£EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 620/R-07/002 | September 2007 | www.epa.gov/ord
t\- - -••- -"i ;••
ITT
r-JBS '—» i»
- . •- . -.
The Condition of
Tidal Wetlands of Washington,
Oregon, and California - 2002
a
Office of
Research and Development
National Health and
Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory,
Western Ecology Division
-------
EPA/620/R-07/002
September 2007
The Condition of Tidal Wetlands
of Washington, Oregon,
and California - 2002
Authors
Walter G. Nelson, Henry Lee II, Janet O. Lamberson, Faith A. Cole,
Christine L. Weilhoefer and Patrick J. Clinton
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Western Ecology Division
Newport, Oregon, 97365
-------
Disclaimer
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreements with the State of
Washington Department of Ecology (CR 827869 ), Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (CR 87840 ), and Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project (CR 827870 ). It has been subjected to review by the National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
Preface
This document is one of a series of summaries for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), National Coastal Assessment West Coast regional component (NCA-
West). The NCA is the coastal component of the nationwide Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP). This document is a summary of a pilot assessment
of the condition of estuarine intertidal, soft bottom habitat of the states of Washington,
Oregon and California. The NCA in the West Coast region is a collaborative effort
between EPA and the states of Hawaii, Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington, the
territories of Guam and American Samoa, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The program is administered through the EPA and
implemented through partnerships with a combination of federal and state agencies,
universities and the private sector. The West Coast Estuarine Intertidal Assessment
involved the participation and collaboration of EPA, Washington Dept. of Ecology,
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, and the Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project (SCCWRP), with additional contributions from personnel of Moss
Landing Marine Laboratories and the San Francisco Estuary Institute.
The appropriate citation for this report is:
Walter G. Nelson, Henry Lee II, Janet 0. Lamberson, Faith A. Cole, Christine L.
Weilhoefer, and Patrick J. Clinton. 2007. The Condition of Tidal Wetlands of
Washington, Oregon and California - 2002. Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA/620/R-07/002.
-------
Acknowledgments
The NCA-West involves the cooperation of a significant number of federal, state,
and local agencies. The project has been principally funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
Many individuals within EPA made important contributions to NCA-West. Critical
guidance and vision in establishing this program were provided by Kevin Summers of
Gulf Ecology Division. Tony Olsen of Western Ecology Division (WED) provided the
sampling designs utilized for various aspects of the continental shelf study. Lorraine
Edmond of Region 10 and Terrence Fleming of the Region 9 Offices of EPA ably served
as the regional liaisons with the state participants. Robert Ozretich of WED performed a
detailed review of the database contents used for this analysis, and we additionally
thank him for his extensive quality assurance review of this document.
All members of the three state field crews are commended for their high level of
technical expertise, teamwork and dedication to getting the required sampling
completed. Project wide information management support during initial phases of the
intertidal sampling effort was provided by SCCWRP as part of their cooperative
agreement, and later by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) personnel.
Josh Collins provided leadership and direction for the field crews involved in the
marsh habitat assessments in San Francisco Bay. The general assistance of the San
Francisco Estuary Institute and its staff with the study are acknowledged. Martha
Sutula of SCCWRP provided the leadership and direction for the field crews involved in
the intertidal assessments in the Southern California region. Both individuals provided
valuable insights into potential condition indicators, and were responsible for design and
implementation of supplemental studies conducted in parallel in San Francisco Bay and
Southern California.
Laura Brophy of Green Point Consulting provided training on marsh plant
identification to field crews in Oregon and Washington.
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Disclaimer ii
Preface iii
Acknowledgments iv
List of Figures viii
List of Tables xi
List of Appendix Tables xii
List of Acronyms xiii
Executive Summary xiv
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Program Background 1
2.0 Methods 2
2.1 Sampling Design 2
2.2 Biological and Sediment Sampling 4
2.2.1 Site Location 4
2.2.2 Site Description - Station Occupation 5
2.2.3 Plant Composition/Cover and Burrow Counts 5
2.2.4 Surficial Sediment Sample 6
2.2.5 Sediment Pollutant and Nutrient Analysis 6
2.2.6 Benthic Infaunal Samples 6
2.3 Shoreline Land Use 9
2.4 Quality Assurance 9
-------
2.4.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses 9
2.4.2 Metals in Sediments 10
2.4.3 Organics in Sediments 10
2.5 Data Analyses 12
3.0. Results and Discussion 13
3.1 Sampling Locations 13
3.2 Sediment Quality 26
3.2.1 Sediment Composition 26
3.2.2 Sediment Total Organic Carbon 27
3.2.3 Sediment Nutrients 28
3.2.4 Sediment Contaminants 30
3.3 Biological Condition 32
3.3.1 Benthic Infauna 32
3.3.2 Plant Community 43
Quadrat Species Assemblages and Percent Cover 43
Quadrat Emergent Macrophyte Height and Seagrass Maximum Length 45
Quadrat Biomass 45
Transect Species Assemblages and Percent Cover 46
Summary of Vegetation Results 48
3.4 Shoreline Land Use 56
3.5 Lessons Learned 56
3.6 Summary 58
vi
-------
4.0 Literature Cited 60
5.0 Apendices 63
VII
-------
List of Figures
Figure 3.1.1. Views of field sampling activities during the 2002 NCA Intertidal
Assessment in Oregon (A), Washington (B,D) and California (C) 13
Figure 3.1.2. Percentage area of habitat types for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal
Assessment 14
Figure 3.1.3. Distribution of sampling stations in Washington and Oregon for the 2002
West Coast Intertidal Assessment 15
Figure 3.1.4. Distribution of sampling stations in California for the 2002 West Coast
Intertidal Assessment 16
Figure 3.1.5. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers in Puget Sound for
the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 17
Figure 3.1.6. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the outer coastal
estuaries of Washington for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 18
Figure 3.1.7. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the northern half
of Oregon for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 19
Figure 3.1.8. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the southern half
of Oregon for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 20
Figure 3.1.9. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for Coos Bay,
Oregon for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 21
Figure 3.1.10. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the northern
half of California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 22
Figure 3.1.11. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the southern
half of California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 23
Figure 3.1.12. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for Arcata and
Humboldt Bays, California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 24
Figure 3.1.13. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for San Francisco
Bay, California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 25
Figure 3.2.1. Percent fine sediments for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment. 26
VIII
-------
Figure 3.2.2. Percent sediment total organic carbon (TOC) for the 2002 West Coast
Intertidal Assessment 27
Figure 3.2.3. Average percent sediment total nitrogen for intertidal samples obtained in
2002 for the West Coast region, individual states, and San Francisco Bay 28
Figure 3.2.4. Average percent sediment total phosphorus for intertidal samples
obtained in 2002 for the West Coast region, individual states, and San Francisco Bay.
29
Figure 3.2.5. Average Effects Range-Median Quotient (ERM-Q) values for sediment
contaminant concentrations for intertidal samples obtained in 2002 for the West Coast
region, individual states, and San Francisco Bay 31
Figure 3.3.1. Average total benthic abundance for intertidal samples obtained in 2002
for the West Coast region, individual states, and San Francisco Bay 40
Figure 3.3.2. Taxonomic composition of the benthic fauna based on relative abundance
of the taxa for intertidal samples obtained in 2002 for the West Coast region 40
Figure 3.3.3. Percent of nonindigenous species relative to the number of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (NISspp). Analysis based on all sites
including the high marsh in San Francisco with the exception of three samples with no
nonindigenous or native species (N = 214) 41
Figure 3.3.4. Average percent of nonindigenous species relative to the number of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (NISspp) by location for intertidal samples
obtained in 2002 41
Figure 3.3.5. Relative abundance of nonindigenous species relative to the number of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (NISAbun)- Analysis based on all sites
including the high marsh in San Francisco with the exception of three samples with no
nonindigenous or native species (N = 214) 42
Figure 3.3.6. Average percent of nonindigenous species relative to the abundance of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (NISAbun) by location for intertidal
samples obtained in 2002 42
Figure 3.3.7. Mean relative abundance of vegetation groups and bare area in
vegetation quadrats 49
Figure 3.3.8. Relative percent cover of Salicornia virginica in the vegetation quadrats
at sites where present (mean ± 1 sd) 49
IX
-------
Figure 3.3.9. Relative percent cover of Zostera marina in the vegetation quadrats at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd) 50
Figure 3.3.10. Relative percent cover of Zostera japonica in the vegetation quadrats at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd) 50
Figure 3.3.11. Relative percent cover of green algae in the vegetation quadrats at sites
where present (mean ± 1 sd) 51
Figure 3.3.12. Relative percent cover of nonindigenous species in the vegetation
quadrats at sites where present (mean ± 1 sd) 51
Figure 3.3.13. Total vegetation (emergent macrophytes, seagrass, algae) biomass in
the vegetation quadrats (mean ± 1 sd) 52
Figure 3.3.14. Mean proportion of quadrat biomass for each vegetation group 52
Figure 3.3.15. Mean relative abundance of vegetation groups and bare area in
vegetation transects 53
Figure 3.3.16. Relative percent cover of Salicornia virginica in the vegetation transects
at sites where present (mean ± 1 sd) 53
Figure 3.3.17. Relative percent cover of Zostera marina in the vegetation transects at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd) 54
Figure 3.3.18. Relative percent cover of Zostera japonica in the vegetation transects at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd) 54
Figure 3.3.19. Relative percent cover of green algae in the vegetation transects at sites
where present (mean ± 1 sd) 55
Figure 3.3.20. Relative percent cover of nonindigenous species in the vegetation
transects (mean ± 1 sd) 55
Figure 3.4.1. Percentage areas within assessment regions with shoreline adjacent to
sample locations in different land use categories 56
-------
List of Tables
Table 2.1.1. Summary of the sampling design by state and multidensity category
for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment 4
Table 2.2.1. Compounds analyzed in all three states in sediments 8
Table 3.3.1. Average abundance, percent frequency of occurrence, and maximum
abundance of the fifty most abundant species in the West Coast Intertidal Assessment
37
XI
-------
List of Appendix Tables
Appendix Table 1.1. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment metals 63
Appendix Table 1.2. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment PAHs 63
Appendix Table 1.3. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment PCBs 64
Appendix Table 1.4. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment DDTs and
other chlorinated pesticides 64
Appendix Table 2. Sampling coordinates for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal
Assessment 65
Appendix Table 3. Summary of sediment composition (percent fines), total organic
carbon (TOG), total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations, and
contaminant concentrations for all intertidal sites, including high marsh, sampled in
2002 70
Appendix Table 4. Vegetation type and number of sites present in vegetation quadrats
and transects for all vegetation species encountered 76
Appendix Table 5. Relative percent cover of vegetation taxa (mean and range at sites
present) in quadrats 78
Appendix Table 6. Quadrat maximum leaf length (cm) of vegetation taxa (mean and
range at sites present 80
Appendix Table 7. Quadrat biomass (g/m2) of vegetation taxa (mean and range at sites
present) 81
Appendix Table 8. Relative cover of vegetation taxa (mean and range at sites present)
in transects 83
XII
-------
List of Acronyms
BEST
CDF
CRM
CVAA
CWA
EMAP
EPA
ERL
ERM
GAO
GCECD
GCMS
CIS
ICPAES
ICPMS
LCM
MDL
NCA
NCA-West
NIS
NOAA
ORD
PAH
PCB
QA/QC
RL
RPD
SCCWRP
SRM
TOC
WED
Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program
Cumulative Distribution Function
Certified Reference Material
Cold Vapor Atomic Adsorption
Clean Water Act
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Effects Range Low
Effects Range Median
U. S. General Accounting Office
Gas Chromatography and Electron Capture Detection
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy
Geographic Information System
Inductively-Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
Laboratory Control Material
Method Detection Limit
National Coastal Assessment
National Coastal Assessment - West Coast regional component
Nonindigenous Species
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
EPA Office of Research and Development
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Reporting Limit
Relative Percent Difference
Southern California Water Resources Research Project
Standard Reference Material
Total Organic Carbon
Western Ecology Division
XIII
-------
Executive Summary
An assessment of the condition of the intertidal, soft sediment habitat of the
states of Washington, Oregon, and California was successfully conducted during the
summer of 2002. The assessment survey was conducted under the EPA National
Coastal Assessment Program (NCA), in partnership with Washington Department of
Ecology, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP), with additional contributions from
personnel of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories and the San Francisco Estuary
Institute.
A major impetus for conducting the intertidal assessment is the fact that on the
West Coast, the large tidal amplitude experienced over much of the region means that a
large proportion of total estuarine area is intertidal. Methods and indicators for
assessment of condition in the NCA program were primarily developed for sampling of
subtidal habitats within estuaries of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The western regional
component of the NCA therefore needed to develop a variety of modified methods and
additional indicators to be able to assess condition in the extensive estuarine intertidal
zones prevalent in West Coast estuaries. Additional emphasis was placed on site
characterization metrics that included the occurrence of macroalgal beds/mats,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) or emergent vegetation, the presence of
burrowing shrimp, the occurrence of marine debris, and obvious evidence of disruptive
anthropogenic activities (e.g., dredging or landfill activity). Measurements of sediment
nutrients (total N, total P) were added as potential indicators of site eutrophication
where water column samples could not be taken. Where plants (seagrass, marsh
plants, macroalgae) were encountered, percent cover and biomass estimates to lowest
feasible taxonomic level were obtained. For rooted plants, maximum plant height was
measured. Categorization of shoreline land use adjacent to sample sites was included
as a potential indicator of land use stressors on the intertidal sites.
Data were successfully collected from a total of 217 out of 223 targeted sites in
the intertidal zone of the three west coast states, with the exception of the estuarine
zone of the Columbia River, which had been extensively sampled in previous NCA
assessments. The definition of intertidal zone for the west-wide sampling included all
intertidal area except that classified by the National Wetlands Inventory as hard
substrate, high marsh, diked, or artificial substrate. The study utilized a stratified
random sampling design, with sampling effort partitioned among states (Washington -
68, Oregon - 65, California - 90), and among regions within a state. Washington sites
were divided among Puget Sound (25), Willapa Bay (30), and the remaining estuaries
(13). Oregon sites were divided between Coos Bay (30) and the remaining estuaries
(35). The California sites were divided among pilot study areas in Southern California
(30), San Francisco Bay (30), and the remaining estuaries (30).
The San Francisco Bay pilot study differed from the remainder of the study by
dividing sampling effort approximately equally between three habitat types, tide flats,
low marsh, and high marsh (excluded elsewhere). For both the San Francisco and
XIV
-------
Southern California pilot studies, a two stage randomization procedure was followed.
As the first stage, wetland systems were randomly selected from a list of systems, and
then a point sampling location was randomly selected within the selected wetland.
The area of different estuarine intertidal habitats varied somewhat among the
three states, although uniformly, either unvegetated sand or mud flats occupied the
greatest percentage of estuarine area. Shellfish beds (oysters), gravel bottom, and
intertidal seagrasses were recorded only in Washington and Oregon. San Francisco
Bay and the rest of California tended to have finer sediments, higher Total Organic
Carbon, and higher concentrations of sediment nitrogen and phosphorus than estuarine
intertidal areas in Washington and Oregon.
For sediment contaminants, there was a pattern of higher average Effects
Range-Median Quotient (ERM-Q) within San Francisco Bay and the rest of California as
compared with Washington and Oregon. All values of average ERM-Q for the five
major areas in the present study were below guideline levels from other studies that
have determined biotic effects associated with ERM-Q values. Levels of sediment
contamination across the intertidal of the three western states were generally quite low,
with only 0.21% of the intertidal area of the West Coast estuaries having exceedances
of >5 Effects Range Low (ERL) concentrations, and only 0.3% of the intertidal area
exceeding Effects Range Median (ERM) concentrations. In all cases, the exceedances
of the ERMs were due to DDT and/or its congener 4,4' DDE. Some caution in
interpretation of sediment contaminant results is warranted. While analyses of sediment
metals met QA requirements in all states, analyses of PAHs, RGBs, and some
pesticides from Oregon did not generally meet analytical targets.
Average densities of benthic infauna were highest in Oregon, with California and
San Francisco having lower but similar abundances, and Washington having the lowest
value. The benthic community was dominated by polychaetes, oligochaetes and
amphipods. Surprisingly, the single most abundant polychaete in the West Coast
intertidal was the nonindigenous Manayunkia aestuarina, introduced from the Northeast
Atlantic. San Francisco habitats, other than the high marsh, were the most invaded,
with an average of almost 50% of the classified species per sample consisting of
nonindigenous species. Puget Sound samples contained about 26% nonindigenous
species compared to 40% and 44% for coastal Oregon and Washington, respectively.
Vegetation was present in the quadrats at 150 of the 217 sites successfully
sampled, and included 28 emergent macrophytes, 2 seagrasses, as well as
macroalgae. Eighty-two percent of plant taxa occurred at three or fewer sites. The
most frequently occurring emergent macrophyte taxa were marsh jaumea (Jautnea
carnosa) and pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). The greatest number of emergent
macrophyte species were observed in California (n = 11), and in San Francisco Bay (n
= 17) where high marsh was included in the study. Mean cover of nonindigenous,
emergent macrophyte species was low (8%) throughout the West. Mean cover by
nonindigenous species was highest in Washington (21%), where both salt marsh
cordgrass Spartina alterniflora and the introduced seagrass Zostera japonica were
xv
-------
found. No nonindigenous macrophyte species were observed at California sites, except
one high marsh site in San Francisco Bay.
Shoreline land use adjacent to sample sites showed much higher percentages of
urban shoreline in California and San Francisco Bay than in Washington and Oregon.
Much of the undeveloped land in the latter two states was in silviculture. Surprisingly,
estimates of residential shoreline in the three states were relatively similar.
The study showed that further refinements of measurement approaches for plant
community and shoreline development indicators are needed. Quadrat and transect
sizes selected for plant community assessment proved too small for effectively
capturing plant diversity at sample sites. While it was believed that available habitat
maps for the west coast were insufficiently accurate to establish marsh-type strata for
the sampling design, this proved false, and partitioning of sampling effort by habitat
across the region may have improved the assessment. Better guidance on shoreline
development classification is required to reduce variance among field crews. In spite of
the costs for processing benthic samples with high levels of organic materials,
volumetric sub sampling is not recommended because of the problems produced in
intercomparison of data among sites for benthic community metrics.
The results of this assessment study represent the first regional scale survey of
the condition of intertidal wetland habitats on the West Coast. Findings confirm results
from previous National Coastal Assessment studies of West Coast estuaries that have
shown that sediment contamination issues are limited in extent, but that West Coast
estuaries have been broadly invaded by nonindigenous species.
XVI
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Program Background
Safeguarding the natural environment is fundamental to the mission of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The legislative mandate to undertake this part
of the Agency's mission is embodied, in part, in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Sections of
this Act require the states to report the condition of their aquatic resources and list those
not meeting their designated use (Section 305b and 303d respectively). Calls for
improvements in environmental monitoring date back to the late 1970's, and have been
recently reiterated by the U. S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO, 2000). The GAO
report shows that problems with monitoring of aquatic resources continue to limit states'
abilities to carry out several key management and regulatory activities on water quality.
At the national level, there is a clear need for coordinated monitoring of the nation's
ecological resources. As a response to these needs at state and national levels, the
EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has undertaken research to support
the Agency's Regional Offices and the states in their efforts to meet the CWA reporting
requirements. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is one
of the key components of that research. The EMAP Western Pilot program was
established as a regional research effort to develop and demonstrate the tools needed
to measure ecological condition of the aquatic resources in the 14 western states in
EPA Regions 8, 9, and 10.
The coastal assessment component of the EMAP Western Pilot began as a
partnership with the states of California, Oregon and Washington, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, and the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and
Trends Program (BEST) of the U.S. Geological Survey to measure the condition of the
estuaries of these three states. Sampling began during the summer of 1999 and the
initial phase of estuarine sampling was completed in 2000. Beginning in 2000, the
Western Coastal Assessment efforts became integrated into the EPA National Coastal
Assessment Program (NCA).
The NCA is a multi-year effort led by EPA's Office of Research and Development
to evaluate the assessment methods it has developed to advance the science of
ecosystem condition monitoring. This program has surveyed the condition of the
Nation's coastal resources (estuaries and offshore waters) by creating an integrated,
comprehensive coastal monitoring program among the coastal states to assess coastal
ecological condition. The NCA is accomplished through strategic partnerships with all
24 U.S. coastal states. Using a compatible, probabilistic design and a common set of
survey indicators, each state conducts the survey and assesses the condition of their
coastal resources independently. Because of the compatible design, these estimates
can be aggregated to assess conditions at the EPA Regional, biogeographical, and
national levels. Data from this program provide the basis for individual reports of
coastal conditions for each state (Nelson et al., 2004, 2005, 2007; Hayslip et al., 2006,
Wilson and Partridge, 2007), as well as providing data for a series of National Coastal
Condition Reports (U.S. EPA 2001, 2004, 2006).
-------
On the West Coast, the large tidal amplitude experienced over much of the
region means that a large proportion of total estuarine area is intertidal. For example,
intertidal habitat constitutes 52% of the estuarine area averaged over all Pacific
Northwest estuaries, and can constitute as much as 90% in some systems (e.g., Netarts
Bay; Lee et al., 2006). The initial development of methods and indicators for
assessment of condition in the NCA were for sampling of subtidal habitats within
estuaries of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Because the Western component of the NCA
began as a pilot program, there was an opportunity to test development of a variety of
modified methods and additional indicators for assessment of condition in the extensive
estuarine intertidal zones prevalent in West Coast estuaries.
Therefore a pilot assessment of the intertidal habitat of the states of Washington,
Oregon, and California was carried out in the summer of 2002. This report provides a
technical summary of the data from this assessment.
2.0 Methods
Methods for the 2002 intertidal survey were in general the same as those
developed for the EPA National Coastal Assessment (Nelson et al., 1999), with
modifications to reflect the intertidal nature of the resource being assessed. Because
of the intertidal focus of the survey, water quality and fish tissue samples were omitted
while vegetational-quadrat and transect samples were added.
2.1 Sampling Design
The target resource assessed was the intertidal zone of the states of
Washington, Oregon and California, with the exception of the estuarine portion of the
Columbia River. The Columbia was extensively sampled by EMAP surveys conducted
in 1999, 2000, and 2001, and additional sampling was deemed to be redundant.
The sample frame is a map defining the target resource. The principal map
coverage used to develop the 2002 intertidal CIS data layer that was the sample frame
was the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) in Arclnfo format. An Arclnfo coverage of
San Francisco Bay baylands, created by the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI),
was selected as the map source in the San Francisco Bay area. In some cases, digital
coverage was lacking, and hard copy maps were scanned and georeferenced, and
estuarine polygons were hand digitized.
In order for a polygon to be included in the sample frame coverage for all areas
except San Francisco Bay (see below), the polygon had to have the following attributes:
it had to be classified as intertidal, and not classified as hard substrate, high marsh,
diked, or artificial substrate. Several codes within the NWI coverages were interpreted
as follows: 'irregularly exposed' was interpreted as below Mean Lower Water, and
-------
'irregularly flooded' was interpreted as above Mean Higher Water. Both categories
were excluded from the frame.
The study utilized a stratified random sampling design. Within Washington,
sampling effort was distributed such that Puget Sound received 25 stations, there was
an intensification of effort in Willapa Bay for a total of 30 stations, and the remaining
estuaries of the state received 13 stations, for a total of 68 stations. In Oregon, there
was an intensification of sampling in Coos Bay (30 stations), while 35 stations were
located within the remaining estuaries of the state, for a total of 65 stations.
The study design in California was more complex. Two pilot study areas were
defined, Southern California (Point Conception to the Mexican border) and San
Francisco Bay (downstream of the delta), each of which had 30 sampling stations. An
additional 30 sites were randomly allocated along the California coastline outside of
these intensification areas, for a total of 90 sites. The San Francisco Bay study area
differed from the remainder of the study by dividing sampling effort approximately
equally between three habitat types, tide flats, low marsh, and high marsh, with high
marsh being a habitat type excluded from the remainder of the West Coast intertidal
sampling frame. For both the San Francisco and Southern California pilot study areas,
a two stage randomization procedure was followed. As the first stage, wetland systems
were randomly selected from a list of systems, and then a point sampling location was
randomly selected within the selected wetland. The advantage of this approach is that it
allows condition estimates based on percentage of systems, while at the same time also
allowing for the areal extent estimates of condition being used for all other geographic
components of the intertidal survey. Wetlands systems are typically managed as
discrete units rather than as continuous resources, and the two level randomization
design provides the potential to report on the percentage of wetland systems that are
meeting their management goals.
Each sampling region is termed a multidensity category. For each multidensity
category (see Appendix Table 1), geographic coordinates for the number of primary
target stations described above were determined during the study design process.
Additionally, each multidensity category except for the California pilot studies had
random coordinates for nine times the number of primary stations selected as alternate
sampling locations. The two California pilot studies had 1.5 times the number of
primary sites selected to serve as alternate locations. Alternate locations would be
sampled in the event a primary site was rejected for any reason, such as safety
concerns or access issues.
-------
Table 2.1.1. Summary of the sampling design by state and multidensity category for the
2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
State
Washington
Washington
Washington
Oregon
Oregon
California
California
California
California
California
Multidensity
Category
(Label)
Puget Sound (Puget)
Willapa Bay (Willa)
Rest of State (Washi)
Coos Bay (Coosb)
Rest of State (Orego)
Rest of State (Calif)
San Francisco Bay
Low Marsh (SF Low
Marsh)
San Francisco Bay
High Marsh (SF High
Marsh)
San Francisco Bay Flat
(SF Flat)
Southern California
(Bight)
Design
Target
Number of
Primary
Sample
Sites
25
30
13
30
35
30
10
10
10
30
Design
Actual
No. of
Sites
26
30
12
29
36
29
11
10
9
30
No. Sites
Successfully
Sampled
24
30
7
30
36
30
9
12
9
30
Number of
Alternate
Sample
Sites
225
271
116
271
314
271
89
91
90
269
2.2 Biological and Sediment Sampling
Field sampling was performed independently by each state during a seasonal
window spanning the period from July to mid-September. Intertidal sites were
accessed, as appropriate, either by boat, hovercraft or on foot, at low tide to facilitate
burrow counts, plant community, sediment chemistry and benthic community sampling.
The core field data or sample types collected at each site included:
- general habitat-type description and anthropogenic debris or perturbation
- shoreline development
- presence and cover of burrowing shrimp and other megafauna.
- plant community composition and cover
- sediment consistency, composition, salinity and temperature
- sediment pollutants, including organics and trace metals; total organic carbon
- sediment nitrogen and phosphate concentrations
- benthic macroinvertebrate community structure
2.2.1 Site Location
The randomly selected sampling locations for each state were provided to the
field crews, who located the sites by use of Global Positioning Satellite System (GPS).
-------
Because EMAP's probabilistic sampling design is unbiased, potentially, some of the
generated sites can fall in locations that are not amenable to sampling (e.g., outside the
sampling frame, danger or risk to crew, excessive rocky bottom, currents, man-made
obstructions, etc.). Field teams had a limited degree of onsite flexibility to randomly
relocate sampling sites when confronted with unexpected obstacles or impediments, but
the new site was to be no further than 100 m and preferably 40 m from the original
designated site. Alternative sample sites determined during the initial design process
were used if a site was found to be unsuitable.
2.2.2 Site Description - Station Occupation
Observations were made in the field to document certain attributes or conditions
to help characterize the overall ecological condition of the site. These included the
occurrence of macroalgal beds/mats, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), or emergent
vegetation, the presence of burrowing shrimp, the occurrence of marine debris, and
obvious evidence of disruptive anthropogenic activities (e.g., dredging or landfill
activity).
Upon arrival at the sample site, the station number, GPS location, date, time,
samplers' initials and agency were recorded. If the station was abandoned, the reason
for abandonment was also recorded. Observations were made on sea state, weather,
wind speed and direction, and estimated tidal level as well as air temperature and
habitat type. Three to five photos and notes were taken to document site characteristics
and anthropogenic impact such as shoreline construction, dredging or recreational use.
Habitat was defined by the presence or absence of factors such as dominant plant (e.g.,
Spartina sp., Zostera marina or Z.japonica) or animal (e.g. burrowing shrimp, or
oysters) species that affect the abundance and number of species in the benthic
infaunal community. The habitat was also defined by its geological type - rocky, gravel,
coarse or fine sand, muddy sand, sandy mud or mud.
2.2.3 Plant Composition/Cover and Burrow Counts
A 0.25-m2 quadrat was randomly placed at the GPS-located site and then turned
over three times to define a 1-m square sampling site. The four adjacent 0.25-m2
quadrats were used for: 1) burrow counts; 2) plant cover; 3) sediment chemistry
samples; and 4) benthic samples. The number of burrow holes of burrowing shrimp
(Neotrypaea californiensis, Upogebia pugettensis) was counted in one of the 0.25-m2
quadrats at each site. If vegetation covered >50% of the quadrat, the vegetation was
gently pulled back taking care to disturb the sediment surface as little as possible, and
the density of burrow holes under the vegetation was visually estimated.
Where rooted plants (e.g. seagrasses, marsh plants, Spartina) or macroalgae
were present, the plant community was quantified in one of the 0.25-m2 quadrats.
Percent plant cover within the 0.25-m2 quadrat was visually estimated separately for
green, brown or red macroalgae, Zostera spp., Spartina or other rooted plant genera
present, and bare (i.e., open, unvegetated) substrate. The maximum total cover
possible for all species of plants in a quadrat is 100% times the number of species of
plants in the plot, and thus may be greater than 100% if several species overlapped at
-------
different layers of cover. For rooted species, the blade length of the longest blades was
measured. The total biomass of each species of rooted plants and each type of algae in
the quadrat was determined by cutting all vegetation at the sediment surface, sorting by
species, and obtaining the dry weight (g dry weight) of biomass for each species.
Plants were dried in the laboratory until they reached constant dry weight at 80° C. Plant
composition and cover were also estimated using 25 random points along a 5-meter
transect. Each plant species or open ground noted at the 25 random points along the
5-m transect was recorded, with the possibility of more than one plant species occurring
at each point. In all cases, seagrasses and other rooted plants were identified to
species if possible, or to the lowest practical taxonomic level. If the species of plant was
not known with certainty by the field crew, a reference specimen was taken by the field
crew for identification by a qualified plant taxonomist.
2.2.4 Surficial Sediment Sample
At each site, surficial sediment layer (top 2-3 cm) was collected by spatula or
scoop from one of the 0.25-m2 quadrats to provide sediment for the analyses of
inorganic and organic chemical contaminants, total organic carbon (TOC), and grain
size determinations. Surficial sediment was combined in a clean, high-grade stainless
steel or Teflon vessel and composited by stirring well to ensure a homogenous sample
before sub-samples for the various analyses were taken (Table 2.2.1).
2.2.5 Sediment Pollutant and Nutrient Analysis
Sediment collected from each site was analyzed for a suite of organic pollutants,
metals and interstitial nutrients (Table 2.2.1). Fifteen metals were analyzed in all three
states. California quantified sediment metals including mercury using inductively
coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICPMS). Washington quantified all metals except
mercury using ICPMS, and used cold vapor atomic absorption (CVAA) for mercury.
Oregon quantified all metals except mercury using inductively coupled plasma atomic
emission spectrophotometry (ICPAES) and CVAA for mercury. For organic pollutants, a
total of 21 PCB congeners (PCBs), DDT and its primary metabolites, and 14 chlorinated
pesticides were measured. There were 21 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
measured by all three states out of the 23 target compounds (Table 2.2.1);
phenanthrene and dibenzothiophene were not measured by all three states. California
and Washington used GCMS to quantify the PCBs, DDTs, pesticides, and PAHs.
Oregon used GCECD for the chlorinated compounds and GCMS for the PAHs.
California quantified total nitrogen using EPA method 415.1 while Oregon and
Washington used CHN analyzers. All three states used ICPAES to quantify total
sediment phosphorus. Total organic carbon (TOC) was analyzed in Washington by
combustion and CHN analyzers while California and Oregon used CHN analyzers.
2.2.6 Benthic Infaunal Samples
The objective was to collect a 0.1-m2 benthic infaunal sample to a depth of 10 cm
at all sites, with the sample processed through a 1.0 mm mesh sieve. A specially
designed post-hole corer sampler was constructed to assist in obtaining these intertidal
benthic samples, though other sampling methods were acceptable if they had the same
nominal area as the post-hole sampler. During the course of the survey, however, it
-------
was discovered that the internal area of the post-hole corer was 0.09 m2 but not before
twelve samples were taken with other methods that had an actual area of 0.1 m2.
Additionally, the volume of residue retained on the 1.0 mesh sieve at several sites
exceeded several liters, which was impractical to process. This volume of residue
necessitated sub-sampling the residue in 78 of the 217 samples (36%). The samples
were subsampled to the minimum practical extent. The occurrence of 0.1-m2 samples
and the subsampling resulted in twelve functional sample sizes, ranging from 0.0028 to
0.1 m2, a 36-fold difference in sample area. Because the majority (56%) of the
samples were taken with the post-hole sampler, all benthic abundances were
normalized to 0.09 m2 for analysis. Species richness does not scale linearly with area
so no attempt was made to normalize the number of taxa per sample. Accordingly, we
did not analyze species richness with the entire benthic data set.
-------
Table 2.2.1. Compounds analyzed in all three states in sediments.
Polyaromatic
Hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
1 -methy Inaphthalene
1 -methy Iphenanthrene
2-methylnaphthalene
2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
2,3, 5-trimethy Inaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Biphenyl
Dibenzothiophene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Indeno( 1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Pyrene
PCB Congeners
(Congener Number and
Compound)
8: 2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
18: 2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl
28: 2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
44: 2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
52: 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
66: 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
77: 3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
101: 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobipheny 1
105: 2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
1 10: 2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl
1 18: 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
126: 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
128: 2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobipheny 1
1 38: 2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
153: 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobipheny 1
1 70: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobipheny 1
1 80: 2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobipheny 1
1 87: 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
1 95: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl
206: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nonachlorobiphenyl
209: 2,2'3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6 '-decachlorobiphenyl
DDT and Other
Chlorinated
Pesticides
DDTs
2,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
Cvclooentadienes
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Chlordanes
Alpha-Chlordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Trans-Nonachlor
Others
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
Mi rex
Toxaphene
Metals and
Misc.
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Miscellaneous
Total Organic
Carbon
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Percent Fines
-------
2.3 Shoreline Land Use
Research has indicated that there tend to be relationships between land use or
land cover types and indicators of estuarine condition. Both Comeleo et al. (1996) and
Rodriguez et al. (2007) found significant associations between levels of urban land use
and sediment contaminants in east coast estuaries. Generally such analyses require
considerable effort in generating GIS coverages with associated land uses around the
sampling points. The 2002 EMAP intertidal study included a pilot indicator of adjacent
land use which was determined by the field crews at the time of the sample site visit.
Crews provided a qualitative assessment of the dominant land use aspect for the
shoreline most immediately adjacent to the sampling station by selecting a category
from a list of land use types. Land use type was supplemented by additional
descriptions in the form of comments and digital photos. Categories included
agriculture, armored, commercial, highway, industrial, undeveloped, residential, urban,
sanctuary, natural area, recreational, and fisheries uses. Several categories were
combined in the final analysis with commercial being combined with industrial, and
natural area plus sanctuary being combined with undeveloped. Fisheries use was only
designated in Oregon and was relabeled oyster aquaculture to reflect the specific use
noted.
2.4 Quality Assurance
2.4.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses
The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for the National Coastal
Assessment - West program is defined by the "Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project
Plan 2001-2004" (U.S. EPA, 2001). A performance-based approach is used, which
depending upon the compound includes 1) continuous laboratory evaluation through the
use of Certified Reference Materials (CRMs), Laboratory Control Materials (LCMs), or
Standard Reference Material (SRM); 2) laboratory spiked sample matrices, 3)
laboratory reagent blanks, 4) calibration standards, 5) analytical surrogates, and 6)
laboratory and field replicates.
One measure of accuracy is "relative accuracy" which is based on comparing the
laboratory's value to the true or "accepted" values in CRMs or LCMs. The requirements
for PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides are that the "Lab's value should be within ±30% of true
value on average for all analytes; not to exceed ±35% of true value for more than 30%
of individual analytes" (U.S. EPA 2001). For metals and other inorganic compounds,
the laboratory's value for each analyte should be within ±20% of the true value of the
CRM, LCM, or SRM. Another measure of accuracy is the percent recovery from matrix
spikes. High percent recoveries indicate that the analytical method and instruments can
adequately quantify the analyte but do not evaluate the ability to actually extract the
compound from tissue or sediment. Measures of precision are the "relative percent
differences" (RPD) or coefficient of variation (CV) of duplicate samples, with the
objective that the RPD or CV should be <30%.
-------
A measure of whether the analytical procedure is sufficient to detect the analytes
at environmental levels of concern is the Method Detection Limits (MDLs). Approved
laboratories were expected to perform in general accord with the target MDLs presented
for NCA analytes (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001). Because of analytical uncertainties
close to the MDL, there is greater confidence with concentrations above the Reporting
Limit (RL), which is the concentration of a substance in a matrix that can be reliably
quantified during routine laboratory operations. Typically, RLs are 3 to 5 times the MDL.
In these analyses, concentrations between the MDL and the RL were included in the
generation of mean values for the analyte, while any values below the MDL were set to
0.
A post-analysis assessment of the success of the analytical laboratories in
meeting NCA QA/QC requirements was conducted by the QA manager of the Western
Ecology Division, which is summarized here.
2.4.2 Metals in Sediments
The analytical methods for metals by the three states are those used in the
NOAA NS&T Program (Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1993) or documented in the EMAP
Laboratory Methods Manual (U.S. EPA, 1994). The recommended MDL (Table A7-2 in
U.S. EPA, 2001) varies by metal, ranging from 0.01 ug/g for mercury to 1500 ug/g for
aluminum. All three states met the MDL requirements for all the metals. The percent
recovery from certified/standard materials, recovery from matrix spikes, and the average
RPD for non-zero sample duplicates and matrix spikes for the sediment metals are
summarized in Appendix Table 1.1. All three states met all the overall quality
assurance requirements for metals. While Oregon met the overall requirements, the
relative accuracy for chromium, nickel, and tin ranged from 22% to 41% compared to
the requirement of 20% for metals.
2.4.3 Organics in Sediments
As with the metals, the analytical methods for organic compounds are those used
in the NOAA NS&T Program (Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1993) or documented in the
EMAP Laboratory Methods Manual (U.S. EPA, 1994). The recommended MDL (Table
A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) is 10 ng/g for PAH compounds and 1 ng/g for the PCBs, DDTs,
and chlorinated pesticides. All three states met the MDL requirements for all the
organic compounds.
The percent recovery from certified/standard materials, recovery from matrix
spikes, and the average RPD for non-zero sample duplicates and matrix spikes for the
sediment PAHs are summarized in Appendix Table 1.2. California met the
requirements for the percent deviation from reference materials but slightly exceeded
the RPD requirement among duplicate samples (33% vs. 30%). Washington slightly
exceeded the requirement for the average deviation from reference materials (32% vs.
30%) but met the requirements for the number of PAH analytes within +35% of the true
value as well as the requirements for percent recovery from spiked sediment and the
RPD of duplicates. While failing some of the requirements, the differences were
10
-------
relatively small, indicating that the total PAH data from both Washington and California
can be used quantitatively. The Oregon results are more problematic, as they had a
greater difference between the measured and true values (43% vs. requirement of 30%)
and 47% of the PAH analytes deviated by more than +35% from the true value. Also, for
13 of the 22 PAH compounds, the CV from the replicate reference samples was >30%.
Because of these deviations with both accuracy and precision, the total PAH data from
Oregon needs to be interpreted cautiously.
The QA results for sediment PCBs are summarized in Appendix Table 1.3.
California met the requirements of deviation from the reference materials and the
percent recovery of the matrix spikes. California did not have any duplicate non-zero
reference values so it is not possible to evaluate this measure of precision. Washington
slightly exceeded the requirements for the average deviation from reference materials
(32% vs. 30%) and the percentage of analytes within +35% of the true value (67% vs.
70%). Washington did meet the requirements for the percent recovery of matrix spikes
and the RFP for duplicate samples. Because of these deviations, the Washington PCB
results should be used with qualified caution. As with the PAHs, the PCB results for
Oregon are problematic. The deviation from reference materials was 146% and only
38% of the PCB congeners were within +35% of the true value. Because of the
problems with accuracy, the total PCB data are best used qualitatively to identify
locations with sediment PCBs. The subset of congeners that met the requirements for
both accuracy and precision (PCB 28, 105, 110, 118, and 153) can be used to quantify
differences in PCB concentrations among sites.
The QA results for sediment DDTs and other chlorinated pesticides are
summarized in Appendix Table 1.4. For California, LCMs were only analyzed for two of
the DDT compounds (4,4'-DDD and 4,4-DDE) though all the pesticides were analyzed
using recovery from spiked sediments. In the absence of certified pesticide
concentrations in a sediment matrix with the complete suite of pesticides, the excellent
recovery of matrix spiked pesticides will have to suffice as indirect evidence that the
methods employed by California yield results that meet the requirements for accuracy.
Washington met all the requirements for the chlorinated pesticides (Appendix Table 1.4)
though several of the individual pesticides showed deviations of up to 72% in the spiked
blanks. Because of these deviations with the spiked blanks, the Washington pesticide
data should be used with qualified caution. Oregon had problems with the analytical
surrogate coeluting with hexachlorobenzene (HCB), which resulted in a large average
deviation from the reference material (127%). Excluding HCB reduced the average
extent of deviation from the reference material (57%) but it still did not meet the QA
requirement of 30%, although three DDT compounds (2,4'-DDD, 4,4'-DDD, and 4,4'-
DDE) and alpha-chlordane were quantified within 35% of the reference values. Overall,
the poor performance with the reference materials indicates that the Oregon pesticide
results are best used qualitatively to identify locations with sediment pesticides, with the
exception of the four compounds that quantified within 35% of the reference
concentrations.
11
-------
2.5 Data Analyses
The use of a probability based sampling design allows the development of
estimates of the extent of area, with 95% confidence intervals, of the intertidal resource
that has any given observed indicator value. Analysis of indicator data was conducted
by calculation of cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), an analysis approach that has
been used extensively in other EMAP/NCA coastal studies (Summers et al. 1993,
Strobel et al. 1995, Hyland et al. 1996, U.S. EPA 2004, 2006). A detailed discussion of
methods for calculation of the CDFs used in EMAP analyses are provided in Diaz-
Ramos etal. (1996).
Data are presented in this report in several graphical forms. Comparisons
among the three states Washington, Oregon, and California, the intensive study in San
Francisco Bay, and the values for the entire Western intertidal region (omitting the high
marsh samples from San Francisco Bay), are presented as bar charts of average
values for the five categories plus 1 standard deviation as an estimate of error. Where
there existed reasonable benchmarks to assign condition assessments to an indicator,
estimates of the percentage area of the intertidal zone within the condition levels is
provided in the text.
12
-------
3.0. Results and Discussion
3.1 Sampling Locations
Samples were obtained from 217 stations located in the states of Washington,
Oregon, and California ((Figs. 3.1.1-3.1.13). Abbreviated station numbers are provided
on Figs. 3.1.3-3.1.13, and complete station identification numbers, together with latitude
and longitudes for sampling locations are given in Appendix Table 2. All stations were
sampled during low tide, and most sites were completely exposed at the time of
sampling.
D
Figure 3.1.1. Views of field sampling activities during the 2002 NCA Intertidal
Assessment in Oregon (A), Washington (B,D) and California (C).
-------
The substrate type varied widely and included salt marsh, oysters, and sand and
mud flats (Fig. 3.1.2.). Percentage of area within the West Coast intertidal region
sampled was statistically estimated for 9 habitat categories. The dominant types of
estuarine intertidal habitat varied among the three states. Unvegetated tide flats,
classified either as sand or mud flats, were the dominant habitat types for all three
states, for San Francisco Bay, and for the west as a whole (Fig. 3.1.2.). Higher
percentages of mud flats were recorded in California and San Francisco Bay versus
Washington and Oregon, which possessed higher percentages of sand flats. Shellfish
beds (oysters), gravel bottom, and intertidal seagrasses were recorded only in
Washington and Oregon. The non-native marsh grass Spartina alterniflora was
recorded in Washington in Willapa Bay, where efforts to eradicate the species are
currently underway.
120
100 -
TO 80 -
£
<
H—
° 60 H
c
o>
01
Q. 40 -
20 -
TZZZZZZZZt.
Bank
Gravel
High marsh
Marsh
SAV
Tidal flat-Spartma
Shellfish
Tidal flat-mud
Tidal flat-sand
WEST
WA
SF BAY
Figure 3.1.2. Percentage area of habitat types for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal
Assessment. Values for California do not include San Francisco Bay.
14
-------
Canada
Vancouver Island
(Canada)
s
C
i>
c:
Grays Harbor
Wlllapa Bay
Columbia River
River
\flialem River A
nilainook Bay A
-\Vfnrrs Bui
A
: Bo.v
Bay
But
w River
I'mpqua Ri\ er *
Coos Bar jA
Coqnille River
Rogue Riv,-r
Clietco River
Siniili River /CA)
•Olympia
Washington
^Vancouver
•Port In ml
•Salem
•Coi-vallis
•Eugene
Oregon
Figure 3.1.3. Distribution of sampling stations in Washington and Oregon for the 2002
West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
15
-------
Elk River A
Cliftco River
Smith River iCAI
Oregon
• Medfoirt
Big Lag,™
Arcara Ba\
Hiiniboldt Bar
->»
A
•Redding
•Sacramento
Bodega Bay A^
Drakes Bay j^
San Francisco Bav
Francisco
Sniita Cruz Harbor
California
Big Sur River
Morro Bay
Son Lin's Obi\po Ba\
'
1 i'Htitra Harbor
•Los Angeles
Loi Aiigelet Harbor
.Yt'n'/'flrt Bnv
Dd;in Point Harbor
San Diego Bay
A*
i fgo a\ »
Tijiiaiin J?n
J.ifl .'«/ .'50
tin
Figure 3.1.4. Distribution of sampling stations in California for the 2002 West Coast
Intertidal Assessment.
16
-------
I
•
5
Y>
E
#
Belliugham
\
Bay
Patina*
Bay
Pnget Sound
Washington
Seattle
• I.K 0111.1
^00,
•Olvmpia
0 5 10 20 30 40,
Figure 3.1.5. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers in Puget Sound for
the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
17
-------
•
&
041
Grm'5
Washington
A1'
019
OJ5
I-3 0:3
A
A "
A
26
lent
Figure 3.1.6. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the outer coastal
estuaries of Washington for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
-------
-•V-£
Xecanicum Rivfr
\thalem Riier
nilamooli Bay
\ftarn Ba\
.\Vsmrca Bui
Yaqnina Bar
Ahea Ba\
Oregon
0 5 JO 20 30
ft
I km
Figure 3.1.7. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the northern half
of Oregon for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
-------
I'mpqiia River
Coos Bay
Coquille River
Oregon
0 S 10 20
Figure 3.1.8. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the southern half
of Oregon for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
20
-------
Figure 3.1.9. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for Coos Bay,
Oregon for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
2]
-------
V
C
Smith Ri\-tri(Al
030
. 013
Arcata Bay fM,,
HiimboUt Bay QQ~?{
Eel Rn-f r ^022
WO
Oregon
Reddiug*
Californi
Bodega Bay
A026
' >'
S2C
003"" A
A024 628618
Figure 3.1.10. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the northern
half of California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
-------
Nevada
4629
EJkhorn
•**,
California
.Vforro Bar
002
Sn;irn Barbara Harbor
301 343
iroor lii
I'eitturaVarbor ^^
Pomr .t/u^u LagooifL
311316
XrH'port Bar
Sun
San Diego_
.Mission BUI " •
Sm/ DiV^oB- ,-'
Tijuana Riter
31?
= i™
120Q0'0"W
US 0'0"W
Figure 3.1.11. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for the southern
half of California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
23
-------
N
Hioiiboleil Ba\
Arcata Bnv
California
Figure 3.1.12. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for Arcata and
Humboldt Bays, California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
-------
\nit Francisco Bay
San Francisco*
=
J3
• - •
5
California
0 5 JO
40
•i km
122r-3(l'0"n~
122'J0'0"1l~
Figure 3.1.13. Distribution of sampling stations with station numbers for San Francisco
Bay, California for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment.
25
-------
3.2 Sediment Quality
3.2.1 Sediment Composition
The sediment grain size distribution can be an important indicator of the benthic
environment, with the benthic community typically strongly responding to changes in
grain size composition. Relative accumulation of sediment organic carbon and
sediment contaminants may be correlated with sediment grain size, with finer grain
sizes tending to accumulate in lower energy environments. The mean percentage of
fine particles (silts, clays) in sediments was less than 60% in all five geographic
categories (Fig. 3.2.1), but was approximately two times greater in samples for
California and San Francisco Bay than in samples from Oregon and Washington. On
an areal basis, 28% of western intertidal habitat consisted of sediments with >80%
fines. Washington (5%) and Oregon (4%) had much lower areas with >80% fines than
did California (50%) or San Francisco Bay (38%). Appendix Table 3 provides a
summary of sediment grain size, total organic carbon (TOC), nutrient concentrations
and contaminant concentrations for all stations.
WEST
WA
CA
SFBAY
Figure 3.2.1. Percent fine sediments for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal Assessment
(mean ± 1 sd).
26
-------
3.2.2 Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Another measure of sediment condition is the percent Total Organic Carbon
(TOC). In the NCCR II report (U.S. EPA 2004), values exceeding 5% TOC were ranked
poor, values between 2% and 5% were ranked fair, and values less than 2% were
ranked good. There was a distinct difference in the average value of TOC between
sites in Washington and Oregon (means <2%) and sites in California, including San
Francisco Bay (>4%) (Fig. 3.2.2, Appendix Table 3). West wide (excluding high marsh
in San Francisco Bay), 2.9% of total estuarine intertidal area had values over 5% TOC.
There was a similar distinction in the amount of intertidal area among states with high
TOC values, with Washington and Oregon having <2% of area with values over 5%
TOC, compared with >20% of area for California and San Francisco Bay.
c
o
a
O
o
i
n
o>
S
o
OJ
o
k_
o
ex
WEST
WA
CA
SFBAY
Figure 3.2.2. Percent sediment total organic carbon (TOC) for the 2002 West Coast
Intertidal Assessment (mean ± 1 sd).
27
-------
3.2.3 Sediment Nutrients
Sediments perform the function of removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from the
water column through the process of sequestration of these nutrients in organic matter
into the sediments. Nitrogen and phosphorus sequestered in sediments can also be a
source of dissolved nutrients exported to the water column, where they are essential for
phytoplankton growth, but in excess may lead to undesirable phytoplankton blooms.
Average percent sediment concentrations of both total nitrogen and total
phosphorus were lowest in Washington and highest in California (Figs. 3.2.3, 3.2.4;
Appendix Table 3). West wide (excluding high marsh in San Francisco Bay), the mean
value of sediment total nitrogen was less than 0.5 percent in 96% of intertidal area, and
sediment total phosphorus was less than 0.1 percent in 95% of intertidal area. The
mean value of sediment total nitrogen was < 0.3 percent in 100% of Washington
sediments but 0.5 percent or more in 13% of area in Oregon, 18% of San Francisco Bay
area, and 23% of area in the rest of California. The mean value of sediment total
phosphorus was 0.1 percent or less in 99% of area in Washington, 98% of area in
Oregon, 77% of San Francisco Bay area, and 80% of area in the rest of California. The
five highest values for sediment concentrations of both total nitrogen and total
phosphorus occurred in sediments from estuary sites within the Southern California
Bight and from San Francisco Bay (Appendix Table 3).
o.o
WEST
WA
OR
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.2.3. Average percent sediment total nitrogen for intertidal samples obtained in
2002 for the West Coast region, individual states, and San Francisco Bay (mean
± 1 sd).
28
-------
0.14 -
WEST
WA
CA
SFBAY
Figure 3.2.4. Average percent sediment total phosphorus for intertidal samples
obtained in 2002 for the West Coast region, individual states, and San Francisco
Bay (mean ± 1 sd).
29
-------
3.2.4 Sediment Contaminants
To assess the degree of sediment contamination in West Coast estuaries, the
sediment concentrations of contaminants were compared with both the ERM and ERL
guidelines (Long et al., 1995). A total of 28 compounds or groups of compounds were
included on the list of contaminants used by the NCCR II report (U.S. EPA 2004). The
analysis of the 2002 intertidal data for West Coast estuaries excluded nickel and two
PAHs, phenanthrene and dibenzothiophene. Phenanthrene and dibenzothiophene
were excluded because values were not available from all three states. Nickel was
excluded because the ERM value has a low reliability for West Coast conditions where
high natural crustal concentrations of nickel exist (Long et al., 1995; Long et al., 2000;
Lauensteinetal., 2000).
Sediment Contaminant Guidelines (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined for each chemical as the 50th percentile (median)
in a database of ascending concentrations associated with adverse biological effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined values for each chemical as the 10th percentile in a
database of ascending concentrations associated with adverse biological effects.
Sediment concentrations exceeded their respective ERM values at only five
stations, representing 0.3% of the intertidal estuarine area of the West Coast (Appendix
Table 3). Four sites were located in Southern California (none in San Francisco Bay),
one in Oregon, and none in Washington. In all cases, the exceedances of the ERMs
were due to DDT and/or its congener 4,4' DDE. Three of the four California sites were
in Point Mugu Lagoon, and the remaining site was in Newport Harbor.
Any site that had five or more compounds that exceeded their ERL values was
classified as having fair condition in the NCCR II report (U.S. EPA 2004). As with the
ERMs, nickel was excluded from the analysis. To ensure that the analysis was not
biased by PAHs, only one exceedance was counted if a site exceeded the ERL for
LMW PAHs, HMW PAHs, or total PAHs. A total of 14 stations had five or more
pollutants exceeding the ERL value, of which 3 also exceeded one or more ERMs
(Appendix Table 3). The 14 sites represent only 0.21% of the intertidal area of the West
Coast estuaries. All of these sites occurred in California, with 5 sites located in either
high or low marsh within the San Francisco Bay, while the remaining 9 sites were in
Southern California. Two additional sites, one in California and one in Oregon, had
sediments pollutants that exceeded one or more ERMs, but had less than five pollutants
exceeding the ERL (Appendix Table 3).
Another indicator approach to evaluation of the level of potential problems
resulting from sediment contamination is the use of the Effects Range Median Quotient
(ERM-Q, Long and MacDonald, 1998).
30
-------
Sediment Effects Range Median Quotient (Long and MacDonald, 1998)
ERM-Q — The average quotient of the measured concentration of a defined list of
contaminants divided by their ERM values.
The ERM-Q index attempts to summarize the overall contaminant exposure
resulting from a mixture of contaminants by dividing the measured sediment
concentration of a contaminant by its ERM value, followed by taking an average value
of these quotients. Average ERM-Q values for samples from California and San
Francisco Bay were approximately two times higher than those for sites in Washington
and Oregon (Fig.3.2.5). Thompson and Lowe (2004) have suggested that an average
ERM-Q of <0.146 was a reasonable guideline for reference condition with regard to
sediment contamination in the San Francisco Estuary. For a national data set, Long et
al. (1998) suggested that values <0.1 indicate a low probability (11.6%) of having highly
toxic sediments. All values of average ERM-Q for the five areas in the present study
(Fig.3.2.5) are below these guidelines.
0.14 -
0.00
WEST
WA
OR
CA
SFBAY
Figure 3.2.5. Average Effects Range-Median Quotient (ERM-Q) values for sediment
contaminant concentrations for intertidal samples obtained in 2002 for the West Coast
region, individual states, and San Francisco Bay (mean ± 1 sd).
-------
3.3 Biological Condition
3.3.1 Benthic Infauna
A total of 217 samples were taken in the three states, with 60 samples taken in
California other than San Francisco, 30 in San Francisco Bay, 66 in Oregon, and 61 in
Washington. Twelve of the 30 San Francisco Bay samples were allocated to the "high
marsh" frame. The West survey was defined as the 205 samples from the three states
other than 12 high marsh samples in San Francisco. Although the goal was to obtain
0.1 m2 samples at all these sites, the large volume of detritus retained necessitated
subsampling 78 (36%) of the benthic samples. Additionally, the actual interior area of
the post-hole sampler was 0.09 m2 rather than 0.1 m2. These two factors resulted in a
total of twelve functional sample sizes with sizes ranging from 0.0028 to 0.1 m2. While
there was a wide range of sample sizes, the majority of the samples (122) were taken
with the 0.09 m2 post-hole digger and 196 of samples fell within four sizes (0.0056,
0.0225, 0.09, and 0.1 m2). To account for the differences in sample size, all benthic
abundances were normalized to 0.09 m2. Abundance generally increases linearly with
area, so this normalization should not introduce much additional uncertainty in densities.
However, the number of species per sample does not increase linearly and accordingly
we did analyze absolute species richness or H' on a per sample basis.
The median abundance in the West wide survey was 503 individuals per 0.09 m2
(= 5589 m2) with an average density of 1,802 individuals per 0.09 m2 (=20,022/m2).
This intertidal density is approximately within the range found in the previous survey of
primarily subtidal assemblages in the small and moderate sized West Coast estuaries
(Nelson et al., 2004). Median benthic densities were highest in Oregon at about 1,245
individuals per 0.09 m2 (=13,833/m2) and lowest in Washington with 373 individuals per
0.09 m2 (=4,144/m2). Average densities showed the same trend, with Oregon having
the highest average abundance, California and San Francisco having similar
abundances, and Washington having the lowest average abundance (Figure 3.3.1).
The lower density in Washington partially reflects the low density in Puget Sound
(average = 617 individuals per 0.09 m2) compared to the coastal estuaries (average =
1,256 individuals per 0.09 m2).
A total of 420 taxa were identified from all 217 samples of which 248 were
identified to the species level. Presumably the total number of species would have
been greater if all the samples had been 0.1 m2 in area and if the "problematic" taxa
(e.g., oligochaetes, insect larvae) had been identified to species. Taxa were classified
as native, nonindigenous, cryptogenic, indeterminate taxa, cosmopolitan, or
unclassified. Cryptogenic species are species of unknown origin (Carlton, 1996) while
indeterminate taxa are those not identified with sufficient taxonomic resolution to
classify as native, nonindigenous, or cryptogenic (Lee et al., 2003). Cosmopolitan is
used primarily for pelagic taxa that are widely dispersed across several oceans, while
unclassified species are those that have yet to be sufficiently analyzed to render a final
classification. The classifications used here follow the Pacific Ecosystem Information
System (PCEIS), a georeferenced database of native and nonindigenous species of the
Northeast Pacific being developed by the EPA and USGS (Lee and Reusser, 2007). Of
32
-------
the 420 taxa, there were 170 native species, 42 nonindigenous species (NIS), 32
cryptogenic species, 1 cosmopolitan pelagic copepod, 3 unclassified species, and 172
indeterminate taxa. In terms of relative abundance, polychaetes and oligochaetes were
the dominant taxa, composing over 40% and 20% of the individuals, respectively
(Figure 3.3.2). The only other taxa to comprise more than 5% of the individuals were the
amphipods and bivalves (Table 3.3.1).
The oligochaetes were not identified to species, but are a reasonably diverse
taxon with almost 200 species reported from marine, estuarine, and tidal fresh habitats
in the Northeast Pacific (Lee and Reusser, 2007). Oligochaetes are a numerically
dominant taxa in a number of Pacific Coast assemblages, including Spartina beds in
San Francisco (Neira et al., 2005), "fresh-brackish sandy" and "estuarine margin"
subtidal benthic assemblages in San Francisco (Lee et al., 2003), and Zostera,
Upogebia, and Spartina habitats in Willapa Bay (Ferraro and Cole, 2007). In the
present study, oligochaetes were abundant along the entire coast and constituted the
most abundant or second most abundant taxon in California, San Francisco, Oregon,
and Washington (Table 3.3.1). The highest oligochaete densities tended to be
associated with the presence of macroalgae, Zostera marina or Z. japonica beds, or
marsh habitat including Spartina though moderately high densities also occurred in
unvegetated flats. Given the number of species on the West Coast, it is likely that
species composition varied among the habitat types and/or geographically. Because
certain families of oligochaetes, in particular tubificids, are associated with polluted
conditions (Engle et al., 1994; Llanso et al., 2002) and because they constitute a major
proportion of the total individuals in many intertidal assemblages (Figure 3.3.2) we
recommend that future studies identify oligochaetes at least to the family level.
The high abundance of polychaetes in these assemblages is fairly typical of other
soft-bottom assemblages (e.g., Nelson et al., 2004). Less expected was that the single
most abundant polychaete in the West was the nonindigenous Manayunkia aestuarina,
a sabellid introduced from the Northeast Atlantic. Manayunkia aestuarina was
particularly dense in Oregon, much less so in Washington, and not recorded from
California (Table 3.3.1) though a congener (Manayunkia speciosa) is abundant in lower
salinity regions of the San Francisco Bay (Cohen and Carlton, 1995; Lee et al., 2003).
In Willapa Bay, M. aestuarina has been reported as a numerical dominant primarily
limited to Spartina alterniflora beds (Ferraro and Cole, 2007). In the present
probabilistic survey, the greatest abundance of M. aestuarina (148,178/m2) occurred in
an unvegetated sand flat in Coos Bay, Oregon though high densities were also found in
Spartina alterniflora in Washington and in Carex lyngbyei, a common shoreline sedge,
in Oregon. Other abundant polychaetes (average > 20 individuals per 0.09 m2 sample)
included two capitellids (Capitella capitata, Mediomastus califomiensis), several
spionids (Streblospio benedicti, Pygospio elegans, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata,
Pseudopolydora kempi, and Polydora cornuta), and a cirratulid (Tharyx parvus). Of
these, four of the spionids (S. benedicti, P. paucibranchiata, P. kempi, and P. cornuta)
are nonindigenous and Capitella capitata and Pygospio elegans are cryptogenic. All of
these species are frequently found in subtidal and intertidal assemblages in the
33
-------
Northeast Pacific (e.g., Nelson et al., 2004; Ferraro and Cole, 2007, Lee and Reusser,
2007).
The three abundant amphipods (> 20 individuals per 0.09 m2 sample) were
Grandidierellajaponica, Monocorophium insidiosum, and Americorophium salmonis, the
first two of which are nonindigenous species. Both nonindigenous amphipods were
widely distributed, ranging from Southern California up into Puget Sound. In
comparison, the native A. salmonis was not found in California, though the 1999 EMAP
survey found it as far south as the San Luis Obispo Bay (Latitude = 35.17) in California.
The only bivalve with a high average abundance was the nonindigenous Gemma
gemma, an East Coast species introduced with importation of Atlantic oysters (Cohen
and Carlton, 1995). Gemma gemma has a limited distribution in the Northeast Pacific
and has only been reported from nine California estuaries (Lee and Reusser, 2007).
Gemma gemma was only found in 6% of the samples (Table 3.3.1), and the high
average West wide abundance reflects its high densities in a few locations in San
Francisco which reached 141,400/m2.
With non-native species constituting the most abundant polychaete, bivalve, and
amphipod, an obvious alteration to the intertidal benthic communities on the West Coast
is the proliferation of nonindigenous species. On a regional scale, one measure of the
extent of invasion is that 42 nonindigenous species were collected, in addition to
another 32 cryptogenic, or possible nonindigenous species. Not only was a large
number of nonindigenous species collected but they were widespread. Eighty-five
percent of the samples contained at least one nonindigenous species (Figure 3.3.3).
While nonindigenous species were widespread, the extent of invasion appeared to vary
among sites. To evaluate patterns in invasion, we propose the following metric for the
relative species richness of nonindigenous species on a per sample basis:
%NISSPP = NISsPP/(NISspp & Natspp) *100 (Equation 3.3.1)
where:
%NISspp = relative species richness of nonindigenous species per sample
NISspp = number of nonindigenous species in sample
Natspp = number of native species in sample
Only native and nonindigenous species are included so as to limit the analysis to
species with "known" classifications. Inclusion of the cryptogenic species, unclassified
species, and indeterminate taxa would increase the level of uncertainty, and make
interpretation more difficult. By normalizing the number of nonindigenous species to the
sum of nonindigenous and native species, the index is "well behaved" and scales
between 0 (no NIS) and 100 (all NIS and no natives), though the metric is undefined if
there are no nonindigenous or native species. Because the index is based on relative
species richness rather than absolute numbers of nonindigenous species, the
differences in sample size will not substantially affect the value of the index assuming
that the relationship between sample area and number of species collected is similar for
native and nonindigenous species. Over the small areas of the samples, this
34
-------
assumption should generally hold, though the assumption is likely to break down at
large spatial scales such as comparing point samples to total assemblages (Lee et al.,
2003).
The distribution of the extent of invasion based on the relative species richness
of nonindigenous species for all 217 benthic samples is shown in Figure 3.3.3. Two
thresholds seem intuitive in interpreting this metric. The first is simply that the site is
"uninvaded" if there are no nonindigenous species. Across the West, nonindigenous
species are absent in 15% of the samples. The second proposed threshold is samples
in which nonindigenous species constitute >50% of the combined native and
nonindigenous species. Since nonindigenous species constitute at least half of the
classified taxa, these sites can be considered to constitute a non-native assemblage
and are classified as "highly invaded". Approximately 42% of the samples are classified
as highly invaded based on this threshold.
There appear to be substantial differences in the extent of invasion both
geographically and by habitat type (Figure 3.3.4). To better highlight these differences,
this analysis separates the San Francisco high marsh samples from the rest of the San
Francisco habitats and Puget Sound from the rest of the Washington samples even
though they were not originally identified as separate reporting units. To test for
significance among locations, a Kruskal-Wallis one-way Analysis of Variance on ranks
was performed on the values of %NISspp from California without San Francisco, San
Francisco without high marsh, San Francisco high marsh, Oregon, coastal Washington,
and Puget Sound. Based on this nonparametric test, there is a significant difference in
the median values of %NISspp among these six geographical areas or habitat types (p <
0.05). San Francisco habitats other than the high marsh were the most invaded with an
average of almost 50% of the classified species per sample consisting of nonindigenous
species. The high marsh in San Francisco was less invaded, but this pattern may at
least partially reflect that these sites had relatively high proportions of oligochaetes and
insects that were not identified to species. The other apparent pattern is that the
intertidal benthos in Puget Sound is less invaded. On average, Puget Sound samples
contained about 26% nonindigenous species compared to 40% to 44% for coastal
Oregon and Washington.
The extent of invasion can also be measured by the relative abundance of
nonindigenous species. Using the same approach as with non-native species richness,
the relative abundance of nonindigenous species is calculated as a percentage of the
combined abundance of natives and nonindigenous species as:
%NISAbun = NISAbun/(NISAbun & NatAbun) *100 (Equation 3.3.2)
where:
%NISAbun = relative abundance of nonindigenous species per sample
NISAbun = abundance of nonindigenous species in sample normalized to 0.09 m2
NatAbun = abundance of native species in sample normalized to 0.09 m2
35
-------
As with the metric based on relative species richness on nonindigenous species,
15% of the samples contained no nonindigenous species (Figure 3.3.5). Another 46%
of the sites were "highly invaded" as defined by nonindigenous species constituting
>50% of the individuals. The pattern of the relative abundance of non-native species
(Figure 3.3.5) differs from that based on the relative species richness of invaders
(Figure 3.3.3) by having peaks at both "low to moderate" levels of invasion (>0 and
<25%) and another at "very high" levels of invasion (>75%). This bimodal pattern
reflects, at least in part, apparent geographical and habitat differences in the extent of
invasion (Figure 3.3.6). The significance of these geographical/habitat differences was
tested using a Kruskal-Wallis one-way Analysis of Variance on ranks, which found a
highly significant difference (p < 0.01) in the median values of %NISAbun among the six
geographical areas or habitat types. The benthic assemblages in San Francisco
exclusive of the high marsh were the most invaded, with an average of 61% of the
individuals per sample consisting of nonindigenous species. The coastal estuaries of
Oregon and Washington were also highly invaded with about 50% of the individuals per
sample consisting of nonindigenous species. In comparison, nonindigenous species
constituted less than 25% of the individuals in samples from Puget Sound, and less
than 40% in samples from California other than San Francisco and in the San Francisco
high marsh. Again the lower extent of invasion in the San Francisco high marsh may
partially reflect that the oligochaetes and insects were not identified to species.
Based both on relative species richness and relative abundance, it is apparent
that the community composition and structure of the intertidal assemblages of
California, Oregon, and Washington have been substantially altered by the invasion of
nonindigenous species. These alterations are likely to continue as existing
nonindigenous species increase their range and/or abundance. For example, the
nonindigenous amphipod Grandidierella japonica has expanded its range from its first
sighting in San Francisco in 1966 (Chapman and Dorman, 1975) to 46 Northeast Pacific
estuaries ranging from Tijuana Estuary to Puget Sound by 2002 (Lee and Reusser,
2007). After a major flood event in 1996, G. japonica became one of the numerically
dominant amphipods in the Yaquina Estuary, Oregon (Lee et al., submitted) and it has
become the most abundant intertidal amphipod on the West Coast (Table 3.3.1).
Intertidal assemblages will also continue to change in response to new invasions. As
recently as July, 2007, a "major new snail invasion" ("Assiminea" sp) was reported for
Coos Bay, Oregon (J. Carlton, August 31, 2007 email). The present probabilistic survey
provides a baseline of the structure of benthic assemblages as of 2002, and it will be
important to conduct similar regional surveys in the future to assess the extent and
nature of changes due to invasion as well as other regional drivers such as climate
change, habitat alteration, and increased nutrient loading.
36
-------
Table 3.3.1. Average abundance, percent frequency of occurrence, and maximum abundance of the fifty most abundant
species in the West Coast Intertidal Assessment. All abundances have been normalized to number per 0.09 m2. "West"
= California other than the 12 high marsh samples in San Francisco Bay, Oregon, and Washington, "CA w/o San
Francisco" = California other than San Francisco Bay, "San Francisco" = San Francisco Bay including 12 high marsh
samples, OR = Oregon, WA = Washington. Classifications: Native = native species; NIS = nonindigenous species; Crypto
= cryptogenic species, Indeter = indeterminate taxa. Taxa Code: AM = amphipods; AN = anthopleurans; B = bivalves;
COP = copepods; CU = cumaceans; G = gastropods; IN = insects; ISO = isopods; NE = nemerteans; O = oligochaetes;
OS = ostracods; P = polychaetes; TA = tanaids.
Species/Taxon
Oligochaeta
Manayunkia
aestuarina
Gemma gemma
Grandidierella japonica
Capitella capitata
Streblospio benedict!
Mediomastus
californiensis
Leptochelia dubia
Pygospio elegans
Americorophium
salmonis
Monocorophium
insidiosum
Pseudopolydora
paucibranchiata
Pseudopolydora kempi
Tharyx pan/us
Macoma balthica
Polydora cornuta
Hobsonia florida
Taxa
Code
O
P
B
AM
P
P
P
TA
P
AM
AM
P
P
P
B
P
P
Classifi-
cation
Indeter
NIS
NIS
NIS
Crypto
NIS
Native
Crypto
Crypto
Native
NIS
NIS
NIS
Native
Native
NIS
NIS
West
Average
N = 205
343.3
235.9
112.4
89.7
89.0
74.2
71.8
70.4
49.7
46.2
32.0
25.9
24.5
22.1
21.8
21.7
19.8
West
% Freq.
80
17
6
50
48
40
27
30
32
26
37
16
48
22
50
42
10
West
Max.
11064
13336
12725
5936
6410
2520
3878
5894
1788
1440
1044
940
456
1125
785
656
1024
CA wo/San
Francisco
Average
N = 60
249.2
0.0
8.5
7.8
14.0
27.2
0.0
86.2
4.3
0.0
20.1
0.0
7.2
3.6
0.0
17.6
0.0
San
Francisco
Average
N = 30
313.1
0.0
751.3
58.9
0.1
7.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.2
0.0
2.3
0.0
13.7
7.4
0.0
OR
Average
N = 66
674.0
717.4
0.0
214.1
234.5
157.1
148.9
123.4
104.6
134.5
44.1
9.5
35.0
33.8
38.1
16.0
53.7
WA
Average
N = 61
125.3
16.7
0.0
33.2
31.5
49.1
80.2
18.3
49.6
9.7
23.5
76.8
36.5
34.2
25.3
34.7
8.5
37
-------
Paracorophium sp.
Halcampidae
Sinelobus Stanford!
Heteromastus filiformis
Assiminea californica
A mericorophium
stimpsoni
Nippoleucon
hinumensis
Harpacticoida
Exogone lourei
Monocorophium
acherusicum
A mericorophium
spinicorne
Potamocorbula
amurensis
Mya arenaria
Eteone californica
Ampithoe spp.
Chironomidae
Novafabricia brunnea
Cryptomya californica
Heteromastus
filobranchus
Allorchestes angusta
Dipolydora socialis
Chone duneri
Ceratopogonidae
Gnorimosphaeroma
oregonense
Macoma nasuta
Eobrolgus chumashi
Ampithoe valida
Myosotella myosotis
AM
AN
TA
P
G
AM
CU
COP
P
AM
AM
B
B
P
AM
IN
P
B
P
AM
P
P
IN
ISO
B
AM
AM
G
Indeter
Indeter
NIS
NIS
Native
Native
NIS
Indeter
Crypto
NIS
Native
NIS
NIS
Crypto
Indeter
Indeter
Native
Native
Native
Native
Crypto
Crypto
Indeter
Native
Native
Native
NIS
NIS
17.9
16.9
16.6
15.0
14.4
13.6
12.6
11.9
11.5
11.3
9.7
9.3
9.2
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.0
7.7
7.3
7.1
7.0
6.5
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.3
5
8
14
22
7
1
21
24
11
21
11
2
34
46
14
20
1
23
13
13
5
1
6
4
30
5
20
3
2496
1758
1304
396
1168
2780
1344
477
864
516
619
1127
174
436
364
281
1744
318
554
364
596
1428
965
1058
192
616
335
672
61.1
0.0
23.5
0.0
44.3
46.5
0.4
0.0
35.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.0
3.0
0.0
22.1
0.3
0.1
20.9
18.4
24.1
0.0
0.0
19.8
0.2
0.0
0.5
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.2
2.8
0.0
63.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
26.4
0.0
51.7
25.9
33.3
0.0
0.0
35.9
31.5
2.8
13.8
21.1
0.0
8.7
19.7
1.1
4.5
26.4
18.9
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
20.1
0.0
13.9
17.6
14.4
0.0
0.0
0.8
4.6
14.2
0.0
0.0
2.6
5.8
0.8
21.5
9.5
0.0
21.4
5.5
28.3
2.9
0.0
6.5
0.0
1.2
0.1
23.4
0.0
0.3
4.4
0.0
2.6
0.0
38
-------
Podocopida
Corophiidae
Gnorimosphaeroma
insulare
Glycinde polygnatha
Nemertea
OS
AM
ISO
P
NE
Indeter
Indeter
Native
Native
Indeter
5.3
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.9
9
22
4
43
11
570
324
548
61
577
0.3
0.5
0.0
2.0
16.7
0.5
1.3
0.0
2.5
0.0
16.0
14.1
15.2
3.8
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.3
9.2
0.0
39
-------
10000
WEST
WA
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.1. Average total benthic abundance for intertidal samples obtained in 2002
for the West Coast region, individual states, and San Francisco Bay (mean ± 1
sd).
Figure 3.3.2. Relative abundance of the major taxa for intertidal samples obtained in
2002 for the West Coast region.
40
-------
I20
%NIS by Species
Figure 3.3.3. Percent of nonindigenous species relative to the number of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (%NISspp). Analysis based on all
sites including the high marsh in San Francisco with the exception of three
samples with no nonindigenous or native species (N = 214).
100
H
0>
o
0)
Q.
cn
w
Figure 3.3.4. Average percent of nonindigenous species relative to the number of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (%NISspp) by location for intertidal
samples obtained in 2002.
-------
E 15 -
%NIS by Abundance
Figure 3.3.5. Relative abundance of nonindigenous species relative to the number of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (%NISAt>un)- Analysis based on all
sites including the high marsh in San Francisco with the exception of three
samples with no nonindigenous or native species (N = 214).
Figure 3.3.6. Average percent of nonindigenous species relative to the abundance of
nonindigenous and native species per sample (%NISAbun) by location for intertidal
samples obtained in 2002.
-------
3.3.2 Plant Community
Vegetation data were collected from both a quadrat and along a transect at each
site, and data from these two approaches are presented separately. Vegetation percent
cover, maximum plant height (emergent macrophyte) or leaf length (seagrass), and
biomass of each taxon were recorded from each vegetation quadrat. Only vegetation
percent cover was estimated along each transect.
Quadrat Species Assemblages and Percent Cover
Vegetation was present in the quadrats at 150 of the 217 sites sampled. The
types of vegetation recorded within the quadrats included 28 emergent macrophytes, 2
seagrasses, and macroalgal taxa (Appendix Table 4). Three emergent macrophytes,
Cotula coronopifolia, Lepidium latifolium, and Spartina altemiflora, are nonindigenous
species. Two species of seagrass, Zostera marina and Z. japonica (nonindigenous)
were recorded. These seagrass species were found at 21 and 24 sites, respectively.
Three groups of macroalgae, green algae, brown algae and red algae, were identified in
the quadrats. Green algae (e.g., Ulva, Cladophora, Enteromorpha) occurred at 84 sites.
Red algae were observed at one site and brown algae at six sites. As macroalgae were
only identified to major taxonomic group, it could not be determined if any
nonindigenous algal species were present.
Throughout the West, the vegetation quadrats were dominated by bare area
(Figure 3.3.7). Relative cover by bare area ranged between 2 and 100% throughout the
West (Appendix Table 5). Mean relative cover of emergent macrophytes (26%) was
higher than that of seagrass (9%) or algae (16%) throughout the West (Figure 3.3.7).
The relative cover of emergent macrophytes ranged between 1 and 100% in the West
(including all San Francisco sites) (Appendix Table 5). Most emergent macrophyte taxa
occurred at only a few sites (Appendix Table 4). Eighty-two percent of taxa occurred at
three or fewer sites. The most frequently occurring emergent macrophyte taxa were
Jaumea carnosa and Salicornia virginica. The paucity of emergent vegetation at most
sites may be attributed to the fact that most of the sites in the sample frame were
classified as unvegetated tide flats (Figure 3.1.2).
The relative cover by major plant groups (emergent macrophytes, seagrass,
macroalgae) and bare area displayed geographic patterns (Figure 3.3.7). Bare area
was highest for sites in Oregon and Washington, while cover by emergent macrophytes
was highest in California and San Francisco Bay. Mean bare area was 62% in Oregon
and 63% in Washington. Mean bare area was 42% in California and 42% for sites in
San Francisco Bay. Mean relative cover of emergent macrophytes was 3% in
Washington and 7% in Oregon and 38% in California and 62% in San Francisco Bay.
Cover of emergent macrophytes was higher than that of algae or seagrass in California
and San Francisco Bay sites. Relative cover of seagrass was higher than that of
emergent macrophytes in Oregon and Washington sites. Mean relative cover of
seagrass was less than that of emergent macrophytes or algae in California sites.
Mean relative cover of algae (all types) was highest for Oregon sites (Figure 3.3.7).
43
-------
Geographic patterns in cover of major plant groups may be attributed to differences in
habitat types among states. Over 80% of Washington sites were classified as tidal flat
and no sites were classified as marsh (Figure 3.1.2). In contrast, approximately 40% of
sites in California and San Francisco Bay were classified as marsh. Oregon sites were
a mixture of habitat sites, with more sites in the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
habitat class than other states.
Taxa occurrence and mean relative cover of common emergent taxa also
displayed geographic patterns (Appendix Table 5). The greatest number of emergent
macrophyte species were observed in California (n = 11) and San Francisco Bay (n =
17). Six emergent macrophyte species were observed in Oregon. The quadrats of only
three sites in Washington had emergent macrophyte cover and only one species, S.
alterniflora, was present in these quadrats. Because most taxa only occurred at a few
sites, average percent cover of taxa was calculated as the average cover at sites where
the taxa occurred and not across all sites. Mean cover of S. virginica was 39% in
California sites and 70% in San Francisco Bay sites (Figure 3.3.8). This species
occurred at one site in Oregon and was not present in Washington. Mean cover of J.
carnosa was 43% in California sites and 30% in San Francisco Bay. This species was
not present in Oregon or Washington sites. The three remaining species occurring at
more than five sites, Batis maritima, Distichlis spicata, and Spartina foliosa, were only
encountered in California and San Francisco Bay sites. Geographic patterns in
occurrence and cover of common emergent macrophyte species may again be
attributed to differences in habitat types among states. While tidal marsh macrophytes
can tolerate inundation, these species can not tolerate the prolonged periods of
inundation experienced on tidal flats and therefore are restricted to habitats receiving
less inundation.
Seagrass species were observed in the quadrats of California, Oregon and
Washington sites. Zostera marina was present in the vegetation quadrats of all three
states (Appendix Table 5). Mean relative cover of Z. marina was highest for
Washington sites (Figure 3.3.9). For Washington sites, mean relative cover of the
invasive seagrass, Z. japonica, was higher than that of Z. marina, 44% and 27%,
respectively. Zostera japonica did not occur in California or San Francisco Bay (Figure
3.3.10). Mean relative cover of green algae was highest in California (70%). Green
algae did not occur in San Francisco Bay sites (Figure 3.3.11).
Nonindigenous species (emergent macrophytes and seagrass) were
encountered in the quadrats at 29 sites throughout the study area. Spartina alterniflora
was observed at three sites in Washington and Z. japonica was observed at sites in
both Oregon and Washington. Lepidium latifolium was found at one site in San
Francisco Bay. Mean relative cover of nonindigenous species was low (8%) throughout
the West (Figure 3.3.12). Mean cover by nonindigenous species was highest in
Washington (21%), with nonindigenous species being found at 20 sites. Sites in
44
-------
Washington had both S. alterniflora and Z. japonica. No nonindigenous species were
observed at California sites.
Quadrat Emergent Macrophyte Height and Seagrass Maximum Length
For most emergent species, maximum plant height/length were recorded at fewer
than 5 sites throughout the study area, making this a problematic variable to evaluate as
a potential indicator (Appendix Table 6). Maximum height of S. virginica was recorded
at 29 sites throughout the West (not including San Francisco Bay), ranging between 6
and 76 cm. Maximum length of this species was recorded at 15 sites in San Francisco
Bay. The mean value at these sites was 49 cm. Maximum blade length of seagrass
was recorded at most sites when present. For the West overall, blade lengths of Z.
marina (range 14-122 cm) were longer than those of Z. japonica (range 7-38 cm).
Quadrat Biomass
Total biomass in the vegetation quadrat throughout the study ranged between 0
and 800 g/m2 dry weight. Total biomass was greatest for sites in San Francisco Bay
(mean = 350 g/m2) and California (mean = 193 g/m2; Figure 3.3.14). This can be
attributed to the fact that these sites had greater cover by vegetation of all types while
Oregon and Washington sites had more bare cover (Figure 3.3.7). For the West overall
(not including San Francisco Bay), algae contributed the most to quadrat biomass
(mean = 44%; Figure 3.3.14), followed by emergent macrophytes (mean = 38%) and
seagrass (18%). This finding can be attributed to the fact that for many sites in Oregon
and Washington, only macroalgae were present in the vegetation quadrats. In contrast,
emergent macrophytes were the major contributor to quadrat biomass in San Francisco
Bay and California sites. Emergent macrophytes contributed 99% on average to
quadrat biomass in San Francisco Bay sites and 67% to quadrat biomass in California
sites. The geographic patterns in relative contribution of different plant types to total
quadrat biomass may again be attributed to differences in habitat types, and
subsequently vegetation groups, among states. Tidal wetland habitat in California and
San Francisco Bay is dominated by marsh habitat and emergent macrophyte
vegetation. Oregon sites were a mixture of habitat types and thus different vegetation
types contributed to quadrat biomass at different sites. Washington sites are classified
primarily as tidal flat. Subsequently, seagrass and macroalgae are the major
contributors to quadrat biomass.
Mean biomass of emergent macrophytes varied among the states, attributable to
geographic differences in macrophyte taxa encountered. For example, the only
emergent macrophyte observed in the quadrats of Washington sites was S. alterniflora,
a relatively large, perennial grass. In contrast, sites in California, San Francisco Bay
and Oregon had a mix of macrophyte taxa of different growth forms. Most emergent
macrophyte taxa were only found at a few sites (and weights recorded at even fewer),
making it difficult to evaluate geographic trends in biomass. Biomass of most emergent
macrophyte taxa was greater than that of seagrass species or macroalgal taxa
(Appendix Table 7). Mean biomass of Z. marina and Z. japonica in the West were
45
-------
similar, 14 and 13 g/m2, respectively. Biomass of these species was similar in Oregon
and Washington. Mean biomass of green algae was similar in California (mean = 26
g/m2) and Oregon (mean = 30 g/m2) and somewhat lower in Washington (mean = 9
g/m2). As algae were only classified into large taxonomic groups, it is difficult to explain
geographic differences in biomass.
Transect Species Assemblages and Percent Cover
Vegetation was present along the transects at 171 sites of the 217 sites sampled.
Vegetation recorded on transects included 31 emergent macrophytes, including three
nonindigenous species (C. coronopifolia, L. latifolium, and S. alterniflora), two
seagrasses (Z marina and Z.japonica), and algal taxa (Appendix Table 4).
Seagrasses were found at 25 and 28 sites, respectively. Three groups of macroalgae,
green algae, brown algae and red algae, were identified in the transects. Green algae
(e.g., Ulva, Cladophora, Enteromorpha) were observed at 84 sites. Red algae were
observed in one transect and brown algae in four transects.
Throughout the West, the vegetation quadrats were dominated by bare area
(Figure 3.3.15). Relative bare area ranged between 4 and 100% throughout the West
(Figure 3.3.15). Mean relative cover of emergent macrophytes (21%) and macroalgae
(20%) were similar and higher than that of seagrass (9%) throughout the West (Figure
3.3.15). The relative cover of emergent macrophytes ranged between 1 and 100% in
the West (including all San Francisco sites) (Appendix Table 8). Most emergent
macrophyte taxa occurred in the transects of only a few sites (Appendix Table 4), with
84% of taxa occurring at three or fewer sites. The most frequently occurring emergent
macrophyte taxa were S. virginica, J. carnosa, D. spicata and Spartina foliosa. Similar
to the vegetation quadrats, the low emergent vegetation cover at most sites may be
attributed to the fact that most of the sites in the sample frame were classified as
unvegetated tide flats (Figure 3.1.2).
Percentage of bare area in the transects was higher for sites in Oregon and
Washington than those in California (Figure 3.3.15). Mean percentage of bare area was
59% in Oregon and 60% in Washington. Mean bare area was 38% in California and
36% for sites in San Francisco Bay. The relative cover by major plant groups
(emergent macrophytes, seagrass, algae) displayed geographic patterns. Relative
abundance of emergent macrophytes was lower in Washington (mean = 3%) and
Oregon (mean = 9%) than for sites in California (mean = 43%) and San Francisco Bay
(mean = 78%). Relative cover of seagrass was higher than that of emergent
macrophytes at Washington sites (Figure 3.3.15). Cover of emergent macrophytes was
higher than that of algae or seagrass in California and San Francisco Bay sites. Mean
relative cover of seagrass was 0% in California and San Francisco Bay sites. Mean
relative cover of algae (all types) was higher than that of emergent macrophytes and
seagrass in Oregon sites (Figure 3.3.15). Mean relative cover of algae (all types) was
highest for Oregon sites. Cover of emergent macrophytes was higher than that of algae
or seagrass in California and San Francisco Bay sites. Similar to vegetation quadrats,
46
-------
geographic patterns in transect vegetation cover of major plant groups can be attributed
to differences in habitat types among states. Marsh habitat was more common in
California and San Francisco Bay, while tidal flat habitat was more abundant in
Washington and Oregon.
Taxa occurrence and mean relative cover of common vegetation taxa in the
transects also displayed geographic patterns. The largest numbers of emergent
macrophyte species were observed in the transects of sites in California (n = 11) and
San Francisco Bay (n = 18), although most of these species occurred at fewer than 3
sites. Nine emergent macrophyte species were observed in the transects of Oregon
sites. The transects of only four sites in Washington had emergent macrophyte cover
and only two species, Juncus gerardii and S. alterniflora, were present in Washington.
Because most taxa only occurred at a few sites, average percent cover of taxa was
calculated as the average cover at sites where the taxa occurred and not across all
sites. Mean cover of S. virginica was 48% in California sites and 76% in San Francisco
Bay sites (Figure 3.3.16). This species occurred at one site in Oregon and was not
found in Washington. Mean cover of J. carnosa was 39% in California sites. This
species was present at one site in San Francisco Bay and was present in neither
Oregon nor Washington sites. Of the three remaining species occurring at more than
five sites, B. maritima and S. foliosa were only encountered in California and San
Francisco Bay sites. Distichlis spicata was not observed in Washington. Again similar
to vegetation quadrats, geographic patterns in occurrence of common emergent
macrophyte taxa may be attributed to differences in habitat types among states.
Seagrass species were observed in the quadrats of California, Oregon and
Washington sites. Zostera marina was present in the vegetation transects of all three
states. Mean relative cover of Z. marina was similar for Washington and Oregon sites
(Figure 3.3.17). For Washington sites, mean relative cover of the invasive seagrass, Z.
japonica, was higher than that of Z. marina, 52% and 28%, respectively. Zostera
japonica did not occur in California or San Francisco Bay (Figure 3.3.18). Mean relative
cover of green macroalgae was highest at California sites (63%; Figure 3.3.19). Green
macroalgae did not occur in San Francisco Bay.
Nonindigenous emergent macrophytes and seagrass were encountered in the
transects at 33 sites throughout the study area. Spartina alterniflora was observed at
three sites in Washington and Z. japonica was observed at sites in both Oregon and
Washington. Lepidium latifolium was found at one site in San Francisco Bay. Mean
relative cover of nonindigenous species was low (14%) throughout the West (Figure
3.3.20). Mean cover by nonindigenous species was highest in Washington (37%), with
nonindigenous species being found at 21 sites. Sites in Washington had both S.
alterniflora and Z. japonica. No nonindigenous species were observed at California
sites.
47
-------
Summary of Vegetation Results
Overall, cover by vegetation in tidal wetlands in the West was low, with bare area
dominating both the quadrats and transects at many sites. The small number of
vegetation species observed at each site makes it difficult to evaluate community
patterns and the low frequency of occurrence of most species makes it difficult to
evaluate patterns of individual species across the study area. Observed geographic
patterns in major plant groups may be attributed to differences in habitat type among
the three states. The higher abundance of emergent macrophytes in California and San
Francisco Bay sites may be attributed to the predominance of marsh habitat in these
areas. The higher abundance of seagrass and macroalgae in Washington may be
attributed to the predominance of tidal flat habitat and lack of marsh habitat in this state.
Oregon tidal wetlands were a mixture of habitat types and subsequently, these sites
contained a mixture of vegetation groups.
Plant cover data generated from vegetation quadrats and vegetation transects
were very similar throughout the study area. Geographic trends in major plant groups
and common individual species were similar for quadrat and transect data. Species
richness throughout the study area was slightly higher and relative cover of bare area
was slightly lower for transect data than quadrat data. These findings may be attributed
to the fact that sampling area was larger for transects (5-m length) than quadrats (0.25
m2). Vegetation sampling in tidal wetlands often employs much longer transects (for
example 30-m; Bertness and Ellison 1987) running perpendicular to the shoreline to
capture heterogeneity in tidal wetland vegetation in response to gradients in inundation
and salinity. As transects in this study were short and were established parallel to the
shoreline, they would not be expected to capture this variation in vegetation, potentially
resulting in the low number of species encountered at most sites.
48
-------
-------
100
(0
c
'C
ra
E
a
V)
o
N
o
o
5?
«-•
CD
ro
O
WEST
WA
OR
CA.
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.9. Relative percent cover of Zostera marina in the vegetation quadrats at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd).
100
WEST
WA
OR
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.10. Relative percent cover of Zostera japonica in the vegetation quadrats at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd).
50
-------
120
WEST WA OR CA SF BAY
Figure 3.3.11. Relative percent cover of green algae in the vegetation quadrats at sites
where present (mean ± 1 sd).
100
WEST
WA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.12. Relative percent cover of nonindigenous species in the vegetation
quadrats at sites where plants are present (mean ± 1 sd).
51
-------
600
WEST
WA
OR
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.13. Total vegetation (emergent macrophytes, seagrass, algae) biomass in
the vegetation quadrats (mean ± 1 sd).
U)
to
m
O
CO
13
o
**
o
c:
o
t:
o
a.
o
ra
a)
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
i -
WEST
Emergent
Seagrass
Algae
Other
WA
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.14. Mean proportion of quadrat biomass for each vegetation group.
52
-------
120
100 -
80 -
O
g 60 -I
40 -
20 -
I I Bare
film I mergent
I I Seagrass
••• Algae
Other
WEST
WA
OR
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.15. Mean relative abundance of vegetation groups and bare area in
vegetation transects.
WEST
WA
OR
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.16. Relative percent cover of Salicornia virginica in the vegetation transects
at sites where present (mean ± 1 sd).
53
-------
03
nj
E
a
w)
o
N
o
o
o
0>
t/>
c
03
100 -
80 -
20 -
WEST
WA
OR
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.17. Relative percent cover of Zostera marina in the vegetation transects at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd).
WEST
WA
OR
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.18. Relative percent cover of Zostera japonica in the vegetation transects at
sites where present (mean ± 1 sd).
54
-------
WEST
WA
CA
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.19. Relative percent cover of green algae in the vegetation transects at sites
where present (mean ± 1 sd).
100
so -
60 -
0)
'o
0)
Q.
O
c
o
E?
T3
C
o
i_ 40 -
I
o
o
*- 20 -
o
03
03
WEST
WA
OR
SF BAY
Figure 3.3.20. Relative percent cover of nonindigenous species in the vegetation
transects at sites where plants are present (mean ±1 sd).
55
-------
3.4 Shoreline Land Use
West wide, approximately an estimated 55% of estuarine area had shoreline
immediately adjacent that was classified by field crews as undeveloped. In Washington
and Oregon, much of the undeveloped land was in silviculture. Somewhat surprisingly,
across the three states, the percentage of area with adjacent shoreline classified as
residential was very similar, on the order of 20%. California and San Francisco Bay had
much higher area with urban shoreline adjacent to the intertidal sampling points than did
Washington and Oregon.
120
100 -
re 80 -i
~ 60 •
0)
Q>
Q- 40
20 -
0 -L
WEST
WA
OR
Agriculture
Undeveloped
Residential
Recreational
Oyster Aquaculture
Armored
Industrial
Highways
Other
Urban
SF BAY
Figure 3.4.1. Percentage areas within assessment regions with shoreline adjacent to
sample locations in different land use categories.
3.5 Lessons Learned
Tidal wetlands constitute critical habitats in West Coast estuaries, although their
nature varies geographically. In the Pacific Northwest, tidal wetlands predominantly
consist of unvegetated sand and mud flats, with marshes limited to a relatively narrow
band along the upper edge of the bathymetric gradient. In comparison, vegetated
wetlands constitute a much greater proportion of the total estuarine area in San
Francisco Bay and in estuaries in Southern California. The results presented here
represent the first regional scale survey of the condition of these habitat types on the
West Coast and, to the best of our knowledge, anywhere. As such, these results
constitute a critical baseline by which to evaluate changes in response to continued or
56
-------
increasing anthropogenic stress from excessive nutrient loading, urbanization, shoreline
modification, invasion of nonindigenous species, and the host of potential alterations
resulting from global climate change.
Sampling the range of vegetated and unvegetated tidal wetlands was not a
simple endeavor but the approaches used in this survey, from use of hovercraft to
quantifying burrowing shrimp, generally proved feasible for regional scale surveys of
wetland condition. A slightly modified version of these approaches has since been used
in another tidal wetland survey (Lee et al., 2006). This is not to say that improvements
could not be made.
In the sample design, with the exception of San Francisco Bay, sample sites
were selected at random, with no attempt to require that sample sites fell within marsh
habitats within a given multidensity category. The sample distribution by habitat type
thus reflects the relative distribution of habitat types in the estuarine intertidal of the
West Coast, but does mean that marsh type habitats had relatively few samples from
some states. In hind sight, the habitat maps available appear to have been sufficiently
accurate to have allowed partitioning of sample effort by habitat type.
The use of the shoreline development indicator proved to be somewhat variable
among field crews, suggesting a need for more careful a priori definition of shoreline
development categories, and development of a photographic guide to assist field crews
in providing a consistent classification.
A difficult issue that arose was the need to subsample benthic samples due to
the extreme processing time for some samples, especially those collected in vegetated
wetlands. The consequence of this practice, which was carried out with differing
subsample sizes by different state laboratories and contractors, was the generation of
biological samples based on effectively different surface areas. We recommend that if
at all possible, sufficient dollar and time resources be allocated to fully process the 0.1
m2 benthic samples regardless of the volume of residue. If that is not practical, then one
possibility is to subsample all 0.1 m2 benthic samples with a smaller core and process
these independently. This approach would allow the comparison among all sites within
a study using the smaller, standardized sample size, while maintaining the ability to
compare the sites sampled with the 0.1 m2 area with previous EMAP efforts. Another
issue is the high abundance of oligochaetes and, to a lesser extent, insects in several
tidal wetland habitats. Both of these are difficult taxa to identify, but to the extent
practical they should be identified to species or at least to family.
The other major ecological endpoints used in this survey were tidal wetland plant
composition, cover, and biomass. One goal of the plant survey was to evaluate the
potential for development of wetland indicators. However, one of the lessons learned is
that the number of plant species in the 0.25 m2 quadrat or 5-m transect is too low for
use in most of the standard benthic indicators based on species richness. Another
57
-------
lesson was that most plant species only occurred in a limited number of sites, making it
difficult to develop generally applicable metrics based on indicator species. While the
present effort was not sufficient to develop wetland indicators by itself, it did feed into
the development of the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM;
http://www.cramwetlands.org/) and to similar rapid assessment surveys being
conducted by U.S. EPA in Oregon.
3.6 Summary
Condition of the soft sediment habitat within the intertidal zone of the states of
Washington, Oregon and California, with the exception of the estuarine portion of the
Columbia River, was successfully assessed at 217 sites during the summer of 2002.
The dominant types of estuarine intertidal habitat varied among the three states,
although unvegetated sand or mud flats were the dominant habitat types for all three
states. Shellfish beds (oysters), gravel bottom, and intertidal seagrasses were recorded
only in Washington and Oregon. San Francisco Bay and the rest of California tended to
have finer sediments, higher Total Organic Carbon, higher concentrations of sediment
nitrogen and phosphorus, and higher average Effects Range-Median Quotient (ERM-Q)
values than estuarine intertidal areas in Washington and Oregon. Levels of sediment
contamination West wide were low, with only 0.21% of the intertidal area of the West
Coast estuaries having exceedances of >5 Effects Range Low (ERL) concentrations
and 0.3% of the intertidal area exceeding Effects Range Median (ERM) concentrations.
Average densities of benthic infauna were highest in Oregon, with California and
San Francisco having lower but similar abundances, and Washington having the lowest
value. The benthic community was dominated by polychaetes, oligochaetes and
amphipods. Surprisingly, the single most abundant polychaete in the West Coast
intertidal was the nonindigenous Manayunkia aestuarina, introduced from the Northeast
Atlantic. San Francisco habitats other than the high marsh were the most invaded with
an average of almost 50% of the classified species per sample consisting of
nonindigenous species. Puget Sound samples contained about 26% nonindigenous
species compared to 40% to 44% for coastal Oregon and Washington.
Vegetation was present in the quadrats at 150 of the 217 sites sampled, and
included 28 emergent macrophytes, 2 seagrasses, and macroalgal taxa. Eighty-two
percent of macrophyte taxa occurred at three or fewer sites. The most frequently
occurring emergent macrophyte taxa were marsh jaumea (Jaumea carnosa) and
pickleweed (Salicornia virginica). The greatest numbesr of emergent macrophyte
species were observed in California (n = 11), and in San Francisco Bay (n = 17) where
high marsh was included in the study. Mean relative cover of nonindigenous emergent
macrophyte species was low (8%) throughout the West. Mean cover by nonindigenous
species was highest in Washington (21%), where both salt marsh cordgrass Spartina
altemiflora and the introduced seagrass Zostera japonica were found. No
58
-------
nonindigenous macrophyte species were observed at California sites, except one high
marsh site in San Francisco Bay.
The results of this assessment study represent the first regional scale survey of
the condition of intertidal wetland habitats on the West Coast. Findings confirm results
from previous National Coastal Assessment studies of West Coast estuaries that have
indicated sediment contamination issues are limited in extent, but that West Coast
estuaries have been broadly invaded by nonindigenous species. Further refinement of
measurement approaches for plant community and shoreline development indicators
are needed.
59
-------
4.0 Literature Cited
Bertness, M.D. and A.M. Ellison. 1987. Determinants of patterns in a New England
marsh plant community. Ecological Monographs 57:129-147.
Carlton, J.T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653-
1654.
Chapman, J. W. and J. A. Dorman. 1975. Diagnosis, systematics and notes on
Grandidierella japonica (Amphipoda: Gammaridea) and its introduction to the
Pacific coast of the United States. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of
Sciences 74:104-108.
Cohen, A. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States
estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and
Delta. Report for the National Sea Grant College Program, DT and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Report No. PB 96-166525.
Comeleo, R.L., J.F. Paul, P.V. August, J. Copeland, C. Baker, S.S. Hale, and R.W.
Latimer. 1996. Relationships between watershed stressors and sediment
contamination in Chesapeake Bay estuaries. Landscape Ecology 11:307-319.
Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics Methods
Manual. EPA/620/R-96/002. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.
Engle, V.D., J.K. Summers, and G.R. Gaston. 1994. A benthic index of environmental
condition of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 17:372-384.
Ferraro, S.P. and F.A. Cole. 2007. Benthic macrofauna-habitat associations in Willapa
Bay, Washington, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71:491-507.
Hayslip, G., L. Edmond, V. Partridge, W. Nelson, H. Lee, F. Cole, J. Lamberson, and L.
Caton. 2006. Ecological Condition of the Estuaries of Oregon and Washington.
EPA 910-R-06-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Environmental Assessment, Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
Hyland, J. L., T.J. Herrlinger, T.R. Snoots, A.H. Ring-wood, R.F. Van Dolah, C.T.
Hackney, G.A. Nelson, J.S. Rosen, and S.A. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental
Quality of Estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. Annual Statistical Summary
for the 1994 EMAP- Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97. NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD. 102 p.
Lauenstein, G.G. and A.Y. Cantillo (eds.). 1993. Sampling and analytical methods of the
National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel
Watch Projects 1984-1992: Comprehensive descriptions of trace organic
analytical methods, Volume IV NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71,
Silver Spring, MD. 182 pp.
Lauenstein, G.G., E.A. Crecelius, and A.Y. Cantillo. 2000. Baseline metal
concentrations of the U.S. West Coast and their use in evaluating sediment
contamination. Presented at 21st Ann. Soc. Environ. Toxicology and Chemistry
meeting, November 12-15, 2000, Nashville Tennessee.
60
-------
Lee II, H. and D.A. Reusser, with contributions from K. Welch, M. Ranelletti, L.
Hillmann, and R. Fairey. 2007. Pacific Coast Ecosystem Information System
(PCEIS). Version 1.2. (Georeferenced Access database developed by EPA and
USGS).
Lee II, H., B. Thompson, and S. Lowe. 2003. Estuarine and scalar patterns of invasion
in the soft-bottom benthic communities of the San Francisco Estuary. Biological
Invasions 5:85-102.
Lee, H. II, C.A. Brown, B.L. Boese, and D.R. Young (eds.). 2006. Proposed
Classification Scheme for Coastal Receiving Waters Based on SAV and Food
Web Sensitivity to Nutrients, Volume 2: Nutrient Drivers, Seagrass Distributions,
and Regional Classifications of Pacific Northwest Estuaries, United States
Environmental Protection Agency Report, Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory. Internal Report.
Llanso, R. J., L. C. Scott, J. L. Hyland, D. M. Dauer, D. E. Russell, and F. W. Kutz.
2002. An Estuarine Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Region of
the United States. II. Index Development. Estuaries 25:1231-1242.
Long, E.D. and D.D. MacDonald. 1998. Recommended uses of empirically derived,
sediment quality guidelines for marine and estuarine ecosystems. Human and
Ecological Risk Assessment 4:1019-1093.
Long, E.D., L.J. Field, and D.D. MacDonald. 1998.Predicting toxicity in marine
sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 17:714-727.
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L Smith, and F.D. Callander. 1995. Incidence of
adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and
estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19:81-97.
Long, E.R., J. Hameedi, A. Robertson, M. Dutch, S. Aasen, K. Welch, S. Magoon, R.
Carr, T. Johnson, J. Biedenbach, K. Scott, C. Mueller, and J. Anderson. 2000.
Sediment Quality in Puget Sound. Year 2 - Central Puget Sound. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring,
MD. NOS NCCOS CCMA Technical Memo No. 147 , and Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, Publication No. 00-03-055. 353 p.
Neira, C., L.A. Levin, and E.D. Grosholz. 2005. Benthic macrofaunal communities of
three sites in San Francisco Bay invaded by hybrid Spartina, with comparison to
uninvaded habitats. Marine Ecology Progress Series 292:111-126.
Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, and J.O. Lamberson. 2005. Condition of Estuaries of California
for 1999: A Statistical Summary. Office of Research and Development, National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA 620/R-05/004.
Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson, V. Engle, L. Harwell, and L.M. Smith. 2004.
Condition of Estuaries of Western United States for 1999: A Statistical Summary.
Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, EPA/620/R-04/200.
Nelson, W.G.; R. Brock, H. Lee II,J.O. Lamberson, and F.A. Cole. 2007. Condition of
Estuaries and Bays of Hawaii for 2002: A Statistical Summary. Office of
61
-------
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, EPA/620-R-07/001.
Rodiguez, W., P.V. August, Y. Wang, J.F. Paul, A. Gold, and N. Rubenstein. 2007.
Empirical relationships between land use/cover and estuarine condition in the
Northeastern United States. Landscape Ecology 22:403-417.
Strobel, C. J., H. W. Buffum, S.J. Benyi, E.A. Petrocelli, D.R. Reifsteck, and D.J. Keith.
1995. Statistical summary: EMAP - Estuaries Virginian Province -1990 to 1993.
U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, R.I. EPA/620/R-94/026. 72 p. plus
Appendices A-C.
Summers, J.K., J.M. Macauley, P.T. Heitmuller, V.D. Engle, A.M. Adams, and G.T.
Brooks. 1993. Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian
Province -1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/R-
93/001. 101 p. plus Appendices A-C.
Thompson, B. and S. Lowe. 2004. Assessment of macrobenthos response to sediment
contamination in the San Francisco estuary, California, USA. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 23:2178-2187.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP): Laboratory Methods Manual - Estuaries, Volume
1: Biological and physical analyses. Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-
91/024. 321-324.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. National Coastal Condition
Report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research and Development and Office of
Water, Washington, DC. 204 p. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. National Coastal Condition
Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 286 p.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nccr/2005/downloads.html
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. National Estuary Program
Coastal Condition Report. EPA-842/B-06/001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 445 p. Available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nepccr/index.html
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000. Water Quality - EPA and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. Report to the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. Report GAO/RCED
00-54. 78 p.
Wilson, S. and V. Partridge. 2007. Condition of Outer Coastal Estuaries of Washington
State, 1999. A Statistical Summary. Publication No. 07-03-012. Washington
State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA 249 p.
62
-------
5.0 Appendix Tables
Appendix Table 1.1. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment metals. RPD = relative percent difference of
duplicate samples. CV = coefficient of variation.
State
California
Oregon
Washington
Average %
deviation from
true value of
reference
material
(# Analytes)
7% (15)
15% (15)
4% (13)
Average %
deviation from
reference
material within
±20% of true
value
Yes
Yes
Yes
%of
analytes
within ±35%
of true value
100%
93%
100%
70% of
analytes
within ±35%
of true
value?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Recovery of
matrix spikes
within 50%-
120%?
Yes
Yes
Yes
RPDs and CVs
of matrix spikes
and reference
materials <30%?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Appendix Table 1.2. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment PAHs. RPD = relative percent difference of
duplicate samples. CV = coefficient of variation.
State
California
Oregon
Washington
Average %
deviation from
true value of
reference
material
(# Analytes)
16% (12)
43% (22)
32% (19)
Average %
deviation from
reference
material within
±30% of true
value
Yes
No
No
%of
analytes
within ±35%
of true value
100%
53%
74%
70% of
analytes
within ±35%
of true
value?
Yes
No
Yes
Recovery of
matrix spikes
within 50%-
120%?
Yes
Yes
Yes
RPDs and CVs
of matrix spikes
and reference
materials <30%?
No (33%)
No (34%)
Yes
63
-------
Appendix Table 1.3. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment PCBs. RPD = relative percent difference of
duplicate samples. CV = coefficient of variation.
State
California
Oregon
Washington
Average %
deviation from
true value of
reference
material
(# Analytes)
15% (14)
146% (21)
32% (18)
Average %
deviation
from
reference
material
within ±30%
of true value
Yes
No
No
%of
analytes
within ±35%
of true value
100%
38%
67%
70% of
analytes
within ±35%
of true
value?
Yes
No
No
Recovery of
matrix spikes
within 50%-
120%?
Yes
Yes
Yes
RPDs and CVs
of matrix spikes
and reference
materials <30%?
No non-zero
replicates
No (49%)
Yes
Appendix Table 1.4. Summary of quality assurance results for sediment DDTs and other chlorinated pesticides. RPD =
relative percent difference of duplicate samples. CV = coefficient of variation. HCB = hexachlorobenzene, which coeluted
with analytical surrogate in the Oregon analyses.
State
California
Oregon
Washington
Average %
deviation from
true value of
reference
material
(# Analytes)
13% (2)
127% (8)
57% (w/o HCB)
24% (7)
Average %
deviation
from
reference
material
within ±30%
of true value
Yes (only 2
analytes)
No
Yes
%of
analytes
within ±35%
of true value
100%
50%
100%
70% of
analytes
within ±35%
of true
value?
Yes (only 2
analytes)
No
Yes
Recovery of
matrix spikes
within 50%-
120%?
Yes (19
analytes)
Yes
Yes
RPDs and CVs
of matrix spikes
and reference
materials <30%?
No non-zero
replicates
Yes
Yes
64
-------
Appendix Table 2. Sampling coordinates for the 2002 West Coast Intertidal
Assessment. The Area Weight represents the represents the total estuarine area within
a multidensity category divided by the number of samples obtained in that category.
EMAP
Station ID
WA02-0002
WA02-0003
WA02-0004
WA02-0005
WA02-0006
WA02-0007
WA02-0010
WA02-001 1
WA02-0012
WA02-0014
WA02-0016
WA02-0017
WA02-0018
WA02-0019
WA02-0020
WA02-0021
WA02-0022
WA02-0023
WA02-0024
WA02-0025
WA02-0026
WA02-0027
WA02-0028
WA02-0032
WA02-0035
WA02-0036
WA02-0037
WA02-0039
WA02-0040
WA02-0041
WA02-0043
WA02-0044
WA02-0045
WA02-0046
WA02-0048
WA02-0049
WA02-0050
WA02-0051
WA02-0052
WA02-0054
Location
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Port Orchard
Grays Harbor
Case Inlet
Willapa Bay
Oyster Bay
Willapa Bay
Drayton Passage
Port Susan
Skagit Bay
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Wllapa Bay
Case Inlet
Grays Harbor
Port Gardner
Willapa Bay
Lummi Bay
Grays Harbor
Grays Harbor
Willapa Bay
Port Orchard
Skagit Bay
Willapa Bay
Lynch Cove
Grays Harbor
Willapa Bay
Samish Bay
Grays Harbor
Willapa Bay
Peale Passage
Grays Harbor
Skagit Bay
Skagit Bay
Naselle River
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Carr Inlet
Port Susan
Latitude
46.58
46.49
47.70
46.97
47.10
46.52
47.11
46.67
47.23
48.12
48.33
46.42
46.72
46.68
47.35
47.02
48.03
46.51
48.77
46.99
46.96
46.49
47.67
48.37
46.64
47.43
47.04
46.49
48.56
46.99
46.63
47.22
46.88
48.29
48.33
46.44
46.73
46.66
47.39
48.19
Multidensity Area
Longitude Category Weight
-123.93 Willa 7.74
-124.03 Willa 7.74
-122.56 Puget 13.97
-124.02 Washi 23.16
-122.71 Puget 13.97
-123.93 Willa 7.74
-123.07 Puget 13.97
-123.93 Willa 7.74
-122.72 Puget 13.97
-122.42 Puget 13.97
-122.46 Puget 13.97
-123.98 Willa 7.74
-123.91 Willa 7.74
-123.96 Willa 7.74
-122.80 Puget 13.97
-124.10 Washi 23.16
-122.26 Puget 13.97
-123.96 Willa 7.74
-122.66 Puget 13.97
-124.08 Washi 23.16
-123.97 Washi 23.16
-124.03 Willa 7.74
-122.56 Puget 13.97
-122.53 Puget 13.97
-123.96 Willa 7.74
-122.87 Puget 13.97
-124.08 Washi 23.16
-123.95 Willa 7.74
-122.47 Puget 13.97
-124.13 Washi 23.16
-124.05 ; Willa 7.74
-122.91 : Puget . 13.97
-124.07 i Washi 23.16
-122.42 Puget 13.97
-122.45 Puget 13.97
-123.92 Willa 7.74
-123.89 , Willa 7.74
-123.97 i Willa 7.74
-122.63 Puget 13.97
-122.39 Puget 13.97
65
-------
WA02-0056
WA02-0059
WA02-0060
WA02-0061
WA02-0062
WA02-0064
WA02-0065
WA02-0066
WA02-0067
WA02-0068
WA02-0070
WA02-0071
WA02-0072
WA02-0075
WA02-0078
WA02-0087
WA02-0091
WA02-0102
WA02-0123
WA02-0127
WA02-0143
OR02-0001
OR02-0002
OR02-0003
OR02-0004
OR02-0005
OR02-0006
OR02-0007
OR02-0009
OR02-0010
OR02-0011
OR02-0012
OR02-0013
OR02-0014
OR02-0015
OR02-0016
OR02-0018
OR02-0019
OR02-0020
OR02-0021
OR02-0022
OR02-0023
OR02-0024
OR02-0026
OR02-0027
OR02-0028
Skagit Bay
Willapa Bay
Drayton Harbor
Willapa Bay
Lilliwaup Creek
Swinomish Cannel
Willapa Bay
Willapa River
Willapa Bay
Thorndike Bay
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Duckabush River
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Palix River
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Willapa Bay
Nehalem Bay
Coos Bay
Siletz Bay
Coos Bay
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Yaquina Bay
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Siuslaw River
Umpqua River
Netarts Bay
Coos Bay
Netarts Bay
Coos Bay
Coos Bay
Yaquina Bay
Coos Bay
Sixes River
Coos Bay
Yaquina Bay
Coos Bay
Coos Bay
Alsea Bay
Coos Bay
48.34
46.46
48.97
46.72
47.48
48.44
46.41
46.68
46.60
47.78
46.53
46.71
47.64
46.46
46.73
46.63
46.48
46.59
46.52
46.49
46.67
45.69
43.45
44.90
43.39
45.53
43.41
44.60
45.51
43.43
43.97
43.72
45.40
43.42
45.41
43.34
43.42
44.62
43.37
42.85
43.42
44.61
43.33
43.41
44.45
43.28
-122.50 Puget 13.97
-123.99 Willa 7.74
-122.76 Puget 13.97
-123.97 Willa 7.74
-123.08 Puget 13.97
-122.50 Puget 13.97
-124.00 Willa 7.74
-123.82 Willa 7.74
-123.95 Willa 7.74
-122.79 Puget 13.97
-123.91 Willa 7.74
-123.93 Willa 7.74
-122.92 Puget 13.97
-124.00 Willa 7.74
-123.90 Willa 7.74
-123.93 Willa 7.74
-123.96 Willa 7.74
-123.94 Willa 7.74
-123.98 Willa 7.74
-123.99 Willa 7.74
-123.98 Willa 7.74
-123.90 Orego 2.18
-124.20 Coosb 0.89
-124.02 Orego 2.18
-124.21 Coosb 0.89
-123.92 Orego 2.18
-124.20 Coosb 0.89
-124.02 Orego 2.18
-123.90 Orego 2.18
-124.22 Coosb 0.89
-124.06 Orego 2.18
-124.10 Orego 2.18
-123.94 Orego 2.18
-124.28 Coosb 0.89
-123.95 Orego 2.18
-124.32 Coosb 0.89
-124.24 Coosb 0.89
-124.01 Orego 2.18
-124.17 Coosb 0.89
-124.54 Orego 2.18
-124.21 Coosb 0.89
-124.02 Orego 2.18
-124.32 Coosb 0.89
-124.23 Coosb 0.89
-124.05 Orego 2.18
-124.23 Coosb 0.89
66
-------
OR02-0029
OR02-0030
OR02-0031
OR02-0032
OR02-0033
OR02-0034
OR02-0035
OR02-0036
OR02-0038
OR02-0039
OR02-0041
OR02-0042
OR02-0043
OR02-0044
OR02-0045
OR02-0046
OR02-0047
OR02-0048
OR02-0049
OR02-0050
OR02-0051
OR02-0052
OR02-0053
OR02-0054
OR02-0055
OR02-0056
OR02-0057
OR02-0058
OR02-0059
OR02-0061
OR02-0062
OR02-0063
OR02-0064
OR02-0066
OR02-0067
OR02-0068
OR02-0069
OR02-0070
OR02-0071
OR02-0072
OR02-0073
CA02-0001
CA02-0002
CA02-0003
CA02-0004
CA02-0006
Sand Lake
Coos Bay
Coos Bay
Umpqua River
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Siletz Bay
Coos Bay
Coos Bay
Yaquina River
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Alsea River
Coos Bay
Sand Lake
Coos Bay
Netarts Bay
Coquille River
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Siuslaw River
Umpqua River
Netarts Bay
Coos Bay
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Alsea Bay
Salmon River
Coos Bay
Coos Bay
Umpqua River
Neawanna Creek
Coos Bay
Nestucca Bay
Coos Bay
Tillamook Bay
Coos Bay
Alsea Bay
Coos Bay
Eel River
Morro Bay
Drakes Bay
Arcata Bay
Tomales Bay
45.28
43.39
43.47
43.74
45.53
43.39
44.89
43.39
43.43
44.57
45.51
43.37
44.42
43.32
45.29
43.38
45.38
43.13
45.52
43.45
43.98
43.72
45.38
43.42
45.49
43.33
45.50
43.40
44.43
45.03
43.39
43.45
43.72
46.00
43.45
45.18
43.39
45.48
43.40
44.44
43.35
40.66
35.33
38.04
40.84
38.23
-123.96 Orego 2.18
-124.19 Coosb 0.89
-124.20 Coosb 0.89
-124.16 Orego 2.18
-123.90 Orego 2.18
-124.30 Coosb 0.89
-124.01 Orego 2.18
-124.19 Coosb 0.89
-124.21 Coosb 0.89
-124.01 Orego 2.18
-123.94 Orego 2.18
-124.21 Coosb 0.89
-124.02 Orego 2.18
-124.20 Coosb 0.89
-123.94 Orego 2.18
-124.19 Coosb 0.89
-123.96 Orego 2.18
-124.41 Orego 2.18
-123.93 Orego 2.18
-124.23 Coosb 0.89
-124.08 Orego 2.18
-124.15 Orego 2.18
-123.95 Orego 2.18
-124.19 Coosb 0.89
-123.90 Orego 2.18
-124.31 Coosb 0.89
-123.89 Orego 2.18
-124.21 Coosb 0.89
-124.04 Orego 2.18
-123.98 Orego 2.18
-124.20 Coosb 0.89
-124.22 Coosb 0.89
-124.16 Orego 2.18
-123.92 Orego 2.18
-124.21 Coosb 0.89
-123.94 Orego 2.18
-124.20 Coosb 0.89
-123.89 Orego 2.18
-124.21 Coosb 0.89
-124.05 Orego 2.18
-124.31 Coosb 0.89
-124.29 Calif 2.04
-120.84 Calif 2.04
-122.93 Calif 2.04
-124.08 Calif 2.04
-122.96 Calif 2.04
67
-------
CA02-0007
CA02-0008
CA02-0009
CA02-0010
CA02-001 1
CA02-0012
CA02-0013
CA02-0014
CA02-0015
CA02-0016
CA02-0019
CA02-0020
CA02-0021
CA02-0022
CA02-0023
CA02-0024
CA02-0025
CA02-0026
CA02-0027
CA02-0028
CA02-0029
CA02-0030
CA02-0031
CA02-0032
CA02-0033
CA02-0301
CA02-0302
CA02-0303
CA02-0304
CA02-0305
CA02-0306
CA02-0307
CA02-0308
CA02-0309
CA02-031 1
CA02-0312
CA02-0313
CA02-0314
CA02-0315
CA02-0316
CA02-0317
CA02-0318
CA02-0319
CA02-0320
CA02-0323
CA02-0324
Arcata Bay
Arcata Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Arcata Bay
Tomales Bay
Humboldt Bay
Arcata Bay
Elkhorn Slough
Arcata Bay
Drakes Estero
Arcata Bay
Drakes Bay
Chorro Creek
Humboldt Bay
Arcata Bay
Corte Madera Creek
Arcata Bay
Bodega Harbor
Arcata Bay
Arcata Bay
Arcata Bay
Smith River (CA)
Chorro Creek
Tomales Bay
Arcata Bay
Atascadero Creek
Huntington Harbour
Point Mugu Lagoon
Huntington Harbour
Sweetwater River
Point Mugu Lagoon
Newport Bay
Point Mugu Lagoon
Huntington Harbour
Point Mugu Lagoon
Newport Bay
Marina Del Rey
Anaheim Bay
San Diego River
Point Mugu Lagoon
Tijuana River
Santa Ana River
Carpinteria Creek
Anaheim Bay
Atascadero Creek
Anaheim Bay
40.80
40.85
36.83
40.88
38.12
40.70
40.85
36.83
40.86
38.05
40.85
38.08
35.34
40.69
40.84
37.92
40.82
38.33
40.82
40.85
40.83
41.94
35.35
38.09
40.83
34.42
33.70
34.12
33.69
32.64
34.11
33.65
34.11
33.73
34.10
33.63
33.97
33.74
32.77
34.11
32.56
33.64
34.40
33.74
34.42
33.75
-124.12 Calif 2.04
-124.11 Calif 2.04
-121.74 Calif 2.04
-124.14 Calif 2.04
-122.86 Calif 2.04
-124.22 Calif 2.04
-124.09 Calif 2.04
-121.75 Calif 2.04
-124.16 Calif 2.04
-122.94 Calif 2.04
-124.15 Calif 2.04
-122.83 Calif 2.04
-120.83 Calif 2.04
-124.23 Calif 2.04
-124.10 Calif 2.04
-122.68 Calif 2.04
-124.15 Calif 2.04
-123.05 Calif 2.04
-124.12 Calif 2.04
-124.11 Calif 2.04
-124.17 Calif 2.04
-124.20 Calif 2.04
-120.84 Calif 2.04
-122.83 Calif 2.04
-124.17 Calif 2.04
-119.84 Bight 0.55
-118.05 Bight 0.55
-119.15 Bight 0.55
-118.04 Bight 0.55
-117.11 Bight 0.55
-119.14 Bight 0.55
-117.88 Bight 0.55
-119.09 Bight 0.55
-118.07 Bight 0.55
-119.12 Bight 0.55
-117.89 Bight 0.55
-118.45 Bight 0.55
-118.08 Bight 0.55
-117.25 Bight 0.55
-119.11 Bight 0.55
-117.12 Bight 0.55
-117.97 Bight 0.55
-119.54 Bight 0.55
-118.09 Bight 0.55
-119.84 Bight 0.55
-118.08 Bight 0.55
68
-------
CA02-0325
CA02-0326
CA02-0327
CA02-0328
CA02-0329
CA02-0333
CA02-0334
CA02-0343
CA02-0352
CA02-0601
CA02-0602
CA02-0603
CA02-0604
CA02-0605
CA02-0606
CA02-0607
CA02-0608
CA02-0609
CA02-061 1
CA02-0612
CA02-0613
CA02-0615
CA02-0616
CA02-0617
CA02-0618
CA02-0619
CA02-0620
CA02-0621
CA02-0622
CA02-0623
CA02-0624
CA02-0625
CA02-0626
CA02-0628
CA02-0629
CA02-0630
CA02-0632
CA02-0634
CA02-0635
Point Mugu Lagoon
Huntington Harbour
San Diego Bay
Point Mugu Lagoon
Tijuana River
Huntington Harbour
Point Mugu Lagoon
Atascadero Creek
San Elijo Lagoon
SF Bay - Coyote Creek
SF Bay -Dutchman Slough
SF Bay - San Leandro Creek
SF Bay - Petaluma River
SF Bay - Redwood Creek
SF Bay - Dutchman Slough
SF Bay - Dutchman Slough
SF Bay - Napa River
SF Bay - Mud Slough
SF Bay - Newark SF Bay -
Slough
SF Bay - Gallinas Creek
SF Bay - Redwood Creek
SF Bay - Napa River
SF Bay - Suisun Bay
SF Bay - Coyote Creek
SF Bay - San Rafael Bay
SF Bay - Coyote Hills Slough
SF Bay - Petaluma River
SF Bay - Redwood Creek
SF Bay - Dutchman Slough
SF Bay - Montezuma Slough
SF Bay - Outer Oakland
Harbor
SF Bay - Steinberger Slough
SF Bay - Dutchman Slough
SF Bay - Corte Madera Creek
SF Bay - San Francisco Bay
SF Bay - Petaluma River
SF Bay - Napa River
SF Bay - Dutchman Slough
SF Bay - Steinberger Slough
34.11
33.74
32.61
34.11
32.57
33.74
34.11
34.42
33.01
37.47
38.05
37.67
38.21
37.51
38.14
38.16
38.05
37.48
37.50
38.01
37.51
38.10
38.06
37.45
37.98
37.54
38.14
37.52
38.15
38.15
37.83
37.54
38.11
37.93
37.64
38.09
38.12
38.16
37.54
-119.13 Bight 0.55
-118.08 Bight 0.55
-117.11 Bight 0.55
-119.12 Bight 0.55
-117.12 Bight 0.55
-118.08 Bight 0.55
-119.11 Bight 0.55
-119.88 Bight 0.55
-117.27 Bight 0.55
-122.04 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.13 SFFIat 13.12
-122.17 SFFIat 13.12
-122.57 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-122.22 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-122.37 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.39 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.07 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-121.97 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.09 SFFIat 13.12
-122.49 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.17 SFFIat 13.12
-122.09 SF High Marsh 4.50
-121.90 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.07 SFFIat 13.12
-122.38 SFFIat 13.12
-122.11 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.52 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.21 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-122.32 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-121.92 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-122.32 SFFIat 13.12
-122.22 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-122.33 SFFIat 13.12
-122.51 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.15 SF Low Marsh 2.28
-122.48 SFFIat 13.12
-122.07 iSF Low Marsh ,2.28
-122.40 SF High Marsh 4.50
-122.23 SF High Marsh 4.50
69
-------
Appendix Table 3. Summary of sediment composition (percent fines), total organic
carbon (TOC), total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations, and
contaminant concentrations for all intertidal sites, including high marsh, sampled in
2002. ERL count and ERM count are the number of exceedances of ERL and ERM,
respectively. * Number of analytes that exceed Effects Range Low (ERL) guidelines
(Long et al., 1995). n/a = not available for this station.
EMAP
Station ID
CA02-0001
CA02-0002
CA02-0003
CA02-0004
CA02-0006
CA02-0007
CA02-0008
CA02-0009
CA02-0010
CA02-001 1
CA02-0012
CA02-0013
CA02-0014
CA02-0015
CA02-0016
CA02-0019
CA02-0020
CA02-0021
CA02-0022
CA02-0023
CA02-0024
CA02-0025
CA02-0026
CA02-0027
CA02-0028
CA02-0029
CA02-0030
CA02-0031
CA02-0032
CA02-0033
CA02-0301
CA02-0302
Characteristics
Total
Percent Organic
Fines Carbon
94.0 2.1
89.0 1.8
13.0 0.3
4.0 10.9
5.0 0.4
90.0 2.3
94.0 1.6
n/a 8.7
72.0 6.4
10.0 0.3
88.0 1.5
90.0 2.1
75.0 7.3
83.0 1.6
6.0 0.3
86.0 1.8
27.0 10.9
92.0 4.4
90.0 2.0
92.0 1.5
24.0 1.0
72.0 1.0
17.0 0.7
89.0 1.1
93.0 1.6
89.0 1.5
6.0 0.2
83.0 7.1
85.0 1.3
92.0 2.7
93.0 2.7
22.0 1.0
Total
Nitrogen
0.21
0.23
0.04
0.89
0.06
0.28
0.21
0.84
0.53
0.04
0.21
0.27
0.75
0.21
0.05
0.24
0.87
0.39
0.27
0.18
0.14
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.19
0.19
0.03
0.61
0.16
0.37
0.23
0.12
Total
Phosphorus
0.07
0.07
0.03
0.13
0.06
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.02
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.11
0.07
0.10
0.17
0.07
0.11
0.18
0.05
Contaminants
ERMQ
0.065
0.058
0.013
0.058
0.015
0.058
0.063
0.049
0.066
0.041
0.050
0.056
0.049
0.053
0.013
0.058
0.057
0.065
0.054
0.062
0.027
0.049
0.021
0.055
0.065
0.055
0.046
0.070
0.042
0.058
0.048
0.070
w *
ro I
Q.
2
*
(/)
8 ERL
°- Count
4
2
0
2
0
3
4
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
0
4
2
2
2
4
1
2
0
2
4
3
1
2
1
4
3
3
ERM
Count
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
-------
CA02-0303
CA02-0304
CA02-0305
CA02-0306
CA02-0307
CA02-0308
CA02-0309
CA02-031 1
CA02-0312
CA02-0313
CA02-0314
CA02-0315
CA02-0316
CA02-0317
CA02-0318
CA02-0319
CA02-0320
CA02-0321
CA02-0323
CA02-0324
CA02-0325
CA02-0326
CA02-0327
CA02-0328
CA02-0329
CA02-0333
CA02-0334
CA02-0343
CA02-0352
CA02-0601
CA02-0602
CA02-0603
CA02-0604
CA02-0605
CA02-0606
CA02-0607
CA02-0608
CA02-0609
CA02-061 1
CA02-0612
CA02-0613
CA02-0615
CA02-0616
CA02-0617
CA02-0618
49.0 7.5
51.0 8.6
91.0 2.0
72.0 6.9
77.0 9.5
62.0 8.1
71.0 6.8
19.0 18.0
74.0 1.2
82.0 3.1
72.0 9.8
4.0 0.0
21.0 0.3
81.0 1.6
36.0 0.6
33.0 2.1
80.0 3.4
75.0 0.9
99.0 1.9
52.0 1.8
47.0 2.5
69.0 7.1
29.0 1.9
85.0 3.1
22.0 15.5
29.0 16.0
18.0 21.4
73.0 0.9
40.0 8.5
46.0 8.7
94.0 1.2
10.0 0.2
83.0 4.6
40.0 2.6
55.0 7.2
69.0 4.9
36.0 13.8
87.0 2.6
90.0 1.0
62.0 3.3
67.0 1.9
31.0 11.4
40.0 11.6
91.0 1.1
13.0 0.5
0.65
0.86
0.19
0.60
0.65
0.71
0.66
2.30
0.17
0.38
0.89
0.00
0.03
0.19
0.06
0.18
0.37
0.10
0.19
0.18
0.25
0.81
0.13
0.31
1.22
1.54
1.45
0.12
1.29
0.81
0.13
0.03
0.40
0.41
0.50
0.41
0.98
0.26
0.14
0.31
0.19
0.89
0.80
0.14
0.07
0.09
0.10
0.17
0.12
0.20
0.06
0.13
0.17
0.02
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.09
0.10
0.03
0.17
0.08
0.06
0.11
0.03
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.13
0.08
0.14
0.12
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.11
" 0.09
0.14
0.11
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.04
0.13
0.07
0.17
0.10
0.036
0.092
0.045
0.357
0.143
0.164
0.065
0.042
0.101
0.121
0.129
0.005
0.011
0.070
0.070
0.032
0.056
n/a
0.066
0.033
0.027
0.068
0.021
0.130
0.045
0.049
0.219
0.040
0.052
0.084
0.069
0.025
0.072
0.084
0.078
0.059
0.082
0.078
0.079
0.087
0.079
0.108
0.064
0.083
0.025
1
5
2
3
3
3
4
1
3
6
4
3
3
4
1
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
5
3
4
5
4
4
5
3
3
5
2 1
6 1
4
3 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
5
2
5
5
5
4
1
5
6
6
0
0
5
2
0
3
n/a
4
0
1
3
0
6
2
2
4
2
2
5
3
r o
4
5
4
4
5
3
3
5
3
7
4
4
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n/a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
71
-------
CA02-0619
CA02-0620
CA02-0621
CA02-0622
CA02-0623
CA02-0624
CA02-0625
CA02-0626
CA02-0628
CA02-0629
CA02-0630
CA02-0632
CA02-0634
CA02-0635
OR02-0001
OR02-0002
OR02-0003
OR02-0004
OR02-0005
OR02-0006
OR02-0007
OR02-0009
OR02-0010
OR02-0011
OR02-0012
OR02-0013
OR02-0014
OR02-0015
OR02-0016
OR02-0018
OR02-0019
OR02-0020
OR02-0021
OR02-0022
OR02-0023
OR02-0024
OR02-0026
OR02-0027
OR02-0028
OR02-0029
OR02-0030
OR02-0031
OR02-0032
OR02-0033
OR02-0034
61.0 7.9
67.0 2.6
46.0 16.2
56.0 4.1
42.0 13.0
10.0 0.5
64.0 3.1
97.0 0.8
34.0 12.3
79.0 3.0
96.0 1.0
30.0 7.5
52.0 6.6
64.0 3.0
41.7 2.2
67.5 1.5
22.4 1.2
40.3 1.7
6.2 0.3
51.7 1.4
46.3 4.3
9.4 0.3
11.1 0.4
22.7 1.5
73.7 2.9
16.4 0.9
1.2 0.1
5.2 0.4
16.0 0.4
45.4 2.1
48.4 1.6
48.8 2.4
9.5 0.7
15.0 0.6
56.6 2.4
25.9 1.4
64.8 2.7
20.3 0.5
71.2 5.1
0.9 0.0
28.3 1.1
87.2 2.0
11.1 0.5
19.8 0.7
64.5 5.4
0.73
0.24
1.36
0.37
0.81
0.06
0.36
0.10
0.94
0.29
0.13
0.63
0.52
0.40
0.19
0.15
0.11
0.13
0.03
0.14
0.40
0.04
0.05
0.13
0.26
0.08
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.69
0.16
0.80
0.47
0.06
0.22
0.11
0.22
0.05
0.35
0.01
0.50
0.19
0.46
0.07
0.51
0.11
0.02
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.09
0.01
0.04
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.076
0.059
0.082
0.076
0.068
0.021
0.070
0.067
0.101
0.059
0.078
0.058
0.046
0.065
0.034
0.035
0.032
0.023
0.017
0.030
0.027
0.048
0.022
0.017
0.033
0.019
0.006
0.017
0.027
0.029
0.026
0.029
0.040
0.011
0.030
0.021
0.105
0.016
0.041
0.018
0.020
0.036
0.024
0.021
0.025
4
4
3 1
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
2
3
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
2
3
1
2
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
2
1
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
-------
OR02-0035
OR02-0036
OR02-0038
OR02-0039
OR02-0041
OR02-0042
OR02-0043
OR02-0044
OR02-0045
OR02-0046
OR02-0047
OR02-0048
OR02-0049
OR02-0050
OR02-0051
OR02-0052
OR02-0053
OR02-0054
OR02-0055
OR02-0056
OR02-0057
OR02-0058
OR02-0059
OR02-0061
OR02-0062
OR02-0063
OR02-0064
OR02-0066
OR02-0067
OR02-0068
OR02-0069
OR02-0070
OR02-0071
OR02-0072
OR02-0073
WA02-0002
WA02-0003
WA02-0004
WA02-0005
WA02-0006
WA02-0007
WA02-0010
WA02-001 1
WA02-0012
WA02-0014
64.9 2.7
18.3 1.0
25.1 0.7
83.4 2.8
8.0 0.2
22.9 1.2
36.2 1.7
70.4 4.0
25.1 1.5
7.4 0.3
42.8 1.2
1.7 0.1
16.3 0.5
55.5 1.5
36.9 1.6
47.0 1.1
39.8 1.3
33.5 1.1
3.5 0.3
83.4 1.3
13.1 0.5
23.5 1.2
17.5 0.5
70.2 2.1
8.9 0.3
41.3 1.3
15.3 0.6
46.7 3.9
36.1 1.4
4.8 0.3
12.4 1.0
84.7 3.9
14.5 0.7
9.6 0.6
0.7 0.1
3.6 0.2
74.4 2.2
6.1 0.1
7.8 ' 0.3
95.2 0.6
68.1 1.6
91.7 2.4
72.8 1.3
2.2 0.0
2.0 0.0
0.22
0.09
0.07
0.28
0.02
0.08
0.15
1.16
0.18
0.03
0.57
0.02
0.05
0.12
0.15
0.09
0.54
0.57
0.05
0.13
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.68
0.04
0.10
0.07
0.36
0.62
0.17
0.07
0.77
0.39
0.50
0.09
0.03
0.22
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.14
0.26
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.02
0.05
n/a
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.12
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.10
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.037
0.014
0.024
0.036
0.010
0.021
0.024
0.088
0.020
0.012
0.023
0.009
0.014
0.030
0.022
0.031
0.021
0.026
0.040
0.031
0.061
0.024
0.016
0.041
0.013
0.025
0.014
0.020
0.027
0.017
0.016
0.041
0.014
0.022
0.008
0.017
0.039
0.012
0.017
0.025
0.037
0.051
0.033
0.019
0.018
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
i
1 '
2
1
1 I
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
-------
WA02-0016
WA02-0017
WA02-0018
WA02-0019
WA02-0020
WA02-0021
WA02-0022
WA02-0023
WA02-0024
WA02-0025
WA02-0026
WA02-0027
WA02-0028
WA02-0032
WA02-0035
WA02-0036
WA02-0037
WA02-0039
WA02-0040
WA02-0041
WA02-0043
WA02-0044
WA02-0045
WA02-0046
WA02-0048
WA02-0049
WA02-0050
WA02-0051
WA02-0052
WA02-0054
WA02-0056
WA02-0059
WA02-0060
WA02-0061
WA02-0062
WA02-0064
WA02-0065
WA02-0066
WA02-0067
WA02-0068
WA02-0070
WA02-0071
WA02-0072
WA02-0075
WA02-0078
2.6 0.2
66.5 1.6
4.4 0.3
4.1 0.1
1.9 0.0
8.0 0.2
2.2 0.2
26.7 0.7
12.2 0.4
22.2 0.6
11.9 0.3
40.1 1.2
9.6 0.2
5.3 0.1
13.0 0.5
5.1 0.4
72.2 1.4
87.0 3.0
33.6 0.6
7.7 0.3
17.3 0.6
4.2 1.2
21.4 0.8
3.3 0.0
3.9 0.1
58.6 1.9
62.8 1.3
2.9 0.1
15.7 0.7
8.1 0.2
5.2 0.1
74.8 2.1
40.5 1.2
11.2 0.4
0.6 0.3
39.2 0.6
2.3 0.0
80.0 2.2
3.0 0.1
4.6 0.2
56.1 2.0
23.8 0.9
4.2 0.3
1.8 0.2
63.6 1.7
0.02
0.16
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.04
0.10
0.03
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.13
0.27
0.08
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.16
0.11
0.02
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.20
0.13
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.19
0.02
0.03
0.14
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.14
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.07
0.03
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.019
0.036
0.020
0.015
0.016
0.018
0.023
0.021
0.018
0.022
0.044
0.029
0.017
0.021
0.018
0.021
0.050
0.041
0.025
0.017
0.019
0.022
0.025
0.026
0.024
0.042
0.032
0.013
0.015
0.035
0.020
0.037
0.031
0.018
0.029
0.030
0.013
0.042
0.015
0.018
0.040
0.026
0.028
0.017
0.035
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
-------
WA02-0087
WA02-0091
WA02-0102
WA02-0123
WA02-0127
WA02-0143
64.5 1.2
73.1 3.1
3.7 0.2
6.9 0.2
14.8 0.5
2.8 0.0
0.13
0.28
0.03
0.03
0.05
0.02
0.05
0.11
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.039
0.042
0.015
0.016
0.019
0.014
Total
1
1
282 19
23
1
1
0
0
0
0
0 324
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
75
-------
Appendix Table 4. Vegetation type (EM = emergent macrophyte, SE = seagrass, AG = algae) and class (NIS =
nonindigenous species) for all species encountered and frequency of occurrence in quadrats and transects. West = all
sites except for San Francisco high marsh. CA = all California sites except for San Francisco Bay.
Species/Taxon
Artemisia douglasiana
Atriplex triangularis
Batis maritima
Carex lyngbyei
Cotula coronopifolia
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp palustris
Cuscuta salina
Distichlis spicata
Eleocharis palustris
Eleocharis parvula
Euthamia occidentalis
Frankenia salina
Grindelia stricta
Jaumea carnosa
Juncus gerardii
Lepidium latifolium
Limonium californicum
Polygonum lapathifolium
Rosa californica
Salicornia bigelovii
Salicornia virginica
Scirpus acutus
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus maritimus
Scirpus robustus
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina foliosa
Spartina sp.
Type
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
EM
Class
native
native
native
native
NIS
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
NIS
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
native
NIS
native
-
West
-
-
9
2
1
1
-
8
-
-
1
3
2
11
-
1
3
1
-
1
35
2
-
3
-
3
8
2
Quadrats
CA SF OR WA
-
-
9
-
-
1
-
7
-
-
-
3
-
11
-
-
3
-
-
1
27
-
-
-
-
-
6
2
1
1
_
2
1
-
1
2
.
.
2
_
4
1
.
1
.
1
1
-
16 1
4
1
3 1
1
3
3
-
West
-
1
9
3
1
2
3
9
1
2
1
3
2
10
1
1
2
1
-
2
35
1
-
3
-
3
9
3
Transects
CA SF OR
-
-
9
-
-
2
1
7
-
-
-
3
-
10
-
-
2
-
-
2
27
-
-
-
-
-
7
3
1
2
-
-
-
-
2
1
-
-
2
1
4
1
-
1
-
1
1
-
17
4
1
2
1
-
3
-
-
-
-
3
1
-
-
1
1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
WA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
76
-------
Spergularia marina
Triglochin maritime
Typha latifolia
Zostera japonica
Zostera marina
Green algae
Brown algae
Red algae
Bare area
EM
EM
EM
SE
SE
AG
AG
AG
BARE
native
native
native
NIS
native
-
-
-
-
1
3
2
24
21
84
6
1
165
-
2
-
-
2
17
-
-
45
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
24
1
1
-
7
9
33
4
-
51
-
-
-
17
10
34
2
1
52
2
2
2
28
25
84
4
1
173
-
-
-
-
1
19
-
1
43
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
-
20
2
2
-
10
10
39
4
-
56
-
-
-
18
14
26
-
-
58
77
-------
Appendix Table 5. Relative percent cover of vegetation taxa (mean and range at sites present) in quadrats. West = all
sites except for San Francisco high marsh. CA = all California sites except for San Francisco Bay.
Species/Taxon
Artemisia douglasiana
Atriplex triangularis
Batis maritima
Carex lyngbyei
Cotula coronopifolia
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp palustris
Cuscuta salina
Distichlis spicata
Euthamia occidentalis
Frankenia salina
Grindelia stricta
Jaumea carnosa
Lepidium latifolium
Limonium californicum
Polygonum lapathifolium
Rosa californica
Salicornia bigelovii
Salicomia virginica
Scirpus acutus
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus maritimus
Scirpus robustus
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina foliosa
Spartina sp.
Spergularia marina
Triglochin maritima
Typha latifolia
Zostera japonica
Zostera marina
WEST
mean
-
-
16
100
45
5
-
44
5
37
20
43
25
7
25
-
25
43
15
-
76
-
53
12
55
56
30
28
42
37
WEST
range
-
-
5-35
100-100
5-100
10-60
10-30
5-95
5-10
-
5-100
10-20
-
55-92
-
50-60
5-30
20-90
5-75
15-40
1-100
3-100
CA
mean
-
-
16
-
-
5
-
44
-
37
-
43
-
7
-
-
25
39
-
-
-
-
-
13
55
-
8
-
-
28
CA
range
-
-
5-35
-
-
-
5-100
-
10-60
-
5-95
-
5-10
-
-
5-100
-
-
-
-
-
5-30
20-90
-
5-10
-
-
5-50
SF
mean
5
85
-
-
-
-
20
26
43
-
34
30
25
-
25
10
-
70
14
5
53
60
-
13
-
-
-
28
-
-
SF
Range
-
-
-
-
1-50
5-80
-
10-60
-
-
10-100
10-20
25-80
-
5-20
-
-
-
15-40
-
-
OR
mean
-
-
-
100
45
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
92
-
-
-
-
56
75
-
26
32
OR WA WA
Range mean range
.
.
.
100-100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
53 50-60
.
.
-
-
.
3-87 48 1-100
3-100 44 5-100
78
-------
Green algae
Brown algae
Red algae
Bare area
45
8
1
70
1-100
1-22
1-1
2-100
70
-
-
57
5-100
-
-
5-100
-
-
-
52
-
-
-
3-100
49
12
12
80
1-100
3-22
3-22
2-100
27
1
1
74
1-100
1-1
1-1
5-100
79
-------
Appendix Table 6. Quadrat maximum leaf length (cm) of vegetation taxa (mean and range at sites present). West = all
sites except for San Francisco high marsh. CA = all California sites except for San Francisco Bay.
Species/Taxon
Artemisia douglasiana
Atriplex triangularis
Batis maritima
Carex lyngbyei
Cotula coronopifolia
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp palustris
Distichlis spicata
Euthamia occidentalis
Frankenia salina
Grindelia stricta
Jaumea carnosa
Lepidium latifolium
Limonium californicum
Polygonum lapathifolium
Rosa californica
Salicornia bigelovii
Salicornia virginica
Scirpus acutus
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus maritimus
Scirpus robustus
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina foliosa
Spartina sp.
Spergularia marina
Triglochin maritima
Typha latifolia
Zostera japonica
Zostera marina
WEST
mean
-
-
nd
107
13
15
23
102
nd
124
13
nd
9
nd
-
nd
36
149
-
111
-
177
68
78
36
39
nd
22
71
WEST
range
-
-
nd
74-140
16-27
nd
124
10-16
nd
5-12
nd
nd
6-76
140-158
49-156
157-188
38-86
56-99
nd
7-38
14-122
CA
mean
-
-
nd
-
-
15
23
-
nd
-
13
-
9
-
-
nd
33
-
-
-
-
-
69
78
-
-
-
-
-
CA
range
-
-
nd
-
-
16-27
-
nd
-
10-16
-
5-12
-
-
nd
6-76
-
-
-
-
-
38-86
56-99
-
-
-
-
-
SF
mean
87
122
-
-
-
-
nd
92
-
112
nd
nd
-
nd
nd
-
49
156
60
113
130
-
56
-
-
-
-
-
-
SF
Range
-
-
-
-
nd
82-102
-
100-124
nd
nd
-
nd
nd
-
23-75
140-171
55-156
-
37-65
-
-
-
-
-
-
OR OR WA
mean Range mean
.
.
.
107 74-140
13
-
-
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
25
.
.
49
.
177
.
36
.
39
.
20 10-28 23
56 14-122 84
WA
Range
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
157-188
-
-
-
-
-
7-38
29-119
80
-------
Appendix Table 7. Quadrat biomass (g/m2) of vegetation taxa (mean and range at sites present). West = all sites except
for San Francisco high marsh. CA = all California sites except for San Francisco Bay.
Species/Taxon
Artemisia douglasiana
Atriplex triangularis
Batis maritime
Carex lyngbyei
Cotula coronopifolia
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp palustris
Cuscuta salina
Distichlis spicata
Euthamia occidentalis
Frankenia salina
Grindelia stricta
Jaumea carnosa
Lepidium latifolium
Limonium californicum
Polygonum lapathifolium
Rosa californica
Salicornia bigelovii
Salicornia virginica
Scirpus acutus
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus maritimus
Scirpus robustus
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina foliosa
Spartina sp.
Spergularia marina
Triglochin maritima
Typha latifolia
Zostera japonica
WEST
mean
-
-
49
255
7
1
-
75
10
23
134
63
9
1
9
-
45
175
18
-
358
-
295
58
425
•68
17
75
13
WEST
range
-
-
5-202
174-336
-
9-211
0-61
0-289
0-3
-
1-800
-
34-555
-
93-540
2-265
58-793
0-38
27-124
0-90
CA
mean
-
-
49
-
-
1
-
85
-
23
-
63
-
1
-
-
45
186
-
-
-
-
-
57
425
-
6
-
-
CA
range
-
-
5-202
-
-
-
17-211
-
0-61
-
0-289
-
1-3
-
-
1-800
-
-
-
-
-
2-265
58-793
-----
0-12
-
-
SF
mean
nd
72
-
-
-
-
197
6
135
-
268
38
9
-
9
nd
-
253
98
30
520
219
-
45
-
--- •-
-
75
-
SF
Range
nd
-
-
-
-
3-9
10-260
-
134-403
-
nd
-
1-622
18-154
484-555
-
7-111
-
-
-
27-124
-
OR
mean
-
-
-
255
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
203
-
-
34
-
-
-
-
68
38
-
5
OR WA WA
Range mean range
_
.
.
1 74-336
-
-
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
_
-
.
.
-
.
-
-
.
295 93-540
-
.
-
-
.
2-7 14 0-90
81
-------
Zostera marina
Green algae
Brown algae
Red algae
14
20
2
0
1-44
0-101
0-4
0
nd
26
-
-
nd
0-89
-
-
14
30
3
-
1-33
0-101
2-4
-
14
9
0
0
1-44
0-61
0
0
82
-------
Appendix Table 8. Relative cover of vegetation taxa (mean and range at sites present) in transects. West = all sites
except for San Francisco high marsh. CA = all California sites except for San Francisco Bay.
Species/Taxon
Artemisia douglasiana
Atriplex triangularis
Batis maritima
Carex lyngbyei
Cotula coronopifolia
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp patustris
Cuscuta salina
Distichlis spicata
Eleocharis palustris
Eleocharis parvula
Euthamia occidentalis
Frankenia salina
Grindelia stricta
Jaumea carnosa
Juncus gerardii
Lepidium latifolium
Limonium californicum
Polygonum lapathifolium
Rosa californica
Salicornia bigelovii
Salicornia virginica
Scirpus acutus
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus maritimus
Scirpus robustus
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina foliosa
Spartina sp.
West
mean
-
4
16
69
36
4
16
37
12
14
20
20
22
39
20
24
10
24
-
18
52
84
-
52
-
53
30
40
West
range
-
4-44
16-100
4-100
4-24
4-32
4-40
4-80
4-16
-
12-24
4-100
48-60
-
48-60
4-52
4-100
CA
mean
-
-
16
-
-
4
16
40
-
-
-
20
-
39
-
-
10
-
-
18
48
-
-
-
-
-
26
40
CA
range
-
-
4-44
-
-
4-100
-
-
4-32
-
4-80
-
-
4-16
-
-
12-24
4-100
-
-
-
-
-
4-52
4-100
SF
mean
32
36
-
-
-
-
28
20
-
-
50
4
34
4
-
24
-
24
24
-
76
43
20
48
76 ..
-
35
-
SF
range
4-68
-
-
-
-
4-52
-
-
20-80
4-80
-
-
12-100
4-84
48-48
-
12-48
-
OR
mean
-
-
-
69
36
-
-
32
12
14
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
60
-
-
-
-
OR
range
-
-
-
16-100
-
-
4-24
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WA
mean
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
53
-
-
WA
range
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
48-60
-
-
83
-------
Spergularia marina
Triglochin maritima
Typha latifolia
Zostera japonica
Zostera marina
Green algae
Brown algae
Red algae
Bare area
20
38
42
42
30
50
17
4
63
4-36
12-64
12-72
4-100
4-96
4-100
4-32
4-100
-
-
-
-
20
63
-
4
53
-
-
-
-
4-100
-
4-100
-
-
42
-
-
-
-
-
54
-
-
12-72
-
-
-
-
-
4-100
20
38
-
24
33
47
17
-
70
4-36
12-64
-
4-60
4-96
4-100
4-32
-
4-100
-
-
-
52
28
39
-
-
64
-
-
-
4-100
4-72
4-100
-
-
4-100
84
-------
t
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
------- |