vvEPA
United States Office of ERL-GB No. SR-118
Environmental Protection Research and Development January, 1992
Agency Washington DC 20460
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ESTUARIES
COMPONENT: LOUISIANIAN PROVINCE
1991 DEMONSTRATION
FIELD ACTIVITIES REPORT
Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been wholly or in part funded by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. It has been subjected to the Agency's review, and it
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
NOTICE
This document is the first draft of the field activities report for the Louisianian
Province Demonstration in 1991.
The report should be cited as follows:
Summers, J.K., J.M. Macauley, and P.T. Heitmuller. 1992. Reid Activities Report:
Louisianian Province. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL ERL-Gulf
Breeze Contribution No. SR-118.
-------
60OR92254
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is a nationwide
initiative by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and
Development (ORD). The program was developed in response to the demand for
information on the condition of the nation's ecological resources. The estuarine element
of EMAP (EMAP-E) presently represents one such ecological resource -- estuaries. This
document specifically addresses the logistical and tactical results of the 1991
demonstration project in the Louisianian Province (i.e., estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico).
Although EMAP is funded by ORD, it is designed as an integrated federal program.
Throughout the planning and execution of EMAP-E in the Louisianian Province, ORD
worked with other federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the resources and water
quality agencies of the five Gulf states: Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas, as well as other offices and programs within EPA (e.g., Gulf of Mexico Program,
Regions IV and VI). These agencies and other offices have participated in the planning
and execution of the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
Information obtained from the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration will be
used to: (1) demonstrate the value of integrated, multiagency monitoring programs for
planning, priority setting and evaluating the condition of the estuarine resources in the
Gulf of Mexico; (2) define a sampling approach for quantifying the extent and magnitude
of pollution problems in Gulf of Mexico estuaries; (3) develop standardized monitoring
methods that can be transferred to other programs and agencies for sampling the
estuarine environment; and , (4) identify and resolve logistical issues associated with
implementing a multiagency, national status and trends ecological monitoring program.
The sampling design during the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration required
sampling from 202 locations consisting of 113 base locations, 57 index sites, 16 indicator
evaluation sites, 4 quality control sites, and 12 spatial supplement sites. Of the 202 sites,
19 locations were positioned at sites with depths less than 3 feet; thus reducing the total
number of sites that could be sampled (i.e., "sampleable") to 183. These 19
unsampleable sites represented approximately 7% of the estuarine surface area of the
Gulf resources. All of the remaining 183 sites were sampled in 1991.
-------
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Coordination 3
3.0 Execution of the Demonstration 7
Planning 7
Training 12
Field Sampling and Logistics 15
Vessels 17
Engines 18
Trailers 19
Electronics 19
Field Equipment 20
Computers 21
Information Management 22
Overview 22
Success Rate of Sample Collection 23
4.0 Indicators 54
Core Indicators 54
Developmental Indicators 56
Research Indicators 60
5.0 Quality Assurance 66
Training and Sample Collection 66
Laboratory Certification 68
Laboratory Procedures 68
6.0 References 77
Appendix A 79
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 27
Table 3-2 34
Table 3-3 35
Table 3-4 36
Table 3-5 41
Table 3-6 42
Table 3-7 43
Table 3-8 44
Table 3-9 45
Table 3-10 46
Table 4-1 65
Table 5-1 71
Table 5-2 73
Table 5-3 74
Table 5-4 75
Table 5-5 76
-------
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 47
Figure 3-2 48
Figure 3-3 49
Figure 3-4 50
Rgure 3-5 51
Figure 3-6 52
Figure 3-7 53
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program / Estuaries (EMAP-E) is
intended to provide an unbiased, quantitative assessment of the regional extent of coastal
environmental problems by measuring status and change in selected ecological
indicators. In 1991, EMAP-E conducted the second in its series of in-field demonstrations
to demonstrate the utility of regional monitoring programs for assessing the condition of
estuaries. This demonstration implemented the planning and strategy described in detail
in the Louisianian Province Demonstration Implementation Plan (Summers et al. 1991).
Sampling was conducted from 9 July through 30 August spanning 202 sites utilizing 30
field personnel and 3 program/logistical coordinators.
The primary purpose of this document is to describe: how the Demonstration
Project was planned and conducted; staff trained; equipment procured; and, problems
encountered. This information is used to evaluate potential design and strategy changes
for the 1992 field season. In essence, this document represents a comparison of the
implementation plan (Summers et al. 1991) with the field program and the identification
of those planned activities that worked well or that were either infeasible or simply did not
work as planned.
This document, which is organized into sections that describe the major elements
of the monitoring program for the Louisianian Province, covers the activities undertaken
-------
2
in the period from October 1990 through September 1991. The elements in this report
correspond to the original implementation plan and are:
o Coordination (Chapter 2.0) lists the activities completed in planning and
executing the demonstration with regard to coordination with other federal
and state agencies.
o Sampling and Logistics (Chapter 3.0) provides a detailed description of the
concordance of the realized sampling regime with that of the original design.
o Indicators (Chapter 4.0) describes the feasibility of sampling the planned
indicators and details problems associated with selected indicators.
o Quality Control (Chapter 5.0) describes the quality control measures taken
to assure successful training, field collections, and laboratory processing.
o References (Chapter 6.0).
-------
2.0 COORDINATION
Meeting the objectives of the EMAP-E Louisianian Province Demonstration required
the close coordination of demonstration personnel with other federal agencies, state
agencies, and university cooperators. These groups include the Gulf of Mexico Program
(EPA); Regions IV and VI (EPA); the water quality and natural resources agencies of
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the Wetlands Research Program
(FWS); the Coastal Oceans Program (NOAA); the Status and Trends and Strategic
Assessments Programs (NOAA); and, key academic institutions throughout the Gulf
Coast.
The Louisianian Province Team is actively working with the Gulf of Mexico Program
(GOMP). We have provided GOMP with briefings and updates at each of its technical
steering committee meetings and participated in GOMP's Contaminated Sediments
Workshop in August 1991. In addition, the Louisianian Province Manager was made a
member of the Toxic Substances and Pesticides Subcommittee and charged with the
assignment of developing a Gulf-wide monitoring plan for toxics that builds upon the
EMAP-E base. This cooperative effort between EMAP and GOMP will result in a strategy
for the localization of EMAP whereby individual state agencies and EPA Regions can
conduct additional sampling beyond EMAP's base monitoring to fulfill the non-regional
monitoring or special needs of the States.
-------
4
The GOMP has worked with EMAP-E and the various state natural resources and
water quality agencies to delineate specified personnel in each state to act as liaisons
between EMAP-E and their state agencies. These individuals are: John Carlton (Alabama
Department of Environmental Management), Tom Swihart (Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation), Emilise Cormier (Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality), Jeff Thomas (Mississippi Office of Pollution Control), and Bruce Smith (Texas
General Land Office).
Regions IV and VI have regulatory jurisdiction over the coastal environments
comprising the Louisianian Province. EMAP-E provided briefings for both regions prior
to the initiation of sampling. The regions named EMAP Coordinators (John Montanari,
Region IV and Evan Hornig, Region VI) to interact with the Louisianian Province staff. A
post-sampling briefing for both regions was conducted in December 1991 and included
a synopsis of analyses completed to that time.
The Louisianian Province Demonstration entered an interagency cooperative
agreement with NOAA's Coastal Oceans Program (COP) and U.S. Rsh and Wildlife's
Wetland Center to delineate the position and size of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
beds in estuarine waters of the Gulf of Mexico. This 4-year program will provide the
sampling frame materials upon which a long-term monitoring plan for SAV habitats in the
Gulf can be developed. In addition, as part of this agreement, the three programs, in
conjunction with EPA's Wetlands Research Program, will conduct an SAV
-------
5
indicator/research workshop in early 1992 to determine ecological indicators of
importance for these habitats. This information will be used to conduct a SAV pilot
program in the Louisianian Province in 1993.
The Louisianian Province contains numerous academic institutions from which the
program can solicit talented individuals to ensure the success of EMAP-E. The execution
of the Louisianian Province Demonstration is being completed using cooperative research
agreements with regional academic institutions. Field sampling is being completed by the
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory (Dr. William Walker), University of Mississippi (Dr. John
Rodgers), Texas A&M University (Dr. Daniel Wilkerson), and Louisiana State University
(Dr. Tom Oswald). Benthic analyses and sediment characterizations are being conducted
by the University of Southern Mississippi (Dr. Richard Heard) and the University of
Mississippi (Dr. Gary Gaston). Sediment contaminant analyses are being conducted by
Texas A&M University (Dr. James Brooks). Fish tissue contaminant analyses are being
conducted by the Research Institute of Pharmacological Sciences (Dr. William Benson).
The peer review process has been an important aspect of the planning,
development, and execution of the Louisianian Province Demonstration. This process,
at the regional level, has included all of the above coordinational elements. The regional
peer review panel is comprised of representatives of regional federal offices (Chairperson
Pat Roscigno, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), EPA Regions IV and VI (Evan Hornig,
Region VI and Jerry Stober, Region IV), state resource agencies (Ken Haddad, Florida
-------
6
Department of Natural Resources), and academia (Patricia Biesiot, University of Southern
Mississippi). In addition, Dr. Fred Kopfler of EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program serves as the
coordinator for this group. The peer panel is actively involved in the planning and
analytical phases of the program with regular meetings held annually.
-------
3.0 EXECUTION OF THE DEMONSTRATION
The Louisianian Province Demonstration was an important component of the
national implementation of EMAP-E. While an earlier demonstration project had been
conducted in the Virginian Province in 1990, EMAP-E needed to show that it could
conduct multiple assessments in widely varying environments (Year 2 in the Virginian
Province and that the demonstration in the Louisianian Province) and address and correct
problems identified in the Virginian Province Demonstration. This chapter is divided into
three sections: planning, training, and field sampling.
PLANNING
As expected, the success of the demonstration was dependent on good and
complete initial planning. A draft of the implementation plan for the demonstration was
completed by October 1990 (Summers et al. 1991) that included the completion of several
pilot programs to evaluate selected indicators. Cooperative agreements were completed
and cooperators selected by October 1990, as well as, all major procurements had
planning purchase requisitions completed and ready for submission. The Province Team
was ready to implement the demonstration plan upon arrival of the FY91 budget.
At this time, several aspects of funding created problems for the implementation
of the demonstration. The foremost problem was the unavailability of funds to purchase
-------
8
capital equipment due to the lack of an appropriation until December 1990 (Congressional
budget debate). As a result, no equipment could be ordered prior to December
1990/January 1991; effectively eliminating the first quarter of FY91. One exception to this
budgetary inactivity was that all vehicles (trucks and vans) were purchased with FY90
planning funds due to the long lead time experienced in the 1990 Virginian Province
Demonstration in procuring these items. This funding delay caused considerable
difficulties in the establishment of purchase contracts and cooperative agreements but,
with the diligent work of the Province Team and laboratory administrative personnel, all
procurements were completed and all equipment was received, prior to training, in May
1991. All cooperative agreements were in place by March/April 1991. The only additional
problem experienced as a result of the delayed purchase of equipment was that the
sampling vessels could not be fully checked out prior to training.
An important aspect of planning for the Louisianian Province Demonstration was
the conduct of reconnaissance of the selected sampling sites prior to execution of the
demonstration. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to acquire information that would
facilitate the development of logistics plans for field implementation.
The first phase of reconnaissance consisted of plotting the 202 stations on nautical
charts (Table 3-1). During this exercise, two (2) stations were found to be located on land
and 11 sites were located in water less than 3 feet in depth, and 18 sites where in areas
-------
9
of unknown depth. The two landward sites were relocated and the 29 sites with unknown
depths or depths less than 3 feet were "marked" for close reconnaissance.
All 202 sampling sites were visited during multiple reconnaissance periods from
February-April 1991. During reconnaissance, the crews checked coordinates, water
depth, access to the site, appropriate boat ramp facilities, motel and restaurant
accommodations, phone service, Federal Express offices, and dry ice suppliers. Reid
reconnaissance proved to be very valuable for the development of logistics plans for the
three sampling regions in the Louisianian Province (i.e., East, Delta, and West). As a
result, 15 stations was assigned "unsampleable" status (Table 3-2) and 6 additional
stations were assessed to be marginal in terms of depth. Based on these results,
logistics plans were developed to sample the remaining 187 sites over a six-week period
during July-August 1991. In addition, the general lack of dry ice facilities in the East
Region forced us to develop a resupplying plan that would redistribute dry ice purchased
near the field operations center to centralized field distribution points. Reconnaissance
is a necessary activity to ensure efficient use of the sampling crews during the summer
sampling period.
The Louisianian Province Team conducted a "mock sampling" assessment of ten
stations in the Eastern Subregion in March 1991. This mock sampling was conducted
to assess whether three sampling personnel were sufficient to obtain the measurements
required by the demonstration in a timely fashion and whether the distance between
-------
10
stations was too far to permit the sampling of multiple stations in a day. The schedule
of the mock sampling in shown in Table 3-3. The mock-sampling was successfully
completed collecting all parameters from 10 sites over a six-day period; however, it was
clear that intensive, detailed training would be needed to ensure successful data
collection.
Part of the reconnaissance that could be conducted separately from the field
exercise concerned the procurement of permission to sample leased areas in Gulf
estuaries. Nearly all bottom area in Louisiana is leased to private vendors for the
production of shellfish. A member of the Louisianian Province Team visited the
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Survey Division in New Orleans and matched the 80
sampling site coordinates in Louisiana with maps of leased areas, determining if our
sample sites intersected with established leases or if leases existed directly adjacent to
the sampling sites. From the lease maps, the owners of the leases were determined and
full addresses were extracted from the lease files. We contacted each leaseholder by
certified mail, explained the program, requested permission to sample large bivalves using
a dredge on their lease site, and explained that permission to conduct the remainder of
EMAP-E sampling (e.g., water quality, benthic grabs, and fish trawls) was not required by
Louisiana statutes. The letters were written in a fashion that required a response from the
leaseholder only if he or she would not permit sampling on their site. Of the 88 letters
forwarded to leaseholders , only 4 refused to permit sampling using a dredge at their
sites. These sites were located in Barataria Bay and Little Lake. No dredging was
-------
11
performed at these sites.
Specific permits were required to collect biota and for the use of marine radios.
Fish and shellfish permits were secured from the responsible state resource agencies in
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Photocopies of all relevant collection
permits were carried aboard sampling vessels.
Federal regulations require that all transmitters on-board U.S. Government vessels
be licensed by the Federal Communications Center (FCC) through the National
Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA). The EMAP-E research vessels
carry both marine radios and radar. Both instruments require permits and these permits
were received in May 1991. These permits permitted operation on all public
correspondence channels (marine operators), port operations channels, safety channels
(6 and 16) and channel 82A (U.S. Government working channel).
The mobile laboratories were equipped with marine radios. Coast Guard
regulations prohibit the use of a marine-band radio in a moving vehicle. By designating
these units as "mobile base stations", a permit was obtained for these radios. However,
use of the radios while the mobile laboratory is in transit is prohibited. Radio contact
between the mobile lab and sampling vessels was only maintained while the lab was
stationary.
-------
12
TRAINING
Formal training was held at the Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory,
Gulf Breeze, FL from May 20 to June 19, 1991. The training was segmented into three
portions -- Crew Chief Training (May 20-May 31), Crew Training (June 3-13), and Reid
Certification (June 13-15, 17-19). The development and conduct of the course was
completed by EPA personnel and its on-site contractors, Technical Resources, Inc. and
Computer Sciences Corporation. A total of 32 active program participants, 5 alternates,
and 1 state resource agency personnel (Alabama Department of Environmental
Management) comprised the training group. The training program concentrated on active
participation in field exercises and minimized the amount of in-class lectures.
Prior to training, the primary cooperators (Gulf Coast Research Laboratory and
Texas A&M University) were required to provide information concerning the basic skills
each crew member possessed in relation to boating skills, field sampling, computer use,
field taxonomy, and vehicle operation. The cooperators were required to pre-train all
participants in first aid and provide documentation of that training. In addition, each
cooperator had to designate at least 4 fish/shellfish taxonomists and 2 computer-literate
personnel (with documentation of these skills) from their contingents attending EMAP
training. This requirement clearly reduced the level of effort that was necessary in training
in these areas. These specialists (i.e., taxonomists and computer personnel) were
required to demonstrate their expertise during the training period.
-------
13
Crew chief training covered all aspects of the field sampling protocols but also
concentrated on in-field decision making and vessel operation. Tine crew chief training
was attended by 9 personnel including 5 Ph.D, 2 M.S., 1 B.A., and 1 High School
graduate. The average experience level of crew chiefs was 10-12 years and ranged from
2-35 years. The training schedule for the crew chiefs is shown in Figure 3-1. The topics
included in the training included field decision making, boat safety and trailering, vessel
operation and electronics, field protocols, quality assurance and control methods, fish
pathology, sample preparation and shipping, and data entry and transfer (Macauley and
Summers 1991c). The 9 personnel were assigned to one of three 3-person field crews
and the responsibilities of individual members were altered in different field exercises (e.g.,
captain, field hand, data scribe). In all instances, training personnel accompanied trainees
during the 10-day session. The final two days of the crew chief training consisted of a
"mock" field certification in which a crew was provided four sampling sites at which to
collect data over the 2-day period. All sites were visited on Day 1 to deploy water quality
data packages and 2 sites were sampled rotating crew responsibilities. On Day 2, the
remaining sites were sampled and all continuous water quality deployments were
retrieved. In addition, on Day 2, the crews packaged their samples for shipment and
entered and transferred all data using field computers. During the "mock11 field
certification, a trained EMAP individual scored the teams on over 100 field functions. The
purpose of this certification was to ensure an appropriate level of performance in the crew
chiefs pertaining to the field protocols before they interacted with their crews. We believe
this promoted a level of confidence in the crew chiefs such that crews tended to ask
-------
14
questions of their chiefs rather than the EMAP personnel, effectively building strong
sampling team cohesion and enhancing our ability to train crew members.
Crew training was attended by 29 individuals in addition to the nine crew chiefs.
The trainees were subdivided into the six field teams that would operate during the
demonstration and one team of alternates. The two-week training period was divided
into split daily sessions such that half the teams conducted field exercises from 8am-12pm
while the remaining teams attended lectures and demonstrations; the teams switched
activities during the 1-5pm period. All personnel were required to attend safety
demonstrations and "pass" a swim test on Day 1.
The classes were scheduled (Figure 3-2) to concentrate on field protocols and field
laboratory processing (Macauley and Summers 1991d). The crews essentially built on
the previous day's experiences and gradually developed a complete set of field protocols
that were implemented at a single station. Many of the activities completed during crew
training were similar to those in crew chief training but focused on the development of a
functional sampling team. Unlike the 1990 experience in the Virginian Province, the 1991
training could not be extended to cover deficiencies in the training process (Schimmel and
Strobel 1991). Therefore, it was imperative that the crews not be permitted to leave until
there was evidence that they fully understood the sampling protocols and could
successfully perform EMAP sampling as a team.
-------
15
Corroboration of the crews' understanding of the field protocols was determined
by the use of final field certification exercises. These exercises consisted of a "typical
EMAP" 2-day scenario of sampling, sample processing and shipping, and data entry and
transfer. A total of 4 stations, selected from the available EMAP sampling sites, was
visited by each crew. The crews were required to conduct all components of the
sampling activities at each station and were scored by senior EMAP personnel on their
abilities to perform over 100 field and laboratory functions (Table 3-4). Teams were
scored on each activity on a 0-3 basis where a 0 score was completely unacceptable; 1,
suggested a major change from the accepted EMAP protocol; 2, suggested a minor
change from the protocol; and 3, no change. The scores were normalized to percentage
and a team score of >90% was required for certification. Reid certification scores ranged
from 91-99.2% with an average score of 94.8%. These quality controls on training clearly
demonstrate that the training was successful, and provided sufficient personnel return in
1992, should result in a reduction in the time spent on training by about 50%.
FIELD SAMPLING AND LOGISTICS
All field sampling activities were conducted during the index period for the
Louisianian Province (Summers et al. 1991), from July 1 through September 15. Actual
sampling commenced on July 9 and terminated on August 30. Three teams (East, Delta,
and West), each consisting of two rotating 5-man crews, sampled the 187 sites
comprising the Louisianian Province Demonstration according to the logistics plans
-------
16
(Macauley and Summers 1991 b, Phifer et al. 1991)(see Appendix A). Crews worked
alternating six-day shifts. Exchanges between crews occurred at pre-designated sites so
that information could be exchanged between Crew Chiefs.
The three teams sampled 183 sites (4 sites were judged and reclassified as
"unsampleable" due to insufficient depth; Ecofina River, FL and Rio Grande, TX). The
East Team was responsible for the sites located between Tampa Bay, FL and Pearl River,
LA (Figure 3-3. The Delta and West Teams were merged and were responsible for the
sites from the Pearl River, LA to the Rio Grande, TX (Figure 3-4 and 3-5). Quality control
inspections were conducted of each crew during its first six-day tour. During this
inspection, each crew's activities were reviewed to ensure adherence to the established
field protocols (Macauley and Summers 1991 a).
The 183 sampling sites consisted of five types of locations: base sampling sites
(101), index sites (52), spatial supplements (10), indicator evaluation sites (16), and quality
control sites (4). Base sampling sites were randomly selected prior to sampling and
provide the basic information which will be used to assess the
ecological condition of the Louisianian Province. The activities performed at these sites
are listed in Table 3-5. Index stations are "judgmental" sites (i.e., based on expert
judgement or opinion) selected to correspond to suspected or inferred depositional
patterns in tidal rivers and small estuaries (as can be implied from nautical charts). These
index sites should represent areas of high deposition and, therefore, the highest
-------
17
probability of sediment contamination and low dissolved oxygen concentration. Spatial
supplements were additional "base" samples collected to examine the effect of the
selection of sampling scale (i.e., grid size) on data interpretation. All spatial supplements
were located in Mobile Bay, AL and represented a reduction from the base 280 km2 grid
to a 70 km2 grid scale. Indicator evaluation sites were "judgmental" sites based on
established historical data relating to summer dissolved oxygen concentrations, industrial
loading, and agricultural runoff. Each site was rated as high or low for each of three
criteria and sites were selected so as to produce a set of stations that produced all
combinations both east and west of the Mississippi Delta (Table 3-6). Quality control
samples consisted of four base sites that were revisited during the index period to
ascertain the stability of the measured parameters.
Procedures for the operation of all field equipment and the protocols for the
collection of data are described in detail in the Field Operations Manual (Macauley and
Summers 1991). This manual was distributed to each crew member during training and
one copy was maintained on each sampling vessel and in each mobile laboratory. The
typical sequence of activities at a sampling site is shown in Rgures 3-6 and 3-7. The
following sections include evaluations of methodologies and on-board and laboratory
equipment while the logistical utility of the selected indicators is described in Chapter 4.0.
Vessels
The 25-foot vessels constructed for the Louisianian Province Demonstration
-------
18
provided safe, reliable, and fully workable platforms for data collection. Weather
conditions in the Louisianian Province during 1991 included numerous (almost daily)
major thunderstorms and the cathedral hull design, inboard engine, and flat deck of the
vessels made working in this type of weather relatively easy. The increased size of the
deck and the ample storage area below deck remedied the problems observed in the
Virginian Province relative to crowding due to equipment (Schimmel and Strobel 1991).
Cabin space was adequate to accommodate up to six crew members, so the normal
complement of three were housed in relative comfort. There were no vessel accidents
beyond two groundings (Suwannee Sound, FL and Galveston Bay, TX). Both groundings
occurred as a result of poorly marked channels and resulted in no damage to the vessels
or engines, or injury to sampling personnel. The Galveston grounding lasted less than
30 minutes and the vessel (RV Nautilus) was pulled off the sandbar by its companion
EMAP vessel (RV Wahoo). The Suwannee "grounding" was somewhat more serious in
that the vessel (RV Osprey) occupied its sampling station on a falling spring tide. After
completion of sampling, the crew discovered the vessel was encircled by shallow water
(< 3 ft). The crew had to remain on site for 3 hours to wait for sufficient tide to proceed
to the boat ramp. Fortunately, both groundings occurred after the day's sampling was
completed; thus, no loss of sample collection time occurred.
Engines
The engines averaged about 12-14 hours of operation daily for a period of six
weeks (i.e., about 600 hours per vessel). No serious problems resulted from this level
-------
19
of use beyond the development of a "rattle" that was diagnosed as a loose baffle which
did not require maintenance until after the sampling period. All engines will be fully
maintained during the off season and repaired and "tuned up" as necessary. There was
considerable debate concerning our lack of secondary engines and the probability of
losing engine power; thus becoming stranded. This problem did not occur and it appears
that with proper short term maintenance (oil and lubricant changes) the commercial
engines chosen for use in the Louisianian Province will remain reliable for the sampling
periods.
Trailers
One area of potential problem for the sampling crews was the reliability of the
trailers for towing the vessels. We experienced two incidences of "burnt bearings" with
the trailers, in spite of weekly, and often daily, lubrications. This problem resulted in 2-3
hours of down-time but the problems were relatively minor and were attended to by either
the crew or local mechanics at minimal cost. In 1992, each, crew will be supplied with a
complete set of brake and hub parts for the trailer so that routine maintenance can be
accomplished within scheduled periods.
Electronics
Vessel electronics and the winch assemblies worked with few problems. The most
frequent difficulty involved the reliability of the depth finder (an important piece of
electronics in relatively shallow water). On two occasions, the depth finders failed and
-------
20
were replaced (via next-day carrier) from surplus stock at the operations center.
Damaged equipment was shipped to the operations center for repair. One of these depth
finder failures resulted from a lightning strike near one of the sampling vessels (RV
Nautilus). This strike resulted in the failure of all electronics that were operating at the
time (Loran and Depth Finder damaged). Both items were replaced via next-day carrier.
We experienced some difficulties with the LORAN-C units resulting from
interference from local military installations. This problem occurred only twice and on
both occasions, the crew chief navigated to sites via dead reckoning and landmarks.
There is no evidence that the LORAN-C units are insufficient to meet EMAP-E goals in the
Louisianian Province; however, we are investigating the utility of GPS (Global Positioning
System) for even finer locational capabilities.
One problem experienced by all crews was communication between the vessel and
the mobile lab. Communications were often limited to distances of a few miles. We will
investigate measures to increase the sending and receiving capacities of the marine
radios used.
Field Equipment
AH field equipment performed well. No problems resulted from the malfunction of
gear beyond the occasional malfunction of the DataSonde3 units used for continuous
water quality measurements. We had several occasions (about 7%) where these units
-------
21
provided erroneous data even though they were correctly calibrated and "passed" the in-
field QC-check (on-board comparison of Surveyor-ll and DataSondeS). In these few
instances, the DataSondeS would provide instantaneous measures within 1 ppm of the
Surveyor-ll for surface water measures but provide poor data immediately upon
immersion. We are working with the manufacturer to assess the causes of this
phenomenon. In each instance, we re-deployed successfully.
While the instruments generally performed well, they were highly susceptible to
tampering and theft. Unknown individuals tampered with or took instruments from 10
locations, as widespread as Apalachee Bay, Fl to Dollar Bay, TX Of these 10
instruments, 3 were recovered at or near the site (i.e., the buoy systems had been
removed and the instruments were on the bottom in shallow water) and 2 were recovered
after individuals contacted the Operations Center stating that they had found the
instruments. The remaining 5 DataSonde3s were lost. There appears to be no reason
to alter our use of this instrument based on logistical concerns beyond further
modifications of the deployment systems to reduce theft.
Computers
The field computer (Grid model 1530 laptop computers) were used in the mobile
labs to enter and transfer daily data compilations. While these machines were generally
reliable, we had two instances that required the unit replacement In one case, the
display screen imploded and had to be replaced. In a second incident, the motherboard
-------
22
failed. In both cases, the machines were replaced from surplus stock at the Operations
Center. Minor problems did occur related to the hard drives in these machines; however,
most of the problems were solved by communication between Operations Center staff
and the lab crews.
Information Management
A significant time expenditure was incurred in the 1990 Virginian Province
Demonstration that involved the manual transfer of data from data sheets to electronic
storage by the operations center staff after field collection was completed. The addition
of a second lab crew member in the Louisianian Province, whose primary responsibility
was the entry and transfer of data, proved very successful. This process allowed data
entry personnel to directly query the data collectors while the day's events were still fresh
in their minds and allowed the operations center personnel to view the "raw" data within
24-48 hours of collection. This interaction caught several potential problems before they
became critical (e.g., misuse of some data forms, dead or missing internal batteries in two
DataSondeS units).
Overview
On the whole, the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration was successful in its
attempt to collect large amounts of information and samples over a short time frame. In
addition, the experience gained by the crews showed in the decreased time necessary
at a station required to complete the field collection protocols. In the first two weeks of
-------
23
the demonstration, base/index/QC stations required roughly 3.25-3.5 hours per site. This
time period was reduced to 2-2.25 hours by the end of August. Indicator evaluation
stations generally took about 75% longer to complete the required sampling.
SUCCESS RATE OF SAMPLE COLLECTION
A comparison of the number of samples intended for collection to the number of
samples collected is shown in Table 3-7. With the exception of sample sites that were
located in water that was too shallow, all sites were successfully sampled for all intended
parameters with only two exceptions. Of the 19 sites that were not sampled due to
insufficient depth, 9 were located in large estuaries where station placement could not be
altered (i.e., Choctawhatchee Bay, FL [1 site]; Mobile Bay, AL [3 sites, 2 were spatial
supplements]; Mississippi Sound, MS [1 site]; and Laguna Madre, TX [4 sites]). Of these
9 sites, only those in Laguna Madre create a potential problem. Due to the extensive
shallow nature of this lagoon, approximately 80% of the water body is unsampleable with
our present field vessel since large expanses of the lagoon are less than 1 foot in depth.
However, Laguna Madre has a surface area of about 1,800 km2 and comprises about
30% of the estuarine resources in the state of Texas, 10% of the large
estuarine class, or 7% of the total Louisianian Province estuarine resources. We will
evaluate methods for obtaining data from Laguna Madre in 1992 that will at least provide
water quality and benthic data. The remaining "unsampleable" sites in large estuaries
represent < 3% of the regional resource on an areal basis. The remaining 10
"unsampleable" sites occurred in small estuaries where the entire expanse of the estuarine
-------
24
portion of these systems had depths < 3 feet (e.g., Ecofina River, FL; Star Lake, TX;
Highland Bayou, TX; Powderhorn Lake, TX; and Rio Grande, TX). These small systems
represented 29 km2 or <0.5% of the small estuarine class. The extent of unsampleable
waters in the Louisianian Province in 1991 is summarized in Table 3-8.
While all stations were sampled as planned, not every site was sampled for every
parameter planned and not every sample was successfully processed and shipped to its
corresponding analytical laboratory. The remainder of this section delineates the number
of samples successfully collected, successfully shipped, successfully completed QC
evaluation, and provides an estimate of the degree of completion of laboratory analyses
at this time (December 1, 1991) as well as an intended completion date.
Five data sets do not require any further laboratory analyses:instantaneous water
quality, continuous water quality, marine debris, and fish/shellfish
abundance/composition, large bivalve abundance. Instantaneous water quality measures
(i.e., salinity, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, % PAR, depth) were successfully
collected from all 183 sites (Table 3-9). Continuous water quality parameters (i.e., salinity,
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, % saturation, and depth collected every 15 minutes
from 1800-0600) were successfully obtained from all but one base site (LA91LR35 -
Breton Sound, LA). The batteries malfunctioned in that meter and the data were not
collected after 2000 hours. No continuous meters were deployed in the Mississippi River
due to excessive currents; however, dissolved oxygen variability was very low in this river
-------
25
and all instantaneous measures showed values of between 5.0 and 6.5 ppm. Marine
debris was successfully sampled at all sites and categorized as plastic, metal, glass,
wood, or other. Rsh trawls were completed at all but 4 sites. These sites represented
areas of heavily fouled bottoms (1 base and 1 index site in Belle River, La and 1 base site
in Homosassa River, FL) or heavy commercial traffic (1 base site in upper Mississippi
River). These four sites represent < 0.1% of the estuarine resources in the Louisianian
Province. Fish trawls produced 12,166 fish of which 60% were target species. Table 3-10
shows the distribution of the 10 target species. As a result of these distributions, 4 sites
provided no opportunity for the collection of fish for tissue contaminant analysis. In
addition, 2 sites produced no fish in multiple trawls and 15 sites did not produce sufficient
tissue biomass to permit contaminant assessment. Thus, 21 of the 183 sites (11%) will
not be evaluated with regard to fish contaminant concentrations. While these 21 sites
represent 11% of the total sites, they represent < 1% of the area of the Louisianian
Province estuarine resources. All but 7 sites of the 163 scheduled locations were
sampled for large bivalves using the dredge (i.e., no dredge samples collected in the
Mississippi River due to abundance of debris on the bottom). Of these 7 sites, 4 sites
correspond to locations where we were denied access to shellfish beds (i.e., Barataria
Bay and Little Lake, LA). The remaining 3 sites correspond to the above areas where fish
trawling was not possible due to bottom debris. No dredging for bivalves was attempted
in the Mississippi River.
Benthic sampling provided samples for three activities: benthic enumeration,
-------
26
sediment characterization, and sediment contaminants. All sites were successfully
sampled and all samples were successfully transported to their associated analytical
laboratories with the exception of one sediment characterization core which was shipped
to the wrong laboratory without ice, making the sample unusable. This sediment core
represents 1 of 4 cores taken at the site and represents < 1% of the cores taken. Table
3-9 outlines the benthic samples collected during the 1991 Louisianian Province
Demonstration.
-------
27
Table 3-1. Stations sampled in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
LARGE SYSTEMS
Apalachee Bay, FL
Choctawhatchee Bay, FL
Mobile Bay, AL
Mississippi Sound, MS
Chandeleur Sound, LA
Breton Sound, LA
Lake Borgne, LA
Lake Pontchartrain, LA
Latitude (N)
30 0.76
29 54.23
30 1.56
30 24.54
30 18.13
30 35.43
30 25.93
Longitude (W)
83 59.47
84 12.56
84 16.22
86 26.55
87 57.94
88 3.22
88 6.21
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
29
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
18.66
15.26
12.86
20.63
14.48
22.66
16.46
15.48
7.63
8.13
58.24
59.23
41.68
53.20
56.69
44.61
30.84
31.06
39.03
5.30
56.71
59.56
10.30
14.22
20.02
2.74
10.03
9.97
88
88
88
88
88
89
89
89
89
89
88
88
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
90
90
90
90
90
12.65
26.05
29.47
54.22
57.49
1.76
3.44
9.64
21.10
28.62
51.08
58.21
0.45
4.90
6.47
13.97
6.09
11.78
12.24
38.82
42.88
46.38
49.18
2.14
9.98
10.01
10.04
19.99
Lake Maurepas, LA
30 15.00
90 30.00
-------
28
Table 3-1 (Cont'd). Stations sampled in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
LARGE SYSTEMS
Lake Salvador, LA
Barataria Bay, LA
Terrebone Bay, LA
Caillou Bay, LA
Cote Blanche Bays, LA
Vermilion Bay, LA
Galveston Bay, TX
Matagorda Bay, TX
San Antonio Bay, TX
Laguna Madre, TX
LARGE TIDAL RIVERS
Mississippi River, LA
Latitude (N)
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
28
28
28
26
26
27
26
26
28
28
29
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
45.00
24.54
21.55
7.32
8.84
34.69
36.88
48.94
37.85
20.71
39.18
34.38
35.58
16.85
21.78
36.19
20.35
55.44
59.49
57.09
54.90
8.50
59.11
12.29
12.88
12.50
9.00
21.00
16.85
20.60
20.88
35.11
27.41
44.04
Longitude (W)
90
89
89
90
91
91
91
91
92
94
94
96
96
96
97
97
97
97
97
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
14.99
55.67
57.74
28.47
3.69
34.18
41.99
52.28
1.70
44.47
49.32
16.76
25.46
47.22
16.03
21.27
22.17
26.89
26.98
23.80
25.40
14.91
8.50
2.20
1.20
16.98
15.17
25.12
21.02
29.60
28.24
49.22
37.30
59.89
-------
29
Table 3-1 (Cont'd). Stations sampled
LARGE TIDAL RIVERS
Mississippi River
in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
Latitude (N) Longitude (W)
SMALL SYSTEMS
Anclote Anchorage, FL
Homasassa River, FL
Crystal Bay, FL
Withlacoochee River, FL
Suwannee Sound, FL
Ecofina River, FL
Oyster Bay, FL
Ochlockonee River, FL
St. Josephs Bay, FL
Bayou Grande, FL
Big Lagoon, FL
Old River, FL
29 35.43
29 46.80
29 44.50
29 57.41
29 52.80
28 11.21
28 10.21
28 46.59
28 46.36
28 53.96
28 53.24
29 0.19
29 0.12
29 16.78
29 14.89
30 2.27
30 2.18
30 3.43
30 2.61
29 59.25
29 58.92
29 51.86
29 48.80
30 2Z21
30 22.50
30 19.23
30 19.25
30 17.26
30 16.79
89 49.60
90 1.30
90 0.51
90 2.30
90 54.21
82 48.49
82 49.72
82 39.42
82 42.10
82 42.52
82 44.41
82 45.26
82 45.74
83
83
9.00
7.55
83 55.39
83 55.61
84 18.02
84 18.83
84 29.57
84 26.61
85 22.27
85 22.89
87 17.62
87 15.98
87 19.82
87 21.52
87 30.00
87 32.40
-------
30
Table 3-1 (Cont'd). Stations sampled
SMALL SYSTEMS
Bay La Launch, AL
Bon Secour River, AL
Tensaw River, AL
Pelican Bay, AL
Grand Bay, AL
West Pascagoula River, MS
Bernard Bayou, MS
SL Louis Bay, MS
Garden Island Bay, LA
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet
Canal, LA
Lake St. Catherine, LA
Little Lake, LA
Lake Raccourci, LA
Amite River, LA
Lake Pelto, LA
in the 1991 Louisianian
Latitude (N)
30 18.43
30 18.43
30 17.22
30 17.09
30 48.49
30 41.35
30 12.85
30 14.00
30 22.30
30 14.00
30 22.13
30 22.38
30 25.30
30 24.90
30 21.81
30 24.90
29 2.51
29 1.69
29 41.27
29 50.48
30 7.71
30 7.71
29 28.75
29 27.70
29 13.97
29 12.38
30 17.97
30 17.84
29 4.92
29 4.13
Province Demonstration.
Longitude (W)
87 33.05
87 33.41
87 45.28
87 45.70
87 55.20
88 0.00
88 3.23
88 5.69
88 22.12
88 20.33
88 36.48
88 36.13
88 57.40
88 53.12
89 20.09
89 18.41
89 6.35
89 6.50
89 24.19
89 37.42
89 43.06
89 44.31
90 8.60
90 5.40
90 20.31
90 18.60
90 36.00
90 33.60
90 47.70
90 44.41
-------
31
Table 3-1 (Cont'd). Stations sampled in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
SMALL SYSTEMS Latitude (N) Longitude (W)
Lake Plourde, LA 29 43.60 91 10.00
29 42.20 91 7.35
Belle River, LA 29 53.40 91 12.48
29 50.25 91 9.05
Grand Lake, LA 29 56.40 92 45.85
29 53.65 92 45.00
Calcasieu River, LA 30 7.30 93 20.30
30 3.40 93 19.00
Star Lake, TX 29 40.64 94 10.71
29 40.45 94 10.00
East Bay Bayou, TX 29 33.83 94 26.00
29 33.44 94 28.44
Moses Lake/Dollar Bay, TX 29 25.53 94 54.61
29 26.57 94 55.32
Cedar Bayou, TX 29 42.43 94 56.08
29 41.85 94 56.92
San Jacinto Bay, TX 29 42.39 95 2.60
29 42.35 95 1.37
Highland Bayou, TX 29 18.62 94 57.08
29 19.78 94 56.32
Bastrop Bay, TX 29 5.79 95 10.00
29 5.50 95 11.00
Cedar Lakes, TX 28 49.60 95 31.91
28 50.50 95 30.45
Caracahua Bay, TX 28 41.60 96 24.11
28 37.55 96 22.52
Powderhom Lake, TX 28 29.07 96 31.48
28 30.00 96 30.00
Lavaca River, TX 28 45.00 96 34.84
28 41.55 96 34.60
-------
32
Table 3-1 (Cont'd). Stations sampled in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
SMALL SYSTEMS Latitude (N) Longitude (W)
Hynes Bay, TX
Copano Bay, TX
Tule Lake Channel, TX
South Bay, TX
Rio Grande, TX
SUPPLEMENTAL SITES
Mobile Bay, AL
INDICATOR TESTING SITES
Perdido Bay, AL
Bayou Casotte, MS
Wolf Bay, AL
Mobile Bay, AL
Apalachicola Bay, FL
Watsons Bayou, FL
28
28
28
28
27
27
26
26
25
25
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
23.71
20.00
4.79
7.35
49.21
48.71
1.60
1.60
57.37
57.37
14.45
19.51
16.57
28.92
29.79
45.19
19.90
33.96
22.28
39.36
26.17
20.55
18.21
27.08
20.00
19.71
37.00
40.00
8.59
96
96
97
97
97
27
97
97
97
97
87
87
87
87
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
87
88
87
88
84
85
47.28
44.80
8.88
1.60
26.94
23.41
11.98
11.44
11.35
8.72
50.88
51.71
55.88
59.21
0.46
0.59
1.25
1.61
2.79
3.04
3.99
5.81
7.69
22.60
30.71
35.72
0.00
56.65
38.00
-------
33
Table 3-1 (Cont'd). Stations sampled in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
INDICATOR TESTING SITES Latitude (N) Longitude (W)
Choctawhatchee Bay 30 24.00 86 8.00
Escambia Bay, FL 30 31.70 87 10.00
Calcasieu Lake, LA 29 59.38 93 20.03
Houston Ship Canal, TX 29 44.09 95 8.00
Arroyo Colorado, TX 26 20.03 97 25.76
Brazos River, TX 28 57.61 95 22.60
San Antonio Bay, TX 28 18.30 96 39.90
Galveston Bay, TX 29 31.66 94 56.90
Laguna Madre, TX 27 8.00 97 16.00
LavacaBay.TX 28 38.30 96 32.41
-------
34
Table 3-2. List of unsampleable stations in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration due to insufficient
sampling depth based on 1991 reconnaissance.
Station Site Status
LA91LS13 Mobile Bay Unsampleable
LA91 LS01 Mobile Bay Unsampleable
LA91LS02 Mobile Bay Unsampleable
LA91LR04 Choctawhatchee Bay Unsampleable
LA91LR07 Mississippi Sound Unsampleable
LA91LR51 Laguna Madre Unsampleable
LA91LR52 Laguna Madre Unsampleable
LA91LR53 Laguna Madre Unsampleable
LA91LR54 Laguna Madre Unsampleable
LA91SR30 Ecofina River Marginal
LA91SI30 Ecofina River Marginal
LA91SR18 Star Lake Unsampleable
LA91SI18 Star Lake Unsampleable
LA91SR43 Highland Bayou Unsampleable
LA91SI43 Highland Bayou Unsampleable
LA91SR24 Powderhorn Lake Unsampleable
LA91SI24 Powderhorn Lake Unsampleable
LA91SR22 Cedar Lakes Marginal
LA91SI22 Cedar Lakes Marginal
LA91SR46 Rio Grande Marginal
LA91SI46 Rio Grande Marginal
-------
35
Table 3-3. Sampling schedule for mock sampling exercise conducted in Louisianian Province in 1991
(Sampling Crew: George Craven, Tom Heitmuller, Shannon Phifer, John Macauley, and Kevin Summers).
Date Station
3/23/91 None
3/24/91 Anclote Anchorage 1
Anclote Anchorage 2
Homasassa River 1
Homasassa River 2
3/25/91 Anclote Anchorage 1
Anclote Anchorage 2
Homasassa River 1
Homasassa River 2
3/26/91 Crystal Bay 1
Crystal Bay 2
Withlacoochie River 1
Withlacoochie River 2
3/27/91 Crystal Bay 1
Crystal Bay 2
Withlacoochie River 1
Withlacoochie River 2
3/28/91 None
Suwannee Sound 1
Suwannee Sound 2
3/29/91 Suwannee Sound 1
Suwannee Sound 2
3/30/91 None
Travel to Crystal River, FL
Deploy DataSonde and Sample
Deploy DataSonde and Sample
Deploy DataSonde
Deploy DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde and Sample
Retrieve DataSonde and Sample
Deploy DataSonde and Sample
Deploy DataSonde and Sample
Deploy DataSonde
Deploy DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde and Sample
Retrieve DataSonde and Sample
Travel to Suwannee, FL
Deploy DataSonde and Sample
Deploy DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde
Retrieve DataSonde and Sample
Travel to Gulf Breeze, FL
-------
36
Table 3-4. Activities required to meet certification for field sampling and field laboratory processing.
QA/QC FIELD AUDIT/CERTIFICATION
EMAP-NC
LOUISIANIAN PROVINCE 91
Date:
Team:
Team Leader/Crew Chief:
Crew Members:
Vessel:
Auditor:
Station ID and Location:
Pre-Launch
Launch Check-out
Equipment Check-out
Calibration of Surveyor II
Calibration of DataSonde Ills
Navigational Plans
Travel to S'rte
Safety in Manuevering
Vessel Operation
LORAN Use
Radar Use
Control of Crew
Do Crew Members Know Their Jobs?
-------
37
Table 3-4 (Cont'd). Activities required to meet certification for field sampling and field laboratory processing.
Site Location & Pre-Sampiing
Ability to Locate Site
Anchoring
Deployment of DataSonde Ilia
On-board Comparison Check (DS-lll/Surv II)
Deployment of DataSonde III
Proper Use of DataSonde Data Sheet
Water Quality Profile
Surveyor II
UCOR
Proper Use of WQ Data Sheet
Sediment Grabs
Conduct of Sediment Sampling
Grabs Meet QA Standards
Sieving
Benthic Sample Processing
Homogenization of Sediments
Sediment RPD
Depth of Contaminant Extraction
Proper Use of Sediment Data Sheet
Amounts of Sediment in Jars
Processing of Sediment Jars
-------
38
Table 3-* (Cont'd). Activities required to meet certification for field sampling and field laboratory processing.
Fish Trawling
Deployment of Fish Trawl
Identification of Fish
Fish Reference Collection
Measurement of Fish
Proper Use of Fish Data Sheet
Gross Pathology Screen
Selection of Contaminant Fish
Selection of Gross Pathology Fish
Disposal of Fish
Need for Additional Tows
Bivalve Rake
Operation of Oyster Rake
Identification of Bivalves
Measurement of Bivalves
Processing of Bivalves
Proper Use of Bivalve Data Sheet
Sample Completion
Communications with Mobile Lab
Storage of Samples
-------
39
Table 3-4 (Cont'd). Activities required to meet certification for field sampling and field laboratory processing.
Sample Transfer
Sample Transfer to Mobile Lab Crew
Overnight Storage Arrangements
Sample Processing & Shipment
Sample Processing - Sediment Contaminants
Sample Processing - Sediment Toxicity
Sample Processing - Sediment Profiles
Sample Processing - Benthos
Sample Processing Pathology
Sample Processing - Tissue Contaminants
Sample Processing - Bivalves
Sample Shipment - Sediment Contaminants
Sample Shipment - Sediment Toxicity
Sample Shipment - Sediment Profiles
Sample Shipment - Benthos
Sample Shipment - Pathology
Sample Shipment - Tissue Contaminants
Sample Shipment - Bivalves
Use of Shipping Data Sheet
-------
40
Table 3-4 (Cont'd). Activities required to meet certification for field sampling and field laboratory processing.
Data Entry and Lab Operations
Downloading DataSonde III
Calibration of DataSonde III
Preparation for Next Day's Sampling
Data Entry - Station Data
Data Entry - DataSonde III
Data Entry - Water Qualtity
Data Entry - Sediment Grabs/Benthos
Data Entry - Target Fish
Data Entry - Non-Target Fish
Data Entry - Bivalves
Data Transfer
Communications
NOTES:
-------
41
Table 3-5. Field activities at monitoring stations in Louisianian Province in 1991.
All Stations
QC Check DataSonde III vs. Hydrdab II
Depth
Surface Marine Debris
Instantaneous Water Quality (Surface-Bottom Profile/ 1 m intervals)
Temperature
Salinity
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Percent PAR
Continuous Water Quality (Bottom Only/15 minute intervals)
Temperature
Salinity
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
Depth
Percent Saturation
Sediment Grabs
RPD Depth
Benthic Community (3 replicates; 5 replicates at ITE)
Composite/Homogenized Sediments
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Chemistry
Sediment Characterization
Rsh Trawls
Fish Community Composition and Abundance
Length
Gross Pathdogy/Histopathology for Selected Rsh
Tissue Chemistry for Target Species
Marine Debris
Bivalve Rake
Community Composition and Abundance
Length
Marine Debris
ITE Sites
Stable Isotope Ratios
Blood Chemistry
Bile Florescence
Histopathdogy
Multiple Rsh Trawls
-------
42
Table 3-6. Indicator testing sites for 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration based on a priori judgements
concerning the degree of sediment contamination due to agricultural runoff (AG) and industrial loading (IN)
and the anticipated dissolved oxygen concentration (DO). (L= Low Levels; H= High Levels).
Site
East Gulf of Mexico
Perdido Bay, AL
Watsons Bayou, FL
Choctawhatchee River, FL
Mobile Bay, AL
Apalachicola Bay, FL
Bayou Casotte, MS
Wolf Bay, AL
Escambia Bay, FL
DO AG
IN
Latitude (N) Longitude (W)
L
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
27.08
8.59
24.00
37.00
40.00
20.00
19.71
31.70
87
85
86
88
84
88
87
87
22.60
38.00
8.00
0.00
56.65
30.71
35.72
10.00
West Gulf of Mexico
Calcasieu Lake, LA
Houston Ship Channel, TX
Arroyo Colorado, TX
Brazos River, TX
San Antonio Bay, TX
Galveston Bay, TX
Laguna Madre, TX
Lavaca Bay, TX
L
L
L
L
H
H
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
L
H
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
L
H
29
29
26
28
28
29
27
28
59.38
44.09
20.03
57.61
18.30
31.66
8.00
38.30
93
95
97
95
96
94
97
96
20.03
8.00
25.76
22.60
39.90
56.90
16.00
32.41
-------
43
Table 3-7. Comparison of successfully sampled sites to those intended for sampling in 1991 Louisianian
Province Demonstration.
Sites
Base
Index
ITE
Supplemental
Quality Control
TOTAL 185 183 99%
# Scheduled
103
103
16
10
4
# Sampled
1011
1012
16
10
4
% Successful
98%'
98%2
100%
100%
100%
1AII sampling depths were < 1m throughout Ecofina River and Rio Grande systems; thus sampling was
100% successful for all sampleable sites.
*Two sites not sampled had depths < 1 m
-------
44
Table 3-8. Surface areas associated with unsampleable sites in 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
(Magnitude of surface area reflects effect of missing data by comparison of area to overall surface area of
Louisianian Province, 25,735 km2)
Site Surface Area (km2)
Base Stations
Choctawahatchee Bay, R 280.0
Mobile Bay, AL 280.0
Mississippi Sound, MS 280.0
Laguna Madre, TX 280.0
Laguna Madre, TX 280.0
Laguna Madre, TX 280.0
Laguna Madre, TX 280.0
Ecofina River, FL 4.9
Star Lake, TX 4.9
Highland Bayou, TX 0.9
Powderhorn Lake, TX 15.1
Rio Grande, TX 3.5
Supplemental
Mobile Bay, AL 70.0
Mobile Bay, AL 70.0
Index Sites
Ecofina River, FL NA
Star Lake, TX NA
Highland Bayou, TX NA
Powderhom Lake, TX NA
Rio Grande, TX NA
-------
45
Table 3-9. Comparison of number of sites sampled, number of samples successfully shipped number of
samples meeting QC requirements, and percentage completion by major sample type.
Sample Type
Water Quality
DataSonde II!
Sediment Profile
Benthos
Toxicity
Chemistry
Fish Trawls
Fish Chemistry
Bivalve Dredge
Stable Isotope
Bile Extraction
Blood Extraction
Skeletal X-Rays
Gross Pathology
Hispathdogy
Expected
183
183
764
581
398
183
199
366
158
16
16
16
16
4500
200
Collected
183
182
764
581
398
183
196
591
155
16
7
7
16
8613
436
Received
183
182
763
581
398
183
196
591
155
16
7
7
16
8613
436
Processed
183
182
183
440
361
122
196
10
155
16
7
7
16
8613
350
Completed
100%
99%
24%1
75%2
91 %3
33%4
98%
3%s
98%
100%
44%
44%
100%
100%
80%a
1 Acid volatile sulfides completed at 183 sites. Partial processing completed for grain size, % silt-day, and
total organic carbon
2100% of samples have been sorted and picked; 75% of identifications are completed and 35% of biomass
measurements
3100% of myskJ, polychaete, and penaeid shrimp testing is completed; 80% of Ampelisca testing completed
4 Metals: 33% completed; 67% extracted; Organics: 90% extracted
5 Metals: 5% extracted and completed; Organics: Awaiting certification
9 All histopathology reviews completed except final liver screen
-------
46
Table 3-10. Expected versus realized catch frequencies of fish targeted for the 1991 Louisianian Province
Demonstration.
Target Species
Brown Shrimp
Atlantic Croaker
White Shrimp
Hardhead Catfish
Blue Crab
Spot
Pinfish
Southern Rounder
Sand Seatrout
Gafftopsail Catfish
Expected'
72%
58%
53%
50%
50%
47%
48%
41%
41%
29%
Observed
26%
52%
23%
48%
42%
28%
25%
12%
26%
24%
1 Expected frequencies were based on the weighted average frequency of catch of the selected species
obtained during state monitoring programs (1980-1990).
-------
47
Rgure 3-1. Training schedule for crew chiefs during the Louisianian Province
Demonstration in 1991.
-------
Crew Chief Training Schedule
May 1991
Sunday
5
12
19
26
Monday
6
13
20
Introduction
OritnUtfon
Safety
27
N«vlg«U
Ch.ru
Tuesday
7
14
21
Bo«U
Traitor*
28
Loran
Radar
Sampling
Wednesday
1
8
15
22
Logl>lic«
OA/OC
Computer
29
Dalaaonde
Sampling
Thursday
2
9
16
23
Pathology
Gear
30
Certification
Friday
3
10
17
24
Sampling
31
CiTUIicauon
Saturday
4
11
18
25
-------
48
Figure 3-2. Crew Training Schedule for Louisianian Province Demonstration in 1991.
-------
Full Crew Training Schedule
June 1991
Sunday
2
9
16
Ratum-Waal
23/30
Monday
3
OrimuHon
Salary
Swim
10
Pathology
W Quality Ew clw
Computar
17
CartficaUon E««l
24
Tuesday
4
Boat*
Trailer*
11
QA/OC
Dalaaonda
Patho-Exwclaa
18
CarttHcaUon-Eaal
25
Wednesday
5
Navlgata
Boala
12
fUvbw
Shipping
Sampla
19
Invanlory-Eaal
26
Thursday
6
Qaar
Chart-Exarclaa
13
Cartilicatlon-Waat
20
Ratum-Eaal
27
Friday
7
DaUvhnU
Gear*Ex*rcl»«
14
CtrUflcation-Weal
21
28
Saturday
1
8
Knola
W Quality
15
Inventory Weil
22
29
-------
49
Figure 3-3. Sampling Sites in East Subregion of Louisianian Province in 1991.
-------
o Large Estuary
o Small Estuary
o Supplemental
e Indicator
Eastern
Region
-------
50
Figure 3-4. Sampling Sites in Delta Subregion of Louisianian Province in 1991.
-------
o Large Estuary
° River Samples
o Small Estuary
e Indicator
Delta
Region
-------
51
Figure 3-5. Sampling Sites in Western Subregion of Louisianian Province in 1991.
-------
o Large Estuary
o Small Estuary
e Indicator
Western
Region
-------
52
Figure 3-6. Field Sampling Activities at Base Sampling Sites.
-------
FIELD SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
BASE SAMPLING SITES
Arrive On Station
and Anchor
Record Station Number
Coordinates & Info
Perform Water
Column Profile
Adjust Anchor
Obtain Benthic
Grabs
Perform (1-2)
Fish Trawls
Perform One
Bivalve Tow
Light
Profile
QA & Deploy
Datasonde
Grain Size
Grain Size
Sieve for
Biology
3 Grabs
Composite for
Chemistry / Toxicology
4 Liters
Tissue
Chemistry
Gross
Pathology
v\w&Xu&t
3m p.
nee
\ i.
4*
A-V-:
; , -
•> v
Histopathology
Tissue
Archive
Species Comp.
& Abundance
-------
FIELD SAMPLING ACTIVITIES
ITE SAMPLING SITES
Arrive On Station
and Anchor
Record Station Number
Coordinates &
Information
Perform Water
Quality Profile
Adjust Anchor
Obtain Benthic
Grabs
Stable Isotope
Collections
Perform One
Fish Trawl
Perforn 2nd
Fish Trawl
Perform 3rd Fish
Trawl if necessary
Perform One
Bivalve Tow
Light
Profile
QA & Deploy
Datasonde
Grain Size
Grain Size
Sieve for
Biology
5 Grabs
Composite for
Chemistry / Toxicology
5 Liters
Tissue
Chemistry
«•?•»*
Gross
Pathology
Species Comp.
& Abundance
Histopathology
Fish Blood & Bile
Bioindicators
Tissue
Archive
Species Comp.
& Abundance
-------
54
4.0 INDICATORS
The implementation plan for the 1991 Louisianian Province (Summers et al. 1991)
identified 10 indicators that would be evaluated at all base sites and 8 additional indicators
examined at all indicator evaluation sites. These indicators were categorized as either
core, developmental, or research (Table 4-1). The following discussion pertains to an
evaluation of these indicators with regard to their ability to be sampled within the existing
program as one of the criteria for a "good" EMAP indicator (i.e., feasibility of collection
from small vessels in a relatively short period of time).
Core Indicators
The core indicators are benthic abundance and community composition and
habitat indicators, including depth of the redox potential discontinuity layer (RPD), salinity,
temperature, PH, organic carbon content, acid volatile sulfides, grain size, water depth,
and percent transmittance. We experienced few, if any, problems in the collection of
benthic samples using the Young-modified grab. However, some difficulties were
observed relating to sieving the benthic samples and the collection of sediment
characterization data. The problems associated with benthic samples were not logistical
in nature and can be addressed by further training in field sieving and processing
methods. For example, some samples show extensive organism damage as a result of
"over-zealous" sieving. In addition, some soft-bodied organisms showed damage as a
result of the failure to immediately add buffered formalin to the sieved sample. A few
-------
55
instances occurred where all three benthic samples were sieved before buffered formalin
was added to the samples. These problems do not negate the quality of these samples
but have made their picking and identifications more time-consuming. Emphasis of these
points during the 1992 training should minimize these problems in the future.
We experienced no difficulties in collecting habitat indicators with the exception of
acid volatile sulfides (AVS) and RPD depth. The problems with both of these indicators
involved not the logistics associated with the collection, but rather that AVS were not
sampled appropriately in 1991 and that the interpretation of RPD depth is very subjective.
AVS and RPD depth were collected from each benthic replicate (3 at base/index/
spatial/QC sites and 5 at ITE sites) by coring using a Nalgene plastic 60cc syringe. It
was often impossible to discern an RPD depth and, on at least 4 occasions, an inverted
RPD depth seemed apparent. This is a difficult, if not impossible, distinction to teach
through training. We propose to eliminate RPD depth in 1992. The sample was exuded
from the syringe into a plastic container and placed on
ice for subsequent AVS, organic content, and grain size analyses. No effort was made
to eliminate oxygen from the container by filling the headspace with sample. As a result,
some sulfides may have been oxidized in transfer and storage. In 1992, we propose to
collect AVS samples and store them separately from other sediment characterization
samples. AVS samples will be self-contained in plastic jars, completely filled with sample,
and transported on ice.
-------
56
AVS samples were also collected from the container used to homogenize the
surficial sediments of several grabs for sediment contaminant analyses. Clearly, sulfides
were oxidized in the homogenization procedure. As a result, the AVS values determined
from these samples could severely underestimate total AVS. We propose, in 1992, to
collect surface cores from each sediment grab prior to homogenization, combine these
samples in a single container allowing no headspace for oxygen, transport to the
appropriate laboratory on ice, and homogenize the sample under anoxic conditions at the
laboratory.
Developmental Indicators
The developmental indicators included sediment contaminants, sediment toxicity,
dissolved oxygen concentration, fish and shellfish tissue contaminants, gross pathology,
abundance of large bivalves, marine debris, and acreage of submerged aquatic
vegetation. The collection of sediments for sediment contaminant analysis and sediment
toxicity testing resulted in no logistical problems in 1991. In addition, no problems were
encountered in the collection of marine debris data with the exception that crews will be.
instructed in 1992 not to include natural wood and shell debris.
The collection of sediments for contaminant and toxicity analyses will be continued in
1992.
Instantaneous dissolved oxygen measures were collected without difficulty. Only
-------
57
one minor problem was observed with this parameter. On at least one occasion, a crew
member did not allow the instrument to equilibrate for sufficient time (about one minute)
and the reading overestimated the dissolved oxygen concentration by about 2.5 ppm.
The only difficulty encountered in the collection of continuous dissolved oxygen
data concerned tampering and/or theft of deployed instruments. We took some
measures to reduce theft in 1991 and will continue to develop strategies to reduce
instrument loss (e.g., pinger systems for instruments). We will continue to collect both
instantaneous and continuous dissolved oxygen data in 1992 dependent on the results
of the analysis of the 1991 data. If continuous measures do not significantly add to the
database constructed from instantaneous measures, then the feasibility of collecting
continuous dissolved oxygen data in 1992 will be re-evaluated.
Collection of fish tissues for contaminant analysis was based on the selection of
target species which were expected to occur frequently enough to permit a reasonable
representation of the Louisianian Province. The selection of the ten target species was
based on a review of the catch frequency of fish and shellfish species during routine fish
monitoring programs during the years 1980-1990 (Summers et al. 1991). Frequency
expectations (i.e. percentage of sites expected to produce target species) ranged from
29-72%. Realized catches produced frequencies ranging from 12-52% suggesting that
the sites used in state-wide monitoring may not be representative of all state waters. The
species with the highest expected catchability was brown shrimp (72%) but we realized
-------
58
only a 26% frequency of catch. Four target species were captured at rates similar to our
expectations based on historic data; namely, Atlantic croaker (52% vs. 58%; realized vs.
expected), sea catfish (48% vs. 50%), blue crab (42% vs. 50%), and gafftopsail catfish
(24% vs. 29%). Atlantic croaker and catfish were selected as the primary species that
would be analyzed for a suite of over 75 contaminants (see Summers et al. 1991). In
addition, muscle tissue for all target species collected will be examined at the 16 indicator
evaluation sites. Frequencies at the indicator sites ranged from 40-87% for 9 of the 10
target species (i.e., no flounders were collected at indicator sites). The selection of the
ten target species seems appropriate given the catch records of the 1991 demonstration.
The target species represent only 10% of the total finfish and shellfish species collected
yet these species account for over 60% of the total catch for the 1991 Louisianian
Province Demonstration. In 1992, the target species list will be changed to reflect the
poor catchability demonstrated by southern flounder (< 15% of sites) and a freshwater
species, blue catfish will be added in its place. We experienced some problems in
initiating the laboratory activity for tissue contaminants primarily due to the stringent
quality assurance requirements of the program (i.e., preparation of certified standard
reference maten'als with all results within <_ 15% of certified values for metals and <. 30%
of these values for organics and pesticides), but by December, 1991, our cooperating
laboratory for tissue analysis had completed its certification process for both metals and
organics analyses.
Gross pathology has proven to be a useful ecological parameter for EMAP-E. This
-------
59
activity includes the examination of all fish collected in trawls for external abnormalities
and parasites. All fish judged to have some abnormality are preserved and sent to our
histopathology laboratory for confirmation and internal examination by experts. The use
of gross pathology, while time consuming, has permitted the development of baseline
levels of pathology and parasitism in the Louisianian Province (about 0.5%) and, as a
result, incidences of pathology in individual species can be compared to this expectation
in order to identify fish populations exhibiting high pathology frequencies. Significant
levels of pathology incidence are likely to be only a few percent. We will continue to
collect gross pathology information in 1992.
The abundance of large bivalves was examined in 1991 to ascertain whether the
frequency of these organisms warranted their inclusion in tissue contaminant analyses
and whether sufficient bivalve abundance and frequency could be expected in non-oyster
habitats (i.e., oligohaline environments, 32% of Louisianian Province habitats in 1991) to
include "other" bivalves in NOAA's Status and Trends MusselWatch Program. Large
bivalves were collected from only 22% of the 183 sites sampled; however, Rangia
cuneata. was collected from 54% of oligohaline sites. Thus, large bivalves were collected
too infrequently to warrant addition to the target species list and collection of large
bivalves will not be continued in 1992. However, Rangia clams appear to be collected
frequently enough in oligohaline environments to warrant inclusion in NOAA's NS&T
MusselWatch Program should that program expand into oligohaline waters.
-------
60
The final developmental indicator used in the 1991 Louisianian Province
Demonstration was not collected through the 6-week sampling period in July-August The
acreage of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) was to be estimated for approximately
25% of the province (i.e., Apalachee Bay, FL to Perdido River, AL) using digital
interpretation of aerial photographs. Unfortunately, weather conditions precluded the
successful collection of aerial photographs of the area. As a result, no estimate of SAV
acreage for this portion of the Louisianian Province will be available. However, we plan
to include this subregion with the planned overflights for 1992 (i.e., Galveston Bay, TX to
Pearl River, LA) producing SAV acreage estimates for approximately 50% of the Province
in 1992. In addition, we plan to conduct an indicator workshop for SAV habitats in
January 1992 to ascertain the appropriate indicators of ecological condition in these
habitats as well as research issues of importance in SAV communities. This workshop
is being jointly planned, conducted, and supported by EMAP-E, NOAA's Coastal Oceans
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Wetlands Research Center, and EPA's Coastal
Wetlands Research Program.
Research Indicators
Research indicators represent those parameters that the program believes have
"promise11 as measures of ecological condition. The primary purpose of sampling these
indicators in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration was to obtain the information
required to ascertain whether the indicators should be further evaluated, should be
-------
61
removed from the list of potential indicators due to technical problems (e.g., inability to
differentiate among known conditions) or logistical problems (e.g., inability to collect
sufficient samples in a timely fashion to conduct analyses), or should be incorporated into
the developmental indicator suite. All but one of the research indicators, fish composition
and abundance, was collected from only the 16 indicator evaluation (ITE) sites. These
collections provide the information to specifically test the potential of the proposed
indicators to differentiate between a priori known environments assigned "good" and "bad"
conditions. The research indicators include histopathology of fish, blood chemistry, bile
florescence, stable isotope chemistry, liver lesion incidence, fish condition indices, liver
contaminant concentrations, whole fish contaminant concentrations, and skeletal
abnormalities.
The collection of fish community composition and abundance data produced no
logistical problems. The use of multiple trawls to ensure tissue for contaminant analysis
generally provided sufficiently tissue; although the fish collected generally ranged from 10-
20 cm in length. The utility of composition, abundance, and length data will depend upon
the results of the 1991 data analysis. The generally small size of the fish collected created
problems in that fish of > 30 cm length were necessary to provide the needed material
for blood and bile analyses. Of the 16 sites sampled, only 6 provided fish of sufficient
size to allow blood and bile to be drawn. Rarely could more than a single fish be
collected at each of these sites. The primary question concerning the acquisition of
samples from these sites was whether the trawling methods used missed fishes of this
-------
62
size category. Alternative sampling strategies could include larger trawl nets or gill nets.
Earlier evaluations showed that in shallow estuaries (<15 ft in depth) larger trawls
produced abundance estimates, composition frequencies, and lengths of roughly the
same values as the smaller 16-ft otter trawl used in the 1991 Louisianian Province
Demonstration. Gill nets might produce some larger fish but the requirements of
"freshness" of samples for blood and bile chemistry (i.e., fish must be alive and relatively
unstressed when samples are taken) make the use of gill nets undesirable. Finally, the
estuaries of the Louisianian Province act primarily as nursery areas for small fish and
shrimp. Generally, larger fish do not occupy these waters in numbers large enough to
anticipate reasonable catch frequencies without significantly increased sampling (>5
trawls per site). Thus, for logistical reasons (i-e., inability to procure fish of appropriate
size using easily deployed methods), we have discontinued the evaluations of blood and
bile chemistry for 1992.
At present, EMAP-E is evaluating contaminant concentrations in fish by examining
muscle tissue or fillets. This provides an estimate of the body burden of contaminants
that might be passed on to humans consuming the fillets of targeted species. However,
a better ecological measure of the potential for bioaccumulation of contaminants by higher
trophic members of estuarine communities (e.g., birds, mammals, gamefish) would be
whole body concentrations of contaminants. In addition, a maximal estimate of the
concentration of some contaminants in fish would be the contaminant levels in the liver.
This value, while not representing the potential for bioaccumulation through the food chain
-------
63
in any way, does represent a worst-case accumulation within an individual. In order to
assess the degree of underestimation (based on muscle tissue contaminants) of the
potential for bioaccumulation through the food chain, we evaluated liver and whole body
concentrations of selected contaminants at the 16 ITE sites. Collection of this material
represents no logistical problem beyond the need for larger numbers of fish to ensure
sufficient liver tissue for analysis. No decision concerning the expansion of tissue
contaminant analyses beyond muscle fillets will be made until all laboratory analyses have
been completed.
Histopathology of fish collected from the ITE sites suggests that certain
histopathological measures may be useful in the evaluation of ecological condition. For
example, the density, frequency, and size of macrophage aggregates in selected fish
species, particularly pinfish and catfish, appear to clearly differentiate between sites of
known environmental condition relating to contaminant conditions. Macrophage
aggregates may represent an "early warning11 signal of the onset of pathologies due to
contaminant exposure. Clearly, further work in necessary to confirm the discriminatory
abilities of this phenomenon. As a result, we propose to evaluate the incidence of
macrophage aggregates in selected species from all Louisianian Province sites in 1992.
Other histopathological parameters will be examined from these fish but only because the
tissues will always be available. Incidence of liver lesions, as well as, gill and eye
abnormalities will be monitored. The results of a fish condition index (based on physical
and pathological factors) and skeletal deformity frequencies also appear promising and
-------
64
will be extended to selected species at all sites in 1992.
The final research indicator, stable isotope ratios, can be used to assess the
sources of organic materials (natural or anthropogenic) and the relative degree of
eutrophication. The use of this parameter at the ITE sites differentiated among sites that
where heavily influenced by anthropogenic activities and those that were less influenced
by these activities. As a result, pending final analysis, we are considering expanding the
use of stable isotopes and nutrient concentrations to a developmental indicator used at
all sites.
-------
65
Table 4-1. Ecological indicators used in the 1991 Louisianian Province Demonstration.
Category
Indicator
Core
Developmental
Research
Benthic Species Composition and Biomass
Habitat Indicators (RPD, Salinity, Temperature, pH,
Sediment Characteristics, Water Depth)
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment Toxicity
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (Instantaneous)
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (Continuous)
Gross Pathology of Fish
Contaminants in Fish and Shellfish Tissue
Relative Abundance of Large Bivalves
Marine Debris
Acreage of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Fish Community Composition
Histopathology of Fish
Skeletal Abnormalities of Fish
Blood Chemistry of Fish
Bile Florescence
Stable Isotope Ratios
Liver Lesions
Liver Contaminant Concentrations
Whole Fish Contaminant Concentrations
-------
66
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
The Louisianian Province Demonstration was implemented using a quality
assurance program (Heitmuller and Valente 1991) to ensure that the data produced in the
various biogeopgraphical provinces (e.g., Virginian and Louisianian) would be comparable
(i.e., collected on same spatial and temporal scales using the same methods) and of
known and acceptable quality. Monitoring problems that involve multiple field crews and
laboratories often produce data that cannot be cross-compared because of methodogical
or analtyical differences. As a result, we implemented multiple quality control measures
in the training, field collection, laboratory certification, and laboratory analysis phases of
the demonstration to assure the comparability of the information generated. The following
section describes the results of the quality control measures implemented in the program
with regard to training and sample collection, laboratory certification for contaminant
analyses, and normal laboratory procedures.
Training and Sample Collection
Louisianian Province personnel developed a field audit quality audit form to ensure
that the field collection protocols were being followed consistently by all field crews and
that all samples were being prepared and shipped in the same fashion. This audit form
consisted of 110 items that were evaluated on a scale of 0-3 with 0 representing failure
to conform to the protocol; 1, major discrepancies from the protocols; 2, minor changes
from the protocols; and 3, no changes from the protocols. Thus a maximum score of 330
-------
67
is possible and the final score was normalized to 100 for ease of use. An acceptable
score had two elements: an overall score > 90% and the composite scores could include
no Os and not more than a single 1. This procedure was used: 1) during training to
certify that the crews were ready to begin sampling and 2) on one randomly selected day
during field collections for each crew. In addition, the audit procedure was used
unofficially during the first six-day sampling period for each crew to ensure the crews'
confidence in adhering to the protocols.
During field certification, all crews "passed" with the scores ranging from 91-99.2%
with average score of 94.8%. Field audits produced somewhat higher scores ranging
from 94.3-99.5% with an average score of 96.7%.
In addition to field auditing, 4 sites were revisited (by a different crew) to ascertain
separate crews' ability to locate the same station and the stability of the ecological
indicators used. The 4 sites consisted of base stations in large estuaries (Mississippi
Sound [2], Lake Pontchartrain [1]) and small estuaries (Lake St. Catherine, LA [1]). Table
5-1 compares the results of these two visits with regard to water quality, fish, and bivalve
parameters. Most of these parameters (i.e., those expected to be the most variable in
the program) show remarkable stability. Even continuous dissolved oxygen measures
when categorized to represent acceptable and degraded conditions display good
correspondence between the multiple visits to these sites.
-------
68
Laboratory Certification
EMAP-E requires that all analytical laboratories must "pass" a certification prior to
analyzing any samples. This certification is in addition to any normal quality control
measures that would be used during analysis to ensure quality data (e.g., blanks, spikes,
controls, duplicates). Standard reference materials with certified values for metals and
organics were used by both of the Louisianian Province laboratories to confirm the
accuracy and precision of their analyses. The results of these certifications for the
laboratory conducting sediment contaminant analyses for the program, Texas A&M's
Geochemical and Environmental Group, are shown in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. This laboratory
was certified and is presently analyzing the 183 sediment samples collected in 1991. The
results of the certifications for our laboratory conducting tissue analyses, University of
Mississippi's Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, are shown in Tables 5-4 and
5-5.
Laboratory Procedures
Both laboratories analyzing samples for the Louisianian Province Demonstration
are required to adhere to specific quality assurance plans in their production of data (see
Heitmuller and Valente 1991 for details). These activities include scheduled recounts and
resorts for benthic assessments; scheduled replication for sediment characterizations; the
use of blanks, spikes, and standards for contaminant assessments; and the use of
-------
69
experimental controls for sediment toxicity testing. All of these quality control activities
have been used in the production of Louisianian Province data and generally without
incident (i.e., quality control checks rarely revealed problems). One exception was the
sediment toxicity tests using the amphipod, Ampelisca abdita. At present, the Louisianian
Province Demonstration includes toxicity testing of the above amphipod and the mysid,
Mvsidopsis bahia. at all sites and penaeid shrimp and a polychaete at the ITE sites.
Testing was accomplished in batches of roughly 15 stations with associated controls.
The quality control criteria concerns the level of observed mortality in the control tests
(i.e., _<_ 10% mortality). Initial testing for the amphipod resulted in control mortalities of >
25% necessitating that the tests would have to be repeated. Rather than have these tests
repeated immediately, the Province Manager decided to permit the evaluation of 15
additional stations. These tests also produced unacceptable control mortalities.
Unfortunately, by the time this fact was brought to the attention of the Province Manager,
a third set of 15 stations had been initiated. At that time, coincident with a QC inspection
by the EMAP QA coordinator, the Louisianian Province QA Officer and the Province
Manager stopped testing of the amphipod until sufficient studies could be completed to
discover the causes of the high levels of control mortality. After two weeks, it was
determined that the cause of the increased control mortalities was an extended holding
time prior to testing. This error in methodology was corrected and testing was re-
instated. As the measure of importance for the program is control-corrected survival
rates, we will evaluate the effect of minimizing control mortalities on the results (i.e., <.
10% control mortalities) by comparing "control-corrected" survival rates for the 45 tests
-------
70
completed with unacceptable control mortalities with the retests of these 45 sites having
acceptable control mortalities (<.10%).
-------
71
Table 5-1. Comparison of four stations sampled on two separate dates by separate crews
(Dates 1 and 2 are within 10 days of each other).
Station
Mississippi
Sound
(UV91LR14)
Parameter
Water Depth (ft)
Temperature (C)
Salinity (ppt)
DO (Instantaneous)
DO (Mean)
DO (Minimum)
DO (% Time < 2ppm)
PH
Fish Abundance
Pathologies
Bivalve Abundance
Number of Species
Value
Date 1
Delta
17.2
29.0
27.7
5.4
3.5
3.1
0
7.9
209
2
0
2
17.2
29.2
30.8
3.3
3.8
2.8
0
7.8
58
0
0
8
0.0
-0.2
-3.1
2.1
-0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
151.01
2.02
0.0
-6.0
Mississippi
Sound
(LA91LR15)
Water Depth (ft)
Temperature (C)
Salinity (ppt)
DO (Instantaneous)
DO (Mean)
DO (Minimum)
DO (% Time < 2ppm)
PH
Rsh Abundance
Pathologies
Bivalve Abundance
Number of Species
12.5
29.0
24.4
6.0
6.6
6.1
0
8.0
16
0
0
6
12.0
29.9
28.2
3.7
6.1
4.5
0
7.9
16
0
0
7
0.5
-0.9
-3.8
2.3
0.5
1.6
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
-1.0
Difference in fish abundance due to large catch of Atlantic bumper, a schooling fish (208
fish)
z Difference in gross pathologies due to parasitism of 2 harvestfish
-------
72
Table 5-1 (Cont'd). Comparison of four stations sampled on two separate dates by
separate crews. (Dates 1 and 2 are within 10 days of each other).
Station
Parameter
Delta
Lake St.
Catherine
(LA91SR11)
Water Depth (ft)
Temperature (C)
Salinity (ppt)
DO (Instantaneous)
DO (Mean)
DO (Minimum)
DO (% Time < 2ppm)
PH
Rsh Abundance
Pathologies
Bivalve Abundance
Number of Species
4.5
29.8
2.0
7.5
7.9
7.2
0
7.5
23
0
4
6
4.7
30.9
3.8
6.8
7.0
5.5
0
7.5
17
0
7
7
-0.2
-1.1
-1.8
0.7
0.9
1.7
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
-3.0
-1.0
Lake
Pontchartrain
(LA91LR32)
Water Depth (ft) 14.9
Temperature (C) 28.9
Salinity (ppt) 1.2
DO (Instantaneous) 8.2
DO (Mean) 8.4
DO (Minimum) 8.1
DO (% Time < 2ppm) 0
pH 7.3
Fish Abundance 22
Pathologies 0
Bivalve Abundance 0
Number of Species 3
8.4
31.1
2.6
7.4
7.3
6.5
0
7.1
33
0
7
5
6.53
-2.2
-1.4
0.8
1.1
1.6
0.0
0.2
-11.0
0.0
-7.0
2.0
Sampling site located on edge of near-shore shelf. Depth on shelf was < 10 ft while
depth adjacent to shelf was 13-16 ft.
-------
73
Table 5-2. Certification analyses completed for sediment analysis of metals in Louisianian
Province. (NIST Standard Reference Material (SRM) BCSS-1; concentrations in ug/g
unless otherwise noted).
Analyte
Al
As
Cd
Cu
Cr
Fe
Pb
Hg
Mn
Ni
Se
Sn
Zn
Certified
Concentration
6.26% as Al
11.1
0.25
18.5
123.0
3.3% as Fe
22.7
0.129
229.0
55.3
0.43
1.85
119.0
Reported
Concentration
6.64% as Al
10.9
0.29
19.7
125.0
3.54% as Fe
24.9
0.134
238.0
56.2
0.42
2.13
118.0
Percent
Recovery
106%
98%
115%
106%
102%
107%
110%
104%
104%
102%
98%
115%
99%
-------
74
Table 5-3. Certification analysis completed for sediment analysis of organic contaminants in Louisianian
Province. (NIST SRM 1941; concentrations in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Percent
Recovery
94%
84%
105%
101%
112%
116%
108%
100%
100%
83%
113%
82%
99%
80%
80%
78%
79%
75%
91%
94%
99%
100%
Analyte
PAHs
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a) pyrene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
2,6 dimethyinapthalene
Fluoranthene
Ruorene
1 -methylnaphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
1 -methyl phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
1,2,3,-c,d pyrene
Butvltins
TBT
DBT
MBT
Certified
Concentration
115
52
223
599
854
456
672
754
566
115
702
198
1401
104
229
406
109
1322
437
609
1238
559
1.27
1.16
0.28
Reported
Concentration
108
43
239
606
970
528
727
756
567
95
792
152
1392
83
184
312
86
985
398
575
1230
557
1.08
0.83
0.38
85%
71%
135%
-------
75
Table 5-4, Certification analysis completed for tissue analysis of metals in Louisianian Province. (NIST SRM
1566A; concentrations in ug/g unless otherwise noted)
Analyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Certified
Concentration
202.5
14.0
4.15
1.43
66.3
539.0
0.371
0.0642
2.25
2.21
1.68
3.0
830.0
Reported
Concentration
212.0
13.5
4.39
1.64
67.5
545.0
0.392
0.0633
2.54
2.36
1.69
2.6
786.0
Percent
Recovery
105%
96%
106%
115%
102%
101%
106%
99%
113%
107%
101%
87%
95%
-------
76
Table 5-5. Certification analysis completed for tissue analysis of organics in Louisianian Province. (NIST
SRM 1974; concentrations in ng/g unless otherwise noted)
Analyte
Alpha Chlordane
Trans Nonachlor
Dieldrin
2,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
PCB 18
PCS 28
PCB 44
PCB 52
PCB 66
PCB 101
PCB 105
PCB 118
PCB 128
PCB 138
PCB 153
PCB 180
PCB 187
Certified
Concentration
3.2
2.6
1.0
0.72
5.9
2.5
8.4
0.4
0.3
3.0
7.6
8.0
12.0
13.6
13.0
5.6
13.6
1.9
14.0
18.0
1.7
3.7
Reported
Concentration
3.1
3.0
1.3
1.08
6.4
3.1
6.9
0.3
0.4
3.0
7.4
6.0
10.0
13.1
12.0
6.3
16.1
2.4
13.0
21.0
1.9
3.7
Percent
Recovery
97%
115%
130%
150%
109%
124%
82%
75%
133%
100%
97%
75%
83%
96%
92%
113%
118%
126%
93%
112%
112%
100%
-------
77
6.0 REFERENCES
Heitmuller, T. and R. Valente. 1991. Near Coastal Louisianian Province Quality Assurance
Project Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory. Final Report, January 1991.
Macauley, J.M. and J.K. Summers. 1991 a. Near Coastal Louisianian Province Monitoring
Demonstration - Field Operations Manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory. Final
Report, February 1991.
Macauley, J.M. and J.K. Summers. 1991b. Near Coastal Louisianian Province Monitoring
Demonstration Logistics Plan - East Region. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory. Final
Report, February 1991.
Macauley, J.M. and J.K. Summers. 1991c. Near Coastal Louisianian Province Monitoring
Demonstration - Training Manual (Crew Chief). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory.
Final Report, May 1991.
Macauley, J.M. and J.K. Summers. 1991d. Near Coastal Louisianian Province Monitoring
Demonstration - Training Manual (Crew Chief). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze Environmental Research Laboratory.
Final Report, May 1991.
Phifer S., J.M. Macauley, and J.K. Summers. 1991. Near Coastal Louisianian Province
Monitoring Demonstration Logistics Plan -Delta and Western Regions. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze Environmental
Research Laboratory. Final Report, February 1991.
Schimmel, S.C. and C.J. Strobel. 1991. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Near Coastal Component 1990 Demonstration Project - Reid Activities Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett
Environmental Research Laboratory. Final Report, February 1991.
-------
78
Summers, J.K., J.M. Macauley, and P.T. Heitmuller. 1991. Implementation Plan For
Monitoring the Estuarine Waters of the Louisianian Province -1991 Demonstration. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Gulf Breeze
Environmental Research Laboratory. EPA/600/5-91/288. May 1991.
-------
79
APPENDIX A
LOGISTICS MASTER
EAST REGION (FWC=Florida West Coast; PC-NO = Panama City-New Orleans)
(Period #1) July 9-14: Crew #1 (CRAVEN)
July 8 -Travel to Crystal River, FL
July 9 - Homasassa River (2) Deploy
[LA91SR28 : 28 46.59 82 39.42 (FWC-17)
LA91SI28 : 28 46.36 82 42.10] (FWC-17)
Anclote Anchorage (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR01 : 28 11.21 8248.49 (FWC-16)
LA91SI01 : 28 10.22 82 49.72] (FWC-16)
Lodging - Tarpon Springs, FL
July 10 - Anclote Anchorage (2) Retrieve
Homasassa River (2) Retrieve and Sample
Lodging - Crystal River, FL
July 11 -Withlacoochie River (2) Deploy
[LA91SR29:29 0.19 8245.26 (FWC-18)
LA91SI29:29 0.12 8245.74] (FWC-18)
Crystal Bay (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR02 : 28 53.96 82 42.52 (FWC-17)
LA91SI02 : 28 53.24 82 44.41] (FWC-17)
Lodging - Crystal River, FL
July 12 -Crystal Bay (2) Retrieve
Withlacoochie River (2) Retrieve and Sample
Lodging - Crystal River, FL
July 13 -Travel to Suwanee River
Suwanee Sound (2) Deploy and Sample Index
[LA91SR03 : 29 16.78 83 9.00 (FWC-19)
LA91SI03 : 29 14.89 83 7.55] (FWC-19)
Lodging - Suwanee River/Highway 13, FL
July 14 -Suwanee Sound (2) Retrieve and Sample Base
Travel to Panama City, FL
Transfer to Crew #2
-------
80
(Period #2^ July 15-20: Crew #2 (BURKE)
July 14 -Travel to Panama City, FL
July 15 -Meet Indicator Technician
Watson's Bayou (1) Deploy
[LA91INO3 : 30 8.59 85 38.00 (FWC-63)
Travel to Apalachicda Bay
Apalachicda Bay (1) Deploy and Sample
[LA911N07: 29 40.00 8456.65] (FWC-24)
Lodging - Apalachicda, FL
July 16 -Apalachicda Bay (1) Retrieve
Watson's Bayou (1) Retrieve and Sample
Lodging - Panama City, FL
July 17 -Travel to Fort Walton Beach, FL
Choctawhatchee River (1) Deploy and Sample
[LA911N05: 30 24.00 868.00] (PC-NO:69)
Escambia Bay (1) Deploy
[LA91IN02: 30 31.70 8710.00] (PC-NO:59)
Lodging - Gulf Breeze, FL
July 18 -Travel to Fort Walton Beach, FL
Choctawhatchee River (1) Retrieve
Escambia Bay (1) Retrieve and Sample
Indicator Technician Departs
Lodging - Gulf Breeze, FL
July 19 - Bayou Grande (2) Deploy
[LA91SR32 : 30 22.21 87 17.62 (PC-NO:62)
LA91SI32 : 30 22.14 87 16.23] (PC-NO:62)
Big Lagoon (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR05 : 30 19.23 87 19.82 (PC-NO:62)
LA91SI05 : 30 19.25 87 21.52] (PC-NO:62)
Lodging - Gulf Breeze, FL
July 20 - Bayou Grande (2) Retrieve
Big Lagoon (2) Retrieve and Sample
Travel to St. Marks, FL and Transfer to Crew #1
-------
81
(Period #3 - July 21-26: Crew #1 (CRAVENS
July 20 -Travel to St. Marks, FL
July 21 -Ecofina River (2) Deploy
[LA91SR30:30 2.27 8355.39 (FWC-22)
LA91SI30 : 30 2.18 83 55.61] (FWC-22)
Apalachee Bay (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91LR01 : 30 0.76 8359.47 (FWC-22)
LA91LR02 : 29 54.23 84 12.56] (FWC-22)
Lodging - St. Marks, FL
July 22 -Ecofina River (2) Retrieve and Sample
Apalachee Bay (2) Retrieve
Apalachee Bay (1) Deploy
[LA91LR03:30 1.56 8416.22] (FWC-22)
Lodging - St. Marks, FL
July 23 -Apalachee Bay (1) Retrieve and Sample
Oyster Bay (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR04:30 3.43 8418.02 (FWC-22)
LA91SI04 : 30 2.61 84 18.83] (FWC-22)
Ochlockonee River (2) Deploy
[LA91SR31 : 29 59.25 84 29.57 (FWC-23)
[LA91SI31 : 29 58.92 8426.61] (FWC-23)
Lodging - St. Marks, FL
July 24 - Oyster Bay (2) Retrieve and Sample
Ochlockonee River (2) Retreive
Travel to Port St. Joe, FL
Lodging - Port St. Joe, FL
July 25 - Saint Josephs Bay (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR06: 2951.86 8522.27 (FWC-26)
LA91SI06 : 29 48.80 8522.89] (FWC-26)
Lodging - Port St Joe, FL
July 26 -Saint Josephs Bay (2) Retrieve
Travel to Dauphin Island, AL
Transfer to Crew #2
-------
82
(Period #4) July 27-Aug 1: Crew #2 (BURKE1
July 26 - Travel to Dauphin Island, AL
July 27 -Lower Mobile Bay (4) Deploy and Sample 2 stations
[LA91LS11 : 30 18.21 88 7.69 (PC-NO:58)
LA91LS09 : 30 19.90 88 1.25 (PC-NO:60)
LA91LS08 : 30 20.55 88 5.81 (PC-NO:58)
LA91LS07 : 30 22.28 88 2.79] (PC-NO:29)
Lodging - Dauphin Island, AL
July 28 - Lower Mobile Bay (4) Retrieve and Sample Remaining
Lodging - Dauphin Island, AL
July 29 - Mississippi Sound (1) Deploy
[LA91LR08 : 30 18.66 88 12.65] (PC-NO:58)
Pelican Bay (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR08 : 30 12.85 88 3.23 (PC-NO:59)
LA91SI08 : 30 14.00 88 5.69] (PC-NO:59)
Lodging - Dauphin Island, AL
July 30 - Mississippi Sound (1) Retrieve and Sample
Pelican Bay (2) Retrieve
Travel to Pascagoula, MS
Lodging - Pascagoula, MS
July 31 - Grand Bay (2) Deploy
[LA91SR09 : 30 22.30 88 22.12 (PC-NO:56)
LA91SI09 : 30 22.89 88 20.33] (PC-NO:56)
Mississippi Sound (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91LR09 : 30 15.26 88 26.05 (PC-NO:55)
LA91LR10 : 30 12.86 88 29.47] (PC-NO:55)
Lodging - Pascagoula, MS
Aug 1 - Grand Bay (2) Retrieve and Sample
Mississippi Sound (2) Retrieve
Travel to Gulfport, MS
Lodging - Gulfport, MS
Transfer to Crew #1
-------
83
(Period #5^ August 2-7: Crew #1 (CRAVENS
Aug 1 - Travel to Gulf port, MS
Aug 2 - Bay St. Louis (2) Deploy
[LA91SR10 : 30 21.81 89 20.09 (PC-NO:4€)
LA91SI10 : 30 19.30 89 18.41] (PC-NO:46)
Mississippi Sound (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91LR16:30 7.63 8921.10 (PC-NO:25)
LA91LR17:30 8.13 8928.62] (PC-NO:25)
Lodging - Gulf port, MS
Aug 3 -Bay St. Louis (2) Retrieve and Sample
Mississippi Sound (2) Retrieve
Lodging - Gulfport, MS
Aug 4 - Mississippi Sound (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91LR04 : 30 16.46 89 3.44 (PC-NO:26)
LA91LR07 : 30 15.48 89 9.64] (PC-NO:24)
Lodging - Gulfport
Aug 5 - Mississippi Sound (2) Retrieve
Travel to Slideil, LA
Lake St. Catherine (1) Deploy
[LA91SR18:30 7.71 8943.06] (PC-NO:23)
East Lake Pontchartrain (1) Deploy
[LA91LR54 : 30 10.30 89 49.18] (PC-NO:23)
Lodging - Slideil, LA
Aug 6 - Lake St. Catherine (1) Retrieve and Sample
East Lake Pontchartrain (1) Retrieve and Sample
Lodging - Slidell, LA
Aug 7 - Travel to Pascagoula, FL
Transfer to Crew #2
-------
84
(Period #6) August 8-13: Crew #2 (BURKE)
Aug 7 - Travel to Pascagoula, MS
Aug 8 - West Pascagoula River (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR35 : 30 22.13 88 36.48 (PC-NO:52)
LA91SI35 : 30 21.92 88 36.16] (PC-NO:52)
Bayou Casotte (1) Deploy
[LA91IN04 : 30 20.00 88 30.71] (PC-NO:54)
Lodging - Pascagoula, MS
Aug 9 - Meet Indicator Technician
Pascagoula River (2) Retrieve
Bayou Casotte (1) Retrieve and Sample
Indicator Technician Departs
Travel to Biloxi, MS
Lodging Biloxi, MS
Aug 10 - Biloxi Bay/Bernard Bayou (2) Deploy
[LA91SR36 : 30 25.30 88 57.40 (PC-NO:50)
LA91SI36 : 30 24.90 88 53.12] (PC-NO:50)
Mississippi Sound (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91LR11 : 30 20.63 88 54.22 (PC-NO:50)
LA91LR12 : 30 14.48 88 57.49] (PC-NO:51)
Lodging - Biloxi, MS
Aug 11 - Biloxi Bay (2) Retrieve and Sample
Mississippi Sound (2) Retrieve
Lodging - Biloxi, MS
Aug 12 - Travel to Guifport, MS
Mississippi Sound (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91LR14 : 30 16.46 89 3.44 (PC-NO:49)
I_A91I_R15 : 30 15.48 89 9.64] (PC-NO:49)
Lodging - Guifport, MS
Aug 13 - Mississippi Sound (2) Retrieve
Travel to Gulf Breeze, FL
Transfer to Crew #1
-------
85
(Period # 7) August 14-19 Crew #1 (CRAVEN)
Aug 13 - Travel to Gulf Breeze, FL
Aug 14 - Meet Indicator Technician
Old River (2) Deploy
[LA91SR33 : 30 17.11 8729.99 (PC-NO:61)
LA91SI33 : 30 17.87 8727.39] (PC-NO:61)
Perdido Bay (1) Deploy and Sample
[LA91 IN01 : 30 27.08 87 22.60] (PC-NO:62)
Wolf Bay (1) Deploy and Sample
[LA91IN06 : 30 19.71 8735.72] (PC-NO:61)
Indicator Technician Departs
Lodging - Gulf Breeze, FL
Aug 15 - Old River (2) Retrieve and Sample
Perdido River (1) Retrieve
Wolf Bay (1) Retrieve
Lodging - Gulf Breeze, FL
Aug 16 - Bay La Launch (2) Deploy and Sample
[LA91SR07 : 30 18.43 87 33.05 (PC-NO:61)
LA91SI07 : 30 18.43 87 33.41] (PC-NO:61)
Bon Secour River (2) Deploy
[LA91SR34 : 30 17.10 87 45.14 (PC-NO:61)
LA91SI34 : 30 16.92 87 45.76] (PC-NO:61)
Lodging - Gulf Shores, AL
Aug 17 - Bay La Launch (2) Retrieve
Bon Secour River (2) Retrieve and Sample
Lodging - Gulf Shores, AL
Aug 18 - Lower Mobile Bay (3) Deploy and Sample 2
[LA91LS12 : 30 16.57 87 55.88 (PC-NO:60)
LA91LS10 : 30 19.51 87 51.71 (PC-NO:60)
LA91LR05 : 30 18.13 8757.94] (PC-NO:60)
Lodging - Gutf Shores, AL
Aug 19 - Lower Mobile Bay (3) Retrieve and Sample Remaining
Lodging - Gulf Shores, AL
Transfer to Crew #2
-------
86
(Period #& August 20-25 Crew #2 (BURKE)
Aug 20 - Mobile Bay (3) Deploy and Sample 2 Stations
[LA91LS06
U\91LS05
LA91LS04
30 26.17 88 3.99 (PC-NO.29)
30 28.92 87 59.21 (PC-NO:30)
30 29.79 88 0.46] (PC-NO:30)
Take out boat in Mobile, AL
Lodging - Mobile, AL
Aug 21 - Mobile Bay (3) Retrieve and Sample Remaining Station
Lodging - Mobile, AL
Aug 22 - Mobile Bay (2) Deploy And Sample
[LA91LS03 : 30 33.96 88 1.61 (PC-NO:30)
LA91LR06 : 30 35.43 88 3.22] (PC-NO:30)
Tensaw River (2) Deploy
[LR91SR34 : 30 48.49 87 55.20 (PC-NO:30)
LR91SI34 : 30 41.35 88 0.00] (PC-NO:30)
Lodging - Mobile, AL
Aug 23 - Mobile Bay (2) Retrieve
Tensaw River (2) Retrieve and Sample
Lodging - Mobile, AL
Aug 24 - Meet Indicator Technician
Mobile Bay (1) Deploy and Sample
[LA91IN08 : 30 37.00 88 0.00] (PC-NO:30)
Indicator Technician Departs
Lodging - Mobile, AL
Aug 25 - Mobile Bay (1) Retrieve
Travel to Gulf Breeze, FL
-------
87
(Period # 9^ August 26-31 Crew #1 (CRAVENS
Aug 26 -Travel to Crystal River, FL
Aug 27 -Homasassa River (1) Deploy
[LA91SI28 : 28 46.36 82 42.10]
Withlacoochie River (1) Deploy
[LA91S129 : 29 0.12 82 44.41]
Withlacoochie River (1) Trawl #2
[LA91SR29 : 29 0.19 82 45.26]
Lodging in Crystal River, FL
Aug 28 -Homasassa River (1) Retrieve
Withlacoochie River (1) Retrieve
Travel to St. Marks, FL
Lodging - St. Marks, FL
Aug 29 -Apalachee Bay (1) Deploy
[LA91LR02 : 29 54.23 84 12.56]
Ocklockonee River (2) T
rawis #2
[LA91SI31 : 29 58.92 84 26.61
LA91SR31 : 29 59.25 84 29.57]
Oyster Bay (1) Trawl #2
[LA91SI04 : 30 2.61 84 18.83]
Lodging - SL Marks, FL
Aug 30 -Apalachee Bay (1) Retrieve
Travel to St Josephs Bay, FL
St Josephs Bay (1) Trawl #2
[LA91SI06 : 29 48.80 85 22.89]
Lodging - Apalachteda, FL
Aug 31 - Travel to Gulf Breeze, FL
Transfer to Team #2
-------
(Period # 10) September 1-6 Crew #2 (BURKa
Aug 31 -Travel to Gulf Breeze, FL
Travel to Dauphin Island, AL
Lodging - Dauphin Island, AL
Sept 1 -Mobile Bay (2) Deploy
[LA91LS08 : 30 20.55 88 5.81
LA91LS09 : 30 19.90 88 1.25]
Overnight at LS09
Lodging - Dauphin Island, AL
Sept 2 -Mobile Bay (2) Retrieve
Travel to Pascagoula, MS
Bayou Casotte (1) Deploy
[LA91IN04: 30 20.00 8830.71]
Travel to Biloxi, MS
Mississippi Sound (1) Deploy
[LA91LR12 : 30 14.48 88 57.49]
Overnight at LR
Lodging - Biloxi, MS
Sept 3 -Mississippi Sound (1) Retrieve
Bayou Casotte (1) Retrieve & Rsh Trawl
Return to Ocean Springs, MS
------- |