-------
ESTUARINE CHARACTERIZATJOKT
there is^o »°ted that
estuarine status relative to DrotPffi which managers can assess
protection or restoration of Ll fl? " h6alth and
recommended that appropriate indicators r®sources• They
methodologies be developed for Dmv-M-ir/ "l®^sufes' and
information should enable an estuarine ^ thls information. Such
status of different estuaries a In.f96' t0 comPare the
change of a particular estuarine systemS Th^»aSSeJS the rate °f
that at present, no adequate system exists foric?Xsinq1S° n0ted
environmental data on estuaries tha*- hauQ d(-cessing
a variety of State and Federal monitoring and expeJimentalhr°U9h
programs. They recommended improvements in this area?
Each workgroup also provided recommendations on how
specific objectives might be carried out. Overall, the effort is
one that will require careful coordination within EPA a I if
among the various agencies (e.g., NOAA, Fish and wildlife
Service) that have responsibilities for vsr^,,„ xaiire
and estuarine research Th*» nrlol ! J various aspects of marine
and estuarine researcn. The present document is the product nf
considerable input from a number of individuals from a n™Lr „f
agencies and academic affiliations and is indicative of ™a? can
be accomplished in the spirit of cooperation.
ES-5
-------
1 Introduction
1 • 1 Statement of Objectives and Scope
The objective of this document is to provide information
that can be used to develop an estuarine research strategy for
EPA's Offices of Research and Development (ORD) and Marine and
Estuarine Protection (OMEP). The document will be used as a
resource by these offices and by the Consolidated Water Research
Committee in the planning process for estuarine and near coastal
water quality research in FY 87 and beyond. A major objective of
this document is to focus on environmental issues, information
needs, and related research that have been identified by Regional
EPA and State personnel inasmuch as these individuals are the
eventual users of the research outputs.
The research strategy that is being developed within EPA,
and which this document supports, is directed primarily at the
development of analytical tools, and process, effects, and
assessment related information that can assist Regional and State
personnel charged with the responsibility of managing estuarine
water quality and coastal wetlands. As such, the research
strategy is parallel to and supportive of the estuarine
management initiatives being implemented by OMEP. Emphasis has
been placed on information needs that are common to many
estuaries throughout the United States as well as on needs that
are narrower geographically but for which information is greatly
needed.
1.2 The Need for an Estuarine Research Strategy
The need for an estuarine research strategy is predicated
upon the following:
1. There are a myriad of environmental issues that have
been identified with regard to estuarine water quality and
coastal wetlands (see Appendix A). With regard to allocation of
resources, strategy guidance provides a means of identifying
issues that are particularly important and common to many
estuaries throughout the United States as well as issues that are
narrower geographically but for which information is greatly
needed.
2. Estuaries are complex physical and chemical
environments which differ from freshwater and open ocean systems.
In EPA's Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load
Allocation for Estuaries (Southerland et al. 1984) it is noted
that estuaries are among the most complex of all aquatic systems.
Estuarine water chemistry is dominated by the existence of both
vertical and longitudinal gradients in salinity. Such gradients
are transient, and vary with changes in freshwater discharge into
the estuary and tidal fluctuations at the ocean boundary.
1
-------
These gradients can have pronounced effects on chemical
and physical processes which in turn affect the fate of materials
discharged into the estuary. For example, as suspended particles
transported downriver encounter the increased salinity of the
estuary they may begin to form floes and settle more rapidly to
the estuarine sediments. The physical and chemical variability
brings about a corresponding variability in the estuary's natural
biota. In fact, there are some estuarine species whose life
cycles are closely tied to the complex chemical and physical
regimes encountered within the estuary.
Thus, assumptions concerning fate and effects of
pollutants based upon studies in freshwater or open ocean systems
may not apply directly to estuarine environments. The need for
information specific to estuarine systems was mentioned by
Regional EPA and State personnel who provided input to this
document.
3. Many estuaries are especially important as productive
nursery areas for fish and invertebrates and many coastal marine
species depend on estuaries during either part or all of their
life cycle. These species include many that are of great
importance to commercial and recreational fisheries. Research
related to providing the necessary information to those charged
with managing estuarine quality is» therefore, particularly
critical.
4. Finally* because estuaries often provide good harbors,
human population centers and industrial development have tended
to concentrate around these marine areas. As a result, estuaries
nan be subiect to heavy inputs of a variety of wastes emanating
from both point and non-point sources. In addition, heavy
development has resulted in extensive wetland loss in various
carts of the country. Therefore, the effective management of
estuaries and associated wetlands is especially important if
£ffr as are to be maintained, preserved, or enhanced. This
these ar®a jo4.prmininq the desirable uses of an estuary,
S^velooiia criteria for the most stringent of the desired use,
developing e criteria so a11 other uses are maintained. A
Sr.?SlyX22v.loped research strategy will help support estuarine
management, initiatives along th
2
-------
2 Approach
2 • 1 Outline of Basic Approach
The overall approach used to identify information and
research needs for consideration in the research strategy
involved the following steps:
o environmental issues and associated information needs
were identified through discussions with Regional EPA
and State personnel and OMEP;
o current programs (primarily national) designed to
address the identified information needs were reviewed;
o a document was prepared to serve as a framework for a
workshop on estuarine research needs; the document
included the results of the first two phases and
provided a preliminary list of generic and specific
research topics which addressed the identified
information needs?
o a workshop on estuarine research needs was conducted;
workgroups were established for major topic areas and
these groups focused on the research needs within that
area using the initial document as a resource;
o the initial document was modified to reflect the input
and research recommendations of the workgroups.
The major elements of the approach are described in
subsequent subsections. The conceptual framework used for the
document and the guidance provided to workshop participants are
described in Section 3.
2.2 Identification of Issues and Information Needs
This first step in the approach was considered the most
critical. OMEP together with Regional EPA and State personnel are
the eventual users of the research products and, thus, it is
essential that research efforts be focused on the information
needs identified by these personnel. OMEP has the overall
responsibility for coordinating estuarine management programs.
The research effort within ORD should serve to provide analytical
tools and information that will support management initiatives as
discussed below. Meetings and discussions were held with OMEP,
Regional EPA, and State personnel in order to obtain a broad
range of input on overall research strategy, environmental issues
in estuaries, and information needs.
3
-------
Technical Support for Management Decisions
OMEP has prepared a Draft Guidance Manual for Estuary
Protection Programs (USEPA, 1985a) which identifies the various
regulatory activities that may be integrated within an estuarine
management program. With regard to EPA s direct responsibilities
these include:
o Construction Grants and Related Programs
o NPDES Permitting, Compliance and Enforcement
o 208 Water Quality Management Planning, use
designations, and water quality standards. (Note- OMEP
believes that estuary programs may ultimately require
the States and EPA to review and revise 208 plans in
response to program findings.)
o Water Quality Management Related to State Applications
for Grants Under CWA Sections 106 and 205(j)
o Combined Sewer Overflows
o Groundwater/Nonpoint-Source Control Trade-offs
o Ocean Dumping (e.g. dredged material)
o Dredge and Fill Activities
o 301 (h) Waiver Applications
o Environmental Impact Statements for Activities of Other •
Federal Agencies
o Superfund-Related Activities Near or In Estuaries
o RCRA-Related Activities Near or In Estuaries
Management decisions are involved in all of the above
regulatory activities within EPA's responsibility for permit*
or review. Based upon discussions with OMEP, EPA Regional 9
State personnel, there are certain areas that are in particuiL
need of support from a research standpoint. These include-
Water Quality-Based Nutrient and Toxics Control. These
would be based on regional waste load allocations.
Implementation of load allocations would involve the
NPDEs permit system and diffuse source controls where
necessary•
o lr»-place toxics (within sediments).
o Wetlanas functions (e.g. pollutant buffering capacity)
and impacts of development including dredge and fill
operations.
OMEP's Guidance Manual for Estuarv Projection Proflr»m.
(USEPA,1985a) notes that, "research project*. S
needed to supplement existing V1" be
ria*-Armi«->-i ncr th» fates and effects of polim-. f ? processes
pollution COIvtrol P^ograniB. For ©xampi
alternative
e. there win typically be
4
-------
a need for research efforts to help set values on hydrological or
water quality model components such as pollutant transport and
transformation rates.
Research, involving for example experimental manipulation
of test systems, or collection of data from new locations or
under previously untested conditions, is sometimes the only
method that can test hypotheses about causal relationships
between particular pollutants and environmental effects, when
analysis of historical trends and correlations alone cannot
distinguish between one hypotheses and another." It is reasonable
to expect that some of these research needs will be common to a
number of estuaries and regions of the country and, therefore, a
research strategy focused at these common needs represents an
efficient approach towards providing information needed by EPA
Regional and State personnel.
Issue Identification and Information Needs at the Regional Level
Input on environmental issues and research needs in each
of the EPA regions with coastal states was obtained primarily
through meetings with Regional EPA and State personnel with
additional input being obtained via telephone. Detailed trip
reports are presented in Appendix A and have been reviewed by the
EPA, State, or other personnel who were involved in the meetings.
Information on the Chesapeake Bay Program was provided by OMEP
and is summarized in a presentation made by Thomas DeMoss of OMEP
(Appendix B). Based upon these discussions several general areas
emerged with regard to environmental concerns and estuarine
research needs. These included:
o Toxics (in sediments and water);
n Nutrients (in particular their role in eutrophication
and the occurrence of anoxia);
o Indicators of Microbial Contamination (in shellfish,
shellfish waters and recreational waters);
o Estuarine Habitat Modification (habitat loss,
mitigation, as well as the role of wetlands as
wastewater treatment systems);
o Estuarine Characterization (including physical
characterization on "non classical" estuaries as well
as indicators of the "health status" of estuaries.
These five topical areas have been used to organize
information presented in this document and served as the basis
for establishing workgroups at the estuarine research workshop.
5
-------
2.3 Review of Current Programs
Individuals and organizations currently involved with
research related to the identified information needs were
contacted in order to obtain additional information on their
programs and to learn about the f^ure direction of their
research efforts. Among the documents that were utilized in
researcn en research efforts were National Marine
identifying c Catalog of Federal Projects (noaa, 1984) and
FY 1985 EPA Research Program Guide (USEPA, 1984). it was beyond
FY-1985 EPA Researcn c^ tQ identify all ongoing work that
? +*o estuarine research issues but an effort was made to
related to ® llv_funded programs that related to information
consider federally-funaea P y state Qn Thfi
needs identified by Regional ^ ^
I^TL o^ese programs were provided to workshop
Summaries of their review prior to the workshop. The
participants f°rt^e^rkshop utilized the reviews and
supplemented them with their own experience in their evaluation
of research needs.
2.4 Document and Workshop
Generic and specific research and assessment- •
identified in the initial document provided to wo v h ^1CB w®r«
participants. This involved an initial evaluationnf th
to which information needs were being addressed bv . e.extent
programs and making preliminary judgements on wher^^^J"?9
emphasis should be placed to supplement onqoino nal
address areas that were not receiving adequate attention °r t0
The initial document received a limited review bv
selected individuals within EPA ORD and OMEP, and noaa t •
review comments were addressed and the document
workshop participants to serve as a resource. AH naJt/ 6d to
were asked to conduct a technical review of the riooimmr,*lpa?ts
the workshop. ne document prior to
A three-day Estuarine Research Workshop was held
November, 1985 in Rhode Island. Five workgroups were u
to address the topical issue areas identified throuah ^ ! e<3
with State and Regional regulatory personnel (Section 2 ??U8^°ns
Workgroups and associated chairmen included: tfaectlon 2*2). The
Chairman
Workgroup
Dr. Dominic DiToro
Toxics Environmental Engineering
Manhattan College
6
-------
Table 1. Information reviewed for document preparation.
0 NOAA'S NATIONAL MARINE POLLUTION PROGRAM: CATALOG OF
FEDERAL RESEARCH IN THE U.S.
O EPA TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY BASED
PERMITS, TOXICS CONTROL, WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
O ACOE NATIONAL WETLANDS FUNCTIONS AND VALUES STUDY PLAN
O ACOE EFFECTS OF DREDGING PROGRAM
O DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE STUDY PLANS
O NOAA PROGRAMS
- INDICATORS OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
- NATIONAL STATUS AND TRENDS
- CONSEQUENCES OF CONTAMINANTS
- STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTS
- SEAGRANT PROGRAMS
- REGIONAL STUDIES ON FISH AND SHELLFISH
O EPA PROGRAMS AND INITIATIVES
- NARRAGANSETT ERL PROGRAMS
- GuLF BREEZE ERL PROGRAMS
- ROBERT S. KERR ERL PROGRAMS (GROUNDWATER)
- RESEARCH INITIATIVE - COMPLEX MIXTURES
- EPA RESEARCH PROGRAM GUIDE
- RESEARCH INITIATIVE - HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED
WITH SHELLFISH CONSUMPTION
_ RESEARCH INITIATIVE - WETLANDS
- BAYS PROGRAM PLANS AND REPORTS
- TECH SUPPORT DOCUMENTS
- ODES DOCUMENTATION
O FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PROGRAMS
- IMPACTS OF CONTAMINANTS ON STRIPED BASS
_ CONTAMINANT TRENDS AND EFFECTS IN BIRDS/MAMMALS
6A
-------
Nutrients Mr. Garry Powell, Director
Bays and Estuaries Program
Texas Water Development Board
Microbial Contamination Dr. Alfred Dufour
Environmental Protection Agency
Health Effects Research Lab
Toxicology & Microbiology
Estuarine Habitat Dr. Donald Boesch
Modification Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium
Estuarine Dr. Robert Biggs
Characterization College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware
An effort was made to ensure that each workgroup included
representatives from State or Regional regulatory offices, EPA
ORD and/or OMEP, and key technical personnel from various federal
agencies and academic research institutions. Participants at the
workshop are listed in Appendix C.
Thomas DeMoss of EPA OMEP presented a keynote address
outlining the objectives and needs of OMEP as they relate to
estuarine programs (included as Appendix B) • DeMoss pointed out
to the workshop participants that two levels of research should
be considered. First, there is a need for research that can
provide answers now or in the immediate future regarding pressing
management questions• DeMoss noted that to address these
questions an effort should be made to build upon the data base
that has been developed over the past 15 to 20 years with a focus
on synthesizing this information. The second level of research
described by DeMoss involves the generation of new, basic
information on estuaries. He observed that there were a number of
basic and critical processes about which there was limited
information. DeMoss pointed out that such basic questions could
take a long period of time to address and could require
substantial expenditures. Given fiscal constraints, it is
necessary, therefore, that approaches to addressing these second
level questions be creative and efficient. Finally, DeMoss
recommended to the participants that they maintain a system-wide
approach in considering research needs and objectives.
Although workshop participants were requested to review
the entire initial resource document, they were directed to focus
on the identification of research needs that would address the
information and management needs identified at the state and
regional levels. Workgroups met separately to develop their
recommendations for assessment and research needs, information
was exchanged among the workgroups and at general meetings during
the workshop. Workshop participants were given guidance on how
7
-------
to address and organize assessment and research needs within
their topical areas. The conceptual and operational frameworks
for this guidance are described in Section 3.
The initial document was modified to reflect the input of
the workshop participants and distributed for review The present
document represents the revisions to the initial document.
8
-------
3 Conceptual Framework for Identifying Research Needs
Where appropriate, this document has used as a conceptual
framework the Risk Assessment Approach utilized previously by the
EPA Research Laboratory at Narragansett to assess ocean dumpsite
designation, evaluation of hazards posed by ocean disposal, and
identification of research needs related to disposal of specific
wastes into the ocean. The risk assessment approach, described
in Section 3.1 of this document, provides a means of identifying
critical pieces of information and organizing them into a
comprehensive but focused assessment of the fate and probable
effects of pollutants in marine systems. Because the approach
outlines the kinds of generic information and analytical methods
that are needed to conduct assessments, it also provides a tool
for identifying critical information gaps and areas where
analytical methods development are needed. It is in this context
that the Risk Assessment Approach has been used in the
identification of information and research needs.
Guidance was provided to workshop participants for use in
structuring research needs. In essence, this involved
establishing the links between information needs (identified by
State and Regional personnel), the degree to which information
currently exists, the need for research or assessments of
existing information, and how the results relate to management or
regulatory activities. This operational guidance is described in
Section 3.2.
3.1 Risk Assessment for Estuaries
The risk assessment framework was found to be useful for
organizing and evaluating information for three of the five broad
topics: toxics, nutrients, and microbial contamination. It was
also useful in a more general sense in considering research needs
related to estuarine habitat modification; it did not apply
directly to estuarine characterization inasmuch as this is
primarily an information gathering activity and not risk
assessment per se. The basic characteristics of the risk
assessment approach for estuaries are considered below.
The EPA has recently initiated a variety of activities
designed to implement an overall strategy for risk assessment and
risk management of toxic substances in the environment (USEPA,
1984). The risk assessment approach for organizing technical
information and research needs for estuaries is an outgrowth of
the hazard assessment approach developed by EPA-Narragansett for
addressing the potential impacts from ocean-dumped wastes
(Bierman et al., 1985). This hazard assessment approach has been
applied to a case study involving dredged material disposal in
Central Long Island Sound (Gentile et al., 1986), and to the
potential impacts of sewage sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Ocean
Disposal Site (Paul et al., 1986). Assessments are also being
9
-------
conducted of potential environmental and public health risks
aSSScSSd wi?h chemical contamnation in Puget Sound, New
Bedford Harbor, and along the California coast.
The risk assessment framework approach applied to
«Qtnariea is illustrated in Figure 1. This framework describes
the complete causal chain from source inputs, through transport,
the compie fate, to an assessment of potential
environmental ox human health risks. In turn, the assessment
environment ¦ i basis for a regulatory decision in the
form1ofSa waste load allocation, or an individual permit. Within
norm oi d mnnitorinq is viewed as a broad support activity
which provides'necessary information during each phase of the
assessment.
Characterizations of source inputs, and of the
potentially impacted site, are primarily information-gathering
phases. The objectives of source characterization are to
determine the physical and chemical properties of the sources
which control their environmental transport and fate, and to
determine if the sources are toxic, or if they contain any
constituents which may be bioaccumulated. The objective of site
characterization are to determine those physical and chemical
properties of the site which control the environmental transport
and fate of the sources, and to determine the distributions of
commercially and ecologically important resource populations and
their sensitive life stages.
The exposure and effects assessment phases involve data
synthesis, and the development of causal linkages. The objective
of exposure assessment is to quantify the relationships between
source inputs and environmental concentration distributions.
These relationships need to be expressed in terms of intensity,
frequency# and duration. Exposure assessment involves the
synthesis of information from the characterization phases.
Mathematical models frequently provide a convenient framework for
this synthesis.
The objective of effects assessment is to develop
functional relationships between environmental exposure
concentrations and adverse ecological or human health impacts.
Ecological effects can be expressed in terms of acute and chronic
toxicity, impairment of growth or reproduction, or in terms of
changes in population and community levels of biological
organization. Human health effects can be expressed in terms of
accumulation of toxic constituents in fish and shellfish, and
direct exposure to pathogenic organisms.
Rislc is the of re8ults from the
of the lorte
system •
10
-------
SOURCES
Inventory
Characterization
Quantification
I
SITE CHARACTERIZATION
Physical
Chemical
Bio logical
i
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Space/Time Scales
Compartments
Levels
Pathways
i
EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
Biostimulat ion
Toxicity
Residues
i
RISK ASSESSMENT
Ecologi ca I
Human Health
1
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION/
PERMITTING
Specific Chemical
Complex Mixture
MONITORING
Bosel i ne
Validation
Trend Assessment
Environmental Consequences
FIGURE 1. MARINE RISK ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
10A
-------
The actual waste load allocation, or permitting decisis
is part of risk management. Risk management involves iudqeme +
based upon social, economic, and technical factors, which led*
decisions on controlling source inputs and/or in-place toxic
These decisions are usually designed to achieve a esr„ 1
^ , a specitic Set
environmental results.
3.2 Identifying Research and Assessment Needs
Operational guidance was provided to the workgroups on
how to organize and identify assessment and research needs
(Figure 2). The workgroups were asked to develop Problem
Statements which related to the information needs identified bv
State and Regional personnel. For each of these problem
statements one or more Broad Objectives and associated Specific
Objectives were identified which best addressed the various
components of the Problem Statement.
The workgroups then considered the extent to which the
specific objectives were met or could be met by existing
information. Through discussions with state and regulatory
personnel it became clear that although information might be
available (e.g., in scattered research reports), it might not b«
in a form that addressed the managers or regulators information
needs. If this was thought to be the case, the workgroups were
directed to identify Assessments that would involve organizing
synthesizing existing information into appropriate support
documents.
If information was not available or if there was a need
for additional research to address an information need, the
workgroups identified specific Research Needs. In addition, the
workgroups provided initial recommendations on how the research
should be conducted (i.e., specific laboratory or field studies)
The workgroups were asked to describe the anticipated
results under each the Broad Objectives. These results were
then related to management or regulatory activities.
In summary/ the initial information needs were identif
by State and Region®^ Personnel and relate to their ability to
carry out their man#9emen^ and regulatory responsibilities. The
degree to which information was already available to address
these needs was evaluated and recommendations were made either
for assessments of this information or for new or additional
research. The anticipated results of these activities were
b8Ck t0 8Peoifi<= ™n.9.ment or regulatory
11
-------
PROBLEM STATEMENT
~
BROAD OBJECTIVE
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
ASSESSMENT AND
ORGANIZATION OF *
EXISTING INFORMATION
J
APPROACH
< '
REQUIRED
RESULTS
1
DOCUMENTATION
AND TECH TRANSFER
NO
CONDUCT
RESEARCH
]
APPROACH
~
ANTICIPATED
RESULTS
1
UTILITY IN ESTUARINE
RISK ASSESSMENT
MANAGEMENT OR
REGULATORY ACTIVITY
FIGURE 2. ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION AilD RESEARCH NEEDS
11A
-------
4 Toxics
4.1 Tnformation Needs
as
sources
Information needs identified by Regional EPA anrl o».»
personnel are organized below according to the ma lor
in a marine risk assessment. i-aT.egorie#
Source Identification
Based upon discussions with EPA Regional Stat-*
municipal personnel as well as private contractors <1 L *
that source identification and quantification are ofJL
problems and this is particularly true for nonpoint soCr^°r
However, much of the work that is needed involves the arm?®*
of basic manpower in gathering needed information or carrt 1
appropriate monitoring programs. In other words, given
support it would be possible with existing techniques to
establish estimates of loadings. Still, there were several
mentioned that represent potential generic information or area*
analytical needs. These include;
1. Screening techniques for determining sources of *
found in sediments. This would involve a methodology for toxiG*
sessing the locations and relative contributions of particul*
2. The source of contaminants observed in shellfish A
fish. and
3. The role of contaminated groundwater as a source at
toxics to estuarine areas. *
4. The characterization of complex effluents.
5. Upland hydrologic models that can be tied to or use**
in conjunction with estuarine circulation models.
6. The ability to delineate the effects of individual
discharges in situations where there are multiple discharges.
« noted above, most information needs at the state anrt
*?SnS£ra i!£Vnvolve obtainin9 site-specific data using
these Hind, of r6^' T" =nd !toke6 (1964> rePort outlined
extensive needs for Puget Sound, a system that has received
appropriate «*en*4°n respect to input of toxics and
Region ^-"Porated into the
Site characterization
A number of is»ue# related to
considered in Section 8, Estuarine Charact«Sv^?terization
major issue related to »tte characterisation • However, a
n Wlth regard to
12
-------
toxics is, "How do you define a problem sediment?" The issue of
sediment criteria was raised in discussions with each of the
regions. It was noted that the development of reasonable
sediment criteria is a national issue. The applications of such
criteria were succinctly described by Jim Krull of the Washington
Department of Ecology. The needs outlined by Krull are as
follows:
o Sediment criteria to define contaminant and/or effects
levels at which sediments become a problem.
o Remedial action alternatives
criteria for determining whether to dredge,
leave in place or cap contaminated sediments,
criteria for disposal,
- criteria for disposal site selection,
- criteria for disposal site design,
- relationships between discharge loadings and
sediment contamination (long-term cumulative
effects)
i
In addition to the need for sediment criteria or a
procedure for identifying "problem sediments", State and Regional
personnel all identified site-specific research needs related to
establishing levels of toxics in sediments and organisms.
Exposure Assessment
A number of generic information needs were identified
with regard to exposure assessment related to toxics in estuarine
water and sediments. These are as follows:
1. The major information need mentioned by State and
Regional personnel concerned the bioavailability of toxics in
estuarine water and sediments. They felt that this area of
research should be emphasized especially with regard to uptake of
contaminants in brackish water situations.
2. Another critical information need was the
physicochemical fate of toxics in brackish water environments.
This involves a range of issues including the following:
o establishment of equilibrium partition coefficients for
organic and inorganic pollutants between sediment, pore
water, and surface water;
o the physical and chemical processes affecting the fate
of toxics in the "null zone" of estuaries. This is the
region where the surface charges of particles
transported downriver are changed as salinities
increase, resulting in flocculation and more rapid
settling of the particles. As a result, toxics
associated with the particles become deposited;
13
-------
o the fate of substances which upon discharge are not
simply mixed into the water column but can rise to tli
surface and become concentrated in surface microlaver®
in particular certain toxics associated with oil and
grease;
o analysis of pollutant reactions at the freshwater/
saltwater interface; data are needed to improve
reliability of transport model predictions. Studies
should be designed to determine reactions and
compartmental shifting of pollutants in
the freshwater/saltwater mixing zone, the extent of
floe formation and its role in pollutant
transfer, and the effects of the freshwater/
saltwater interface on chemical speciationy
o analysis of distribution and fate processes for
pollutants in sediments in particular mobilization of
metals and organics from sediments and degradation
processes;
o development of a solids settling model that could
describe coagulation and settling characteristics of
solids in seawater;
o information is needed on sediment transport processes
in estuaries as well as the modeling of these
processes;
Effects Assessment
There were a variety of issues mentioned by State and
Regional personnel with regard to toxic effects assessment. Many
of these are similar to those raised in connection with effects
associated with other situations involving discharge of waste to
marine environments (ocean disposal, 301 (h), oil and gas
operations), and, therefore are of interest for a number of
reasons. The generic needs include the following:
1. Appropriate toxicity test methods need to be developed
for marine and estuarine systems. Regional personnel noted that
case etudiee were needed in different areas. In some discussions
it was pointed out that techniques and methods should be simple
and coet effective but should have good technical basis and
adequate documentation.
uncertainty*!*1?**! * "ee
-------
5. Although not specifically mentioned as an information
need, work related to declines in the populations or reproductive
success of striped bass and other fish was noted. This is an area
where additional information is needed.
6. Information is needed on the causal relationships
between sediment contamination and demersal fish diseases. In
particular, laboratory studies are needed to test hypotheses
based on field observations. It would be desirable if "no effects
levels" could be developed.
7 Information is needed on the effects of sediment
contamination and organic enrichment on benthic invertebrate
community structure.
8. Information is needed on the potential human health
effects of contaminants in fish and shellfish.
9. There is little information on recovery rates. Such
information would be useful for assessing the overall benefits of
various actions and what can be expected with regard to rate of
recovery following actions.
Risk Analysis
Risk analyses related to human health and environmental
effects were identified as key areas by State and Regional
personnel who have been dealing with toxic problems. Risk
assessments will be used in assessing the status of coastal
contamination problems (e.g. Superfund sites) as well as the
discharge of toxics via point and non-point sources. However,
with one exception, other than ensuring that sound methodologies
are available and good input data obtained# no specific
recommendations were made concerning information needs.
The area that is problematic involves certain populations
who fish for recreational or subsistence purposes in areas that
may contain toxics and who are unlikely to abide by fishing or
shellfishing restrictions. While this was identified as a
problem, no specific research need was identified in connection
with this problem.
Waste Load Allocation
Waste load allocation efforts in most areas of the
country have focused on BOD. There have been few attempts to
conduct waste load allocations for toxics in estuaries.
Therefore, this lack of first hand experience limited the kinds
of information needs that could be identified by State and
Regional personnel. Information needs identified for the other
categories described above all bear on wasteload allocation. One
important issue that emerged through discussions with State and
Regional personnel concerned the efficacy and cost effectiveness
of water quality modeling for toxics. For example, in Louisi-ana
15
-------
it was noted that the state of the art of water quality modeling
is simply not advanced far enough to support technically sound
modeling of the state's complex estuarine systems and that the
state cannot afford to advance the state of the art. in
Washington State# where toxics have been identified as a
predominant issue, there is some uncertainty as to how and when
to proceed with modeling activities as well as with regard to
what level of modeling is appropriate.
4.2 Current Programs That Address Information Needs
A number of federal agencies as well as state agencies
and municipalities have been conducting studies related to
sources, fates, and effects of toxics in estuarine and marine
systems (see Table 1 in Section 2.3). An overview of the national
programs was provided to workshop participants for their review
and information prior to the workshop. Detailed documentation of
these programs is not repeated here but some examples are
provided.
Research on sources of toxics has included such programs
as EPA's Nonpoint Source Program, the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (USEPA, 1983), the USGS studies of the Potomac River and
San Francisco Bay, USDA programs, EPA's groundwater research
programs, and NOAA's programs. In fact, one of the most
comprehensive studies on assessing sources of pollutants to
coastal areas and estuaries is being conducted by NOAA. The
Strateaic Assessment Branch of the Ocean Assessments Division has
been working toward the development of the National Coastal
Pollutant Discharge inventory (NCPDI). When completed the NCPDI
will include all point, nonpoint, and riverine sources of
pollutant discharges into estuarine, coastal, and oceanic waters
of the contiguous United States.
EPA has been conducting a number of programs that address
— lat-orf to exposure assessments for toxics. These have
ES'SSSiS prS»riXy « the Narragansett and Gulf Breeze
Deen carri work includes verifying the accuracy of
Laboratories. The wort ei prediction Jna*lab test netJods.
evaluation of laboratory based predictions of environmental
effects w end d,velopn.ent of a research strategy and supporting
methodologies for predicting the bioavailability and
feioaccumulation potential of organic and inorganic contaminants
cont.ro1ling the phase partitioning of organic contaminants from
complex wastes, m addition, the epa laboratory at Narragansett
is also involved in & field veri^i°ation program to validate
IoS£d?re a8seB,mant» for dredge material disposal in Long Island
fate of toxics. F^eiaijie* t^br®searehUdieS transport and
Seattle Laboratory has inveeti9ati£a the N0A^
sediment-associated pol^ t In Controlled ^°Jvailabllity.of
nx.9 wtroiied laboratory studies,
16
-------
phylogenetically diverse species have been exposed to sediment
from areas of high and low contamination and to sediment-
associated water and chemicals extracted from sediments. A
number of other studies have been designed to investigate
mechanisms of contaminant metabolism and detoxification.
Much of the current effects-related work within EPA
involves the development and analysis of various testing methods
including a program to develop, field test, and verify toxicity
testing methodologies for complex effluents and their receiving
waters and field validation programs.
NOAA programs on the effects of toxics include such
studies as evaluating effects of estuarine degradation and
chronic pollution on populations of anadromous striped bass in
the San Francisco Bay Delta, and the relationship between
pollutant body burdens of the starry flounder and its
reproductive capacity. The issue of effects of toxics and other
factors on populations of striped bass are also being studied by
the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station
also conducts research on the long term effects of dredging
operations (LEDO) and this work continues to provide information
on the effects of toxics in estuarine systems. Research involves
methods related to bioassays, bioaccumulation, biomagnification,
cumulative impacts, and management techniques. Additional
research is being conducted on methods for predicting potential
sediment resuspension and release of contaminants for various
types of dredging equipment.
4.3 Research Needs Related To Toxics
The working group for toxics concluded that research
should focus on outstanding issues related to the fate and
effects of toxics in estuarine systems. These were viewed as the
critical components of an overall risk assessment methodology and
are the areas for which generic information is needed for
application of a methodology to the nation's estuaries. Other
risk assessment components (see Figure 1 in Section 3) are either
more site-specific in nature or are less readily addressed as
part of a research program.
Problem Statement A
Concerns related to the potential environmental and human
health effects of toxics, especially in sediments, were expressed
by all the EPA Regional and State personnel contacted as part of
this program (see Appendix A). The discharge of toxics to
estuarine systems and the presence of toxics in sediments affect
a broad range of regulatory and estuarine management decisions.
As outlined in Section 3 of this report, a risk assessment
frameworX provides a rational and technically supportable basis
17
-------
for such decisions. Yet, there is no well established, validat®**
risk assessment method(s) for toxic chemicals in estuaries ^
(Field validation refers to those activities that serve to't-es-ti
and document predictions based on laboratory studies and/or
mathematical models.)
The workgroup for toxics outlined three broad objectives«
o To determine the exposure of estuarine
organisms to chemicals;
o To evaluate the effects of these chemicals;
o To establish and validate linkages between
exposure and effects.
Broad Objective A1t Exposure Assessment
The specific objective here is to validate the fate of
chemicals using field data sets for major chemical classes
including non-polar organics(e.g., PCB homologs and kepone),
metals (e.g. Cd, Ni» Pb), organic carbon and other particles, it
is anticipated that this work would involve specific case
studies, chosen to incorporate the proper suite of critical
factors. Although information presently exists on some of the
critical processes affecting these chemicals, it needs to be
brought together and assessed. Such assessments are envisioned
in the following areas:
1) the role of estuarine circulation processes as it
affects dissolved and particulate mattery
2) sorption processes (e.g.,pH effects for metals);
3) chemical degradation via physicochemical and
biological processes? and,
4) the relative importance of episodic events in sediment
and associated contaminant transport.
Available information was considered limited for several
critical processes and for these additional research is
recommended. Th«ee include:
l) proceftse0 affecting particle transport and fate in
•Yetems (e.g. resuspension, settling,
physical armoring) inasmuch as these
* fate of associated contaminants;
21 overly^* betw"n ••Oin.ent. and the
3) anaerobic infractions;
18
-------
4) a means of estimating and quantifying the exchangeable
metal fraction;
5) the effects of bioturbation and biological armoring on
the release of toxics from sediments.
Anticipated Results
The exposure assessment related work should provide
calibrated (and validated if sufficient numbers of chemicals are
present) exposure assessment models for case study sites. The
results of the assessments and research activities will provide a
better understanding of various exposure processes as well as
enable investigators to evaluate the significance of the
processes in the risk assessment methodology.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The three major regulatory areas that would benefit from
the research include:
1) water quality based permit control for toxics in
estuaries (NPDES, nonpoint sources);
2) dredging and dredged material disposal activities
within and near estuaries;
3) remedial investigative studies and management plans
related to in-place toxics (includes CERCLA).
The research will provide information on contaminant
exposure fields that would be used for the effects assessments in
the case studies.
Broad Objective A2: Effects Assessment.
Three specific objectives identified with regard to
assessing the effects of toxics in estuarine waters are presented
below.
Specific Objective 1: Develop sediment quality criteria for
evaluating single chemicals and complex mixtures of
contaminants in sediments.
The toxics workgroup recommended that an assessment be
made of the relative species sensitivity of water column and
benthic estuarine organisms. Such information would be used to
assess the applicability for benthic organisms of water quality
criteria that have been developed largely to protect water column
organisms.
19
-------
In addition There were several areas where the workgroup
identified specific research needs and these included:
1) the development of single and multichemical toxicity
tests;
2) the development of normalization procedures for
determining the bioavailable fractions of metals and
organics in estuarine sediments;
3) use existing field data on the character of biological
communities to conduct field verifications of bioassay
results.
Specific Obiective 2: Determine relationships between the
characteristics of contaminated sediments (e.g., sediment
type, degree of organic enrichment, levels of toxic
chemicals) and the population structure of the associated
benthic community. The objective would be to determine
the degree to which it is possible to discriminate among
factors affecting spatial patterns in benthic community
abundance and structure. Such information would be used
to evaluate the efficacy of using data on the benthic
community as a means of assessing the effects of toxics.
The toxics workgroup recommended that available
information from the 301(h) programs be assessed with respect to
organism/sediment relationships with particular attention given
to the effects of load reductions. The workgroup identified
several areas of research including:
1) supplementing existing 301(h) monitoring studies so
that these existing studies can be used to address
research questions beyond the site-specific monitoring
requirements j
2) collection and analyses of field data from industrial
outfalls dominated by single or a few chemicals; such
studies would provide clearer information on the
effects of specific chemicals;
3) application of Pearson-Rosenberg correlations with
total organic carbon and toxic chemicals;
4) design of studies including those suggested above that
would discriminate among factors affecting benthic
community structure and abundance (e.g., sediment
characteristics, organic levels, toxics).
health implications of the tissue concent£tti
contaminants,
ps among sediment
those
20
-------
The toxics workgroup suggested that available information
on health-related effects of toxics in food (in particular
seafood) be gathered and assessed. This would provide the
technical information base needed for risk assessment. It is
recognized that there are gaps in information on effects of
ingested toxics to human health; however, this is not envisioned
as an area for research within an estuarine research strategy.
The workgroup suggested several areas where there are
critical needs for research. These include:
1) determine relationships between levels of contaminants
in sediments and concentrations of those contaminants
in fish tissues; this research would address parent
compounds and metabolites;
2) determine relationship between tissue residues of
toxics and reproductive success of selected fish and
shellfish;
3) determine relationships between levels of contaminants
in sediments and diseases in fish and shellfish; it is
recognized that such relationships may not be direct
and may need to be translated into more appropriate
exposure fields? such information would be generated
through the research recommended under Exposure
Assessment.
Anticipated Results
The effects assessment related work would provide
information on various biological effects associated with
exposures to toxics via sediment or water column. Emphasis has
been placed on toxics in sediments inasmuch as this is a
recognized problem within many of the nation's estuaries*
Research results will include data on effects of toxics on
reproductive success and diseases in fish and shellfish# benthic
communities, and testing methodologies.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The three major regulatory areas that would benefit from
the research are the same as those described under exposure
assessment related work.
Broad Objective A3; Field Validation of Exposure and Effects
Assessments
The workgroup concluded that there remains a need to
field validate the overall exposure and effects assessment
methodologies with special emphasis given to the linking of these
assessments. It is envisioned that the field vali ation
activities recommended under broad objective Al would be extended
21
-------
•£¦ -t-i nn of the effects predicted from the
to include venfica lack of such verification is viewed as a
exposure fields. aar). However, it is recognized that such
critical informa 10" ^ fore the workgroup recommended that for
work is difficult- Therer ch be adopted!
selected case studies a tiei rt>
i ^ validation should be conducted first with organic
} carbon and particulate material;
2) assuming that the first step is successful, the
validation should be extended to consider one or a few
. ,ls. this would involve selecting case studies
where contamination is limited to a few major
chemicals;
validation has been accomplished or shown to be
feasible in the first two steps, the validation could
be extended to situations where contamination has
resulted from multiple chemicals; this would probably
involve a different case study than that used in 2.
The chemical classes that would be considered in the
,an^ation<; of effects assessments are the same as those
V^ Snde? exposure assessment and include non-polar
ZSlTcl U™ .KBhSSlog. and kepone), petals (..g. Cd Ni
lb? irganio cirbor and other particles. It is recommended that a
few cases where data sets exist be selected for the
verifications.
Anticipated Results
The products of this research would include a validation
of two critical components of a marine risk assessment protocol
2 wiY--i.es (¦» e.» the linking of exposure and effects
amonts) This will aid in the development of waste load
pro^aSres for toxics and in the development of
3 onf/decieion frameworks for dealing with in-place toxics.
S2Swork wouW serve to identify the strengths and limitations of
the rlsK rSsess^nt m^hodU) and thus Provi^ ^nvest.gators wlth
information concerning the level of uncertainty in
estimates. The work wouia also serve to identify critical
information gaps in our present understanding and "
predict exp°8ures and effects. This would provide a oasis tor
identifying are^s whete additional research should he conducted
and the c0&t/betie^its 0f that research.
Management Qr R^^lator^rjictlvity
The reQ«,i fltorv areas that would benefit from the research
are the e * previously mentioned and include:
1 iter ty based permit control for toxics in
^tuar*-®8 ^NPDES, nonpomt sources) 7
22
-------
dredging and dredged material disposal activities
within and near estuaries?
remedial investigative studies and management plans
related to in—place toxics (includes CERCLA).
23
-------
5 Nutrients
5.1 Information Needs
State and Regional EPA personnel provided input on
information needs with regard to nutrient-related issues in
estuaries. In general, those information needs were organized
into various categories corresponding with the Risk Assessment
framework (Figure 1 in Section 3.1). However, topics related to
wasteload allocation have been incorporated under the fate and
transport, and/or effects categories.
Source Identification
1. Some estuaries, especially those in the southeast and
Gulf, are subject to large natural inputs of organic matter and
other factors that tend to result in periodic natural depressions
in oxygen. These sources need to be taken into account when
considering appropriate water quality criteria.
2. A need was identified with regard to being able to
relate nutrient/biota relations to changes in land use.
Information on land use changes on nutrient and sediment loads to
estuarine systems was identified as a critical need.
Site Characterization
State and Regional personnel generally expressed a need
to characterize general conditions or health of their estuaries.
This will be considered under Section 8, Estuarine
Characterization". No specific research issues are recommended in
this section.
Transport and Fate of Nutrients
Information needs related to transport and fate of
nutrients in estuarine systems include Borne of those mentioned
with regard to the fate of toxics, in particular those relating
to the behavior of suspended solids. Several important
information needs were raised during the discussions with State
and Regional personnel- These include the following.
1. Recycling of nutrients within some estuarine systems
-has been difficult to quantify.
2. Information and guidance is needed on establishing
nutrient budgets. The following were mentioned by Texas State
personnel in connection with obtaining necessary input for the
MgsTECO" ecosystem models
o Better measures of benthic biom&aa are needed which
include mircoorganisxns as well &e standard
macrofauna. How much of the sediment Toe is alive and
hov, do v. partiti°n in the seal^nU into
24
-------
a) the contributors to nutrient dynamics and
b)nutrient storage?
o If the sediments are conceived as a flywheel or
battery for the ecosystem - what are the parameters of
input needs, depletion rates, etc.?
o How should oyster reefs and seagrass beds be
incorporated into estuary models?
o How many migratory animals (e.g. fish) are there? Do
they cover the entire estuary? How much material do
they export from the estuary?
o Can we classify areas within an estuary efficiently
with respect to habitat types in a way that would fit
in with modeling?
o How do we deal with detritus in nutrient budgets and
processes? How do we measure detrital mass?
o What kind of diurnal patterns occur during different
seasons?
3. Information is needed on nitrification and
denitrification rates in estuaries to provide input to waste
allocation efforts involving model verifications.
Effects Assessment
State and Regional personnel identified information needs
related to several topics. These are described below.
1. Better information is needed on the relative degree to
which nutrients are limiting primary production in estuarine
systems.
2. Information is needed on the effects of nutrient
loading on estuarine food webs due to shifts in the composition
and abundance of primary producers (in particular the development
of phytoplankton assemblages dominated by one or a few species)
and the effects this has on estuarine and coastal fisheries.
3. information is needed on optimal nutrient loadings
with regard to the support of fisheries. It was noted in Texas,
for example, that freshwater inflow issues are related in part to
adequate provision of nutrients to the estuaries.
4. The processes resulting in coastal anoxia were
identified as an area where additional information is needed; in
particular, information is needed on benthic oxygen demand and
natural reaeration.
25
-------
5 some estuaries, in particular those in the Gulf of
j „„f>,oaet united States, are subject to large natural
TnllTs of organic matter and other factors that tend to result in
periodic natural depressions m oxygen; the need for more
flexible, realistic, or appropriate oxygen water quality criteria
for estuaries was identified. One question posed was, "Given a
set of EPA standards does that translate into a healthy biotic
system?" The possibility of developing seasonally ad3usted water
quality criteria was mentioned.
6 information is needed on the potential for shading and
light limited growth of submerged aquatic vegetation due to
enhanced phytoplankton and periphyton growth.
5.2 Current Programs That Address Information Needs
As noted in the section on toxics, an extensive
discussion of current programs was provided to workshop
participants prior to the workshop. That discussion is not
repeated here but some examples of ongoing programs directed at
the identified information needs are presented.
There has been much ongoing work related to transport and
fate of nutrients. Numerous projects are underway at the state
level and much work is being carried out at universities
throughout the country. Since the work of Ryther and Dunston
(1971), the biostimulatory effects of nutrient enrichment upon
marine systems has been clearly recognized. Well-documented
examples of these effects have been summarized for Chesapeake
Bav New YorK Bight, San Pedro Bay. San Francisco Bay, Kaneohe
III: the Baltic, Aegean, and Adriatic Seas, Oslo Fjord, and
several bays in Japan and Long Island, New York.
EPA*& Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) is
currently addressing nutrient-related problems as part of the
Bavs Program. A good example of a program where nutrients are a
major issue is the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory (MERL) tank
evneriments supported by EPA and other agencies have demonstrated
depressed zooplankton fecundity and abundance under nutrient
enrichment probably as a consequence of various chemical changes
resulting from increased primary production. There has been
ongoing work on nitorogen cycling in estuaries. For example, Horn
Point Environmental Laboratory# Abridge MD, has been
investigating the role of estu&rlne sediments in nitrogen cycling
and the implications for 12u5rl*?t waste management
strategies. The sea Grant Prog;™ funding a number of programs
related to nutrient cycling *n 8tu*rie8.
EPA together with a9encies have been
supporting an effo5*.exa* iqnert f Irelated effects in
marine mesocosm* that ara to model a
northeast estuary.
26
-------
These studies are designed to examine the fates and effects of
nutrients and heavy metals along a simulated estuarine nutrient
gradient. The purpose of the project is to develop a strategy
for the management of wastes which cause nutrient enrichment so
as to maximize the benefits and minimize the potential for anoxia
and living resource damage.
As already discussed for toxics waste load allocation,
EPA is currently emphasizing work on water quality-based permits
and this includes nutrient loadings. The EPA has prepared a
Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Waste Load Allocations
for Estuaries (Southerland et al., 1984). The manual presents
information on the characteristics of a number of models that can
be applied to waste load allocations in estuaries. BOD-DO
reactions are included in all but the toxics models; nutrient
cycling and algal photosynthesis-respiration are simulated in
HAR03, FEDBAK03, WASP, DEM, MIT-DNM, EXPLORE-I, RECEIV-II, and
CHEN.
5.3 Research Needs Related to Nutrients
The working group on nutrients developed a set of
recommendations that generally addressed issues related to how
nutrients are recycled within and lost from estuarine systems.
This initial set of recommendations has been further revised and
developed through discussions with EPA ERL-N personnel and used
as the ha sis for developing research recommendations concerning
the fate and effects of nutrients in estuarine systems.
Problem Statement A
A major deficiency in current understanding of the
effects of nutrient loading on estuarine water quality and
estuarine-dependent species is how nutrients are recycled within
and lost from estuarine systems. This lack of information
impedes the development of technically sound waste load
allocations and accurate predictions of nutrient-related impacts.
Four broad objectives have been identified:
o To develop information on nutrient residence
times and cycling in estuarine systems
o To develop information on critical biological
components (primary production, food webs,
submerged aquatic vegetation) in estuarine
systems as these relate to the effects of
nutrient cycling and external nutrient loads
o To develop information on oxygen dynamics of
estuarine systems
27
-------
o To assess the effects of increased nutrient
levels on the bioavailability and effects of
toxics.
Each of these is discussed below and Qssessiuents or
research needs are described.
Broad Objective Al: Develop information on nutrient residence
times and cycling In estuarine systems " -
Two specific objectives were identified with regard to
the transport, fate, residence time, and recycling of nutrients
in estuarine systems. Such information is needed to predict the
effects of nutrients in these systems.
Specific Objective 1: Determine nutrient residence times and
cycling times within estuaries? this information is
needed to determine relative importance of internal vs
external nutrient sources; the relative importance of
sources has implications for expected response times of
the system in the event that external inputs are changed.
It is recommended that information be assessed on the
following aspects concerning nutrient residence time and cyclings
1) the relative importance of benthic versus water column
nutrient regeneration in the nutrient budgets of
common estuary types;
2) the importance of geomorphology and flushing times on
nutrient residence times and cycling; this should
include considerations of water depth, freshwater
inflows, and other factors (tides, winds) affecting
flushing of estuaries.
The nutrient workgroup also concluded that research was
needed in the following areas:
1) investigate and evaluate rates of benthic/water column
nutrient exchanges and subsequent vertical transport
into the eupfrot^-c
2) investigate how rates of nitrification and
denitrifiedion vary with benthic metabolism and
nutrient flux processes in estuaries;
3) evaluate effects of episodic high energy events (e.g.,
storms and hurricanes) on nutrient loading
cy^lin9,tim® scales of nutrient biogeochemical
4) $e^e]op methods for systematically d^^ni™
rjUt^ieht losseB ftom estuaries; terminmg
28
-------
5) the effects of hypoxia/anoxia on ratios of essential
nutrients and their rates of biogeochemical cycling.
The workgroup recommended that laboratory, mesocosm, and
field measurements programs be utilized to conduct the research.
Specific Objective 2: Evaluate the influence of special
subsystems such as oyster reefs, seagrass beds, and
emergent marshes, on nutrient cycling. Such information
is needed in order to account for the effects of these
subsystems on overall nutrient cycling, to develop
technically sound system models, and provide guidance on
the efficacy of particular nutrient source controls.
The nutrient workgroup recommended that an assessment was
needed of information on the role of the benthos as a potential
mediator of estuary eutrophication.
Specific research was indicated by the workgroup on the
effects of seagrass beds, emergent marshes, and benthos on
estuarine nutrient cycling. This research-would incorporate
mesocosm and field studies.
Anticipated Results
Research and assessments related to nutrient fate,
transport, and cycling will provide information on processes that
are critical to evaluating how and at what rates nutrients are
being processed within estuaries and how the characteristics of
estuaries (including special subsystems) can affect nutrient
cycling and availability. Results of these studies will be used
as input to or will provide guidance for wasteload allocation
activities carried out by State and Regional personnel.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The following regulatory and management activities would
benefit from the recommended research and assessments on nutrient
cycling:
1) water quality based controls (NPDES, diffuse source
controls); waste load allocations;
2) 208 water quality management planning, use
designations, and water quality standards; note - OMEP
believes that estuary programs may ultimately require
the States and EPA to review and revise 208 plans in
response to program findings;
3) environmental impact statements for activities of
other federal agencies;
29
-------
4) dredge and fill activities to the extent that these
will effect nutrient cycling and the overall nutrient
budgets of estuaries.
mr , Evaluate the effects of nutrients on critical.
components in estuarine s_yst^j
Three specific objectives were identified with respect to
possible effects on critical biological components (primary
production, food webs, seagrass beds).
obiective 1: Evaluate processes affecting nutrient
Sg?-C¦—limitation of primary producers in estuaries and develop
methods for determining which nutrients are limiting;
this information is needed to determine which nutrients
to control as well as to determine the most
cost-effective combinations of point and non-point source
controls.
The workgroup on nutrients suggested that available
information be assessed in the following areas:
1) effects of nutrient ratios on primary production and
floristics;
2) nutrient ratio differences associated with point
versus non-point sources to estuaries as this may
relate to possible effects on primary production and
floristics;
3) the relative bioavailability of nutrients from Point
and non-point sources as this relates to primary
production?
The workgroup also recommended several areas where
research was needed including:
1) the influence of nutrient regeneration rates on ratios
of essential nutrients in the wa^er ^^"t^link
sediments; this information would be used to l-ln*
regeneration rates with potential primary production
levels and the development of particular floristic
groups;
2) the relationship between various concentrations of
single or multiple nutrients and both the rate of
primary production and composition of principal
flori*tlc groupsj
TV,© worX9rouP suggested that this research be carried out
SSSSr1and experiments
30
-------
Specific Objective 2: Determine the potential implications of
shifts in primary producers to estuarine food webs.
Special emphasis should be given to food webs that
support desirable species. This specific objective is
based on the recognition that nutrient loadings can
produce shifts in the composition and abundance of
primary producers and subsequently affect the food web
structure.
The workgroup on nutrients recommended that an assessment
be made of information concerning the characteristics of food
webs within estuarine environments. The assessment should
evaluate the relationships of desirable as well as undesirable
species to these food webs. Sources of primary production and
organic matter should include salt marsh vegetation, submerged
vegetation (e.g. eel grass), benthic algae, diverse phytoplankton
communities, low diversity or monospecific phytoplankton
communities, and allocthonous inputs of organic matter.
It is anticipated that there will be critical information
gaps in existing information and the workgroup haS suggested
research in several areas including:
1) determine spatial and temporal importance of detritus
versus phytoplankton to estuarine food webs; It may be
possible to use isotopic ratios to trace essential
nutrients through food chains and into desirable
species;
2) determine how anthropogenic nutrient loading
influences estuarine food webs leading to production
of seafood organisms;
3) determine the role of bacteria as producers of organic
material;
4) determine the relative importance of bacteria versus
metazoans in the metabolism of organic matter in low
and high nutrient estuarine systems.
It is anticipated that a combination of laboratory,
mesocosm, and field studies will be needed to accomplish the
research goals.
Specific Objective 3: Evaluate effects of nutrient loadings on
the viability of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Such
information is needed to assess the relative importance
of nutrients/solids relationships (point and non-point)
in comparison to non-point sediment load in reducing
light levels in estuaries and the possible effects this
has on reducing the growth of SAV.
31
-------
It is recommended that assessments be made of:
1) information on the relative contribution of
phytoplankton growth to the reduction of light levels
in estuarine systems?
2) available information on the role of periphytic algae
in shading of rooted aquatic vegetation to which they
are attatched.
a^a +v.at additional research be conducted
It is re?OIOTe5d®LteaaSuatio plant species that
on light limitation o evstems. This research should be
related
characterize ®st"ar*J?®dSnutrient loadings and resultant loss of
to the role of ele^a^ th of phytoplankton and periphyton. This
^^rcr:iiou?rinfo?vr=on?ro?^a experiments ana the results
compared to field observations.
Anticipated Results
v assessments outlined above will provide
The research and as between critical components of
information on the re^at^° producers, food webs, SAV) and how
the estuarine system (primary y nutrient levels. For primary
these are affected by chaI??® provided on how to determine which
producers, information wiu oe f assess the sources of these
nutrients are limiting and on g information will be provided
nutrients. In the case o nutrient loadings, food web
on the relationships f desirable species. For SAV,
structure, and the suPP°^,ti, on the relative contribution of
information will be gr0wth to attenuation of light and
phytoplankton and perip y SDecific submerged rooted aquatic
on the light 1 j-mi^atl°ostera, Thallasia) ~
plant species (e.g. ±PS — —-
. .._.»•«/ Apt j ty Affected
Management or Regulatory,, .
v-imarv production/estuarine
The results generated °non t^e possible light
food web/nutrient relatx°n P qrowth of other primary
limitation of SAV due to ^n®r®as® _^llatory personnel charged with
producers will be beneficial to re9u^ . as well as fisheries
the management of estuarine water quai y desirable fish and
management. The farmers such as SAV may be
shellfish stocks and important habitat f°ritie5® To th6 exterH-
an objective of an estuarine management program. io tne extent
that these have or may *>e •threatened by shifts in food webs or
loss of light associated with nutrient loadings, the results will
suDDort regulatory activities already outlined under Broad
nv^ctive Al. These include source controls and evaluations of
propose(^ construction and other activities
within or adjacent to
the system.
32
-------
Broad Objective A3; Develop information on oxygen dypamic8 jn
estuaries and effects of reduced oxygen on estuarine
biota
Four specific objectives have been identified with regard
to oxygen dynamics in estuaries and the effects of nutrients.
These are presented below.
Specific Objective 1: Evaluate the relative importance of
allochthonous versus autochthonous material as
contributors to biochemical oxygen demand in estuarine
systems. Such information provides guidance on selecting
appropriate source control measures where the management
objective is to maintain or enhance oxygen levels.
The workgroup recommended that research was needed on the
relative importance of allochththonus versus autochthonus organic
inputs as substrates for oxygen demand in estuaries. Research
should incorporate laboratory and field measurements.
Specific Objective 2: Determine the importance of chemical oxygen
demand (COD) due to nitrification and sulfide oxidation.
Such information is needed in order to determine if
nitrogen should be controlled and to assess the efficacy
of such control measures (i.e. should nitrogen be
controlled in order to prevent prolific algal growth and
associated oxygen demand or because of nitrification.)
The group recommended that research be conducted on
nitrification and sulfide oxidation in estuaries in order to
determine the chemical oxygen demand associated with these
processes.
Specific Objective 3; Determine relative contribution of sediment
oxygen demand to total oxygen demand. Because sediment
oxygen demand influences the rate of recovery following
changes in external nutrient/BOD loads, information is
needed on this process in order to estimate responses
following source controls.
It is recommended that available information on sediment
oxygen demand be assessed and contrasted to data on total oxygen
demand in selected estuarine systems. Factors contributing to the
sediment oxygen demand should be identified within this
assessment.
Specific nv^-jective 4: Evaluate effects of hypoxic/anoxic
condition in estuaries on estuarine biota.
The nutrient workgroup suggested that an assessment be
made of the available information on the effects of
hvpoxia/anoxia on the viability and productivity of benthic
organisms and nekton. The workgroup also recommended that
33
-------
information be assessed on the effects of reduced oxygen levels
on larval survival during transport, as veil as on the migration
and avoidance behavior of adult and juvenile organisms.
Anticipated Results
The recommended research on oxygen dynamics will provide
environmental managers with documentation concerning the relative
importance of various sources of oxygen demand, in addition, the
results will provide information on possible effects of reduced
oxygen levels as well as recovery rates following source
controls.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The following activities will receive the major benefits
from the recommended research on oxygen dynamics:
1) water quality based permits (NPDES, non-point
sources);
2) 208 water quality management planning, use
designations, and water quality standards.
Two specific objectives were identified.
Specific Objective 1: Evaluate the effects of the
fertility/productivity of an estuarine system on the
transport, fate and bioavailability of toxic compounds
within estuaries.
It is recognized that the fertility and productivity of
estuarine systems can affect the characteristics and
concentrations of solids and dissolved organic matter within the
environment. These, in turn, are known to affect the transport,
fate, and bioavailability of toxics such as metals, high
molecular weight hydrocarbons, and halogenated organics. Thus,
for a given loading rate of toxics, the fate and exposure fields
for these chemicals could be quite different in physically
similar estuaries that experience different levels of fertility
and productivity, it is recommended that an initial assessment be
conducted to evaluate the possible relationships between the
fertility an productivity of an estuarine environment on the one
hand and the factors that affect the fate, transport, and
bioavailak^^y of toxics on the other.
It is recommended that the assessment .
used to develop a research program which apacif? n above be
the fate bioavailability of toxics in svst® examines
terms of fertility (e.g. nutrient levels) arU 8 that vary in
Productivity. Such
34
-------
research should focus on the factors that will directly affect
the fate of toxics, i.e. solids levels and dissolved organic
matter.
Specific Objective 2t Examine how the environmental effects of
toxics vary as a result of differences in the fertility
and productivity of estuarine environments.
Under specific objective 1 it was noted that the fate and
bioavailability of toxics can be potentially affected by the
fertility and productivity of estuarine systems. Specific
objective 2 considers the environmental effects of toxics in
these systems. It is anticipated that processes of uptake,
bioaccumulation, and biomagnification will vary among systems as
could the toxicity of chemicals. It is recommended that research
be conducted to examine how the effects of toxics vary among
systems that differ in fertility and productivity. Mesocosms
would provide ideal experimental systems with which to conduct
this research.
Anticipated Results
The research would provide information on how fate and
effects of toxics are influenced by nutrient/organic processes in
estuarine systems. Data will indicate the degree to which the •
availability or toxicity of toxics are enhanced or reduced under
various fertility and productivity scenarios.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The results of the work will be beneficial to managers
involved in point and non-point source controls where both toxics
and nutrients are being introduced into estuarine environments.
The information will help guide these regulatory personnel in
developing appropriate control strategies. In addition, the work
will assist in the evaluation of fate and effects of toxics
released to the environment as a result of various activities.
The reaulatorv and management activities that would benefit from
the proposed Research include:
1) water quality based permit control for toxics and
nutrients in estuaries (NPDES, nonpoint sources);
2) dredging and dredged material disposal activities
within and near estuaries to the extent that
prevailing nutrient conditions may affect the fate and
effects of toxics released by these operations.
3) 208 water quality management planning, use
designations, and water quality standards.
35
-------
6 Microbial Contamination
6.1 Information Needs
Disease transmission from human waste through shellfish
consumption or bathing beach waters is an established fact. The
risk of disease through these pathways is proportional to the
level of human waste in the water. Removal of shellfish
harvesting and bathing activities from the immediate area of
identifiable wastewater sources reduces the risk and the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program has been effective in reducing
shellfish related disease by taking some action along these
lines. However, increasing populations in coastal areas and
changes in human waste disposal patterns have impacted
shellfishing and recreational areas in new ways requiring new
approaches to health risk assessment.
Microbial contamination of recreational and shellfish
waters with the associated risks to health and loss of
recreational and fishery areas was a major issue in all parts of
the country. While there are a number of issues at the local
level related to sources and outstanding questions related to
actual health risks, all State and Regional personnel expressed a
basic need for better indicators of microbial contamination of
shellfish and shellfish/recreational waters and better indicators
of potential health risks posed by pathogens. Some state agency
personnel described the situation as "desperate".
Coliform bacteria are seen as an unsatisfactory indicator
of potential environmental and human health risks. In addition
one of the conclusions reached in the EPA's National Urban Runoff
Program (USEPA 1983) was that coliform bacteria may not be a good
indicator of human health risk when the sole source of
contaminants is urban runoff; it was concluded that this area
required further investigation. Developing appropriate Indicators
of microbial contamination is considered to be the primary
research need in connection with microbial contamination of
recreational and shellfish waters. Once these have been
developed/ appropriate questions on sampling and control
strategies can be addressed.
6.2 Current Programs That Address Information Needs
Several agencies are currently developing or implementing
plans to address issues related to microbial contamination
problems. For is currently participating in a joint
"9e?^ ef!,?rt be""„^iCatora of microbial
contamination of shellfish and ®hellfieh ^
those Of EPA, NOAA, FDA, *nd state aggies ££; Utr Ji anclude
objective will *>e to relate water qualitv 35 ° S
microbial indicators to health effects *L~ < ?a8ur?d Wlth
consumption of shellfish harvested from these^at the
36
-------
A number of individual projects related to the fate and
errects of microbes in marine environments have recently been
completed or are underway at various academic institutions. Some
°f this work is focused on bacteria and some on viruses.
Summaries of some of these projects were provided to the
workgroup on microbial contamination in advance of the workshop.
6•3 Research Needs Related to Microbial Contamination
The workgroup evaluated the available information on
microbial contamination utilizing the risk assessment framework
(Section 3 of this report) and have identified five major problem
areas with regard to assessing and managing risks posed by
microbial pathogens introduced to estuarine environments. The
workgroup on microbial contamination recommends that these
problem areas be approached in a sequential manner inasmuch as
some address target area guidelines (risk characterization) while
others address management or reduction of risks (e.g. disposal
strategies, source controls).
*
Problem Statement A
The risk of gastrointestinal illness due to ingestion of
shellfish harvested from waters contaminated by. non-human fecal
waste (i.e., from wild and domestic animals and birds) is
unknown. This information gap precludes the promulgation of
scientifically defendable guidelines for shellfish waters by
regulatory bodies.
Broad rft>-te«tive Al« Develop a health effects water quality
criterion which relates the quality of shellfish
harvesting waters contaminated by non-human fecal waste
to gastroenteritis associated with shellfish ingestion.
The specific objectives identified by the workgroup
relate to the set of research and assessment activities required
to carry out an epidemiological study of the health risks posed
by "barely acceptable quality" shellfish harvesting waters
contaminated with non-human fecal wastes.
The workgroup recommended that available information be
assessed to identify candidate sites for carrying out the
epidemiological study. The objective of this assessment is to
identify two shellfish harvesting areas. One would have water
quality judged to be barely acceptable by currently used
standards and the other would have relatively pristine waters.
The sites would be identified by contacting State personnel#
reviewing historical water quality data, and supplemental on-site
surveys.
The workgroup recommended several specific research
activities as part of the epidemiological survey:
37
-------
1) characterize the water quality of the selected sites
over a 9-12 month period for bacterial indicators in
surface and bottom waters and sediments; additional
information should be gathered on physical and
chemical characteristics of the water column and
sediments;
2) identify and select epidemiological survey group (ESG)
by circulating RFP to public health schools or other
public health agencies;
3) conduct feeding/health risk study; a volunteer study
group would be selected for study; shellfish
harvesting waters would be monitored for 10 days/month
and shellfish from the sites would be fed to the test
and control panels; incidence of gastroenteritis
would be determined .
Anticipated Results
The anticipated results of this epidemiological study
will be a data base that indicates whether or not the ingestion
of shellfish taken from barely acceptable quality shellfish
harvesting waters contaminated with non-human fecal wastes is
associated with gastroenteritis.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The results of this project can be used by regulators to
promulgate guidelines for shellfish harvesting waters.
Problem Statement B
There is no adequate microbiological indicator system
that can differentiate between human and non-human sources of
microbial contamination (pollution). Such information is needed
in order to manage shellfi®*1 and recreational waters and to
assess the efficacy of point or non—point source controls.
Broad Objective Bli identify a microorganism, group(s) of
microorganism or py-product that would originate solely
from huSanjraxur be indicative of the potential presence
of human ymfrHoqens.
Several specific objectives were identified by the
workgr°uP on microbial contamination.
specific Objective li Evaluate known indicators of microbial
contamination as candidates for human-ar^fi fir
indicators. pecirxc
Thi» effort would initially involve an *
existing information. ® an Assessment of
38
-------
The workgroup suggested several areas where additional
research was needed. These includes
1) additional research on the human-specificity of the
known indicators;
2) research on the applicability of genetic and/or
biotechnological techniques for assessing
human-specificity of known indicators;
3) additional research on possible human/microbiological
by-products.
Specific Objective 2: Identify other microorganisms or group(s)
of organisms as possible candidates as human-specific
indicators.
The workgroup recommended that several assessments be
made to address this specific objective:
1) review current information on microflora of human and
other warm blooded animals in order to identify
possible candidate organisms;
2) evaluate the feasibility of developing methodologies
for potential candidates;
3) evaluate the use of genetic, biochemical, or
serological markers if the potential candidate is not
strictly human in origin;
4) determine if the candidate organism meets the criteria
of an ideal indicator;
5) evaluate the applicability of potential candidates to
both recreational and shellfish growing waters;
Specific Objective 3: Determine if the organism is geographically
-*¦ and demographically applicable.
The workgroup recommended three areas where research was
needed on candidate organisms once these had been identified:
1) evaluate viability of the organism under varying
wastewater treatment practices and environmental
conditions (e.g., temperature, salinity);
2) determine if organism is universally carried
throughout the human population;
39
-------
3) utilizing epidemiological studies, establish
correlations between concentrations of the organism
and human disease; identify specific pathogens to
which the indicator relates.
Anticipated Results
The research and assessments outlined above will identifv
organisms that can serve as validated indicators of human health
risks posed by the ingestion of shellfish contaminated by
microorganisms introduced with human wastes.
Management or Regulatory Area Affected
The human indicator organism would serve as a tool for:
1) determining potential health risks associated with
estuarine water use;
2) setting applicable water quality standards for
estuarine waters supporting recreational or commercial
stocks of shellfish;
3) developing appropriate wastewater treatment standards
related to indicator bacteria and pathogens in
effluents discharged to estuarine waters.
Problem Statement C
Improved methodology is required for locating and
characterizing sources of microbial pathogens in estuaries.
Broad Objective C1j nevelop methodology for quantifying inputs of
mWnnJin rathoqenB from various sources and for
establishing guidelines for appropriate remedial
measures.
Two specific objectives were identified.
Specific Objective 1» Develop methodology for quantifying inputs.
The workgroup on microbial contamination identified
several areas where assessments were required:
1) using existing information, develop a protocol for
assessing the public health risk of harvesting
shellfish from an area with non-point source inputs;
2) develop a protocol for assessinq
events on h«lth risks posed by
3) synthesize available information on i ^
microorganisms due to boats and °adings of
marina8.
40
-------
f
4) synthesize available information on loadings from
septic systems and contaminated groundwater in various
soiIs;
5) develop a model for assessing relative importance of
inputs from CSOs, septic systems, boats, etc; specify
variables that need to be measured and how to estimate
or measure them.
Two areas where research needs were identified included:
1) determine the viability of Epidemiologically Important
Viral Agents (EIVAs) in estuarine water and sediment;
2) determine the viability and transport of EIVAs in
various soils and groundwater.
Specific objective 2s Develop guidelines for identifying and
implementing appropriate remedial measures.
Two assessments were recommended by the workgroup:
1) assess economic value of shellfish harvesting beds so
that potential resource losses can be contrasted with
economic issues associated with other uses (e.g.
marina development);
2) develop recommendations for management of boat wastes
and enforcement measures to ensure that regulations
are followed.
Anticipated Results
The recommended studies will provide information on how
to assess the relative importance of various sources of microbial
contamination including point and non-point sources. Results will
also provide information that can guide remedial measures.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
Results of the proposed studies will be beneficial to
those local, state federal personnel responsible for the
management of shellfish and recreational waters. Specific
regulatory areas addressed by the studies include:
1) point source controls (NPDES permits);
2) non-point source controls (best management practices).
41
-------
problem Statement D
There is no generalized model for developing waste load
allocations based on acceptable risks of swimming- or
shellfishing-associated infectious disease and, hence,
epidemiologically derived guidelines at potential target
resources. This problem statement includes three assumptions:
1) models will be site-specific; 2) a site-specif±c hydrodynamic
model or comparable information will be availably 3) the best
indicator/sample combination will be determined from the
epidemiological studies.
Broad Objective Pit Develop a generalized_effluent model for
determining the microbial indicator Igggls in wastewater
effluents (site-specltic effluent guidelines or
standards) needed to achieve the watej^_guaiity
guidelines and standards at potentiallz_affected
recreational or snellfish growing areas.
Specific Objective Is Develop site-specific transport and fate
models at a number of meteorologically &nd
hydrographically different locations and evaluate the
models by comparing the predicted to observed indicator
levels at a number of locations between the target
species and source.
ipjYg group recommended that a research project be
undertaken to evaluate site—specific transport and fate models at
3 to 4 disparate locations by comparing predicted to observed
levels of indicator organisms through statistical analyses.
Specific Objective 2: examine and characterize the processes that
affect the fate of pathogens in estuarine systems; such
processes would include sedimentation, die-off in the
water column, sediment transport to the target, indicator
die-off in the sediments, and resuspension of the
sediments at the target.
The workgroup recommended that an assessment be made of
available information on sedimentation and di©—off of indicator
microorganisms and pathogens.
Less information is available on the other factors and
the workgroup recommended that research be carried out to examine
the processes of sediment resuspension and transport, and die-off
in the sediments as they affect the fate of indicators and
pathogens (i.e. exposure to target species).
Specific Obiective 3* Develop ®^d field validate an effluent
model"^microbial indicators.
It is anticipated that specific object!,, i 0 i
provide th. information needed for devewTfL an efflu^t
„«.t. load allocation raodel related to
42
-------
The model should be field validated at one or more locations by
predicting effluent microbial levels needed to achieve given
indicator levels at various distances from the source. Observed
and predicted values should be compared over various source
strengths where microbial/pathogen levels in wastewater are
controlled by physical means or through disinfection.
Anticipated Results
The major products provided through the recommended
assessments and research are a waste load allocation model
related to microbial contamination and a description of the
processes that affect the fate and effects of
indicators/pathogens in estuarine waters.
Management or Regulatory Area Affected
The primary regulatory and management areas that would
benefit from the proposed work include;
1) water quality based permits for estuarine waters
(NPDES);
2) 208 areawide management plans;
3) local and state shellfish management plans.
Problem Statement E
There is considerable evidence to suggest that the
processes employed to treat human waste before discharge to the
estuary have limited impact on the densities of epidemiologically
important pathogenic agents. At present, the agents are
predominately viral in nature (infectious hepatitis, acute
gastrointestinal illness). There is a need for treatment systems
that will be effective at reducing levels of pathogens.
Broad Objective Elt Provide the information needed jto identify
and select appropriate treatment systems for reducing
densities of human pathogens and, thus, the risk of
disease transmission via direct contact or through
ingestion of shellfish from estuarine watersT
The workgroup on microbial contamination reviewed the
available methods on removal and inactivation of human pathogens
by wastewater treatment and concluded that approaches are
available for removal and inactivation of conventional indicator
bacteria and enteric bacterial pathogens. However, data are not
available for EIVAs.
The workgroup recommended that research be carried out in
the following areas:
43
-------
1) methods development for assaying and recovering EIVAs-
2) laboratory and in situ studies to determine the
removal and inactivation of EIVAs and likely
surrogates by conventional, advanced, and innovative
treatment schemes;
3) evaluate effects of common and alternative
disinfectants on EIVAs and indicators under laboratorv
and field conditions. *
Anticipated Results
The results will provide information on the removal of
EIVAs at sewage treatment plants as well as provide data on the
effectiveness of indicators as a predictive tool.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The proposed assessments and research will provide
guidance on selecting appropriate treatment technologies for
reducing health risks posed by microbial contamination in
wastewaters discharged to estuaries. The primary regulatory area
concerns NPDES programs for point sources.
44
-------
7 Estuarine Habitat Modifications
7 .1 Information Needs
Effects of physical habitat modifications are typically
long-lasting and frequently permanent. The legacy of physical
alterations on coastal wetlands is well documented. Habitat and
ecosystem recovery, if achievable, often must be enhanced by
human activities. Estuarine habitat alterations are often
insidious and result in cumulatively significant impacts as a
result of numerous small and seemingly innocuous activities.
Consequently, regulators and environmental managers are
confronted with the dilemma of evaluating individual proposals
with negligible individual impact but significant cumulative
impact without a sound understanding of how much habitat can be
lost or altered before unacceptable effects on valuable resources
result. In addition, managers and regulators require a sounder
base of information to plan and gauge the effectiveness of
rehabilitation and other management practices.
Information needs related to estuarine habitats and
coastal wetlands were emphasized by State and Regional personnel
in the southeast United States and Gulf Coast areas (Appendix A).
The needs are described below.
1. Particular concern was expressed regarding the impacts
of oil and gas canals on estuarine habitat, wetland, and marsh
loss in coastal areas. A critical information need related to
this is what constitutes good mitigation. It was pointed out that
there are a number of small projects being conducted on
mitigation but that there has been no concerted effort to bring
the results of these various efforts together. In part, as a
result EPA personnel are uncertain about what to recommend in
terms of mitigation related to maintaining or enhancing wetland
and marsh areas.
Furthermore, there is an increasingly realized need to
rehabilitate already-damaged habitats in an attempt to restore
values or prevent further habitat deterioration (e.g., due to
saltwater intrusion or hydrological dysfunction). Various
management practices are commonly pursued, particularly in
wetlands, for waterfowl enhancement (impoundments and weirs),
aquaculture, insect control (ditching), and prevention of saline
intrusion. There is uncertainty concerning the effectiveness or
consequences of such management activities.
It was suggested that it would be very worthwhile if an
effort was made to pull together the existing information on the
systems and success or failure of various mitigation, management,
and restoration measures in order to develop a mitigation
guidance document for estuarine habitats, wetlands, and marshes.
45
-------
o Fvtensive estuarine habitat, especially wetlands, have
I' fied as a result of dredging and filling
been lost order permit authority of Federal and State
activities which come under V construction and
agencies. ^nnels (e.g., the Intracoastal
maintenance ine developments, and oil and gas exploitation
Waterway), tensive in Louisiana). Although many of these
(particularly ,, affect only small areas, there is a
activities individually affeet ^ Gf habitat ioss or
concern about t e c ble resources the habitats support. It
degradation °n would be useful to document piecemeal loss
was suggested that it wouia decline in fisheries,
of habitats and relate this to aecm
3 information is needed on the role or ability of
t Vkao remove contaminants from water as well as
StlE?: and Tfftoll If contaminants in wetland systems. It was
the fate and eff , _ have or play an important role in
noted that some we this role can be further demonstrated
wastewater treatmen . , establish the beneficial aspects of
and documented it w . , developments and help support the
wetlands within residential^ addi?ion, information was needed on'
Si: to^or^ou^how and'when to use wetlands for wastewater
treatment.
mu r-4-a effects of toxics in marsh/wetland systems
¦a as a critical information need inasmuch as
were identified as ^ projects of various kinds are being
Mississippi River di , diverting river water and
planned, ^se wou:L reaches of coastal wetland systems
associated sediment in intrusion and provide a source of
in order to offset sal However, the river and its associated
sediment to the wetland. However^the^^ ^ organic
sediment load c°n^ain a m nQted that use Df wetlands as a
contaminants. The ^ J Jst but the necessary information on
design^performance ^^rnSi^i^cts^^^aSivi^L upon
Se^anSsIs a^ritical issue which, at present, has not been
adequately addressed.
a t i on is needed on the causal mechanisms for
4. Inform?t^at. This was identified as a critical issue
L°S£-nvlTllliL TVand there are obvious similarities between
within EPA Region IV an ke Q experience. It has been
thxs problem and the 5* (e.g. losses) cf these beds but it
hasSnotSbeen Jwible to determine the causal mechanisms.
<7 2 Current- Programs Tha* Address Information Needs
-ixe workgroup on habitat modification was provided with
of current programs prior to the workshop. The entire
summaries are not repeated mere but some of the major ongoing
p^rame are identified here.
46
-------
Wetlands research is currently being supported by the
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station (WES), NSF,
NASA, and a number of state agencies. With regard to impacts of
404 programs on wetlands, most of the active research is being
supported by WES.
A number of projects related to the general ecology of
saltwater wetlands are being funded through the Sea Grant
Program. These studies are valuable in helping establish the
functions of saltwater wetland systems.
A number of federal and state agencies have developed
wetland classification systems. For example, the state of
Louisiana has developed an approach that involves using
vegetation as indicators for marsh/salinity types. This
information serves as a management tool and a means of assessing
the status and change in status of coastal wetlands. Much of the
work related to this has been done at the LSU Center for Wetlands
Resources.
EPA presently has no research program related to tidal
wetlands although there had been a program several years ago.
However, there may be a research initiative in the future. A FY
1987 Wetlands Research Initiative has been prepared; the program
is designed to provide support to the Office of Federal
Activities (OFA) as well as other EPA offices. The EPA's Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP) is planning some joint
workshops with the Fish and Wildlife Service to consider
estuarine habitat and wetlands management issues. These should
help focus research needs related to coastal and tidal wetlands.
7.3 Research Needs Related to Estuarine Habitat Modifications
Three discrete problem areas were identified: 1) the
effects of cumulative losses; 2) the effectiveness of mitigation,
rehabilitation, and management practices; 3) the role of wetlands
in maintaining estuarine water quality. In addition, a fourth
methodological problem was identified that relates to these
problem areas as well as to estuarine characterization objectives
(Section 8) - assessment of the relative resource values of
estuarine habitats.
Habitat modification issues affect several of the topics
considered by other workgroups. The relationships among the
issues in the four problem areas identified under estuarine
habitat modification and these other topics are depicted in
Figure 3.
47
-------
y>
FIGURE 3. ESTUARINE HABITAT MODIFICATION
-------
Problem Statement A
There does not exist a comprehensive and up-to-date
inventory of cumulative habitat changes based on records of
actual area impact as well as the extent of permitted
alterations. Furthermore, the inability to predict the long-term
cumulative impacts of these changes makes habitat protection
difficult, especially where there are substantial short-term
economic benefits to development, e.g., in oil and gas
exploitation or commercial shorefront development.
Broad Objective Ala Evaluate the feasibility of developing a
comprehensive, national inventory of permitted ana"actual
alterations of estuarine habitatsT
The workgroup recommended that assessments be made of the
following:
1) existing inventory systems maintained by Corps of
Engineers district offices or state agencies;
2) methods to relate the extent of actual impact of
dredge and fill activities to permit stipulations?
such methods may include aerial surveillance such as
used in North Carolina;
3) the development of a comprehensive inventory system
and evaluation of the appropriate role of cognizant
Federal and state agencies.
Anticipated Results
The assessments will provide the basis for a
comprehensive plan for documenting cumulative losses of estuarine
habitats with emphasis on tidal wetlands.
Management «r Regulatory Area Affected
The areas that would benefit from the inventory include:
1) wetland use permitting;
2) regional and national estuarine status and trend
assessments•
Broad Objective A2: Evaluate the effects of cumulative estuarine
habitat modifications and losses. "
The workgroup identified several specific objectives
related to cumulative modifications or losses.
48
-------
Specific Objective 1: Evaluate the effects of cumulative
estuarine habitat modifications on fish and wildlife
resources.
The workgroup on habitat modification noted that
complete resolution of this issue will be difficult and illusive.
However, they concluded that significant advances can be made by
carefully conducted research aimed at assessing the trends in
fish and wildlife resources on a regional basis and by
quantifying habitat utilization at a local scale. The workgroup
recommended research in two areas:
1) statistical modelling assessments of population trends
as deduced from direct census (e.g., waterfowl) or
effort-adjusted catch data (e.g., fishery stocks) for
key species presumably dependent on wetlands in areas
experiencing significant habitat losses;
2) carefully designed field studies of fish and wildlife
utilization of habitats of various scales and degrees
of alteration.
Specific Objective 2: Evaluate effects of cumulative wetland
losses on increased storm surge and tidal flooding of
inhabited areas.•
Two assessments of existing information were recommended x
1) compile and evaluate trends in tidal and storm surge
flooding in areas of wetland loss or channelization?
2) synthesize these results with existing storm surge
models.
Anticipated Results
Results will provide information on how cumulative
wetlands losses can be related to potential for effects on
resource species and the potential for increased flood damage.
An effort should be made to express these relationships
quantitatively.
Management, or Regulatory Area Affected
Ttie following management or regulatory areas would
benefit from ttie proposed assessments and research:
1) wetland use permitting;
2> °f and SUpP°" f°r "ligation
3) management pllln8 £or fisheries and wiidlife.
49
-------
4) FEMA regulations and planning;
5) development of flood protection projects.
Broad Objective A3i Provide technical basis for predicting and
minimizing wetland losses or modifications under
conditions of accelerated sea level rise which may occur
during the next 50 years (1 mm/yr at present to 1 cm/yrf.
The workgroup on habitat modification recommended that an
assessment be made of methods to enhance accretion of sediments
and peat, including river diversions and management of drainage
within wetlands by investigating sedimentation rates in
freshwater diversion areas, ditched marshes, and marshes in which
water level is controlled.
The workgroup also indicated that research was needed in
two areas:
1) comparisons of wetland accretion rates during late
Holocene transgression and the present with sea level
rise and fluctuations?
2) investigations of contemporary sedimentation
(post-Colonial) in subsiding environments (e.g.,
Louisiana marshes and some Chesapeake Bay marshes) in
relation to water level fluctuations.
Anticipated Results
The results will aid in the evaluation of risks posed by
atmospheric warming due to the buildup of C02 and other
greenhouse gases as they affect sea level rise.
Management or regulatory Area Affected
The research would support the following:
1) national and international policies regarding control
of greenhouse gases;
Protection policies and permitting (e.g.,
should greater protection be provided to those
wetlands which have a greater potential for survival);
3) wetland management practices: drainage and
impoundment.
Broad objective A4, Evaluate cauBeg_-gf_declineB in «uhm«rg«d
" aquatic vegetation*
50
-------
Tti© wojrk<3JTOiip ir©cornin©nc3©d thcit &n 3.6SGSsn\sn."t. b© of
existing information on losses of submerged aquatic vegetation.
Sia should be extracted on a) locations of the seagrass beds by
estuary, b) extent of the losses (in acres or percent.), and c)
if possible, identification of the cause(s) of seagrass loss.
The workgroup anticipates that there will be gaps in the
information base and recommends the following research areas:
1) supplement existing information in estuaries where
seagrass losses are occurring by monitoring water
quality indicators and by looking for causes
identified in the literature;
1\ identify other estuaries which support seagrass beds
and where similar factors resulting in seagrass bed
loss can be expected? determine the extent to which
these estuaries are experiencing seagrass losses.
Anticipated Results
The results will provide information on the factors that
cause losses of seagrass beds in estuarine systems and on the
characteristics of these losses.
Management or Regulatory Area Affected
The information will benefit those state arid federal
personnel^who are -sensibleJor^stuarine
ctltllES& and, therefore, provide guidance on the
efficacy of proposed remedial programs•
Problem Statement B
Little is known of the effectiveness of estuarine habitat
mitigation, restoration and management practices on valued
resources* such as support of fisheries and wildlife or waste
assimilation.
Broad Objective Bit Develop a technical basis for effective
mitigation, restoration and management for optimising
their efficacy for enhancing valued resources.
The workgroup recommended that an assessment be made of
available information concerning the effectiveness of mitigation
rehabilitation and management strategies and practices with '
emphasis on estuarine wetlands and seagrass beds. The adequacv
and technical bases for the practices should be assessed.
Several federal agencies and professional groups are alreaflv
active in reviewing and recommending wetlands mitiaation
practices. y
51
-------
The workgroup indicated that additional research was
needed to evaluate wetland function (including self perpetuation
and water quality effects) and habitat utilization by fish and
wildlife of damaged, rehabilitated, and managed habitats compared
to comparable unaltered habitats. Conditions which should be
evaluated include channelized wetlands, wetlands with backfilled
or plugged channels, weired impoundments managed for waterfowl,
wetlands with barriers erected to slow saltwater intrusion,
ditched wetlands, and wetlands regularly burned to promote
wildlife utilization.
Anticipated Results
Information will be developed on the efficacy of various
mitigation measures and how these will contribute to the support
of biological resources.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The following activities would benefit from the proposed
assessments and research on mitigation measures:
1) permitting of dredge and fill activities and
impoundments;
2) developing technically sound mitigation requirements;
3) costrbenefit analyses of estuarine rehabilitation
projects;
4) management plans for estuarine systems supporting
multiple and potentially incompatible resources.
Problem Statement C
While wetlands are widely recognised as potential sinks
for certain nutrients, toxics, and sediments, our current level
of knowledge in this field is both fragmentary and contradictory*
Broad Objective Cli Develop the ability to predict the retention
and processing characteristics of specific estuarine
wetlands with regard to toxics, nutrients, and sediments.
Two specific objectives were identified.
Specific Objective It Evaluate the interaction between factors
which control material fluxes in estuarine wetland
systems. Factors to be considered include hydrological,
geological, chemical, and biological; fluxes include
retention, export, and internal processing of materials.
52
-------
The workgroup recommended that research be focused on
understanding the interactions between factors such as basin
geomorphology, sediment type, tidal characteristics, surface
hydrology, sub-surface hydrology (e.g.,hydraulic conductivity),
retention times/loadings, water chemistry, wetland plant
community characteristics (e.g., root/rhizome type), surface
litter dynamics, microbial activity, and climatology. Three
specific areas recommended for research included:
1) studies of "sediment" retention related to previously
mentioned factors; sediment includes the particle
together with the toxics and nutrients that may be
associated with the particle;
2) studies of flux characteristics by varying one or more
variables using controlled microcosms, mesocosms and
flumes (open ended mesocosms which cross wetland from
tidal creek to upland regions).
3) compare fluxes among wetland habitats (e.g., Spartina.
Juncus) by using the same methodology.
Specific Objective 2: Determine long-term assimilative capacities
of estuarine wetlands.
The workgroup recommended that research be conducted
using comparative microcosm uptake studies in which labelled
material would be introduced to wetland surfaces that vary in
their history of exposure to "excessive" loadings. For example,
wetlands of 0, 5, 10 etc. years of exposure could be selected for
the comparative studies.
Anticipated Results
The results of these studies will provide information on
the ability of coastal wetlands to retain and/or process
materials that enter them from point but predominantly non-point
sources.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The results will be beneficial to local, state, and
regional personnel involved in wetland and estuarine management
programs. In particular the information will be helpful for:
1) evaluating dredging and disposal programs;
2) evaluating shore development proposals;
3) evaluating impacts of various federal activities;
4) evaluating proposals f0r non-point source controls;
5) evaluating marsh creation projects.
53
-------
Problem Statement D
A system is needed for assessing functions and values of
estuarine habitats relative to management* protection, and/or
restoration of estuarine resources.
Broad Objective Pit Develop a procedure for assessing functions
and values of various estuarine habitats for management,
protection, and/or restoration of estuarine resources.
Two specific objectives were identified.
Specific Objective 1: Review and adapt existing habitat valuation
strategies for estuarine wetlands. (Notes this is to a
large extent being done in an evolutionary fashion.)
The workgroup recommended that an assessment be made of
available valuation strategies that may have potential
application to estuarine wetlands. Although more than forty
systems exist, two promising candidates include the Federal
Highway Administration (Adamus) technique and the USFWS Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (HEP).
Once candidate valuation method(s) has been identified it
is anticipated that the following research will be needed to
adapt it for use in estuarine wetlands:
1) testing the basic assumptions of the method and
determining if the method is based on currently
available technical data;
2) refine the method by adjusting the basic assumptions,
adding additional technical data, developing a
sensitivity analysis that defines the level of
confidence, and computerizing the system to facilitate
its use;
3) field test the method and make additional refinements.
Specific Objective 2: Develop procedures for comparing resource
values among different estuarine habitats (e.g.,
saltmarsh, tidal flats, oyster reefs).
The workgroup recommended that assessments be made in
several categories including:
1) the development of procedures for assessing functions
and values of estuarine habitats other than wetlands;
2) for the various estuarine habitat types apply the
approach outlined under specific objective ly
54
-------
3) develop a common qualitative or quantitative base for
comparing values of different estuarine habitat types.
Anticipated Results
Results would provide an objective procedure for
assessing the functions and values of wetlands and other
estuarine habitats. A standardized procedure for assessing
functions and values would be established. A framework would be
provided for comparing relative values of different estuarine
wetlands and other habitats.
Management and Regulatory Activity Affected
The products of the assessments and research would
benefit the following regulatory activities:
1) dredge and fill activities (404 Programs);
2) development of mitigation plans;
3) development of restoration plans;
4) determination of cumulative impacts;
5) land acquisition programs.
55
-------
8 Estuarine Characterization
8.1 Information Needs
Several issues were raised by State and Regional
personnel with regard to characterizing estuaries (Appendix A).
1. There is considerable interest regarding methods to
measure or express the "health status" of an estuary. The Index
of Biological Integrity, used in freshwater, was mentioned as a
possible tool but work would have to be done to determine whether
this or other approaches are applicable to estuaries. Only one
of the difficulties in using a single index is the short-term
variability that estuaries experience. Others noted that
research should focus on identifying early warning indicators of
problems, especially those resulting from chronic effects of
toxics or changes in land use. It was noted, for example, that
it was extremely difficult to bring back seagrass beds which
bears out the adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure." Thus, early indicators of problems would be extremely
useful. It was suggested that it would be helpful to have a
protocol for assessing the "health" of estuaries on a comparable
basis.
2. There is a critical need to develop an understanding
of the hydrologic and hydrodynamic processes of the coastal
estuarine and bay systems found in the Gulf of Mexico. These
differ from the classical "estuarine" systems described by
Pritchard inasmuch as there is little tidal forcing in the Gulf
systems. There, meteorological events strongly affect advection
and residence time of surface waters. (Note: this is also the
case in selected estuaries in other parts of the country.) A
framework for characterizing and expressing the hydrodynamic
processes of these systems is basic to addressing questions
related to salt water intrusion, overall water quality, nutrient
loading, and fate and effects of toxics.
3. A need was expressed for data management systems that
could be implemented at the state, regional or national level.
8*2 Current Programs That Address Information Needs
The workgroup on estuarine characterization was provided
with expanded summaries of ongoing programs designed to
characterize estuarine conditions. This review is not repeated
here but some of the major programs are provided as examples.
Several of the major ongoing programs are being conducted
by NOAA. For example, the Ocean Assessments Division within NOAA
is currently developing a national data base on characteristics
of about 100 estuaries accounting for 90% of either the
freshwater inflow or estuarine surface water area in each of the
three major coastal regions of the contiguous United States. At
56
-------
present physical, hydrologic, and land use data are being
gathered; economic and biological data will be added in the
future.
NOAA's Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment has
been coordinating a program to develop indices of marine
degradation and to assess their utility. Each of the eleven
indices proposed are constrained by the following design
criteria: socially relevant, simple and easily understood by
laymen, scientifically defensible, quantitative and expressed
probabilistically, and acceptable in terms of cost.
NOAA's Ocean Assessments Division is currently
implementing a new program entitled the "National Status and
Trends (S&T) Program for Marine Environmental Quality". The S&T
Program involves a series of activities intended to quantify the
current status and long-term, temporal and spatial trends in the
nation's coastal and estuarine environments. To this end, the
program focuses on key contaminants, water quality parameters,
and biological indicators. NOAA's National Marine Pollution
Program Office and the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality are
also contributing effort towards the development of useful
indices of marine environmental quality. The Sea Grant Program
also has funded numerous studies that provide information on
estuarine characterization primarily with respect to the general
ecology of estuaries.
Under EPA's 301(h) program, municipalities which
discharge sewage to marine waters and are granted waivers from
secondary treatment are required to monitor a variety of
biological and chemical parameters. These data are input to
EPA's Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES) data base and can be
used to help characterize estuarine and coastal areas. A data
base management system was developed as part of the Chesapeake
Bay Program and OMEP is in the process of developing a similar
system as a national data base. Various other data base systems
have been qj1 are being developed for coastal and estuarine
systems. Examples include those developed for coastal Superfund
sites.
8.3 Research Ne^ds
conBi<3erTthoWthree°broadlySdefined ch°" to
by State ana Region"? EPApersonnej in£°r»«tlon n«ef« Identified
evaluating eatuarine status, a clas«<*^e8e methods of
non-Pritchardian ooa„£f scheme for
environmental data on %stuaries. a system for accessing
57
-------
Problem Statement A
There is no widely accepted process by which managers can
assess estuarine status relative to protection of human health
and protection or restoration of biological resources.
Broad Objective Al. Develop indicators and a methodology with
which estuaries can be compared to one another so as to
help determine priorities for preservation, protection,
and restoration. The approach should improve technical
guidance for more consistent management definitions of
"unreasonable degradation", i.e.rto help decide when
something should be done.
Three specific objectives were identified.
Specific Objective 1: Develop the indicators that will serve as
the basis for comparison.
The workgroup on estuarine characterization identified
two groups of potential indicators. The first group included
potential indicators for which there exists information on a
regional or national basis. The second group included those
potential indicators that were considered to be valuable and
whose use is worth pursuing, but for which data presently
available may be either limited or of poor quality. The two
groups were as follows:
Indicators for which information exists:
o pathogens, as represented by standard monitoring of
coliforms;
o concentrations of certain toxicants in marine food
organisms;
o dissolved oxygen?
o turbidity?
o estimated total loadings of nutrients and some classes
of toxics for coastal and estuarine regions, as
compared to estimated retention times for those
regions.
Indicators for which data are limited:
o body burdens of toxicants other than those for which
FDA Action Limits exist; wnicn
o fecundity of key species over broad geographic regions;
o disease incidence in key species over broad geographic
areas;
o field and lab measures of early iife mortality;
o reproductive success of marine birds;
o water column toxicity and pathogens in bathing waters
and shellfish.
58
-------
The workgroup recommended that assessments be made of
existing information in several areas:
1) characterize the status of estuaries on the basis of
indicators for which data exist (first group); this
would involve establishing a data inventory for
estuaries so that information gaps in basic indicatora
can be identified;
2) develop Risk Reference Dose values (of
carcinogenicity/toxicity) for chemicals commonly found
in fish and shellfish for which such values have not
yet been developed; such information is needed to
evaluate the human health implications of body burdens
of several toxics in fish and shellfish; a list of
candidate toxics should be developed;
3) collect and evaluate existing data on potential
indicators for which data have not been adequately
assessed;
4) utilizing existing information, develop an evaluation
procedure for estuarine environmental quality.
Several areas have been identified where additional
research is required:
1) develop better measures of shellfish pathogenicity;
2) derive hypoxic mortality and growth reduction curves
for sensitive fish and shellfish;
3) distinguish between effects of toxics and organic
enrichment on benthic community structure; such
information is needed to evaluate the utility of using
benthic community structure as an index;
4) develop and/or field validate potential indicators of
pollutant stress in sediments (e.g.# Swartz amphipod
field bioassay);
5) identify "early-warning" indicators of effects;
changes in the indicators themselves should be
relatively inconsequential for the system as a whole
and should be detectable in advance of changes in
critical indicators or other key components of the
system;
6) obtain supplemental data with which to comolete
evaluations or strengthen the use of potential
indicators cited in the 3rd assessm«r,f^ ^
objective 1. sessment under specific
59
-------
Specific Objective 2: Develop a comparative methodology useful to
estuarine managers.
The principal objective is to develop a framework or
methodology which utilizes the indicators developed in specific
objective 1 to assess the health and condition of an estuary in
comparison to other estuarine and coastal systems. This is best
approached by conducting a series of assessments:
1) evaluate the utility of existing comparative
methodologies for use in assessing the status of an
estuary's health and condition as compared to other
estuarine systems; such methodologies could include
those developed for non-environmental issues (e.g.
economic indices);
2) adapt a method or combination of methods which would
achieve the stated objective.
Specific Objective 3; Apply the methodology to a regional or
national set of estuaries.
The objective here is to "field test" the methodology by
applying it to a regional or national set of estuaries. These
could include a well defined set of estuaries within a particular
geographic area (e.g., northeast U.S.) or estuaries selected from
various parts of the country. It is recommended that the
estuaries include those in the OMEP Bays Program. This effort is
envisioned to involve primarily an assessment of existing
information on the indicators identified in specific objective 1
and applying the methodology developed in specific objective 2.
Some additional data may be required for specific estuaries to
facilitate the application of the methodology.
Anticipated Results
The primary products of the proposed assessments and
research will be a validated set of indicators that can be used
to evaluate the health status of an estuary and a comparative
methodology for applying these indicators.
• Management or Regulatory Area Affected
The products will be beneficial to state and federal
regulatory personnel involved in a wide range of activities
associated with estuarine management. These include:
1) permitting of dredge and fill activities and
impoundments;
2) developing technically sound mitigation requirements;
3) costsbenefit analyses of estuarine rehabilitation
projects;
60
-------
4) management plans for estuarine systems supporting
multiple and potentially incompatible uses;
5) water quality based permit control for toxics and
nutrients in estuaries (NPDES, nonpomt sources);
6) remedial investigative studies and management plans?
7) fish and wildlife management plans;
8) environmental impact statement preparation and
evaluation.
i a framework for assessing the status of
Developing of a framewor* jo allocation of resources for
particular estuaries w tfiCtion# It win help legislatures and
study, restoration, a P cations of estuarine conditions
SI PthisC provid^them with more consistent and reliable
S&nSSIc guidance as to what to do.
netect r—a1 trends in individual
Broad Ob-jecrtvxve A2'- D* historical changes, protect
——nn(4 pva 1 iiate success of
^H8l^l5t^k^vg5ir
Several specific objectives were developed to address
this broad objective.
» i v Identify estuaries experiencing rapid
Specific Objective It iaenLli'
change.
on estuarine characterization recommended a
The workgroup o itieg to meet this objectives
series of assessment a
4. ctate and Regional personnel to develop a list
1) contact .!^eestuaries where rapid change has or is
of candi occurring; assessments of information
believed to o , seiected set of estuaries with
would be ma information categories outlined below?
emphasis on
2) historic data analysis on indicators developed under
broad objective 1;
3) trends in fish/shellfish, pollutant loadings, and
catch/effort;
4) trends in closures of shellfish beds;
5) habitat Iobst
6) chemicals and fossils in sediment cores;
61
-------
7) land use changes;
8) freshwater inflow and salinity changes.
Specific Objective 2; Use inter-estuarine comparisons to project
intra-estuarine trends.
The workgroup recommended that the following assessments
be made:
1) using existing knowledge regarding physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of different estuarine
systems in different parts of the country, develop an
inter-estuarine classification scheme?
2) apply indicators and rank estuaries by "health status"
within classification types;
3) for each classification type, develop descriptions of
the generic characteristics of "health status" ranging
from estuaries judged best to worst.
Specific Objective 3: Identify critical species most sensitive to
man-induced alterations.
The workgroup recommended that an assessment be made to
identify species that fit two key criteria: a) they are important
to the public, b) they are sensitive to man induced changes.
Lists of such species would be developed on regional and national
levels.
There are only limited data on some species which are
believed to be sensitive to man induced changes. Where
additional documentation is required, it is recommended that
consideration be given to carrying out the necessary studies.
These might involve a series of challenge experiments.
Specific Objective 4s Relate indicator trends to man induced
changes.
The workgroup recommended that simple models be
validated. These include models of historic indicator trends as
they relate to measures of man induced change. Basically# this
would involve a synthesis of information gathered under specific
objective 1, "identify estuaries experiencing rapid change."
specific Objective 5: Evaluate the success of restoration and
protection programs.
The ability to assess temporal trends in estuaries using
the approaches outlined above has clear value for evaluatina the
efficacy of restoration and protection programs, it ^ 1 9
62
-------
recommended that the methodology be applied to selected programs
in order to assess the effectiveness of these programs and to
provide additional information on the potential usefulness of the
methodology.
Anticipated Results
The products of this work will include approaches for
assessing the temporal changes within estuaries and for relating
those changes to man-induced activities.
Management or Regulatory Area Affected
The management and regulatory areas affected are the same
as those outlined under broad objective A1. The products of the
research and assessments under A2 will be particularly beneficial
to managers who wish to determine which estuaries are
experiencing rapid adverse change and should be targeted for
protective strategies. In addition, the approaches will assist
managers in demonstrating the degree to which estuarine systems
are being maintained or enhanced and at what rate. The work would
also serve to establish what rates of recovery can be expected
following control or mitigation measures.
Problem Statement B
There is no hydrodynamic classification scheme that
characterizes circulation in non-Pritchardian coastal embayment.8 •
Broad Objective Bis To develop a hydrodynamic classification
can be employed to understand the effect of circulation—
on saltwater intrusion, particle distribution, and the
spatial distribution of living resources Tn
non—Pritchardxan estuaries.
Three of the specific objectives identified by the
workgroup are presented below.
Specific Objective Is Identify the hydrodynamic parameters that
would be used in the classification scheme.
The workgroup recommended that the following assessments
be made using existing information.
1) screen non-traditional systems to develop
geomorphological groupings;
2) discern the relation between data on salinitv and
pacam«tetBiC{hydr0l0^r g"ne?r£c ^
parameters characteristic of the estuaries;
63
-------
3) using the information generated by the first two
assessments, identify the parameters that would be
used in the classification scheme.
The workgroup recommended that the information generated
on geomorphological groupings and hydrodynamic parameters be used
to establish long-term monitoring sites for salinity, wind, water
level elevation, and currents.
Specific Objective 2: Adopt or develop representative real-time
hydrodynamic models for each geomorphological grouping.
The workgroup recommended that the following activities
be undertaken based on an assessment of available information:
1) assess applicability of existing models for the
various geomorphological groupings;
2) adopt or modify existing models where possible;
3) assess adequacy of existing data for model *
calibration/verification; if data are judged to be
inadequate, design and implement appropriate data
acquisition programs;
4) calibrate and verify the model(s); test model(s)
applicability to other estuaries within the same
geomorphological grouping.
The workgroup noted that in the event that no existing
models are available for adoption or modification, then an effort
would be needed to develop a new one. The need for such an effort
should be carefully reviewed based on the evaluation of existing
models and the efficacy of developing a new model.
Specific Objective 3; Develop an approach that can be used to
estimate the dynamics of particle transport in
non-Pritchardian estuaries.
The workgroup recommended that available information be
assessed and the models developed under specific objective 2 be
used to examine the time scales associated with short and
long-term particle transport in non-Pritchardian estuaries. An
assessment should be made concerning the ability of existing
models to predict the behavior of particles in these systems*
It is anticipated that there may be a need to develop
sediment resuspension, transport, and deposition submodels for
these systems. Assuming that progress can be made in the first
two specific objectives, then consideration can be given to the
development of the particle transport and fate models.
64
-------
Anticipated Results
Products will include: a) a hydrodynamic classification
scheme for non-Pritchardian estuaries; the scheme will infer
general circulation characteristics and provide the framework for
estimating more detailed circulation features from systems that,
have been modelled; b) real-time hydrodynamic models for
geomorphological groupings of non-Pritchardian estuaries;
c) sediment transport and fate models for non-Pritchardian
estuaries.
Management or Regulatory Activity Affected
The products will be beneficial to those State and
Regional personnel responsible for management of non-Pritchardian
estuarine systems. Such systems are typically found in the Gulf
of Mexico but occur elsewhere within the United States. The
specific regulatory and management areas affected are the same as
those already described under Broad Objective A1.
Problem Statement C
At present, no adequate system exists for accessing
environmental data on estuaries that have been collected through
a variety of State and Federal monitoring and experimental
programs.
Broad Objective CI: Improve access to environmental data on
estuaries. —— —
Two specific objectives were identified.
Specific Objective 1: Develop an accessible database locator
indexed by both subject category and region.
The objective is to develop a document that would list
sources of information and contacts regarding how and where to
access environmental data. This would involve an assessment of
available information and contacting state and federal agency
representatives.
Specific Objective 2: Develop approaches using uniform or
convertibledata codes and formats to facilitate the use
of environmental data from various sources.
The workgroup recommended that two approaches be
considered for meeting this objective*
x> SS512i£0f5SE.Tyrt"" to "ad and wite
65
-------
2) create interagency task force to inform data users of
conversion system availability and encourage adoption
of a single format.
Anticipated Results
The products will be tools that will enable investigators
to identify sources of environmental information and access such
data using a common format.
Management or Regulatory Area Affected
The tools will be helpful to technical personnel involved
in all aspects of estuarine environmental management where data
acquisition from existing data bases is required.
66
-------
9. References
Bierman, V.J., Jr., J.H. Gentile, J.F. Paul, D.C. Miller, and
W. A. Brungs. 1986. Research strategy for ocean disposals
conceptual framework and case study. In: Environmental
Hazard Assessment of Effluents. H.L. Bergman, R.A.
Kimerle, and A.W. Maki (eds.), Pergamon Press, New York,
pp. 313-329.
CBE. 1983. Toxics in San Francisco Bay. Prepared by Citizens for
a Better Environment. San Francisco, CA.
Gentile, J.H. , G. G • Pes ch, and T. M • Dillon* 1986. Tho appl i cat ion
of a hazard assessment research strategy to the ocean
disposal of a dredged material; overview. In; Oceanic
Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 5. D.A. Wolfe (ed.) .
Krieger Press, Malabar, Florida.
NOAA. 1984. National Marine Pollution Program: Catalog of Federal
Projects FY 1983 Update. Appendix No. 2 to the Federal
Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development, and
Monitoring. National Marine Pollution Program Office,
NOAA N/MPP. Rockville MD.
O'Connor, J.S. and R.T. Dewling. 1986. Indices of marine
degradation, their utility. Envir. Manag. (in press).
Paul, J.F., V.J. Bierman, Jr., H.A. Walker, and J.H. Gentile.
1986. Application of a hazard assessment research
strategy for waste disposal at the 106-Mile Ocean
Disposal Site. In: Oceanic Processes in Marine
Pollution, Vol. 5. D.A. Wolfe (ed.).
Krieger Press, Malabar, Florida.
Pracrer J c V J. Bierman Jr., and J.F. Paul. 1984. Hazard
assessment of low level radioactive wastes: a proposed
approach to ocean disposal permit request analyses.
Prepared for Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
October, 1984. 76 p.
Southerland, E., p. w* , _
£"£2 "»n«nor ?erfo^ing^,1?®4- Technics!
tj ^ JRB Associates for u s if38 Allocations
Protection Agency, Mashlngt^ Environmental
67
-------
Spies, R.B., D.W. Rice, Jr., P.A. Montagna, R.R. Ireland, J.S.
Felton, S.K. Healy, and P.R. Lewis. 1985. Pollutant
body burdens and reproduction in Platichthys stellatus
from San Francisco Bay. Prepared by Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory for the Coastal and Estuarine
Assessment Branch of NOAA/NOS, Seattle.
USEPA. 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
Volume 1- Final Report. Water Planning Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. NTIS
Accession Number PB84-185552.
USEPA. 1984. FY-1985 EPA Research Program Guide. October 1, 1984
- September 30 1985. Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington D.C.
USEPA. 1984. Risk assessment
decision making. U.S.
Washington, D.C. E(PA
and management: framework for
Environmental Protection Agency,
600/9-85-002. 35p.
USEPA. 1985. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Whipple, J.A. 1984. The impact of estuarine degradation and
chronic pollution on populations of anadromous striped
bass in the San Francisco Bay-Delta, CA. A summary for
managers and regulators. Southwest Fisheries Center,
Tiburon Fisheries Laboratory, Tiburon, CA.
68
-------
APPENDIX Ax TRIP REPORTS
U
-------
Charles A. Menzie and Associates
P.O. Box 1027
Westford, MA. 01886
(617) 692-7596
To: Vic Bierman, Dick McGrath
From; C. Menzie
Date: Sept 5, 1985
Subject: Trip Report for EPA Regions I and II (May 29, 1985)
The objective of this visit was to meet with EPA and
state personnel to learn about paraticular estuarine problems
encountered in Regions I and II and to obtain input regarding
rsearch needs. This information will be used to help develop the
estuarine research strategy within the EPA's Office of Research
and Development. Input from regional and state personnel is
considered critical to the strategy inasmuch as these individuals
are the eventual users of the research outputs.
Meetings were held with the following: EPA Region I and
II and the States of Connecticut and New York at Boston, MA. The
overall visit was coordinated by Dr. Mike Connor of EPA Region I.
Issue Identification and Information Needs
Several issues were identified as particularly important
in Regions I and II. These are described below:
1. Microbial Contamination of Shellfish and Swimming
Waters: this was considered one of the highest priority issues.
Such contamination affects numerous uses of estuaries in the
northeast. There is a clear need for appropriate indicators of
health risks. There is a need for information on whether the
relationship between indicator levels and risks is linear or
displays a threshold level. Information is needed on the fate of
the microorganisms and how fate is affected by suspended sediment
load and other physical or chemical factors. Information is
needed on how microorganisms are taken up by shellfish, i.e.
directly from the sediment, from water, or both. Depending on how
microorganisms are taken up, and on the spatial and temporal
variability of the microorganisms in the marine environment,
information and guidance are needed on appropriate sampling
strategies. Information is needed on the effects of soil type and
land use on the apparence of microorganisms in the water.
Information is needed on wastewater system designs that can be
affective in reducing levels of microorganisms (e.g. septic
tanks, CSO designs, catchment basins). Information is needed on
the effectiveness of chlorination on reducing actual health
risks.
A-l
-------
2. Toxic Contamination: this is also considered to be a
high priority issue with high visibility in the northeast.
Information is needed on human health impacts of chronic low
doses of organic toxics in seafood. Information is needed on
biological effects of toxics on reproduction of marine organisms,
and development of diseases in organisms as a result of elevated
body burdens of toxics and their metabolites. It was noted that
in estuaries, metals levels often exceed EPA Water Quality
Criteria. Information is needed on the actual biological effects
of metals copper and Silver at concentrations above 1-2 ppb.
Information is needed on the importance of metal speciation; can
the effects be predicted? Whole effluent toxicity testing needs
to be field validated for estuaries. Information is needed on
possible synergistic effects among toxics or between toxics and
reduced oxygen levels.
Information is needed on where monitoring assessment
should be made in estuaries, i.e., sediments, water column, body
burdens. Information is needed on the transport of suspended
sediments and the role this has in the transport of toxics in
estuaries.
3. Eutrophication: this is a problem in some coastal
areas and is a particularly problematic for western Long Island
Sound and embayments located around some of the major
municipalities (e.g. New York City). Information is needed on the
seriousness of eutrophication-related effects on estuaries in the
northeast. What are the effects on anoxia and changes in food
web? Simple measures to assess the health status of the estuary
are needed. The establishment of "ecological standards" would be
helpful. Information is needed on the effects of eutrophication
on commercial and recreational species of fish and shellfish.
A-2
-------
Charles A. Menzie and Associates
P.O. Box 1027
Westford, MA. 01886
(617) 692-7596
To: Vic Bierman, Dick McGrath
From: C, Menzie
Date: May 6, 1985
Subject: Trip Report for EPA Region IV (April 25 to 26, 1985)
The objective of this visit was to meet with EPA
personnel to learn about particular estuarine problems
encountered in Region IV and to obtain input regarding research
needs. This information will be used to help develop the
estuarine research strategy within the EPA's Office of Research
and Development. Input from regional personnel is considered
critical to the strategy inasmuch as these individuals are the
eventual users of the research outputs.
Meetings were held with the following: EPA Region IV at
Atlanta, GA and Region IV Environmental Research Group at Athens,
GA. Summaries of these discussions are pesented below and are
supplemented with information provided in reports and documents
furnished by Region IV personnel. The overall visit was
coordinated by Reginald Rogers of EPA Region IV.
EPA Region IV at Atlanta, GA
Discussions were held with Reginald Rogers, Bob Howard,
Ted Bisterfeld, Bill Kruczynski, Lee Pelej, and John Marlar. A
number of issues were discussed* these are summarized below.
1. Land use impacts: this was identified as one of the
most important factors affecting estuaries within Region IV.
Reference was made to the large scale clearing activities in
coastal North Carolina associated with the establishment of
"megafarms" some of which can amount to 22,000 acres. Urban and
residential development are also placing pressures on the
estuarine systems and are resulting in losses of wetlands. One
aspect of the land use issue is the effect on nutrient loading to
the estuaries especially from nonpoint sources• This is
discussed below under "nutrients".
It was noted that declines in fisheries were probably
related to losses of wetlands. A major current problem with
regulating land use as it relates to wetlands loss is that
proposed projets are handled in a piecemeal fashion. It was
suggested that it would be useful to document piecemeal loss of
wetlands and relate this to decline in fisheries.
Changes in hydrologic conditions associated wth changes
in land use are believed in some cases to be as and perhaps more
important than changes in pollutant load to the estuaries. It
A-3
-------
was suggested that there is a need for upland hydrologic models
that can be tied to or used in conjuction with estuarine
circulation models. Discussions are underway with the Army Corps
of Engineers concerning such models.
It was acknowledged that EPA had only a "secondary"
handle on dealing with land use issues. The state of North
Carolina has been in the process of developing an approach for
dealing with these problems. Region IV personnel indicated they
were quite concerned about the long-term effects of large scale
changes in land use.
2. Loss of seagrass habitat: this was identified as
another critical issue within Region IV. There are obvious
similarities between this problem and the Chesapeake Bay
experience. It has been possible to document changes (e.g.
losses) of these beds but it has not been possible to determine
the causal mechanisms. This is an area where research is needed.
3. Nutrients: nutrient loadings from point and nonpoint
sources were identified as a concern and was linked, in part, to
the general land use problem. One issue in particular that was
mentioned was the change from detrital based to phytoplankton
based food webs within estuaries. A need was identified with
regard to being able to relate nutrient/biota relationships to
changes in land use. It was also pointed out that with regard to
"nitrogen removal", some states within Region IV want to limit
nitrogen input. EPA Headquarters has taken the position that they
are not willing to help fund systems to limit nitrogen if it
can't be shown to be clearly impacting the estuarine environment.
Also, Headquarters has not and can not identify any situation
where they believe nitrogen removal is warrented.
4. Health status of estuaries: a need was identified with
regard to being able to assess the health status of an estuary.
It was noted that research should focus on identifying early
warning indicators of problems, especially those resulting from
chronic effets of toxics or changes in land use. It was noted
that it was extremely difficult to bring back seagrass beds which
leads to the adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure." Thus, early indicators of problems would be extremely
useful. It was suggested that it would be helpful to have a
protocol for evaluating an estuary.
5. Wetlands/wastewater treatment: it was noted that some
wetlands can have or play an important role in wastewater
treatment. If this role can be further demonstrated and
documented it would help establish the beneficial aspets of
wetlands within residential developments and help support the
case for preserving them. In addition, information was needed on
ways to sort out how and when to use wetlands for wastewater
treatment. Region IV is actively assessing the role of wetlands
A-4
-------
6. Toxics: it was noted that toxics were not as major an
issue in Region IV as they were in some other parts of the
country although mercury in the St. Johns River and inputs of
agricultural chemicals were mentioned. However, it was noted
there is a need for appropriate estuarine/marine bioassays with
particular reference to the short-term chronic bioassay.
7. Shellfish contamination: a desire was expressed for
better indicators (than fecal coliform) of contamination of
shellfish and recreational waters. More study is needed to
distinguish nonpoint vs point sources resulting in closures of
shellfish areas.
8. Information dissemination: it was noted that the
dissemination of information concerning applicable estuarine
studies in other areas was not efficient. This decreases the
overall utility of those studies. It was suggested that a better
mechannism be developed for disseminating appropriate information
to appropriate EPA and state personnel. The MMS OCS program was
mentioned as a good example of an information dissemination
program.
9. Program integration: it was noted that EPA has a
variety of regulatory programs that relate to estuaries. It
would be useful if there could be better integration of these
programs so that they address the estuary as a system.
EPA Region IV, ESP Laboatory
Discussions were held with Lee Tebo, Bill Peltier, Paul
Frey, Bill Walker, and Ron Rasche; Reg Rogers EPA IV, Atlanta
also participated in the meeting. A number of the points
presented above were also raised at this meeting and will not be
repeated. Additional issues that were discussed or expaned upon
are presented below.
1. Wastewater discharges: there is a need for more
precise detection of fate and effects? dye studies are considered
critical. Problems are encounted when attempting to delineate
the effects of individual discharges in situations where there
are multiple discharges as well as in assessing the cumulative
effects of the multiple discharges.
2. Toxics: a number of issues were identified as
outlined below:
o techniques (bioassays) were needed to get answers
quickly;
o techniques and methods should be simple and cost
effective but should have good technical basis and
adequate documentation; very sophisticated approaches
are difficult to implement at the regional or state
level;
A-5
-------
o there is a need for information concerning the
bioavailability of toxics in sediments; this area of
research should be emphasized especially with regard
to uptake of contaminants in brackish water situa-
tions 7
o there is a need for sediment criteria?
o there is a a need for information concerning the
"significance" of body burdens of toxics;
o there is a need for better sampling methods for
quantifying nonpoint sourcecs; these methods need
to be simple to use;
3. Methods: a recurrent theme in the discussions was the
need for "quick and dirty" but sound methods for going in and
assessing the health status of the estuary with the objective of
identifying problem areas. One area mentioned with regard to
such tools related to the use of chlorophyll a.
A-6
-------
Charles A. Menzie and Associates
P.O. Box 1027
Westford/ MA 01886
(617) 692-7596
To: Vic Bierman, Dick McGrath
From: C. Menzie
Date: May 6, 1985
Subject: Trip Report for EPA Region VI, Texas and Louisiana
(April 22 to 24, 1985)
The objective of this visit was to meet with local, state
and federal personnel to learn about particular estuarine
problems encountered in Region VI and to obtain input regarding
research needs. This information will be used to help develop the
estuarine research strategy within the EPA's Office of Research
and Development. Input from regional and state personnel is
considered critical to the strategy inasmuch as these individuals
are the eventual users of the research products.
Meetings or telephone conversations were held with the
following: EPA Region VI, Texas Department of Water Resources,
Texas General Lands Office, Texas Department of Health (Shellfish
Sanitation Division), Louisiana Office of Water Resources, Center
for Wetlands Resources of Louisiana State University and
Louisiana University Marine Consortium. Summaries of the
discussions with each of these are presented below but first some
general information is presented to illustrate the range of
conditions found in Gulf of Mexico systems.
The Gulf of Mexico is represented by many diverse
estuarine systems. The climate ranges from humid to arid and
from temperate to tropical, some systems experience little
freshwater inflow while others such as the deltaic plain of the
Mississippi receive a considerable volume, and the size of the
estuaries varies from very small to one of the largest in the
United States. Deegan and Day (1983) have described six
geomorphologic types of estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico:
o Drowned lacustrine plain - typified by numerous
mangrove islands surrounded by wide shallow submerged
areas;
o Drowned alluvial plain - drowned river mouths;
o Drowned calcareous plateau - typified by irregular
steep coastline with broad shallow offshore plateau;
o Deltaic coastal plain - typified by extensive low
lying emergent vegetation areas, shallow mud bottom
bays, turbid water, and little seagrass development;
o Chenier plain system - formed by marine reworking of
A-7
-------
recently deposited river sediments and usually found
adjacent to and downcurrent from deltaic systems;
o Strand plain systems - formed by development of
offshore sand barriers which enclose bodies of water.
EPA Region VI
Weather-related problems prevented a scheduled meeting
with Region VI personnel with the exception of Kathy Gillmore
with whom I met in Louisiana. The following EPA Region VI
personnel were contacted by telephone in order to discuss
estuarine related issues: Phil Crocker, Bob Vickery, Rus Bowen,
and Barbara Keeler. Results of these discussions are summarized
below.
1. General: It was clear from these discussions that
estuarine issues along the coasts of Louisiana and Texas differ
in emphasis from those identified in Regions in the northeast and
northwest United States. The major issues along the Texas and
Louisiana coasts are related to the physical and chemical habitat
of the estuary and adjacent wetland/marsh regions. In particular,
wetland and marsh loss and/or formation is probably the single
most important issue. For example, due to past practices related
to canal construction and control of freshwater outflow in
Louisiana, it is estimated that this state is losing
weland/marshes at a rate of 46.8 square miles per year. Other
issues discussed with Region VI personnel included wasteload
allocation and toxics. Much of the detail on these is presented
in the discussions with state and university personnel.
Two general comments were made with regard to research
needs. One was that research should be tied to management
initiatives. Another related to a question concerning the
relative roles of the EPA laboratories (including Gulf Breeze)
and the regions in the research.
2. Wetlands/marshess As noted above this has been a
major issue in Region VI. Particular concern was expressed
regarding the impacts of oil and gas canals on wetland and marsh
loss in coastal Louisiana. A critical issue related to this is
what constitutes good mitigation. It was pointed out that there
are a number of small projects bing conducted on mitigation but
that there has been no concerted effort to bring the results of
these various efforts together. In part, as a result, EPA
personnel are uncertain about what to recommend in terms of
mitigation related to maintaining or enhancing the wetland and
marsh areas. Such measures might involve backfilling channels
but there are numerous questions related to the type and depth of
material to be used and the appropriateness of filling particular
channels. In addition, it is difficult to assess the impact of
channels. It was eugge8ted that it would be very worthwhile i*
«„ .£fort w. made to pull together th. ..cUtin/inlo^ion on
A-8
-------
the systems and success or failure of various mitigation measures
in order to develop a mitigation guidance document for estuarine
wetlands and marshes.
T*?e r°le freshwater inflow has been identified as a
critical issue along the entire coastline. It has become a
sensitive political issue especially in Texas. Competition for
freshwater pits estuarine needs (overall quantities and seasonal
fluctuations in freshwater input) against those of upstream users
(especially those who want to establish permanent recreational
reservoirs.) It was suggested that freshwater inflow issues are
more of a management problem than a research problem. However,
it was also noted that better information was needed on the
optimum salinity ranges of estuarine species.
3. Wasteland Allocations It was noted that a
considerable amount of work on wasteload allocation was being
done in relation to BOD and NH3-N but that toxics (especially
metals in certain areas) have been largely ignored.
4. Toxics: It was acknowledged that there may be
problems with toxics in some coastal systems. This is detailed
further in the discussions with the state and university
personnel. Several comments were made regarding research needs
related to toxics. These are summarized below:
o There is a need to understand better the fate of
pollutants in waters of different salinities;
o There is a need for marine water quality criteria and
sediment criteria;
o There is a need for information on the form and
availability of toxics in marine systems;
o Appropriate bioassay methods need to be developed for
marine and estuarine systems. It was noted that the
present ERL-N approach was interesting but that it was
not a proven technique in all areas of the country.
Case studies were needed in different areas.
o It was noted that the water quality based permit
approach to toxics in estuaries sounded like a very
good idea but that implementation of this approach
would be difficult and might only apply in certain
situations.
Texas Department of Water Resources (and other departments)
Meetings were held with the following individuals: Jeff
Kirkpatrick, Gary Powell, Bruce Wiland, Larry Hauck, David Brock,
B.R. Crittendon, and D. Buzan.
A-9
-------
1. General: Four general environmental areas that were
discussed include freshwater inflow, waste load allocation,
closures of shellfish beds, and toxics. Freshwater inflow has
been a major issue with regard to the health and productivity of
Texas estuaries and has been the focus of much research. Broadly
considered, freshwater inflow has been viewed as the single most
important factor affecting the salinity characteristics of the
estuaries as well as nutrient input. Local concerns have not
been that there is too much nutrient input to the estuaries but
that there may be too little due to upstream diversion of
freshwater; periodic flooding of marshes due to freshwater inflow
has also been considered as an important source of nutrients.
The Texas Department of Water Resources has developed a strategy
for maintaining or enhancing the integrity and productivity of
estuaries based on annual and seasonal freshwater flows. The
inflow of freshwater is viewed as critical to the production of
key fish and shellfish as well as for survival of marshes and
wetlands.
Waste load allocation has focused on Biochemical Oxygen
Demand. There have been no attempts to conduct waste load
allocations for toxics. The Houston Ship Channel is recieving
attention with regard to oxygen levels and the degree to which
water quality criteria (1.0 mg/l oxygen) can be met with more
stringent controls on discharges. There has been considerable
debate over the benefits of trying to reach a 1.0 mg/l criterion
for oxygen in the upper portion of the confined channel. The D.O.
criterion for the mid-portion of the confined channel is 2 mg/l
while that of the lower portion of the confined channel is 4.0
mg/l.
Approxiamately one-third of Texas' estuaries are closed
to oyster shellfishing due to microbial contamination or the
potential for contamination. There was a recent outbreak of
cholera that was believed to be related to oysters in Galveston
Bay.
Toxics have received some attention in several systems
along the Texas coast. These include the Arroyo Colorado Segment
2201, Corpus Christi Bay and Corpus Christi Inner Harbor Segments
2481 and 2484, and Neches and Sabine Rivers Segments 0601 and
0501. It is acknowledged that other systems (e.g. Houston Ship
Channel/Galveston Bay) probably contain various toxics due to the
presence of many industrial discharges.
These four environmental issues are discussed further
below.
2. Freshwater Inflow: As noted above this has been one of
the major issues in Texas. Several major studies have been
conducted to examine the effects of freshwater inflow on bavs and
estuaries. These were directed by Texas Senate Bill 13?, 64th
Texas Legislature. Analyses were conducted 1 ,
the following objectivesi on Beven systems with
A—10
-------
o Describe and quantify the freshwater inflow/salinity/
biological relationships of the estuarine environments;
o Estimate the annual and seasonal freshwater inflows
associated with the production of finfish and shellfish
at observed historic levels.
In order to estimate the influence of freshwater inflows
on estuarine ecosystems several assumptions were made. A main
premise is that the relationships and interactions between
freshwater inflows and estuarine productivity can be indirectly
examined through analysis of the following key indicators:
frequency of delta marsh inundation, salinity near major
freshwater inflow points, historical commercial harvests of
estuarine-dependent fish and shellfish. Freshwater inflow needs
were developed for three alternatives: subsistence, fisheries
harvest maintenance, and fisheries harvest enhancement. It was
also noted from these studies that, "In addition to freshwater
entering an estuary in the needed volume and at the appropriate
time, it is also necessary that the inflows be relatively free of
toxic pollutants and contain sufficient nutrient materials to
insure continued reproduction and growth of estuarine organisms."
Several important research issues were raised during the
discussions of freshwater inflow and are presented below.
o Recycling of nutrients within the system has been
difficult to quantify and makes it difficult to assess
nutrient input "needs" to Texas estuaries;
o Urbanization is causing problems with regard to
assessing the relationships between freshwater inflow
and estuarine health and production. This includes
possible impacts of nonpoint sources, toxics, and
wastewater inputs. The effects of these on estuarine
health must be better understood;
o The freshwater inflow/salinity regression equations
developed by the Department of Water Resources have
been criticized and there is need for technical
support relating freshwater flows to salinity
characteristics in estuaries of the Texas Gulf Coast;
o The regression equations used by the department to
relate fishery (e.g. shrimp) yields to freshwater
inflow have been criticized. There is a need to
develop a better understanding of these relationships
and to develop appropriate methodologies for relating
biological conditions to physical and chemical
factors.
A-ll
-------
The department has been working with an estuarine
ecosystem model "ESTECO" in order to examine relationships among
freshwater inflows, nutrient loadings, and overall health and
production of the estuaries. They have had only marginal success
with this model to date. It was described as "bulky and
difficult to use". In addition, there are problems with
inadequate data especially as these relate to rate processes and
verification of the model. I was provided with a list of research
needs with regard to "Estuarine Research Models". These are
presented below:
o Better measures of benthic biomass are needed which
inlude micoorganisms as well as standard macrofauna.
How much of the sediment TOC is alive and how do
we partition what's in the sediments into
a) contributors to nutrient dynamics and b) nutrient
storage?
o If the sediments are conceived as a flywheel or
battery for the ecosystem - what are the parameters
of input needs, depletion rates, etc.?
o How should oyster reefs and seagrass beds be
incorporated into estuarine models?
o How many migratory animals (e.g. fish) are there? Do
they cover the entire estuary? How much material do
they export from the estuary?
o Can we classify areas within an estuary efficiently
with respect to habitat types in a way that would fit
in with modelling?
o How do we deal with detritus in nutrient budgets and
processes? How do we measure detrital mass?
o What kind of diurnal patterns occur during different
seasons?
3. Waste load allocations As noted above, waste load
allocation has focused on BOD. There have been no attempts to
conduct waste load allocations for toxics. Exerpts from the 1984
Water Quality Inventory are presented below to give an indication
of the degree of wastewater discharge problems and wasteload
allocation activities in selected systemst
Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Plain - classified as water
quality limited based primarily on historical violations of D.O.
standard. Nutrient enrichment (phosphorus and nitrogen) promotes
high primary productivity with algal metabolism contributing to
periodically depressed D.O. This occurs primarily in the tidal
portion of the segment where a number of fi»h viii« tiaai
occurred. A number of toxics have been oSlSvISdiscussed
A-12
-------
below). An oxygen resource model and waste load evaluation are
currently being developed. Municipal effluents appear to be the
major contributor of nutrients and oxygen-demanding substances.
San Antonio River Basin - classified as water quality
limited. The river experiences generally poor water quality
conditions (low dissolved oxygen) throughout the upper 60 miles.
Problems include elevated nutrients, dissolved solids, and fecal
coliform. Treated municipal wastewater appears to be the most
significant contributor. A wasteload evalution has been approved
requiring treatment level of 5mg/l BOD and 3mg/l ammonia N.
San Jacinto - Brazos Coastal Basin - classified as water
quality limited. Disslved oxygen levels are occasionally below
4mg/l. Total and ortho-phosphorus levels in water are
persistently elevated, and inorganic nitrogen levels are
frequently elevated.
San Jacinto River Basin - Water Quality progressively
deteriorates toward the lower part of the basin, especially in
the Houston Ship Channel, due to the large quantity of industrial
and municipal wastewater discharges, urban runoff, and nonpoint
source loads from the Houston metroplex. (See below for
discussion of wastewater treatment for Houston Ship Channel.)
Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin - The lower portion of
Taylor Bayou experiences persistently low dissolved oxygen levels
and high nutrient levels. The exact causes of these poor water
quality conditions have not been evaluated. The lower tidal
segment is condsidered water quality limited. Studies to examine
the relationships among dissolved oxygen, benthic demand,
background BOD, and macrophytes were recommended by the wasteload
evaluation.
The Houston Ship Channel which feeds into upper Galveston
Bay has posed problems with regard to achieving water quality
criteria. A general plan of study has been developed by the Texas
Department of Water Resources. Several components of this study
plan remain to be determined and were identifid by department
personnel as areas where additional research was needed for the
channel in particular and estuaries in general. Thse include:
o Nitrifier Study - to quantify the number of
nitrifiers; data will be utilized to verify model?
o Benthic Study - to quantify benthic oxygen demand and
ammonia source rates for use in the water quality
model?
o Reaeration Study - to quantify reaeration for use in
the water quality model. The department is also
interested in studies involving instream aeration
technologies.
A-13
-------
A general issue that has been raised is the relationship
between improving water quality in the Houston Ship Channel and
benefits in upper Galveston Bay as well as the side bays
(tertiary estuaries). The Department feels that these
relationships must be better established in order to defend more
stringent discharge requirements.
4. Shellfish Beds: As noted above one-third of the
shellfish beds are closed due to potential microbial
contamination. Richard Thompson of the Shellfish Sanitation
Division of the Texas Department of Health indicated that there
has been considerable discussion concerning the adequacy of the
fecal coliform indicator and expressed a desire to have better
indicators including those that address viruses. He referred to
the joint EPA/NOAA program involving enterococci. His personal
feeling was that it may not be possible to come up with a single
"magical" indicator but that combinations of indicators may need
to be developed on a regional basis.
5. Toxics: As noted above, toxics (priority pollutants)
have been looked for and found in several systems. The Department
established criteria for determining if these toxics were of
primary or secondary significance and summarized this information
for three riverine/estuarine systems as presented below.
Number of Toxics
System Primary Significance Secondary Significance
Corpus Christi
Bay/Inner Harbor 11 7
Arroyo Colorado 17
Neches/Sabine Rivers 11 8
Metals, phthalate esters, and PAHS were amoung the toxics
considered significant in the Corpus Christi area; chlorinated
solvents, phenols, metals and pesticides were considered
significant in the Arroyo Colorado while metals, phthalate esters
and pesticides were considered significant in the Neches/Sabine
Rivers. The 1984 Water Quality Inventory pointed out a number of
sources for toxics to Texas estuarine areas. The following exerpt
is taken from the description provided for the Nueces-Rio Grand
Coastal Basin, "Elevated levels of arsenic, DDD, chlordane,
lindane, heptachlor. tetrachloroethylene, and trichloroethylene
have been detected in water; elevated levels of copper, mercury,
DDE, and chlordane have been found in fish tissue. Agricultural
runoff is the suspected source of most of these contaminants,
although no specific nonpoint source have been identified. The
significance of these contaminants has not been adequately
determined."
A-14
-------
The presence of toxics was noted throughout the Water
Quality Inventory. However, it was also noted that the
significance of these inputs was not known. Sources of toxics
have been generally described as "agricultural, industrial, urban
runoff, etc.". Mass loadings have not been estimated. While the
presence of toxics is recognized, and ongoing studies are
planned, this general environmental issue has not been a primary
focus of studies in Texas estuaries or in waste load allocation
considerations to date.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Discussions were held with Dugan Sabins and Robert
Hannah. The following general environmental issues were
discussed - coastal wetlands, water quality problems, research
needs.
1. Coastal Wetlands: The significance of wetlands loss
was emphasized and the following is taken from material provided
by the Loiusiana Department of Natural Resources. Louisiana
represents one of ^the most extensive regions of marsh and wetland
in the United States. Louisiana contans 41% of the nations
coastal wetlands and 25% of all wetlands in the nation making it
one of the largest and richest estuarine areas in the world. As
noted earlier, Louisiana is experiencing a serious loss of
wetlands and marshes (46.8 sq. miles per year or 0.6%). Between
1956 - 1978 the Department of Natural Resources noted that
national wetland losses totaled 11.5 million acres which is
equivalent to 14 times the size of Rhhode Island.. In Louisiana,
183,000 acres of saltmarsh was converted to open bays. Swamp
losses in the lower Mississippi Delta (Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Arkansas) have totaled 4.5 million acres.
The Department has indicated that The Louisiana coastal
land loss may be caused by both natural and man made forces
including:
o natural phenomena of subsidence, sea level rise,
storms, erosion, and lack of sedimentation;
o man made causes associated with dredging and spoil
disposal, saltwater intrusion, draining and filling,
levees, canals, mineral extraction, agricultural
practices, and industrial and urban expansion.
The Department of Natural Resources has pointed out that
wetlands losses can mean losses in fish and wildlife resources as
well as direct disruption of man's activities by increased
flooding and pollution from the loss of the protective functions
of wetlands in providing buffer from storms and a filter for
pollutants.
A-15
-------
The numerous canals created by the oil and gas industry
have been identified as one of the major causes of wetland loss.
In addition, these canals exacerbate anoxic conditions within the
marsh systems. Dugan Sabins discussed the Mississippi River
diversion projects proposed by the Corps of Engineers. These
projects would involve discharging freshwater from the river to
the upper reaches of the coastal marshes. This is expected to
offset salinity intrusion to some degree and alo provide sediment
to the marshlands. The Corps has prepared Environmental Impact
Statements for these projects.
One issue that must be considered with regard to any of
the diversion projects is the introduction of toxics and
pathogens associated with river water and sediment to the marsh
and open water regions. At present there is a major accretion of
marsh and wetlands in the Atchafalaya River Delta. This river
basin itself supports an important fishery for crawfish.
The state is also using vegetation as indicators for
coastal marsh/salinity types and this information serves as a
management tool and a means of assessing the status and change in
status of coastal wetlands. Much of the work related to this has
been done by Louisiana State University and the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
2. Water Quality Problems: Several general water
quality problems were identified. These are associated with a
broad range of causes including saltwaer intrusion, nonpoint
sources, industrial and mumicipal point source discharges, and
heavy residential development in certain areas. The state has
been studying problems in several systems. Three of these are
discussed here to illustrate the kinds of problems that are
occurring: Lake Pontchartrain, Calcasieu Lake, and the Barataria
Estuarine Complex.
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Water
Pollution Control Division has reported interim findings for a
water quality investigation of Lake Ponchartrain. The
conclusions are summarized below:
o Levels of toxic substances in the lake are not
condisered deleterious to aquatic organisms or human
healthy
o the lake chronically receives input of a broad
spectrum of conaminants associated with urban,
domes-tic, and commercial develoopment. Most impacted
are nearshore areas near mouths of major drainage and
navigation canals;
A-16
-------
o higher levels of nutrients and oxygen consuming
substances have been associated wih sewage input while
higher levels of chemical contaminants are associated
with areas receiving urban runoff and greater
industrial development;
o areas of low benthic diversity have been observed.
These are believed to be associated with salinity
stratification and oxygen depletion rather than toxic
contamination;
o large areas of the southeastern and east central
regions of the lake are subject to severe dissolved
oxygen depletions in the lower water column in the
warm water months. Anoxic conditions result from
non-mixing characteristics brought by pronounced
salinity stratification associated with the intrusion
of highly saline waters from the Gulf of Mexico via
the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet;
o the lake is not "dying" but is impacted by many
man-made influences, many of which can and must be
reversed, if the lake is to remain an important
natural resource.
Another pressing issue associated with Lake Pontchartrain
is the extensive development that is currently taking place along
the northern shoreline. This activity is increasing runoff to
the lake and is also placing increasing demands on sewage
treatment facilities. There is concern that this rapid
development will exceed the capacity of the local treatment
facilities; development around the lake has also resulted in the
destruction of much wetland. A water quality effect from loss of
wetlands is the reduction of a buffer zone between open waters
and developed areas on higher ground. In this respect, the
interim report noted that loss of wetlands has expedited the
increases in turbidity and pollutant levels that have occurred
during recent years.
The Calacasieu Lake system receives discharges from large
industrial point sources and is experiencing a variety of water
quality problems, particularly with low dissolved oxygen. These
are associated, in part, with the construction of the Calcasieu
ship channel and subsequent salinity control structure near Lake
Charles upstream from Calcasieu Lake.
Several agencies have been evaluating for toxics in the
Calcasieu system (state, EPA, NOAA). All the facts are not in
yet but there is evidence of elevated metal concentrations, in
particular mercury. Although there is national attention on the
Calcasieu system, studies are not well coordinated although a
Management Conference was held at McNeese State University in
December 1984. The state is planning to conduct a wasteload
allocation (BOD only) for the system.
A-17
-------
The Barataria Estuarine Complex is an important resource
to Louisisana. It is a very productive region for seafood
harvesting, water commerce, mineral extraction and recreation.
In recent years the Barataria Complex has experienced a variety
of water quality problems mostly related to expanding populations
along the west bank of the Mississippi River* The water quality
problems have been categorized as follows:
o Nonpoint sources - agricultural runoff from sugarcane
and soybean lands; urban runoff from developments;
saltwater intrusion from the Gulf and lower estuaries
through navigation channels and access canals;
o Point sources - sugar refineries and oil and gas
facililities; sewage treatment plantsy
o Natural sources - runoff from swamps and marshes;
o Accidental spills.
These problems have been responsible for exceedences of
dissolved oxygen and coliform bacteria criteria. Anoxic
conditions have reulted in fish kills primarily in the upper
basin while high coliform bacteria levels have caused closures of
productive oyster grounds in the mid basin. Among the management,
activities planned for the area is the development of wasteload
allocations for municipal and industrial discharges.
3. Research Needs: The following were mentioned by
state personnel with regard to estuarine research needs:
o There is a need for a systematic way of defining the
hydrodynamics of these complex estuaries;
o Water quality modeling is considered cost prohibitive
and difficult to do for these systems; the state of
the art is simply not advanced far enough to support
technically soound modeling of Louisiana's systems;
the state cannot afford to advance the state of the
art;
o Louisiana estuaries are subject to large natural
inputs of organic matter and other factors that tend
to result in periodic natural depressions in oxygen;
there is a need for more flexible, realistic, or
appropriate oxygen water quality criteria for
estuaries; there is a need to understand rates of
reaeration and benfchal demand;
o The need to understand bioavaiiability of toxic
relative uncertainty in fate
A-18
-------
o There is a need to understand the role of marshes as
treatment systems and as buffers for pollutants.
o There is a need to understand the mode of transport
and survival of disease-causing bacteria in the
Barataria and adjacent estuarine systems and the
contamination of productive oyster grounds and other
seafood products. Such studies will lead it is hoped
to appropriate controls of bacteria sources.
o There is a need to study the potential for marsh
treatment of municipal sewage treatment plants as an
alternative to point source discharge of traditionally
treated effluent in tidally influenced coastal water
bodies.
LSU Center for Wetlands Resources (LSU) and Louisiana
Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON)
Discussions were held with Bruce Thompson, Gary Fitzhugh,
and Linda Deegan of LSU and Don Boesch of LUMCON. The topics
discussed are summarized below:
1. Index of Estuarine Healths There has been interest
in Louisiana regarding a way to measure or express the "health
status" of an estuary. The Index of Biological Integrity, used
in freshwater, was discussed as a possible tool but work would
have to be done to determine whether this or other approaches are
applicable to estuaries. One difficulty in using a single index
is the predominanat seasonal as well as short-term variability
that estuaries experience.
2. Water Quality Criteria: There was some discussion
concerning the applicability of existing water quality criteria
and, in particular, those for dissolved oxygen. The question was
posed "Given a set of EPA standards does that translate into a
healthy biotic system?" Naturally occurring variations in
dissolved oxygen within estuaries was noted and questions were
raised with regard to the possibility of developing seasonally
adjusted water quality standards.
3. Environmental Issues; Much of the discussion of
environmental issues was similar to that with the state personnel
(see above). The key areas are as follows:
o wetland Loss - due to a combination of many man-made
as well as natural causes. Activities that have
resulted in wetland loss include the construction of
levees and canals (especially for oil and gas
operations) which affect the hydrodynamics of the
overall system and the degree of saltwater intrusion,
A-19
k
-------
Dredge and fill operations have also resulted in
wetland loss. It was also noted that discharges from
oil and gas operation (drilling muds, cuttings,
produced water) occur directly into the marshes.
o Anoxic Events - these have occurred in Lake
Pontchartrain as well as in smaller bays and canals.
Their occurrence is thought to t>e related to
combinations of organic loading, salt water intrusion
(enhanced by the canals) as well as other factors.
o Toxics - the state is beginning to get a handle on
this for some systems. Many of Louisiana's estuaries
are remote from sources of toxics. However, several
large estuarine systems are receiving inputs of toxics
from point sources as well as nonpomt sources.
Pesticides and agricultural chemicals are especially
important in the latter category- The diversion of
some portion of the Mississippi River into the upper
reaches of some of the marsh areas (to offset
saltwater intrusion) has been an issue from a water
quality standpoint. The river contains a broad mix of
chemical toxics including an estimated 77 carcinogens.
A critical question concerns the fate and effects of
toxics in these estuarine systems.
o Shellfish Beds - the harvestabie oyster beds have been
shrinking due, in part, to a combination of two
factors. First, saltwater intrusion has pushed the
habitat for successful oyster growth further up nto
the estuary. Second, there is a trend toward
decreasing water quality further up into the estuaries
with regard to coliform bacteria. Thus, portions of
these new beds are closed.
4. Research Needs: Research needs are implied
throughout the summary of the discussions presented above.
However, LSU and LUMCON personnel emphasized a few key areas.
These are as follows:
o There is aa critical need to develop an understanding
of the hydrologic and hydrodynamic processes of the
overall bay—©stuarine—canal systems. These differ
from the classical "estuarine" systems described by
from the pritchard in as much as there is lettle tidal
forcing. Meteorological events strongly affect
advections and residence time. This need is basic to
addressing questions of salt water intrusion, overall
water quality* nutrient loading# and fate and effects
of toxics. There is a need for a classification
system and methods for predicting (perhaps using
probabilistic hind cast models) the behavior of water.
Flora Wang at LSU is conducting wome work along these
lines.
A-20
-------
The fate and effects of toxics in marsh/wetland
systems were identified as other areas where research
was needed. Such information is critical in as much
as Mississippi River diversion projects of varous
kinds are being planned.
The processes resulting in coastal anoxia were
identified as an area for further research.
A-21
-------
Charles A. Menzie and Associates
P.O. Box 1027
Westford, MA. 01886
(617) 692-7596
To: Vic Bierman, Dick McGrath
From: C. Menzie
Date: May 20, 1985
Subject: Trip Report for San Francisco, CA Visit (March 27-29,
1985)
The objective of this visit was to meet with local, state
and federal personnel as well as consultants to learn about
particular estuarine problems encountered in San Francisco Bay
and Region IX and to obtain input regarding research needs. This
information will be used to help develop the estuarine research
stategy within the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Input from regional personnel is considered critical to the
strategy inasmuch as these individuals are the eventual users of
the research outputs.
Meetings were held with the following: EPA Region IX and
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Summaries
of the discussions with each of these are presented below.
EPA Region IX
Meetings with EPA as well as state personnel were
coordinated by Dr. Brian Melzian. Other EPA personnel who
participated in the meetings included Phil Oshida, Bill Pierce
(Branch Chief, Permits and Compliance), Pat Eklund (Section
Chief, Oceans and Estuaries), Jeremy Johnstone and Dr. Mark
Metcalf (both with the bay program). Summaries of these
discussions are presented below.
1. General: to date EPA has not had a major role with
regard to major rsearch programs in San Fancisco Bay. I was
provided with an overview of work being conducted by others, in
particular the San Francisco Region Water Quality Control Board,
U.S. Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Regional
EPA personnel are eager to contribute in developing a better
understanding of the bay and in managing or helping coordinate
programs for the bay. This is reflected, in part, by their
efforts to have San Francisco Bay added to the list of bays
currently being given special attention by OMEP.
There are a number of complex problems involving
pollution or multiple uses within the bay. The bay, which
receives 40% of the drainage in California, experiences a broad
variety of organic and inorganic inputs, especially from
agricultural areas and industrial and municipal discharges.
There are extreme demands on fresh water throughout California
and as these continue to increase they affect the frpshuafar
discharage into the bay ana circulation within the bay and? as a
A-22
-------
result, the salinity characteristics within the bay/estuary
complex. Because of the high sediment load to the bay, regular
maintenance dredging is needed and there are also plans for
deepening ship channels. There are concerns regarding the direct
or indirect discharge of selenium contaminated agricultural
wastewater to the bay. The southern region of the bay abuts
Silicon Valley and there is the possibility of contaminated
groundwater from this area entering the bay. There are numerous
point and nonpoint souces around the bay itself and these
discharge various contaminants. Monitoring programs have
revealed the presence of toxics (e.g., PCBs and PAHs) in marine
organisms within the bay. Shellfish beds are closed during most
of the year although some beds have been opened on a trial basis
during the past two summers.
2. Source identification: some work has been done on
source identification by various agencies and environmental
groups but as noted above there are numerous point and nonpoint
sources to the bay. These will pose problems for making
quantitative estimates of toxic inputs.
Selenium has been identified as a problem pollutant but
there are others that may turn out to be particularly important.
Arsenic was mentioned as one possibility and other metals (Cd,
Cu, Ni, Hg, and Zn) are found in the sediments and biota.
Reopened mines represent a potential source of metals loadings to
the bay.
3. Site characterization: there is a need to conduct
good site characterization including biological resources and the
presence of toxics in sediments and fish. There is a need for a
comprehensive fishery study (recreational and commercial). Toxic
"hot spots"havebeen identified and these need to be better
defined.
4 Exposure assessment: a critical aspect with respect
to exposure is the role of freshwater inflow to the bay and its
importance directly to the survival of key recreational and
commercial fish and other organisms as well as to the fate and
distribution of toxics within the bay (e.g., by affecting
floculation and sedimentation processes). The need for a good
hydrodynamic model was cited. The creation of a deep ship
channel is a concern with regard to the occurrence of anoxia.
Much information is needed with respect to exposure to
toxics. Some work (benthic coupling research project) is being
funded "by EPA Newport with regard to the toxic hot spots and is
being carried out by Bob Speis. This work involves sediment
analyses for PAHs and PCBs as well as analyses of these chemicals
in flounder tissue. This work can be considered analogous to the
sediment criteria research being carried out in Puget Sound and
in need of the same kinds of basic research support.
A-23
-------
5. Effects assessments thre is a critical need for
appropriate bioassay testing procedures; Steve Schimmel
(EPA/ERLN) has visited with the regional and state personnel and
efforts are now underway in this area. This need includes
testing related to the water-quality based permits. There is a
need for information on the factors affecting striped bass
populations and other fishry resources within the bay (work is
being carried out by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, California
Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services,
State Water Resources Control Board as well as other agencies).
The crab Cancer magister used to be abundant within the bay and
there is need for information on its stocks and on the factors
affecting its survival and reproductive success; high levels of
petroleum hydrocarbons have been observed in crab tissue in the
upper bay.
An important aspect with regard to toxic inputs to the
bay is that secondary treated effluents have been more toxic than
expected.
Selenium contamination of agricultural drainage water
which enters tributaries (e.g., San Joaquin River) to San
Francisco Bay has become a major environmental issue in the
region. There are other priority pollutants which may have
caused problems in the past or will in the future and research
efforts are needed to characterize and quantify the extent of any
real or potential problems.
6. Risk assessment: public health concerns have been
raised with regard to the presence of toxics in fish and
shellfish. Some of the issues are: 1) presence of toxic
contaminants (PCBs) in striped bass and the recreational
importance of this species (4 million user days/yr); 2) pier
fishing for fish and probably also shellfish that may contain
toxics; and 3) some population groups within the area will tend
to use these sources of food and are unlikely to abide by fishing
or shellfishing restrictions.
7. Waste Load Allocation/water Quality Based Permitsi at
present the State Water Resources Control Board is working on
water quality based permits for San Joaquin River.
8. Management/Coordinations EPA personnel are in the
process of developing a management program for the bay. A
recommendation was made that EPA become linked into the NOAA
Status and Trends Program, especially the work related to QA/QC.
It was noted that EPA presently does not have protocols for
sediment criteria; regional EPA IX personnel are pushing to have
such protocols developed (in connection with 301 (h) programs) in
addition to priority pollutant protocols for the analyses of
marine sediment and tissue samples.
California Regional Water Quality Contra nnm rl
A-24
-------
Mike Ammann and Richard Whitsel participated in the
meeting. Discussions related to characterization and monitoring
are presented first because this represented the primary topic
discussed.
1. Site characterization/monitoring: there is a basic
need to characterize conditions in the bay and to assess trends
in these conditions. The Regional Water Quality Control Board
has established the Aquatic Habitat Program (AHP) which has two
features: a water quality monitoring and research plan to
determine chronic, long-term effects of pollutants on beneficial
uses of San Francisco Bay and an instructional framework for
implementing the monitoring plan.
The goals of AHP are to:
o assess the health of aquatic life in the bay in
relation to the effects of pollutants
o determine the specific causes of any adverse changes
in the health of the bay that appear to be pollutant-
related.
o obtain the maximum use of funds by coordinating
activities of this program with all other monitor-
ing and research activities in the bay.
As part of this effort a water quality monitoring and
research plan has been developed and is entitled, "Plan for
Assessing the Effects of Pollutants in the San' Francisco
Bay-Delta Estuary". It is based on the premise that it is more
useful to monitor directly the responses of aquatic organisms to
wastewater effluent than to rely only on water quality
measurements. The plan consists of six elements:
o Local effects monitoring - to detect changes in the
immediate vicinity of a wastewater outfall
o Regional effects monitoring - to determine baywide
long-term effects of pollutants from all sources
including point and nonpoint sources
o Effluent assessment - to identify specific pollutants
in a wastewater responsible for harming test organisms
used in local and regional effects testing
o Hydrodynamics - to gain a more complete understanding
of how pollutants move in the bay
o Coordination
o Research - to determine the extent and effects of
unusual events such as treatment plant upsets and oil
and chemical spills and other water quality concerns.
A-25
-------
This element is also needed to understand the
processes that affect the uptake of environmental
pollutants by plants and animals and the mechanisms
which regulate the interactions between organisms and
their environment.
Possible uses of these data by the San Francisco Bay
Reqional Board include: amending water quality objectives,
relaxation or tightening of effluent requirements, enforcement
action, dissemination of information to the public, determining
sources of pollution, and determining assimilative capacities of
receiving waters.
2 Nutrients: the state personnel expressed concern
reqarding'nutrients in the Bay. How are these nutrients
partitioned? Although large algal blooms are not observed, they
feel they may be sitting on a "time bomb as far as nutrients are
concerned. They note the turbidity of the Bay may be keeping
algal growth in check. They would like to know if there is a
sink for these nutrients.
3 Source Identification: several issues were discussed
in relation to sources. One question that was raised was, "How
do you identify the source of contaminants observed in shellfish
and fish?"
A potential source of contaminants to the south bay could
be groundwater discharges. Leaking underground tanks have been
•a in that aeneral area and because of a soil subsidence
problem# water is now being brought in and discharged to the
^ TK««in area The result could be increased discharge of
^nnrtwater to the Bay. Among the important sources that have
already been mentioned are thl rivers draining into the bay,
nonpoint sources adjacent to the bay, and numerous point sources
hav cattle were identified as a problem in certain areas
wtti regtrd to microbial contamination. Agriculture in general
represents one of the most important sources of solids and
chemicals to the bay.
4 Exposure Assessment: state personnel mentioned the
following'issues related to exposure assessments:
o how are toxics being bioaccumulated or partitioned
into various compartments in the bay system
o there is interest in doing a carbon budget for the bay
o sediment/water quality relationships were identified
ae an important research area
o there is a need for good hydrodynamic work
o there is a need to understand physical and chemical
processes in the "null zone"
A-26
-------
o there is a need to understand the role that marshes
and wetlands have in removing contaminants and
nutrients
5. Effects Assessment: a number of issues were raised
with regard to effects assessment. The major comment was that
thre was a need to document the degree to which the bay was
degraded; to address the question, "What is the health and status
of the bay?" The key issues rlated to effects are a) those
related to pollutants entering the bay system, and b) those
related to the delta outlfow and the role of freshwater inflow.
A field sampling program has been estblished to examine
"effects" on marine organisms based on the premise that it is
easier to monitor effects on organisms directly. The primary
components of this program are the sampling of plankton,
maroalgae, and benthos, the collection of supporting water
quality data, and the use of a striped bass health index.
The striped bass health index is an area where additional
research is needed. Health of the striped bass population is
thought to be related to the delta outflow and contaminant
levels. The index is an outgrowth of past assessments and is
still in the process of being developed by Janette Whipple. A
number of parameters are incorporated into the index including
toxics in the liver and histopathology. A critical research need
is a study of the factors responsible for the decline in the
striped bass population.
Concerns were also expressed with regard to effects of
toxics on the flatfish fishery. Toxics of concern include
pesticides, PAHs and PCBs. Nonpoint sources are suspected to be
important. Possible effects include decreased reproductive
ability and increases in MFO activity.
A decline in the crab population has also been observed.
However it is thought that this may be related more to changes
in ocean currents rather than pollution. Still, this indicates a
need to be able to discriminate between natural and man-made
effects.
It is noted that eel grass is making a come back in the
bay after it had declined 10 to 15 years ago.
A-27
-------
Charles A. Menzie and Associates
P.O. Box 1027
Westford, MA. 01886
(617) 692-7596
To: Vic Bierman, Dick McGrath
From: C. Menzie
Date: May 20, 1985
Subject: Trip Report for Seattle, WA Visit (March 25-27, 1985)
The objective of this visit was to meet with local, state
and federal personnel as well as consultants to learn about
particular estuarine problems encountered in San Francisco Bay
and Region IX and to obtain input regarding research needs. This
information will be used to help develop the estuarine research
strategy within the EPA's Office of Research and Development.
Input from regional personnel is considered critical to the
strategy inasmuch as these individuals are the eventual users of
the research outputs.
The Puget Sound Water Quality Management Program prepared
by the Washington Department of Ecology and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (1983) outlined the following
basic problem areas:
o toxic contamination of the urban-industrial bays
o bacterial contamination of Puget Sound shellfish
o longer-term effects of waste discharges to the sound
o coordination among environmental control and
investigative agencies.
Meetings were held with the following: EPA Region X,the
Washington Department of Ecology, the Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), Tetra Tech, and Envirosphere.
Summaries of the discussions with each of these are presented
below.
EPA Region X
The following EPA personnel participated in the meeting:
John Underwood, Rick Albright, Jan Hastings, Bruce Duncan, and
Marsha Lagerloef. John Armstrong was unable to attend. I was
provided with a copy of the Jones and Stokes reports concerning
the water quality management program in Puget Sound? information
presented in these reports has been incorporated below where
appropriate. These reports serve as key water quality management
guidance documents for EPA Region X.
associated with point sources. Non-point sources 9 w
°urces remain a problem
A-28
-------
for quantification. In general, the approach to source
identification involves identification of a specific problem
(e.g., the presence of specific toxic contaminants in sediments)
and then an assessment of what might be the source(s) of those
chemicals. Basically, this involves working back from the
problem. "Sediment criteria" play an important role in the
overall source identification process. Other than research
related to sediment criteria and a recognition of the difficulty
associated with quantifying non-point source inputs, no specific
research needs were recommended during the course of these
discussions. Several studies specific to Puget Sound were
recommended in the Jones and Stokes report (Part III).
The Jones and Stokes report notes that, "Data are
available primarily for point sources....
Conventional and extended conventional water quality parameters
comprise the bulk of the available data; with the exception of
heavy metals, information on most of the priority pollutants is
often limited to a few analyses. Information on other toxicants
which are not considered of sufficient national priority to be
listed as EPA priority pollutants (e.g., CBDs) is almost
nonexistent. Loading for nonpoint sources is not documented...
primarily because their diffuse nature does not easily lend
itself to source identification and/or monitoring...The relative
contribution of nonpoint sources to Puget Sound is expected to
increase as permit programs bring point source discharges
increasingly into compliance with water quality objectives."
Jones and Stokes recommended the following studies
pertaining to critical data gaps in mass loading:
o Development of high priority pollutant lists for local
aeoqraphic areas. There is a need to provide water
auality managers with a list of pollutant species,
isomers, and their metabolites most appropriate for
monitoring or research analyses in localized areas.
o Documentation of input from urban runoff.
o Documentation of pollutant loading from urban rivers.
« nocumentation of pollutant loading from industrial
discharges. The problem here is that the existing NPDES
limitations and monitoring requirements are usually
limited to conventional pollutants. Few data exist on
concentrations of toxic chemical compounds that could
occur in the discharges.
o Analyses of CSO effluent volume and composition.
Limited data currently exist on discharge quality and
volumes•
A-29
-------
o Documentation of pollutant loading from municipal
treatment plants. This is basically a complex effluent
problem. An initial screening approach is suggested
followed by quantification of high priority pollutants.
o Documentation of pollutant loading from atmospheric
flux.
o Review of historical spills.
o Identification of problems associated with septic tank
leachate. WDOE and DSHS have decertified certain
shellfish beds because of violations of fecal coliform
standards.
A preliminary list of high priority pollutants has been
developed based on seven criteria. These include the following!
a) Pesticides - DDT and its metabolites, possibly
aldrin/dieldrin, and endrin; b) Polychlorinated biphenyls -
particularly the more heavily chlorinated tetrachloro- through
nonochlorobiphenyls; c) Halogenated aliphatics - particularly
chlorinated butadiens (CBDs), and possible tri- and
tetrachloroethylene; d) Monocyclic ar'omatics - particularly
chlorobenzenes; e) Polychlorinated dibenzofurans and
pentachlorophenol; f) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons;
g) Heavy metals.
2. Site Characterization: work is underway to
characterize several bays within Puget Sound as well as open
water areas. Work is being conducted in Commencement Bay and is
planned for Elliot Bay and Everett Harbor. A focus of these
studies has and will be sediment criteria, i.e., the
identification of problem sediments. This remains a critical
research area.
3. Exposure Assessment: a key aspect of exposure
assessment mentioned by EPA Region X personnel was
bioavailability of potentially toxic chemicals in sediments.
Theoretical partition coefficients were discussed in this regard.
However, there is interest in moving away from using such
coefficients and relying more on site-specific data related to
actual uptake and observed effects. There is a need to establish
the relationships between contaminants in sediments, presence of
those contaminants in organisms, and biological effects. Some
consideration should also be given to those substances which upon
discharge are not simply mixed into the water column but can rise
to the surface and become concentrated in surface microlayers.
The Jones and stokes report recommended the following
studies related to transport and fate:
A-30
-------
o Development of a circulation model for Puget Sound. It
was suggested that the most appropriate approach should
take advantage of the dominant features of the system
by matching these with the best use of existing
state—of—the—art modeling technology.
o Development of a circulation model for the Central
Basin and urban embayments.
o Analysis of pollutant reactions at the freshwater -
seawater interface.
o Analysis of distribution and fate processes for
pollutants in sediments.
o Development of a solids settling model.
o Examination of advection of organic compounds in the
surface microlayer.
o Description of organic pollutant fate processes.
4. Effects Assessment: this was identified by Region X
personnel as the most critical research need. Among the research
areas discussed were effects on the microlayer and associated
organisms, the measurement or assessment of chronic effects, the
processes and significance of bioaccumulation, and effects of
toxics transported via the food chain (e.g., potential effects on
harbor seals). With regard to chronic effects, a number of
studies have been conducted in various bays within Puget Sound
and these provide data which can be examined with regard to
relating environmental (e.g., sediment) characteristics in the
bays with observed effects or body burdens. It is/was hoped that
this would help identify specific cause/effect relationships.
This may still be the case. However, EPA personnel noted that
there were no bays that were "clean" and that this confounded the
identification of cause/effect relationships. Assessment of
long-term effects remains a major problem.
5. Risk Assessment: risk analyses related to human health
and environmental effects were identified as key areas by Region
X personnel. Other than ensuring that sound methodologies be
available and good input data be obtained, no specific
recommendations were made concerning specific research needs.
6. Waste Load Allocation/Permitting: this relates back,
in part, to some of the issues already discussed under previous
categories insofar as research needs are concerned. EPA Region X
has established priorities for dealing with water quality issues.
Several anc^ harbors have been placed in the high priority
category* Here, the approach involves identifying "problem
A-31
-------
areas", locating the source(s) of these problems and addressing
these directly. Formal waste load allocation or risk assessment
are not being performed as necessary elements of this process.
Waste load allocation and risk assessment may become an integral
part of the, "Puget Sound, Long-term Effects" program. There is
some uncertainty as to how and when to proceed with modeling
activities as well as with regard to what level of modeling is
appropriate.
7. Data Management: this has been identified as a
critical area. There has been some discussion concerning the
development of national and/or regional data base management
systems for estuaries. At present, Region X is considering a
regional data base that would include all appropriate information
for Puget Sound. However, reference was made to the national data
base being developed with the 301(h) program.
8. Monitoring; EPA personnel suggested that to the extent
possible, ongoing monitoring should be tied into the research
strategy. The Jones and Stokes report has recommended what is
essentially a trend assessment program.
Washington State Department of Ecology
I met with Robert Monn, Acting Supervisor of the Water
Quality Management Division. The areas covered are summarized
below.
v
1. Source Identification: in general, nonpoint sources
represent the biggest problem from a source identification
standpoint. In particular, attention should be focused on
developing and improving methods of monitoring for nonpoint
sources. The 208 effort in Puget Sound was successful as far as
it went but they are still limping along in the nonpoint source
area. There is a critical need to work with local governments on
a one-on-one basis to communicate how their local practices are
impacting water quality. Bob mentioned urban runoff, failing
septic tanks, and "hobby" farms (small scale farms) as potential
sources. Bob pointed out that one of the difficulties with
management of pathogen inputs is source identification.
2. Exposure Assessment: the key issue identified by Bob
Monn was in identifying what a problem sediment is. There is a
lack of adequate information for determining what problem
contaminants are in these sediments. Bob noted that the
development of reasonable sediment criteria is a national issue.
Bob provided a paper by Jim Krull of his department (presented o
2/9/85) which outlined some of the needs with resDect to
knowledge gaps. The need, outlined by Ji„,„e H flnows: 9
A-32
-------
o Sediment criteria to define contaminant and/or effects
levels at which sediments become a problem.
o Remedial action alternatives
- criteria for determining whether to dredge,
leave in place or cap contaminated sediments,
- criteria for disposal,
- criteria for disposal site selection,
- criteria for disposal site selection,
- relationships between discharge loadings and
sediment contamination (long-term cumulative
effects)
o contaminant mobility/availability
o cause/effect information relating contamination to
biological effects
o contaminant fate and transport
o biotransfer and biotransformation of contaminants
o biota toxicity and human health risk levels for biota
tissues
o sampling and analysis and quality assurance, quality
control procedures
o data management systems development.
Bob Monn also discussed problems related to the fate of
pathogenic organisms. In particular, he mentioned that there was
not good information on the rates of die-off and regrowth of
these organisms. He also noted problems with the use of fecal
coliform bacteria as a measure of potential problems associated
with the input of pathogens. He indicated there may be a need for
more appropriate indicators of the presence of pathogens.
Rrth, also expressed concern regarding the fate of
discharged material that tends to become associated with surface
microlavers This includes pathogenic organisms as well as
certain toxics (e.g»/ those associated with oil and grease). He
would like to see a program that examines the potential
environmental and public health implications of such material.
3. Effects Assessment: Bob indicated that thB».
lack of data on bioconcentration factors that mioh* was a
contaminants to pose problems. He discussed caVse SOBe
assessing effects associated wifh r^tentiai Problems with
contamination. Effects due to ^ nr^nJ ?hel"ish
unknown. to the Presence of viruses remain an
A-33
-------
The comparative bays work being done within Puget Sound
was mentioned as a program that might yield information useful
for assessing long-term effects of contaminants. We discussed the
possibility of conducting a program like this on a much larger
geographic scale (i.e., among the various estuarine systems).
Bob discussed various shellfish-related issues in Puget
Sound. Much of the coastal area is presently closed to commercial
shellfish operations but are still used by recreational shellfish
collectors. He also noted that some consideration has or is being
given to discharging wastewater into deeper waters and he
expressed concern with regard to the possible closures of Geoduck
shellfish beds as a result of these discharges.
Bob noted there was a situation in Budd Inlet, at the
southern most section of the sound, that involved eutrophication
problems and associated anoxia. This appears to be the only
region within the Sound where such a problem is most serious.
Several other poorly flushed embayments in the Sound also may be
susceptible to such problems. Oxygen levels are maintained within
the deeper basins of the sound even though these have a sill
separating them from the open ocean. Ocean water regularly flows
over the sill and flushes the deeper waters of the basins.
4. Risk Assessments Bob expressed concern for the lack of
information concerning the risks posed to recreational shellfish
collectors who eat shellfish which may be contaminated by various
pathogens. In addition, data gaps related to risk assessment were
described in the paper by Jim Krull cited above.
5. Waste Load Allocation: it was noted that modeling was
discussed in the Jones and Stokes report. Bob did not feel that
modeling was the most effective way of spending resources at this
time. He noted that the basic transport and fate mechanisms were
not known well enough to develop a model and if basic information
on these were lacking then modeling efforts could result in a
waste of money. However, he further noted that EPA and the state
were laying the groundwork for Sound-wide model development and
that various modeling efforts for sub-basins of the Sound had
been completed or were underway.
Municipality of Metropolian Seattle (Metro)
John Lampe (Superintendent of Water Quality) and Ralph
Domenowske (Special Projects) participated in the meeting.
Summaries of the discussions are presented below.
A-34
-------
1. Source Identifications much of the discussion with
regard to source identification and other components of overall
hazard assessment concerned the importance of clearly stated
objectives and focus. With regard to complex effluent
characterization, Metro has looked at consequences first (e.g.,
the occurrence of problem sediments), has generated questions
concerning these observations, and has used this as a basis for
determining characterization requirements. The Metro personnel
emphasized the need to focus on achievable objectives in terms of
identifying sources and the steps required to reduce them. They
noted that at times EPA appears to be still attempting to "survey
the universe" with the anticipation that action steps will fall
out of this activity. With regard to nonpoint sources, a case
study approach was suggested. Past experience should/could be
used to develop typical generation factors for various land uses?
Metro has used this approach. Mention was made of the activities
that Seattle and Chicago have had concerning viruses.
2. Exposure Assessment: sediment criteria was mentioned
as a critical issue, i.e., "do we have a problem?". Metro
personnel noted that the identification of beneficial resources
and uses should be used to focus programs. For example, if there
is no interest in developing commercial fisheries then spending
money on this issue is wasteful. Another example mentioned
concerned contact recreation (swimming) and the fact that little
of this occurs in Puget Sound due to the cold temperature? thus,
work or standards development based on a criterion related to
contact recreation would not mean that much for the Sound. Metro
personnel felt that research should focus on actual uses and
actual resources.
4 Risk Assessment: Metro personnel noted that public
health risks should be given top priority with environmental
risks beinq of secondary importance. With respect to the latter,
nursery and breeding areas should be given priority. The
personnel felt that the Toxicant Pretreatment Planning Study
(TPPS) funded by their agency had provided much
information on sources, fate, and transport and that they were
now in a Dosition to conduct risk assessments. They indicated
that they already had such experience in connection with sludge
disposal issues.
Consulting Firms
Discussions were held with several personnel at Tetra
Tech, in particular Tom Ginn. The information presented below is
based largely on these discussions. In addition, a short meeting
was held with John Butts of Envirosphere. This meeting was very
useful in identifying various projects currently taking place
within Puget Sound by various agencies and consultants.
A-35
-------
1. Source Identification: in general Tom Ginn indicated
that source identification was difficult in many instances. He
noted that nonpoint sources were not well quantified and this was
particularly true for agricultural sources (e.g., hobby farms).
Further, there is a real problem with historical loadings data.
Data available for point sources have to be drawn from many
different places, often there are gaps, and the chemical data
that are available through NPDES monitoring are limited. They
have suggested a screening approach for assessing contributions
from various pipes; this involves pulling sediment out of the
drain pipes (serves as a long-term integrator) and analyzing
these. A valuable approach in Commencement Bay has been to use
chemical composition studies (i.e., chemical markers) to assess
source contributors to problem areas.
Contaminated groundwater is a source of toxics to the
Sound in at least one of the bays. Sediments have been found to
be contaminated with volatile chlorinated organics such as TCE.
Ordinarily, these would be expected to be lost rapidly from the
system if discharged in surface waters.
2. Site Characterization: much of the effort within Puget
Sound has been focused on identifying problem sediments. Toward
this end, several criteria have been used to characterize
sediments:
o sediment chemistry
o sediment toxicity (amphipod and oyster larvae)
o benthic community structure
o bioaccumulation in English Sole
o histopathology in English Sole
Tetra Tech has developed a decision-making approach to
identifying problem sediments that involves an integration of
these independent measurements.
Work is underway to characterize several bays and harbors
within Puget Sound. Attention is being given to developing
sampling methodologies (e.g., how to distribute sampling effort),
developing methods documents, and standardizing data bases. Less
effort is being spent at present on the problems associated with
input of pathogenic organisms.
3. Exposure Assessment: sediment criteria is a key issue
within Puget Sound. This includes situations involving point and
nonpoint sources as well as dredge material disposal. Viruses arm
other pathogenic organisms remain problems with regard to
exposure assessment. *
A—36
-------
4. Effects Assessments there are a number of information
gaps with regard to establishing cause/effects relationships. The
characterization of various bays using the criteria presented
above should provide useful information regarding the role of
various toxics - bays are contaminated by various contaminants
and differences in sediment chemistry among bays may be
correlated with differences in toxicity or histopathological
conditions. The possibility of extending this comparative bay
approach to larger geographic areas was discussed. Tom Ginn
indicated that supporting laboratory work was now needed to
relate histopathological conditions to various contaminated
sediments. Some work along these lines is presently being
conducted by the NOAA lab in the northwest. It would be desirable
if "no effects levels" could be developed.
There is little information on recovery rates. Such
information would be helpful for assessing the overall benefits
of various actions and what can be expected with regard to rate
of recovery following actions.
Anoxic conditions occur periodically in Budd Inlet as a
result of eutrophication. This inlet is poorly flushed in
comparison with the rest of the Sound.
It is hard to assess impacts of pollutants on juvenile
anadromous fish or fish habitat. This is due in part to the
relatively larger effects associated with logging (sedimentation)
and overfishing.
5. Risk Assessments decision criteria have and continue
to be developed based on risk assessment; risk to public health
is a primary criterion- Such assessments should guide remedial
actions.
6 Waste Load Allocations the water quality modeling
aspects of waste load allocation remain a problem for Puget
Sound. This appears to be the way to go but progress has been
slow.
7 Data Base Managements demonstrations of two data base
management systems were provided. These included the Ocean Data
Evaluation System (ODES) developed as a national data base for
the 301(h) program and the Commencement Bay Data Management
System developed for that superfund project. The former is
managed by OMEP and has the potential for being accessed on
regular terminals or via microcomputers from anywhere in the
country- The Commencement Bay system operates at the
Microcomputer level and is thought to be appropriate for
site-specific situations such as the Commencement Bay superfund
A-37
-------
program. A combination of the systems is being considered as an
approach for data base management for Puget Sound as a whole. A
critical aspect of any data base management program is QA/QC and
input of data to ODES, for example, is closely controlled. Such
data are entered only after application of QA/QC.
A-38
-------
APPENDIX B: PRESENTATION BY THOMAS DEMOSS
-------
Management Principles for Estuaries
Presented By Thomas DeMoss
About one year ago in October 1984, Mr. Jack Ravan, then the
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water and now the Regional
Administrator in Region IV, created a new office within the
Office of Water, the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
The Agency recognized that throughout the Office of Water, there
were scattered a lot of functions and responsibilities related to
marine and estuarine matters. Consolidating these
responsibilities in one office, the Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection was charged with developing and implementing
national policy on ocean dumping, incineration at sea, estuarine
management, ocean discharge evaluations under 403 and the 301(h)
waiver program. Tudor Davies is the Director of the Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection (OMEP). I am the Division
Director and responsible for the National Estuary Program. My
speech will focus on the National Estuary Program.
National Estuary Program
The National Estuary Program has two major components: 1)
oversight and implementation of existing "mature programs" such
as the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes, and 2) initiation of new
programs that utilize the experience from the mature programs to
protect, maintain and restore the resources in those estuaries.
These programs are underway in Puget Sound, Long Island Sound,
Buzzards Bay and Narragansett Bay. Specific objectives of the
national program are to:
o maintain, protect and restore water and sediment quality
and living resources in the nation's estuaries or in a
program estuary;
o increase public understanding of estuarine processes and
facilitate public definition of environmental quality
objectives for estuaries?
o define the environmental problems of the estuary;
o explore the causes of these problems and alternatives to
mitigate them;
o develop comprehensive basin-wide plans to control
pollutant loads from point and non-point sources, to
manage living resources and their habitats and to
water resources (freshwater inflow);
o facilitate public understanding of public and private
costs of pollution abatement; and,
B-l
-------
o transfer managerial# technical and scientific expertise to
state and local governments to assist them in developing
and implementing the basin-wide plans.
The EPA National Estuary Program uses existing authorities
under the Clean Water Act, other federal statutes, and state
legislative authorities to control sources of pollution and
protect the nation's estuaries. The program emphasizes the need
to focus and integrate the efforts of existing programs at
Federal and State levels towards environmental goals to maximize
the environmental benefits of pollution abatement. For non-point
source controls, the estuary programs will need to use new and
innovative approaches to reduce pollutant loadings such as
cost-sharing programs with the agricultural community to install
best management programs. Similarly alternative permitting
procedures will be needed to identify and control loadings to
combined-sewer overflows (CSOs) and storm drains and other urban
runoff. Current legislative authorities to control non-point
sources have room for improvement.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Congressionally mandated, the Chesapeake Bay Program began
in 1977 as a joint Federal/State partnership intended to:
o define the environmental problems of Chesapeake Bay;
o explore the causes of the problem;
o build a Chesapeake Bay environmental information base;
o suggest alternatives to mitigate the environmental
problems; and,
o identify and recommend alternative management strategies
to improve management of environmental quality in the Bay.
From 1978 to 1982 the problems of Chesapeake Bay were
examined with the assistance of regional and national scientists
and identified to be:
o in the upper Bay, an increasing number of blue-green algal
or dinoflagellate blooms have occurred;
o since the late 1960s, submerged aquatic vegetation
declined in abundance and diversity throughout the Bay;
o oyster harvests have decreased Bay-wi^.
B-2
-------
o nutrient levels have increased such that the upper reaches
of all the tributaries and the main Bay are highly
enriched;
o between 1950 and 1980 the amount of water in the main part
of the Bay which has low or no dissolved oxygen has
increased fifteen-fold;
o there are high concentrations of toxic organic compounds
in the bottom sediments of the main Bay, river mouths, and
areas of maximum turbidity associated with known sources
such as industrial facilities; and
o many areas of the Bay have metal concentrations in the
water column and sediments that are significantly higher
than natural background levels.
The Chesapeake Bay Program also estimated the sources or
causes of the problem and their relative importance (USEPA,
1983b). For example, the relative contribution of total nitrogen
and phosphorous loads in the Chesapeake Bay from point (PT) and
non-point (NPS) sources of nutrients in wet, dry and average
years are as follows:
Dry Year Average Yr Wet Year
PT NPS PT NPS pt NPS
Phosphorous 69% 31% 61% 39% 35% 64%
Total 6042 tons 6879 tons 11,905 tons
Nitrogen 38% 62% 33% 67% 19% 81%
Total 61,563 tons 73,112 tons 131,636 tons
Special attention was also given to assessing relative loads
to the Main Bay in an "average year" from the major tributaries
(USEPA, 1983c). The results are as follows:
Tributary Phosphorous Nitrogen
% of total % of total
James 28 14
Susquehanna 21 40
Potomac 21 24
West Chesapeake 17 11
Eastern Shore 6 6
Others 7 *
These data indicate that the major sources of Phosphorous
were the James, Susquehanna and Potomac rivers and the Western
Chesapeake shoreline; nitrogen loads were coming primarily from
the susque^nna and Potomac rivers.
B-3
-------
In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program assessed the
relative importance of point versus non-point source pollutant
loadings by tributary. This analysis showed the need for
alternative pollution abatement and control strategies for
different tributaries and basins. For example, the nutrient input
from the Susquehanna River basin is primarily from non-point
sources, particularly from agricultural lands while the James
River loads are primarily from point sources. A control strategy
to reduce phosphorous or nitrogen loadings for these two basins
would be different and tailored for each system.
Finally, based upon the defined problems and the identified
source of pollutants, specific recommendations were made in 1983
to address the environmental problems of the Chesapeake Bay
(USEPA, 1983d). The recommendations emphasized that clean-up of
Chesapeake Bay would require:
o institution of land-use controls at or near the Bay
shoreline;
*
o development of non-point source control programs for
agricultural and urban sources;
o accelerated control of point sources particularly
municipal treatment plants; and
o strengthening of wetlands protection laws and programs.
The Chesapeake Bay Program drew sound technical conclusions
and recommended management actions. The uniqueness of the program
is that it evolved to, or then grew into an implementation phase.
The study findings and recommendations spurred the States to
action. For example, the Governors of Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania, as well as the Mayor of the District of Columbia,
signed a Chesapeake Bay Agreement with the Administrator of EPA.
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement commits the States to prepare and
implement plans improving and protecting the water quality and
living resources of the Chesapeake Bay. Subsequently, the
legislatures of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania appropriated
new money to implement the recommendations of the Bay program.
The state actions includes
o Maryland created forty new programs, hired 174 new
employees, and appropriated §13.8 million in operating and
$22 million in capital funds for point and non-point
source controls, resource management, and land use
planning;
o Virginia appropriated $15.0 milii0n for the
same purposes;
a comprehensive
aon control program in
B-4
-------
The states of Virginia# Maryland and Pennsylvania have
institutionalized the FY85 appropriation and it has become part
of their base program. They will continue to support these
funding levels for several years. What are the state priorities
for monies?
The State initiatives fall into four categories:
o point source controls;
o non-point source controls?
o land use management; and,
o resource or habitat protection.
Specific activities related to point source controls
include:
o increased sharing of municipal sewage treatment costs;
o grants to POTWs to install dechlorination equipment;
o stricter enforcement of permit effluent limitations for
point source discharges;
o improved training and certification of sewage treatment
plant operators; and,
o accelerated approval and implementation of pretreatment
programs.
Specific activities related to non-point sources include:
o authorization of additional funds for agricultural cost
sharing of Best Management Practices (BMP);
o demonstration grants to abate urban stormwater pollution
in developed areas;
o increased enforcement of stormwater control laws; and,
o enhanced efforts to maintain forested lands as buffers in
critical watersheds.
Activities related to land—use management includes:
o the State of Maryland created a Critical Areas Commission
to protect shoreline areas and inshore waters against
further degradation.
B-5
-------
Finally, activities related to resource or habitat
protection include:
o re-establishment of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)?
o use of hatcheries to restore stocks of finfish, ducks, and
oysters?
o use of finfish bans and development of comprehensive
management plans for major fish species; and,
o accelerated reopening of closed shellfish areas.
In addition to State resources, the Federal Government has
committed resources to assist in Bay clean-up, i.e., a four year,
40 million dollar effort at 10 million dollars per year. About
seven and one quarter million dollars per year is put into cost
sharing grants to states to implement recommendations of the
Chesapeake Bay study. The participating States must match federal
funds on a 50:50 basis. We have encouraged the States to use
funds to initiate and develop long-range non-point source (NPS)
control programs particularly, cost sharing programs with
agricultural communities for the implementation of Best
Management Practices (BMP). The rationale for the NPS focus is
the conclusion that the NPS agricultural loads are a significant
problem in the Chesapeake Bay and that no program, except
voluntary compliance, was currently in place to address the
problem. Additionally, we have tried to use federal money to
leverage development of NPS programs because there are
substantial funds and authorities currently available to control
point sources of pollution but little, if any, monies or
authority for NPS control. Thus, since there were no ongoing or
in-place non-point source control efforts in the Chesapeake Bay
and it was one of the major problems identified as significant,
the EPA federal resources are being used to fill this void. The
remainder of the 10 million (§2.75 million) annual funding is
used to:
o maintain the CB management system;
o maintain a bay-wide monitoring network to assess trends
and environmental progress. Currently there are about 30
stations, in the main stem of the Chesapeake Bay?
o continue research and modeling studies? and,
o supp°rt tlie EPA Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office.
Congress has alao appropriated monies to enable other
Federal Agencies to asBist in Bay clean-up. For example, NOAA
will worn to s-tatistics and conduct assessment*
of stocks of Bay fisheries. USgs win work with EPA to develop
B-6
-------
the impact of groundwater pollution on the Bay. The Fish and
Wildlife Service will evaluate wetlands activities and assist
with monitoring trends of contaminants in fish. The Corps will
assist in modeling the Bay while DOD will, at several of its
installations, review existing land management practices and take
action to reduce soil erosion and other non-point source
pollution.
Great Lakes Program
The oldest program in the national estuary program is the
Great Lakes Program. The program is administered by a Program
Office in EPA Region V.
The Great Lakes Program Office has the lead role in
coordinating and implementing U.S. programs with Canada in
fulfillment of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreements of 1972
and 1978. The program began in 1970 and has experienced several
phases of implementation. Early program findings revealed
significant eutrophication problems causing dissolved oxygen
depletion and fish kills. In response, several management options
were implemented:
o major municipal treatment plants were required to reduce
phosphorous in effluents; and,
o phosphorous detergent bans were implemented in many of the
Great Lakes States.
The earlv 1970 control programs for municipal treatment
plants and the phosphate bans successfully elevated dissolved
oxygen levels and some finfisheries were restored in Lake Erie
and elsewhere. But, it was recognized that more load reductions
were needed to protect water quality and uses of the Great Lakes.
Thus, non-point source demonstration projects for phosphorous
reduction f?oS agricultural and urban lands began in the late
1970s and early 1980s.
rwior- action 108(a) of the CWA, the Great Lakes Program
Office in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service of
Usda currently *«nd8 AmaonBtx^tion grants in 31 counties in
Indiana Michigan, Ohio, and New York to demonstrate voluntary
best manaoement practices to reduce phosphorous loadings from
agricultural sources, particularly to Lakes Erie and Ontario.
Another major activity is the development of Action Plans to
address poll«tion Problems in 18 significantly degraded harbor
areas serving the major industrial complexes of the Lakes. The
action plans involve the identification of pollution problems,
evaluation of alternative solutions, and development of
recommendations to local governments for problem abatement. These
the Niagara River t0 the connecting channels studies for
the Niagara RlVer| for ^ Detroit and ^ Rivers# and for
B-7
-------
. The Niagara River study involved New YorX
the St. Mary s River. . rio the Great Lakes National Program
State, the pJov^n°® ° aovernments of both countries. Initiated
Office and the f®d , report is a comprehensive and detailed
in dements and conclusions. The report
review of the f and their sources to the Niagara River,
assessed toxic control programs, recommended improvement
reviewed toxxc chemical ~n«o monitoring. Detroit
to these programs:an p P gtudies are just getting underwayy
they"involve^he State of Michigan, the Province of Ontario and
federal participation over 3 years.
Laves program is now concentrating on implementing
The ?rea* ^a*es required by Annex II of the 1978 Agreement,
a monitoring P1^ * being conducted in cooperation with
Surveys of the'La^s determine the annual variability
S^a**nit>ient phosphorous concentrations and the level and trends 1„
of ambient phospn.0 entional pollutants. The results of the
met?iorina including water, fish, and sediment data, will be
to a«ew eSnplfanee with the Agreement objectives, to
u£f the effectiveness of our control programs, and to
identify new. emerging problems. The monitoring program includes-.
o fish tissue analyses from nearshore and open water
locations;
O sediment surveys of suspected toxic hot spots in tributary
mouths 7
o forty-one atmospheric deposition stations; and,
o transport and fate modeling to determine maximum allowable
loading of pollutants.
National Estuary Program
In FY85, Congress appropriated 4.0 million dollars to EPA to
assess, study and monitor four specific estuaries: Long Island
Sound, Puget Sound, Buzzards Bay and Narragansett Bay. The
national program responsibility is essentially to transfer the
Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes experience and expertise to these
estuaries. We feel that the success of the two programs is the
drive for a "master environmental plan" that details specific
plans of action to control point and non-point sources of
pollution, enhance and/or maintain living resources, and manage
freshwater flow into the systems. Most importantly, these master
plans have been carefully developed with the support of local
environmental managers, scientists, and the public. We want thin
master plan to be the objective for each of the new Bay studio
as well. es
B-8
-------
Our experience and mandate within EPA is to reduce pollutant
loads from point and non-point sources sufficient to protect
living resources and water quality uses. Pollution control and
abatement are critical to the health of an estuary, but we must
also manage the resource itself. The responsibility to manage the
resource resides with local and State officials as well as
national resource managers such as the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Reduction of pollutant loads may make Chesapeake Bay a wonderful
place for fish to live, but we could encourage the public to go
out and overfish the resource, thus, destroying the stock. My
point is that estuary management must be a three-pronged
approach:
o living resource management?
o water resource management; and,
o pollutant load reductions.
All three are important and interrelated.
What are the national trends in estuary protection? Some of
you in the room have been developing and analyzing scientific
information on estuaries for twenty years, if not longer. It must
be somewhat irritating to you to see EPA come with an estuarine
initiative in 1985. I would ask you to consider this EPA entrance
as an awakening, rather than an irritation; the nation is growing
more sensitive to estuarine environmental problems and is finally
prepared to address them. Perhaps you see us as slow and stupid,
but at least we have finally heard your message.
The estuary program has been, to this point in time,
dependent on direct congressional appropriations. In FY86 the EPA
budget requested 4 million dollars for the four (4) Bay studies,
10 million for Chesapeake Bay and over 4 million for the Great
Lakes Program. Within EPA it is believed that the Bay programs
will continue in 1987, possibly at an increased funding level.
The point is that the national estuary program is part of the EPA
budget request for the next two or three years.
What are the goals of the EPA bay studies? I think this
might be a surprise to some of you but we basically hope to
protect, restore, or maintain living resources. The Bay programs
are not water quality studies or just reports of the 208 Water
Quality Management Plans. We do care about living resources, we
do think the bottom line is to protect them. There are three ways
to protect living resources. One is the reduction of loads from
pollutant sources, the second is resource management plans, and
the third is water resource plans to control freshwater inflow
and draw down. These are our three major mechanisms to protect,
maintain, or restore estuarine systems.
B-9
-------
Environmental Quality Objectives
To protect resources and use these three management
mechanisms we must set, with public participation and approval
environmental quality objectives for each estuary system that
adequately reflect what the public wants to see achieved. There
are four different options to present to the public for current
uses of estuaries:
o status quo;
o maintenance of current conditions;
o restoration to some past condition; and,
o restoration to or maintenance of pristine quality.
The first option continues our present managerial and
administrative programs within present resources. We might
integrate these efforts better and focus them on estuarine
problems. For instance, we could build or upgrade treatment
plants that contribute the most significant loads to estuaries
and reexamine and enforce NPDES permits in estuaries impacted by
point source effluents. This option continues voluntary non-point
source compliance efforts,'and stays away from any land-use
management proposals. We would make due with existing resources,
improve integration, but few, if any new environmental
initiatives would occur. The problem with this option is that it
ignores increasing conflicts associated with population growth.
Maintaining the status quo will most likely lead to degradation
of environmental quality in the estuary due to increased
pollution loads from growing populations, industrial development
water use demands, and habitat modification.
The second option is to maintain and protect resources the
way they exist right now in the estuary. Maintenance of present
environmental quality will require action today to mitigate the
impacts of continued growth and development in the watershed, it
will require better integration of existing resources, but will
also require new initiatives and changes in current practices.
Some examples might be the use of construction grants for
advanced waste treatment, initiation of innovative non-point
source control efforts particularly for agricultural lands, and
management of land use in the drainage basin.
The third option would actually maintain current
environmental quality for parts of the estuary and restore some
targeted areas to a previous desired condition. This option will
require even more intensity in new initiatives. For a system
large as the Chesapeake Bay, the objective to return to the
conditions of 1950 is very aggressive and it probably will b*
very expensive. I am not saying that it cannot be dnL r u
laying out the facts. J cannot oe done, I am jUst
B-10
-------
It may be more realistic to return parts of the Bay to 1950
conditions and maintain current quality in other portions. The
fourth option is a combination of maintenance of current
resources, restoration of parts of the system, and restoration
and/or maintenance of some parts of the system to pristine
condition. For example, maybe we could identify and set aside
pristine areas throughout the Chesapeake Bay system to protect
critical habitats for waterfowl and fish, and protect other
living resources as they move around the Chesapeake to ensure
their continued presence. There are many people talking about the
concept, population resource management extended to estuaries, if
you will. Thus, for an estuary system, we should specify one or a
combination of the four objectives and define the actions that
need to be taken to achieve the objective.
Organizational Structure
Every estuary program, to be successful, needs a dynamic
management structure. The structure must include state, local,
and federal environmental managers, the scientific community, and
citizens. A management structure in not put together for the sake
of creating a structure; it is put together to create an audience
for program findings and recommendations and, to take action.
The scientific community has been collecting information on
marine and estuarine environments for 10-25 years. Our mistakes
lie in not putting together the audience of environmental
managers and the public to use that science and to understand and
support the need for action. This audience needs the best
scientific information available, but it must be presented to
them in an integrated and uncomplicated manner, particularly if
they are to become committed to do something with it. That was
the philosophy behind the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay
Programs, first, to create an audience of environmental managers
with public accountability and support; second, to analyze and
synthesize the best scientific data available; and finally, to
develop recommendations for action with managers, the public, and
scientists. The belief is that the scientific community, both
regional and national, is well equipped to analyze the available
information, conduct research where information is not available,
and present findings to committed environmental audiences.
What are the specifics of these organizational structures?
There are two levels. The first and the highest level is an
executive council of political appointees from environmental
agencies such as the EPA Regional Administrator and the Secretary
of Natural Resources or Environmental Protection for the
State(s). The appointed individuals would have direct and
immediate access to the Governor(s) and/or epa Administrator.
Direct and immediate access is needed to ensure that discussion
can and will occur at the decision making levels if the program
findings indicate that administrative, legislative or budgetary
B—11
-------
changes are needed. The Executive Council also sets priorities
and policy for the program and obtains state and national support,
for policy, legislative and budgetary change.
The second level of the organizational structure is the
"implementation committee", sometimes called the management
committee. Membership includes: 1) senior level environmental
managers in the system, such as the Water Management Division
Director in an EPA region and the head of the Office of
Environmental Health Programs or natural resource programs in the
states, 2) senior scientific experts in the state(s) and the
Region, and 3) representatives of the public including user
groups of the estuary. As an operational manager of the estuary
program this committee argues over and decides on long-range
strategy, annual workplans and budgets, and evaluates and
redirects the study effort as needed. The management committee
reports to the Executive Council, backs up the political
appointees, commits to action, and sees that recommendations are
followed through.
Reporting to the management committee are scientific
advisory groups made up of scientific experts from the estuary
region and citizen advisory groups. Generally the chairperson of
both groups sits on the management committee. The managers on the
implementation committee need to know that the science upon which
their decision will be based has been developed and reviewed by
the best scientists. The scientific advisory group has this
mission. In addition, there needs to be a public concern or will
to take action; a public pressure to resolve a problem. The
citizen advisory committee is useful towards this end. Without
these four principals - citizens, scientists, environmental
managers, and political appointees - the master environmental
plan will not succeed. You need all four actors in the
organizational structures. You must pull these groups together
and get them talking to each other, using each others resources
and talents. Good science alone does not seem to marshal action?
many of you have experienced that fact. The science needs to have
public accountability, understanding, and support behind it.
Problem Definition
Once an organizational structure is in place, the second
step is to define what problem you should study. The following
questions should drive problem definition:
o Does the problem have a system-wide impact?
o Does the problem impact potential uses of the estuary?
o Are there major or local impacts that are so siqnifie««*
they dominate the estuary? y ant
o Can the cause of the problem be identified?
B—12
-------
o Is it likely that you could deal with the problem?
As an environmental manager it is not enough to just know
that there is a problem; the environmental manager has to have
alternatives to alleviate the problem within reasonable costs.
For example, am I going to have to spend five billion dollars on
combined sewer overflows in New York to correct an eutrophication
problem in Long Island Sound? If I am, how likely is it that I
will be able to get that kind of funding? A balancing of the five
questions will help define the problems and suggest priority
candidates to study.
Estuary Organization
Once an organizational structure is established and priority
problems agreed upon, the program should characterize the current
conditions and historical trends for the priority problems.
Characterization builds on the scientific work done in the
estuary for the past 10-25 years, maybe longer. Characterization
uses existing and historical data to assess status and trends in
water and sediment quality and living resources. The major steps
of basin-wide characterization are:
o information gathering and screening;
o synthesis and analysis;
o conclusions on status and trends;
o linkages between pollutant sources and resource impacts;
and,
o management recommendations for action.
A partial listing of characterization parameters would
include: physical parameters such as land use types and trends,
freshwater distribution, inflow, and draw down, shoreline
development and erosion rates and frequency and severity of storm
events; chemical parameters such as nutrient enrichment and
dissolved oxygen parameters including total phosphate,
orthophosphate, total nitrogen, inorganic nitrogen, nitrate,
ammonium, organic nitrogen, and toxic metals, pesticides, and
organics; biological parameters such as data on landings of fish
and shellfish, catch per effort, nursery areas, juvenile indices,
spawning areas, as well as plant and animal species lists* and
finally, pollutant loadings for point and non-point sources. '
In the Chesapeake and Great Lakes programs, we found that if
we presented only an assessment of current status, five minutes
later 80% of -the audience would ask. Is your finding jUBt a one
time freak occurrence? Have these resources been daciin£ng
-------
we just talked about current status without a trend assessment.
To determine if the current state is a problem, you must ask if
the resource has been degrading over time and to what extent.
Simultaneous with characterization of trends in the water
and sediment quality and living resources, we are also trying to
characterize the inputs of pollutants - toxics, nutrients, and
sediments - into the system. It is important to identify and
locate the major point and non-point sources, determine if either
or both source types are problems, and estimate loading of toxics
and nutrients to the estuary. Several techniques can be used to
develop mass loadings estimates.
To assess loads to Chesapeake Bay, we implemented a
non-point source model for the entire 64,000 square mile drainaae
basin. The model estimated the relative magnitude of point versus
non-point source loads for different geographic regions of the
Bay and concluded that NPS is a significant contributor in the
upper Chesapeake Bay, particularly from the Susquehanna River.
The model, and generated loading estimates, was not designed -to
prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this creek or those five
farms along the creek were culprits. That level of detail is now
being developed and confirmed by the States and the Soil
Conservation Service. Instead, the Chesapeake model and analysis
was designed to convince the public that all sources, including
NPS, were significant and to identify basins within the
Susquehanna making the larger pollution contributions to the Bay.
Through characterization there will emerge voids in the data
needed for management decisions or actions. The need for
scientific information must be prioritized and research funded
accordingly. The best scientific data becomes available through
characterization where an assessment of existing scientific data
is integrated with scientific findings from new work designed to
fill information voids. When this targeted science is completed
management decisions can occur. Similarly, an estuary program *
must also decide on a sound, long-term monitoring program to
assess changes in trends, to pick up new and emerging
environmental problems as they occur, and to measure the success
or failure of clean-up programs. For example, the Chesapeake Bav
monitoring program is designed to assess changes in water quali*
and living resources over time, to give us better causative
relationships between sources and impacts, and provide predict!
capabilities. Over time as the states and EPA attempt various *
control options the monitoring program will track key parameters
Master Environmental Plans
The blueprint or framework for achieving environmental aft>1
in an estuary is a "master environmental plan". The master *
focuses on different control strategies and resource manaaeiiSl?
plane that EPA and the states are agreeing on for actinn mw
waster plan should contains 9 action. The
B-14
-------
o a brief description of program organization and
participants;
o program findings on status and trends;
o a statement from program participants of desired
environmental quality goals and objectives for the
estuary;
o an analysis of existing statutory and regulatory
authorities and their effectiveness;
o recommendations for new legislative initiatives, programs,
and regulations needed to meet specific environmental
quality objectives;
o provisions for a monitoring program;
o identified research needs; and,
o procedures for periodic program review, evaluation and
redirection.
Since achievement of the environmental quality goals of
maintenance, restoration, and/or enhancement will require major
new initiatives, it is critical that these goals, be developed
with full participation and understanding of all estuary program
participants. Federal, state, and local agencies, the academic
and scientific community, industry, commerce, public and private
organizations, and the general public must adopt the goals and
objectives and be prepared to support the necessary actions.
Estuary Environmental Problems
What kinds of problems are we seeing in the estuaries? We
see shellfish bed closures due to bacterial contamination as well
as toxics; wetlands loss and alterations; the disappearance of
submerged aquatic vegetation; in-piace toxics contamination
threatening living resources; diseased fish; and, reductions and
shifts from more desirable to less desirable fish species. We may
have the same total catch of fish but it is a different catch, a
different ecosystem. We see nutrient enrichment, in parts if not
all of the ecosystem, that leads to dissolved oxygen sags
severely impacting living resources. We could study everyone of
these issues in every estuary. Perhaps, some replication would be
scientifically sound, but there is also a need for a national
agenda here, for economics of scale. Economics of scale needs to
be addressed, that's what this workshop is going to consider over
the next few days • In addition, an imp r ant factor to consider
in your deliberations on the national agenda are two levels of
research.
B-15
-------
First, there is a need for research that can provide answers
now or in the immediate future regarding pressing management
questions. To address these questions an effort should be made to
build upon the data base that has been developed over the past 15
to 20 years with a focus on synthesizing this information. The
second level of research involves the generation of new, basic
information on estuaries. There were a number of basic and
critical processes (e.g., circulation) about which there is
limited information. Such basic questions could take a long
period of time to address and could require substantial
expenditures. You know as well as I, that a $4.0 million dollar
budget in a national estuary program will not cover this type of
research. Given fiscal constraints, it is necessary, therefore,
that approaches to addressing these second level questions
creative and efficient. In the next two or three years we need
the scientific community to address current resource problems,
while continued long-term research will assist managers 5, 10,
and 15 years from now.
I would also suggest that the estuary initiative, you are
considering, should not lose a system-wide approach. Too many
research initiatives in EPA start out as system initiatives, soon
to be broken down into sub-parts, and 20 other programs get
involved in turf battles. By trying to please the larger
audience, we lose our momentum and the system-wide focus. Then we
please no one. Individual programs may be barometers to measure
environmental progress or degradation in estuaries, but we need
to keep a system focus throughout. Support will come from the
Regions and the States for this initiative if we do so. If we
keep the system-wide focus and support management decisions now
show the regions what they're going to get, then I anticipate '
that support in the EPA budget process will follow.
Anothe.r important factor to consider in your deliberations
is that regional initiatives like the Great Lakes and Chesapeake
Bay Programs have, in some instances, molded national policy.
These case studies attempted new approaches to environmental
problems long before a national policy was set. This argues that
an estuarine research initiative should have a strong geographic
focus and apply alternative approaches to environmental problems
not yet addressed such as wetlands loss in the Southeast.
In short, I have explained our national estuary program
goals and approach as well as current status. I have also
indicated what out research needs are now and in the future. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you and look forward tc*
supporting an estuarine research initiative and using the
products to make more informed management decisions.
B-16
-------
APPENDIX Cs WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
-------
MASTER
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
EPA ESTUARINE WORKSHOP
November 5-7, 1985
Mr. A1 Beck
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
FTS 838-5087
CML (401) 789-1071
Dr. Victor 3. Bierman, 3r.
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
FTS 838-5087
CML (401) 789-1071
Dr. Robert B. Biggs
College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
CML(302) 451-8165
Dr. Donald F. Boesch
Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium
Star Route Box 541
Chauvin, LA 70344
CML (504) 594-7552 or 568-7027
Dr. John Boreman
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Northeast Fisheries Center
Woods Hole, MA 02543
FTS 840-1225
CML (617) 548-5123
-------
Ms. Marlene A. Broutman
National Oceanic <5c Atmospheric Admin.
Ocean Assessments Division
11400 Rockville Pike - Rm 600
Rockville, MD 20852
FTS 443-8921
CML (301) 443-8921
Dr. William Brungs
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
FTS 838-5087
CML (401) 789-1071
Dr. Victor J. Cabelli
Department of Microbiology
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
CML (401) 792-2205
Dr. Michael Connor
EPA - Region I
Water Management Division
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS 223-5610
CML (617) 223-5610
Dr. David W. Cook
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory
East Beach
Ocean Springs, MS 39564
CML (601) 872-4200
Mr. Philip A. Crocker
EPA - Region VI
Water Quality Mgmt. Br. (6W-QT)
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
FTS 729-9909
CML (214) 767-9909
-------
Dr. Tudor T. Davies, Director
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-556)
Office of Marine <5c Estuarine Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 3S2-7166
CML (202) 382-7166
Mr. Tom DeMoss
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-556)
Office of Marine <5c Estuarine Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 755-2927
CML (202) 755-2927
Dr. Kim Devonald
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-556)
Office of Marine & Estuarine Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 755-0356
CML (202) 755-0356
Dr. Dominic M. DiToro
Environmental Engineering
and Science Program
Manhattan College
Bronx, NY 10471
CML (201) 567-6190
Dr. Alfred P. Dufour
Environmental Protection Agency
Health Effects Research Laboratory
Toxicology & Microbiology Divisi°n
Cincinnati, OH 45268
FTS 684-7870
CML (513) 569-7870
-------
Dr. Thomas W. Duke
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Sabine Island
Gulf Breeze, FL 32561
FTS 686-9011
CML (904) 932-5311
Ms. Kathleen Ehrensberger
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-556)
Office of Marine & Estuarine Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 382-7166
CML (202) 382-7166
Dr. David A. Flemer
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Processes
6c Effects Research, ORD (RD-682)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 382-5940
CML (202) 382-5940
Dr. Richard Garnas
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
FTS 838-5087
CML (401) 789-1071
Dr. Thomas C. Ginn
Tetra Tech, Inc.
U820 Northup Way
Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98005
CML (206) 822-9596
Mr. David 3. Hansen
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
FTS 838-5087
CML (401) 789-1071
-------
Mr. Delbert Hicks
EPA - Region IV
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2156
CML (404) 881-2211 or 2127
Mr. John Klein
National Oceanic <5c Atmospheric Admin.
Ocean Assessments Division
11400 Rockville Pike - Rm 600
Rockville, MD 20852
FTS 443-8921
CML (301) 443-8921
Dr. Douglas A. Lipka
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Processes
& Effects Research, ORD (RD-682)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 382-5940
CML (202) 382-5940
Dr. Thomas C. Malone
Horn Point Laboratories
P.O. Box 775
Cambridge, MD 21613
CML (301) 228-8200
Mr. Ron Manfredonia
EPA - Region I
Water Management Division
3FK Building
Boston, MA 02203
Dr. Howard Marshall
EPA - Region IV
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS 257-2156
CML (404) 881-2211 or 2127
-------
Dr. Charles A. Menzie
Charles A. Menzie and Associates
P.O. Box 1027
Westford, MA 01886
CML (617) 692-7596
Ms. Katherine Minsch
Environmental Protection Agency (WH-556)
Office of Marine <5c Estuarine Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
FTS 382-7166
CML (202) 382-7166
Dr. Scott W. Nixon
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI 02881
CML (401) 792-6258
Dr. Joel O'Connor
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin.
Ocean Assessments Division, OMA32
Rockwall 652
11400 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
FTS 443-8698
CML (301) 443-8698
Dr. William E. Odum
Department of Environmental Sciences
Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
CML (804) 924-0560
Dr. Vincent P. Olivier!
Environmental Health engineering
Dohns Hopkins School of Public Health
615 N. Wolfe Street
Baltimore, MD 21205
CML (301) 955-3602
-------
Dr. Jonathan Pennock
College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware
Lewes, DE
Mr. Gary Powell
Director, Bays and Estuaries Program
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231
Austin, TX 78711
CML (512) 463-7979
Dr. Dana Sanders
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station
WESER-W
P.O. Box 631
Vicksburg, MS 39ISO
CML (601) 634-3983
Dr. Robert Spies
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
P.O. Box 5507
Livermore, CA 94550
CML (415) 422-5792
Dr. Richard C. Swartz
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
Pacific Division
Marine Science Drive
Newport, OR 97365
FTS 867-4031
CML (503) 867-4031
Mr. 3ay Vasconcelos
Region X Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 549
Manchester, WA 98353
FTS 399-0370
CML (206) 442-0370
-------
Dr. Wendy Wiltse
EPA - Region I
Water Management Division/WQE
JFK Building
Boston, MA 02203
CML (617) 223-1429
Dr. Terry Whitledge
Building 318
Oceanographic Sciences Division
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973
FTS 666-2945
CML (516) 282-2945
-------