United States Office of Science and Technology February 1993
Environmental Protection Office of Water
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
PROCEEDINGS
Estuarine and Near Coastal
Bioassessment and
Biocriteria Workshop
November 18-19,1992
Annapolis, Maryland
-------
PROCEEDINGS
Estuarine and Near Coastal
Bioassessment and Biocriteria
Workshop
November 18-19,1992
Annapolis, Maryland
George R. Gibson, Jr. and Susan Jackson
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Biocriteria Program
Chris Faulkner
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Monitoring Branch
Beth McGee and Steve Glomb
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Coastal Technology Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
February 1993
-------
Contents
Introduction 2
Workshop Summary 3
Introduction and Goals of Workshop 3
George Gibson
Synoptic Interviews with Researchers 3
Dan Campbell
Summary of Selected Estuarine Monitoring Programs 4
Mike Bowman
Overview of U.S. EPA EMAP — Esturaies Indicator Strategy 9
John Scott
Virginia Benthic Biological Monitoring Program 10
Dan Dauer
EMAP — Estuaries .14
Steve Weisberg
Chesapeake Bay Benthic Restoration Goals 14
Carin Bisland
Habitat Measurements and Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Fish Sampling
in Northern Chesapeake Bay 15
Steve Jordan
Bioassessment in Florida 16
Doug Farrell
Near Coastal Marine Waters Pilot Project 26
George Gibson
Middle and Southern Atlantic Coast Estuarine Benthic Invertebrate
Metrics Development .30
Robert Diaz and Walter Nelson
The 403(c) Permit Process and Other Site Investigations 32
William Muir and Brigit te Farran
Draft Outline for Estuarine/Near Coastal Bioassessment and Biocriteria
Technical Guidance 41
Drafting Committee 43
Attendee List 44
-------
Introduction
This workshop was sponsored by the EPA's
I Office of Science and Technology and Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. It was the
second workshop held to provide an oppor-
tunity for experts in estuarine and marine ecol-
ogy, and staff from the States and EPA's
Regional and Headquarters program offices to
discuss the development of a technical guidance
document for bioassessment and biocriteria for
estuarine and near coastal marine systems. The
results of discussions held at this workshop
have been used to identify areas needing further
research and to develop a draft outline of the
guidance document. In addition, a subcommit-
tee was formed and charged with drafting the
technical guidance document.
The first section of these proceedings con-
tains summaries of the workshop presentations
as well as copies of the slides and graphics used
by the speakers. The next section contains the
workshop agenda and the names and addresses
of all workgroup members.
-------
Workshop Summary
The one-and-a-half day workshop was
designed to initiate discussion of elements to
include in a technical guidance document by
reviewing related projects conducted during
this year and using these contributions as
stimuli for further deliberation.'
Day One • November 18,1992
During the first day of the workshop, the fol-
lowing talks were presented:
Introduction and Goals of Workshop
George Gibson, U.S. EPA Office of Science and
Technology
George Gibson welcomed participants to the
workshop. He stated that EPA was sponsoring
this meeting to initiate the preparation of a tech-
nical guidance document to assist States in con-
ducting biological assessments and developing
biological criteria in estuaries and near coastal
marine waters. One outcome of this meeting
will be a list of individuals interested in par-
ticipating on the "drafting subgroup." George
stressed that EPA is interested in bioassessment
methods that are direct, straightforward and
that can be used in an efficient manner by the
States.
George mentioned the key elements/issues
which the guidance document must address:
1. working definition of biological integrity,
2. establishing reference conditions,
3. biological community measurement (i.e.,
which communities do we pick and how
do we measure them?),
4. habitat assessment,
5. survey techniques,
6. metrics, and
7. development of biocriteria and their
applications.
In addition to these technical issues, George
highlighted other characteristics that the
developed guidance document must have:
1. material must be robust and broad
based so basic techniques can be applied
on all three coasts;
2. material must be reliable, simple, cost
effective, and appropriate to the States'
resources; and
3. material must be experience-based
rather than theoretical (i.e., we need to
think in terms of practical application).
Synoptic Interviews with Researchers
Dan Campbell, University of Rhode Island
Dan Campbell summarized the results of two
workshops held to address the question: "What
is biological integrity in an estuary?" This ques-
tion was addressed by regional experts in the
field of estuarine ecology. The first workshop
was held at the University of Rhode Island in
Narragansett. A broad range of ideas on in-
tegrity was expressed, but the Narragansett
workshop participants concentrated their dis-
cussion on refinement and definition of the con-
cept. The second workshop was held at the
Chesapeake Biological Laboratory in Solomons,
Maryland. Participants in this workshop
defined and characterized the concept of
biological integrity and explored approaches to
use it in water resource investigations. (See next
page for visuals Mr. Campbell used during his
presentation.)
The discussion following Dan's presentation
noted that we must be able to operationally
define and measure biological integrity for it to
have practical utility. .
-------
DEFINITIONS OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
The ability of an aquatic ecosystem to support
and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive
community of organisms having a species
composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to that of natural
habitats within a region."
— Karr and Dudley, 1981
The condition of the aquatic community
inhabiting the unimpaired waterbodies of a
specified habitat as measured by community
structure and function*.
— U.S. EPA, 1990
"... is the degree to which a community is similar
to natural (unimpacted) communities in the same
environment or habitat There is an element of
balance in the concept that implies that the
biological community utilizes inputs of matter and
energy in an efficient coupling."
— Stevenson and Cornwall, 1992
ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO CONSIDER WHEN
DETERMINING THE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
OF ESTUARINE SYSTEMS
• In some ecosystems key species exist that
deserve extra consideration.
• Biological integrity of a community must include
all habitats necessary to support each life
history stage of the component organisms.
• The physical basis for community organization
must be included.
COMPONENTS OF BIOLOGICAL "RESPONSE"
TO ANTHROPOGENIC IMPACTS
• Absence of biological catastrophes.
• Biopurification.
• Body burdens of toxic chemicals.
• Biochemical markers of stress or exposure.
• Absence of gross pathology.
• "Desirable" species richness.
INDICATORS OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
INCLUDE
• Species richness.
• Diversity.
• Degree of interaction (connectivity).
• Degree to which a community efficiently
assimilates and utilizes allocthanous inputs.
• Degree to which essential nutrients are retained
and recycled.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY IN ESTUARINE SYSTEMS
Diversity of species and ecological processes is
maximized.
Disease and stress on constituent organisms is
minimum.
i The community includes large, long-lived
species.
i Trophic transfer up the food chain is maximized.
i Variability of system parameters is maintained
Within a "natural range", that is without shifts in
the long term baseline.
i A successful recruitment schedule is maintained
as appropriate for the species.
i Export of raw materials is minimized
("leakiness").
Summary of Selected Estuarine
Monitoring Programs
Mike Bowman, Tetra Tech
Mike Bowman presented results of a review of
several existing long-term monitoring programs
across the country. The purpose of this review
was to look at various alternatives to technical
issues related to bioassessment in estuaries. The
key issues addressed in the presentation and
recommendations for each, based on the data
review, are as follows:
• biological assemblage—benthic
macroinvertebrates;
• habitat selection—soft sediment;
• metrics—various benthic indices;
• sampling methods—Van Veen or Ponar
grab samplers, screen mesh of 0.5 mm,
and composite of 2 to 4 grabs;
• index period—East (summer) and West
(spring); and
• how to assess habitat quality—several
parameters including temperature,
dissolved oxygen, salinity, and grain size.
-------
Mike concluded by mentioning other issues
for consideration, the most important being the
method(s) for establishing a reference condition.
After Mike's presentation, concern was ex-
. pressed over the use of an index period and the
relative insensitivity of the benthic community
compared with some other assemblages (e.g.,
epifaunal community on seagrasses in Florida).
Summary of Selected
Estuarine Monitoring
Programs
A Basis for Bioassessment
Methods
Presented at USEPA Estuarine
Bioassessment Workshop
Annapolis, MD
November 18-19,1992
Programs Across US
Were Reviewed ^
Key Issues:
> Assemblage
o Habitat Selection
o Metrics
as o Sampling
Methods
o Index Period
> Habitat Quality
Task Objectives
> Review long-term data sets for
methods applications.
> Using the results from these
programs, assess valid
alternatives to key technical
issues.
Recommendations for
Estuarine RBP Attributes
Data Sets and Reports
Reviewed
Chesapeake Benthos
Chesapeake Plankton
Tar/Pamflco
EMAPWglnian
Naples Bay
S8n Francisco Bay
Puget Sound Ambient
Puget Sound Estuary
Duration
1971 -present
1984 -present
1983 -present
1990 -present
1976-1077
Ported
Reviewed
1984-1990
1984-1991
1991 - 1992
1990
1976-1977
1988 -present 1992
1988 -present
1991 -present
1988 -present
1991(a)
19»7- present
1992(a)
-------
! Assemblage - Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
» Benthic organisms are sensitive to pollutant
exposure and integrate exposure over relatively
long time periods.
» Benthos are composed of diverse taxa which
respond to changes in environmental conditions
in various ways.
»Important mediators for nutrient cycling; prey
items for species at higher trophic levels.
»• Easily sampled with both core and grab samples.
Benthic Sampling Can
Discriminate Polluted From
Reference Sites
Representative Unpolluted HaKtat
Middle Baltimore Hartwr
01JULM 01JAMS BUUUS .OtMNM OUUU5 01JAM3T 01MJT 01JMW
Mood HOT HoM « «_ tg»
Habitat Selection
Habitat - Soft Sediments
"•Easily sampled; cost-effective and
well-documented methods exist.
Distinct species groups
associated with major sediment
types.
Habitat - Soft Sediments
confd
Soft sediments (e.g., mud) may be
associated with contaminant
accumulation or may be most
prevalent in deeper, depositional
environments most likely to
experience low dissolved oxygen
concentrations. Thus, sampling
this habitat is likely to show the
effects of stresses to the
estuarine system.
Habitats Sampled in
Reviewed Programs
-------
Soft Sediments Are Widely
Found in the East and Gulf of
Mexico
Sediment Types In Major Estuartna Systems
Species Groups Are
Linked to Sediment Type
^^^*si|pprj.r|
"i' ";".-' • -r *r'- -'' ••'•\"'^'-v'~i*-'i i*J
:*!•+--..- j..;rj.' • i'.$ -..-•• r • -. "t-r'J J..«o-V. -
Key Fauna in Major Habitats
in Puget Sound
Possible Indicators and
Metrics
••Benthic index
••Species richness
» Relative abundance of pollution tolerant
and pollution sensitive species
»Biomass estimates for each pollution
sensitivity group
••Presence/absence of larger, longer-lived
organisms
> Organism-sediment index
Sampling Methods
-------
Sampling Methods -
Equipment
>Van Veen or Ponar samplers,
depending on sediment type and
depth. Both are easily deployed from
small boats.
» Benthic samples should be field
sieved using a 0.5-rhm screen.
••Total sampled area of 0.2 - 0.3-sq.
m., composite of 2 - 4 grabs. Depth
of sampled sediment dependent on
sediment type.
Index Period - Summer
(East), Spring (West)
>\n east coast estuaries, a period
following recruitment with high
benthic abundance.
»-ln west coast estuaries, a period
prior to recruitment with stable
benthic communities.
Habitat Quality
Assessment
> Temperature
> Salinity
>DO
Conductivity
> Turbidity/transparency
> Grain size distribution
> Sediment profile
*• Shorezone stability
Other Issues
> Other assemblages such as
nekton, plankton?
»Can cost-effective methods to
collect and use'fish community
data be developed?
e>Are cost-effective methods of
subsampling composited samples
appropriate for assessing benthic
assemblage attributes?
-------
Other Issues
confd
>Method(s) to establish reference
conditions.
>ls there an index period
appropriate for all regional
programs?
Overview of U.S. EPA EMAP—Estuaries
Indicator Strategy
John Scott, SAIC, Narragansett, Rl
John Scott stated that EMAFs development of
some of its indicators was very relevant to this
group's efforts to develop biocriteria and bioas-
sessment methods. EMAP has a large database
on ecological variables, along with data'on ex-
posure and habitat variables, that could be used
by this program to test some of the bio-indicator
concepts. John indicated the desire for EMAP
and this program to work more closely.
John gave an overview of the EMAP-Es-
tuaries Indicator strategy. The strategy is based
on the premise that indicators must relate to as-
sessment endpoints. Three types of indicators
are measured:
• stressor indicators (e.g., land use,
discharge estimates);
• exposure-habitat variables (e.g., sediment
toxicity, water clarity) and
• response indicators (e.g., benthic
community parameters).
John suggested that certain elements of the
process used for selecting the indicators may be
useful to our program. This process of "in-
dicator evolution" includes several stages:
• candidate indicators are chosen,
prioritized and screened for robustness,
interpretability, relationship to assessment
endpoints and their responsiveness to
habitat or exposure stressors;
• select candidate indicators are then moved
to the research stage to evaluate their
responsiveness under field conditions (i.e.,
tested in "good" and "bad" sites);
• those indicators that pass progress to the
developmental stage where their
performance is evaluated on a regional
scale (e.g., Virginian Province); and finally
• indicators are assigned core status. EMAP
is still evaluating these indicators and will
not assign core status until baseline
information has been gathered over a
four-year period.
Discussion after John's presentation
revolved around the willingness of EMAP to
work with this program and the applicability of
EMAP indicators on regional and state levels.
John reiterated the willingness of EMAP to col-
laborate and also the similarity of EMAP in-
dicator goals and biocriteria needs (i.e., we both
are charged with developing indicators that dis-
criminate good versus bad sites, are responsive,
relate to biotic integrity, are cost effective, inter-
pretable and simple).
EMAP-NC INDICATOR STRATEGY
EMAP INDICATOR TYPES
Response Indicator Measurements of biological
condition
Exposure/Habitat
Indicator
Stressor Indicator!
Diagnostic measures of
* Exposure
* Physical attributes of habitat
Measures of human activities and
natural processes that effect exposure
and habitat indicators
9
-------
EMAP INDICATOR EVOLUTION
IDENTIFY
ISSUES/ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS
Objectives
Develop indicators
linked to endpoints
.QuaBaJ™ (viluUon
Methods
Evaluation
Expert Knowledge Workshops
Literature Review Criteria
Conceptusl Models
CANDIDATE INDICATORS
INDICATOR EVOLUTION
CANDIDATE INDICATORS
Identify and Prioritize I
RESEARCH INDICATORS
Evaluate Expected Performance
DEVELOPMENTAL INDICATORS
Evaluate Actual Performance
CORE INDICATORS
Implement Regional and
National Monitoring
Periodic Reevaluation
Virginia Benthic Biological Monitoring
Program
Dan Dauer, Old Dominion University
Dan Dauer described statistical properties of as-
sessment methods/metrics that he believes
should be considered. These statistical proper-
ties are:
• Type I error (i.e., power of the test),
robustness, and alpha or
• Type II error (i.e., how conservative the
test is). For example, early warning type of
assessments will be powerful, while
definitive assessments will be
conservative.
Dan applied the following six benthic
metrics to data from the mouth of the Rap-
pahannock River:
1. biomass of opportunistic species;
2. biomass of equilibrium species;
3. biomass;
4. diversity;
5. depth distribution of organisms;
6. abundance.
These metrics were plotted as a function of
salinity. He suggested all these metrics except
abundance have some merit as indicators.
The geographic specificity of metrics was
acknowledged in the discussion. These types of
limitations should be recognized; however,
metrics as data interpretation should not be dis-
missed because they're not applicable to every
situation. Hence, the importance of allowing
States flexibility when developing biocriteria.
10
-------
I. Warning System (Powerful)
II. Definitive Test (Conservative)
Precautionary
Principle
Interpretation
Principle
(^ Robust ^)
1k«t of aumnpUou
Un of mnlUpIt Uiti
(Conservative )
Models of Expected Values
Metrics
Biomass
Diversity
% Opportunists
% Equilibrium
Depth Distribution
Abundance
Technical Skills
Low
High
Moderate-High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Sensitivity
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Abundance Biomass Comparison
Biomass Dominant
Abundance Dominant
Unexpected Absence
Inadequate Sampling
Highly Stressed
Unexpected Presence
1. Extensive Sampling
2. Highly Stressed
Dense Recuitment
11
-------
A.
100,9-
10g-
0.1 g
C.
10-
Biomass (LE3.4)
B.
Individuals per m2 (LE3.4)
10000'
1000
100
a teat
0 1M9
0 5 10 IS 20 25 30 0 S 10 15 20 25 30
Salinity (ppt) Salinity (ppt)
Species Diversity (LE3.4)
D.
Depth Distribution of Biomass (LE3.4)
109%
10%
0 5 10 15 20 29 30 0 3 10 15 20 25 30
Salinity (ppt) Salinity (ppt)
t • Equilibrium Species Biomass (LE3.4)
Opportunistic Species Biomass (LE3.4)
100%
10%-
1 %
IMt
ISM 1990
0 5
10 15 20
Salinity (ppt)
25 30
5 10 15 20 25 30
Salinity (ppt)
12
-------
A.
Biomass (g/m2)
100 g
10 g
0.1 g-
B.
10000
Indh/iduals/m2
1000
C.
0 5 1O 16 20 25 30
Salinity (ppt)
Species Diversity (sp/rep)
100
O 6 10 15 20 25 30
Salinity (ppt)
10:
10 16 20 25 30
D.
100 *
Depth Distribution of Biomass
10 %
i %
E.
100
Equilibrium Species Biomass
F.
0 6 10 15 20 25 30
Salinity (ppi)
Opportunistic Species Biomass
10 %:
0 5
10 16 20
Salinity (ppt)
25 . 30
5 10 15 2O 25 30
Salinity (ppt)
13
-------
EMAP-Estuaries
Steve Weisberg, VERSAR
Steve Weisberg discussed the process that
EMAP-Estuaries used to develop a single ben-
thic index for the Virginian Province sampling
area. The index was to be on a numerical scale
from 1 to 10. The process to develop this index
involved six steps:
1. Develop a test data set. That is, one
which contains good and bad sites.
These sites were operationally defined
by sediment quality and ambient
dissolved oxygen. Three types of bad
site were defined: (l)low dissolved
oxygen, (2) sediment contamination as
indicated by elevated chemical
concentrations or sediment toxicity or
(3) a combination of (1) and (2).
2. Identify candidate measures. That is,
what works on a local scale. Habitat
specific indicators were avoided.
3. Normalize data to account for habitat
gradients. For example, salinity. To do .
this, one.must have representative types
of habitat in the calibration data set.
4. Identify metrics. That is, pick which
metrics are useful in discriminating
between good and bad sites.
5. Combine metrics. Discriminant analysis
can be used to determine which metrics
give you the most information, which
are redundant, and others. Discriminant
analysis can also be used to weight
metrics if desired. The following five
metrics ended up in the final benthic
index for the Virginian Province: (1)
number of species adjusted for salinity,
(2) average weight per individual
polychaete, (3) number of deposit
feeders, (4) number of bivalves, and (5)
number of amphipods.
6. Validation. Three methods were used to
validate the benthic index: (1) pull-out
data from existing data set and see if
method is still valid; (2) resample a
subset of original sites; and (3) apply to
a new data set (with good and bad sites).
This type of approach may have application
to development of indicators by this work-
group.
Chesapeake Bay Benthic Restoration
Goals
Carin Bisland, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
Office
Carin Bisland briefly discussed the Chesapeake
Bay Program's Benthic Restoration Project
(CBBRP), noting that Ana Ranasinghe of VER-
SAR has the lead on this effort. With respect to
benthic organisms, the project is attempting to
establish restoration goals using quantitative
descriptions of healthy, unimpacted areas in
Chesapeake Bay.
In the discussion that followed, the dif-
ference between the EMAP and CBBRP ap-
proaches to benthic community assessment
were highlighted. EMAP is as independent of
habitat as possible, while the CBBRP is based on
assessing many different habitats. Also, EMAP
used discriminant analysis to identify useful
metrics while CBBRP relies more on "best pro-
fessional judgment."
14
-------
Day Two • November 19,1992
During the second day of the workshop,
scheduled presentations continued. George Gib-
son began the session by giving a brief overview
of day one.
Habitat Measurements and Index of
Biotic Integrity Based on Fish Sampling
in Northern Chesapeake Bay
Steve Jordan, John Carmichael, and Brian Richardson,
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Steve Jordan described efforts to develop a fish
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) for use in
Maryland tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay.
Necessary steps in the process included salinity
calibration of the method, identification of refer-
ence tributaries, and modification of the RBP
stream habitat assessment method. Fish collec-
tion is by beach seining and trawling from a
small boat. Sampling is conducted three times a
year (July, August, and September), and the data
from these samples are added. The following
metrics comprise the IBI:
• total number of species collected;
• species collected in the bottom trawl;
B number of estuarine spawners;
• number of anadromous spawners;
• number of fish (excluding Menhaden,
because they are too variable);
• number of species it takes to make up 90
percent of individuals; and
• proportion of benthic feeders, piscivores
and planktivores.
This method has been calibrated in salinities
from 0 to 16 ppt. The index appears responsive
to water quality and land use. Future plans in-
clude applying the IBI to aid in the develop-
ment of nonpoint source tributary management
strategies.
It was noted in the ensuing discussion that
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) may have
some application as a useful indicator. How-
ever, in some areas (such as Florida), it may not
be sensitive enough to serve as an early warning
of environmental degradation.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES
Sampled eight tributaries, 1988-1992.
Developed and tested various indexing methods.
Developed salinity calibration method.
Analyzed long term juvenile survey data,
1958-1989.
Identified reference tributaries.
Adapted habitat assessment method from
stream RBP.
Compared fish metrics to dissolved oxygen, land
use, and habitat quality.
INDEXING TOOLS
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)... nine metrics.
Number of species in bottom trawl.
Water quality ... dissolved oxygen (DO).
Habitat assessment.
Percentage of major land uses in watershed.
IBI METRICS
Richness:
— Total number of species.
— Number of species in bottom trawl.
Abundance:
— Number of estuarine spawners.
— Number of anadromous spawners.
— Total fish exclusive of Atlantic Menhaden.
Dominance:
— Number of species comprising 90%
of individuals
Trophic Composition:
— Proportion planktivores.
— Proportion benthic feeders.
— Proportion piscivores.
RESULTS
• Metrics and IBI calibrated for tidal waters, 0-16
ppt salinity.
• Can index spacial and temporal trends in
biological integrity.
• Indexes respond to water quality (DO) and land
use.
• Applying IBI to map biological integrity in
Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay will aid
' tributary management strategies.
15
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Fish assemblages can index biological integrity
cheaply, rapidly, and effectively.
Other measures are needed ... plankton, SAV,
benthos.
Biological integrity of northern Chesapeake Bay
ranges from very poor to excellent
Most areas score poor, fair, or good.
i Wide spread high IBI scores may reflect late
1950's conditions or better.
Bioassessment in Florida
Doug Farrell, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
In Florida, biological criteria has been set at a 25
percent decrease in Shannon-Weiner diversity of
benthic communities in test versus reference
sites. Data are the sum of three Ponar grab
samples. But evidence suggests this criteria is
not sensitive enough. Doug Farrell presented
biological data from areas surrounding outfalls
from treatment plants. By classifying organisms
according to their sensitivity/tolerance to pollu-
tion, he developed an index value for each of the
test and reference sites. Using this method, he
could detect differences between test and refer-
ence sites that were not evident using the State
criterion of a 25 percent decrease in diversity.
Doug also expounded on the advantages of
sampling epifaunal communities using a Renfro
Beam Trawl. The advantages are as follows:
• epifaunal community is a more sensitive
indicator than benthic community or SAV;
• subsampling of material collected is fairly
easy though species level identification is
important;
• sampling can be made quantitative by
trawling for a specified period of time; and
• trawling can be done by hand (in wadable
waters) or by boat.
Beam Trowl Design
16
-------
FT. DESOTO STUDY
Data from the following tables were summarized from two
different draft manuscripts. The water quality and benthic data
were developed from a short-termed study of the effects three small
package plants on the seagrass communities at Ft. Desoto Park -in
Tampa Bay, Florida (sources). Three control stations were located
on Joe Island on the southern shore of Tampa Bay (controls), and an
additional station was located on a small island adjacent to Ft.
Desoto, and presumably, under the potential influence of the far-
field effects (secondary).
Information from this study was based on two sampling methods,
the petite ponar and a modified Renfro beam trawl. Two sampling
sites were located at each station, one at the shoreline (end of
the pipe) and a second at 50 meters from the shore. Four ponar
replicates were collected at each site, but only three were
analyzed for macroinvertebrates. This is consistent with Florida's
biological integrity standard as currently defined in the Florida
Administrative Code. After the grab samples were collected, the
beam trawl was also towed for a distance of four meters at each
location, and these samples were analyzed for macroinvertebrate
components. Samples from the offshore site at the secondary
station were lost due to improper preservation, but this had no
effect on original purpose of the study.
The index values are a somewhat subjective evaluation of the
relative tolerance, or intolerance, to environmental stress. These
are taken from an ongoing effort to assign index values to all
marine and estuarine macroinvertebrates identified from the west
coast of Florida. Sources include agency monitoring data,
published records, grey literature, anecdotal information and 18
years of personal experience in the area. Wherever possible, all
potential stress factors including sensitivity to toxic substances
was taken into account, but the dominant factor for most of the
species was the relative sensitivity to dissolved oxygen (DO)
depression. As a result, this index in its current form is
probably most sensitive to organic pollution and eutrophication
with associated wide swings in DO.
The criteria for the .index in terms of DO requirements are
listed below:
(0) Insufficient data to make an evaluation.
(1) Very Tolerant. Can withstand short periods of anoxia.
(2) Tolerant. Can withstand brief excursions to 1.0-1.5 mg/L.
(3) Slightly tolerant-siightly sensitive. Can withstand brief
excursions to 2.5-3.0 mg/L.
(4) Sensitive. Can withstand brief periods below 4.0 mg/L.
(5) Very sensitive. Basically intolerant of anything below
5.0 mg/L, but some species may tolerate brief excursions below this
provided no other stress factors are involved.
Calculation of the index requires that the appropriate value
be assigned to individual taxa in the sample. These values are
then added, and the summation is divided by the total number of
taxa utilized from the sample. Taxa with a value of (0) are
17
-------
omitted from the calculations. This approach is not new, and it
has been advocated by several investigators working in freshwater.
EPIFAUNAL/FACULTATIVE INFAUNAL COMMUNITY
In advocating the use of a beam trawl which predominately
samples the epifaunal and facultative infaunal communities, one
basic assumption has to be made. "Provided that the recruitment
potential for the individual components exists, within a given set
of natural environmental parameters an expected community of
organisms will inhabit any predetermined environmental segment".
In estuaries and many other marine environments, populations of
different species vary significantly over the seasons, and even
from year to year, but these variations follow predictable
patterns.
In Florida waters, numerical domination may vary among the
annual cycles, but species composition generally remains stable.
Seasonal, cycles account for the greatest degree of natural
variations in benthic populations. In terms of both density and
diversity benthic macroinvertebrates reach their peak during the
late winter to early spring, and as might be expected, this peak
occurs earlier in the southern part of the State. Population
minima for most species occur during the summer months. While they
are dramatic, these seasonal cycles are predictable, and they can
be factored into efforts to establish biological criteria.
The reason for targeting the epifaunal and facultative
infaunal community is simple. Components of this community appear
to be both persistent and very sensitive to environmental stress.
Within an estuary and adjacent near-shore areas physicochemical
parameters such as temperature, salinity and DO will vary
significantly over an annual cycle. Sessile and relatively
immobile organisms, which includes most of the infaunal components,
have evolved either mechanisms which allow them to tolerate these
varying conditions, or breeding cycles which allow them to avoid
periods of high stress. The more motile members of the community,
which includes the epifauna and facultative infauna, have the
option of avoidance. During periods of stress these organisms can
move to deeper water, or other areas where the stress factors are
mollified, and return when conditions improve. The response to
anthropogenic sources of stress is identical. When an area is
being affected by relatively low levels of anthropogenic stress,
only the most sensitive members of the benthic community will
respond, and these are found among the epifaunal and facultative
i.nfaunal components. A method which is truly sensitive to low
levels of pollution must target this community.
18
-------
THE BEAM TRAWL
A beam trawl is a conical shaped net, open at the large end,
which is nominally towed over the surface of the substrate. The
net is maintained in the open position by attaching it to a rigid
pole or beam. Most conventional trawls are maintained in an open
position with the use of pressure planes or boards, and these are
set at oblique angles to the line of tow. Pressure from -the
moving water while the net is being towed will spread the boards
and keep the net open.
In an effort to develop a device to effectively sample post-
larval penaeid shrimp, Renfro (1962) designed a small beam trawl
which could be towed by hand in wadable depths, or pulled with a
boat in deeper water. Before Renfro*s paper was published, Baxter
(1962) tested the net, and he suggested that the abundance of post-
larval shrimp could be used to predict shrimp fishing success. At
about the same time the fisheries staff at the Gulf Coast Research
Laboratory, using the beam trawl design, initiated an extensive
study of post larval shrimp in Mississippi Sound (Christmas, et
al , 1966). The statistical reliability of different towing methods
has also been examined (Caillouet, et al, 1968), but one important
fact was noted by all investigators. While the beam trawl has been
effective in providing quantitative samples of postlarval shrimp,
it is also very effective in sampling all members of the epibenthic
and shallow infaunal communities.
The net is constructed in two parts. The body is constructed
of nylon bolting cloth (50 openings/ sq. cm.), and this tapers to
a plankton net which is fitted with a removable bucket. The net
used for present purposes has been reduced in size to allow its use
by a .single individual. The effective width of the swath is 1.25
meters.
The tow length required to collect statistically reliable
samples for postlarval shrimp is about 150 meters, and the sample
density and bulk has tended to discourage the use of this device
for community studies. However, reducing the tow length has
reduced the sample size and the time required for analyses. In the
present study the time required for analyses of three ponar samples
was about 20 hours, and the time required to analyze a trawl sample
was a little less than 10 hours. As indicated earlier, tow length
was only 4 meters, effectively sampling about 5 square meters of
bottom. In offshore areas, it has been necessary to increase the
tow length to get good representation. This is because densities
in the offshore areas tend to be significantly lower than in the
estuaries. However, should excessive bulk or high densities be a
problem, beam trawl samples lend themselves to sub-sampling.
Sorting quadrants in a graduated pan is probably the simplest
method of sub-sampling, and it has proven effective for trawl
samples.
The marine index that I have used here is certainly not the
only metric that could be applied to beam trawl or similar samples.
19
-------
In fact, the precedent established for treating these as
quantitative samples. At the very least, they can be treated as
comparative samples, and information theory indices can be applied.
It is also clear that this method will not meet all needs.
However, it can be successfully used anywhere on level bottoms, and
I believe that it will prove to be an effective screening method,
if not more.
Douglas Parrel 1 PhD
Department of Environmental Regulation
Tampa, florida
LITERATURE CITED
Baxter, K.N. 1962. Abundance of postlarval shrimp - one index of
future shrimping success. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean
Fisheries Institute. 15th Session: 79-87.
Caillouet, C.W., R.J. Dugas, and B.J. Fontenot, Jr. 1968. Effects
of radius and direction of semicircular tow near shoreline on catch
of postlarval shrimp (Penaeus spp.) with the Renfro beam trawl.
Transactions of the American Society. 97(2): 127-130.
Christmas, J.Y., Gordon Gunter, and Patricia Musgrave. 1966.
Studies.of the annual abundance of post larval penaeid shrimp in
the estuarine waters • of Mississippi, as related to subsequent
commercial catches. Gulf Research Reports. 2(2): 177-212.
Renfro, William C. 1962. Small beam net for sampling postlarval
shrimp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service circular. 161: 86-87..
20
-------
SPECIES SUMMARY
TAXA CONTROL SOURCE SECONDARY
NEMERTEA
Tubulanus sp. 1
Nemertea sp. 1
Nemertea sp. 2
ANNELIDA
OLIGOCHAETA
Limnodri loides sp. 1
POLYCHAETA
Aricidea phi Ibinae
Axiothel la mucosa
Brachioasychis americana
Capital la capltata
Ceratonereis sp. 1
Chone cf . americana
Ci rrif.ormia sp. 1
Ci rriformla sp. 2
Dentasyllis carol inae
Eteone heteropoda
Exogone dlspar
Glycera robustus
Laeonereis cul veri
Lei toscoloplos foliosus
Lietoscoloplos f ragi 11s
Lietoscoloplos robustus
Lumbrl nereis sp. 1
Mediomastus ambiseta
Megalomma sp. 1
Neanthes acuminata
Nothria sp. 1
Onuphis sp. 1
Ophel ia sp. 1
Parapionosyl 1 is sp. 1 (s setae)
Paraprionosplo pinnata
Pectinarla gouldi
Phyl lodoce f ragi 1 is
Podarke obscura
Polvdora liani
Prionospio heterobranchia
Streblosoma sp. 1
Svllis cornuta
Tharyx sp. 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
X
X
X
X
X
X ,
X
X
INDEX
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
1
0
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
0
1
3
2
0
0
0
3
1
2
2
3
1
3
0
3
0
21
-------
TAXA
MOLLUSCA
POLYPLACOPHORA
Ischnochiton oaoilosus
PELECYPODA
Abra aeaual is
Anomalocardia auberiana
Carditamera floridana
Chione cancel lata
Cuminqia tellinoides
Laevi card i urn laevigatum
Lucina nassula
Lyonsia floridana
Musculus lateral is
Mysella olanulata
Parastarte triauetra
Tel Tina tamoaensis
Tellina texana
Transenella stimosoni
GASTROPODA
Acteocina caniculata
Anachis semiolacata
Aolysia so. 1
Bittium varium
Bui la striata
Caecum ouchellum
Cerithium atratum
Conus sternsi
Crassisoira leucocvma
Creoidula maculosa
Creoidula fornicata
Doridella obscura
Eoitonium so. 1.
Granulina ovul iformis
Haminoe succinea
Haminoe eleaans
Hyalina avenacea
Kurtziella diomedia
Marginella aureocinta
Marqinella aoicina
Marainella lavalleena
Mitrella lunata
Modiolus modiolus
Nassarius vibex
CONTROL SOURCE SECONDARY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
, x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
INDEX
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2 .
2
3
3
0
2
3
4
4
3
4
2
2
2
3
2
22
-------
TAXA CONTROL SOURCE SECONDARY INDEX
GASTROPODA continued...
Odostomia sp. 1
Olivella pusilla
Sayella fuscus
Turboni lla dal 1 i
Turbonilla hemphilli
ARTHROPODA
CRUSTACEA -
MYSIDACEA
Metamysidopsis swifti
Mysldopsis bah la
Taphromvsls bowman 1
CUMACEA
Cyclaspsi's varlans
Oxyurostyl is smlthi
TAN A I DACE A
Leptochel ia rapax
ISOPODA
Amakusanthura maanifica
Harrieta faxonl
Edotea montosa
Erichsonella filiformis
Sphaeroma auadridentata
AMPHIPODA
Acuminodeutropus nasleyi
Ampel isca abdi ta
Amphi locus sp. 1
Amplthoe longi manna
Amplthoe rubrlcata
Argissa hamiteps
Autone setosus
Cerapus tubularls
Corophium sp. 2
Corophium ellisi
Cymadusa compta
Elasmopus lev is
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
2 .
3
x 2
3
5
x 4
3
3
3
x 2
x 3
4
3
3
x 3
3
x 2
0
4
4
4
5
3
4
x 2
x 2
4
23
-------
TAXA CONTROL SOURCE SECONDARY INDEX
AMPHIPODA Continued...
Erichthonius brasi 1 iensis
Grandidierel la bonnieroides
Jassa falcata
Luconacia inserta
Lysianopsis alba
Melita longisetosa
Podocerus brasi 1 iensis
Stenothoe crenulata
DECAPODA
Ambidexter symmetricus
Euryoanooeus deoressus
HiDDolyte oleuracantha
Libinia dubia
Neooanooe texana
Pagurus longicarous
Pagurus stimosoni
Palaemonetes ougio
Palaenonetes intermedius
Penaeus duorarum
Pitho Iherminieri
Tozeuma carol ineiise
ECHINODERMATA
ASTEROIDEA
Echinaster sentus
OPHIUROIDEA
AmohiDholus sauamata
Oohioderma so. 1
SIPUNCULIDA
Golfingla sp. 1
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
x
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
3
2
4
3
X 4
x 3
4
4
4
3
X 3
x 3
X 3
3
x 2
X 3
4
3
4
3
4
4
0
x 2
24
-------
DUNCAN'S MULTIPLE RANGE TEST
SPECIES DIVERSITY
SOURCES
CONTROLS
STATIONS 6 5 4 7 2 3 1
MEANS 2.22 2.64 2.77 3.73 4.11 4.20 4.24
99*CL
95*CL
SPECIES RICHNESS
SOURCES CONTROLS
STATIONS 6 5 4 7 3 2 1
MEANS 6,31 10.30 12.30 20.00 26.70 27.30 27.70
99XCL
95XCL
25
-------
FLORIDA MARINE INDEX
BEAM TRAWL SAMPLES
SOURCES CONTROLS
STATIONS 4 6 5 7 21
* TAXA 8 13 16 29 27 31
INDEX TOT. 15 27 35 69 72 84
INDEX 1.88 2.08 . 2.19 2.38 2.67 2.71
3
38
106
2.79
Near Coastal Marine Waters Pilot Project
George Gibson, U.S. EPA, Office of Science and
Technology
George Gibson presented tentative results from
a joint pilot project with Bill Muir in EPA Region
III. They are applying standard bioassessrhent
procedures to two mid-Atlantic Bight ocean
sewage outfalls. A nine-station transect was es-
tablished parallel to the coastline, about 1.5
miles offshore at approximately 1-mile intervals.
The outfalls are located at the third and seventh
stations. The remaining stations represent am-
bient conditions of a nearfield/farfield design.
Habitat characteristics of depth, salinity, and
dissolved oxygen were comparable at all sta-
tions. Sediment grain size ranged from about 80
to 95 percent sand. Benthic macroinvertebrate
characteristics were measured from three repli-
cate Smith-Mclntyre grabs at each station, with
the entire grab counted in each case. Fish were
surveyed using single half-mile otter trawl tows
through each station. The results of this first at-
tempt indicated a notable response of taxa rich-
ness and abundance at each outfall relative to
the reference stations. Habitat variation,
seasonality, and the relative magnitude of the
effects are factors that need to be further ad-
dressed.
26
-------
27
-------
38'36'N
38'30'N -
38*24'N -
38'18'N
o A North Control Station
O B Transitional Station
O C Bethany Beach Outfall
O D Transitional Station
O E Transitional Station
O F Transitional Station
° G Ocean City Outfall
O H Transitional Station
° I South Control Station
3 kn
75*10' V 75* 5' V 75* 0' V
Figure 1. Sampling Locations, July 20 through 25,1992.
74*55' V
28
-------
Bethany Beach/Ocean City Outfalls, July 1992 — Invertebrates, Smith-Maclntyre Dredge.
50
30
10
Number of Taxa
AB(C)DEF(G)HI
4001—
300
200
100
Number of Individuals
A B (C) D E . F (G) H I
10
9
3
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
-Species Richness
A B (C) D E F (G) H I
Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index
0.2
0.1
0.0
15
10
A B (C) D E F (G) H I
Simpson's Dominance Index
A B (C) D E F (G) H I
I
Number of Taxa — Fish
500
400
300
200
100
A B (C) D E F (G) H
I
" Number of Individuals — Fish
A B (c) D E F (G) H i
A B (C) D E F (G) H I
29
-------
Middle and Southern Atlantic Coast
Estuarine Benthic Invertebrate Metrics
Development
Robert Diaz, Virginia Institute of Marine Science and
Walter Nelson, Florida Institute of Technology
Bob Diaz and Walt Nelson are collaborating on a
project to test the sediment depth distribution of
benthic infauna as a potential metric. Two dif-
ferent geographic areas—Florida and Virginia
and a range of sites (high to low impact) within
each area will be sampled. The method involves
measuring species abundance, biomass, and
vertical distribution in core samples. In addi-
tion, they will evaluate the utility of using the
depth of the redox potential discontinuity (RPD)
layer as a surrogate biotic measure.
The sediment depth distribution of benthic
infauna appears to have promise as an indicator
because it integrates several functional
parameters of benthic communities in determin-
ing a score. These include species life history,
taxa/abundance ratios, major taxa biomass dis-
tribution, and vertical distribution of biomass.
Data from sites in Virginia were used to il-
lustrate the utility of this method in distinguish-
ing good and bad sites. The pilot study is
designed to address issues relating to test sen-
sitivity, cross system comparisons, temporal
variation, and comparability to more traditional
methods of assessment.
The use of sediment profile cameras for
quick initial assessments of benthic community
health was also described. In this method, in
situ photos are taken of sediment cross sections
and evaluated based on depth of RPD layer,
presence/absence/depth of burrowing or-
ganisms, and others. Bob presented photos il-
lustrating the ability of this technique to
identify a range of benthic habitat quality.
These methods are probably restricted sedi-
ment depositional areas from fine sand to mud.
However, many workshop participants agreed
that these methods have utility and at least are
able to distinguish good sites from very bad
ones. The "gray areas" are often difficult to dis-
cern and interpret.
OBJECTIVES
1) TEST SEDIMENT DEPTH DISTRIBUTION OF BENTHIC
INFAUNA (ABUNDANCE, BIOMASS) AS POTENTIAL
METRICS
2) EVALUATE VISUAL DETERMINATION OF APPARENT
COLOR RPD DEPTH AS A SURROGATE BIOTIC
MEASURE
ANALYSIS
SPECIES IDENTIFICATION AND COUNTING
BIOMASS (DRY WEIGHT)
APPARENT RPD DEPTH - DIRECT MEASUREMENT
FROM'CORES
CROSS SYSTEM EVALUATION
FIELD WORK
PARALLEL STUDIES IN TWO GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
VIRGINIAN PROVINCE - CHESAPEAKE BAY
CAROLINIAN / WEST INDIAN - INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
COMPARE 3 IMPACTED VS. 3 LOW IMPACT SITES
4" CORES. 15cm DEPTH
0-5; >5-15 CM DEPTH FRACTIONS
ESTUARINE RAPID BIOASSESSMENT
FOR BENTHIC HABITATS
Detection of change due to natural or anthropogenic
sources is complicated by the general eurytopic nature
of the fauna.
Organisms are well adapted to the physical stresses of
estuaries and respond to any disturbance in subtle
ways.
30
-------
Methods for detecting changes in and assessing value
of estuarine habitats need to consider two points:
1- They must be tuned to the adaptive nature of the
organisms
2- They must provide a robust assessment within the
ever shorting time interval required by
environmental regulators.
Estuarine benthic communities present an integrated
functional response to the quality of their habitat.
Rapid assessment methods can capitalize on the
functional role of communities and provide an
integrated view of community conditions. .
Functional parameters of benthic communities most
applicable to rapid assessment include:.
1- Species life histories
2- Major taxa abundance ratios
-3- Major taxa biomass distribution
4- Vertical distribution of biomass
Sampling design, data collection, and analysis
strategies will concentrate on:
1 - Testing sensitivity of methods for detecting a
change.
2- Effect of small scale (meters) npatial variation.
3- Effect of large scale (different river systems) spatial
variation.
4- Cross system comparisons (FL vs. VA)
5- Effects of temporal variation.
6- Applicability of rapid methods verses traditional
approaches.
The place of rapid bioassessment in impact assessment
hinges on the assumptions that:
1 - It is possible to measure a communities intrinsic
value, including an estimation of natural variation,
for any parameter used.
2- That a cause effect relationship exists, but not
necessary to prove, between community structure
and the impact.
For benthic communities to be of practical use in
assessing impacts links need to be established
between:
1 - Management goals and the definition of
community.
2- Aspects of the community measured and'
community function.
3- How impacts, or other disturbances, alter this
function.
4- Variability of the parameter measured in different
communities.
The Benthic Assessment Method:
1 Developed for use in soft bottom estuarine
habitats.
2 Is a stepped approach with three levels:
1 Evaluation
2 Identification
3 Biomass determination
3 Is based on the premise that healthy areas contain
well developed and diversely functioning
communities.
4 Disturbed areas have communities with altered
functions.
Application of the Benthic Assessment Procedure
Phase I - Evaluation
Phase II - Identification
Phase III - Biomass Determination
Phase I - BAM - Evaluation
Sieve, look, and score:
Is there fauna > 5 cm?
yes 1 no 0
Is fauna > 5 cm large in siza? yes 1 no 0
(>2 cm long)
Phase II - BAM - Identification
From the same samples identify to major group and
determine functional life style.
If present then score:
Only surface dwellers 0
Small borrowers 1
Long-lived large fauna 2
31
-------
Phase III - BAM - Biomass Determination
From the same samples determine biomass of each
layer.
0-5 cm layer + > 5 cm layer = 100 % of biomass
Score percentage of total biomass in > 5 cm layer as:
0-10% 0
10- 20 % 1
20 - 50 % 2
50 - 80 % 3
80-100% 4
Add scores from all three Phases to get BAM
assessment value.
For Virginia estuaries the operational range of scores
can be from 0 to 8.
In general scores of:
0-1 Poor habitat, seriously disturbed
2-3 Moderately disturbed or stressed habitats
4-5 Slightly disturbed to moderately good
habitats
6-8 Good habitats
Interpretation needs to be based on the possible range
of BAM conditions within the system that is being
studied.
Elizabeth River (ER) and James River (JR) cores,
August 1990.
Data are total wet weight biomass in grams / 225 cm2.
DEPTH FRACTION PERCENT OF TOTAL
STATION 0-5 5-15CM TOT. % TOP % BOT.
ER210
ER212
ER214
ER216
ER217
ER LU
0.22
0.16
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.03
JRT-6 0.12
JR T-8 0.01
JRT-9 0.11
JRT-10 0.07
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.05
0.00
0.01
0.48
4.63*
1.13"
4.81*
0.31
0.21
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.60
4.65
1.25
4.88
69
74
69
44
94
85
20
0.3
9
1
31
26
31
56
6
15
80
99.7
91
99
Bivalves
Polychaetes
Note: Most of Elizabeth River biomass is small
polychaetes.
Application of BAM to Elizabeth River (ER) and James
River (JR) data, August 1990.
Data are total wet weight biomass in grams / 225 cm2.
IS FAUNA
STAT. >5
ELIZABETH
210 1
212
214
216
217
LU
LARGE
RIVER
0
0
0
0
0
0
LIFE «
1
1
0
1
0
0
fa >5
1
1
1
2
0
1
TOTAL
3
3
2
4
1
2
JAMES RIVER
T-6
T-8
T-9 1
T-10 1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
7
8
8
8
The 403(c) Permit Process and Other
Site Investigations
William Muir, U.S. EPA Region III
PRESSED BY
Brig'rtte Farran, U.S. EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds
Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act regulates
National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (NPDES) discharges to areas outside the
baseline. It was originally applied mainly to off-
shore oil and gas facilities, but it was expanded
to include any types of offshore discharges. The
first step in the 403(c) permit process is to deter-
mine whether a discharge is likely to cause "un-
reasonable degradation." One definition of
"unreasonable degradation" cited in the regula-
tions refers to "significant adverse changes in
ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability
of the biological community within the area of
discharge and surrounding biological com-
munities." Another section of the regulation in-
dicates a discharge cannot cause "irreparable
harm" to the marine environment. The problem
is that there is no clear guidance to evaluate or
define "unreasonable degradation" and "ir-
reparable harm." Hence, one can see the appli-
cability and the challenge of the bioassessment
methods and biocriteria being developed by this
workgroup to the 403(c) program.
Bill also described benthic monitoring of an
ocean disposal site near Virginia Beach. The
data were used to evaluate the suitability of the
chosen dump site.
32
-------
POTWs
•
Offshore Oil and
Gas Facilities
•
Seafood Processors
•
Offshore Placer
Mining
•
Log Transfer
Facilities
.•
Seawater Treatment
Plants
•
Sugar Cane Mills
•
Petroleum Refineries
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act
Cle
Clean Water Act
Clean
Clean
Clean
Clean
Water Act
Water Act
Water Act
Water Act
The 403 Program
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Key Points
The 403 Program: An Overview
The 403 Problem Statement
Key Players and Terms
The Ocean Discharge Criteria
The 403 Decision Process
The Elements of an ODCE
The 403 Solution
403 Authority
The 1972 Clean Water Act amendments:
• Authorize EPA to assess the impact of a
discharge on the biological community to
determine whether or not a discharge will cause
"unreasonable degradation" of the marine
environment.
• Allow EPA to determine the effects of a whole
effluent in the natural state and impose
limitations or conditions beyond those allowed
by either technology-based effluent standards or
water quality-based standards.
33
-------
Program Overview
• Jurisdiction centers on discharges seaward
of the baseline.
• Focus has been on the off-shore oil and
gas industry.
• Provides an added tool for protecting
biologically sensitive communities.
• Complements existing water quality-based
•permitting programs.
• Fits neatly into the Agency's shift toward
risk-based approaches to environmental
protection.
Program Jurisdiction
Landfill
(RCRA)
Industrial
Facility
CWA
Sewage
Treatment:
CWA
Territorial. '4*^
, Sea:' ^.^
•. ' .' • ^Contiguous -j
• • • ^•.r-'-'-'ii' "^-vrTi-iSd
••'• - '•
The 403 Universe
Category
POTWs
Offshore Oil and
Gas Facilities
Seafood Processors
Offshore Placer Mining
Log Transfer Facilities
Seawater Treatment Plant
Sugar Cane Mills
Petroleum Refineries
Undefined Majors/Minors
Questionable Discharges
Total
Number
134
1750
300
2
35
3
8
3
46
206
2487
Regions
All
VI, IX, X
X
X
X
X
IX
IX
All
X
All
Where
Numerous locations
, Gulf of Mexico,
the Atlantic Coast
Alaska
Alaska
Alaska
Alaska
Hawaii
California, Hawaii
Selected locations
Alaska
34
-------
National Summary of 403 Discharges
Under Individual Permits
Region X
24MGO
5 Plants
Region X _
60MGD
5 Plants
Region II
241 MGD
18 Rants
Region IX
1307 MGD
45 Rants
Region
56 MGD
/Plants
Region VI
157 MGD
17 Plants
Region IV
352 MGD
16 Rants
Region I
8.4 MGD'
36 Plants
Region IX
329 MGD
67 Plants
Region II
311 MGD
74 Plants
The 403 Problem Statement
• Original 1980 regulations are broad;
discretionary national application of the
403 program.
• Little technical and procedural guidance on
how to conduct 403 evaluations;
• Lack of integration into the "mainstream"
402 permitting program.
• Although some criteria exist for evaluating
403 dischargers, no clear threshold values exist.
Key Terms
• Unreasonable Degradation
• Irreparable Harm
• Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE)
The Ocean Discharge
Criteria
1. Bioaccumulation
2> Transport of Pollutants
3, Exposed Biological Communities
4. Receiving Waters
5. Special Aquatic Sites
6. Human Health Effects
i
7. Fishing
8. Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)
9. Other Factors as Appropriate
10. Marine Water Quality Criteria
35
-------
The 403 Decision Process
Bioaccumulation
Transport of Pollutants
Exposed Biological Communities
Receiving Waters
Special Aquatic Sites
Human Health Effects
Fishing
Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)
Other Factors as Appropriate
Marine Water Quality Criteria
Unreasonable
Degradation
Yes
Insufficient
Information
n-reparable
Harm
Yes
No
Reasonable
Alternatives
Yes
The Elements of an ODCE
1. Characterizing the Discharge and
the Receiving Water
2. Discussing Potential Effects
3m Analyzing Other Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements
4. Presenting the Findings
5. Recommending Process Modifications
The 403 Solution
• Additional research and definition of key
terms will support the national application
of the program.
• Technical and procedural guidance on
conducting 403 evaluations is under
development.
• A joint OWOW/OWEC policy statement
will help integrate 403 into the
"mainstream" 402 permitting program.
• A solid set of biocriteria would help refine
the existing criteria and establish
thresholds for evaluating ocean discharges.
Virginii Beach,
VA
5
A
12
A
20
A
2
A
6 4
A A
u
7
A
15
A
Dam Neck Disposal Site
fifOT.1. M»p of Sto-ai
36
-------
Table 3. Benthfc Community Parameters at the Dam Neck Disposal Site, 1985-1989
Su/
Y*u
VIS
4/15
M
17
U
19
ins
16
17
U
S9
6/15
16
•7
IS
19
7/13
M
17
IS
19
u/ss
16
17
U
19
13/15
16
17
IS
19
Density
perm1
5059
4600
4452
1341
43S4
4371
3S29
Till
115
2067
51612
3111
3459
1052
6252
2970
3412
7140
1992
3067
2163
234S
1222
674
1267
lit
2311
1126
111
2933
1630
Tout
Species
29
35
33
30
41
21
31
50
16
30
40
33
31
26
36
11
27
43
31
42
35
16
16
14
21
20
21
21
17
29
21
Specie*
p«50
Indiv.
12.9
10.9
124
16.6
12.6
7.7
13.1
14.4
11.9
15.2
3.4
15.4
15.9
174
11.2
6.7
13.9
13.2
14.9
16.7
11.6
1.9
11.7
10.2
144
13.0
104
13J
11.9
134
9.9
Specie*
per 100
lodhr.
16.7
15.6
17.1
23.7
19.2
11.4
. 17.1
20.7
•
20.1
5.4
21.1
224
24.9
16.1
9.6
11.5
11.9
21.0
24.1
25.5
114
14.4
•
114
11.1
14.0
11.0
15.9
- ita
14J
Specie!
per 200
Indiv.
20.7
21.6
22.7
•
27.4
16.7
23.1
27.5
•
274
14
26.1
30.0
•
22.1
13.4
22.1
26.0
21.4
324
324
14.4 .
• .
•
•
•
11.4
•
•
24.0
20.4
per 300
1D81V»
234
25.1
264
*
32.6
20.6
26.5
310
•
•
10.7
30.3
34.9
•
254
16.0
J4.9
30.7
9
3S.4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
21.0
•
Specie!
per 400
lain.
25.2
29.2
29.4
•
36.3
23.7
29.2
35.6
•
•
12.4
*
•
*
214
4k
264
34.2
O
•
*
*
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
SMCIM
per 500
Indiv.
264
324
32J
•
394
264 •
•
31.7
'•
• '
13.1
*
•
•
304
*
. •
37.0
9
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SIMOOMS
Wkwr
Divinity
on
3.44
2.46
345
341
245
141
3.15
343
249
3.71
043
3.43
34S
3.76
242
140
340
3.10
345
3.67
3.96
2.47
3.10
246
3.4S
2.64
249
343
340
3.14
2.41
Eveaom
-
0.70S
0.479
0.664
0.731
0.477
0496
0435
0472
0.721
0.756
0.099
0.611
0.613
0401
0407
0411
0474
0472
0477
0.610
0.771
0.691
0.776
0493
0.792
0411
0419
0.751
0.734
0446
0449
• Number of individual! U toe lew to calculate this parameter.
37
-------
23
1985 B 1986
1987
1988 D 1989
Figure 2. Density of Benthk Infauna at the Dam Neck Disposal Site, (a) Total Density.
(b) Spiophanes bombyx.
38
-------
(A)
t:
nffl
M au n u
i:
(B)
i:
n
rJiuVi
mm
(Q
A
i:
(D)
n n M u 4 • » • » a
(E)
n 4 ta n a i • ti a a r
FIgnre5. Simflarity Analysis of Beathiclnfennal Stations at the Dam Neck Disposal Site (198S>
1989) with Yean Kept Separate Using NESS and Group Avenge Sotting, (a) 1985.
(b) 1986. (c) 1987. (d) 1988. (e) 1989.
39
-------
Figure 7. Similarity Analysis of Benthfc Infaunal Stations at the Dun Neck Disposal She (1989-1989) with AD Yean Combined Using NESS
and Group Average Sorting.
IHtlMMMMMM
K H S ({K H !.!,
Figure 8, Stmfluity Antlysfa of Bcnthfc Infauaal SUdoas at On Dam Neck Disposal She (1988-1989) with AD Yean Combined Using Bray-
Curtis and Group Avenge Sorting.
George Gibson, U.S. EPA, Office of Science and
Technology
George initiated the dialogue among par-
ticipants to summarize the key elements
and issues discussed during the workshop. The
technical guidance outline presented here has
been compiled from that preliminary summary
enhanced by the discussions which took place.
40
-------
DRAFT OUTLINE FOR
Estuarine/Near Costal Bioassessment and
Biocriteria Technical Guidance
I. Background
A. Definition of biological integrity
B. Purpose/objective of document
1. Who will be the users?
• States (e.g., 305b, site specific
assessments, developing
monitoring programs)
• NEPs, 403c, 30ih, CZMP
2. What are their needs?
• Screening tool for broad overall
evaluation
•To develop biocriteria
• As early warning to detect
degradation/recovery
• Incorporation into monitoring
programs (i.e., NEP, 305b or
regulatory—that is, 403c, 301h)
• Other intensive site specific
assessments
• Guide to States developing
monitoring programs
II. Selection of Reference Condition
A. Definition of a reference condition—tied
to biological integrity
B. Purpose (i.e., longterm trend
monitoring, biocriteria development,
one-time site specific assessment)
C. Method—two options
1. Presumed minimally impacted area
(e.g., nearfield/farfield study)
2. Some top fraction of overall
distribution of community
characteristics (e.g., EMAP approach)
D. Considerations
1. Whatever method is used to define a
reference condition must reflect a
community with biological integrity
as defined in the document
2. Consideration of factors that
influence species' distribution i.e.,
salinity, depth, sediment type,
temperature, and perhaps flow
patterns—enclosed embayment vs..
open water)
HI. Community Measurement
A. Communities included benthic
invertebrates, fish, SAV, plankton? other?
B. Rationale for primary focus on benthic
organisms and restricting habitat —
primarily to subtidal, softbottom
environs with or without vegetation
C. Matrix of pros/cons/applicability of
various community measures including
1. Level of effort
2. Discriminatory ability
3. Sensitivity
4. Geographic applicability
5. Habitat restrictions
6. Others
IV. Habitat Assessment
A. Water quality (salinity, DO,
temperature, Ph)
B. Sediment type (TOC, grain size/odor)
C. Depth
41
-------
D. Vegetation/shelter
E. Sediment contamination (sediment
toxicity or elevated chemical cone, as
indication of habitat??)
R Flow pattern/hydrography (i.e.,
enclosed vs. open water)??
G. Anything else?
V. Sampling Design and Technique
A. Incorporation of community and habitat
variables to meet objectives and
resources. Importance of considering
both type I and type II errors, as well as
robustness. The document will contain a
matrix to help guide the users in
choosing methods which are the most
appropriate to their needs.
1. Screening or qualitative approach
2. Quantitative approach
3. Definitive investigation to determine
cause and effect
B. Guidance for statistically evaluating
various sampling designs and ability of
these methods to detect differences, (e.g,
3 vs. 5 replicates, or 1 vs. 4 times a year,
etc.; i.e., power analysis?)
C. Sampling design issues
1. Number of replicates
2. Type of analysis
3. Spatial and temporal distribution of
samples
4. Others
D. Logistical issues
1. Grab type
2. Mesh size
3. Sorting
4. Subsampling
5. Level of taxonomic identification
E. Other
1. Evaluation of success of program in
meeting user needs
2. Importance of natural history
expertise
3. Comprehensive professionalism in
the process
VI. Metrics
A. Both biological community and habitat
B. Scientific basis (i.e., What do they tell
you?)
1. Functional (biomass, depth
distribution)
2. Taxonomic (relationships of species
and individuals)
3. Habitat indices
4. Others
C. Which ones can be used with which
sampling methods?
D. Pros/cons/applicability
VII.Biocriteria Development and Application
A. "Narrative" and "numerical"
B. Variables or metrics to use
C. Issue of basing criteria on the data or on
indices
D. Confidence limits for criteria
E. Applications
1. Assessment
2. Diagnostic
3. Regulatory
F. Illustrations and case histories
42
-------
Drafting Committee
Suzanne Bolton
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Universal Building, Room 618
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW'
Washington, DC 20235
TEL: (202) 606-4436
Michael Bowman
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard
Owings Mills, MD 21117
TEL: (410) 356-8993
FAX: (410) 356-9005
Robert Diaz
Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
TEL: (804) 642-7364
FAX: (804) 642-7097
Eric Dohner
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Suite 340,10306 Eaton Place
Fairfax, VA 22030
TEL: (703) 385-6000
FAX: (703) 385-6007
Bruce Duncan
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10
1200 6th Avenue, ES 098
Seattle, WA 98101-1128
TEL: (206) 553-8086
FAX: (206) 553-0199
Larry Eaton
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Environmental Sciences Building
Raleigh, NC 27607
TEL: (919) 733-6946
Doug Farrell
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulations
3804 Cocunut Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619
TEL: (813) 744-6100
FAX: (813) 744-6084
Chris Faulkner
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, &
Watersheds
401M Street, SW (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
TEL: (202) 260-6228
Jeroen Garritsen
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard
Owings Mills, MD 21117
TEL: (410) 356-8993
FAX: (410) 356-9005
George Gibson
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW (WH-586)
Washington, DC 20460
TEL: (202) 260-7580
FAX: (202) 260-9830
Steve Glomb
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, &
Watersheds
499 South Capitol Street, SW
(WH-556F), Room 811
Washington, DC 20003
TEL: (202) 260-6414
FAX: (202) 260-6294
George Guillen
Texas Water Commission, District 7
5144 East Sam Houston Parkway
North
Houston, TX 77015
TEL: (713) 457-5191
FAX: (713) 457-6107
Susan Jackson
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Science & Technology
401M Street, SW (WH-586)
Washington, DC 20460
TEL: (202) 260-1800
FAX: (202) 260-9830
Beth McGee
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, &
Watersheds
499 South Capitol Street, SW
(WH-556F)
Room 811
Washington, DC 20003
TEL: (202) 260-8483
FAX: (202) 260-6294
William Mulr
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (#ES41)
841 Chestnut Street (3ES41)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
TEL: (215) 597-2541
FAX: (215) 597-7906
Walter Nelson
Florida Institute of Technology
Department O/OE/EVS
150 West University Boulevard
Melbourne, FL 32904
TEL: (407) 76&-8000 ext 7454
FAX: (407) 984-8461
Marria O'Malley-Walsh
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
TEL: (410) 266-9180
John Scott
Science Applications International
Corporation
165 Dean Knauss Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
TEL: (401) 782-1900
FAX: (401) 782-2330
Peter Striplin
Airdustrial Cmp., Building 8
P.O. Box 7710
Olympia, WA 98504
TEL: (206) 586-5995
Steve Weisberg
Versar
9200 Rumsey Road
Columbia, MD 21045
TEL: (410) 964-9200
43
-------
Attendee List
Carin Bisland
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region ni
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
TEL: (410) 267-0061
FAX: (410) 267-0282
Don Boesch
Center for Environmental and
Estuarine Studies
University of Maryland
P.O. Box 775
Cambridge, MD 21613
TEL: (410) 228-9250
FAX: (410) 228-3843
Suzanne Bolton
'National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Universal Building
Room 618
1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20235
TEL: (202) 606-4436
Michael Bowman
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard
Owings Mills, MD 21117
TEL: (410) 356-8993
FAX: (410) 356-9005
Dan Campbell
University of Rhode Island
c/o U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
TEL: (401) 782-3000
Edward W. Christoffers
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Chesapeake Bay Office
410 Severn Avenue, Suite 107A
Annapolis, MD 21403
TEL: (410) 280-1871
FAX: (410) 280-1870
Randy Cutter
Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
TEL: (804) 642-7368
FAX: (804) 642-7097
Amanda Daly
Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
TEL: (804) 642-7368
FAX: (804) 642-7097
Dan Dauer
Old Dominion University
Department of Biological Sciences
Norfolk, VA 23529
TEL: (804) 683-3595
Robert Dfaz
Virginia Institute of Marine
Sciences
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point, VA 23062
TEL: (804) 642-7364
FAX: (804) 642-7097
Eric Dohner
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Suite 340
10306 Eaton Place
Fairfax, VA 22030
TEL: (703) 385-6000
FAX: (703) 385-6007.
Bruce Duncan
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
ES098
Seattle, WA 98101-1128
TEL: (206) 553-8086
FAX: (206) 553-0199
Larry Eaton
North Carolina Department of
Environmental Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Environmental Sciences Building
Raleigh, NC 27607
TEL: (919) 733-6946
Doug Farrell
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulations
3804 Cocunut Palm Drive
Tampa, FL 33619
TEL: (813) 744-6100
FAX: (813) 744-6084
Chris Faulkner
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans; &
Watersheds
401M Street, SW (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
TEL: (202) 260-6228
Roland E. Ferry
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
TEL: (404) 347-1740
FAX: (404) 347-1797
Jeroen Gerritsen
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard
Owings Mills, MD 21117
TEL: (410) 356-8993
FAX: (410) 356-9005
George Gibson
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW (WH-586)
Washington, DC 20460
TEL: (202) 260-7580
FAX: (202) 260-9830
Steve Glomb
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, &
Watersheds
499 South Capitol Street, SW
(WH-556F), Room 811
Washington, DC 20003
TEL: (202) 260-6414
FAX: (202) 260-6294
44
-------
George Guillen
Texas Water Commission, District 7
5144 East Sam Houston Parkway
North
Houston, TX 77015
TEL: (713) 457-5191
FAX: (713) 457-6107
Susan Jackson
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Science & Technology
401 M Street, SW (WH-586)
Washington, DC 20460
TEL: (202) 260-1800
FAX: (202) 260-9830
Steve Jordan
Cooperative Oxford Laboratory
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
904 South Morris Street
Oxford, MD 21654
TEL: (410) 226-0078
FAX: (410) 226-5925
Donald Kelso
George Mason University
Department of Biology
Fairfax, VA 22030
TEL: (703) 993-1061
FAX: (703) 993-1046
Donald Lear
Anne Arundel Community College
103 Spring Valley Drive
Annapolis, MD 21403
TEL: (410) 268-2259
Beth McGee
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, &
Watersheds
499 South Capitol Street, SW
(WH-556F)
Room 811
Washington, DC 20003
TEL: (202) 260-6414
FAX: (202) 260-6294
Mark Monaco
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration
N/ORCA
Room 220
6001 Executive Boulevard
Rockville,MD 20850
TEL: (301) 443-8921
William C. Mulr
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency,
Region m
841 Chestnut Street (3ES41)
Philadelphia, PA 19107
TEL: (215) 597-2541
FAX: (215) 597-7906
Walter Nelson
Florida Institute of Technology
Department O/OE/EVS
150 West University Boulevard
Melbourne, FL 32904
TEL: (407) 768-8000 ext. 7454
FAX: (407) 984-8461
Arthur J. Newell
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Division of Marine Resources
Building 40, S6NY
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
TEL: (516) 751-7775
FAX: (516) 689-3574
Marrla O'Malley-Walsh
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
839 Bestgate Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
TEL: (410) 266-9180
Doreen Robb
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, &
Watersheds
Wetlands Division
401M Street, SW (A-104F)
Washington, DC 20460
TEL: (202) 260-1699
FAX: (202) 260-8000
Andy Robertson
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration
Coastal Monitoring and Bioeffects
Assessment Division
6001 Executive Boulevard
Room 323, WSC-1
RockviUe,MD 20852
TEL: (301) 443-8933
FAX: (301) 231-5764
John Scott
Science Applications International
Corporation
165 Dean Knauss Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
TEL: (401) 782-1900
FAX: (401) 782-2330
Sam Stribllng
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Boulevard
Suite 110
Owings Mills, MD 21117
TEL: (410) 290-5921
Peter L Striplin
Washington State Department of
Ecology
Airdustrial Cmp., Building 8
P.O. Box 7710
Olympia, WA 98504
TEL: (206) 586-5995
Steve Weisberg
Versar
9200 Rumsey Road
Columbia, MD 21045
TEL: (410) 964-9200
45
------- |