequently, are susceptible to toxic chemicals in the
aquatic environment. The EPA established 0.16 ppm
as the wildlife protection value for fish-dependent
wildlife, the concentration below which fish-dependent
wildlife are reasonably protected. This value is exceeded
by a factor of 5 to 10, depending on the specific lake,
with highest concentrations in predatory fish from Lake
Michigan (Figure 7-7).
0.2.
°
Wil
1.4-
1 2-
0.6-
0.4-
m-
n.
I
Superior Michigan Huron
Wildlife Protection Value (0.16 ppm)
Erie
Ontario
Figure 7-7. PCBs concentrations in Great Lakes top predator
whole fish (walleye in Lake Erie, lake trout elsewhere) in 2000
(GLNPO, 2003).
Drinking Water Quality
Drinking water quality in the Great Lakes is fair
to good. This indicator is based on the following
chemical, biological, physical, and aesthetic parameters:
(1) atrazine, nitrate, and nitrite concentrations in raw
water; (2) total counts of coliform, Escherischia coli,
Giardia, and Cryptosporidium in treated water;
(3) turbidity, TOC, and dissolved organic carbon
in raw water; and (4) taste and odor of treated water.
The desired objective is that all drinking water be
safe for human consumption. In other words, densities
of disease-causing organisms or concentrations of
hazardous or toxic chemicals should not exceed
objectives, standards, or guidelines for protecting
human health.
The risk to human health from chemical contami-
nants in Great Lakes drinking water sources is minimal,
based on analysis of treated water for atrazine at 104
public water systems and nitrite at 56 public water
systems. Data from 98 systems suggested that nearly
36% of public water systems needed to treat water for
TOC and dissolved organic carbon (which have the
potential to form harmful by-products during water
treatment), and treatment was effective in reducing
these compounds to safe levels. Three-year data from 48
water treatment plants show higher coliform counts in
Great Lakes surface waters and rivers. Water treatment
plants reported no to very low occurrences of Giardia
and Cryptosporidium in raw water and no occurrences of
these organisms in treated drinking water; consequently,
Great Lakes scientists ranked drinking water quality as
fairly good.
Air Toxics Deposition
The condition of the Great Lakes as measured by
air toxics deposition is fair. Trends in concentrations of
PCBs over space and time are used to infer the potential
for impacts of chemicals from atmospheric deposition
and effectiveness and progress toward eliminating toxics
from the Great Lakes. The major pathways for PCBs
into the Great Lakes are atmospheric deposition (80%
to 95%, based on data from Lake Superior and Lake
Michigan), sediment contamination, and tributary
loadings. SOLEC scientists rank air toxics deposition as
fair based on a rating guideline that measured air toxics
concentrations ranging between 55 and 100 pg/m3.
206 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC)
The SOLEC events are co-hosted biennially
by EPA and Environment Canada, as required
by the binational Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA) of 1978, as revised in
1987- The purpose of the agreement is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the waters of the
Great Lakes basin ecosystem. These conferences
report on the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem
and major factors affecting it, as well as provide
a forum to inform Great Lakes decision makers
of the effectiveness of protection and restoration
programs for the ecosystem.
Scientists, environmental managers, and other
interested stakeholders from the United States and Canada participate in these conferences,
which are often focused on specific, but slightly different issues. SOLEC 1994 focused on
aquatic community health, human health, aquatic habitat, toxic contaminants in the water, and
the Great Lakes economy. The second conference, SOLEC 1996, focused on the nearshore lands
and ecosystem water, where there is high biological productivity and diversity and where human
impacts are the greatest. Nearshore waters, coastal wetlands, land adjacent to the Great Lakes,
impacts of changing land use, and information availability and management were topics stressed
at this conference. Following SOLEC 1996, participants identified the need to develop
comprehensive, basin-wide indicators to determine and report on progress in a compatible
format; therefore, the objective of SOLEC 1998 was to develop a suite of indicators that fairly
represent the condition of the Great Lakes ecosystem components.
SOLEC 1998 initiated a systematic program to assess the state of the Great Lakes using
science-based indicators. The challenge of SOLEC 2000 was to determine how many of the
80 recommended indicators from the 1998 conference could be quantified. SOLEC 2002
continued the update and assessment of the state of the Great Lakes using the suite of indicators
and emphasized biological integrity. A comprehensive assessment of the state of the Great Lakes
basin was reported at the 2002 conference.
The results of SOLEC 2002 conference provide much of the information reported in
the Great Lakes Coastal Condition chapter. Summaries of the indicator findings and the
ecological condition of each of the Great Lakes and their connecting channels are presented
in the document State of the Great Lakes 2003- The full indicator report, plus references and
data sources, are presented in Implementing Indicators — A Technical Report. Both are available
online at http://www.binational.net. Additional information about SOLEC is also available
at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/.
National Coastal Condition Report II 207
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Assessments and Advisories
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
The Great Lakes states assessed 5,066 miles (92%)
of their 5,521 miles of Great Lakes shoreline for the
2000 305 (b) reports. None of the assessed shoreline
waters fully support their designated uses; 22% are
threatened for one or more uses, and the remaining
78% 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- The states
reported that priority toxic organic chemicals, nutrients,
pathogens, sedimentation, oxygen-depleting substances,
foul taste and odor, and PCBs were the leading causes
of impairment to Great Lakes shoreline waters.
Table 7-1 shows how states rated individual use
support for their assessed Great Lakes shoreline waters.
Not
Assessed
Figure 7-8. Water quality for assessed Great Lakes shoreline
waters (U.S. EPA, 2002).
6,000 •
5,000 •
I
• Fully Supporting
D Threatened
• Impaired
|2000|
4,000 •
3,000 •
2,000 •
1,000-
_LL
Aquatic Life Fish Con- Primary Secondary Drinking Agriculture
Support sumption Contact- Contact Water
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 7-9. Individual use support for assessed Great Lakes
shoreline waters (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Table 7-1. Individual Use Support for Assessed Shoreline
Waters Reported by States on the Great Lakes under
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act for 2000
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
Shoreline Percentage
Assessed as of Total
Individual Uses
Aquatic life support
Fish consumption
Primary contact —
swimming
Secondary contact
Drinking water
Agriculture
Impaired (mi)
245
4,976
101
6
80
0
Area Assessed
18%
100%
3%
0%
2%
0%
Park Point area, Lake
Superior; Minnesota
(Richard B. Mieremet,
Senior Advisor; NOAA
OSDIA).
208 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Fish Consumption Advisories
Fishing in the Great Lakes region is a way of life and
a valued recreational and commercial activity for many
people. To protect citizens from the risks of eating
contaminated fish, the eight states bordering the Great
Lakes had a total of 30 fish consumption advisories in
effect in 2002 for the waters and connecting waters of
the Great Lakes. During 2002, every Great Lake had at
least one advisory, and advisories covered 100% of the
Great Lakes shoreline (Figure 7-10). Michigan, which
borders four of the five Great Lakes and encompasses
four of the six connecting waterbodies, issued the largest
number of advisories (13).
Great Lakes fish consumption advisories were issued
for six pollutants: mercury, mirex, chlordane, dioxins,
PCBs, and DDT. All of the advisories listed PCBs, and
almost one-half (47%) also listed dioxins (Figure 7-11).
Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and Lake Huron were
under advisory for at least four pollutants each in 2002
(Table 7-2); however, some of the advisories were of
Number of consumption
advisories per USGS
cataloging unit in 2002:
Figure 7-10. Fish consumption advisories were in effect for
100% of U.S. Great Lakes shoreline waters in 2002 (U.S. EPA,
2003 c).
locations applied primarily to larger, older, indivi
fish high in the food chain.
Species under fish consumption advisory
in 2002 in at least one of the Great Lakes
or connecting waters:
American eel Largemouth bass
Black crappie Longnose sucker
Bloater Northern hogsucker
Blue catfish Northern pike
Bluegill sunfish Pink salmon
Bowfin Quillback carpsucker
Brook trout Rainbow trout
Brown bullhead Rock bass
Brown trout Round goby
Burbot Silver redhorse
Channel catfish Siscowet trout
Chinook salmon Smallmouth bass
Chub Smelt
Coho salmon Splake trout
Common carp Steel head trout
Freshwater drum Walleye
Gizzard shad White bass
Lake herring White perch
Lake sturgeon White sucker
Lake trout Yellow perch
Lake whitefish Source: u.s. EPA, 2003c,
, ,
1
PCBs 1
rt
•= Mercury 1
£ '
2
% Chlordane 1
U
Mirex 1 | 1
2002
DDTB ^
I I I I
0 20 40 60 80 100
Percentage of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 7-11. Great Lakes advisories were issued for five contami-
nants. An advisory can be issued for more than one contaminant
so percentages may not add up to 1 00 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
1 Table 7-2. Fish Advisories Issued for Contaminants in Each
of the Great Lakes (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Great Lakes PCBs Dioxins Mercury Chlordane DDT Mirex
Lake Superior • • • •
Lake Michigan • • • • •
Lake Huron • • • •
Lake Erie • • •
Lake Ontario • • •
I
National Coastal Condition Report II 209
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 386 coastal beaches along the Great Lakes
that reported information to EPA, only 28.5%
(110 beaches) were closed or under an advisory for
some period of time in 2002. Table 7-2 presents the
numbers of beaches, advisories, and closures for each
state. Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois had the greatest
percentages of advisories or closures. Figure 7-12
presents advisory and closure percentages for each
county within each state.
Most beach advisories and closures were implemented
at coastal beaches along the Great Lakes because of
elevated bacteria levels (Figure 7-13). Most beaches
had multiple sources of water-borne bacteria that
resulted in advisories or closures. Stormwater runoff
(23%) and wildlife (22%) were frequently identified
as sources, and unknown sources accounted for 25%
of the responses (Figure 7-14).
The highest percentage of beaches closed or under
advisory occurred in Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois,
with almost 71%, 53%, and 51% of beaches, respec-
tively, reporting at least one public beach notification
in 2002 (Table 7-3). Pennsylvania and Minnesota both
reported that 0% of their beaches were closed or under
advisories in 2002.
Table 7-3. Number of Beaches and Advisories/Closures
in 2002 for Great Lakes Coastal States (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New York
No. of
Beaches
4
53
43
17
174
52
13
30
No. of
Advisories/
Closures
0
28
22
12
26
12
0
10
Percentage
of Beaches
Affected by
Advisories/
Closures
0.0%
52.8%
51.2%
70.6 %
14.9%
23.1 %
0.0%
33.3%
TOTALS
386
110
28.5%
Percentage of beaches
reporting with at least
one advisory or
closure per county
in 2002:
n 1-10
• I 1-50
• 51-100
"1 No Data Available
Figure 7-12. Percentage of Great Lakes beaches responding to
the survey with at least one advisory or closure (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Preemptive Qther
Closure , 7o/
if \\ ''°
(Sewage)
5%
Preemptive
Closure —
(Rainfall)
15%
Elevated
Bacteria
Levels
73%
Figure 7-1 3. Reasons for beach advisories or closures in the
Great Lakes (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Other
11%
Unknown
25%
4% r—-i
sso 3% ra
POTW5%
Septic System 1%
Sewer Line Problem 1%
Boats 5%
Stormwater
Runoff
23%
Wildlife
22%
Figure 7-14. Sources of beach contamination in the Great
Lakes (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
210 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Great Lakes Strategy 2002:
A Plan for the New Millennium
The Great Lakes Strategy 2002 was created by the
United States Policy Committee (USPC), a forum of senior
representatives from federal, state, and tribal governmental
agencies that share the responsibility for environmental protection and management of the
natural resources of the Great Lakes Basin. The strategy's purpose is to advance the restoration
and protection of the Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, as related to fulfilling the goals of the
GLWQA of 1972, as amended in 1987- It is intended to coordinate and focus USPC efforts
by establishing a common set of goals for multi-lake and basin-wide environmental issues.
The strategy supports multi-stakeholder efforts to restore and protect the Great Lakes, such as
Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans for AOCs. International issues will be
discussed between the USPC and Canadian counterparts at the Binational Executive Committee
meetings that typically occur twice a year.
The long-term vision of the Great Lakes Strategy is to eliminate the need to issue health
advisories for fish consumption, beaches, or drinking water; to create a balanced, self-sustaining
fishery; to restore and protect native species, natural communities, and ecological systems; to make
land use and water quality decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem;
and to maintain environmental and economic prosperity in a sustainable balance.
The strategic priorities are expressed within four major long-term goals:
1. Chemical Integrity. Reduce toxic substances in the Great Lakes ecosystem to maintain a
balance of nutrients to ensure a healthy aquatic ecosystem and protection of all organisms.
2. Physical Integrity. Restore and protect the physical integrity of the Great Lakes,
supporting habitats of healthy and diverse aquatic communities and wildlife in the
Great Lakes Basin.
3- Biological Integrity. Restore and maintain stable, diverse, and self-sustaining populations
of native fish and aquatic life, wildlife, and plants in the Great Lakes Basin.
4. Cooperative Management. Work together to restore and protect the Great Lakes Basin
by establishing effective programs, coordinating authorities and resources, reporting on
progress, and holding forums for information exchange and collective decision making
to achieve the objectives of the GLWQA.
For each goal, the strategy identifies major environmental challenges, describes the challenge,
lists major governmental programs to address the issue, establishes ambitious objectives, including
a scheduled deadline with a measurable environmental result, and identifies key actions to
accomplish the objectives. Additional information on the Great Lakes Strategy 2002 is available
at http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/gls.
National Coastal Condition Report II 211
-------
ghlight
Velunt«r Monitoring Program
Sradnml
Volunteer Monitoring Program for Aquatic
Nuisance Species
The Lake Erie Aquatic Exotics Squad Volunteer
Monitoring Program is a collaborative project between the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's
(DEP's) Coastal Zone Management Program, Lakes
Management Program, Citizen Volunteer Monitoring
Program, and Pennsylvania Sea Grant. The pilot phase of this program was conducted in 2003
and trained citizens, watershed organizations, and students in the coastal Lake Erie watershed
to identify and monitor aquatic nuisance species (ANSs). The monitoring data collected by
volunteers were used to enhance the DEP's database on established invaders. The data will also
be used to create an early detection network and to assist in future management and education
initiatives to minimize the spread and harmful impacts of ANSs.
The pilot program focused on zebra mussels and six aquatic
plants: curly-leaf pondweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, Hydrilla,
Phragmites, purple loosestrife, and water chestnut. Several of
these species were already present in the watershed, but others,
such as water chestnut, were potential invaders. Twenty-two
volunteers participated in a 1-day workshop to gain hands-on
training in ANS identification and monitoring protocols. The
participants received a training manual containing fact sheets,
protocols, and data-reporting forms; a field guide to ANSs in
the region; and a set of stream or lake monitoring equipment.
Following the workshop, volunteers selected one to two sites to
monitor twice a month from June to August 2003- They then
submitted their data monthly to DEP for analysis. At the end
of the summer, DEP compiled a final report containing data
from all the sampling sites.
For more information, contact Kirstin Wakefield at
c-kwakefie@state.pa.us.
Purple loosestrife stand along the
shore of Lake Erie.
212 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Summary
Although the Great Lakes has an extensive monitoring network with
respect to objectives, design, or approaches, Great Lakes monitoring is
not directly comparable with monitoring done by the NCA Program.
For example, the GLNPO monitors indicators at locations selected
according to best scientific judgment to represent the overall condition
of the Great Lakes, whereas the NCA Program monitors indicators at
sites selected using a probabilistic sampling design in order to yield
direct, representative estimates of overall condition with known levels
of uncertainty. Consequently, spatial estimates of coastal condition that
are consistent with those calculated for the East Coast, West Coast, and
Gulf Coast regions cannot be calculated for the Great Lakes nor can
calculations for the Great Lakes be concisely compared with calculations
from other regions. Best professional judgment of knowledgeable
scientists, however, was recently used to assess the overall status of
eight ecosystem components in relation to established endpoints
or ecosystem objectives, when available. The Great Lakes were rated
fair using available assessment information. The purpose of this exercise
was to establish a baseline for the overall health of the Great Lakes to
determine if conditions improve in the future as a result of management
and control strategies. The results of these assessments will be used as a
basis to compare and integrate overall condition of the Great Lakes with
other coastal resources in this report.
213
-------
-------
Chapter 8
Coastal Condition
for Alaska, Hawaii,
and Island
Territories
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Coastal Condition for Alaska) Hawaii)
and Island Territories
There is currently very little monitoring of coastal
resources in Alaska, Hawaii, and the island territories.
EPA Regions 2 (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands),
9 (Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and
American Samoa), and 10 (Alaska) and the attendant
state resources agencies conduct some water quality
monitoring, but it is often irregular and focused on
specific locations. There are no consistent monitoring
programs that cover all the coastal resources in these
states, territories, and commonwealths. Efforts
conducted through EPA's NCA Program are starting to
fill this void for Alaska (ongoing), Hawaii, and Puerto
Rico, and the NCA plans to conduct coastal ecological
condition surveys in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,
and American Samoa in coming years. No plans are
currently in place, however, to survey conditions
associated with the Northern Mariana Islands. In 2002,
the NCA conducted surveys of Alaska (south-central
region) and Hawaii, and information from these surveys
will be available for future reports.
This chapter briefly describes the surveys and
presents some preliminary findings. Both Alaska
(southeastern region) and Hawaii will be surveyed
in 2004. In 2000, the NCA surveyed Puerto Rico,
and the results of that survey are also provided in
this chapter. Plans to resurvey Puerto Rico were also
scheduled for 2004.
During a dedication ceremony at the Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale National Marine Sanctuary, the entire community was
invited to participate in a Native Hawaiian fish-gathering activity
known as a "hukilau.'The sanctuary 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 regula-
tions. On the contrary fishing is not regulated in the sanctuary
but rather encouraged and welcomed throughout its waters
(Jeff Alexander).
216 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Alaska
Coastal Monitoring Data
Alaska has approximately 45,000 miles of coastal
marine shoreline, which constitute more than 50% of
the total U.S. coastline. The surface area of coastal bays
and estuaries in Alaska is 33,211 square miles, almost
three times the estuarine area of the contiguous 48
states. Historically, coastal assessments have focused on
areas of known or suspected impairment to examine the
impacts of natural resource extraction activities, such as
mining or oil exploration and production. One large-
scale assessment occurring before resource development
was the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Environmental
Assessment Program (OCSEAP), conducted byNOAA
in the 1970s. A large amount of physical, chemical, and
biological data was collected through this program, but
much of it remains difficult to locate, though a
summary may be found in Hood et al. (1986).
Numerous assessments have also been conducted along
the coastline affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in
1989, and this area continues to be monitored.
A few programs have provided an assessment of
contaminants in Alaska as part of larger national
assessments. For example, NOAA's NS&T Program
analyzed contaminants in sediments and bottom fish
at several sites along Alaska's coast as part of its Benthic
Surveillance Program, as well as measured contaminants
in intertidal mussels and sediments as part of its
Mussel Watch Program. However, despite Alaska's
long coastline, its extensive bays and estuaries, and
the reliance of many coastal Alaskan communities on
healthy populations of biological resources, no region-
wide monitoring program has been established to
document contaminant concentrations and spatial
distributions, or to provide a baseline to assess trends
in the future survey of data.
Promontory on Sutwik Island in Shelikof Strait, Southwest Alaska
(Commander GradyTuell, NOAA Corps).
Because of Alaska's low population relative to its
size and the distance of most of its coastline from major
urban or industrial areas, Alaska's coastal resources
are generally in pristine condition. Concentrations of
contaminants have been measured at levels significantly
lower than those in the rest of the coastal United States.
For most data collected in coastal Alaska to date,
contaminant levels are consistently below EPA's level
of concern; however, Alaska does have localized areas
where specific contaminants can be quite high. For
example, one of the highest concentrations of PAHs
ever measured in a mussel tissue sample in the United
States was collected from a boat harbor in a small
Alaskan community (Mearns et al., 1999).
There has been increasing concern that contaminants
from local sources and from long-distance transport
have the potential to accumulate in Alaska's coastal
resources. Long-range atmospheric and oceanic
transport have been identified as major mechanisms
for potential delivery of persistent organic contaminants
National Coastal Condition Report II 217
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
to Alaska, and studies suggest that the Eastern Aleutian
Islands may be receiving increased levels of PCBs
relative to southeast Alaska (AMAP, 2004). Alaska's
1998 Section 303 (d) list included 20 Tier I or Tier II
coastal bays, estuaries, or harbors. Some of these water-
bodies are affected by a specific industry, and others are
affected by nonpoint source pollution. Although these
impaired waterbodies amount to less than 1 % of the
total coastal bays, estuaries, and harbors in Alaska,
there is concern that impairment due to pollution is
increasing in the state. As a result, Alaska's Department
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) is imple-
menting several strategies to assess and control potential
environmental degradation. In a recent report (Chary,
2000), persistent organic pollutants were identified as a
particular concern in Alaska, in part because of the sub-
sistence lifestyle of many Native Alaskan communities.
In 2001, the NCA developed a sampling design
in conjunction with ADEC and EPA Region 10 to
assess all of the estuarine resources in Alaska by moni-
toring 250 sites spread throughout the state. Because
of the huge expanse of Alaska, the reduced sampling
window in Arctic regions, and the unique fiscal and
logistical challenges of sampling coastal resources in
the state, it is not feasible to survey the entire state
at a single point in time. The NCA, EPA Region 10,
ADEC, and other state resource agencies determined
that the sampling design for Alaska would be executed
in five parts—southeastern Alaska, south-central
Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, the Bering Sea, and
the Arctic region. Each part would survey one of these
areas, and the target schedule for completion would
be 5 to 10 years (Figure 8-1). Before this collaboration
between Alaska's resource agencies and EPA, ADEC
routinely assessed only about 1 % of its coastal resources,
focusing its efforts on waterbodies known or suspected
to be impaired.
A sampling survey of the ecological condition
of Alaska's estuarine resources in the south-central
region of the state (Alaskan Province) was completed
in 2002. The survey assessed 50 cores sites and 25
alternate sites (Figure 8-2). The south-central region of
the state was selected for the first survey because of the
importance of the major estuarine resources in the
region (Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet) to the
local and state economy, as well as to aquatic living
resources. The indicators collected during the survey
(55 stations successfully sampled) correspond to those
collected in the surveys in other regions.
Because of the long distances between sites (even
in this reduced area), the surveys were conducted using
a large ocean-going research vessel (Figure 8-3). Many
of the samples collected during the 2002 survey are still
being analyzed. These data will be available in 2004;
however, some of the preliminary data are reported in
this chapter. Because the data are preliminary, they will
not be presented in the same format as previously used
in this report (e.g., maps of poor condition locations
and pie charts of conditions).
Arctic
Columbia
Figure 8-1. Five Alaskan provinces used in the NCA sampling design
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Figure 8-2. Sampling design for the south-central region (Alaskan Province)
of Alaska in 2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
218 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
The survey collected data at a total of 55 sites,
with depths ranging from 1 to 108 feet. Many
of the shallowest stations occurred in nearshore
areas of Cook Inlet, areas known for wide intertidal,
depositional zones. The deepest stations occurred
in Prince William Sound, which is characterized by
deep canyons and fjords that cross the continental
shelf. The next survey (in 2004) will cover Alaska's
southeastern region (Juneau and the island passage
area), which includes 50 sites (Figure 8-4).
Figure 8-3. Research sampling vessel required for coastal surveys in
Alaska (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation).
Figure 8-4. Sampling design for southeastern region (Columbian Province)
of Alaska in 2004 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
Gulf of Alaska and East Bering Sea
Ecosystems
Native Alaskan peoples and their heritage have a
long, rich tradition of relying on salmon from the Gulf
of Alaska and East Bering Sea ecosystems for economic,
cultural, and subsistence purposes. Today, residents and
nonresidents depend heavily on this resource for recre-
ation, food, industry, and commercial fisheries, along
with a rapidly growing salmon and groundfish sport
fishery that provides the state of Alaska with its largest
private-sector employment.
Oceanographic and Climate Forcing
in the East Bering Sea Ecosystem
Recruitment responses of many Bering Sea fish
and crabs are linked to decadal scale patterns of climate
variability. Decadal changes in recruitment of some
flatfish species in the eastern Bering Sea appear to be
related to patterns seen in atmospheric forcing. The
Arctic Oscillation, which tracks the variability in
atmospheric pressure at the polar region and mid-
latitudes, tends to vary between negative and positive
phases on a decadal scale. The negative phase brings
higher-than-normal pressure over the polar region,
and the positive phase does the opposite, steering ocean
storms farther north. These patterns in atmospheric
forcing in winter may influence surface wind patterns
that transport fish larvae on or off the shelf. Some
species, such as Bering Sea herring, walleye pollock, and
Pacific cod, show interannual variability in recruitment
that appears more related to climate variability. Years
of strong onshore transport, typical of warm years
in the Bering Sea, correspond with strong recruitment
of walleye pollock, possibly due to separation of young
fish from cannibalistic adults. Alaskan salmon also
exhibit decadal scale patterns of production, which are
inversely related to salmon production patterns on the
west coast. Environmental variables such as sea surface
temperature and air temperature significantly improved
the results of productivity models of Bristol Bay sockeye
salmon compared to models containing only density-
dependent effects.
National Coastal Condition Report II 219
-------
ghlight
RCAC
Alaska's Cook Inlet Advisory Council
In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince
William Sound, Congress crafted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA90) to insure that the complacent attitude that led to the
spill would not be repeated in the future. Under OPA90, two
Regional Citizen Advisory Councils (RCACs) were created—
one for Prince William Sound and one for Cook Inlet. Congress
envisioned these councils as a mechanism to foster long-term
partnerships between industry, government, and the coastal communities of Alaska.
The Cook Inlet RCAC has numerous mandates under OPA90, one of which is to conduct
environmental-monitoring programs to assess potential impacts of oil industry operations in the
Cook Inlet area. Studies have been developed to assess hydrocarbon concentrations in subtidal and
intertidal sediments and in the tissues of bivalves that live in the Cook Inlet sediments, including
an emphasis on building a database of hydrocarbon "fingerprints" of potential man-made and
natural sources.
To better interpret the results of their studies, the Cook Inlet RCAC sought opportunities
to obtain data from the larger coastal areas surrounding Cook Inlet. This regionwide data provides
a context by which to interpret the smaller, more focused Cook Inlet studies. The coastal EMAP
is ideal because scientists use a core set of parameters, resulting in consistent and comparable data
at the local, state, regional, and national level.
Granite Point platform in Cook Inlet. (Photo courtesy of Unocal).
220 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
In 2001, the Cook Inlet RCAC formed a unique partnership with ADEC and several other
organizations to conduct the first portion of Alaska's coastal EMAP Cook Inlet RCAC provided
the scientific lead for planning and implementing the program as an in-kind match to the
federal funds provided to ADEC. Through this partnership, the Cook Inlet RCAC and ADEC
maximized the expertise and financial resources available for this coastal assessment.
In 2002, scientists from the Cook Inlet RCAC, the NMFS, the International Pacific Halibut
Commission, the University of Washington, Washington DOE, and EPA completed a 50-day
voyage to collect the necessary water, sediment, and bottom trawl samples for Alaska's coastal
EMAP in south-central Alaska.
Additionally, the Cook Inlet RCAC is actively sponsoring research with the University of Alaska
on the physical oceanography of Cook Inlet, developing numerical models to understand surface
oil spill and dispersed plume trajectories. Cook Inlet is an extremely dynamic environment,
possessing the world's second-highest tidal range. Cook Inlet RCAC has piloted a coastal habitat
mapping project that provides coastal geomorphology and wetland, intertidal, and shallow
subtidal biota data in south-central Alaska. This project provides the additional information
needed to understand potential impacts to the different coastal habitats. A recent recommendation
by agency partners in the Cook Inlet study suggested that the program should be expanded to
coastlines statewide.
Through these partnerships, as well as the one developed for Alaska's coastal EMAP, the Cook
Inlet RCAC is able to conduct and sponsor research that is of the highest scientific merit while
fulfilling the mandates in OPA90.
.-vivW *
^;M klf *.&
Sorting bottom trawl samples (Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation).
National Coastal Condition Report II 221
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
In contrast, periods of strong Aleutian Lows are
associated with weak recruitment for some Bering
Sea crab species and are unrelated to recruitment of
others, depending on species-specific life history traits.
Winds from the northeast favor retention of crab
larvae in offshore mud habitats that serve as suitable
nursery areas for young Tanner crabs to burrow in
sediment for protection. Winds from the opposite
direction promote inshore transport of crab larvae to
coarse, shallow water habitats in inner Bristol Bay that
serve as nursery areas for red king crabs to find refuge
among biogenic structures (Tyler and Kruse 1998).
Timing and composition of the plankton blooms may
also be important, because red king crab larvae prefer
to consume Thalassiosira diatoms, whereas Tanner crab
larvae prefer copepod nauplii.
Salmon Fisheries
Alaska salmon harvests in the state's two ecosystems
have increased over the last three decades and may have
peaked in 1995- After dropping to record low catches
in the 1970s, most populations have rebounded, and
the fisheries are now at or near all-time peak levels in
many regions of the state. A number of factors have
contributed to the high abundance of Pacific salmon
currently in the state of Alaska. These factors include
(1) pristine habitats with minimal impacts from
extensive development, (2) favorable ocean conditions
that promote high survival rates of juveniles,
(3) improved management of the fisheries by state
and federal agencies, (4) elimination of high-seas drift
net fisheries by foreign nations, (5) hatchery produc-
tion, and (6) reduction of bycatch in fisheries for other
finfish species. Quality spawning and nursery habitat,
favorable oceanic conditions, and sufficient numbers
of spawning fish are most likely the paramount factors
affecting current abundance. Alaska salmon manage-
ment continues to focus on maintaining pristine
habitats and ensuring adequate escapements; however,
ocean conditions that favored high marine survival rates
in recent years can fluctuate due to interdecadal climate
oscillations. There is recent evidence that a change in
ocean conditions in the north Pacific Ocean and Gulf
of Alaska ecosystem may be underway, possibly
reflecting the downturn in abundance of Alaska
salmon runs observed in 1996 and 1997-
Pelagic Fisheries
Pacific herring is the major pelagic species harvested
in the Gulf of Alaska and East Bering Sea ecosystems.
These fisheries occur in specific inshore spawning areas.
In the Gulf of Alaska ecosystem, spawning fish concen-
trate mainly off southeast Alaska in Prince William
Sound and around the Kodiak Island-Cook Inlet area.
In the East Bering Sea ecosystem, the centers of abun-
dance are in northern Bristol Bay and Norton Sound.
This fishery occurs within state waters (3-mile limit)
and is monitored and managed by the Alaska Depart-
ment of Fish and Game (ADFG) within 20 separate
fishery areas. From catch records, it is evident that
herring biomass fluctuates widely due to influences
of strong and weak year-classes. Currently, the herring
populations in both ecosystems remain at moderate
levels and are in relatively stable condition, with
the exception of Prince William Sound. Herring
abundance levels typically increase abruptly following
major recruitment events and then decline slowly over
a number of years because of natural and fishing
mortality. Prince William Sound herring continue
to be depressed from a disease outbreak in 1993,
but have recovered to above threshold levels. In more
recent years, herring harvests in both ecosystems have
averaged about 45,000 mt, with a value averaging
around $30 million.
Groundfish Fisheries
The groundfish complex is the most abundant
of all fisheries' resources off the Gulf of Alaska and
the East Bering Sea ecosystems, totaling more than
21,000,000 mt of exploitable biomass and contributing
more than 2,000,000 mt of catch each year. Another
1,000,000 mt of underutilized sustainable potential
yield is available. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act extended federal
fisheries management jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles
and stimulated the growth of a domestic Alaskan
groundfish fishery that rapidly replaced the foreign
fisheries. Much of the groundfish catches are exported,
particularly to Asia, and such trade contributes promi-
nently as a major source of revenue for U.S. fishermen.
The total catch in 1997 of the East Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands groundfish was 1,740,000 mt, valued
at $405 million (ex-vessel). The dominant species
222 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
harvested were walleye pollock, Pacific cod, and
yellowfin sole. Groundfish populations have been
maintained at high levels since implementation of The
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The walleye pollock produce
the largest catch of any single species inhabiting the
U.S. EEZ. Until 1992, another large fishery targeted
the portion of the Aleutian Basin stock residing outside
of the U.S. and Russian EEZs in the "Donut Hole"
of the central Bering Sea. Historical catches from this
stock were apparently too high (well over 1,000,000 mt
throughout the late 1980s) and not sustainable.
Consequently, the abundance of the Aleutian Basin
stock was greatly diminished, and all fishing ceased
in 1993- Groundfish abundance in the Gulf of Alaska
ecosystem peaked at 5,300,000 mt in 1982. Abundance
since then has remained relatively stable, fluctuating
between 4,500,000 and 5,300,000 mt.
The groundfish catches are dominated by pollock,
followed by Pacific cod, flatfish, and rockfish. The
recent average yield of the complex is 211,922 mt.
Pollock abundance has been increasing in recent years.
The western-central Gulf of Alaska ecosystem's total
allowable catch for pollock is further apportioned
among three areas and three seasons. This temporal
and spatial apportionment of the pollock quota was
implemented to accommodate Steller sea lion concerns;
pollock are a major prey item of Steller sea lions in the
Gulf of Alaska ecosystem. Pollock are considered fully
utilized, and Pacific cod are abundant and fully utilized.
Flatfish are, in general very abundant, primarily due to
large increases in arrowtooth flounder biomass, and are
underutilized due to halibut bycatch considerations.
Rockfish (slope rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, thorny-
head rockfish, and demersal shelf rockfish) are conserva-
tively managed due their long life spans and consequent
sensitivity to overexploitation. See Our Living Oceans
(NOAA, 1999) for more information on transboundary
issues and multispecies interactions.
Shellfish Fisheries
Major shellfish fisheries developed in the 1960s in
the Gulf of Alaska ecosystem, subsequently expanded
to the East Bering Sea ecosystem. Shellfish landings
in 1997 generated an ex-vessel value of $151 million.
The most important of these fisheries are the king and
snow crab fisheries. King and Tanner crab fisheries are
managed primarily by the state of Alaska, with advice
from a federal FMP for the East Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands stocks.
Alaska crab resources are fully utilized. Catches are
restricted by quotas, seasons, and size and sex limits,
with landings limited to large male crabs. Fishing
seasons are set at times of the year that avoid molting,
mating, and soft-shell periods. Japanese and Russian
Sea lions often haul them-
selves onto floating docks
to sunbathe (Paul Goetz).
National Coastal Condition Report II 223
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
fisheries were phased out of the Bering Sea in 1974;
however, catches there have remained low. Gulf of
Alaska ecosystem catches peaked in 1965, then varied at
a relatively low level for a decade before dropping lower
still in 1983- Almost all Gulf of Alaska ecosystem king
crab fisheries have been closed since 1983-
Three king crab species (red, blue, and golden or
brown) and two Tanner crab species (Tanner crab and
snow crab) have traditionally been harvested commer-
cially off the two major ecosystems of Alaska. The
recent average yields for king crabs (7,170 mt) and
Tanner crabs (2,857 mt) are below their respective,
long-term potential of 36,481 and 21,751 mt, respec-
tively By contrast, the recent average yield of 39,053 mt
for snow crab is above its long-term potential yield of
37,202 mt.
Shrimp are also managed by the state of Alaska.
The domestic shrimp fishery in the waters of the East
Bering Sea ecosystem is currently at a low level. Shrimp
abundance is also too low in the Bering Sea to support
a commercial fishery. The western Gulf of Alaska
ecosystem has been the main area of operation for the
shrimp fishery, with shrimp landings indicating that
catches in the western Gulf rose steadily to about
58,000 mt in 1976 and then declined precipitously. As
with crabs, the potential yields of shrimp stocks in both
Alaskan marine ecosystems are not well understood.
Nearshore Fisheries
Nearshore fishery resources are those coastal and
estuarine species found in the 0—3 nautical mile zone
of coastal state waters and for which the NMFS has
no direct management role. Nearshore resources vary
widely in species diversity and abundance. Management
authority is shared among the coastal states and other
local bodies. Nearshore resources provide important
subsistence and recreational fishing opportunities for
Alaskans of the Gulf of Alaska and East Bering Sea.
Most nearshore fisheries take place in the Gulf of Alaska
ecosystem near population centers, although subsistence
fishing is distributed all along the Alaska coastline into
the Bering Sea and Beaufort Sea ecosystems.
The nearshore resources and fisheries are managed
by the ADFG. Dungeness crabs are harvested near
shore by small-boat commercial fleets and recreational
fisheries, primarily in the Yakutat and Kodiak areas of
the Gulf of Alaska ecosystem. Management of these
crab fisheries suffers in the absence of stock assessment
Viewed at low tide, Pacific tidepool rocks are covered with kelp and other macro algae that support a
healthy community offish and invertebrates (Paul Goetz).
224 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
research. The traditional fishery for red king crab in the
Gulf of Alaska ecosystem, however, is optimistic. The
fishery reopened in 1993 following 8 years of closure
and is now managed under a conservative harvest
regime supported by an annual stock assessment survey.
The scallop fishery is regulated by the state of
Alaska, which limits the number of vessels and sets
catch quotas. Sea cucumbers and sea urchins are recent
fisheries resources, harvested by divers and exported
primarily to Asian markets. These fisheries are managed
conservatively according to their recent historical perfor-
mance. The ADFG surveys the resource periodically
at selected sites to monitor major changes in relative
abundance of the stocks. The amount of nearshore
resources harvested by the subsistence and recreational
fisheries off the three Alaska ecosystems (Gulf of Alaska,
East Bering Sea, and Beaufort Sea ecosystems) has
been difficult to compile because of the state's wide
geographical expanse and remoteness of such fishing
activities. The most important component of these
resources are the invertebrates.
Alaska Assessment
and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
Before monitoring efforts were conducted in
coordination with the NCA Program, Alaska's water
quality assessments focused on areas with known or
suspected impairments. For its 2000 305(b) report,
Alaska assessed 28 (0.1%) of its 33,204 estuarine square
miles. Alaska reported on overall use support only, with
25 square miles (89% of assessed waters) of the state's
estuaries impaired for overall use support (Figure 8-5).
The state also assessed 25 (0.1%) of its 36,000 miles
of coastal shoreline. Sixty-four percent of the assessed
shoreline miles fully support overall use, and the
remaining 36% of assessed miles are impaired by some
form of pollution or habitat degradation (Figure 8-6).
Fish Consumption Advisories
No consumption advisories were in effect for chem-
ical contaminants in fish and shellfish species harvested
in Alaskan waters in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Alaska did not report beach monitoring and advisory
or closings data to the EPA in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Fully
Supporting
I 1%
Figure 8-5. Water quality in assessed Alaskan estuaries
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
Figure 8-6. Water quality for assessed shoreline waters in
Alaska (U.S. ERA, 2002).
I
National Coastal Condition Report II 225
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Hawaii
Coastal Monitoring Data
Hawaii does not have a comprehensive coastal
monitoring program. Some monitoring occurs in Oahu
and is planned for adjacent coral reef ecosystems. Most
monitoring of coastal resources, however, is targeted to
address specific bays and issues such as nonpoint source
runoff and offshore discharges. For example, Mamala
Bay has been sampled intensively to examine public
wastewater outfalls from Oahu into the bay. This
sampling showed that the discharge areas were not
statistically different from reference areas; however, no
comprehensive spatial examination was conducted of
Mamala Bay to interpret these findings in a statewide
or regional context. In 2002, the NCA, in conjunction
with state agencies, Region 9, and the University of
Hawaii, conducted the first comprehensive survey of the
condition of estuarine resources in Hawaii (Figure 8-7).
Kauai
Niihau
Oahu
Molokai
Maui
Hawaii
Figure 8-7. Sampling design for Hawaii in 2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
The dazzling peaks off the island of Kahoolawe are just one the many types
of coastlines seen 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 (Marc Hodges) .
The survey sampled 79 stations on islands of the
Hawaiian chain and included all of the indicators of
the NCA surveys. The Hawaiian survey, however, did
not produce estimates of sediment toxicity because
of insufficient soft sediments, and rather than assessing
contaminant levels in fish, it assessed the body burdens
of sea cucumbers (Figure 8-8). Information from this
survey will be available in the next edition of this
report (2006).
Figure 8-8. An example of sea cucumbers used for assessment
of tissue contaminants in Hawaii (Dr Richard Brock, University of
Hawaii at Manoa, 2003).
226 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
The Insular Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem supports a
variety of fisheries in both the Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands (NWHI) and the Main Hawaiian Islands
(MHI). In the NWHI, the lobster fishery is the major
commercial marine invertebrate fishery in the western
Pacific. A very small-scale, primarily recreational fishery
for lobster also exists in the MHI within the Insular
Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem, as well as outside the
ecosystem in American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. A deepwater shrimp resource
is found throughout the Pacific islands; however, this
stock is relatively unexploited.
A resource of deepwater precious coral (gold,
bamboo, and pink corals) also exists in the Insular
Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem and possibly in other
western Pacific areas. Precious corals occurring in the
U.S. EEZ are managed under an FMP implemented
in 1983 by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council. Very limited quotas are allowed
under regular permits, and experimental permits are
required for unassessed coral beds. A short-lived
(1974-1979) domestic fishery operated off Makapu'u
Point on Oahu, but there has been no significant
precious coral harvest for 20 years. Interest in the
fishery has recently resurfaced, however, and one
federal permit was issued in 1997-
Invertebrate Fisheries
The NWHI lobster fishery, which began in 1977,
harvests spiny and slipper lobsters and is governed
by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management
Council under an FMP The MHI lobster fishery is
managed by the state of Hawaii, although a few
offshore banks are included in the Fishery Management
Plan for the Crustacean Fishery of the Western Pacific
Region. This FMP was implemented in 1983 and has
since been amended nine times. Many of the earlier
amendments were in response to requirements to
eliminate lobster trap interactions with the endangered
Hawaiian monk seal (Amendments 2 and 4), to protect
spiny and slipper lobster reproductive potentials
(Amendments 3 and 5), and to specify overfishing
definitions (Amendment 6). The most significant
change to the FMP occurred in 1992, when it was
amended in response to continuing declines in
commercial lobster CPUE (Amendment 7). This
amendment set forth an annual 6-month closed season
(January—June) for lobster harvesting, limited entry into
the fishery, and established an annual catch quota. The
FMP was amended again in 1996 (Amendment 9) to
implement a quota system based on a constant harvest
rate that allows only a 10% risk of overfishing in any
given year, as well as the retention of all lobsters caught.
Populations of spiny and slipper lobster declined
dramatically from the mid-1980s through the mid-
1990s. Much of this decline has been attributed to the
combined effect of a shift in oceanographic conditions
affecting recruitment and fishing mortality in the
mid-1980s. The spawning potential ratio (SPR), which
is used to measure the status of the stocks, has ranged
between 74% and 88% over the past three seasons
(1995-1997).
Coral Fisheries
Because there has been no fishery on precious corals
during the past 20 years, little solid evidence is available
on recovery of the population from the low levels that
existed when the Magnuson-Stevens Act was first passed
in 1976; however, recent video analysis suggests that the
previously harvested beds have recovered much of their
potential and that new coral beds have been identified.
Nonetheless, it also appears that illegal foreign fishing
in some remote areas during the 1980s had a significant
impact on some coral beds.
A colorful starfish creeps across the ocean bottom looking for food
(Pat Cunningham).
National Coastal Condition Report II 227
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
In 1997, a company obtained a permit to harvest
precious coral at Makapu'u, Oahu, under a 2-year
permit quota for 4,409 pounds of pink coral and 1,322
pounds each for bamboo and gold coral. Harvesting of
these species began in early 1998.
Bottomfish Fisheries
The western Pacific bottomfish fishery geographically
encompasses the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem
(which includes the MHI and the NWHI), Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. In
contrast, the pelagic armorhead is harvested from the
summits and upper slopes of a series of submerged
seamounts along the southern Emperor-Northern
Hawaiian Ridge. This chain of seamounts is located just
west of the International Dateline and extends to the
northernmost portion of the NWHI.
In the MHI, as in Guam, the Mariana Islands, and
American Samoa, these fisheries employ relatively small
vessels on 1-day trips close to port. As a result, much
of the catch is harvested by either part-time commercial
or sport fishermen. In contrast, the NWHI species are
fished by full-time, commercial fishermen on relatively
large vessels that range far from port on trips of up to
10 days in duration. Fishermen use the handlining
technique in which a single weighted line with several
baited hooks is raised and lowered with a powered reel.
The bottomfish fisheries are managed jointly by the
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and
territorial, commonwealth, or state authorities.
In the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem, the
harvested bottomfish species include several snappers
(ehu, onaga, opakapaka), jacks (ulua, butaguchi), and a
grouper (hapu'upu'u), whereas the more tropical waters
of Guam, the Mariana Islands, and American Samoa
include a more diverse assortment of species within the
same families, as well as several species of emperors.
These fish are found on rock and coral bottoms at
depths of 170—1300 ft. Catch weight, size, and fishing
effort data are collected for each species in the five areas;
however, the sampling programs among these areas vary
in scope and design. About 90% of the total catch is
taken in the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem, with
the majority of the catch harvested in the MHI as
compared to the NWHI.
Stock assessments, though somewhat limited, indi-
cate that the spawning stocks of several important MHI
species (e.g., ehu, hapu'upu'u, onaga, opakapaka, and
uku) are at only 5—30% of their original levels, with
onaga and ehu presently appearing as the most stressed
among MHI bottomfish species. Because overutilization
is a concern and the fishery and bottomfish habitat are
predominantly within Hawaiian waters, the Western
Pacific Fishery Management Council has recommended
that Hawaii take action to prevent overfishing. During
the past two years, the state of Hawaii conducted a
series of meetings with fishery managers, scientists, and
fishermen to develop an FMP for the Hawaii's bottom-
fish fishery. In 1998, the state established a new admin-
istrative rule that governs bottomfishing in state waters
and includes restrictions on fishing gear and fishing areas.
Armorhead Fisheries
The seamount groundfish fishery has targeted just
one species: the armorhead. Since 1976, this bottom
trawl fishery has been almost exclusively conducted by
Japanese trawlers fishing the seamounts in international
waters beyond the Hancock Seamounts. The fishing
grounds comprising the Hancock Seamounts represent
The Kona Coast of Hawaii has many tidepools filled with a myriad of small
fish, mollusks, echinoderms, and crustaceans (Paul Goetz).
228 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
less than 5% of the total fishing grounds. The long-
term potential yield is 2,123 mt, but recovery to these
former levels has not occurred.
Standardized stock assessments were conducted
during 1985—1993- Research cruises were focused
on Southeast Hancock Seamount, and the armorhead
stock was sampled with bottom longlines and calibrated
against Japanese trawling effort. Although catch rates
vary, they have not shown the increases expected after
the fishing moratorium was imposed. Furthermore, the
increase in the 1992 seamount-wide CPUE caused by
high recruitment was apparently short-lived, as CPUE
declined appreciably in 1993 and thereafter. Closure
of only the small U.S. EEZ portion of the pelagic
armorhead's demersal habitat may not be sufficient
to allow population recovery because these seamounts
remain the only part of the fishery currently under
management.
No progress toward cooperative international
management is foreseen for the pelagic armorhead.
Cooperative exchanges of fishery data with scientific
colleagues in Japan have provided annual commercial
catch data by seamount. Recently acquired biological
data of importance for future management considera-
tions indicate that armorhead undergo a 2-year pelagic
phase prior to recruitment into the fishery, and that the
seamount populations comprise a single stock.
Nearshore Fisheries
For the purposes of this report, nearshore fishery
resources are defined as those coastal and estuarine
species found in the 0—3 nautical mile zone of coastal
state waters and for which the NMFS has no direct
management role. Nearshore resources vary widely in
species diversity and abundance. Many are highly-prized
gamefish, whereas others are small fishes used for bait,
food, and industrial products. The invertebrate species
of greatest interest include crabs, shrimps, abalones,
clams, scallops, and oysters.
Because the composition of the nearshore fauna is
very diverse and management authority is shared among
the many coastal states and other local bodies, a detailed
treatment of their status is difficult. This chapter
presents information on the more significant species of
national interest. For more comprehensive assessments
of individual species, readers should refer to reports
published by state natural resource agencies.
Fisheries in the nearshore waters of the tropical and
subtropical Insular Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem and the
other U.S.-associated Pacific islands are highly diverse,
though lower in aggregate volume than commercial or
recreational fisheries of the U.S. mainland. Landings are
reported to be about 1,400 mt annually. Many fisheries
are unique to certain localities, such as that for the
palolo worm in American Samoa, seasonal fisheries for
rabbitfish in Guam, and limpet (opihi) fisheries in the
Insular Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem. Other fisheries are
common to all Western Pacific areas, such as the fish-
eries for bigeye scad (called akule) in the Insular Pacific-
Hawaiian ecosystem, atule in American Samoa, and
atulai in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
The more highly populated islands of the Insular
Pacific-Hawaiian ecosystem receive the heaviest inshore
fishing pressure, while less densely populated islands
and mostly uninhabited islands of the Insular-Pacific-
Hawaiian ecosystem and Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands receive less fishing pressure.
In the main islands of the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian
ecosystem between 1980 and 1990, commercial fish-
erman reported an average annual harvest of 1,179 mt
for fish and invertebrates taken from waters up to
600 feet in depth. According to the Hawaii Division
of Aquatic Resources, two pelagic carrangids, akule
and opelu, support the largest inshore fisheries in
the state. During the 1993—1995 period, annual
commercial landings for akule and opelu averaged
310 and 160 mt, respectively.
Other important commercial fisheries include
those for surgeonfish, squirrelfish, parrotfish, goatfish,
snappers, octopus, and various jacks or trevallies. There
are significant recreational fisheries, but participation,
landings, expenditures, and economic values are not
well documented. The recreational and subsistence
component of the marine fisheries of the Insular Pacific-
Hawaiian ecosystem was last assessed in 1986, when it
was estimated that 200,000 trips were taken by 6,700
vessels involved in nonmarket fishing (this total includes
recreational, subsistence, and submarket sales).
Estimated landings by these "recreational" fishermen
were 9,525 mt (21 million), of which 4,536 mt
(10 million) were sold ($22 million). Total direct
expenditures by these fisheries totaled $24 million,
and the nonmarket value of the fishing experience
was valued at $23 million.
National Coastal Condition Report II 229
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Hawaii Assessment
and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
The state of Hawaii assessed 99% of its 55 estuarine
square miles and 83% of its 1,052 miles of shoreline for
its 2000 305(b) report. Of the assessed estuarine square
miles, 43% fully support their designated uses, and
57% are impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 8-9)- Individual use support for
Hawaii's assessed estuaries is shown in Figure 8-10.
Of assessed shoreline, 97% fully supports its designated
uses, 1% is threatened for one or more uses, and 2%
is impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 8-11). Individual use support for
assessed shoreline in Hawaii is shown in Figure 8-12.
A lemon-yellow frogfish braces itself from the ebb and flow
of the current with its leg-like pectoral fins (Paul Goetz).
Figure 8-9. Water quality in assessed Hawaiian estuaries
(U.S. EPA, 2002).
Figure 8-11. Water quality in assessed shoreline waters in
Hawaii (U.S. ERA, 2002).
Aquatic Life Fish Shellfishing Primary Secondary
Support Consumption Contact- Contact
Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 8-10. Individual use support for assessed estuaries
waters in Hawaii (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Fully Supporting
D Threatened
Impaired
Aquatic Life Fish Shell
Support Consumption
ishing
Designated Use
Primary
Contact-
Swimming
Secondary
Contact
Figure 8-12. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters in Hawaii (U.S. EPA, 2002).
230 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Fish Consumption Advisories
The state of Hawaii reported that one estuarine
advisory resulting from PCB contamination was in
effect for the Pearl Harbor area on the island of Oahu.
The advisory, which has been in effect since 1998,
advises all members of the general population
(including sensitive populations of pregnant women,
nursing mothers, and children) not to consume any
fish or shellfish from the waters of Pearl Harbor (U.S.
EPA, 2003c).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Beach advisory and closure data were provided
for the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, Kauai, and Maui
(Figure 8-13). Of the 87 coastal beaches that reported
information to EPA, only 8% (seven beaches) were
closed or under an advisory for any period of time in
2002. Beach advisories and closures were implemented
primarily for preemptive reasons associated with sewage-
related problems (Figure 8-14). Sewer line problems
were cited as the source of beach contamination in
75% of the survey responses (Figure 8-15).
Hanauma Bay in Hawaii attracts snorkelers and divers to a beautiful
coral reef within minutes of downtown Honolulu (Paul Goetz).
Kauai
Preemptive
Closure
(Chemical/Oil Spill)
Niihau
/-\ O
Oahu
Molokai
Percentage of beaches
reporting with at least
one advisory or closure
per county in 2002:
• 1-10
• 11-50
• 51-100
| | No Data Available
Maui
Hawaii
Preemptive
Closure
(Sewage)
92%
Figure 8-14. Reasons for beach advisories and closings in
Hawaii (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Figure 8-13. The percentage of Hawaiian beaches participating
in the survey that had a least one advisory or closure in 2002
(U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Other
25%
Sewer Line
Problem
75%
Figure 8-15. Sources of beach contamination in Hawaii
(U.S. EPA, 2003a).
National Coastal Condition Report II 231
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Puerto Rico
Coastal Monitoring Data
Although EPA Region 2, the San Juan Harbor
National Estuary Program, and the Caribbean
Environmental Protection Division have conducted
some coastal monitoring in Puerto Rico, these surveys
have been completed almost exclusively in the San
Juan area. In 2000, the NCA, in cooperation with the
above offices and programs, conducted a comprehensive
survey of the ecological condition of Puerto Rico
estuarine waters (Figure 8-16). The survey included
50 sites and examined the full suite of indicators, with
the exception of fish tissue contaminants. The survey
was not granted a permit to trawl for fish because of the
sensitive nature of the bottom communities (e.g., soft
corals) in these waters. Fish tissue contaminants will
be examined in subsequent surveys.
Elkhorn coral are a predominant shallow-water species found throughout
the warm waters of the Atlantic and Caribbean (Pat Cunningham).
Puerto Rico
Overall
Score (1.7)
jood Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (I)
Benthic Index (I)
Coastal Habitat Index (NA)
Fish Tissue Index (NA)
Figure 8-17. The overall
condition of Puerto Rico's
estuaries is borderline poor
Figure 8-16. Sampling design for Puerto Rico for the NCA Program's
2000 survey (U.S. EPA/NCA).
The overall condition of Puerto Rico's estuarine
waters is borderline poor (Figure 8-17). Based on
information collected in 2000 from 47 sites throughout
Puerto Rico, none of the assessed estuarine area is
in good ecological condition (Figure 8-18). Sixteen
percent of assessed estuaries are threatened for aquatic
life use, and 77% of Puerto Rico's estuarine area showed
indications of poor aquatic life conditions (benthic
community conditions) or showed degradation in water
or sediment quality.
Unimpaired
Threatened 7%
16%
Impaired Aquatic
Life Use
77%
Figure 8-18. Puerto Rico estuarine condition (U.S. EPA/NCA).
232 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
E Water Quality Index
Based on the cumulative score for the five water
quality indicators (nitrogen, phosphorus, and chloro-
phyll, dissolved oxygen, and water clarity), the water
quality index in Puerto Rico's estuaries is fair. Although
only 9% of waters were determined to have poor water
quality (poor condition for two or more indicators),
63% of estuarine waters in Puerto Rico are rated either
poor or fair (Figure 8-19).
Water Quality Index - Puerto Rico (2000)
Site Criteria: Number of component indicators in poor
or fair condition
• Good = ^ I components fair, 0 components poor
OFair = I component poor or ^ 2 component fair
• Poor = ^ 2 components poor
OMissing
Good
Fair
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nutrients in Puerto Rico's estuaries are rated fair
for nitrogen and good for phosphorus for the period
sampled. High DIN concentrations for tropical estu-
arine ecosystems (> 0.1 mg/L) were not observed at any
of the sampling locations in Puerto Rico (Figure 8-20).
Nitrogen - Puerto Rico (2000)
Site Criteria: DIN concentration
• Good = < 0.05 mg/L
OFair = 0.05 -O.I mg/L
• Poor = > O.I mg/L
OMissing
Figure 8-19. Water quality index data for Puerto Rico's estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Fair
52%
Figure 8-20. DIN concentration data for Puerto Rico's estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
I
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA Program has been designed to estimate the
percent of estuarine area (nationally or in a region or state) in varying conditions and
is displayed as pie diagrams. Many of the figures in this report illustrate environmental
measurements made at specific locations (colored dots on maps); however, these
dots (color) represent the value of the indicator specifically at the time of sampling.
Additional sampling may be required to define variability and to confirm impairment
or the lack of impairment at specific locations.
National Coastal Condition Report II 233
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Although DIN concentrations did not exceed 0.1 mg/L
(the value indicative of poor conditions), 52% of
estuarine waters had concentrations between 0.05 and
0.1 mg/L and were thus rated fair. Elevated phosphorus
concentrations (> 0.01 mg/L) occurred in 6% of the
estuarine waters of Puerto Rico (Figure 8-21). Elevated
concentrations of dissolved nutrients are not expected
during late summer months in tropical coastal waters
because freshwater inflow is lower and available
dissolved nutrients are readily utilized by phytoplankton
during summer months.
Phosphorus - Puerto Rico (2000)
Site Criteria: DIP concentration
• Good = < 0.005 mg/L
OFair = 0.005-0.01 mg/L
• Poor = > 0.01 mg/L
OMissing
Figure 8-21. DIP concentration data for Puerto Rico's estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Jobos Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve. Sea turtles are occasionally seen
near seagrass meadows around coral reefs
in the Reserve (NOAA National Estuarine
Research Reserve Collection, Jobos Bay
Puerto Rico).
Chlorophyll a
Puerto Rico's estuaries are rated poor for chlorophyll a.
Twenty-nine percent of estuarine waters in Puerto Rico
have concentrations of chlorophyll a that were greater
than 1 g/L (Figure 8-22), indicating that whatever
dissolved nutrients are available in the summer months
are rapidly incorporated into phytoplankton biomass.
Chlorophyll a - Puerto Rico (2000)
Site Criteria: Chlorophyll a concentration
• Good = < 0.5 Mg/L
OFair = 0.5- 1.0 Mg/L
• Poor = > 1.0 Mg/L
OMissing
Poor
29%
Figure 8-22. Chlorophyll a concentration data for Puerto Rico's
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
234 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Water Clarity
Water clarity in Puerto Rico's estuarine waters is fair.
Water clarity was estimated by light penetration through
the water column and compared with the reference
condition for tropical ecosystems supporting SAV and
coral communities. In approximately 20% of the waters
in Puerto Rican estuaries, less than 20% of surface light
penetrated to a depth of 1 meter (Figure 8-23).
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in Puerto Rico's
estuaries are good, except for in a single location in
San Juan Harbor. The NCA estimates for Puerto Rico's
estuaries show that about 1% of bottom waters in these
estuaries have hypoxic conditions or low dissolved
oxygen (<2 mg/L) on a continual basis in late summer
(Figure 8-24). This area is associated with the inner
reaches of San Juan Harbor.
Water Clarity - Puerto Rico (2000)
Dissolved Oxygen - Puerto Rico (2000)
Site Criteria: Light penetration at I meter depth
• Good = > 40%
OFair = 20% - 40%
• Poor = < 20%
Fair
19%
Figure 8-23. Water clarity condition for Puerto Rico's estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Site Criteria: Dissolved
oxygen concentration
• Good = > 5 mg/L
OFair = 2-5 mg/L
• Poor = < 2 mg/L
O Missing
Missing
27%
Poor 1%
Fair 2%
Figure 8-24. Dissolved oxygen concentration data for Puerto
Rico's estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
A snorkeler encounters a friendly
slow-moving manatee (Paul Goetz).
National Coastal Condition Report II 235
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Sediment Quality Index
The condition of the estuarine sediments of Puerto
Rico was determined to be poor. Sixty-one percent of
the estuarine sediments in Puerto Rico displayed poor
condition for one or more of the three indicators—
sediment contaminants, sediment toxicity, and
the proportion of sediments that contains TOC
(Figure 8-25).
Sediment Toxicity
Only 3% of sediments sampled were toxic to
test organisms (Figure 8-26). As a result, Puerto Rico's
estuarine sediments are ranked good with regard to
sediment toxicity. Sediments were determined to be
toxic when test organisms exposed to the sediments
had more than a 20% mortality rate in a 10-day
exposure test.
A diver encounters a spiny pufferfish, whose defense strategy is to
blow itself up with water to deter would-be predators (Paul Goetz).
Sediment Quality Index - Puerto Rico (2000)
Sediment Toxicity - Puerto Rico (2000)
Site Criteria: Number and condition of component indicators
• Good = No components poor and sediment contaminants good
OFair = No components poor and sediment contaminants fair
• Poor = s: I components poor
OMissing
Poor
61%
Fair
Poor
Figure 8-25. Sediment quality index data for Puerto Rico's
estuaries (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Site Criteria: Amphipod survival rate
• Good = s80%
• Poor = >80%
OMissing
Figure 8-26. Sediment toxicity data for Puerto Rico's estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
236 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Sediment Contaminants
Estuarine sediments in Puerto Rico contained several
contaminants that exceeded guidelines representing
the likelihood of biological effects. These sediments
were ranked poor and included 23% of all estuarine
sediments in Puerto Rico (Figure 8-27)- In most of
these cases, concentrations exceeded the ERM guideline
(i.e., the concentration likely to result in biological
effects). An additional 44% of sediments exceeded
the ERL guideline (i.e., the concentration that
potentially could result in a biological effect) for
at least one contaminant.
Of the 23% of sediments ranked poor, 100%
showed exceedances in heavy metals, 41% showed
exceedances in pesticides, and 26% showed exceedances
in PCBs. None of these sediments contained PAHs
exceeding the guidelines.
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Puerto Rico sediments are rated poor with regard
to sediment TOC. Analyses of estuarine sediments
in Puerto Rico showed that 44% contained TOC
content greater than 5% (Figure 8-28) and were
thus ranked poor. An additional 33% of sediments
contained between 2% and 5% TOC. Although higher
percentages of TOC would be expected in tropical
regions (sometimes 2% to 3%), TOC levels in estuarine
sediments above 5% are often associated with organic
loading to the estuaries via untreated wastewaters,
agricultural runoff from livestock areas, and industrial
discharges. However, these elevated TOC levels are
occasionally associated with natural processes in
mangrove estuaries.
Sediment Contamination - Puerto Rico (2000)
Total Organic Carbon - Puerto Rico (2000)
1 \J\J
80
60
40
20
n
76
16
3
1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1
Missing PAHs PCBs Pesticides Metals
Any ERL/ERM Exceedances
Figure 8-27. Sediment contaminant data and locations for sites
with more than five contaminants exceeding ERL guidelines or
one contaminant exceeding ERM guidelines in Puerto Rico (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
I
Figure 8-28. Sediment TOC data and sample sites in Puerto
Rico (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report II 237
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Benthic Index
A benthic index has not yet been developed for
Puerto Rico, but one will be developed as additional
data are collected. As a surrogate for benthic condition,
the benthic samples from Puerto Rico's estuaries were
examined using ecological community indicators:
biological diversity, species richness, and abundance.
Biological diversity and species richness are measure-
ments that contribute to all of the benthic indices
developed by the NCA Program in the Northeast
Coast, Southeast Coast, and Gulf Coast regions.
Biological diversity is directly affected by natural
gradients in salinity and silt-clay content. Analyses using
data for Puerto Rico showed no significant relationships
between benthic diversity and either salinity or silt-clay
content. Thus, benthic diversity was used directly to
evaluate benthic condition. If a site's benthic diversity
was less than 75% of the observed mean diversity for
all locations in Puerto Rico, the site was rated poor
(Figure 8-29).
Benthic Index - Puerto Rico (2000)
Site Criteria: Compared to expected diversity
• Good = > 85%
OFair = 75% - 85%
• Poor = < 75%
OMissing
Poor
35%
Overall benthic condition in Puerto Rico's estuaries is
rated poor. Thirty-five percent of the estuarine sediments
in Puerto Rico had low benthic diversity (Figure 8-29).
Of these areas of low benthic diversity, 90% co-occurred
with poor sediment conditions, and 60% co-occurred
with poor water quality conditions (Figure 8-30).
PoorWater/Sediment Quality Indicators that
Co-occur with Low Benthic Diversity -
Puerto Rico (2000)
OSediment Quality
OWater Quality
• Sediment and
Water Quality
ONone
Sediment
Quality
30%
Figure 8-29. Benthic index data for Puerto Rico's estuaries
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment and
Water Quality
60%
Figure 8-30. Indicators of poor water/sediment quality
that co-occur with low benthic diversity in Puerto Rico
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal wetland indicator for Puerto Rico
cannot be scored because the only information available
regarding the acreage of coastal wetlands for Puerto
Rico represents a single point in time, and rate of loss
cannot be determined from this value. In 1990, the
acreage of coastal wetlands in Puerto Rico was deter-
mined to be 17,300 acres. Although acreage estimates
for 2000 are not available, it is clear that losses to
coastal wetland acreage in Puerto Rico can be affected
by development, sea-level rise, and interference with
normal erosional/depositional processes.
238 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Puerto Rico Assessment
and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
Puerto Rico assessed 175 linear miles of estuaries
(total number of estuarine square miles is unknown)
and 550 linear miles of shoreline (100%) for its 2000
305(b) report. Of estuarine miles, 6% fully support
their designated uses, 10% are threatened for one
or more uses, and the remaining 84% are impaired
by some form of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 8-31)- Fifty-five percent of ocean shoreline
fully supports its designated uses, 24% is threatened
for one or more uses, and the remaining 21% is
impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degrada-
tion (Figure 8-32). Individual use support for assessed
shoreline in Puerto Rico is shown in Figure 8-33-
Fully Supporting
6%
Threatened
10%
Impaired
84%
Figure 8-3 I. Water quality in assessed estuaries in Puerto
Rico (U.S. EPA, 2002). Puerto Rico assessed 175 linear miles of
estuaries, but the total number of estuarine square miles is
Figure 8-32. Water quality for assessed shoreline waters in
Puerto Rico (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Figure 8-33. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters in Puerto Rico (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Fish Consumption Advisories
Puerto Rico did not report fish consumption advi-
sory information to EPA in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Puerto Rico reports beach advisories and closure data
to EPA, but of the 24 beaches reporting in Puerto Rico,
none reported being affected by either an advisory or
a closure during 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
A juvenile basket star entwines itself in the soft coral for protec-
tion during the day (Pat Cunningham).
National Coastal Condition Report II 239
-------
ghlight
Coastal Biological Invasions
Biological invasion is considered the greatest cause of loss of plant and animal diversity after
habitat destruction (Vitousek et al., 1997)- The National Invasive Species Council reports that
early detection of invasive species and a quick, coordinated response can eradicate or contain these
invasions at much lower cost than long-term control programs, which may be unfeasible or
prohibitively expensive. Carlton (2001) postulated that eradication of new populations of non-
native species may succeed with the implementation of an early warning system. While there are
several terrestrial models (e.g., the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), there is
no such system for coastal waters, nor is there a national plan to monitor, share information, or
advise field response teams on how best to control alien species before they become widespread.
With growing scientific concern for the increasing rate of biological introductions to United
States coastal waters and the relative lack of action to reverse this trend, NOAA initiated in fiscal
year 2002 a new coastal alien species program with five components:
(1) an inventory of coastal marine species
(2) a warning system to alert managers
(3) a national information dissemination system
(4) risk assessments and predictions of alien species becoming invasive
(5) early detection and monitoring of alien species.
The first implemented prototype component of this program is the Hawaiian Pilot Reporting,
Warning, and Information Dissemination System for Coastal Alien Species. One of many part-
ners, Bishop Museum, is preparing an electronic inventory of Hawaiian coastal species. Taxonomic
experts will peer review this species inventory, while the state of Hawaii, the University of Hawaii,
NOAA's Fisheries Service, and other organizations are making their monitoring data available to
NOAA. NOAA's Coastal Data Development Center will integrate the monitoring data and link it
to the inventory to create an information-dissemination system that Web site users can query by
species name, search by geographic area, and download summary data to their desktops.
240 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
An up-do-date inventory of native and alien species known to reside in U.S. coastal waters and
a verification process for validating the names of species reported as new to a region is integral to
building a reliable reporting and warning system for biological invaders. The American Fisheries
Society (AFS) has published peer-reviewed volumes on the names of fishes and invertebrates of
Canada and the continental United States, and updates the volumes each decade. A primary
partner in the new venture, AFS has granted copyrights to NOAA so that this information can be
used to build the initial baseline inventory. Voucher specimens and photographs will be required
before reported species can be confirmed, a warning to coastal managers issued, and the baseline
inventory revised. Members of the museum community and other taxonomic experts who helped
prepare and peer review the AFS volumes have volunteered to assist in the reporting system and to
verify species reported as potentially new to a region.
Following successful testing of the prototype system in fiscal year 2003, NOAA and its partners
will expand the Hawaiian coastal inventory, reporting, warning, and information-dissemination
system to include other regions of the United States. (Other likely candidate regions include the
Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean and Pacific Islands.) NOAA and the USGS are planning a joint
venture in fiscal year 2004 to initiate the early detection and monitoring components of the alien
species program.
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Other Island Systems
Coastal Monitoring Data
No consistent coastal monitoring programs exist
for American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands. The NCA Program
may include one or more of these territories in the
2004 survey.
American Samoa
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
The islands of American Samoa are partially
surrounded by a narrow, fringing coral reef that is
inhabited by a diverse array offish and invertebrates.
These reefs are harvested by local residents on an
almost daily basis. Total inshore subsistence catch
for 1993—1995 averaged 160 mt, with a value worth
$560,000. The catch is dominated in some years
by the coastal migratory species atule, but typically,
more resident species such as other jacks, surgeonfish,
mullet, octopus, groupers, and snappers are most
consistently harvested.
Samoans also fish on the predicted nights of emer-
gence of the paolo worm, whose reproductive segments
are considered a delicacy. During its annual spawning,
the hind end of the paolo worm containing the repro-
ductive segments or epitokes separate from the anterior
end of the worm and swarm to the surface, releasing
sperm and eggs into the ocean. These epitokes are
collected and consumed by many local fishermen.
The head end of the worm remains below and regener-
ates a new epitoke in preparation for spawning the
following year.
For Samoan inshore fisheries, downward trends in
catch and CPUE have been observed in recent years,
especially when the catches of the highly variable atule
have been removed from the analysis.
The beauty of the Pacific lionfish belies its venomous
spines (Paul Goetz).
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
American Samoa assessed 53 (46%) of its 116 shore-
line miles for its 2000 305(b) report. Of the assessed
miles, 13% fully support designated uses, 57% are
threatened for one or more uses, and the remaining
30% are impaired by some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 8-34). Individual use support for
American Samoa's shoreline is shown in Figure 8-35-
Fully
Supporting
13%
Figure 8-34. Water quality for assessed shoreline waters in
American Samoa (U.S. EPA, 2002).
242 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
35
30-
25-
20-
is-
m-
s'
0
Aquatic Life Fish Consumption Primary Contact-
Support Swimming
Designated Use
Figure 8-35. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters in American Samoa (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Fish Consumption Advisories
Since 1993, American Samoa has had a fish
consumption advisory in effect for chromium, copper,
DDT, lead, mercury, zinc, and PCBs in Inner Pago
Pago Harbor (U.S. EPA, 2003c). This estuarine
advisory advises all members of the general population
(including sensitive populations of pregnant women,
nursing mothers, and children) not to consume any
fish, fish liver, or shellfish from the waters under advi-
sory. In addition, these same waters are also under a
commercial fishing ban that precludes the harvesting
of fish or shellfish for sale in commercial markets.
Beach Advisories and Closures
American Samoa did not report monitoring
or closing information for any beaches in 2002
(U.S. EPA, 2003a).
Guam
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries
Guam is the southernmost and largest island in the
Mariana Island Archipelago, and like American Samoa,
the principal inshore fisheries are based on a wide
assortment of coral reef fishes. Harvested fish include
jacks and scads (especially atulai, the bigeye scad),
surgeonfish, squirrelfish, fusilier, rudderfish (guili),
snappers, mullet (aguas), goatfish (ti'ao), and rabbitfish
(manahak). Invertebrate species include various marine
crabs (including land crabs), spiny and slipper lobsters,
sea urchins, octopus, squid, cuttlefish, tridacnid clams,
topshells, chitons, conchs, strombids, and nerites.
Guam's inshore reefs appear to be fully exploited and
have shown signs of overfishing. During 1993—1995,
the catch of nearshore reef fisheries averaged 90 mt.
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
Guam assessed 17 (15%) of its 117 coastal shoreline
miles for its 2000 305 (b) report. Six percent of the
assessed miles fully support designated uses, 35%
are threatened for one or more uses, and 59% are
impaired because of some form of pollution or habitat
degradation (Figure 8-36).
Fully
Supporting
6%
Figure 8-36. Water quality for assessed shoreline waters in
Guam (U.S. ERA, 2002).
Fish Consumption Advisories
Guam did not report fish consumption advisory
information to EPA in 2002 (U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of 42 beaches in Guam that reported information to
EPA, 39 (93%) were under advisories or closings at least
once during 2002. Many of these advisories or closings
were issued because monitoring had revealed elevated
bacterial levels. Also, some beaches were closed preemp-
tively because of sewage discharges or spills. The major
source of elevated bacterial levels was unknown in most
cases; however, the source of preemptive closures was
sewerline blockage or pipe breakage (U.S. EPA, 2003a).
National Coastal Condition Report II 243
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Northern Mariana Islands
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands assessed 1 (less than 0.01%) of its 15,989 square
miles of bays, estuarine areas, and lagoons for its 2000
305(b) report. The entire assessed estuarine area (100%)
is impaired because of some form of pollution or
habitat degradation (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Fish Consumption Advisories
The Northern Mariana Islands did not report fish
consumption advisory information to EPA in 2002
(U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Three beaches reported advisory or closing informa-
tion, and all three beaches were affected by public beach
notifications. The beach notifications were issued in all
three cases because monitoring revealed elevated
bacteria levels. The sources of the elevated bacterial
counts were SSOs, septic systems, stormwater runoff,
and other sources.
Fish Consumption Advisories
The U.S. Virgin Islands did not report fish
consumption advisory information to EPA in 2002
(U.S. EPA, 2003c).
Beach Advisories and Closures
All three of the main islands of the U.S. Virgin
Islands—St. Croix, St. Thomas, and St. John—reported
beach advisory and closing data in 2002 (U.S. EPA,
2003a). Of 62 beaches reporting data, only 3% (three
beaches) reported advisories or closings, and these three
beaches were all on St. Croix. The reason for all three
closures was preemptive—sewage discharges or spills
of sewage from POTWs.
Figure 8-37. Water quality for assessed shoreline waters in the
U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S. EPA, 2002).
U.S. Virgin Islands
Assessment and Advisory Data
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
The U.S. Virgin Islands assessed 202 (97%) of
its 209 miles of coastal shoreline for its 2000 305 (b)
report. Eighty-six percent of assessed shoreline fully
supports its designated uses, 10% is threatened for
one or more uses, and the remaining 4% is impaired
by some form of pollution or habitat degradation
(Figure 8-37). Individual use support for assessed
U.S. Virgin Islands shoreline is shown in Figure 8-38.
160
140-
120-
100-
60-
40-
20-
o-
II n
Aquatic Life Primary Contact-
Support Swimming
Designated Use
n
Secondary
Contact
Figure 8-38. Individual use support for assessed shoreline
waters in the U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S. EPA, 2002).
244 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ChapterS Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and Island Territories
Summary
U Ecological conditions of the coastal resources in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the
~.S. Virgin Islands, and the Pacific island territories of American Samoa, Guam, and
the Northern Mariana Islands are largely unknown. Alaska assessed less than 0.1 % of its
coastal estuaries and less than 0.1% its coastal shoreline in 2000; however, NCA assess-
ments were completed for the Alaskan Province in 2002 and were scheduled in 2004 for
Alaska's southeast region (Columbian Province), which includes Juneau and the island
passage area. Additional NCA monitoring is planned for the Aleutian, Bering Sea, and
Arctic areas in subsequent monitoring years because of the geographic expanse of these
areas and the restricted time period in which sampling can be conducted.
Hawaii's 2000 305 (b) data suggest that 57% of Hawaii's estuarine area is impaired
by some form of pollution or habitat degradation, whereas only 2% of its coastal shore-
line is impaired. Most monitoring in Hawaii is focused on known AOCs; therefore,
it is difficult to interpret these results. NCA surveys conducted in 2002 and 2004 will
provide a less biased view of Hawaii's estuarine condition in future National Coastal
Condition Reports.
Although coastal monitoring in Puerto Rico has occurred in some coastal regions,
these surveys were almost exclusively conducted in the San Juan area. The NCA Program
conducted comprehensive survey of coastal resources in Puerto Rico in 2000. This survey,
which included data from 50 sampling stations throughout the island, determined that
the overall condition of Puerto Rico's estuarine waters is borderline poor, with 7% of the
estuarine condition rated as unimpaired, 16% rated as threatened, and 77% judged to
be impaired by some form of pollution. Habitat degradation for Puerto Rico could not
be scored because the only information on the island's coastal wetlands represents a single
point in time (17,300 acres of wetlands existed on the island in 1990). Puerto Rico's
2000 305(b) data provided similar results on estuarine area conditions, with 6% of
assessed estuaries in Puerto Rico fully supporting their designated uses, 10% rated as
threatened, and 84% impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degradation.
The 2000 305(b) data for the U.S. Virgin Islands suggests that the islands' coastal
resources are in good condition. Approximately 86% of assessed shoreline fully supports
its designated uses, 10% is threatened for one or more uses, and only the remaining 4%
are impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degradation. Estuarine areas on the
U.S. Virgin Islands were not assessed because these islands do not have waterbodies that
are true estuaries.
Coastal resources in several of the Pacific island territories are believed to be in good
condition; however, available data are relatively scarce for these jurisdictions. The 2000
305 (b) data for American Samoa revealed that of the assessed coastline miles, 13% fully
support their designated uses, 57% are threatened for one or more uses, and the
remaining 30% are impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degradation. The 2000
305 (b) data for Guam revealed that of the assessed coastline miles, only 6% fully support
their designated uses, 35% are threatened for one or more uses, and the remaining 59%
are impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degradation. No water quality assess-
ments of estuarine condition were made for American Samoa or Guam. Finally, the 2000
305 (b) data for the Northern Mariana Islands revealed that of the 1 square mile of estu-
aries and bays assessed (representing less than 0.01% of 15,989 square miles of estuarine
area), 100% is impaired by some form of pollution or habitat degradation. The NCA
Program may include one or more of these island territories in their 2004 survey to
obtain a more comprehensive perspective on estuarine and coastal resources.
National Coastal Condition Report II 245
-------
-------
Chapter 9
Health of
Galveston Bay
for Human Use
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
Estuaries are expected to support a variety of human
uses, ranging from commercial and recreational fisheries
to marine transportation to discharge of chemical and
thermal wastes. How well estuaries are meeting these
human uses is one measure of coastal condition.
Traditionally, coastal condition is described in terms of
the effects of human activities on one or more environ-
mental metrics. The previous chapters have followed
this traditional approach and have used the results of
estuarine assessments to describe the current condition
of coastal resources in each region of the United States.
This final chapter complements that approach by
assessing the health of an estuary based on its ability to
meet society's desired uses. Using Galveston Bay (the
largest estuary of the Texas coast) as an example, this
chapter will examine the following questions:
• What are society's stated uses for the system?
• How well are those uses being met?
• In instances in which a particular use is not being
achieved to the desired level, are there relationships
between the impairment and the National Coastal
Condition Report indicators? If so, how might
improving one or more of the indicators affect
a particular use?
Addressing estuarine health in this manner can
help researchers interpret existing data in terms of
an estuary's ability to meet society's desired uses, as
well as drive the collection of new data directly related
to perceived problems. The first steps in enabling
managers to enhance and balance those uses are to
determine how society currently chooses to use these
areas and to estimate the social, economic, and environ-
mental costs and benefits of optimizing one or more
uses. The relationship between coastal condition
indicators and human use impairments will be
addressed in more detail in future National Coastal
Condition Reports.
The type of assessment described in this chapter
cannot be done on scales larger than a single estuary.
Galveston Bay was chosen for this first evaluation for
two reasons. First, on a very large scale, Galveston Bay
supports a wide array of human uses, from industrial
activities, such as oil and gas extraction and petrochem-
ical operations, to fisheries, recreation, tourism, and
marine transportation. Second, a great deal of informa-
tion has been gathered and made readily available by
the Galveston Bay Estuary Program (GBEP), formerly
the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
(GBNEP); the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD); the NMFS; and the USAGE.
Overview of Galveston Bay
Galveston Bay (Figure 9-1) is classified as a bar-
built estuary in a drowned river delta. The open bay has
a surface area of approximately 600 square miles (GBEP,
2002). With an average depth of 6 feet and a maximum
nondredged depth of 10 feet, it is a shallow estuary.
The watershed has an area of approximately 24,500
square miles (NOAA, 1990), which includes
all or portions of 44 counties within the state of
Texas. Five counties surround the estuary: Brazoria,
Chambers, Galveston, Harris, and Liberty. In addition,
the metropolitan areas of Houston, Dallas, and Fort
Worth are also contained in the watershed.
Galveston Bay itself is commonly divided into
four subbays: Galveston Bay, Trinity Bay, East Bay,
and West Bay. Galveston Bay receives inflow from the
San Jacinto River and local drainage from the Houston
248 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
Hirri,
Figure 9-1. Galveston Bay watershed.
metropolitan area via the Buffalo Bayou and its tribu-
taries. The Trinity River empties into Trinity Bay. East
Bay, on the inside of the Bolivar Peninsula, receives
inflow from Oyster Bayou and from local runoff. West
Bay, landward of Galveston Island, receives freshwater
inflow from a series of bayous.
With an estimated input of 10 million acre-feet
per year, Galveston Bay has the largest freshwater inflow
volume of any estuary wholly or entirely within Texas
(Martin et al., 1996), flushing the system between four
and five times annually (GBNEP, 1994a). The major
source of freshwater to Galveston Bay is the Trinity
Pviver, accounting for 54% of the inflow, followed by
the San Jacinto Pviver basin (28%) and the local water-
shed (18%) (GBNEP, 1994a).
In the upper half of Galveston Bay, salinity is typi-
cally less than 10 ppt, and it is lower near the point
where the Trinity Pviver enters the bay. In the lower half
of the estuary, higher salinities are common, including
salinities as high as 30 ppt at the Gulf inlet located
between Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula (GBEP,
2002). Vertical salinity stratification is slight, averaging
less than 0.6 ppt/meter. The Houston Ship Channel,
which extends approximately 50 miles from Houston
to the Gulf of Mexico, has also produced changes in
bay circulation and salinity.
Within Galveston Bay, six major estuarine habitat
types have been identified: oyster reefs, seagrass
meadows, marshes, intertidal mud and sand flats,
open-bay waters, and open-bay bottoms (GBEP, 2002).
Species living in Galveston Bay move in and out of
these areas, typically associating with one or more
habitats during their life cycle.
What Does Society Want
Galveston Bay to Look Like?
According to The Galveston Bay Plan: The
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for
the Galveston Bay Ecosystem (GBNEP, 1994a) developed
by the GBNEP, there are a number of land uses identi-
fied as important to society. These land uses include
marine transportation; commercial and recreational
fishing; receiving waters for industrial, municipal, and
thermal wastes; recreational activities, such as sailing
and motorboat cruising and sightseeing; habitat for fish,
birds, shellfish, dolphins, reptiles, and other species;
sites for oil and gas production; human residential
housing; and also use as a general indicator of the
health of the environment.
Society's desired uses of Galveston Bay are also
reflected in land use patterns (Table 9-1). In general,
urban and industrial development is concentrated
on the western side of the bay, with the eastern side
being more rural, dominated by agriculture and the
extraction of natural resources (GBEP, 2002). There are
more than 800 point source dischargers in the water-
shed, and many of these are wastewater treatment plants
(Figure 9-2). Significant industrial activity exists around
Galveston Bay, much of it centered along the Houston
Ship Channel and in Texas City. As much as 50% of
the nation's petrochemical production and as much as
National Coastal Condition Report II 249
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
30% of its petroleum industry can be found within the
five-county area surrounding Galveston Bay (Gersten,
1995)- There are approximately 50 petrochemical facili-
ties and 40 inorganic chemical producers in the area.
Manufacturing in the five counties surrounding
Galveston Bay accounts for an estimated annual value
of more than $95 billion (Table 9-2).
The Port of Houston is the third largest port in
the Unites States and the sixth largest in the world
(Port of Houston Authority, 2003). It is used
primarily by ships in support of the petroleum and
petrochemical industries (Martin et al., 1996). The
combined annual revenue of the Port of Houston,
Texas City, and Galveston Bay has been estimated at
more than $ 15 billion per year.
Agriculture is a significant human use, particularly
on the eastern side of the bay. The major crops in the
five counties surrounding Galveston Bay include rice,
sorghum, soybeans, and corn. The raising of livestock,
primarily beef cattle, is also an important activity. In
the five counties surrounding Galveston Bay, agriculture
generates an estimated market value of more than
$130 million per year (Table 9-2).
Tourism is an important and growing use of
Galveston Bay and its surrounding areas, generating
an estimated $7-5 billion in travel and payroll dollars
(Martin et al., 1996). Sport fishing and associated
expenditures in and around Galveston Bay have been
estimated to generate as much as $2.8 billion per year.
Galveston Bay ranks as the second most productive
estuary in the United States in terms of seafood (Martin
et al., 1996). The commercial fishing industry produces
a total economic impact of up to $358 million each
year (Martin et al., 1996), approximately one-third of
the commercial fishing income in Texas (GBEP, 2002).
The most commercially valuable species from Galveston
Bay are brown and white shrimp, oysters, and blue crabs.
Although Galveston Bay has been modified
substantially to support human uses, large tracts of
natural areas in and around the bay still remain
intact, in part because of the value society has placed
on these areas. For example, there are an estimated
345 square miles of wetlands in and around Galveston
Bay and approximately 585 square miles of forest land.
Wetlands and seagrasses are important habitats for
many species and life stages of aquatic organisms
that inhabit Galveston Bay.
Table 9-1. Land Use in the Galveston Bay Watershed
(NOAA, 1999).
Land Use
Urban
Residential
Commercial and services
[Industrial
Transportation,
communication,
and utilities
Strip mines and quarries
Agricultural lands
Rangeland
Forest
Wetlands
Estuaries, lakes, and
reservoirs
Streams and canals
Lower
Watershed
(mi.2)*
1,141
31
4
46
7
1
1,627
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
o
oo ^ o
0^0^
o
C0
o
o
o
o
o o
oQ c£P
o
T
/
o
O
Figure 9-2. Major point sources adjacent to Galveston Bay (U.S. EPA, 2004).
Point Source Facility Types
• Petroleum refineries
O Wastewater treatment plants
O Inorganic chemical production
O Synthetic rubber production
O Petroleum bulk storage
® Alkalies and chlorine production
• Agricultural chemical production
• Paper mill
Table 9-2. Production and Value ($) Estimates of Human Uses in Galveston Bay
Use
Commercial fishing
Recreational fishing
Tourism
Economic Impact
$358 million (Martin et al., 1996)
$2.8 billion (Martin et al., 1996)
$7.5 billion (Martin et al., 1996)
Production/Employment
1 1 million Ibs/year (Martin et al., 1996)
40,000 jobs; 100,000 pleasure boats
(GBEP, 2002)
80,000 jobs (Martin et al., 1996)
Marine Transportation
Port of Houston
Port of Galveston
Port of Texas City
Manufacturing
Employment
Agriculture
$11 billion
(Port of Houston Authority, 2003)
$440 million '
$4.2 billion '
$95.3 billion
183,000 jobs
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1997)
$132 million (USDA, 1999)'
1 75 million tons; 6,800 vessels (GBEP, 2002)
7 million tons; 927 vessels (GBEP, 2002)
67 million tons; 9,600 vessels (GBEP, 2002)
5,558 farms; 1.5 million acres (USDA, 1999)
1 Estimated value of cargo for Galveston Bay and Texas City calculated using per ton value from Port of Houston.
2 Market value of agricultural product sold.
Project is a project to increase the depth of the channels
from 40 to 45 feet and to widen their bottom widths
from 400 to 530 feet. In addition to improving marine
transportation in and out of Galveston Bay, dredge
material will be used in the construction or rehabilita-
tion of several islands and marshes. A total of nearly
4,500 acres of habitat is being created over the 50-year
life of this project, as well as approximately 120 acres of
oyster reefs (GBEP, 2002).
The marine commerce industry in Galveston Bay is
already large, and despite ongoing efforts to accommo-
date growth in the industry, it is anticipated that marine
commerce in the bay will overwhelm the available port
facilities sometime after 2010. Planning for that growth
is well under way, and environmental impact statements
have been filed with the USAGE to build new ports at
Baytown and Texas City.
National Coastal Condition Report II 251
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
A Place to Live
The area around Galveston Bay is home to approxi-
mately 4 million people (GBEP, 2002), and population
growth is expected to continue. The majority of the
population lives in Harris County (Figure 9-3), home to
significant manufacturing activities. Much of the popu-
lation growth around Galveston Bay can be attributed
to the growth of industry, ranging from petrochemicals
to electronics manufacture (GBEP, 2002).
Although population growth in the cities of Houston
and Galveston has slowed, growth in the suburban
communities is expanding to meet the needs of the
population. Many people also want to live near the bay
itself. In Chambers County, approximately 45% of the
population lives within 2 miles of the bay; in Galveston
County, that figure climbs to more than 70% (GBEP,
2002).
Oil and Gas Production
The discovery of oil and gas in the early part of the
twentieth century drove much of the region's growth.
There are currently more than 5,300 oil wells and
1,500 gas wells in the Galveston Bay area (GBEP
2002). Although oil and gas production is still an
important industry in the region, production has
decreased considerably since the 1970s (GBNEP
1994b). In 1979, oil production in Brazoria, Chambers,
Harris, and Galveston counties totaled 52 million
barrels. By 2001, that figure had declined to approxi-
mately 5-4 million barrels. The decline appears to be
related to external factors, such as falling oil and gas
prices worldwide, which have led to less extraction of
reserves in the Galveston Bay area. The crash of the oil
industry in the 1980s also led to diversification of the
bay area's economy.
Manufacturing
As shown in Table 9-2, manufacturing is the major
economic engine in the Galveston Bay area. An esti-
mated one-half of the total chemical production in the
United States takes place in the five counties that
surround Galveston Bay (GBEP, 2002). Most of this
manufacturing is concentrated in Harris County. Major
production categories include petrochemicals, inorganic
chemicals, plastics and rubber products, fabricated
metal manufacturing, machinery, and computer and
• TOTAL
• Brazoria
° Chambers
Galveston
• Harris
: Liberty
Figure 9-3. Population change in the counties surrounding
Galveston Bay (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
electronic products. The region's economy has expanded
fairly continuously over the past 50 years, indicating the
continued desire for increased production of goods and
services, and this trend will likely continue. In 1997,
the value of shipments in the five counties surrounding
Galveston Bay was approximately $95 billion, (U.S.
Census Bureau, 1997).
Recreational Activities
Recreation is important in Galveston Bay. For the
most part, it appears that this use is also being met.
Major activities include duck hunting, swimming,
nature viewing, pleasure boating, fishing, camping,
picnicking, and sightseeing (GBNEP, 1994b). With
approximately 100,000 registered pleasure boats in the
five counties that surround it, Galveston Bay has been
called the "boating capital of Texas" (GBEP, 2002).
An estimated 40% or more of the residents around
Galveston Bay participate in walking, swimming, or
picnicking around the bay at least annually (GBEP
2002), and approximately 20% of the residents in
the five-county area use the bay at least once a year
for recreational fishing and boating (Whittington
etal., 1993).
One concern related to this use, however, is that
of access to the bay. Currently, public shoreline access
is limited to parks and boat ramps and a few parks
(GBNEP, 1994b). As the population of the region
increases, the need for greater access to the bay will
likely become a greater priority.
252 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
Wildlife Habitat
A habitat for wildlife is also listed as an important
use in the Galveston Bay management plan. Over the
years, the bay has changed significantly. One of the
most obvious changes is the loss of wetlands and
seagrasses. Wetlands and seagrasses have many functions
within estuarine ecosystems, one of the most important
being habitat for plants, fish, birds, and wildlife. In
Galveston Bay, many of the fishery species of shrimp,
crabs, and fish rely on wetlands and seagrasses for at
least part of their life cycle (GBNEP, 1994b).
More than 33,000 acres of vegetated wetlands, or
approximately 19% of the total, have been lost from
Galveston Bay since the 1950s (GBNEP, 1994b). The
rate of wetland loss in Galveston Bay is also higher than
the national average. Four main causes have been cited:
human-induced subsidence and associated relative sea-
level rise; conversion of wetlands to agricultural land;
dredge and fill activities; and isolation projects. Much
of the subsidence was caused by the pumping of
groundwater, resulting in compaction of the underlying
clay layers. Some wetlands were expanded as upland
areas were inundated with water, but overall, losses
exceed gains. Subsidence and inundation were most
common in brackish or salt marshes. The draining of
wetlands for upland uses, such as rangeland, is another
significant cause of wetland loss in Galveston Bay.
The loss of seagrasses has been even more significant
than loss of wetlands. Seagrasses have decreased from
approximately 2,500 acres in the 1950s to 700 acres
in 1987, roughly a 70% loss of this habitat (GBNEP,
1994b). The reasons for the loss of seagrasses are not
fully understood, but may be related to human activi-
ties, including land development, wastewater discharges,
chemical spills, and dredging activities, a number of
which can result in light attenuation and limit seagrass
growth (Pulich and White, 1991). Another cause of
the disappearance of seagrasses may be related to subsi-
dence. The removal of natural berms resulting from
subsidence may increase the wave energy impinging
on seagrass beds and thus increase erosional forces
(GBNEP, 1994b).
The loss of wetland and seagrass habitat could
also be affecting both ecologically and economically
important species; however, no studies have been able
to document a causal relationship between species
abundance and habitat loss in Galveston Bay
(GBNEP, 1994b). Although the loss of wetlands and
seagrass habitat could affect the abundance of fish and
shellfish that use these areas as a nursery, many of these
species can survive and grow over open bay bottom
(GBEP, 2002).
Galveston Bay is also home to a variety of birds,
from colonial waterbirds to waterfowl and shorebirds. A
recent study (McFarlane, 2001) investigated population
trends in colonial waterbirds in Galveston Bay. Overall,
the results were good: 10 species of birds had stable
populations during the period 1973 to 1998, 8 species
increased in population, and only 4 species—great
blue heron, roseate spoonbill, least tern, and black
skimmer—had decreasing populations. The reasons
for the decrease in these four species are not clear.
In the case of great blue herons and roseate spoonbill,
a decrease in the quality or quantity of nesting and
feeding habitat, such as wetlands, could be a factor
(Walton and Green, 1993).
Status of Fisheries in Galveston
Bay
Galveston Bay is an important source for both
commercial and recreational species of fish and shellfish.
Historically, the bay has been the leading producer of
seafood in Texas and one of the leading producers in the
Gulf of Mexico. In general, the fisheries appear to be
meeting the needs of commercial and recreational fishers.
The status of fisheries in Galveston Bay was assessed
primarily using commercial and recreational landings
data provided by the TPWD. Seafood dealers provide
information on commercial harvest of shrimp, oysters,
crabs, and marine fish through a mandatory self-
reporting system known as the Monthly Marine Products
Report (Green et al., 1992). Where appropriate, fishery-
independent trawl and seine data, also collected by
TPWD, were used to supplement landings data.
Public pressure led to a ban on the use of gill nets
in all saltwater habitats in the late 1980s because valued
non-target fish and mammals were being caught in the
nets (Robinson, 2003). Twenty-year records of commer-
cial landings of some commercial finfish species show
overall decreases that are likely a result of that ban;
National Coastal Condition Report II 253
-------
Chapter 9 \ Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
therefore, only data since 1990 have been used to
examine a possible connection between landings and
coastal condition.
Commercial Fisheries
The shrimp fishery is the largest commercial fishery
in Galveston Bay, averaging approximately 7 million
pounds, followed by the fisheries for oysters, blue crabs,
and a variety offish species (Table 9-3). Approximately
95% of the total annual commercial harvest in
Galveston Bay is made up of shrimp, oysters, and
blue crabs (GBNEP, 1994b).
Table 9-3. Average Harvest of Selected Commercial
Species of Fish and Shellfish from Galveston Bay (GBEP,
2002)
Weight (Ibs)
Ex-vessel Value
Shrimp
Eastern oysters
Blue crab
6,948,629
3,919,514
1 ,992,007
$9,969,989
$8,412,810
$1,240,167
Finfish
211,399
$151,515
Values represent mean for years 1994-1998.
Shrimp
The commercial harvesting of shrimp in Galveston
Bay rose to prominence in the 1920s. White and brown
shrimp are the major species harvested in Galveston
Bay, and pink shrimp are a minor component of the
overall harvest and are usually counted as "browns."
Slightly more white shrimp are caught in Galveston
Bay than brown and pink shrimp (Green et al., 1992).
Figure 9-4 shows the commercial harvest between 1990
and 2001 in Galveston Bay, during which time there
was an overall increase. In terms of human use, this
would appear to indicate the resource is meeting human
use needs.
Eastern Oysters
Oysters are the second most important commercial
species harvested in Galveston Bay. Most of the bay's
large oysters reefs are located in mid-Galveston Bay
(e.g., Redfish Reef and Redfish Bar) and also in East
Bay (e.g., Hanna Reef), where fresh water from the
tributaries mixes with saltwater from the Gulf of
Mexico. Commercial landings of oysters increased
1990
1992
1994 1996
Year
1998 2000
Figure 9-4. Commercial landings of shrimp in Galveston Bay
1990-2001. Developed by NOAA for NCCR II. Data provided by
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPVVD, 2003).
between 1990 and 2001 (Figure 9-5), and the fishery
does not appear to have had an adverse impact on the
size of existing oyster reefs (GBEP, 2004). Some of the
most heavily fished reefs have not varied much in size
since the 1850s, and there is even evidence of accretion
on some reefs (GBNEP, 1994b). This resiliency of
oysters is interesting not only because of the fishery
pressure on the resource, but also because of other
stressors, such as disease and predation. For example,
the protozoan parasite known as "Dermo" (Perkinsus
marinus) can cause annual mortalities in market oysters
ranging from 10% to 50% (GBEP, 2002).
Figure 9-5. Commercial landings of oysters in Galveston Bay
1990-2001. Developed by NOAA for NCCR II. Data provided by
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD, 2003).
254 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
Although the oyster population appears to be stable
(even increasing in some areas), oyster harvesting is
restricted in significant portions (43%) of Galveston
Bay and is prohibited in small areas (1.5%) (GBEP,
2002). Growing water condition is determined based
on observed concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in
the water. The presence of such bacteria is an indicator
of the possible presence of pathogens from human or
other mammalian fecal material entering the bay,
usually from nonpoint terrestrial sources.
Oysters can be commercially harvested from
restricted areas, but such harvesting is limited to those
who hold privately leased, approved areas and can trans-
port the oysters to these depurate areas prior to sale.
The size of restricted areas decreased through the 1990s,
opening more beds to all oystermen. This may account
for part of the increase in landings over the same
period. Another contributing factor is that the TPWD
has limited the number of commercial licenses for
shrimp and crabs since the mid-1990s, but not for
oysters. Also, the recent low prices of shrimp have
caused some fishers to target oysters rather than shrimp.
The presence of fecal coliform indicates that fecal
waste has entered the estuary from human and other
terrestrial sources. Fecal coliform can contaminate
oysters and cause disease in humans who consume
them. A naturally occurring marine bacterium, Vibrio
parahaemolyticus, can also be transmitted in raw oysters
and cause very serious human disease and sometimes
death. Periodic outbreaks of Vibrio parahaemolyticus
require temporary total closures of oyster harvesting
in the bay.
Blue Crabs
Blue crabs became an important fishery in Galveston
Bay after I960, partly because of the increasing
commercial value of this species. Currently, more blue
crabs are harvested out of Galveston Bay than out of
any other Texas estuary (GBEP, 2002). The commercial
harvest between 1990 and 2001 averaged 771 mt per
year (Figure 9-6). An analysis of the landings data did
not indicate any trends in landings data.
An analysis of fishery-independent blue crab trawl
data (Figure 9-7) by TPWD, however, did reveal a
negative trend in the number of adult crabs captured
using a shrimp trawl between 1982 and 2000 (GBEP
2002). Because the blue crab uses a variety of habitats
3.0
2.5-
1 2.0 H
1.5-
<1>
-D
_§
-8 \.o-\
o
0.5-
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Figure 9-6. Commercial landings of blue crabs in Galveston
Bay 1990-2001. Developed by NOAA for NCCR II. Data
provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD, 2003).
in the bay during its fairly complex life cycle, a number
of natural processes and human alterations could affect
the population. Recruitment, however, does not appear
to be a problem, because fishery-independent nearshore
bag seine capture rates of juveniles appear fairly
constant during the last 20 years. Although there
is some evidence of contaminant stress in blue crabs
inhabiting portions of the Houston Ship Channel
(Engle and Thayer, 1998), fishing pressure may be
a more likely explanation for the decline in the larger
crabs sampled using the shrimp trawl. In 1997, to stem
what appears to be overfishing, the TPWD imposed
trap limits on the commercial crab industry, set size
limits for blue crab males, prohibited the harvesting
of egg-bearing females, and began a voluntary program
to buy back licenses (Robinson, 2003).
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Figure 9-7. Blue crab trawl data, 1982-2000 (GBEP 2002).
National Coastal Condition Report II 255
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
Finfish Landings
In the late nineteenth century, the commercial
harvest of seafood from Galveston Bay was evenly
divided between finfish and oysters (GBNEP, 1994b).
Currently, the finfish commercial harvest accounts for
less than 5% of the total commercial seafood harvest
from Galveston Bay. The average annual commercial
harvest of finfish between 1990 and 2001 was 87 mt.
The ex-vessel value of finfish in Galveston Bay averaged
approximately $150,000 annually (GBEP, 2002).
A variety of finfish are harvested commercially in
Galveston Bay, including black drum, southern
flounder, sheepshead, and mullet (Figure 9-8). These
four species make up more than 60% of the commercial
finfish harvest. Some of these same species are also
caught by recreational fishers. Although there is vari-
ability in the harvest from year to year, there was no
decline in any of the species harvested between 1990
and 2001. There are decreases, however, when data are
viewed for the longer period of 1980 to 2001, but these
decreases are largely the result of high harvests made in
the early 1980s before gill netting was banned.
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
Year
Figure 9-8. Commercial landings of selected fish species in
Galveston Bay 1990-2001. Developed by NOAA for NCCR II.
Data provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD,
2003).
Recreational Fisheries
The recreational harvest of fish is an important part
of the economy in Galveston Bay. Approximately 50%
of all recreational fishing expenditures in Texas occur in
Galveston Bay (GBEP, 2002). In the five counties that
surround the bay, more than 260,000 recreational
fishing licenses were sold in 1998 and 1999 (GBEP
2002). In addition to compiling information on the
commercial fisheries, the TPWD also collects data on
the recreational harvest of finfish. The top five recre-
ational species in terms of the number of fish caught
is provided in Figure 9-9- Between 1990 and 2001,
sand seatrout, spotted seatrout, and Atlantic croaker
had the highest landings, based on the TPWD survey.
Of the five species shown in Figure 9-9, only one—the
southern flounder—had a negative trend in recreational
landings. It is not clear why this occurred. Fishery-
independent bag seines of southern flounder by TPWD
have shown a nearly stable, slightly increasing trend in
CPUE. Overall, the recreational harvest of these species
seems to be meeting the needs of recreational fishers
in Galveston Bay.
In summary, both the commercial and recreational
fisheries in Galveston Bay appear to be meeting human
use needs. In the fishery-independent data, there is
some evidence of a decreasing blue crab population,
but the decrease may be related more to overfishing
than to environmental quality.
350
0 Atlantic Croaker
O Red Drum
A Sand Seatrout
• Southern Flounder
Spotted Seatrout
Figure 9-9. Recreational (private boat) landings of selected fish
species in Galveston Bay 1990-2001. Developed by NOAA for
NCCR II. Data provided by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD, 2003).
256 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 9 Health of Galveston Bay for Human Use
Can the Fish Be Eaten?
There would be little point to commercial fishing if
the product could not be safely consumed. Recreational
fishing, however, has all sorts of benefits in addition to
eating the catch. Nonetheless, it is important to deter-
mine whether the fish can be eaten safely. The Texas
Department of Health (TDH) has declared that "all
species of fish and crabs from areas of Galveston Bay
south of a line from Red Bluff Point to Five Mile Cut
Marker to Houston Point can be eaten without restric-
tions" (TDH, 2001). However, the TDH declared an
advisory area for 50 square miles north of this line (at
the point where the channel opens to the wide portion
of the bay and back toward the city of Houston), for
parts of Buffalo Bayou, for the Houston Ship Channel,
and for the lower San Jacinto River. These areas repre-
sent about 8% of Galveston Bay.
Since 1990, the TDH has advised that crabs and
catfish taken within this advisory area not be eaten by
children, women who are pregnant, nursing mothers,
or women who may become pregnant, and only be
eaten in one 8-ounce portion per month by all others,
because of elevated levels of dioxin. Elevated levels of
chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins caused the
TDH to recommend the same consumptive restrictions
for all fish species, in addition to crabs and catfish,
taken in a small subsection of this area in 2001. The
area included the 15 square miles within the upper
Houston Ship Channel that extend from the San
Jacinto River to Houston.
Human Uses and National
Coastal Condition Report
Environmental Indicators
With the exception of fish contamination in a small
area, reduced benthic conditions at 8 of 10 NCA loca-
tions, and restrictions on oyster harvesting over wider
areas, Galveston Bay is meeting the demands imposed
on it by human uses. Moreover, in terms of the coastal
condition indicators used in this report, it is meeting
human use needs and maintaining a fair ecological
condition. The chlorophyll a and total nitrogen indices
at the 10 NCA sites were all rated as good or fair.
Dissolved oxygen in bottom water is good at eight sites
and fair in the other two sites. Phosphorus concentra-
tions, however, were poor at seven sites and only fair at
three. None of the sediment samples at any site, except
the Houston Ship Channel site, showed sufficient
chemical contamination to classify sediment as
anything other than good. The NOAA Bioeffect
Surveys (summarized in Chapter 2, National Coastal
Condition) showed the same results at its 75 sites.
There was no toxicity, as measured by 10-day amphipod
survival (although 80% of the sites are listed as missing
sediment toxicity data), and no cases where sediment
guidelines were exceeded, except one site in the Houston
Ship Channel. Benthic community conditions,
however, were poor at two sites and fair at six sites.
The Galveston Bay estuary system is maintaining
a fair ecological condition, despite the many demands
from human uses. However, continued surveillance to
detect any early warning signs of ecological degradation
from the current conditions would be prudent.
National Coastal Condition Report II 257
-------
-------
ndix A Quality Assurance
Appendix A Quality Assurance
Background
The National Coastal Assessment (NCA) Program
monitors and assesses the quality of the data that is
collected through the activities of the NCA Quality
Assurance Program. The NCA QA Program is
conducted under the guidance of the National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
(NHEERL) Director of Quality Assurance. The NCA
QA team consists of:
• National Quality Assurance Coordinator — Assures a
QA program is in place and being followed, as well
as documentation of the known quality of the data
sets developed by the national contract laboratories;
• Four regional QA coordinators — Assure that the QA
program is being followed and develop the docu-
mentation supporting the known quality of the data
collected in NCA; and,
• Twenty-four state QA coordinators — Responsible for
reviewing and qualifying all data sets sent to the
program from their respective states.
A detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
was developed by NCA (U.S. EPA, 2001b) and provided
to all participants in the program. Compliance with the
QAPP is assessed through extensive field training exer-
cises, site visits, reviews, and audits. The QAPP
addresses multiple levels of the program. These range
from the collection of field samples and laboratory
processing of these samples, to the review of data sets
compiled from the field and laboratory activities. The
NCA QA team is responsible for performing assess-
ments of the adequacy of these activities.
1999/2000 Survey
The NCA convened a diverse panel of environ-
mental scientists to help formulate a list of core indica-
tors to help ensure that the NCA collected the appro-
priate types of data to support its mission. In order to
ensure that the data collected were of appropriate
quality to generate sound estimates on environmental
condition, the NCA utilized the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) concept of data quality
objectives (DQOs) to set the overall level of data quality
required by management to make informed decisions.
In other words, how much error can be tolerated within
the measurement process before the data are deemed
unacceptable?
The NCA Program developed an a priori, program-
level DQO for status estimates: "For each indicator of
condition, estimate the portion of the resource in
degraded condition within ±10% for the overall system
and ±10% for subregions, with 90% confidence based
on a completed sampling regime." This requirement
was met by all of the indicators used for the 1999 to
2000 estimates, with the exception of Puerto Rico. The
NCA design never intended to treat Puerto Rico's
samples as a sole measure of the condition of the
Caribbean and Pacific island commonwealths. Once
other commonwealth islands are included in the NCA
surveys, the uncertainty associated with condition esti-
mates will be reduced significantly. The level of uncer-
tainty (error) associated with the individual indicators
for each region and the national estimates (Table A-l)
ranges from 1% to 16% (including Puerto Rico) and
1-9% (excluding Puerto Rico). The uncertainty associ-
ated with areal estimates of ecological condition in the
Great Lakes cannot be determined.
National Coastal Condition Report II 259
-------
Appendix A Quality Assurance
Table A- 1. Levels of Uncertainty Associated with the Estimate of Proportional Area Exceeding the
Indicator Criteria (U.S. EPA/NCA)
Indicator
Water Quality Index
Water Clarity
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll a
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment TOC
Wetland Loss
Benthic Index/Equivalent
Fish Contaminant Index
Aquatic Life Use Impairment
Human Use Impairment
Unimpaired
NE
5%
5%
5%
6%
5%
3%
5%
4%
4%
2%
<.!%
5%
6%
2%
4%
2%
SE
4%
5%
-------
ndix A Quality Assurance
Region
West Coast
Gulf of Mexico
Southeast
Northeast
State or Agency Number Trained
CA
• OR
WA
| NOAA/NMFS
TX
LA
IMS
AL
1 FL
GA
MA
• ME
I DE
I NH
I NY
NJ
CT
1 Rl
4
5
5
6
13
10
2
5
7
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Table A-3. Matrix of Train ing Activities for the Northeast Region of NCA in 2000.
Subject
Intro to C2000
List of Indicators
Station and
Sample IDs,
Bar Codes
Locating
Stations
Station
Datasheet
CTD Profile
PAR Profile
Secchi Depth
Nutrients
Benthic Infauna
Sediment
Chemistry
Sediment
Toxicity
Trawl
Operations
Fish
Community
Fish
Pathology
Fish Chemistry
Shipping
Computer System
ME
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Include
instrumentation
Include
instrumentation
yes
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
NH
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
MA
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
General only
yes
yes
General only
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Rl
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
CT
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes, but may
not use it
General only
yes
yes
General only
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
General only
General only
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
NY
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Mixed
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
NJ
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
General only
yes
yes
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
General only
General only
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
DE
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
General only
yes
yes
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
Full detail
National Coastal Condition Report II 261
-------
Appendix A Quality Assurance
Laboratory Analyses
Prior to the analyses of any samples in 1999, the
analytical laboratories from Washington, Oregon, and
California had to perform a demonstration of capability.
Each laboratory was sent a set of Standard Reference
Materials (SRMs) as unknown samples for analysis.
These samples represented both organic and inorganic
compounds in sediment and tissue matrices (Table A-4),
which were representative of the type of samples NCA
would be providing them. The results from these
analyses were evaluated in order to determine whether
the lab was capable of correctly identifying and quanti-
fying the analytes of interest within the QA require-
ments outlined in the NCA QAPP In lieu of analyzing
the SPvMs, each lab could submit its results from the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
annual inter-laboratory comparison (ILC), a program
examining performance-based quality assurance among
multiple laboratories using NIST-generated sediment
and tissue contaminant samples of known concentra-
tions. These samples are analyzed by participating labo-
ratories using a variety of methods, and the results are
compared to the known concentrations.
Table A-4. Standard Reference Materials sent to
Washington, Oregon, and California State Laboratories
for a Demonstration of Capability.
SRM
Matrix
Class of Compounds
CRN 2976
Mussel Tissue
Inorganics
CARP-1
Fish Tissue
Organics
MESS-2
Marine Sediment
Inorganics
RM 1944
NY/NJ Waterway
Sediment
Organics
California
Two separate laboratories performed the chemical
analyses of samples for the state of California. The
laboratory performing the organic analyses submitted
the required SPvMs for evaluation, while the laboratory
performing the inorganic analyses submitted their
NIST ILC results. The inorganics laboratory satisfacto-
rily demonstrated technical capability for metals
analyses by submitting their results for the current
NOAA/NIST interlaboratory calibration exercise.
In fact, the NOAA/NIST exercise included samples
identical to those distributed by NCA. For both
matrices, the laboratory generally exceeded NCA's
quality criteria for accuracy, ± 20% agreement to the
accepted true concentration (only applies to those
analytes with accepted true values greater than 10 times
laboratory's method detection limit [MDL]). The labo-
ratory also demonstrated a high degree of precision for
the three replicate analyses conducted with each sample.
The organics laboratory satisfactorily demonstrated
technical capability for pesticide, PAH, and PCB
analyses with the successful analysis of the CARP-1 and
SRM-1944. The percent recoveries and reported MDLs
for the required analytes met or exceeded the NCA
quality criteria.
Washington
The laboratory performing the analyses for the state
of Washington submitted results from the analysis of
the SRMs for inorganics and results from the NIST
ILC for organics. The laboratory's results for analyzing
SRM Marine Sediment VIII (QA98SED8) were indica-
tive of the laboratory's capability to produce high-
quality analytical data for organic contaminants in
sediments and met with NCA's general expectation
for technical competency.
The laboratory's results for the inorganic SRMs,
CRM-2976 and MESS-2, demonstrated that the
laboratory had the capability to successfully analyze
sediment and tissue samples for metals. Results and
MDLs provided were within the general criteria for
technical competence required by NCA.
Oregon
The laboratory performing the sample analyses for
the state of Oregon submitted their results from analysis
of the SRMs for evaluation of capability for both
organic and inorganic analyses. The results submitted
by the laboratory for the sediments appear marginal
when gauged against NCA's established acceptability
criteria. For analytes with true/accepted (e.g., SRM)
concentrations greater than 10 times the laboratory's
reported MDL, the laboratory's submitted values should
be within ± 35% of the accepted value (including the
confidence limits) for at least 70% of the analytes
within a class of compound (e.g., PCBs). It is not
262 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
ndix A Quality Assurance
uncommon for a laboratory to encounter difficulty
in meeting these strict standards. Because continued
improvement was anticipated, the laboratory was condi-
tionally approved to initiate the analyses of sediment
samples, with the understanding that all results for
field samples will be critically reviewed regarding NCA
quality standards. If these standards were not met, the
data were flagged or even dropped altogether from
the regional and national databases.
The results from the analyses of the SRMs, CRM-
2976, and MESS-2 generally met with the NCA quality
standard for relative accuracy, agreement within + 20
percent of the accepted true value for each analyte.
Other Coastal States
In 2000, 19 additional coastal states became partners
in the NCA. Many of the states did not wish to or were
not capable of analyzing the samples that were being
collected. In order to meet the need for a centralized
laboratory processing facility, NCA established national
contracts in which commercial laboratories were
contracted to perform the required analyses. The
management of the contracts, coordination of the ship-
ment of samples, and distribution of resulting data were
performed by EPA. The states of New York, South
Carolina, Florida, and Texas chose to perform their own
analyses and did not utilize the national contract. South
Carolina and Florida provided their own QAPPs for
review by the NCA QA staff, and New York and Texas
agreed to follow the requirements of the NCA QAPP.
After review, the QAPPs submitted by South Carolina
and Florida were accepted, and each laboratory was
conditionally approved to begin analyses. As a condition
of each of these four states' cooperative agreements,
each state laboratory was audited during the time
period 2003-2004.
National Contract Laboratories - NCA
As part of the contract awards evaluation process,
each of the respondents were required to submit a
QAPP for review with their proposal package. In their
QAPP, respondents had to either agree to adhere to the
requirements of the NCA QAPP or to provide a plan
with requirements that were equal to or greater than
those described in the NCA QAPP.
Chemistry
The laboratory selected to perform the chemical
analyses for the national contract agreed to adhere to
the NCA QAPP. The NCA national laboratory for
2000/2001 underwent a technical systems review in
January of 2001. The laboratory was commended for
the efforts it was expending to ensure the overall data
quality. There were exemplary findings for sample
tracking, quality control (QC) checklists, Standard
Operative Procedures (SOPs), electronic data assembly,
and laboratory personnel. Some concern was noted by
the reviewers for validation of storage temperatures,
documentation for comparisons of surrogate recoveries,
and lack of access to raw inorganics data. Overall, the
data received from this laboratory met or exceeded the
requirements of the NCA QAPP
Toxicity
The laboratory selected for the NCA national
contract to perform the acute toxicity testing of sedi-
ments collected by NCA using Ampelisca abdita agreed
to adhere to the requirements of the NCA QAPP A site
visit of the national contract toxicity laboratory was
conducted during December 2000. The facility and
personnel were determined to be technically competent.
The contractor had significant previous experience with
the performance of the required toxicity tests through
its contracting with EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) in 1991-1994. The
contractor also underwent a data quality audit during
November 2001. The audit team was highly satisfied
with the laboratory's overall technical capability to
conduct the sediment toxicity tests on a high-volume
basis. The files were complete, orderly, and with minor
exception, in compliance with the NCA QAPP The
exceptions noted were: (1) some data entries were made
in pencil, and (2) the laboratory personnel were not
initialing receipt of the samples on the log-in form.
Benthic Fauna
The laboratory selected to perform the identification
and enumeration of the benthic organisms collected by
NCA agreed to adhere to the requirements of the NCA
QAPP The laboratory's basic protocols met or exceeded
those required by NCA, including resorting of benthic
National Coastal Condition Report II 263
-------
Appendix A Quality Assurance
samples, documentation on 10% of each technicians'
samples (95% efficiency required), and taxonomic
identifications being verified by a second taxonomist,
with an outside expert consulted for difficult identifica-
tions. The staff assigned to the project were determined
to be technically competent and capable of performing
the work.
Nutrients
All water samples collected for determination
of dissolved nutrients were analyzed at EPA/ORD/
NHEERL's Gulf Ecology Division. The analyses were
performed with strict adherence to the NCA QAPP.
All analytical batches reported for inclusion in the NCA
database met or exceeded the requirements in the NCA
QAPP A six-point calibration curve with an r2 > 0.95,
internal check calibrant and external quality control
samples were within the acceptable range of certifica-
tion, and sample matrices were matched.
Five states in the Northeast have chosen to perform
their own nutrient analyses. In 2001, the NCA
Northeast Quality Assurance Coordinator established
an inter-laboratory comparison study for nutrient
analysis utilizing samples provided by the National
Research Council (NRC)-Canada. Each laboratory was
provided an unknown sample for analysis of inorganic
nutrients. Laboratories were assessed by how close their
results were to the NRC-Canada consensus values. For
orthophosphate, one of the five laboratories agreed with
the consensus values, three laboratories provided values
close to the consensus value, while one laboratory's
results were not acceptable. For nitrite, one laboratory
did not submit a result, three laboratories provided
values close to the consensus value, while one labora-
tory's results were not acceptable. For nitrate/nitrite,
one laboratory did not submit a result, three laborato-
ries provided values in line with the consensus values,
and one laboratory provided values that were outside
the acceptable range. All laboratories were encouraged
to continue participation in the NRC-Canada
intercomparison for nutrients as part of their NCA
QA programs.
Data Review
All data received from the laboratories and field
crews participating in the NCA Program for 1999/2000
were reviewed prior to and during the data analysis
phase. The NCA QA team in the Northeast developed
a three-level QA review of data collected in their region
(Appendix B). All of the data collected in the Northeast
for 2000 were reviewed according to this procedure.
NCA West Coast data collected in 1999 underwent
an initial review for range checking, completeness, and
consistency prior to placement into the database. Final
review of the data was performed by the states and then
discussed at a 2-day meeting between each state's NCA
participants and the NCA-West QA staff. The final
version of the data set was then made available to the
data analysts.
Southeastern and Gulf of Mexico data for 2000 was
reviewed for range checking, completeness, and consis-
tency by the NCA QA staffs for these regions of the
country. The data sets were checked for outliers and
known relationships were tested. When these evalua-
tions were completed, the data was supplied to the
data analysts.
Analytical results from the national contract labora-
tories were reviewed as they were received. Each report
was checked to ensure that the appropriate QC had
been performed and that it met the requirements of the
QAPP When the data report was too voluminous to
review by hand, the NCA data manager summarized
the QA data and checked it in accordance with the
NCA QAPP
264 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Appendix B \ Three-Level QA Review of Coastal 2000 Northeast Database
Appendix B
Three-Level QA Review of Coastal
2000 Northeast Database
This appendix describes the QA review process
performed on Coastal 2000 data in the Northeast
Region, coordinated by the Atlantic Ecology Division
(AED) (U.S. EPA, 2000d). Each state or Cooperative
Agreement recipient measures a suite of field data and
collects water, sediment, and fish samples for laboratory
analysis. The states may elect to forward the samples to
a national contract laboratory or conduct the analytical
analyses themselves. The results of the field and labora-
tory analyses are sent to AED for incorporation into a
regional database. These data are subjected by AED to
the three levels of QA review described below.
The states or contract laboratories provide the data
in electronic form to the project officer at EPA AED.
A regional database manager at the AED combines all
of the states' data into a "dl-database," organized into
separate data files by similarity and by states. For
example, all nutrient-related data are entered into the
NUTRNTS file. In turn, each data file contains several
parameters; for example, the NUTRNTS file includes
the nutrient parameters (e.g., nitrate, ammonium,
phosphate).
The dl-database contains many parameters that are
administrative in nature or descriptive of the sampling
event, for example, the identity of the sampling vessel
and crew and the weather conditions at the time of
sampling. The AED database manager constructs a
summary database, or "d2-database," consisting of para-
meters that have been identified to be the most useful
to data users.
Level I QA Review
A Level 1 review examines the dl-database for
completeness, format compatibility, and internal consis-
tency. The checks listed below are simple and can be
performed without detailed knowledge of the nature of
the parameters. A Level I review is complete when all
data gaps are filled or explained and obvious errors have
been corrected. Records are kept of any changes made
to the database. The steps for the Level I review are as
follows:
(1) A completeness check is performed on all data
submitted by states and laboratories. This check
involves comparing the number of data entries in
each file to the number of stations sampled. The
database manager notes and investigates any
missing data.
(2) A range check of each parameter is performed to
highlight records falling outside an expected range.
The database manager notes outliers and corrects
any obvious errors, such as data submitted with
incorrect units. Persistent outliers are highlighted
for a Level 2 review.
(3) Simple consistency checks are performed by
comparing independent records of closely related
parameters. For instance, records of latitudes and
longitudes are compared with planned locations,
and water depths measured by independent
methods are compared.
The AED database manager submits any
questions/corrections that have been identified with
suggested database changes to the Project Officer. The
Project Officer transmits these questions/corrections to
the Cooperative Agreement Program Manager, who
resolves the concerns, concurs/non-concurs with the
suggested changes, and submits a revised data file(s) if
necessary. Once the Cooperative Agreement recipient
concurs with the changes to the database, the Level 1
review is complete. The data files passing Level 1 QA
review are made available on the password-protected
Coastal 2000 Northeast Web site.
National Coastal Condition Report II 265
-------
Appendix B \ Three-Level QA Review of Coastal 2000 Northeast Database
Level 2 QA Review
A Level 2 review is performed on the summary
database (d2-database) parameters. The review
highlights values that are unusual enough to raise
the suspicions of a data user. Anomalous data include
values that are especially large or small, or are note-
worthy in other ways. Focus is on rare, extreme values
because outliers usually merit most attention by users
and may affect statistical quantities, such as averages
and standard deviations.
(1) Extreme values are flagged by highlighting any
record deviating from the average by more than
three standard deviations.
(2) Extreme values are also highlighted visually by plot-
ting parameter values vs station ID. The benefit of
such a plot is that the outliers can be compared
with nearby stations or with associated parameters.
For example, if several stations in an estuary are
exceptionally high or low, we would suspect that
the data may be reliable. Similarly, if several closely
associated parameters are extreme at a station (e.g.,
consistently high nutrients, or consistently high
organic compounds), we would suspect that the
records may be valid.
(3) Correlations among the parameters are examined.
An array of miniature x-y plots is generated, one
plot for each combination of associated parameters
(e.g., a standard application of SAS Insight). For
instance, a matrix of five water quality parameters
would generate a 5x5 array of plots systematically
varying in variables for the x- and y-axes. Typical
plots show a regular relationship between the
plotted parameters. Anomalous data are readily
evident on these plots. Examination of closely
related parameters may resolve questions regarding
the accuracy of anomalous data.
Documentation of suspicious data identified is
prepared, with invalid data flagged. This documentation
becomes part of the metadata. Level 2 data are made
available on the same Web site as the Level 1 data.
Level 3 QA Review
A Level 3 review is conducted to evaluate whether
data submitted by the states or laboratories are compa-
rable across areas, recognizing that the magnitudes of
the values may indeed be different in the various
geographic areas.
(1) A regional map is prepared for each measured para-
meter. Discrete map symbols denote station loca-
tion and the magnitude of the parameter (e.g., low,
moderate, or high). The maps are examined for
noteworthy patterns that may be attributed to
database errors.
(2) A bar chart is prepared for each measured para-
meter. The chart shows the percent area of each
state's waters designated by a condition category
(e.g., low, moderate, or high). The charts are also
examined for anomalous patterns that may indicate
database irregularities.
(3) A distribution graph is prepared for each para-
meter, grouping data by estuarine system to
compare the range and distribution of measured
values across the states.
(4) A table is prepared for each parameter summa-
rizing the descriptive statistics of parameters by
state. Although the magnitude of a parameter may
vary by state, it is expected that the coefficient of
variation should be roughly equivalent across
the states.
A summary report is prepared, utilizing the maps,
charts, and tables developed in the Level 3 review. This
report is made available on the same Web site that the
Level 1 and Level 2 data are available on.
Records are maintained of all data files examined
and entries considered anomalous. The Project Officer
reports the anomalies to the Cooperative Agreement
recipient or contract laboratory data managers, who
correct and resubmit the data. All changes to the orig-
inal database are documented.
266 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Appendix C Normalizing National Coastal Condition Reports I and
Appendix C Normalizing National Coastal
Condition Reports I and II
The National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR I)
was completed in 2000 (U.S. EPA, 2001) and covered
the period from 1990 to 1996. The NCCR I included
seven indicators calculated using probabilistic sampling
survey data (e.g., EMAP) and non-probabilistic infor-
mation. Probabilistic sampling data were available for
half of the estuarine resources of the Northeast Coast
and all of the estuarine resources of the Southeast Coast
and Gulf Coast regions. Non-probabilistic information
was used from selected West Coast estuaries and the
Great Lakes. The indicators (eutrophication potential,
water clarity, dissolved oxygen, wetland loss, sediment
contaminants, benthic index, and fish contaminants)
covered the major stressors (water quality, sediment
quality) and biological responses (benthos and fish) for
coastal ecosystems. However, only five of these indica-
tors (water clarity, dissolved oxygen, sediment contami-
nants, benthic index, and fish contaminants) were based
on consistent and comprehensive data covering most
U.S. estuarine area. Eutrophication potential was based
on a combination of expert opinion and long-term data
(Bricker et al., 1999). The wetland loss information
came from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI,
1995) and reflected loss rates for twenty decades (1780
to 1980). Although this report included information
for all U.S. estuarine systems, the combination of
qualitative and quantitative information made the
overall indicator scores for the region and nation more
uncertain than the survey data.
The NCCR I was relatively well received, but a
number of criticisms were made regarding (1) its use
of simple nationwide reference conditions (e.g., water
clarity); (2) its use of the 200-year loss period for
wetlands, when much of the loss occurred prior to
1990; (3) its use of expert opinion for some of its
eutrophication information; (4) its use of three indica-
tors representing water quality out of the total of seven
indicators used to assess condition; (5) the lack of infor-
mation for the upper Northeast Coast (Massachusetts
through Maine) and the West Coast; and (6) the use
of a simple mean of the seven indicators to characterize
overall estuarine condition.
This National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR II)
uses probabilistic survey data from 1996 to 2000. It
attempts to address many of the criticisms about the
first NCCR I, but also creates problems for compar-
isons between the two reports. NCCR II uses indicators
representing the same stressors and responses; however,
these indicators are constructed differently. NCCR II
only uses five indicators (water quality index, sediment
quality index, coastal habitat index, benthic index, and
fish tissue contaminants index). The additional indica-
tors, water clarity and dissolved oxygen, were still
reported, but rather than contributing directly to the
overall rating score reported in NCCR II, they
contribute to the water quality index. The primary
changes made in the NCCR II to address the earlier
criticisms are as follows:
• Probabilistic surveys have been conducted in all
estuarine waters of the conterminous 48 states. This
means that comprehensive, consistent, probabilistic
survey data were available for the waters of
Massachusetts through Maine and for West Coast
estuaries. These data were not available for the first
report. Available non-probabilistic data continue to
be used to characterize Great Lakes condition.
• Reference conditions for water clarity are regionalized
to reflect expected (natural background) conditions
rather than using a standard nationwide reference
condition of 10% surface light penetration to a
depth of 1 meter. This means that in NCCR II, areas
of naturally low water clarity are not automatically
characterized as poor.
National Coastal Condition Report II 267
-------
Appendix C Normalizing National Coastal Condition Reports I and
Wetland losses are characterized by a combination of
long-term losses (1780—1990) and losses for the most
recent decade (1990-2000). This means the criteria
for poor condition for NCCR II decreased by a
factor of 40.
The water quality indicator is based on an index
constructed from survey data on nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus), water clarity, chlorophyll a, and
dissolved oxygen. These five subindicators are com-
bined into a single measure of water quality. Nitrogen,
phosphorus, water clarity, and chlorophyll a use
regionalized reference conditions that are adjusted to
reflect the summertime sampling period. Dissolved
oxygen continues to use a nationwide reference
condition. This means that the water quality indi-
cator in NCCR II is based on consistent and
comprehensive information collected from 1996
to 2000, instead of more long-term data and expert
opinion used in the NCCR I.
Only one measure of water quality (water quality
index) is used to characterize overall condition. This
means that water quality only contributes 20% to
overall condition in NCCR II. In the previous
report, water quality indicators contributed more
than 40% to the overall rating.
Sediment quality is based on a combination of sedi-
ment contaminants, sediment toxicity, and sediment
TOC. In the NCCR I, only sediment contaminants
were used. Poor condition in sediment contaminants
in NCCR II is based on exceedance of ERM guide-
lines, whereas in NCCR I, it is based on exceedance
of ERM or more than 5 ERL guidelines.
Fish tissue contaminants are characterized by whole-
body concentrations and are compared to EPA risk-
based consumption guidelines in the NCCR II. In
the NCCR I, fish contaminants were based on fillet
concentrations and compared to FDA criteria.
As a result of these changes, the NCCR I and the
NCCR II are not directly comparable. In order to facil-
itate comparisons between the two reports, the results
of NCCR I have been re-evaluated using the analysis
approaches used in NCCR II. The results (as reported)
in the two reports are listed in Tables C-l and C-2.
In order to compare the two sets of results, the scores
from the NCCR I were altered in the following ways:
• Water clarity, dissolved oxygen, and eutrophication
were combined into a single water quality index. If
any of the three components is poor, the water
quality index is rated as poor. Using this method,
water quality was poor in all regions for NCCR I
except the Southeast Coast, and no measure is avail-
able for the Great Lakes. Recalculating this index did
not change the regional or national rating for water
quality condition.
• Sediment contaminants were recalculated using
only ERM values to determine poor condition
and combined with sediment toxicity to create a
sediment quality index. This method improved the
sediment quality index for all regions except the
Northeast Coast and Great Lakes in the NCCR I.
• Fish contaminants were recalculated based on the
EPA risk-based guidelines for consumption rather
than the FDA limits.
• Overall condition was calculated based on five indi-
cators rather than seven.
268 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Appendix C Normalizing National Coastal Condition Reports I and
Table C-l. Comparison of Percent Area of Poor Condition3 by Indicator and Region for 2001 vs. 2004 National
Coastal Condition Reports (vl = NCCR I and v2 = NCCR II).
Indicator
Water Quality
lndexb
Water Clarity0
Dissolved Oxygend
Sediment Quality
Index6
Coastal Habitat
lndexf
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index?
Overall Condition11
Northeast
Coast
vl
60
6
5
41
39
23
30
43
v2
19
23
10
16
1.00
22
31
40i
Southeast
Coast
vl
13
12
2
13
40
17
9
46
v2
5
10
2
8
1.06
II
5
23
Gulf
Coast
vl
38
22
4
43
50
23
20
49
v2
9
23
1
12
1.30
17
14
40
West Great
Coast Lakes
vl v2 vl v2
20 3 - -
1 36 - -
01 - -
- 14 - -
68 1.90 51 -
13 - -
- 27 - -
- 23 - -
Puerto
Rico
vl v2
9
- 20
1
- 61
_ _
- 35
— —
- 77
United
States
vl
40
4
4
35
48
21
26
44
v2
II
23
4
13
1.26
17
22
35
a Percent area of poor condition is the percentage of total estuarine surface area in the region or the nation (proportional area information is not
available for Great Lakes in 2001 or 2004; it is available for selected estuaries in the West Coast in 2001; and in Puerto Rico, it is available only for
the 2004 report).
bWater quality index is a combination of dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, nitrogen, phosphorus, and water clarity in 2004 and the NOAA estimate of
high potential for eutrophication in 2001.
c Water clarity is used as primary indicator with a national reference value in 2001 and is used as a component of eutrophication with regional
reference values in 2004.
d Dissolved oxygen is used as a primary indicator with a national reference value in 2001 and is used as a component of eutrophication with a
national reference value in 2004.
eSediment quality index is a combination of sediment quality measurements (sediment contaminant concentrations, sediment toxicity, and sediment
TOC).
f Wetland loss in the NCCR I was based on the percentage lost from 1780 to 1980. In the NCCR II, the coastal habitat index is based on the
average mean long-term, decadal wetland loss rate (1780-1990) and the present decade's (1990-2000) wetland loss rate.
8 Fish tissue contaminants are based on analyses of whole fish (not fillets).
h Overall percentage is based on the overlap of the five indicators and includes estuarine area for all 48 conterminous states (by region and total) and
Puerto Rico.
' In Northeast Coast estuaries, at least one of the five indicators is rated poor at sites representing 40% of total estuarine area.
National Coastal Condition Report II 269
-------
Appendix C Normalizing National Coastal Condition Reports I and
Table C-2. Rating Scores3 by Indicator and Region Comparing 2001 (as published) vs. 2004 National Coastal
Condition Reports (vl = NCCR 1 and v2 = NCCR II).
Indicator
Water Quality
Index
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality
Index
Coastal Habitat
lndexf
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Overall Condition
Northeast
Coast
vl v2
1 2
5 Nld
4 Nl
41 16
2 4
1 1
1 1
2. 1 1 .8
Southeast
Coast
vl
4
4
5
13
2
2
5
3.6
v2
4
Nl
Nl
8
3
3
5
3.8
Gulf
Coast
vl
1
3
5
43
1
1
1
1.9
v2
3
Nl
Nl
12
1
2
3
2.4
West
Coast
vl
1
5
5
_
1
3
3
2.7
v2
5
Nl
Nl
14
1
3
1
2.4
Great
Lakes
vl
_c
5
4
_
1
1
1
2.2
v2
3
Nl
Nl
_
2
2
3
2.2
Puerto United
Rico States'3
v 1 v2 v 1
3 1.7
Nl 4.3
Nl 4.5
- 61 35
- -e 1.4
1 1.4
- - 1.9
1 .7 2.4
v2
3.2
Nl
Nl
13
1.7
2.0
2.7
2.3
a Rating scores are based on a S-point system, where I is poor and 5 is good (information for Puerto Rico is available only for the NCCR II.)
bU.S. score is based on an areally weighted mean of regional scores.
c No water quality data were available for the Great Lakes for the NCCR I.
dNI = Not included in the rating scores for NCCR II.
e No coastal habitat or fish tissue contaminant results are available for Puerto Rico.
The overall effect of the recalculation of the NCCR I
scores is to reduce (worsen) all of the regional scores,
except the Southeast Coast's, as well as the national
score. Rather than a finding of fair condition as was
reported in NCCR I, the overall U.S. condition, would
have been reported as fair to poor (i.e., score reduction
from 2.4 to 2.0) (Table C-3). Other overall changes
would have changed ratings in the Northeast Coast
(from fair to poor) and the West Coast (from fair to fair
to poor). After normalizing the scores in this fashion, a
comparison of NCCR I and NCCR II is possible. The
information represents too short a time period to assess
significant trends, but the comparison of conditions in
the early 1990s to 2000 shows higher scores in 2000 for
the Gulf Coast and shows the Great Lakes advancing
from a poor to fair category. The overall condition
scores for Northeast Coast and West Coast estuaries in
the 1990s were reduced to poor and fair to poor, respec-
tively, to show no categorical change through 2000.
270 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Appendix C Normalizing National Coastal Condition Reports I and
Table C-3. Rating Scores3 by Indicator and Region Comparing the 2001 and 2004 National Coastal Condition
Reports but Calculated with 2004 Methods.
Northeast
Indicator Coast
vlc v2c
Water Quality
Index 1 2
Sediment Quality
Index 2 1
Coastal Habitat
lndexf 3 4
Benthic Index 1 1
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index 2 1
Overall Condition 1.8 1.8
Southeast
Coast
vl
4
4
2
3
5
3.6
v2
4
4
3
3
5
3.8
Gulf
Coast
vl v2
1 3
3 3
1 1
1 2
3 3
1.8 2.4
West
Coast
vl v2
1 5
2 2
1 1
3 3
3 1
2.0 2.4
Great Puerto United
Lakes Rico States'3
vl v2 vld v2 vl
13 - 3 1.5
II - 1 2.3
12 - -e 1.6
12 - 1 1.5
33 - - 3.1
1.4 2.2 - 1.7 2.0
v2
3.2
2.1
1.7
2.0
2.7
2.3
a Rating scores are based on a S-point system, where I is poor and 5 is good (scores for Puerto Rico are only available for 2004 report).
bU.S. score is based on an areally-weighted mean of regional scores.
cvl = NCCRI,v2= NCCR II
dNo rating information is available for Puerto Rico in NCCR I.
e No coastal habitat index or fish tissue contaminants index results are available for Puerto Rico for NCCR II.
National Coastal Condition Report II 271
-------
-------
References
-------
Refe
erences
Adams, D.A., J.S. O'Connor, and S.B. Weisberg. 1998. Final Report: Sediment Quality
of the NY/NJ Harbor System — An Investigation under the Regional Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP). EPA/902-R-98-001. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Environmental Science and
Assessment, Region 2, Edison, NJ. Web site at www.epa.gov/emap/remap/html/docs/
nynjharbor.html.
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program). 2004. AMAP Assessment 2002: Persistent
Organic Pollutants in the Arctic. Oslo, Norway, 310 pp.
ASFMC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2000. American Lobster Stock
Assessment for Peer Review. Stock Assessment Report No. 00-01 (Supplement). Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission Special Report 61, Washington, DC.
ASTM (American Society ofTesting and Materials). 1995- Standard Test Methods for
Measuring the Toxicity of Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Fresh Water Invertebrates.
ASTM Designation E-1706-95b. ASTM Standard Methods Series, Volume 11.05-
The American Society ofTesting and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
Baldwin-Brown, A., B. Cann, R Connell, A. Korndoerfer, M. Kusmiez, L. McGeorge,
P. Morton, P. Olsen, J. Sell, M. Serfes, T Vernam. 2003- Water Quality Monitoring
Networks 2003. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Water Monitoring
and Standards, Trenton, NJ. Web site at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/wmm/brochure/
networks.html.
Barras, J., S. Hartley, J.B. Johnston, and WR. Jones. 2004. 100+ years of land change for
coastal Louisiana. In ESRIMap Book, v. 19- N. Sappington (ed.) p. 74.
Bergondo, D., Kester, D., Stoffel, H., Woods, W In Press. Time series observations during low
sub-surface oxygen events in Narragansett Bay in 2001. Marine Chemistry.
Boesch, D.F. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for science in reducing nutrient over-
enrichment of coastal ecosystems. Estuaries 25:744—758.
Boyer, E.W, C.L. Goodale, N.A. Jaworski, and RW Howarth. 2002. Anthropogenic nitrogen
sources and relationships to riverine export in the northeastern U.S.A. Biogeochemistry
57/58:137-169-
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. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for Coastal Ocean
Science, Silver Spring, MD.
Carlton, J.T 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and
Management Priorities. Prepared for the Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1999- Gulf of Mexico hypoxia: land
and sea interactions. Task Force Report No. 134.
2,74 National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
CENR (Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources). 2000. Integrated Assessment
ofHypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Chapman, P.M. 1990. The Sediment Quality Triad approach to determining pollution-
induced degradation. The Science of the Total Environment 5^7/98:815--825-
Chapra, S.C., and H.F.H. Dobson. 1981. Quantification of the lake trophic typologies of
Naumann (surface quality) and Thienemann (oxygen) with special reference to the Great
Lakes. International Association for Great Lakes Research 7(2):182—193-
Chary, L.K. 2000. "Persistent Organic Pollutants in Alaska. Circumpolar Conservation Union,
Washington, DC. Circumpolar online information. Web site at www.circumpolar.org.
Clark, S.H., S.X. Cadrin, D.E Schick, P.J. Diodati, M.P. Armstrong, and D. McCarron. 2000.
The Gulf of Maine northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) fishery: A review of the record.
Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fish Science 27:193—226.
Coiro, L., S.L. Poucher, and D. Miller. 2000. Hypoxic effects on growth of Palaemonetes
vulgaris larvae and other species: Using constant exposure data to estimate cyclic
exposure response. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 247:243—255.
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. Wetlands—Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Report to Congress, Washington, DC. Web site at
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/wetloss/wetloss.htm
Dahl, T.E. 2003- Results of the 2000 National Wetlands Inventory. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Unpublished.
Daskalalds, K.D., and T.P. O'Conner. 1994. Inventory of Chemical Concentrations in Coastal
and Estuarine Sediments. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS ORCA 76.
Dauer, D.M., M.F. Lane, and R.J. Llanso. 2002. Development of Diagnostic Approaches to
Determine Sources of Anthropogenic Stress Affecting Benthic Community Condition in the
Chesapeake Bay. Final Report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
Dettmann, E.H. 2001. Effect of water residence time on annual export and denitrification of
nitrogen in estuaries: A model analysis. Estuaries 24:481—490.
Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 1995. Marine benthic hypoxia: A review of it ecological effects
and the behavioral responses of benthic macrofauna. Oceanography and Marine Biology
Annual Review 33:245-303.
National Coasta! Condition Report il
-------
DiToro, D.M., C.S, Zarba, D.J. Hansen, W.J. Berry, R.C. Swart/, C.E. Cowan, S.P. Pavlou,
H.E. Allen, N.A. Thomas, and P.R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing
sediment quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning.
Environmental Toxicology Chemistry 1(9:1541—1583-
Duke, T.W., and W.L. Kruczynski (eds). 1992. Status and Trends of Emergent and Submerged
Vegetated Habitats of the Gulf of Mexico. EPA/800-R-92-003. Gulf of Mexico Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stennis Space Center, MS.
Engle, V.D., J.K. Summers, and G.R. Gascon. 1994. A benchic index of environmental
condition of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 17:372—384.
Engel, V.D., and G.W Thayer. 1998. Effects of habitat alteration on blue crabs. Journal of
Shellfish Research 17(2):579-586.
Engle, V.D., and J.K. Summers. 1999- Refinement, validation, and application of a benchic
condition index for northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries .22(3A):624—635.
Former, A.R., M. Sanders, and S.W. Lemire. 1996. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and
crave metal burdens in sediment and the oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin, from two
high salinity estuaries in South Carolina. In Sutain Coastal Development in the
Southeastern Coastal Zone. FJ. Vernberg, WB. Vernberg, and T.S. Siewicki (eds.). Univ.
of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC:445-476.
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2004. National Wetlands Inventory Website. U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service online information. St. Petersburg, FL.
Web site at http://www.nwi.fws.gov. Accessed March 2004.
GBEP (Galveston Bay Estuary Program). 2002. The State of the Bay: A Characterization of the
Galveston Bay Ecosystem, Second Edition. GBNEP T-7.Galveston Bay National Estuary
Program Publication Series.
GBNEP (Galveston Bay National Estuary Program). 1994a. The Galveston Bay Plan: The
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Galveston Bay Ecosystem.
GBNEP-49. Webster, TX.
GBNEP (Galveston Bay National Estuary Program). 1994b. The State of the Bay: A
Characterization of the Galveston Bay Ecosystem. GBNEP-44. Webster, TX.
Gersten, J. 1995- Galveston Bay Characterization, Texas Water Resources. Texas Water Resources
Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 21(4).
GLNPO (Great Lakes National Program Office). 2003. GLNPO online information. Web
site at www.epa.gov/glnpo/monicoring/indiaccors/limnology/. Index.
GLNPO (Great Lakes National Program Office). 2004. GLNPO online information.Web site
at www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/index
2*7U National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Goolsby, D.A., W.A. Battaglin, G.B. Lawrence, R.S. Art'/, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper,
D.R. Keeney, and G.J. Stensland. 1999. Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi-
Atchafalaya River Basin: Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf
of Mexico. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program
Decision Analysis Scries No. 17- NOAA Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD.
Grabe, S.A., D.J. Karlen, C.M. Holden, B. Goetting, and T. Dix. 2002. Tampa Bay Benthic
Monitoring Program: Status ofHillsborough Bay, 1993—1998. Environmental Protection
Commission ofHillsborough County, FL.
Green, A, M. Osborn, P. Chai, J. Lin, C. Loeffler, A. Morgan, P. Rubec, S. Spanyers,
A. Walton, R.D. Slack, D. Gawlik, D. Harpole, J. Thomas, E. Buskey, K. Schmidt,
R. Zimmerman, D. Harper, D. Hinklcy, and T. Sagcr. 1992. Status and Trends of Selected
Living Resources in the Galveston Bay System. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
Publication GBNEP-19. Webster, TX.
GMP (Gulf of Mexico Program). 2000. A Framework for an Integrated and Comprehensive
Monitoring Plan for Estuaries on the Gulf of Mexico. EPA-620/R-00/005. U.S.
Environemtal Protection Agency.
Hagy, J.D. 2002. Eutrophication, hypoxia and trophic transfer efficiency in Chesapeake Bay.
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Hagy, J.D., WR. Boynton, C.W Keefe, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay,
1950—2001: Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Submitted
to Estuaries.
Hammar-Klose, E.S., and E.R. Thieler 2001. Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: A
Preliminary Database for the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico Coasts. U.S.
Geological Survey, Digital Data Series DDS-68.
Harmon, M.R., A.S. Pait, and M.J. Hameedi. 2003. Sediment Contamination, Toxicity, and
Macroinvertebrate Infaunal Community in Galveston Bay. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NOS NCCOS CCMA 122. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment, Silver Spring,
MD.
Hartwell, S.I., J. Hameedi, and M. Harmon. 2001. Magnitude and Extent of Contaminated
Sediment and Toxicity in Delaware Bay. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOS NCCOS
CCMA 148. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service, Silver Spring, MD, 107pp.
Holderied, K., D. Pirhalla, V. Ransibrahmanakul, and R.P Stumpf. 2003- Application of
Improved SeaWiFS Chlorophyll Data in Estuarine and Coastal Waters. Presented at the 17th
Biennial Conference of the Estuarine Research Federation, September 14-18, 2003.
Seattle, WA.
National Coasta! Condition Report il 2*77
-------
Hood, D.W. and S.T. Zimmerman (eds.). 1986. The Gulf of Alaska: Physical Environment and
Biological Resources. MMS 86-0095. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Ocean Assessment Division, Alaska Office, 655 pp.
Jackson, LE., J.C. Kurtz, and W.S. Fisher (eds.). 2000. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological
Indicators. EPA/620/R-99/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Landry, M.R., J.R. Postel, W.K, Peterson, and J. Newman. 1989. Broad-scale patterns in the
distribution of hydrographic variables. In Coastal Oceanography of Washington and
Oregon. M.R. Landry and B.M. Hickey (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Press.
Lauenstein, G.G., E.A, Crecelius, and A.Y. Cantillo. 2000. Baseline Metal Concentrations of the
U.S. West Coast and Their Use in Evaluating Sediment Contamination. Presented at the
Society tor Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual Meeting. Nashville, TN,
November 12—15-
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 Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 52. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, Seattle WA.
Long, E.R., D.A. Wolfe, R.S. Carr, K.J. Scott, G.B. Thursby, H.L. Windom, R. Lee, ED.
Calder, G.M. Sloane, and T. Seal. 1994. Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in
Tampa Bay, Florida. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 78. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
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 /5*(1):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 d>"
Technology 30:3585-3592.
Long, E.R., J. Hameedi, A. Robertson, M. Dutch, S. Aasen, K. Welch, S. Magoon, R. Carr, T.
Johnson, J. Biedenbach, K. Scott, C. Mueller, and J. Anderson. 2000. Sediment Quality
in Puget Sound: Year 2, Central Puget Sound. NOS NCCOS CCMA Technical Memo
o ' o
No. 147. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
Silver Spring, MD; and Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Publication No. 00-03-055-
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 57:59—83.
Martin, D.M., T. Morton, T. Dobrzynski, and B. Valentine. 1996. Estuaries on the Edge: The
Vital Link Between Land and Sea. A Report by American Oceans Campaign. Web site at
http://www.americanoceans.org/estuary/edge.htm.
2*7O National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
May, E.B, 1973. Extensive oxygen depletion in Mobile Bay, Alabama, Limnology and
Oceanography 15:353-366.
MacDonald, D.D. 1994. Development of an Approach to Assessing Sediment Quality in Florida
Coastal Waters: Volume 2—Development of the Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines.
Report prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Tallahassee, FL.
McFarlane, R.W. 2001. Colonial waterbirds population trends in Galveston Bay. In Proceedings
of the Fifth Galveston Bay Estuary Program State of the Bay Symposium, Webster, TX,
January 31—February 2. Galveston Bay Estuary Program Publication GBEP-5.
Mearns, A.J., T.P. O'Connor, and G.G. Lauenstein. 1999- Relevance of the National Mussel
Watch Program to seafood fisheries management issues during oil spill response. In
Proceedings, 1999 International Oil Spill Conference, American Petroleum Institute.
Publication 4686B, pp. 7001-7008.
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. 2001. Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Washington, DC.
Moore, R.B., CM. Johnston, K.W Robinson, and J.R. Deacon. 2004. Estimation of total
nitrogen and phosphorus in New England streams using spatially referenced regression
models. Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5012, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Meeting the Invasive Species Challenge: In National
Invasive Species Management Plan.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. NOAA Fisheries 2001 Report. U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring,
MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003. Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of
U.S. Living Marine Resources, 2001. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech.
Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-41.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Personal communication. Fisheries Statistics and
Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD. http://www.st.nmfs.gov/stl/.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1988. A National Atlas: Health
and Use of Coastal Waters, United States of America. Fishery Resource Assessment Programs
and Large Marine Ecosystems, Folio Map No. 7. National Ocean Service, Office of
Oceanography and Marine Assessment.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1990. Estuaries of the United
States: Vital Statistics of a National Resource Base. Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean
Assessments Division, OMA/NOS, Rockville, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency). 1991. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters. Susceptibility and
Status of West Coast Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges: San Diego Bay to Puget Sound.
Summary Report. Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD.
National Coastal Condition Report II 2*7s
-------
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 1998a. Population and
Development in Coastal Areas. Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment,
Silver Spring, MD. Available at http://spo.nos.noaa.gov/projects/population/
population,html,
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1998b. "Population:
Distribution, Density and Growth" byT.J. Culliton. In NOAA's State of the Coast Report,
Silver Spring, MD. Web site at http://state-of-coast.noaa.gov/bulletins/htiiil/pop_J)l/
pop.html.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1998c. NOAA's Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey, Vol. 5: Pacific Coast Region. Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1999a. Estuarine Eutrophication
Survey. National Assessment of Nutrient Enrichment Conditions in Estuaries. Office of
Ocean Resources Conservation Assessment, Silver Spring, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1999b. Coastal Assessment and
Data Synthesis System. Special Projects Office. Available at: http://spo.nos.noaa.gov/
projects/cads/
NRC (National Research Council). 1997. Striking a Balance: Improving Stewardship of Marine
Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing
the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Nixon, S.W., J.W, Ammerman, L.P. Atkinson, V.M. Berounsky, G, Billen, W.C. Boicourt,
WR. Boynton, T.M. Church, D.M. DiToro, R. Elmgren, J.H. Garber, A.E. Giblin, R.A.
Jalinke, N.J.P. Owens, M.E.Q. Pilson, and S.P. Seitzinger. 1996. The fate of nitrogen and
phosphorous at the land-sea margin of the North Atlantic Ocean. Biogeochemistry
3.5:141-180.
Noble, R.T., S.B. Weisberg, M.K. Leecaster, C.D. McGee, J.H. Dorsey, P Vainik, and V.
Orozco-Borbo'n. 2003- Storm effects on regional beach water quality along the southern
California shoreline. Journal of Water and Health 7:23-31.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 200la. Report of'the 32nd Northeast Regional Stock
Assessment Workshop (32nd SAW) Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus
Summary of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 01-05,
Woods Hole, MA.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center. 200 Ib. Report of the 33rd Northeast Regional Stock
Assessment Workshop (33rd SAW) Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) Consensus
Summary of Assessments. Northeast Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 01-18,
Woods Hole, MA.
NWI (National Wetlands Inventory). 2002. Results of the 2000 wetlands inventory. Personal
Communication from Tom Dahl, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland
Inventory.
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
O'Connor, T.P., K.D. Daskalakis, J.L, Hyland, J.F. Paul, and J.K, Sumers. 1998, Comparisons
of sediment toxicity with predictions based on chemical guidelines. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 17(3)'-468-471.
O'Connor, T.P., and J.F. Paul. 2000. Misfit between sediment toxicity and chemistry. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 40:59-64.
Paul, R.W. 2001. Geographical signatures of Middle Atlantic estuaries: Historical layers.
Estuaries 24(2):151-166.
Paul, J.F., J.H. Gentile, K.J. Scott, S.C. Schimmel, D.E. Campbell, and R.W. Latimer. 1999.
EMAP-Virginian Province Four-Year Assessment Report (1990-1993). EPA 600/R-99/004.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlantic Ecology Division,
Narragansett, RI.
Paul, J.F., KJ. Scott, D.E. Campbell, J.H. Gentile, C.S. Strobel, R.M. Valente, S.B. Weisberg,
A.F, Holland, and J.A. Ranasinghe. 2001. Developing and applying a benthic index of
estuarine condition for the Virginian Province. Ecological Indicators 1:83—99.
Poag, C.W. 1999- Chesapeake Invader, Discovering America's Giant Meteor Crater. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Port of Houston Authority. 2003- Port of Houston Authority online information. Web site at
http://www.portofhouston.com/geninfo/overviewl.html.
Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 2002. Puget Sound's Health 2002: Status and Trends
of Key Indicators of Puget Sound's Health. Web site at http://www.psat.wa.gov/
Publications/pshealth2002/pshealth.html.
Pulich, W.M., Jr., and WA. White. 1991. Decline of submerged vegetation in the Galveston
Bay system: Chronology and relationship to physical processes. Journal of Coastal
Research 7:1 U5-\} 38.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 1999.
Characterization ofHypoxia: Topic 1 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the
Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 15- NOAA
Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a.
''The Dead Zone." Annual Review of 'Ecology and Systematics 33:235--263.
Robinson, L. 2003. Personal communication from Lance Robinson, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department to Thomas O'Connor, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
May 2.
Roman, C.T., N. Jaworski, F.T Short, S. Findlay, and R.S. Warren. 2000. Estuaries of the
northeastern United States: Habitat and land use signatures. Estuaries 23(6):743—764.
Sanger, D.M., M.D. Arendt, Y. Chen, E.L. Wenner, A.F. Holland, D. Edwards, and J. Caffrey.
2002. A Synthesis of Water Quality Data: National Estuarine Research Reserve System-wide
Monitoring Program (1995-2000). National Estuarine Research Reserve Technical Report
Series 2002:3- South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources
Division Contribution No. 500. 135 p.
National Coasta! Condition Report il
-------
Scavia, D., N.N. Rabalais, E.R, Turner, D. Justic, and W.W. Wiseman Jr. 2003- Predicting the
response of Gulf of Mexico hypoxia to variations in Mississippi River nitrogen load.
Limnol. Oceanogr. 48(3): 951-956.
SCDNER (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 2002. The Condition of South
Carolina's Estuarine and Coastal Habitats During 1999-2000, Technical Report. Marine
Resources Research Institute, Charleston, SC.
Serchuk, F.M., and S.A. Murawski. 1997. The offshore molluscan resources of the
northeastern coast of the United States: Surfclams, ocean quahogs, and sea scallops. In
The History, Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of North and Central
America and Europe, Volume 1, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. C.L. MacKenzie, Jr., V.G.
Burrcll, Jr., A. Roscnficld, and W.L Hobart (eds.). NOAATcch. Rep. NMFS
127:45—62. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Sherman, K., J. Kane, S. Murawski, W Overholtz, and A. Solow. 2002. The U.S. Northeast
Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem: Zooplankton Trends in Fish Biomass Recovery, pp. 195-
215- In: Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic. K. Sherman and H.R. Skjoldal
(eds.). Elsevier. Amsterdam.
Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, G.D. Tasker, C.V. Price, K.W. Robinson, and D.A, White. 1993-
Statistical modeling of water quality in regional watersheds. In Proceeding of Watershed
'93, A National Conference on Watershed Management. Alexandria, VA, March 21—24.
EPA-840-R-94-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Smith, R.A., G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander. 1997. Regional interpretation of water-
quality monitoring data. Water Resources Research 33(12):2781—2798.
Smith, R.W., M. Bergen, S.B. Weisberg, D. Cadien, A. Dalkey, D. Montagne, J.K. Stull, and
R.G. Velarde. 1998. Benthic Response Index for Assessing Infaunal Communities on the
Mainland Shelf of Southern California. Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project, 1997-98 Annual Report, Westminster, CA.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP). 1998. Southern California
Bight 1994 Pilot Project. Volumes I-V Westminster, CA.
Stedman, S.M., and J. Hanson. 2000. Habitat Connections: Wetlands, Fisheries and Economics
in the South Atlantic Coastal States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service. Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/
habitatconservation/ publications/habitatconections/num2.htm.
Texas Department of Health (TDH). 2001. TDH study shows fish, crabs from most of
Galveston Bay safe to eat. TDH News Release, October 25.
Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission. 2002. The State of Galveston Bay. Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality. Web site at www:tnrcc.state.tx.us/admin/
topdoc/pd/020/02-04/galvestonbay.html.
Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonesca. 1984. The Ecology of Eelgrass Meadows of
the Atlantic Coast: A Community Profile. FWS/OBS-84/02. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C.
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Turgeon, D.D., R.G, Asch, B.D, Causey, R.E. Dodge, W, Jaap, K. Banks, J. Delaney, B.D.
Keller, R. Speller, C.A. Matos, J.R. Garcia, E. Diaz, D. Catanzaro, C.S. Rogers, Z.
Hillis-Starr, R. Nemeth, M. Taylor, G.P. Schmahl, M.W. Miller, D.A. Gulko, J.E.
Maragos, A.M. Friedlander, C.L, Hunter, R.S. Brainard, E Craig, R.H. Richond, G,
Davis, ]. Starmer, M. Trianni, P. Houk, C.E. Birkeland, A. Edward, Y. Golbuu, J.
Gutierrez, N. Idechong, G. Paulay, A. Tafdeichig, and N. Vander Velde. 2002. The State
of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2002.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National
Center for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. Web site at
http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/publications/no tables. html#corals.
Turner, R.E, and D.F. Boesch. 1988. Aquatic animal protection and wetland relationships:
Insights gleaned following wetland loss or gain. In The Ecology and Management of
Wetlands. Volume 1: Ecology of Wetlands. D.D. Hook, WH. McKee, Jr., H.K. Smith, J.
Gregory, V.G. Burrell, Jr., M.R. Devoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L.H. Stolzy, C.
Brooks, T.D. Matthews, and T.H. Shear (eds.). Portland, OR: Timber Press.
USAGE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel Project
Online Resource Center. USAGE Galveston District, Galveston, TX. Web site at
http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/ items/hgnc/.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1996. Population in Coastal Counties: April 1, 1990 and July 1, 199-4.
Bureau of the Census, Population Distribution Branch, Washington, DC. Web site at
http://www.census.gov/ population/estimates/county/9094cstl.txt.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1997- 1997 Economic Census. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.
Web site at http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/ econ97.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. U.S. Census 2000. Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC. Web
site at http://www.census.gov/main/wwwr/ cen2000.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Current Population Reports, Series P23-205, Population Profile of the
United States: America at the Close of the 20th Century. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2003- Population Datasets for Counties. Population Distribution Branch.
U.S Census Bureau online information. Web site at http://www.census.gov/popest/
datasets.html
US DA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture. Volume 1:
National, State, and County Tables. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Web site at
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/volumel/vollpubs.htm.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993- Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria-
far the Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Acenaphthene. EPA/822/F-93/006. Office of
Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of
Sediment-Associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA/600/R-
94/025. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
National Coasta! Condition Report il
-------
U.S. EPA. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. National Water Quality Inventory-
1994 Report to Congress. EPA 841-R-95-005. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
December 1995.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997- The Incidence and Severity of
Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, Volume 1, National
Sediment Quality Survey. EPA-823-R-97-006. Office of Water, Washington, DC. Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/OST/cs/congress.html.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring
and Protecting America's Waters. EPA-840-R-98-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 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. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. EPA-822-R-00-012. Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Coastal 2000 Northeast Component
Information Management Plan. Draft report. Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology
Division, Narragansctt, RI.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000c. 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, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000d. National Water Quality Inventory:
1998 Report to Congress. EPA-841-R-00-001. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. National Coastal Condition Report.
EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research and Development and Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP). National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan,
2001-2004. EPA/620/R-01/002. Office of Research and Development, National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. National Water Quality Inventory
2000 Report. Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. BEACH Watch Program: 2002
Swimming Season. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and
Health Protection Division. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003b. Mercury in Marine Life Database.
Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Oceans and Coastal
Protection Division. "Washington, D.C.
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003c. National Listing of Fish and
Wildlife Database - 2002. Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards
and Health Protection Division. Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Envirofttcts Data Warehouse. Water
Discharge Permits (PCS). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1999- 1992 National Land Cover Data. U.S. Geological
Survey. EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Van Dolah, R.F., J.L. Hyland, A.F. Holland, J.S. Rosen, andT.T. Snoots. 1999- A benthic
index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern
USA. Marine Environmental Research 48:(4-5):269-283.
Van Dolah, R.F., PC. Jutte, G.H.M. Riekerk, M.V. Levisen, L.E. Zimmerman, J.D. Jones,
A.J. Lewitus, D.E. Chesnut, W. McDermott, D. Bearden, G.I. Scott, and M.H. Fulton.
2002. The Condition of South Carolina's Estuarine and Coastal Habitats During 1999-
2000: Technical Report. Technical Report No. 90. South Carolina Marine Resources
Division, Charleston, SC.
Vitousek, P.M., H.A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J.N. Melillo. 1997- Human domination of
Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494-499.
Walton, A.H., and A.W. Green. 1993. Probable Causes of Trends in Selected Living Resources
in the Galveston Bay System. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program. GBNEP-33-
Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.D. Dauer, L.C. Schnaffer, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. Frithsen.
1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay.
Estuaries 20( 1): 149-15 8.
Whittington, D., D. Amaral, and G. Cassidy. 1993- Research on economic resource valuation
studies in Galveston Bay. In Proceedings of the Second State of the Bay Symposium,
Webster, TX, February 4—6. Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication.
GBNEP-23.
Wilkinson, C.R. 2002. Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Global Coral Reef Monitoring
Network and Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.
Zarbock, H.W., A.J. Janicki, D.T. Logan, and D.D. MacDonald. 1996. An Assessment of
Sediment Contamination in Tampa Bay, Florida Using the Sediment Quality Triad
Approach. Technical Publication No. 04-96. Prepared for Tampa Bay Estuary Program.
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
286
National Coastal Condition Report il
-------
ADFG Alaska Department of Fish and Game
ADEM Alabama Department of Environmental Management
ug/L microgram per liter
ACE Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto (South Carolina)
ACE INC Atlantic Coast Environmental Indicators Consortium
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
AED Atlantic Ecology Division
AFS American Fisheries Society
ANS aquatic nuisance species
AOCs Areas of Concern
APES Albemarle-Parnlico Estuarine System
ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
BCI benthic condition index
BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Program (EPA)
BMC benthic macroinvertebrate communities
CARP Contamination Assessment and Reduction Program
CCMA Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
CENR Committee on Environment and Natural Resources Research
CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project
CPUE catch per unit effort
CRD Coastal Resources Division (Georgia)
CSO combined sewer overflows
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEP Department of Environmental Protection
DIN dissolved inorganic nitrogen
DIP dissolved inorganic phosphorous
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DO dissolved oxygen
DOE Department of Ecology
DO I U.S. Department of the Interior
DPH Division of Public Health
DQO data quality objective
EaGLe Estuarine and Great Lakes Ecological Indicators
EDCs endocrine disrupting compounds
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EPA)
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPD Environmental Protection Division
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Acronyms
ERL effects range low
ERM effects range medium
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FMCs fishery management councils
FMP Fishery Management Plan
FMRI Florida Marine Research Institute
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildife Service
GBEP Galveston Bay Estuary Program
GBNEP Galveston Bay National Estuary Program
gCm2yr rams of carbon per square meter per year
GIF geographic information processing
GIS geographic information systems
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GLWQA Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
GMP Gulf of Mexico Program
GNP gross national product
HABs harmful algal blooms
HEP Harbor Estuary Program (New York)
HMW high molecular weight
IMAP Inshore Marine Monitoring and Assessment Program
1WRMN Integrated Water Resource Monitoring Network
km2 square kilometer
Ibs pounds
LME large marine ecosystem
LMRs living marine resources
LMW low molecular weight
LTER Long-Term Ecosystem Research
m2 square meter
MAFMC Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
MAIA Mid Atlantic Integrated Assessment
MAR Multiple Antibiotic Resistance
MARMAP Marine Monitoring and Assessment Program (NOAA)
mg/L milligram per liter
mi mile
mt metric tons
MQOs Measurement Quality Objectives
MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characterization
x
National Coastal Condition Report il
-------
Acronyms
NCA National Coastal Assessment (EPA)
NCCR I National Coastal Condition Report
NCCR II National Coastal Condition Report II
NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council
NEI WPCC New England Water Pollution Control Commission
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
ng/g nanograms per gram
NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NIST ILC NIST annual inter-laboratory comparison
NLCD National Land Cover Data
NLFWA National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRC National Research Council
NS&T National Status and Trends Program (NOAA)
NWI National Wetland Inventory (FWS)
OSCEAP Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program (Alaska)
OPA90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PBB polybrominated biphenyls
PBDEs polybrominated diphenyl ethers
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyl congeners
POTW publicly owned treatment works
ppm parts per million
PSC Pacific Salmon Commission
PWSs public water systems
QA quality assurance
r2 coefficient of determination
RCACs Regional Citizen Advisory Councils
REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (NOAA)
SAV submerged aquatic vegetation
SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
SCECAP South Carolina Estuarine and Coastal Assessment Program
SEAMAP Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (NOAA)
National Coasta! Condition Report il
XI
-------
Acronyms
SeaWiFS Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SPARROW Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed Attributes
SQGs sediment quality guidelines
SRMs Standard Reference Materials
SSB spawning stock biomass
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
STAR Science to Achieve Results Program (EPA)
STPs sewage treatment plants
SWMP System-Wide Monitoring Program
TBEP Tampa Bay Estuary Program
TIE Toxicity Identification Evaluation
TM Thematic Mapper
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TN total nitrogen
TOG total organic carbon
TP total phosphorus
TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
TDH Texas Health Department
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
UNC University of North Carolina
USCRTF U.S. Coral Reef Task Force
US DA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USES Urbanization in Southeast Estuarine Systems
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USMCMS University of Southern Mississippi College of Marine Sciences
US PC United States Policy Committee
U.S. EEZ U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
VCP Virginia Coastal Program
VMRC Virginia Marine Resources Commission
VOCs volatile organic compounds
VOH Virginia Oyster Heritage Program
VP Virginian Province
VSHP Virginia Seaside Heritage Program
WCI water clarity indicator
WTC World Trade Center
WTPs water treatment plants
XII
National Coastal Condition Report il
-------
GO
0
o
"0
CD
O
—^
TJ
CO
CD
C
v>
CD
g
5L
DO
c
en
3'
CD
W
C/J
o
o
T) C
O 2.
T)
CD
CD
Q.
CQ CD o'
O -5 =5 5T
D <
O £>
S.CQ
CD
3
O
C35
O
CD
C/J
m
o
1
CD
(O
m
5
:> £
Ol
o
o
3
SL
o
o
a)
CO
3L
O
o
3
Q.
"D
O
«>
------- |