Li,
J-hrfwftaB
> .,.,• .'.'..
( I .I!-\NW.\TEH
V! I HIS i'l
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN:
COASTAL RESEARCH
AND MONITORING STRATEGY
BY
THE COASTAL RESEARCH
AND MONITORING STRATEGY WORKGROUP
SEPTEMBER 2000
IJSD^ g
^^^^^^H re tews tor * dtauogrog «
USGS
http://www.cleanwater.gov
-------
Preface
We are pleased to announce the Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy. The Strategy presents
a basic assessment of the Nation's coastal research and monitoring needs, and recommends an
integrated framework to address the needs of the Nation and the coastal States and Tribes in order
to protect vital coastal resources. This work was identified in the Clean Water Action Plan, as
part of a renewed effort by the Federal agencies, in partnership with States and Tribes to restore
and protect the Nation's estuarine and coastal areas.
The Action Plan outlined several key directions for reorienting the Nation's water programs to
enhance stewardship of critical coastal resources. The most fundamental of these commitments
is a focus on enhancing coastal research and monitoring activities. Current responsibilities for
coastal research and monitoring are often distributed among a variety of agencies. The wide
distribution of these responsibilities can result in duplication of effort, informational gaps, and an
incomplete understanding of resource conditions. In recognition of this fact, the Strategy was
built upon input from a wide range of groups and individuals including non-government
organizations, State and local governments, Tribes, the research community and other interests
and thus, we believe, will be workable and sustainable.
,/
J. (iharles Fox
Assistant Administrator for Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mary Doyle
Acting Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science
U.S. Department of the Interior
D. James Baker
Under Secretary
for Oceans and Atmosphere
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Eileen Kennedy
Acting Under Secretary
Research, Education, and Economics
U.S. Department of Agriculture
-------
Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy Workgroup
The Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy Workgroup was formed in 1999
with representatives from the following Federal, State, Tribes, and Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGO) to prepare the Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy.
Simply stated, the intent of the Strategy is to replace traditional single-issue, single-agency,
single-discipline problem solving with a coordinated, multi-agency, interdisciplinary
approach to address problems of coastal water quality and coastal resources.
As directed in the Clean Water Action Plan, EPA, NOAA, USGS, and the USDA led the
development of this Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy and provided leadership for
strategic planning, coordination, and prioritization of research and monitoring objectives.
The co-chairs of the workgroup include:
Darrell Brown, EPA
Andrew Robertson, NOAA
Don Scavia, NOAA
Timothy Strickland, USDA
Richard Hooper, USGS
brown.darrell@epamail.epa.gov
andrew.robertson@noaa.gov
don.scavia@noaa.gov
tstrickland@reeusda.gov
rphooper@usgs.gov
Federal Agencies
Army Corps of Engineers
Bureau of Reclamation
Coast Guard
Department of Agriculture
Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Environmental Protection Agency
National Atmospheric and Space Administration
National Institutes of Health
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Science Foundation
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Smithsonian Institution
Tennessee Valley Authority
States/Local Agencies
Florida Sea Grant
Georgia
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Oregon
South Carolina
Washington
Hampton Roads Sanitation District
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
Tribes
Alaska Inter-Tribal Council
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Council
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona
National Tribal Environmental Council
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
Penobscot Nation
Quinalt Nation
United South and Eastern Tribes
Yurok Tribe
Non-Governmental Organizations
Association of National Estuary Programs
Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Agencies
Center for Marine Conservation
Coastal Alliance
Coastal States Organization
Consortium for Oceanographic Research
and Education
National Estuarine Research Reserves
Associations
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
COASTAL RESOURCE ISSUES 3
NEED FOR INTEGRATED COASTAL RESEARCH AND MONITORING 7
A NATIONAL STRATEGY 10
Objectives of Research and Monitoring within an Integrated Assessment Framework 10
Monitoring 12
Research 16
COASTAL RESEARCH AND MONITORING — RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 20
Enhance and Adapt Monitoring Programs 20
Enhance and Integrate Research 22
Conduct Periodic National and Regional Coastal Assessments 23
Improve Data Management in Support of Periodic Assessments 24
Establish Mechanisms to Assess and Adjust Monitoring and Research 28
Establish a Mechanism for Further Action 29
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION 31
Monitoring Appropriate Properties 31
Selecting Reliable Indicator Properties 31
Assuring Data Comparability 32
Assuring Information Development and Delivery 32
Linking Monitoring and Research 33
Availability of this document was announced on the following homepages
and list servers to solicit review and comment.
Association of National Estuary Programs List Server
Chesapeake Bay Homepage
Clean Water Action Plan Homepage
EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans
and Watersheds Homepage
Gulf of Mexico Program Homepage
National Association of Marine Laboratories Homepage
NOAA Homepage
Ocean Studies Board of the National Research
Council Homepage
Pacific Ballast Water Group List Server
Sea Grant Homepage
Western Regional Panel of Aquatic Nuisance Species
Task Force List Server
To obtain additional information about the
Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy or the Workgroup, please contact:
Barry Burgan, Workgroup Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Washington, DC
burgan.barry@epa.gov
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Clean Water Action Plan: Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy is a
product of the Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy Workgroup, which was
formed in 1999 with representatives from Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and
NGOs. The Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy presents current
deliberations on proposed implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan in the
coastal zone.
In terms of surface area, coastal waters of the
United States represent the largest economic and
environmental zone of the Nation. Because a
disproportionate percentage of the Nation's population
lives in coastal areas, the activities of municipalities,
commerce, industry, and tourism have created
environmental pressures that threaten the very
resources that make the coast desirable.
To address these pressures, the Clinton
Administration has called for a renewed effort to
restore and protect our Nation's estuarine and coastal
areas. The Clean Water Action Plan, announced by
President Clinton and Vice President Gore on
February 19, 1998, is intended to redirect the Nation's
water programs to "protect public health and restore
our Nation's waterways". The Clean Water Action
Plan specifically calls for the development of a
strategy for coastal research (Action Item 59) and a
plan for coastal monitoring (Action Item 60) including
a comprehensive review of existing programs related
to the generation, transport, and effect of pollutants on
coastal waters, habitats, and living and economic
resources. This document addresses both Action
Items because they are intrinsically linked for the
purposes of assessing regional and national trends,
determining cause and effect relationships, and
implementing adaptive management principles.
While the national investments made as a result of
environmental legislation have had a dramatic effect
on improving the Nation's coastal water quality, there
are still environmental problems in the coastal zone.
Examples of environmental issues common to most
coastal States include nutrient enrichment, habitat
change, protection of living aquatic resources,
invasive species, pathogens, toxic contaminants,
and harmful algal blooms.
The Federal government invests annually about $225
million conducting research and monitoring programs
addressing these and other specific environmental
issues in the coastal zone. Despite these investments,
the importance of the coastal region to the Nation's
economy, and the high potential for human use to
adversely impact coastal resources and ecosystems,
information about the status and trends of critical
environmental variables in coastal regions is often
lacking. Other than programs for coastal weather,
water levels, commercial fisheries, and point source
discharges, there are currently no nationally
consistent, comprehensive monitoring programs to
provide the information necessary for effective
management of coastal systems.
-------
The Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy
employs a monitoring-research-assessment-
management cycle that integrates coastal monitoring
and research objectives to enable cross-cutting and
comprehensive assessments of the Nation's coastal
resources. The objectives of the Strategy are to:
• Document the status and assess trends in
environmental conditions at the scales
necessary for scientific investigation
and policy development;
• Evaluate the causes and consequences of
changes in environmental status and trends;
• Assess environmental, economic, and
sociological impacts of alternative policies for
dealing with these changes; and
• Implement programs and policies to correct
observed environmental problems.
The key attributes of the proposed Coastal Research
and Monitoring Strategy include co-funding by
Federal and State programs; nested designs to allow
State-specific issues to be addressed in a national
context; collective reporting; and cross-system
comparisons.
The strategy for a national coastal monitoring design
is based on the three-tiered approach developed by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Messer et
al. 1991) and a similar version was recommended by
NSTC (1997) and has the following components:
Characterization of Problem (Tier 1)
Broad-scale ecological response properties
as a base determined by survey, automated
collection, and/or remote sensing;
Diagnosis of Causes (Tier 2) -
Issue- or resource-specific surveys and
observations concentrating on cause-effect
interactions; and
Diagnosis of Interaction and Forecasting
(Tier 3) - Intensive monitoring and research
index sites with higher spatial and temporal
resolution to determine specific mechanisms
of interaction needed to build cause-effect
models.
Data and information generated at each tier help
interpretation of results from the other tiers. For
example, Tier 1 (Characterization) data provide
geographic context for data collected at Tiers 2 and
3 (e.g., how widespread is the problem and how much
of the nation's resources are affected by its
occurrence). Likewise, Tiers 2 (Diagnosis of Causes)
and 3 (Diagnosis of Interactions and Forecasting) aid
in understanding how serious a particular relationship
or issue is.
The focus of the Strategy and conceptual framework
is monitoring in the coastal zone. However, important
research activities must occur concurrently at each
level of the monitoring framework. Research plays a
vital role in increasing our ability to interpret data from
our monitoring programs and enhance our monitoring
tools and methods. Research is the foundation
underlying all tiers of the monitoring framework,
and is critical to achieving the objectives of
integrated assessments.
11
-------
The objectives and the conceptual framework
for a Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy have
been defined by the Workgroup and are included in
this document. However, the Workgroup recognizes
that further development of an implementation
strategy which contains specific action plans for each
of the following recommendations is necessary to
execute the concepts of this Strategy. The final
section of this document suggests issues that should
be considered during implementation. However,
development of an implementation plan is beyond the
scope of this Workgroup.
The following six recommendations are offered:
1. Enhance and adapt existing programs to support
an integrated and effective national coastal
monitoring program. A high priority is placed on
the development of a national coastal survey
based on State-level coastal monitoring
programs. The data collected from coastal States
could provide a comprehensive and consistent
picture of the "coastal health" of each State which
would complement the partial requirements of
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The data
generated as a result of these monitoring
activities could be used to support States'
303(d) listing processes.
2. Enhance and integrate interagency research
efforts to fill data gaps, to increase the
understanding of physical and ecological
processes in the coastal zone, and to improve
monitoring and assessment tools. Opportunities
must be developed to foster interagency solicitation,
review, and support of research proposals.
Appropriate methods include both competitive and
external grant processes, and internal Federal
competition and interagency agreements.
3. Conduct periodic national and regional coastal
assessments. These would include national
summary assessments, national habitat
assessments, national issue-specific
assessments, and regional assessments.
4. Improve data management in support of the
periodic assessments. These activities include
development and maintenance of an Internet-
based coastal environmental data clearinghouse
and directory of meta-data resources,
development of performance-based standards for
data management and data submission, and
development of national data quality standards.
5. Establish mechanisms to assess and adjust
monitoring and research with changing national
coastal priorities. User-advisory and technical
committees, composed of representatives from
Federal, State, and local governments;
academia; not-for-profit organizations; and the
private sector would be established to ensure that
the products and services of the system are
relevant and stay on track and to ensure that
development and implementation of the system
uses the best available scientific methods and
technologies.
6. Establish a mechanism to define and develop an
implementation plan for each of the
Recommendations 1-5 and to oversee efficient
execution of a national program. To carry out the
above recommendations and develop an
implementation plan for a national strategy, the
formulation of an interagency oversight
committee is recommended. Long-term viability
of the committee is essential.
111
-------
List of Acronyms
ANICA Atmospheric Nutrient Input to Coastal Areas
ARL Air Resources Laboratory
ASP Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CENR Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
CISNet Coastal Intensive Site Network
DDT Dicholoro Diphenyl Tricholoroethane
DOI Department of the Interior
DSP Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning
ECOHAB Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
GIS Geographic Information System
GNP Gross National Product
HAB Harmful Algal Bloom
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
LMER Land-Margin Ecological Research
LTER Long Term Ecological Research
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures
NEP National Estuary Program
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOPP National Ocean Pollution Program
NPS National Park Service
NSF National Science Foundation
NSP Neurotoxic Shellfish Poisoning
NSTC National Science and Technology Council
NWQMC National Water Quality Monitoring Council
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PSP Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
RMRP Regional Marine Research Program
SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SST Sea Surface Temperature
TVA Tennessee Valley Authority
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Clean Water Action Plan, announced by the
Clinton Administration on February 19, 1998,
is intended to direct the Nation's water
programs to "protect public health and restore our
Nation's waterways" by setting strong goals and
providing States, Tribes, communities, and individual
landowners with the tools and resources to meet
those goals. The Plan builds on the foundation of
existing programs and proposes new steps to
strengthen them. Its goals include:
• Strengthening and enhancing core programs
that have been designed to protect public
health, safeguard the sources of our drinking
water, prevent polluted runoff, enhance natural
resources (e.g., wetlands and stream corridors),
and improve citizens' access and right-to-know
to water quality information;
• Promoting State-led, watershed approaches to
pollution prevention, including restoration and
preservation of watershed health through the
coordination of government programs across
Federal agencies, as well as across
organizations within those agencies; and
• Developing a systematic program to monitor the
effects of land use and modifications to coastal
systems on the hydrology of estuaries and
coastal areas and subsequent impacts on
hypoxia, sedimentation and species
composition and biodiversity.
For coastal systems, the Plan provides specific
directions for reorienting programs that enhance
stewardship of critical coastal resources.
It commits to:
• Coordinate coastal research and monitoring
activities to provide useful information upon
which to base coastal management decisions
now and in the future;
• Expand Federal coastal programs to focus
on urgent issues, such as harmful algal blooms,
fisheries management, and habitat restoration;
• Build and expand partnerships among Federal,
State, Tribal, local, and business stakeholders
to achieve clean water and public health goals
in the coastal zone; and
• Approve and implement State and Tribal
polluted runoff control programs developed
under Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments.
The Plan's guidance and directives for future coastal
water research and monitoring provide an outline for
the Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy
presented in this document. These directives are
consistent with two important documents of the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
which reviewed the status of U.S. environmental and
coastal research and monitoring. In Integrating the
Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research
Networks and Programs (NSTC 1997), guidance is
proposed for synthesizing information into integrated
assessments. Setting a New Course for Coastal
Ocean Science (NSTC 1995) provides a framework
and goal for research and relates it to monitoring, or
observation, programs. Both recognize the
importance of basing policy and management on
good science, and recognize the current gaps in our
understanding of pressing environmental issues, often
resulting from inefficient coordination of Federal
research and monitoring programs.
-------
Key actions for coastal waters specifically called out in
the Plan are the development of a multi-agency
coastal research and monitoring strategy, to be lead
by NOAA, EPA, DOI, and USDA. This Coastal
Research and Monitoring Strategy has been
developed in response to these actions, building on
the work of the previous NSTC efforts. This
document presents an assessment of the Nation's
coastal research and monitoring needs, and
recommends an integrated research and monitoring
framework to guide future Federal programs in the
coastal zone. Coastal information needs have been
summarized in recent analyses by government,
academia, the environmental community, and
industry. A compendium of these assessments is
included in Appendix A of this document. Appendix B
of this document presents case studies demonstrating
how this Strategy can be implemented to address
selected coastal issues.
The Clean Water Action Plan strategically outlines
actions that are co-dependent and beneficial to the
COAST-RELATED ACTION ITEMS FROM
THE CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN
• EPA and NOAA will lead development of a
multi-agency coastal research strategy to be
issued in 1999.
• EPA, NOAA, DOI, and USDA — in cooperation
with other Federal agencies, States, and Tribes
— will develop a plan by the end of 1999 for
coordinated monitoring of coastal waters and
will, by the end of 2000, develop a
comprehensive report to the public on the
condition of the Nation s coastal waters.
implementation of one another. Therefore, successful
implementation of the recommendations in this
Strategy will require coordination with programs
established under relevant actions in the Plan. For
example, though this Strategy focuses primarily on
the environmental conditions of the coast, to
accurately assess coastal health, it will be necessary
to consider pollution impacts to human health. This
should be accomplished by integrating results from
Clean Water Action Plan items developed to ensure
that fish and shellfish are safe to eat (Action Items
1-10) and that beaches are safe for swimming (EPA's
Beaches Program, Action Items 11-14). Similarly,
though the monitoring and research that results from
this Strategy will focus on the coastal geographic
area, it will be essential to integrate coastal watershed
data (e.g., hydrology, land-use changes, point and
nonpoint sources of pollutants, and socio-economic
changes) to fully assess coastal trends and implement
appropriate management actions. Though cross-
communication will be crucial, it is not within the
scope of this Workgroup to develop a strategy that
addresses the Clean Water Action Plan's directives
beyond the environmental health of the coastal zone.
It is key that a plan for integrating with other initiatives
and programs beyond the scope of this Strategy be
developed as part of the recommended
implementation plan.
The Strategy described herein proposes a multi-tier
system to cover all appropriate spatial and temporal
scales embedded within a monitoring-research-
assessment-management cycle. This cycle
maximizes the use of information from each of the
activity areas (e.g., monitoring) to enhance each of
the remaining activities.
-------
COASTAL RESOURCE ISSUES
U. S. COASTAL FACTS
The coastal ocean extends from shore to the
seaward limit of the Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), and includes estuaries and
embayments. The Great Lakes are also included
because they represent similar resources and
problems as those associated with marine coasts.
The coastal ocean is the largest of the Nation's
environmental components — exceeding the land
area of the United States and its territories.
Coastal water resources represent enormous
natural and economic importance to the Nation.
Coastal ecosystems are
among the most
productive and diverse
areas including estuaries,
coastal wetlands, coral
reefs, mangrove forests,
and upwelling areas.
Marine mammals,
waterfowl, commercial
fish species, and a
multitude of other species
inhabit or migrate through
our coastal waters.
In addition, a large
number of Americans
depend on coastal waters
for their livelihood, food,
recreation, and
enjoyment. The coastal
ocean also supports
waterborne commerce,
which is increasingly important in our global economy.
The health and welfare of the United States is
intrinsically dependent on our ability to wisely use and
More than one half of the population lives
in the coastal region.
U.S. commercial fisheries resulted in
$3.9 billion in revenue to fishermen in
U.S. ports in 1991.
About one-third of the nation s GNP
originates in the coastal zone.
The coasts annually attract about
180 million recreational visitors.
Most international commerce is shipped
through coastal waters; greater than 99
percent by weight and 80 percent by value.
The Nation s coastal population is growing
by 3 600 people per day.
conserve the resources of our coastal region.
Unfortunately, our populations' preference for the
coast has created environmental pressures that
threaten the very resources that make the coast
desirable. Since 1960, the population growth in the
672 counties now defined as coastal by the U.S.
Census Bureau has been more rapid than in the
interior. This trend is expected to continue,
increasing pressures on the coastal zone. These
stressors include increased loading of nutrients, toxic
chemicals, and pathogens from municipal and
industrial discharges; and alteration of the coastline
and coastal currents.
These stressors all converge
on the coasts and tax their
assimilative capacity,
ultimately leading to
degradation and loss of
critical coastal habitats upon
which healthy and diverse
living resources depend.
The Nation has many
success stories related to
improving the quality of
coastal waters resulting from
25 years of cooperative effort
among Federal, State, Tribal,
and local government and
the public and business.
These efforts have
dramatically reduced the
levels of nutrients and other
pollutants entering coastal waters by implementing
measures to manage multiple uses of the coastal
zone. These measures have restored the
environmental, recreational, and economic value of
-------
large areas of the coastal zone. However, serious
problems still exist. For example, of the Nation's
estuaries, 39 percent are partially or fully impaired,
with water quality threatened in another 4 percent
(EPA 1998). Of the miles of Great Lakes waters
surveyed, 97 percent reported partially or fully
impaired water quality
(EPA 1998).
While specific coastal water quality problems differ in
various regions of the country, there are common
issues. The most common environmental issues in
coastal and estuarine areas of the Nation include:
• Nutrient enrichment/coastal eutrophication —
Many coastal areas are "overfed" by nutrients
such as nitrogen and phosphorus from point
and nonpoint sources, leading to excessive
vegetation and algal blooms. Overgrowth of
algae is associated with low dissolved oxygen,
high turbidity, losses of submerged aquatic
vegetation and bloom of nuisance species.
WETLANDS LOSS
In Louisiana alone, coastal wetlands
are being lost at a rate of 65 km2/year
(EPA 1999).
Habitat change — Development pressures have
resulted in substantial physical changes along
many areas of the coastal zone. Coastal
wetlands continue to be lost to residential and
commercial development, while the quantity and
timing of freshwater flow, critical to river and
estuarine function, continue to be altered.
Cumulative negative impacts include degraded
NUTRIENTS IN THE
MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
The EPA Mid-Atlantic Bight monitoring
initiative has demonstrated that nutrients
in coastal waters have been increasing at
a statistically significant rate over the
past 20 years. The translocation of
nutrients from the estuaries, coupled with
increased air deposition, is responsible.
The result is a three-fold decrease in
water quality, as measured by increases in
plankton biomass and decreases in
transparency, and increases in the
numbers of harmful algal blooms
(pers comm. W. Muir EPA Region 3).
in-stream habitat conditions, loss or degradation
of estuarine habitat, and changes in nearshore
sediment transport due to erosion and
sedimentation processes.
Living aquatic resources — Fish and other
aquatic life are often the first to be affected by
substances deposited in our Nation's
waterways. Because they are often consumed
by people, the quality of our living resources is
a significant public health issue. Living aquatic
resource issues include:
• Increase of disease and decrease in fecundity,
with the resulting decline in fish and shellfish
harvest;
Contaminants in fish and shellfish, with
resulting shellfish bed closures and public
fears about seafood consumption;
Decline in fish stocks from overfishing
and environmental causes;
-------
,/•*
Loss of habitat for waterfowl and migratory
birds and threatened and endangered species;
and
Loss of expected diversity for macrobenthic
and finfish communities.
Invasive species — Invasive species,
such as the zebra mussel, threaten the
abundance of native species, change system
productivity, and cause significant damage to
valued natural resources. Invasive species
have been introduced through ballast water
exchange in coastal water, aquaculture
operations, importation of ornamental species,
and intentional introduction to control pests or
other purposes.
Pathogens — The presence of pathogens in
coastal environments can cause decreases in
the population, size, or economic value of
commercial species, or may directly impact the
value of coastal resources through beach
closures or other limitations of use.
Toxic contaminants — Toxic contaminants
introduced to coastal waters often accumulate in
sediments, adversely affecting bottom-dwelling
organisms, fish and shellfish that feed on them,
or accumulate directly in living aquatic
resources. Effects on estuarine biota
BEACH CLOSINGS
Since 1988, there have been more than 23,000
beach closings and advisories along U.S.
coasts and the Great Lakes (NSTC 1997).
include altered reproductive success, growth
rates, and competitive abilities, and death.
Toxic contaminants can be introduced to coastal
waters from point sources such as permitted
discharges or from nonpoint sources such as
atmospheric deposition, agricultural runoff, and
urban runoff.
Harmful algal blooms — Harmful algal blooms
(HAB) have deleterious effects on plants,
animals, and/or humans. While HABs, such as
red tides, have been occurring for centuries,
they appear to be more frequent and extensive.
HAB-associated human diseases include
paralytic shellfish poisoning, neurotoxic shellfish
poisoning, diarrhetic shellfish poisoning, and
amnesic shellfish poisoning. Pfiesteria piscicida
outbreaks along the mid-Atlantic and Carolina
coasts in the 1980s and 1990s have been
implicated in multiple large-scale fish kills and a
variety of human health effects associated with
exposure to HAB-contaminated water.
HUMANHEALTHIMPA CTS
In 1996, 2,193 fish consumption
advisories were issued in 48 States.
Mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxin, and
DDT were responsible for almost all of
these advisories (EPA 1998b).
-------
CRITICAL COASTAL PROBLEMS IN THE U.S.
(from NSTC1997)
Deteriorating water quality — One-third of our shellfish beds are closed; medical
wastes and sewage close beaches and waters for use; toxic algal blooms close
fisheries and shutdown tourism. Since 1988, it has been necessary to post
approximately 23,000 beach closings and advisories along U.S. coasts, including
the Great Lakes, to protect human health.
Invasive species and habitat loss — Changes in freshwater input to the coast are
producing unprecedented changes to habitats resulting in changes in species
composition and diversity and fostering invasions by exotic species.
Physical modifications and habitat loss — Physical modifications to the
environment are altering the hydrology and increasing erosion, resulting in
modified habitats and reduction in ecologically productive habitat, including
those on which protected and endangered species depend.
Depletion of fisheries — 43 percent of our fisheries are over-exploited; a $5
billion trade imbalance in fisheries products results in lost jobs.
Moratoria on oil and gas development — Moratoria are imposed on offshore oil
and gas development in some areas because existing scientific information could
not effectively address environmental concerns for all the phases of oil and gas
activities.
Coastal storms and widespread coastal erosion — Storm losses have escalated to
tens of billions of dollars due to increased development of coastal areas.
-------
NEED FOR INTEGRATED COASTAL
RESEARCH AND MONITORING
An inventory of Federal monitoring programs
conducted from 1991 through 1993 revealed
that eight agencies were conducting at least
38 programs in the coastal ocean (NSTC 1995). The
total direct effort of Federal research in the coastal
ocean was $228 million in FY 1991, $218 million in FY
1992, and $227 million in FY 1993 (NSTC 1995).
Federal agencies indicated that 45 percent of the
funding was directed at questions related to
environmental quality, 26 percent to living resources,
13 percent to nonliving resources, 10 percent to
habitat conservation, and 6 percent for protection of
life and property. Within the coastal
zone, 43 percent of the Federal
investment was directed at the ocean
margins, 33 percent at estuaries, 15
percent at the Great Lakes, and 5
percent to shorelines. The four
agencies expending the most dollars
related to coastal research and
monitoring were the Department of the
Interior, Department of Commerce,
Environmental Protection Agency, and
National Science Foundation, which
cumulatively accounted for about 95
percent of the total funding.
provide the information necessary for effective
management of coastal systems. Attempts to design
one program that fits all cases have generally failed
because all temporal and spatial scales are pertinent
and important but impossible to design for use in one
blueprint. EPA's and NOAA's current "national"
programs, EMAP-Coastal and National Status and
Trends (NS&T), respectively, address pieces of the
Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy but do not
provide information at all pertinent scales. EMAP-
Coastal measures most of the appropriate variables
FEDERAL FUNDING FOR
U.S. COASTAL SCIENCE
Four agencies account for almost 95 percent of all Federal
research dollars directed for coastal ocean issues:
• Department of the Interior $92 - $102 million
• Department of Commerce $66 - $69 million
• National Science Foundation $26 - $29 million
• Environmental Protection Agency $20 - $26 million
Range of annual expenditures 1991 - 1993 (NSTC 1995)
Despite the importance of the coastal region to the
Nation's economy and well-being, and the high
potential for human use or natural events to adversely
impact coastal resources and ecosystems,
information about the status and trends of critical
environmental variables in coastal regions is often
lacking. Other than programs for coastal weather,
water levels, commercial fisheries, and point source
discharges, there are currently no nationally
but not at a national scale and NS&T measures
relatively few variables at a national scale (with some
issues regarding the placement of sampling sites).
EPA's new monitoring initiative, Coastal 2000,
expands EMAP-Coastal's monitoring throughout all
coastal States and effectively meets the requirements
of the first tier proposed in the National Coastal
Strategy.
This serious shortcoming in the Nation's past
environmental programs has been recognized and
-------
consistent, comprehensive monitoring programs to
highlighted by government, academia, the
environmental community, and industry. A group
representing all four of these stakeholder groups
recently developed the Report of the Nation's
Ecosystems (The Heinz Center 1999). The report
identified many specific deficiencies related to
addressing national environmental problems.
For example:
• National monitoring or consistent reporting
processes for beach closures currently do not
exist, even though thousands of closures occur
each year;
• National monitoring of conditions leading to
coastal eutrophication does not exist, even
though half of our estuaries have oxygen
depletion problems;
• Monitoring of the frequency or extent of harmful
algal blooms, fish disease, or pathogens is not
being addressed on a national level, even
though every State is affected;
• No systematic effort exists to quantify the areal
extent and fragmentation of salt marshes, sea
grasses, coral reefs, and other important
habitats, even though there are, for
economically and ecologically important
species, legislated mandates to protect and
restore these habitats; and
• No systematic programs exist to monitor the
loss of species, changes in species mix, or rates
of invasions by exotic species, even though we
know that these are growing serious threats to
our ecosystems and economy.
Because we lack nationally consistent monitoring
and observing guidelines, the difficulty in conducting
analyses on national and regional scales is also
hampering efforts to assess potential impacts on
coastal systems. For the National Assessment of
Potential Impacts of Climate Variability and Change
(NOAA 2000 In prep.), the coastal and marine
analysis has been based primarily on site-specific
case studies, because nationally consistent trend (and
forecast) data are not available for key parameters,
such as temperature, salinity, current patterns, habitat
extent, and biological community structure. Similar
problems confront agencies responsible for
developing the National Assessments of Harmful Algal
Blooms and Hypoxia (Interagency Task Force on
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 2000 In prep.).
These national assessments must rely on sparse,
site-specific data and expert judgment to document
the status of the problem; it is not possible to
document trends. While sufficient data were
available for the Gulf of Mexico/Mississippi River
component, which was
also called for in the
Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research &
Control Act, such an ;
analysis could not be
repeated five years
from now because
most of the monitoring .
system has already
been shut down, or is
in danger of being
shutdown.
-------
In addition to national assessments, Federal land
management agencies such as the National Park
Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) have specific information needs to wisely
manage the coastal areas. The NPS recently
conducted a Geology of Coastal Ecosystems
workshop which identified four major concerns: (1) the
need to better understand the impact of people on
coasts and coastal processes, (2) the need for more
and easier access to scientific information; (3) better
centralized information; and (4) rapid response to
short-term needs. The difficulties BLM encountered in
assembling inventory information for the newly
created California Coastal National Monument
exemplifies these concerns. The need for improved
integration of coastal and ocean observation systems
has also been identified by Congress. In response,
the National Ocean Partnership Program has
prepared a report outlining needs and response
strategies for both basin-scale and coastal monitoring
and observing systems. This report found that the
"scarcity of observations on coastal ecosystems of
sufficient duration, spatial extent, and resolution are
major impediments to the development of a
predictive understanding of environmental variability
in coastal waters" (NOPP 1999).
"K
Affective prediction,
assessment, policy, and management are
built on accurate, timely, and appropriate
observations and monitoring programs. "
from Setting a New Course
for Coastal Ocean Science, National
Science and Technology Council 1995
The Administration's guidance for FY 2001
interagency research and development priorities
highlights efforts within the Committee on
Environmental and Natural Resources' initiative on
Integrated Science for Ecosystem Challenges (NSTC
1997). This effort to "develop the knowledge base,
information infrastructure, and modeling framework to
help resource managers predict/assess environmental
and economic impacts of stress on vulnerable
ecosystems" depends fundamentally on monitoring
and observation systems. The integrated science
Strategy identifies several serious impediments to
delivering the integrated science needed to sustain
the Nation's ecosystems, and emphasizes the need
to bring together social and ecosystems data to
produce information and tools needed to effectively
manage ecosystems.
These needs are not new. The call for an improved
coastal observation system, as part of an integrated,
interagency coastal ocean science strategy was
described in the National Science and Technology
Council report, Setting a New Course for Coastal
Ocean Science (1995). This study recommended
that, "Effective prediction, assessment, policy, and
management are built on accurate, timely, and
appropriate observations and monitoring programs.
The output from some observation systems would
feed directly into decision-making processes, others
would support real-time forecasting and analysis
capabilities, and still others must be combined with
other data sets to form critical assessments of
environmental risk. A hierarchy of observation
systems would supply appropriate information in real
time as seasonal and annual summaries, and as
multi-year summaries." The spatial requirements of
the observation systems include both regional and
national scales.
-------
A NATIONAL STRATEGY
This section of the Strategy presents the
conceptual framework based on two models.
The first is presented in the National Science
and Technology Council's Integrating the Nation's
Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks
and Programs (NSTC 1997), which sets forth a
common integrated strategy for future Federal
investments in all fields of environmental research
and monitoring. The second is the EPA EMAP coastal
monitoring strategy, which has proven extremely
successful as a framework for coastal pollution
research and monitoring.
The framework will guide the direction of coastal
monitoring and research across Federal agencies to
address current and future environmental issues of
the coast. The recommended coordination and
collaboration of Federal agencies will permit future
coastal research and monitoring activities to benefit
from the specific knowledge and experience of each
agency — the resulting decision-making capability will
be greater than the sum of the parts.
Objectives of Research and Monitoring
within an Integrated
Assessment Framework
The complex and changing nature of coastal waters,
bays, estuaries, and wetlands often requires the
integration of physical, chemical, biological, and
ecological data to assess coastal environmental
conditions; and often requires the integration of
research with monitoring to improve or extend our
assessment capabilities. For the past decade,
academic, Federal, State, and private sector scientists
have been working toward new approaches to doing
this (Messer et al. 1991; NSTC 1997). These
integrated assessment efforts appear to have roughly
the same common goal:
Provide the national, regional, and local capabilities
to measure, understand, analyze, and forecast
ecological change (natural and anthropogenic) that
can affect coastal economies, public safety, and the
integrity and sustainability of the Nation's coastal
ecosystems.
Integrated assessments provide an effective format
for bridging science and policy and, therefore, they
are the appropriate context for designing a research
and monitoring strategy. The objectives of integrated
assessments are to:
• Document status and assess trends in
environmental conditions at the necessary
scales for scientific investigation and policy
development;
• Evaluate the causes and consequences of
changes in environmental status and trends;
• Assess environmental, economic, and
sociological impacts of alternative policies for
dealing with these changes; and
• Predict change and create an early warning
detection.
Research is necessary to improve both the
assessment techniques and the monitoring done to
support these assessments. The research necessary
to support these activities includes:
• Analysis of environmental, economic, and
sociological impacts of coastal policy —
A large number of National, State and Tribal
policies direct the expenditure of billions of
dollars of public and private money to protect
the coastal zone. It is important to understand if
these investments are well spent — if the
coastal zone has been protected or restored.
10
-------
• Analysis of coastal physical and ecological
processes — An understanding of the physical
and ecological processes of the coastal zone
underlies all of the other objectives.
Investments in research to improve this
understanding are paid back directly or
indirectly by our increasing our ability to truly
understand current status or predict future
trends, and to determine when a change is
important or not.
• Improvement or enhancement of monitoring and
assessment tools — Our ability to accomplish
the objectives described above rests on our
ability to use Federal investments wisely.
Advancements in field monitoring and
observation, remote sensing, and data
management and display technology have
created opportunities to acquire, manage, and
disseminate coastal environmental data more
efficiently and economically than was thought
possible 10 years ago. The challenge is to
wisely select or improve upon the toolbox of
traditional, new, or emerging technologies that
will effectively provide information needed for
policy or management decisions.
The effective integration of monitoring and research
will enable comprehensive assessments of the
Nation's coastal resources and supporting
management of the problem. This approach is
essential for differentiating between actual and
perceived environmental issues in the coastal zone,
so that (1) we address all major coastal environmental
issues appropriately and in a timely manner, and that
(2) we avoid unnecessary environmental regulation or
environmental damage. It follows that an integrated
monitoring and research strategy focused on
supporting the comprehensive management of our
coastal resources requires an integration of key
assessment and management elements with
monitoring and research objectives (Figure 1).
Monitoring is crucial to documenting status and
assessing trends, evaluating the cause-effect
relationships between stressors and impacts, and
assessing the effectiveness of management actions.
Research is an important part of environmental
monitoring and is particularly important for improving
our ability to interpret monitoring data, and improving
our assessment capability. Additionally, research is
key to predicting impacts as a result of emerging
trends and to forecasting and assessing the impacts
and benefits of management actions.
Policy/
Program Development
Figure 1. Monitoring-Research-Assessment-Management
Cycle that Gauges Coastal Ecological Condition and the
Effectiveness of Management Policies and Programs.
These objectives have been agreed to by the
Workgroup as capturing the intent of the Coastal
Research and Monitoring Strategy — to observe
coastal status and differentiate between real and
perceived coastal water issues, and to provide
informed and expert judgement necessary for coastal
policy and management. The objectives are, to a large
extent, derived from national environmental
monitoring and research objectives presented in
11
-------
Integrating the Nation's Environmental Monitoring and
Research Networks and Programs, the national
framework established by the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC 1997). The NSTC
objectives, as modified to address specific issues of
coastal waters, overlap with charters of the Departments
and Agencies represented in the Workgroup.
To be effective, an integrated assessment strategy for
monitoring and research activities must be designed
to accomplish all of these objectives. Only by
addressing all components can the effectiveness of
management actions be tracked.
Monitoring
A national coastal monitoring strategy must
simultaneously meet the needs of the Nation, the
coastal States, and Tribes. This Strategy is the most
effective way to satisfy needs at these scales, and it is
also essential to receive the necessary cooperation
from the coastal States and Tribes. Only through this
cooperation can the longevity of any national coastal
monitoring effort be assured. The mechanisms to
achieve this interaction are beyond the scope of this
Strategy. However, key attributes of any subsequent
program should include co-funding by Federal and
State programs, nested designs to allow state-specific
issues to be addressed in a national context, a
uniform reporting protocol to facilitate data and
information exchange, and further attention on
specific State issues, collective reporting, and cross-
system comparisons.
The coastal ecosystems addressed by this Strategy
include estuaries, coastal waters, beaches, wetlands
and the Great Lakes. Because the scale and
The Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy addresses the
physical, chemical, biological, and
ecological conditions of coastal
waters, bays, estuaries, beaches,
wetlands, and the Great Lakes.
dimensions of these systems vary considerably, the
"optimal" monitoring design is one that allows
adaptation to each ecosystem while maintaining a
similar core design that would allow comparison and
tiered estimates of condition. As previously stated,
attempts to design one program that fits all cases
generally fail because all temporal and spatial scales
are pertinent and important. Therefore, the design
proposed here incorporates a flexible, nested
approach that uses a base design (common to all) with
details designed by the appropriate stakeholders at
each level.
The strategy is based on the three-tiered approach
developed by EPA (Messer et al. 1991) and a
similar version was recommended by NSTC (1997)
(Figure 2). The three-tiered monitoring strategy
addresses several of the major attributes of an
integrated assessment (Figure 3): (1) characteri-
zation of the problem, (2) diagnosis of causes, (3)
management actions, (4) assessment of effectiveness
of actions, (5) re-evaluation of causes, and (6)
continued assurance of effectiveness of actions.
These attributes, in combination with formulation of
management actions, create the cycle of monitoring
and attendant research necessary to identify, solve,
correct, and manage environmental problems. The
12
-------
diagnosis
V
u
v
•a
M
w
Intensive scale
- cause and Tier 3
effect research Intensive
Diagnosis
-25-50 sites
Tier 1 and 2 measurements plus
process research and monitoring
parameters necessary for modeling
. Relationships among
Regional-scale, Tier 2 Broad Scale Diagnosis stressors and ecological
issue-driven _ 100 250 si(es per issue response variables
Broad-based
surveys
hH
Tier 1 Characterization Measures of
~ 1000 sites
ecosystem response
">
coverage
—
&
"S
a
'1
•—
a
^**
Physical, chemical and biological parameters are measured
in all tiers at different temporal and spatial intensity.
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of a National Coastal Monitoring Strategy.
proposed three-tiered national coastal monitoring
design features:
• Characterization of Problem (Tier 1) - Broad-
scale ecological response properties as a base
determined by survey, automated collection,
and/or remote sensing;
• Diagnosis of Causes (Tier 2) - Issue- or
resource-specific surveys and observations
concentrating on cause-effect interactions; and,
• Diagnosis of Interaction and Forecasting
(Tier 3) - Intensive monitoring and research
index sites with higher spatial and temporal
resolution to determine specific mechanisms of
interaction needed to build cause-effect models.
Data and information generated at each tier help
interpretation of results from the other tiers. For
example, Tier 1 (Characterization) data provide
geographic context for data collected at Tiers 2 and 3
(e.g., how widespread is the problem and how much
of the Nation's resources are affected by its
occurrence). Tiers 2 (Diagnosis of Causes) and 3
(Diagnosis of Interactions) aid in understanding how
serious a particular relationship or issue is. Tier 3
also aids in interpreting results at Tiers 1 and 2, and
links process research with long-term ecological and
environmental measurements to strengthen cause-
effect linkages and predictive models that relate
stresses and environmental responses.
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PROBLEM (TIER 1)
Measurements in Tier 1 are designed to characterize
problems by tracking the natural dynamics of coastal
ecosystems in order to identify large-scale existing
and emerging issues. Therefore, these
measurements focus on the first step of integrated
assessments (Figure 2) - documenting status and
trends in order to characterize the problem(s). Tier 1
measurements generally would be taken at fairly
coarse spatial and temporal scales based on
probabilistic approaches, except for those that can be
generated by remote platforms (e.g., satellites) where
coverages may be complete. This approach is State-
oriented and through consistency of design and
measurements produces a national coverage.
Consistent with the most recent work in this area
13
-------
(National Academy of Sciences 2000), indicators to be
measured in Tier 1 include (1) Measures of
community and ecosystem structure and function
(productivity, abundances and distributions of plants
and animals, diversity, and important attributes of
nutrient and chemical cycling), and (2) environmental
stressors (primary stressors of coastal ecosystems)
and habitat variables (measures required to interpret
natural variability in rapidly changing coastal
environments).
Many measurements in Tier 1 can be derived through
automated sensors (e.g., satellites, aircraft
reconnaissance, and buoys). However, several
measurements must still be conducted through field
sampling and laboratory analysis. These measures,
collected using an integrated probabilistic design
including all coastal States, would provide a
comprehensive, integrated assessment of the "health"
of each state and, through integration, the Nation's
coastal resources. Approximately 50 sites are likely to
be included at this level for each coastal State for
each coastal environment (e.g., wetlands, estuaries,
beaches, offshore waters) and the Great Lakes.
DIAGNOSIS OF LARGE-SCALE CAUSES (TIER 2)
In order to assess the causes of problems identified in
Tier 1, Tier 2 monitoring would be conducted only in
areas identified as impacted by Tier 1 monitoring or
through other available databases (e.g., 303d list).
This "national" sampling tier would be stratified by
environmental issue, with a monitoring program
associated with each stratum.
Examples of strata are:
• Eutrophication;
• Contamination by Metals and Organics;
• Contamination by Microbial Organisms;
• Invasive Species;
• Habitat Degradation;
• Fisheries Declines;
• Harmful Algal Blooms; and
• Hypoxia.
The primary purpose for the collection of monitoring
data at Tier 2 levels would be to quantify the
relationships among ecosystem response variables
(e.g., productivity, benthic abundance, bird
Characterization
of Problem
(Tier 1)
Assess Effectiveness
ofActions
(Tiers 1, 2 & 3)
Monitoring to Assure
Continued Effectiveness
(Tier 1)
Management
Actions
Re-Evaluation
of Diagnosis
of Causes
(Tiers 2 & 3)
Diagnosis
of Causes
(Tiers 2 & 3)
Figure 3. Integrated Assessment Process for Addressing Coastal Issues.
14
-------
abundance) and environmental stressors (e.g.,
nutrients, low dissolved oxygen, habitat loss) in order
to diagnose the cause(s) of the observed
environmental problem. It is through this
quantification that better stewardship and better
correctional operations can be determined. The
number of sampling sites for each issue stratum
would be largely determined by number of locations
and regions displaying the particular issue, although
an expectation of about 100-250 sites per issue
stratum seems to be a reasonable expectation.
Tier 2 is not sufficient alone for understanding
relationships well enough to develop predictive
capabilities. The integration of Tiers 2 and 3 should
provide that predictive power.
DIAGNOSIS OF INTERACTIONS
AND FORECASTING (TIER 3)
Monitoring at Tiers 1 and 2 provide information that
can be used to develop policies and actions to correct
the environmental problems found throughout the
Nation. However, many problems are the result of
complex interactions of stressors, habitats, natural
environments and anthropogenic activities. In order
to determine these interactions and forecast the likely
environmental response of these interactions, this
Strategy proposes the development of Tier 3 sites.
At these sites, measurements are spatially and
temporally intensive and are completed at few
locations over relatively short time periods (weeks to
years). Much of the research necessary to develop
indicators or indices with forecasting power will be
accomplished at these sites, in conjunction with the
intensive monitoring. Approximately 25-50 of these
sites would exist.
The data and information generated at each tier
assists in interpreting information from the remaining
tiers. Tier 1 information places Tier 2 and 3
information into perspective: How broad a problem is
the issue and how much of the Nation's resources are
affected by its occurrence, its correction, and its
understanding. Tiers 2 and 3 provide an
understanding of the seriousness of a particular
relationship or issue. At Tier 1, all problems are, in
essence, treated equally, but work at Tiers 2 and 3
may show that losses of some species distributions
are more important than others. Tier 3 aids in
interpreting results at Tiers 1 and 2 and links process
research with long-term measurements of
ecological and environmental measures to
strengthen cause-effect linkages and predictive
models relating stresses and ecosystem response.
As more locations are studied for
invasive species, and as the protocols for
monitoring become more standardized, a
more systematic knowledge will be gained
of anecdotally known regional variations
in invasion rates and species. Intensive
study at specific locations where invasions
had taken place, as well as at ecologically
and climatically similar locations with
invasion observed to a different extent or
by different species, will help establish
what factors put a particular area at risk
from what species or types of species.
15
-------
These three monitoring tiers correspond to the
characterization of the problem, diagnosis of causes,
and defining interactions of existing environmental
problems within the integrated assessment model
(Figure 3). Regardless of the requirements for
specific spatial and/or temporal scales, these
monitoring tiers provide the information for the
assessment of the effectiveness of actions and
continued assurance of that effectiveness.
Research
The interaction of research in the development,
execution, and revision of monitoring coastal
ecosystems is a closely paired activity as shown in
Figure 3. Integrated assessments (Figure 2) depend
on adapting the monitoring approach to take
advantage of accumulated information, both through
previous monitoring and from research to enhance
measurement indicators, understand cause-effect
relationships, and develop sampling approaches to
reduce uncertainty.
Research activities must occur at all three tiers,
representing differing specific research programs.
Indicator research and development of survey
methods and tools enhance our ability to characterize
ecosystem condition (Tier 1). Initial monitoring
activities to characterize (Tier 1) must be based on
available, tested, and understandable indicators. This
does not imply they are the best indicators of
ecosystem condition (just the best available), and
continuing research should produce better, more
certain indicators. Cause-and-effect research
enhances our understanding of what monitoring data
represents. This research, whether at the larger scale
(Tier 2) or intensive scale (Tier 3), provides the
necessary interpretive information to bridge the gap
between status and trend information and
management actions.
Prediction of environmental problems is the long-term
goal of the monitoring and research interaction.
Currently, our monitoring approaches and research
programs must be reactive — with monitoring results
driving the research agenda and the research results
modifying the monitoring approach. As cause-and-
effect monitoring and research progresses, the results
will provide the basis for predictive modeling,
forecasting emerging environmental problems and
separating changes due to natural variability from
those resulting from anthropogenic stress. Once
forecasting abilities can be verified, the interactive
roles of monitoring and research (particularly at Tiers
2 and 3) would change, adapting to these new
abilities to focus efforts in an unbiased manner rather
than approaching the coastal environment as one
large population.
After characterizing the coastal environment and
predicting the probability of change from human
activity and diagnosing the likely causes of these
changes, environmental managers and stakeholders
must make decisions on future policies, programs,
and actions. Decisions include continuation of current
activity (no action), control of future inputs,
remediation of environmental contamination, or
restoration of the coastal ecosystem to a desired
state. Some of the uncertainties associated with
these decisions are based on a lack of understanding
of coastal system response, as indicated in the
previous section. Research is needed to support the
management decision element of the integrated
assessment model, including:
16
-------
Development of standardized protocols for
environmental remediation and restoration,
which assure consistent outcomes;
Evaluation of costs and effectiveness of
management actions; and
Development of decision analysis methods to
help managers establish relevant goals and to
facilitate consistent cost-effective decisions.
Therefore, research plays a vital role in interpreting
outputs from, and methods used in, monitoring
programs, and represents a key to the integrated
assessment model. Research supports all phases of
the assessment process. The steps in that process,
and the relationships between
monitoring and research, are outlined
in Figure 4. Some characteristic
research activities that support the
integrated assessment process are
presented below.
of environmental change and provide the greatest
information return for the least investment. The key
question in indicator research is defining which
parameters serve as appropriate surrogates for
system condition and response. This is a difficult
challenge because ecosystem processes are poorly
understood, the distribution and intensity of stressors
and their threats to ecological resources are uncertain,
and it is not known which stressors place ecosystems
at the most serious risk, or the extent to which critical
ecological processes are being impaired. To help
characterize systems, research is needed to address
four basic questions:
I
Characterization
Assess Effectiveness
of Actions
RESEARCH TO SUPPORT
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE
PROBLEM (TIER 1)
In addition to improving our ability to
document status and trends, research
at this level can also establish a means
to provide early warnings.
I
>
>
<
Management Actions
Diagnosis of Causes
Figure 4. Research needs should be integrated
with monitoring through an assessment framework.
Ecological characterization is a description of
particular attributes at points in space and time,
and comparison of those attributes with expectations
or criteria. It is clearly impossible to do this for all
environmental parameters and their changes, so
indicators of these parameters are often sought.
Indicators are properties that summarize elements
What should be measured? Answering this
question requires an understanding of the
important components of structure and function
of the system (i.e., a conceptual model), an
evaluation of the appropriate levels of biological
organization relevant to the monitoring purpose,
and the classes of stressors that are potentially
important for that resource and scale.
17
-------
• How should the indicator be measured?
The answer to this question requires that a
standard protocol be defined.
• How responsive is the indicator? It is important
to determine the degree to which a particular
indicator actually responds to various stressor
gradients at multiple scales, or if a stressor
indicator responds to modification of input.
• How variable is the indicator? Ecological
condition reflects the combined effects of
natural variability and anthropogenic stress.
Research is needed to determine methods by
which natural or introduced fluctuations can be
distinguished to allow detection of actual status
and trends in ecological conditions.
RESEARCH TO SUPPORT DIAGNOSIS
OF LARGE-SCALE CAUSES (TIER 2)
This step determines the causes and consequences
of detected changes. Cause and consequence are
usually determined by integrating relevant process-
oriented research with tools to diagnose and predict
system dynamics.
Once conditions and trends for an ecological system
have been described, it is important to identify which
parts of the system are changing, why they are
changing, and whether particular environmental
policies will be effective in dealing with those
changes. To answer these questions, it is necessary
to understand and be able to predict how a system
will respond to individual or multiple stresses (i.e,
develop a "load-response" relationship that describes
how properties of concern relate to changes in natural
and human inputs). To couple monitoring results with
causes of system change, and to predict system
responses, research must address three basic questions:
How are measures extrapolated across scales
of organization? Historically, much of the
stressor-effects data used in ecological
assessment have been obtained from laboratory
tests, focused on responses at lower levels of
biological organization. An implicit assumption
in applying such results at the ecosystem level
is that processes and mechanisms occurring at
lower levels of organization are sufficient to
describe the behavior of systems at higher levels
of organization. This may have limited utility to
identify properties that emerge only at higher
levels. Greater understanding is needed about
how impacts, measured at lower levels of
ecological organization, reflect impacts at higher
levels. Further research is also needed to
evaluate how impacts measured in one estuary
extrapolate to other estuaries.
How do human activities propagate through the
ecosystem? For many human activities,
pathways of transmission and adaptation in
ecosystems are poorly understood, hindering
development of accurate assessment of
ecological effects due to human activities.
Additional research is needed to understand
how human-induced changes in the landscape
alter hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles in
the coastal areas, and how adaptations or
buffers in the system mitigate those changes.
What changes in system structure and function
are due to changes in inputs. Addressing this
question requires a sound basis to link an
ecological response and a change in input. In
large complex systems, these links are usually
developed based on observation of co-
occurrence of input and response, and analysis
of the strength and consistency of that co-
occurrence. Due to lack of appropriate data at
large scales, our current understanding is
insufficient to assure correct identification of the
cause of change in many systems or to predict
the result of human activities on an ecosystem.
18
-------
RESEARCH TO SUPPORT DIAGNOSIS OF
INTERACTIONS AND FORECASTING (TIER 3)
This step determines the causes, consequences, and
interactions of detected changes at small or local
spatial scales, particularly with regard to natural
environmental changes. Cause and consequence, at
this scale, are usually determined by integrating
relevant process-oriented research at specific
locations with tools to diagnose and predict system
dynamics. The research questions at Tier 3 are
identical to those at Tier 2 with the exception that at
Tier 3 the scale is local, the importance of interactions
may be greater, and the role of natural variability may
be greater. Because of this similarity the specific
research question for Tier 3 will not be repeated here.
RESEARCH TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT
OF POLICY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
While this research does not specifically correspond
to one of the monitoring tiers, it is essential to the
integrated assessment process. This level of
research helps to determine if coastal environmental
policies are having the desired effect, or if the same
goals could be achieved in another manner. While
monitoring can determine if management actions are
achieving their desired goal, research is needed to
reduce the uncertainties in ecological cause-effect
relationships — the basis of predictions. Also,
because management actions often involve behavior
modification, it is important that economic and social
considerations, inherent in the decision-making
process, are assessed. Specific questions that must
be addressed include:
How are multiple management options
evaluated to select the best option? This
requires development of methods to model
coastal ecosystem responses to changes so
that future scenarios under different
management alternatives can be simulated
How are ecological services and capital
reserves valued in the decision process? This
requires the ability to integrate and predict
economic consequences of ecological change
in coastal areas. Methods to assess and predict
non-monetary benefits and impacts to society,
such as aesthetic or cultural requirements, are
also needed.
How is human response to management
actions measured? Achieving desired results
from many management decisions rests on the
willingness and efficacy of humans to change
behavior. Indicators are needed to measure
this change in behavior.
19
-------
COASTAL RESEARCH AND MONITORING
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
While the objectives and the conceptual
framework for the Coastal Research and
Monitoring Strategy have been finalized,
important aspects of the Strategy can only be defined
as the Strategy evolves into a workable program.
The Coastal Research and Monitoring Strategy
identifies the programmatic actions recognized by the
Workgroup as next steps; further development of
action plans for each of the following
recommendations and implementation of those
recommendations is beyond the charter of the
Workgroup.
To evaluate the proposed Strategy and develop
specific recommendations, several case studies that
apply the principles outlined above were analyzed
(see Appendix B). The specific issues that were
addressed include the major contemporary issues
confronting coastal managers: eutrophication,
physical habitat alteration, invasive species, toxic
contaminants, and harmful algal blooms. From that
analysis, from review of the rich literature on
monitoring and research plans (see Appendix A), and
from experience in operating the existing research
and monitoring programs, the following six
programmatic recommendations are offered:
1. Enhance and adapt existing programs to
support an integrated and effective
national program.
2. Enhance and integrate interagency research
efforts to fill data gaps, to increase the
understanding of physical and ecological
processes in the coastal zone, and to improve
monitoring and assessment tools.
3. Conduct periodic national and regional
coastal assessments.
4. Improve data management in support of the
periodic assessments.
5. Establish mechanisms to assess and adjust
monitoring and research with changing
national coastal priorities.
6. Establish a mechanism for further action to
define and develop an implementation plan
for Recommendations 1 - 5 and to oversee
efficient execution of a national program.
Enhance and Adapt Monitoring Programs
Many elements of this Strategy are in place, but they
exist in multiple agencies and have not been brought
together in a cohesive effort. The following are
specific recommendations for transforming current
efforts into a cohesive, interagency program.
CHARACTERIZING THE PROBLEM (TIER 1) -
Although innovative partnerships between Federal
and State governments, and between the Federal
government and academia, are emerging, programs
carried out at Tier 1 will require a commitment to
develop new partnerships, particularly between the
Federal, State, and Tribal environmental and resource
agencies.
Tier 1 activities should be designed and, to a large
extent, controlled by Federal entities to ensure a
common design, approach, and indicator strategy among
the coastal States. It is this striving for consistency in
approach that will permit Tier 1 activities to determine
whether the coastal environment is improving, remaining
stable, or deteriorating. To properly address this
question, a consistent monitoring approach must be
implemented by State agencies, funded, in large part,
byEPAandNOAA.
20
-------
INFORMATION COLLECTED
UNDER A NATIONAL PROGRAM
WILL SUPPORT EXISTING
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The data collected from all coastal States could
provide a comprehensive picture of the "coastal
health " of each State which would complement
the partial requirement of Section 305 (b) of the
Clean Water Act. Data generated as a result of
Tier 1 activities could be used to support States'
303(d) listing processes (i.e., locations found to
be in a degraded condition could be added to a
State s 303(d) list, while locations that indicate
improved conditions and meet water quality
standards could be removed from the listing).
Similarly, data collected from States and Tribes
in support of the Sections 303(d) and 305(b)
could be used to track causal relationships of
impacts to the coastal zone from coastal
watershed activities and impaired waterways.
The following efforts would immediately help to
solidify the proposed Tier 1 Program:
• Develop a National Coastal Survey based on
State-level consistent, coastal monitoring
programs through the integration of existing
coastal programs, and expanding their use of
ecological and biological indicators. Develop a
joint operating agreement between EPA and
NOAA to implement the present monitoring
efforts as a single program implemented by the
coastal States. Existing programs, such as
EPA's Coastal 2000, NOAA's NS&T, and
USFWS's National Status and Trends study,
have somewhat complementary missions and
approaches, and this joint operating agreement
will outline the roles and responsibilities,
common protocols and standards, and data
exchange, management, and reporting
methods. The sampling locations in a
combined Tier 1 program must be probabilistic
in nature (including some probabilistic trend
sites fixed in time). The indicators for the joint
Tier 1 sites should enhance existing programs'
biological indicators, particularly the
enumeration of pelagic and benthic species
composition and new measures of ecosystem
function (e.g., productivity, chemical cycling).
Collaborate with the USGS to develop
operational capabilities for biomarkers and
bioindicators.
Enhance remote sensing efforts to provide high
resolution laser and acoustic substrate/habitat
maps, operational ocean color, turbidity, and sea
surface temperature (SST) products, as well as
coastal land and habitat coverage change.
Enhance the density of coastal buoy and shore-
based meteorological and water-level observing
system network by adding temperature, salinity,
nutrients, hazardous algal blooms and other
chemical and biological sensors.
DIAGNOSING THE CAUSE(S)
OF PROBLEMS (TIER 2) -
Tier 2 efforts will require a more fully developed and
an integrated partnership among Federal, State,
Tribal, and academic programs. A key emphasis for
these regional programs is to add value to current
Federal, State, Tribal and academic monitoring and to
expand the utility of Tier 1. This can be
accomplished by providing consistent protocols and
standards for the augmentation of Tier 1 sampling
sites to directly examine pertinent issues and
problems while permitting data exchange, system
21
-------
comparisons, and regional and national synthesis.
Specific and immediate recommendations would
include the following:
• Expand existing programs to estimate riverine
nutrient and contaminant loads in Tier 2
regional programs by operating additional
stations for sampling water quality and
measuring water quality in coastal areas, as
well as in the Mississippi River basin and the
Great Lakes.
• Further develop computer models relating land-
based activities to the contaminant loads
through the use of Tier 2 monitoring coupled
with land use information collected through
remote sensing.
• Expand the capability of regional programs to
map and estimate nutrient and contaminant
loads in sediments and to look at the history of
contaminant and nutrient distributions through
examination of estuarine and offshore sediment
deposits. Provide additional support to further
develop models that determine the potential for
mobilization, transport and redistribution of
sediment-borne pollutants in the water column.
• Expand air deposition monitoring networks
where coastal ecological problems have been
identified to which air deposition of pollutants or
nutrients is expected to contribute.
• Develop a series of issue-based regional
estuarine, Great Lakes, and coastal monitoring
efforts supported by the National Coastal
Survey. These regional efforts should be
established through Tier 1 analyses, 303d
listings, and other sources to represent specific
issue-based problems (e.g., eutrophication,
sediment contamination, habitat loss).
Particular emphasis should be placed on
National Estuary Programs, National Estuarine
Research Reserves, and National Marine
Sanctuary sites where these environmental
problems exist.
Solicit on a national level proposals for regional
issue-based monitoring/research efforts and
subject them to peer-review for relevance,
capabilities, and adherence to nationally
developed sampling designs, protocols,
standards, and core parameter suites. Specific
designs would be determined by representatives
from appropriate Federal, State, Tribal, and/or
academic institutions in the region.
DIAGNOSING INTERACTIONS AND
FORECASTING RESPONSES (TIER 3) -
Tier 3 activities are currently occurring at only a few
locations. The NSF Long Term Ecological Research
(LTER) and the Land-Margin Ecological Research
(LMER) programs have many of the characteristics of
Tier 3, but have only four locations that are currently
funded. CISNet, a joint EPA/NOAA/NASA program,
has funded three-year intensive ecological monitoring
pilot programs at 10 sites. As CISNet pilots conclude,
an interagency effort should be made to expand
available programs to develop a long-term continuing
program for 25-50 U.S. coastal sites through a joint
NSF/EPA/NOAA/NASA research program.
Enhance and Integrate Interagency
Research Efforts
As described previously, an effective approach to
bringing scientific information to coastal decision
making is through integrated assessments. Targeted
research is often needed to reduce the level of
uncertainty of those assessments and increase our
ability to observe and predict phenomena. The
uncertainties associated with our predictions, and the
impacts of those uncertainties on our ability to
manage the environment, are reduced through
research. The following actions should be taken to
22
-------
improve the efficacy and efficiency of various Federal
coastal research and to reduce uncertainties in
coastal assessments:
• Identify priority regional and national issues that
need additional research to improve future
integrated assessments. The research needs
may be diverse, including understanding
specific ecosystem functions, refining
monitoring methods, or developing better
predictive models.
• Develop interagency opportunities for soliciting,
reviewing, and supporting research proposals
targeted to priority needs. Interagency calls for
proposals should call for both general and
region-specific research. Appropriate methods
would include both competitive external grant
processes, and internal Federal competition
and interagency agreements. In all cases,
interdisciplinary approaches should be
emphasized.
Such interagency efforts could be facilitated by an
interagency oversight committee or other similar
existing organization.
Conduct Periodic National and
Regional Coastal Assessments
The best way to ensure that results from monitoring
and research programs are being analyzed routinely
for both relevance and completeness is to conduct
regular, comprehensive assessments and report the
results. Such assessments and reporting will require
significant integration, analysis, and quality control of
the data. However, they will provide the needed
information about the status of the coastal
environment, and will identify gaps and other
shortcomings in research and monitoring programs.
The assessments should be conducted using an
integrated approach, and at a minimum provide the
information necessary to report (1) status and trends
within the environment, (2) critical issues of concern,
and (3) issues in need of management or policy
attention. Four types of assessments are envisioned:
• National Summary Assessments - National
summary assessments of coastal ecological
condition conducted every five years,
summarizing the results and findings of the
other reports, including an analysis of long-term
progress and high-level recommendations to
guide future policy;
National Habitat Assessments - National habitat
assessments focused around specific habitats
such as beaches and wetlands, submerged
aquatic vegetation, estuaries, offshore waters,
and coral reefs, would be derived from activities
conducted at Tiers 1 and 2 and would likely be
developed on five-year cycles;
• National Issue-Specific Assessments - National
issue-specific assessment would be developed
as needed around issues that have emerged
from national and regional efforts, as well as
those mandated in Administration or
Congressional directives (e.g., the national
assessments called for in the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act);
and
• Regional Assessments - Regional assessments
would be based primarily on Tier 1 and Tier 2
efforts, where monitoring efforts have been
designed and carried out to evaluate the causes
and consequences of sets of specific regional
issues. These assessments would likely occur
on annual or biennial cycles.
The above assessments and the reports that result
should be developed by regional and national experts,
subject to peer- and stakeholder-review, and made
23
-------
available to both technical and more general
audiences. An effort of this scale requires dedicated
and focused human and fiscal resources and the
dedicated oversight of the committee charged with
implementing a national program.
Improve Data Management
in Support of Periodic Assessments
The recommendations for improving data
management are two-fold. To effectively execute a
national program, it is necessary to facilitate easy
access to coastal environmental data; to use the data
effectively for the purposes of assessing national
coastal health it is vital that guidelines and standards
for data management (i.e., meta-data standards)
be established.
IMPROVING ACCESS TO COASTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Effective assessment and predictive capabilities in
support of coastal policy and management are built on
timely and appropriate observational and monitoring
data, and an effective mechanism for sharing the
data. Currently, coastal research and monitoring data
are being acquired by multiple Federal agencies for
multiple programs and applications. Additionally, the
States, Tribes, municipalities, water authorities and
other governmental agencies, as well as academia
and private institutions, are acquiring a wealth of
coastal water data for their own reasons. Through
coordinated data sharing, organizations at all levels
could assist the others in accomplishing their
missions. A national data clearinghouse providing
access to data from Federal and non-Federal
programs nationwide would reduce redundant efforts,
fill perceived data gaps, and provide an overview of
the Nation's coastal environmental health not
currently available.
The ability to share data among existing programs,
among various levels of government agencies,
academia and non-governmental organizations is key
to the Strategy. There are enormous opportunities for
data sharing among Federal agencies, State, Tribal,
and local governments, as well as with academia and
private institutions. Many State, Tribal and local
programs that are currently being conducted to
monitor coastal impacts could be integrated in the
Strategy. Many of these programs have been
established to comply with existing Clean Water Act
provisions. Making these data serve beyond
compliance makes economic and scientific sense.
A coordinated, Internet-based, national database or
data clearinghouse that provides a directory of
existing coastal monitoring data sources, including
information about the listed programs with links to
access the data would serve to enhance the ability to
assess national coastal health, identify national or
regional environmental issues, and assist in
diagnosing the potential causes of these issues.
Similarly many private research organizations and
universities have extensive research data relative to
ecosystem dynamics, biological processes, etc. that
could aid in the prediction of impacts and assist in
identifying priority issues. The Nation could also profit
by making these data available through an organized
program of data sharing.
The need for readily accessible national data related
to environmental issues of the coast has been clearly
identified in the Clean Water Action Plan. A similar
call for the integration of all of the Nation's
24
-------
NON-FEDERAL COASTAL RESEARCH AND MONITORING
PROGRAMS COULD CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO EXISTING
NATIONAL COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
• The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority manages a coastal water quality
monitoring program related to ocean outfall from the metropolitan Boston area. This
multi-year, multi-million dollar program addresses multiple issues related to nutrient
enrichment in coastal waters, transport and fate of toxic contaminants from point and
nonpoint sources, and recovery of ecosystems.
• The annual expenditures in coastal water research and monitoring of the water
management districts of the State of Florida exceeds $5 million.
• The water management districts of Los Angeles and Orange counties have managed
multi-million dollar multi-disciplinary coastal monitoring and research programs for
the past 20 years.
environmental data was made in the One-Stop
Reporting Program, the 1995 Presidential initiative to
reinvent environmental data reporting and
management programs. Within EPA, this initiative
has, in turn, been implemented in an 1997 EPA
directive Reinventing Environmental Information
(REI). These latter two initiatives and programs are of
interest in that they have fostered the concept of
sharing environmental data in a national
environmental data repository populated with State,
Tribal, and other governmental data. The REI
program offers cash incentives to States to participate
in data sharing. The technical foundation for a
national coastal environmental data clearinghouse
model exists in on-going programs, such as the EPA/
USGS National Water Quality Inventory, the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program and NOAA's
National Oceanic Data Center. Similar to these
initiatives or as a part of these programs, limited
funding or technical assistance could be made
available to assist State, Tribal and local programs
in developing and adopting standard protocols, or
contributing to national databases as an incentive
to participate.
The Workgroup recommends that this key element of
the Strategy be further investigated. The issues that
should be addressed regarding the scope, content,
and structure of the clearinghouse include:
• Creation of a program to collect, integrate, and
share coastal monitoring and research data
from all appropriate Federal agencies, and from
State, Tribal, and other governmental agencies
— this would include the development of a
national coastal environmental data
clearinghouse. The lead agency, charged with
preparing the National Summary Report, should
develop and maintain the Internet-based data
25
-------
The One Stop Reporting Program began
in 1995 as a Presidential Initiative to
reinvent environmental reporting
and data management systems
to achieve three goals:
• Integrate environmental information
to improve State and Federal
regulatory program management and
promote multimedia approaches to
solving environmental problems;
• Improve public access to information
about environmental decisions and
performance and assist communities
in understanding and making
environmental choices; and
• Reduce the burden of environmental
reporting on industry, States, and
communities by streamlining and
rationalizing requirements and
capitalizing on new technologies.
clearinghouse. Universal access to coastal
environmental data should be facilitated through
the Internet. Mechanisms that will allow
streamlined Internet data access will reduce
burdens on States and increase the likelihood
that programs at all levels will participate.
Data input protocols for participating Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, and other
organizations — The input of data from multiple
Federal and non-Federal sources into a national
data repository will be facilitated by the use of a
single set of data input protocols. A single set of
data management protocols should be
encouraged and existing protocols for coastal
water quality data should be reviewed for
universal use and ease of implementation.
Incentives for using standard protocols should
also be considered.
National framework for geographic referencing
of coastal water quality data — The possible
expansion of the EPA/USGS National
Hydrographic Database to include coastal water
is one of several alternatives for standard
geographic referencing.
Data output and reports (types of tables, figures,
GIS output, etc.) —A national data
clearinghouse for coastal water quality data, if it
is accessible and user friendly, and contains the
appropriate reporting features for targeted user
groups, will be an invaluable resource.
Researchers, water quality professionals,
coastal managers, and the general public, to
name a few of the potential user groups, each
have separate interests and data needs that
can be met with data assessment and report
features. However, to successfully provide a
reporting feature, data comparability among
programs will need to be thoroughly addressed.
Management and promotion of the national
coastal data clearinghouse — Data sharing of
coastal water quality data through a national
data clearinghouse will only occur through
implementation of a well-conceived plan
addressing user needs, and a plan for
continuously modifying or updating data
sources to include new monitoring and research
data, changing environmental data needs, and
the rapid advances in technology. Addressing
these issues in the future will require the
identification of a lead organization to
26
-------
coordinate these efforts and will require the
dedication of technical and financial resources
sufficient to perform the tasks.
META-DATA STANDARDS
A consistent finding among several studies of the
impacts of monitoring programs is that the utility of
monitoring data is compromised by the lack of "meta-
data," (i.e., data about the data; sample collection
protocols, processing protocols, laboratory analytical
methods, etc.). This lack of information generally
becomes more severe as one moves from physical
data, which are derived from relatively few methods
and are generally unambiguous, to chemical data,
which are influenced by sample collection and
laboratory methods, to biological data, which are
influenced more by collection protocols and
interpretation. The Intergovernmental Task Force on
Water Quality Monitoring (ITFM), the predecessor of
the National Water Quality Monitoring Council
(NWQMC), established extensive meta-data
guidelines for chemistry data and a data dictionary for
use by all Federal agencies. Similar entities set
guidelines and develop standards for geographical
(e.g., the Federal Geographic Data Committee,
(FGDC)) and biological data (e.g., the National
Biological Information Inventory). These efforts are
important and adherence to them should be
encouraged (ITFM 1995, Appendix M). Another
significant advance to improve meta-data handling is
EPA's updated STORET water-quality data system
which includes fields for meta-data and is structured
to enforce adherence to data standards adopted by
EPA and other Federal agencies.
Generic problems of data management can seem
overwhelmingly complex. However, if the above
recommendation for a series of reports on the coastal
environment is adopted, the problem becomes much
more tractable because specific goals will be
established during the peer review and development
of these reports. Specific recommendations for data
management include:
A directory of meta-data resources should be
included in the data clearinghouse. This is
much easier to achieve than in the past, but this
task is critical to a successful monitoring and
reporting program. Although individual
collecting agencies will also maintain their own
databases, the coordinating agencies can aid in
establishing meta-data standards that must be
maintained for inclusion of data in the reports.
Performance-based standards for data
management and delivery should be adopted.
Meta-data requirements should be based on
The National Atmospheric Deposition Program provides an example of an effective monitoring network
where data are delivered because a specific design objective (i.e., the loads of air pollutants in wet
deposition) was adopted. Many Federal agencies including USGS, NOAA, EPA, NFS, BLM, USDA, TVA,
private companies, State, and local governmental agencies, working in a collaborative partnership, operate
this network. Sample collection protocols and quality assurance plans have been established, and the data
are considered authoritative by the environmental community.
27
-------
standards. This will provide the necessary
flexibility for integrating data, from a wide variety
of sources, in a scientifically defensible manner.
A large number of Federal, State, academic,
and private agencies, laboratories, and other
organizations will be involved in the collection of
the monitoring data. Therefore, it is vital that
data sets of the same kind from various sources
be comparable and interchangeable so that
they can be combined to develop national,
regional, and other large-scale environmental
quality and natural resource assessments.
Where appropriate the National Water Quality
Monitoring Council (NWQMC) Methods and
Data Comparability Board should be used to
evaluate the comparability of data obtained by
different participants in furtherance of the
Council's responsibilities under Key Action
Number 60 of the Clean Water Action plan. For
data types beyond the responsibility of
NWQMC, the reporting agency must assume
responsibility for assuring data comparability.
The results evaluations should be used to judge
the level of error associated with combining data
of the same type from various sources.
Establish Mechanisms to Assess and
Adjust Monitoring and Research
A basic premise of this Strategy is that wise
stewardship of our nation's coastal and marine
resources depends upon a robust, yet adaptive,
monitoring, research, and reporting system. This
system must provide information that serves those
who use, manage, and study the marine environment;
must be integrated across both geographic and time
scales; and must be adaptive to respond to changing
environmental conditions or societal priorities.
Such a system must provide timely and
comprehensive information to managers to guide
current management decisions, as well as to track the
effectiveness of previous management decisions.
Such a system, however, requires sufficient capacity
at every level of monitoring and research, whether at
the Federal, State, Tribal, or local level. In addition,
these activities must be coordinated across political
jurisdictions and institutional lines.
To better coordinate monitoring and research activities,
a formal coordination and advisory structure should be
established, charged with coordinating a national
program. This advisory structure should consist of
two components;
• A user-advisory committee, composed of
representatives from Federal, State, and local
governments; academia; not-for-profit
organizations; and the private sector to ensure
that the products and services of the system are
relevant and stay on track, and that data are
collected, reported, and stored in a consistent
manner; and
• A technical advisory committee composed of
representatives from Federal, State, and local
governments; academia; not-for-profit
organizations; and private sector science
organizations to ensure that development and
implementation of the system uses the best
available scientific methods and technologies.
The coordinating structure, including the user advisory
group and the technical advisory group, should work
as necessary on a national and regional basis to
establish programs and mechanisms to accomplish
the following:
• Build the monitoring and research capacity of
Federal, State, and local agencies that are
28
-------
responsible for managing marine resources,
and academic institutions that study the marine
environment;
• Involve stakeholders in the coastal research and
monitoring planning cycle; and
• Identify and/or establish the flow of scientific
information into appropriate decision support
systems, such as databases, CIS systems, and
Internet on-line resources.
The committee should be able to identify resources
for responding to time-critical environmental issues
or policy questions.
Establish a Mechanism for Further Action
The Workgroup was charged with defining a broad
strategy that identifies an approach for achieving
Action Items 59 and 60 from the Clean Water Action
Plan. This Strategy is the culmination of that effort.
However, to effectively implement Recommendations
1-5, additional work will be necessary to organize and
develop an implementation plan. The mechanism and
organization needed to ensure effective
implementation and continued success will require
agency-to-agency coordination and cooperation, and
the coordination of coastal monitoring and research
activities between Federal and non-Federal entities
(State, Tribe, local, and private organizations).
An inter-governmental program, as recommended by
this Strategy, requires the coordination of Federal
research and monitoring efforts to address
environmental problems in coastal waters. This
implies an interagency infrastructure that establishes
and acts on national coastal water priorities.
Currently, there is little experience with coordination of
Federal investments in research and monitoring in
coastal waters and few mechanisms have yet been
established to implement a program. Such an effort
will require the full support and cooperation of the
responsible Federal agencies and the issues and
concerns of each agency about a national program will
need to be addressed. Therefore, the Workgroup
recommends the creation of an interagency oversight
committee that will prepare an interagency charter
(EPA, NOAA, USDA, DOI) and develop the
implementation plan. This committee could be
established under the auspices of the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources (CENR), the
National Water Quality Monitoring Council, or some
other existing structure that can transcend short-term
changes in management and program policy as well as
different levels of government. The committee should
be composed of representatives of agencies with
research and monitoring responsibilities. Long-term
viability of such a committee is essential.
The first objective of the committee will be to develop a
charter for the organization that will manage future
efforts. The charter should:
• Define the technical scope of a national program
and the organizational structure necessary to
implement a national program;
• Identify the agencies participating in the national
program and establish the level of involvement
required to guide the environmental monitoring
and research agenda and budgets of the
participating agencies;
• Define the working relationship between a
national program and participating agencies
29
-------
Define the working relationship between a
national program and non-participating agencies
(other Federal agencies, States, and Tribes); and
Define the working relationship with other Federal
workgroups, such as CENR.
Following the development of the charter, the oversight
committee will develop an implementation plan for
Recommendations 1-5. Committee responsibilities
include:
• Setting consistent standards to effectively assess
the "health" of the coastal zone;
• Ensuring effective streamlining of Federal coastal
monitoring efforts to eliminate redundancy and
identify and coordinate coastal zone monitoring
needs;
• Ensuring effective communication and data
sharing among various Federal, State, and Tribal
agencies charged with managing coastal
resources;
• Ensuring that monitoring and research activities
support and assess the effectiveness of
management actions in the coastal zone; and
• Periodically assessing the monitoring and
research needs with changing coastal
environmental priorities and emerging issues.
The Workgroup has prepared recommendations that the
oversight committee should consider when developing
the implementation plan. These recommendations are
provided in the following section.
30
-------
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING
IMPLEMENTATION
A though detailed planning for implementation
s beyond the scope of this Workgroup, many
mportant elements of an implementation plan
emerged during the development of the Strategy.
Some considerations that must be addressed during
the implementation planning process are presented
below.
Monitoring Appropriate Properties
The number of properties that can be measured as
part of a monitoring program is nearly limitless.
However, considerations of economy and practicality
mandate that only relatively few can actually be
included in a monitoring program. The properties
included in a national program should be those that
can serve as integrative indicators of ecosystem
quality and/or trends in such quality. They should be
measures that can be directly related to answering the
specific objectives established for the program.
These include indicators of the condition of major
coastal ecosystem components, such as plankton and
benthic communities, as well as indicators of the
levels of stressors, such as toxic substances,
enriching nutrients, and invasive nonindigenous
species. Such measurements can be obtained in
several ways, including remote sensing with sensors
in satellites or aircraft, continuous measurements with
in-situ sensors attached to buoys or other platforms,
and discrete sampling by field teams using boats and
other means.
Selecting Reliable Indicator Properties
To determine the specific measurements to be
included in a national program, a number of criteria
should be applied to ensure that the selected
properties provide scientifically valid data that are
relevant to the programmatic goals, and that are
practical and cost-effective for use as indicators of
coastal environmental quality. The following specific
research questions should be considered in the
selection of indicators:
• Can the proposed indicator be quantified in
a simple manner?
• Does the indicator respond to a broad range of
conditions?
• Is the indicator sensitive to problematic
conditions or concerns?
• Can the indicator resolve meaningful differences
in such environmental conditions?
• Can the measurement provide an integrated
view of effects over time and space?
• Are the results from the measurement
reproducible?
• Is there reference information by which to judge
the results obtained?
• Can the results be compared across differences
in time and space?
It is also important that the significance of the selected
indicator properties be understandable and relevant to
environmental managers and others, including the
general public, who will use the results provided by
the monitoring to guide policy decision making.
31
-------
Assuring Data Comparability
A large number of Federal, State, academic, and
private organizations, laboratories, and other
organizations will be involved in the collection of
monitoring data for any future program. Thus, there
will be a number of sources for most categories of
data. It is vital that data sets of the same kind from
various sources be comparable and interchangeable
so that they can be combined to develop national,
regional, and other large-scale environmental quality
and natural resource assessments. To help assure
data comparability, recommendations should be
developed for methods and procedures to be used for
obtaining specific types of environmental observations,
and forgathering and analyzing environmental
samples for specific types of environmental quality
measurements. However, procedures should be
established to evaluate the comparability of data of the
same type obtained by different participants and at
different times.
These procedures should include the implementation
of comparison exercises. These exercises should
include a comparison of data from participants which
made field observations or laboratory measurements
on a common set of properties in identical samples or
situations under identical conditions. The results from
such performance-based evaluations of data
comparability should be used to judge the level of error
associated with combining data of the same type from
various sources.
Assuring Information Development
and Delivery
The data and information collected through the
execution of a National program should provide the
basis for environmental and resource management
decision making. Thus, it is important that the
monitoring program be designed to obtain information
and data to meet the monitoring objectives.
Additionally, it is vital that this information be presented
in meaningful formats and that it be readily accessible to
decision makers. A meaningful format could be a
display of patterns of indicator data, relative to time and
space, and relative to potential anthropogenic and other
causes. However, this approach also has limitations.
The results from individual indicator properties do not
usually provide an overall or complete characterization
of ecological health, cumulative stressor threat, or other
integrated properties that are often the primary
management concern.
An alternate approach would be to combine the data
from the measurement of several ecological or stressor
properties at a site to produce a single value that could
serve as an index to the magnitude of an integrated
characteristic of primary concern. A national coastal
monitoring program should develop and utilize a
number of such indices. For example, data on the
abundance of individual species or other taxonomic
categories of benthic organisms should be combined to
develop an index value that reflects the health of the
bottom biological communities. Additionally, to provide
32
-------
the integrated information needed by environmental
managers, the data obtained should be utilized in the
development and verification of environmental models
that can provide status and forecasts of important
environmental properties and indices. The modeling
results should provide environmental managers with
predictions of the environmental consequences of
various potential alternative management actions.
Linking Monitoring and Research
Monitoring provides information on the condition and
changes in the levels of environmental properties. By
comparing the patterns of the spatial and temporal
distributions of different properties, monitoring results
can be used to evaluate the relationships among
various properties and, thus, establish hypotheses
regarding the cause-and-effect relationships among
these properties. However, controlled experimental
research is usually required to definitively establish
causative relationships. Thus, it is vital that any future
national program be closely linked to process research
studies. This will be accomplished as part of the Tier-3
studies. The Coastal Research and Monitoring
Strategy recommends linking process research with
long-term measurements of environmental variables
at these sites to develop cause-effect linkages and
predictive models that relate stresses and ecosystem
responses regarding issues of concern to society.
33
-------
REFERENCES
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). 1995. The Strategy for
Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States: Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task
Force on Monitoring Water Quality, Open-File Report 95-742. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 2000. In preparation. National
Assessment on Harmful Algal Blooms. Draft available url: http://www.hbhrca.noaa.gov.
Interagency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia 2000. In preparation. Integrated National
Assessment on Hypoxia. Draft available url: http://www.hbhrca.noaa.gov.
The Heinz Center. 1999. Designing a Report on the State of the Nation's Ecosystems. The H. John
Heinz Center, Washington D.C. 119pp.
Messer, J.J., R.A. Linthurst, and W.S. Overton. 1991. An EPA program for monitoring ecological status
and trends. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 17: 67-78.
National Conference of State Legislatures. 1993. Report to Congress. The Mix of Land and Sea:
Estuary Protection Under the National Estuary Program. ISBN 1-55516-376-9.
National Oceanic Partnership Program (NOPP). 1999. Towards a US Plan for an Integrated Sustained
Ocean Observing System. Report to the National Ocean Research Leadership Council, Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Pollution Program Office,
Washington DC. 68pp.
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 1995. Setting a New Course for U.S. Coastal Ocean
Science. Final report of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, subcommittee on U.S.
Coastal Ocean Science. Washington DC. 110pp.
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 1997. Integrating the Nation's Environmental
Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: a Proposed Framework. Final report of the
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Environmental Monitoring Team.
Washington D.C. 96pp.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. The Ecological Condition of Estuaries in the Gulf of
Mexico. The US EPA Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology Division. EPA620-R-98-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1996.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998b. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and
Protecting America's Waters. EPA-840-R-98-001. 87pp.
34
-------
APPENDIX A: Summary of Recent Reports
Reference: EPA. 1997. Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters. Second Report to Congress.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-453/R-97-011. June 1997.
218pp + apps.
Great Lakes
Research is needed to:
Identify sources of atmospheric contributions;
Identify HAPs (hazardous air pollutants) that may pose the most significant risk to human health
and aquatic resources;
Quantify the contribution of atmospheric deposition of pollutants and the subsequent exposure;
Determine Relative loadings of pollutants to assess the extent of contamination attributed to the
atmosphere; and
• Define the extent of problems related to toxic pollution in tributaries and in the air.
High priority efforts for the Great Lakes basin include:
• Research and monitoring techniques to reduce uncertainties in loading calculations;
• Dispersion and deposition models currently being developed to link emission in inventory information
to atmospheric loadings of Great Lakes pollutants at the water's surface;
Apply results of and modeling tools derived from the Lake Michigan Mass Balance data to the
development of a general mass balance model for other hazardous air pollutants;
Increase efforts to identify local and long-range sources of Great Lakes pollutants through various
sources apportionment modeling and emissions inventories; and
Continue efforts to develop and implement strategies and recommendations to reduce generation and
release of pollutants affecting the Great Lakes.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Priority studies identified during the June 1994 workshop are:
Conduct intensive, coordinated, and integrated monitoring studies at special locations within the
watershed that characterize wet deposition, dry deposition, and local catchment areas;
• Improve existing atmospheric models (e.g., reduce grid size, account for the effect of mountains);
• Improve models of chemical retention in watersheds;
• Improve emission inventories and projections;
• Conduct measurements to extend vertical and spatial meteorological and chemical concentration
coverage in models; and
Establish an extensive array of less intensive measurement stations to improve spatial resolution
for selected variables.
National Estuary Program (NEP)/Coastal Waters
Recommendations for future atmospheric deposition research in coastal waters include:
Utilize existing databases and ongoing work or established research programs and coordinate
research initiatives with these programs;
• Protect and enhance existing monitoring programs;
• Establish long-term water and air quality monitoring programs that incorporate sampling for
atmospheric deposition of contaminants for a subset of NEP estuaries representing various
geographical regions and environmental conditions;
• Use sampling data from monitoring programs to track trends and spatial variability to develop more
accurate loading estimates;
A-l
-------
• Coordinate efforts between NEP estuaries and other Great Waters program studies to identify local,
regional, and national sources of airborne pollutants;
• Pursue detailed atmospheric chemistry and deposition models for estimating atmospheric depositions
to NEP estuaries;
Develop a multiparty effort to identify and demonstrate appropriate pollution prevention techniques;
Apply existing atmospheric circulation models to fill data gaps between measured and estimated
atmospheric deposition and to aid in tracing the pollutants in the estuaries back to their probable
sources; and
Support process-related research to establish cause and effect relationships between atmospheric
deposition of contaminants and alterations of water quality, fisheries, recreational, and other economic
and ecological resources of receiving estuarine and coastal waters.
Reference: Anderson, D.A. (Ed.). 1995. ECOHAB. The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal
Blooms. A National Research Agenda. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA. 66pp.
ECOHAB (The Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms)
Three main research priorities represent the program elements of ECOHAB:
The Organisms:
Develop methods to rapidly and accurately identify, enumerate, and physically separate HAB species
from mixed phytoplankton assemblages.
Identify the life history stages of major HAB species, determine what factors control transitions
between those stages, and establish the role of the stages in bloom dynamics.
• Characterize the physiological responses and tolerances of HAB species to differing environmental
conditions.
• Develop methods to permit in situ measurements of species-specific rates of growth, photosynthesis,
and nutrient uptake, and assess the physiological conditions of cells at different times and locations.
Characterize the nutritional requirements, uptake and nutrient assimilatory characteristics of HAB
species.
Determine the functional role of toxins and/or exudates produced by HAB species.
Define the genetic basis of toxin production, elucidate toxin biosynthetic pathways, and determine how
toxin accumulation in cells is regulated.
• Investigate the mechanisms and importance of motility and other behaviors of HAB species.
Environmental Regulation of Blooms:
• Determine the extent to which HAB events reflect increases in growth rates versus physiological
transport, immigration, and accumulation.
Investigate physical and ecological processes that control the partitioning of nutrients within a system
and the relationship between nutrients inputs and population dynamics of HAB species.
Investigate whether there are specific physical, chemical, and biological regimes or processes that are
associated with HAB events.
Determine whether some ecosystems are more susceptible to HABs than others. If so, determine what
makes them unique and whether they share characteristics that can be used to anticipate HAB events
in other systems.
• Characterize HAB population dynamics, including rate processes, required in predictive models of
bloom incidence.
A-2
-------
Food-Webs and Community Interactions:
• Determine the extent to which bloom formulation results from a breakdown of grazing or from harmful
species out competing other phytoplankton for limiting resources.
• Determine whether biological controls are the cause of bloom termination.
Investigate how HAB effects on the food web are controlled by toxin dynamics, food web routing of
toxins, and the differential susceptibility of species at higher trophic levels; determine whether chronic,
sublethal, impacts of HABs are more significant than acute (lethal) impacts.
Determine if HAB impacts are controlled by the degree of temporal and spatial overlap between
blooms and critical life cycle stages of target species.
Determine whether high biomass (non-toxic) HABs adversely impact the food web directly through
reduced food quality, or indirectly through environmental effects.
Reference: Boesch, D.F., D.M. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester, and T.E. Whitledge.
1996. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control, and Mitigation. NOAA
Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 46pp + app.
Federal and State agencies with responsibilities for resource management, environmental protection, and
public health should support research directly focused on the prevention, control, and mitigation options for
HABs, including:
Effectiveness and side-effects of chemical, physical, and biological controls;
Better measurements of toxins and HAB species for application in monitoring;
Ballast water treatments; and
• Effects of chronic exposure on human health.
Research should seek to contribute a basic understanding of the causes and behavior of HABs to address
control, prevention, and mitigation, specifically:
• The role of anthropogenic nutrient sources in stimulating and sustaining blooms and the potential
effectiveness of nutrient control strategies in reducing blooms;
The effects on blooms of trophic alterations, such as changing grazing pressure, that result from
human over-harvesting or habitat changes;
The importance of "seeding" in the genesis of blooms and mechanisms for inoculation;
• Critical stages of bloom formation and propagation that may be suitable targets for control strategies;
• The role and potential impacts of parasites and predators in suppressing blooms;
• Molecular or other indicators of harmful algal species which may improve the sensitivity and reliability
of monitoring;
• Remote sensing of blooms that provides advanced warning and supports tactical mitigation; and
• Modeling of physical and biological processes which may be applied in forecasting the occurrence and
movement of harmful algal blooms.
Reference: Pacific Northwest Regional Marine Research Program (RMRP). 1993. A Directory of Regional
Programs to Enhance Research on Water Quality and Ecosystem Health in the Nation's Marine Waters.
Produced for NOAA by the Pacific Northwest Regional Marine Research Program and Washington Sea
Grant Program. June 1993.
The Regional Marine Research Program (RMRP) has established regional research programs in support of
efforts to safeguard water quality and ecosystem health in the Nation's marine and coastal waters. The
following research priorities and strategies have been developed for each of the nine regions whose
boundaries coincide with natural ecosystem divisions.
A-3
-------
Alaska Region:
• Models to identify gaps in our understanding of ecosystem change;
• Physical transport of nutrients, larvae, or other waterborne constituents on biological resources; and
• Linkages with pelagic and benthic food chains including the effects of various commercial fisheries in
restructuring the ecosystem.
California Region:
Variability of coastal and estuarine ecosystems;
Effects of stress on ecosystem functions with emphasis on cumulative impacts of spatial and temporal
changes;
• Protection and restoration of coastal and estuarine habits; and
• Information synthesis and dissemination of research in the priority areas.
Greater New York Bight Region:
• Interaction of human population with coastal and marine ecosystems;
• Integrated coastal management, including, perhaps, watershed-based planning and management;
Waste disposal; nutrient enrichment/eutrophication; and
Fisheries management from life cycle, habitat conservation or restoration perspective.
Gulf of Maine Region:
Patterns and transport mechanisms of contaminants, including nutrients, and their effects on living
marine resources; and
• Physical, chemical, and biological controls on noxious/excessive phytoplankton phenomena.
Gulf of Mexico Region:
• Habitat use • Toxic materials
Nutrient enrichment • Coastal erosion
Freshwater input • Saltwater intrusion
Ecosystem modifiers • Catastrophic events
Population dynamics • Global events
Trophic dynamics • Nuisance species
• Physical modifiers
Insular Pacific Region:
• Assessment and monitoring of water quality, species, and habitat;
• Contaminant sources, transport, fate and effects;
• Impacts of coastal development and resource use; and
Analysis, communication and application of research results.
Mid-Atlantic Region:
Demographic and coastal land use changes that effect the environmental quality of coastal waters;
Role of anthropogenic changes in natural environmental variability;
Synthesis and interpretation of historical and contemporary data ;
• Historical effects of demography and land use activities on regional water quality and
ecosystem health;
• Existing regional conditions and projected changes as a result of management of land use activities
in the region; and
• Conceptual and analytical models of the region.
A-4
-------
Pacific Northwest Region:
• Understanding the natural system in order to detect and understand ecosystem change;
• Alteration of marine and estuarine habitats due to anthropogenic activities and natural phenomena;
• Fate, effects, and transport of contaminants; and
• Synthesis, interpretation and communication of information about the Pacific Northwest region.
South Atlantic Region:
The four habitats of greatest concern and highest priority are:
Marine wetlands (mangroves/salt marshes)
Reefs
Sandy beaches
• Coastal lagoons
Reference: Turgeon, D.D., K.G. Sellner, D. Scavia, and D.Anderson. 1998. Status of U.S. Harmful Algal
Blooms: Progress Towards a National Program. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. October 1998. 22pp
The National HAB Plan includes the following objectives for harmful algal bloom research, monitoring,
and assessment activities in U.S. coastal waters during FY98 and FY99:
Isolate and characterize toxins;
Detection methods for HABs;
Toxin effects on ecosystems/humans;
Forecasting capabilities;
Management and mitigation;
• Rapid response to HABs;
• Communication, outreach, education; and
• Databases.
The goal of the National Plan is to develop a predictive modeling capability for HABs in all U.S. coastal
waters. Research has begun on two toxic species and regions, Alexandrium in the Gulf of Maine and
Gymnodinium in the Gulf of Mexico. The remainder of the coastline and other HAB species need
investigation; the following additional research is needed:
Brown tide populations in Long Island and off Texas;
• Pfiesteria in Mid- and South Atlantic states;
• Macroalgal blooms in Florida's and Hawaii's coral reefs;
• Ciguatera dinoflagellates in sub-tropical and tropical U.S. possessions;
• Pseudo-nitzschia in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico and along the west coast; and
• Chaetoceros and Heterosigma in the Northwest.
Major support is needed to obtain a better understanding of toxin impacts, both acute and chronic,
on coastal resources and humans, including:
• identification of toxins and toxic cells in water and tissues;
• development of rapid, reliable, and inexpensive assays for their field detection;
• identification of biomarkers for monitoring HAB toxins in wildlife and humans; and
• establishment of exposure thresholds for toxicity.
The Federal government has initiated a rapid assessment capability to assist States and regions impacted
by unexpected HAB outbreaks.
A-5
-------
Reference: U.S. Department of the Interior, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Food and
Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.
National Harmful Algal Bloom Research and Monitoring Strategy: An Initial Focus on Pfiesteria, Fish
Lesions, Fish Kills, and Public Health. November 10, 1997. 26pp.
Eight research and monitoring objectives have been developed to address the recently observed incidents
of Pf/esfer/a-related species and fish lesions and kills in the Mid- and South Atlantic coastal area. Six of the
objectives focus on new Pffesfer/a-related research (R) and/or monitoring (M) efforts.
Objective 1: Isolate, characterize toxins
• Develop/characterize each potentially toxic strain of Pfiesteria and the P/y'esfer/a-complex (R)
• Determine toxicity of each strain and begin the isolation and identification of toxins produced (R)
• Determine life cycles an toxicities of life stages for each isolated strain (R)
Objective 2: Detection methods
• Refine methods for detect toxins (R)
Develop methods for field detection of Pft'esfer/a-like cells (R/M)
Field test and apply cellular probes that have been under development (R/M)
Develop biomarkers of lethal and sublethal neurotoxicity for fish and/or humans (R/M)
Objective 3: Toxins in marine food webs, fisheries, and humans
• Biotoxin impacts on marine organisms: direct and indirect effects; thresholds; hazard
identification methods (M/R)
• Biotoxin impacts on humans: direct and indirect effects; thresholds (M/R)
• Biotoxins: pathways and transformation (M)
Human symptomologies and epidemiology (M)
Objective 4: Forecasting capabilities (including ecology)
Determine factors causing toxic blooms: link physics, hydrology, ecology and physiology
of species (R/M)
Develop model for identifying specific systems optimal for growth (R/M)
• Delmarva Nation Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA; R/M)
• Role of veterinary Pharmaceuticals in bloom formation (R)
• Plankton observer networks (M)
• Develop ability to distinguish among causes offish health problems (R/M)
Objective 5: Develop management and mitigation options
Non-point source control: improve animal feeding operations, TMDL, and air deposition models (M/R)
Research on prevention, control and mitigation strategies, including hydrological/biological
conditions (M/R)
Development of water quality criteria for nutrients (R/M)
Develop health care responses for human toxic exposure and risk assessment studies on bloom
impacts/benefits of control (R)
• Evaluation of economic impacts to support cost-benefit analyses of mitigation strategies (R)
Objective 6: Rapid response to HABs
• Providing interagency Rapid Response Team capability for all future events in U.S. coastal waters (M)
• Federal assistance to State monitoring programs (M)
A-6
-------
Reference: Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee. 1994.
Atmospheric Loadings to Coastal Areas: Resolving Existing Uncertainties. A Report of the Atmospheric
Loadings Workshop, Baltimore, MD. June 29-30, 1994. 31pp.
The Atmospheric Loadings Workshop, sponsored by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee and
the Air Quality Coordination Group of the Chesapeake Bay Program, was charged with constructing a
prioritized listing of practical studies that would reduce current uncertainty in estimates of atmospheric
deposition and its contribution to declining aquatic ecosystem health.
The priorities, listed in order of importance, are:
1. Establish integrated monitoring studies
Conduct intensive, coordinated, integrated monitoring at special locations within the watershed, with
wet deposition, dry deposition, and local catchment area characterizations. The single most limiting
factor in assessing the adequacy of current models is the lack of quality data on actual deposition
within the target watershed. Until an integrated monitoring station is operational, there will be no
comprehensive data set for evaluating model performance.
2. Improve existing atmospheric models
Work to improve existing atmospheric nitrogen deposition models. In brief, there are many limitations
of current models, especially their limited grid size and their incomplete description of orographic and
chemical factors.
3. Improve biogeochemical watershed models
Workshop participants recognize the important role of watershed chemical retention and emphasized
the need for close linkages with the appropriate scientific community.
4. Improve emissions inventories and projections
Emissions estimates are currently highly imperfect in both the adequacy of reporting requirements
and the spatial resolution used to report the emission values. Assessments of atmospheric deposition
are necessarily at the mercy of these estimates.
5. Enhance current data collection efforts
Conduct process-oriented measurements to extend vertically and spatially coverage of meteorology
and chemical concentrations, and to quantify representativeness. The latest assessment models need
more advanced input data than do the simpler models used in early assessments. As information
demands rise and as these models evolve, input data requirements will increase even further.
Workshop participants concluded that measurement programs to provide the data required by the
models should be initiated.
6. Create an extensive array of less intensive measurements
These measurement sites would compliment the integrated monitoring stations of Priority 1.
In essence, a nested network is envisioned, with a small number of Priority 1 intensive stations
supporting a denser array of simple stations designed to provide improved spatial resolution for some
selected variables.
A-7
-------
Reference: U.S. Department of the Interior. The National Coastal and Marine Geology Program. 1997.
An Updated Five Year Plan for Geologic Research on Environmental, Hazard, and Resource Issues
Affecting the Nation's Coastal and Maine Realms. U.S. Geological Survey. March 1997. 27pp.
A five-year plan for research and mapping activities has been developed by the Coastal and Marine Geology
Program (formerly Office of Marine Geology) of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The
investigations included in the plan are designed to describe marine and coastal systems, understand the
fundamental geologic processes that create, modify and maintain them, and develop predictive models. The
investigations address four themes and their corresponding objectives. Three of the themes focus on
research and are summarized below. The fourth theme, information technology, focuses on coordination of
mapping, synthesizing information and developing a national source of information on the geology of the
Nation's marine realms.
Theme 1 - Environmental quality and preservation
• Pollution and Waste Disposal - identify and map the extent of sediment deposits and associated
contaminants on the seafloor; understand the processes by which pollutants and waste material interact
with and accumulate in sedimentary deposits; improve our knowledge of transport of sedimentary
particles and associated pollutants; increase our understanding of the processes by which pollutants
migrate through subsurface deposits and are reintroduced to the seabed and water column.
Fragile environments - increase our understanding of the delicate balance of geological processes
necessary to maintain the Nation's fragile coastal and marine environments and to improve our
capability to predict ecosystem response to both natural processes and human activities.
Marine reserves and biological habitats - gather, interpret, and distribute geologic information about
areas that are identified as of national importance, either as biologic resource or for their intrinsic value.
Theme 2 - Natural hazards and public safety
• Coastal and nearshore erosion - understand the geological environment within which erosion,
transport, and deposition of sediment occur, and ultimately to predict erosion caused by natural
processes and human activities.
Offshore earthquakes, tsunamis, and landslides - understand the geologic, environmental, and recent
history of great earthquakes, landslides, and tsunamis in the marine realm; evaluate the future
potential and probable impacts of such events on a regional basis; make research results available in
an effective form for application in USGS evaluations (e.g., seismic riskzonations)
Theme 3 - Natural resources
• Water resources (coastal aquifers) - understand the distribution and geological characteristics of fluid
transport in coastal aquifers and marine environments in conjunction with USGS-Water Resources
Division (WRD).
• Marine Mineral resources - improve understanding of the geological, geophysical, and geochemical
characteristics of nearshore and offshore mineral deposits, the geological systems in which the
deposits form, and the processes and chemical fluxes that lead to mineral concentrations.
Energy resources - improve understanding of the complex and dynamic geological processes that
have formed continental margins to better understand the genesis, accumulation, and preservation of
associated energy deposits.
A-8
-------
Reference: Valigura, R.A., W.T. Luke, R.S.Artz, and B.B.Hicks. 1996. Atmospheric Nutrient Input to
Coastal Areas: Reducing the Uncertainties. NOAA Coastal Ocean program Decision Analysis Series No. 9.
NOAA Coastal Ocean Office. 24pp. + apps.
The NOAA Air Resources Laboratory (ARL)/Atmospheric Nutrient Input to Coastal Areas (ANICA) program
was developed to address the need for an objective methodology to assess the importance of atmospheric
input to coastal regions, using Chesapeake Bay as the pilot. The program was designed as a targeted
research program to answer two specific questions: (1) To what extent is the perceived problem due to
deposition from the atmosphere? and (2) How can this understanding be extrapolated to other
circumstances?
Dissemination of information on atmospheric issues was identified as a need that could be addressed under
the ANICA program. Consequently, ANICA scientists were involved in three informational projects.
Literature Synthesis
The literature synthesis concluded with the following research recommendations for steps to reduce
uncertainties associated with prediction of atmospheric loadings.
Conduct monitoring and research experiments focused on improving measurements and modeling
techniques to further understand and quantify the emission cycles of the key chemical species.
Develop and perform nitrogen speciation experiments including on organic nitrogen and ammonia
compounds; subsequently, conduct intensive studies of the dry deposition rate of nitrogen compounds
from air crossing the watershed zone of the Chesapeake Bay region.
• Investigate the effect of localized contaminant deposition in both urban and near-urban environments;
specifically, develop estimates of surface water loadings attributable to urban runoff and investigate
the temporal and spatial distribution of NO deposition.
• Establish integrated monitoring sites of atmospheric emission and deposition.
• Establish over-water precipitation chemistry sites and compare the results with those from land-based
precipitation chemistry sites.
• Identify how urban areas serve as a source of atmospheric contaminants to surface waters; conduct
research on sampling methods for small particle deposition and source attribution for organic
contaminants.
Investigate the bioavailability of material deposited from the atmosphere; conduct exposure studies to
learn how chemical speciation influences exposure.
A-9
-------
Reference: Chesapeake Bay Program Air Quality Coordination Group. 1995. Airsheds and Watersheds -
The Role of Atmospheric Nitrogen Deposition. A Report of the Shared Resources Workshop, Warrenton, VA.
October 11-12, 1995. 32pp.
The focus of the Shared Resources Workshop (also called the "Airlie Workshop") was on atmospheric
nitrogen compounds, but many of the conclusions apply equally well to other pollutants occurring in the air,
such as toxic chemicals, trace metals, and persistent organic compounds. The following five
recommendations summarize the conclusions drawn by the participants at the workshop.
Efforts to resolve scientific uncertainties associated with the quantification of atmospheric deposition
and the resulting loading should be continued. The 1994 Mt. Washington workshop should serve as a
useful reference for planning future work. Future research should focus on quantifying atmospheric
nitrogen fluxes to the coastal ocean and characterizing the biochemical cycle of organic nitrogen
through Chesapeake Bay watershed.
• Although there is uncertainty in many areas, enough is known to determine a general direction for
action. Managers and regulators should move forward and not wait for all of the uncertainties to be
resolved.
A set of basic information for use in explaining the cause for concern about atmospheric deposition
and water body effects to the public, politicians, regulators, etc., should be generated. It is considered
likely that a single set of basic material could be used as the core of issue-related material addressing
current understanding about emissions, atmospheric depositions loadings by watershed and water
body, areas of greatest uncertainty, etc. This would promote cooperation and coordination across the
organizations involved, so as to avoid sending mixed messages.
• A cross-media approach to quantifying atmospheric deposition and resulting loadings needs to be
developed. Greater cooperation across issues, estuaries, and bays, scientific disciplines, and
government units is essential. Barriers to greater cooperation should be identified and eliminated.
In order to assure that such coordination continues, a future meeting of the present kind (but with
representation from an enlarged group of organizations) should be held, in about a year.
The following actions lay out the path to reach the above recommendations.
Short-Term Actions (within 1 year)
The 10 short-term actions are designed to enhance scientific and public awareness of the causes, dynamics,
and effects of atmospheric nitrogen compounds.
Mid-Range Actions (1-5 years)
The basic tenets of the six mid-range actions will be to achieve public understanding and acceptance of the
issues surrounding all atmospheric pollutants (toxic chemicals, nitrogen, ozone, etc.) and to eliminate
barriers to cross-media cooperation/collaboration.
Long-Term Goals (5+ years)
The direction and scope of long-term goals will be directly affected by the success of previous stages.
In general, the various communities should explore the benefits of pressing for a cross-media, results
oriented environmental protection act.
A-10
-------
Reference: Chesapeake Bay Program Air Subcommittee. 1997. Airsheds and Watersheds II:
AShared Resources Workshop. Raleigh, NC, March 5-7,1997. 34pp.
This was the second in a series of workshops addressing the regional impact of atmospheric nitrogen
deposition on East and Gulf Coast estuarine eutrophication. The workshop had three goals:
(1) determine the essential connections between issues, programs, agencies, organizations and jurisdictions
which would have advanced our ability to address the atmospheric nitrogen issues; (2) identify and/or create
new platforms for discussion of solutions; and (3) identify management issues around which additional
research and policy work is needed to advance our understanding of the ecosystem impacts of nitrogen as it
moves between airsheds and watersheds.
A list of research priorities was developed at the 1994 Mt. Washington meeting and subsequently endorsed
at the Airlie (Shared Resources) Workshop. These priorities were carried forward to this workshop
("Raleigh Workshop").
• Long-term, high-quality monitoring and modeling programs are needed to quantify the deposition
of nitrogenous compounds and airborne toxic chemicals to the water bodies and their watersheds.
In particular, there is a need to improve dry deposition estimates to the water bodies and to their
surrounding catchment areas.
Other forms of nitrogen must be considered in addition to the current focus on reactive nitrogen
compounds (primarily oxides of nitrogen), such as ammonia/ammonium (reduced nitrogen
compounds) and organic nitrogen compounds. These species can contribute -25% of the flux of
nitrogen compounds from the atmosphere.
• Accurate and defensible methods are needed to describe the cycling of deposited pollutants through
watersheds, on a regional basis.
• There is a need to understand and consider the effects of important fine-scale phenomena, such as
processes affecting groundwater transport of deposited pollutants in certain watersheds (which are
masked by the 20 km grids of the best available models).
Participants at the Raleigh Workshop endorsed each of the above priorities, and added two more.
Develop a method to account for within-year and inter-annual variability in weather and meteorological
events, including inundations associated with hurricanes, severely cold winter, or very hot summers.
Determine the form and severity of atmospheric nitrogen's biological consequences in coastal and
estuarine waters, compared to other nitrogen inputs (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, storm water
runoff); what improvements to living resources would be observed if reductions in atmospheric
nitrogen deposition were achieved; and how much of this improvement would vary be location.
Reference: Steidinger, K.A. and H.L. Melton Penta (Ed.). 1999. Harmful Microalgae and Associated Public
Health Risks in the Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Florida
Marine Research Institute, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 63pp + app.
Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) species, or groups of species, that cause the greatest impact to Gulf of Mexico
(GOM) states (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida), their resources, residents and visitors,
and coastal economies include:
• Gymnodinium breve - a red tide organism; causes human respiratory irritation and animal mortality
• Gambierdiscus toxicus, Prorocentrum, Ostreopsis, and other benthic dinoflagellate species that may
or may not be associated with the tropical fish poisoning known as Ciguatera.
A-ll
-------
• Dinoflagellates that are associated with tumor promotion in experimental animals and may be
associated with tumors in marine fishes and turtles.
• P/y'esfer/a-like organisms that may potentially pose a threat to natural resources and human health
(a special section).
Five types of seafood poisonings including the species causing the poisoning, and the human symptoms/
illness are described.
Marine event information (e.g., a red tide or hurricane), including good and bad press releases; mortality
event reporting sheets; facts and frequently asked questions about Florida's Red Tides; and technical facts
about Gymnodinium palchellum, is presented.
Presentation and Slides
General information on harmful algal blooms is presented including the effects on marine animals and
humans, and how they can be controlled and managed.
Species Identification
General summary and technical information on 15 species of dinoflagellates and diatoms
Field Sampling and Laboratory Procedures
Instructions for proper collection of water samples and how to prepare them for analysis; shellfish
monitoring; fish sampling; sediment sampling; and volunteer information and observation data sheets
1) counting phytoplankton, 2) mouse bioassay for Neurotoxic Shellfish Poison, 3) summary information for
monitoring brevetoxins in shellfish by receptor binding assay, 4) summary information for monitoring
brevetoxins in shellfish by Ouabain-Veratridine Dependent Cytotoxicity Assay, 5) Detection of Gymnodinium
breve and Brevetoxins by ELISA, 6) Brevetoxin Analysis Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography
(HPLC)
Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like species
Summary and technical information on Pfiesteria piscicida and two Pf/esfer/a-like species and procedures for
collecting and shipping sediment and water samples
HAB Meeting Summaries
Summaries of 1) ECOHAB meeting, Aug. 1994, 2) Florida Red Tide Research Planning and Coordination
Meeting, Nov 1996, 3) Proceedings of the Workshop for Application of Remote Sensing to Red Tide
Forecasts in the Gulf of Mexico, July 1997, 4) EPA Harmful Algal Bloom Workshop, Oct. 1997
Appendix
Public Health Contacts; Species Identification Contacts; Toxin Assay Contacts; Selected Internet
Addresses; U.S. Food and Drug Administration- Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 1995;
Contingency Plans and Related Information from the COM states; Acronyms and Abbreviations;
and Glossary
A-12
-------
Reference: Epstein, Paul R. (Principal Investigator), 1998. Marine Ecosystems: Emerging Diseases
as Indicators of Change, Health of the Oceans from Labrador to Venezuela. Year of the Ocean Special
Report. Health Ecological and Economic Dimensions of Global Change Program, Funded by NOAAand
NASA. 70pp + app.
Emergence and resurgence of diseases affecting marine life - e.g., marine mammals, fish, sea birds and
coral reefs - and effects on humans as they interact with a changing marine environment.
No coastal bay, harbor, or inlet, from Labrador to Venezuela, is immune to the impact of algal blooms and
marine-based disease events. Six data sets are integrated in the Health, Ecological and Economic
Dimensions of Global Change Program (HEED) framework, funded by NOAA and NASA.
The Ecosystem Stresses
Mechanisms for the increasing frequency and severity of HABs and factors contributing to mass
mortality events include
Temperature Anomalies and Immunity - Evidence that changing water temperature affects immune
systems
Underlying Ocean Warming? - Ocean warming changing flora and fauna distribution
Consequences
• Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) - consisting of red tides, brown tides, non-toxic diatoms, cyanobacteria;
and the effects from blooms including tumors and human health concerns
Public Health Concerns - concerns about seafood consumption, swimming-related illnesses, chronic
impacts- "Estuarine distress syndrome"
Diseases of Marine Wildlife Populations
Marine Mammals - adverse events involving marine mammals can serve as another sentinel indicator
of ecosystem health; they are top predators that bioaccumulate over time; El Nino events and major
marine mammal mortality events
• Shore Birds - migratory birds are often forced to flock to smaller areas where unhealthy conditions
develop and disease is easily spread
• Sea Turtles - coming under increasing pressures from loss of nesting habitat, by-catch and direct take
mortalities, and now the proliferation of disease, specifically fibropapillomas
Fish - significant physical environmental anomalies can render entire fish populations vulnerable
to infection. HAB biotoxins can also render fish populations more susceptible to diseases.
Invertebrates - Environmental fluctuations emerge as chief contributors to invertebrate mortalities, and
protists are often involved. A strong association exists between diseases of invertebrates and El Nino
conditions.
Diseases of Habitat
• Seagrasses - HEED data indicates seagrass die-offs appearing in association with sea surface
temperature (SST) anomalies and extreme precipitation. Seagrasses can be affected by persistent
brown tides that block light and deplete oxygen from the water column.
• Coral Reefs - Coral Reefs provide many environmental and economic benefits such as, habitat for
many marine species, buffers against waves and tropical storms, and a resource for tourism.
Climate change and increasing SSTs are compounding with local stresses to affect coral reefs
worldwide (e.g., coral reef bleaching).
A-13
-------
Spatial Perspectives - Major Marine Ecological Disturbance (MMEDs) by Large Marine Ecosystems
(LME)
The LME perspective illustrates the variation in types of impacts from one economic region to another
including the Caribbean Sea Ecosystem, the Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem, the Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf Ecosystem, the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf Ecosystem, and the Scotian and
Newfoundland Shelf Ecosystems.
Temporal Perspective - Case study of the 1987 El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event
In 1987, there was an El Nino event, followed by a strong La Nina event in 1988. Biological impacts
from anomalous movements of the Gulf Stream were observed including red tides, oysters and
mussels, bottlenose dolphins and humpback whales, seagrasses and coral reefs, and human
ingestion of harmful and fatal levels offish and shellfish biotoxins.
Cosfs - The Economic Impacts of Harmful Algal Blooms
Serious economic harm can result from the occurrence of a harmful algal bloom, through shellfish bed
closures, impacts on tourism, losses to the seafood industries, and subsequent damage to ecosystem
structural stability.
Monitoring, Mapping and Modeling
Public Health Early Warning Systems
Environmental Policy Implications
Reference: Steidinger, K.A., J.H. Landsberg, C.R. Tomas, and J.W. Burns. 1999. Harmful Algal Blooms
in Florida, submitted to Florida's Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force by the Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force
Technical Advisory Group. 38pp.
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are defined by harmful effects - visible (dead fish) or hidden (loss of habitat),
and affect public health (people become ill)
• 40 species of toxic marine microalgae
• 20 freshwater and freshwater-estuarine species
• Causes of HABs include excess nutrients due to nutrient runoff from farms, human waste from
malfunctioning septic systems, modification of estuarine circulation.
Red Tides (Gymnodinium breve) -
Effects depend on cell concentration
Over the last century, maximum duration of 20 months and 70% occur in late summer-fall
Most red tides in Florida occur between Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor
Resource Impacts
G. breve blooms can cause animal mortalities and affect human health
• Marine mammal mortalities include dolphins, sea turtles and manatees
A-14
-------
Public Health Impacts
G.breve produces hemolysins and neurotoxins that can affect humans
• Poisonings can occur from edible bivalves that accumulated brevetoxins.
• Shellfish areas closed to harvesting when G. breve levels are above background concentrations.
Economic Impacts
Businesses, tourism, community recreational activities adversely affected by red tides
Pfiesteria-like Species (PLS) in Florida's Estuarine Waters
PLS are small, heterotrophic dinoflagellates that morphologically resemble Pfiesteria piscicida.
Anthropogenic factors may lead to PLS blooms (ex. nutrient enrichment and bacterial loading or
nonpoint discharges from urban runoff, agriculture and wastewater treatment plants).
• 75% of toxic Pfiesteria outbreaks were in nutrient-enriched waters.
Resource Impacts
• Ulcerative mycosis (UM) in estuarine fish, predominantly menhaden and mullet, characterized by
deep, penetrating ulcers, chronic inflammation and presence of a fungus, usually Aphanomyces spp.
• Environmental stressors, including P. piscicida, may initiate lesions but P. piscicida is not
necessarily the cause of "Pft'esfer/a-type" deep lesions.
Public Health Impacts
Pfiesteria piscicida produces a neurotoxic, water-soluble compound that causes human health-
related problems, including memory loss and respiratory stress.
Accurate identification of these dinoflagellates is paramount for developing risk-assessment
strategies and examining the environmental triggers and circumstances that allow these
species to bloom.
• Possible scenarios for natural resources and public health concerns caused by PLS
Economic Impacts - not available for Florida
Ciguatera
Toxin-producing cyanobacterium associated with reef biota
Toxin is accumulated through the food chain and large piscivorous fish acquire enough toxin to
cause symptoms in humans that eat them.
Causative organism of Ciguatera is Gambierdiscus toxicus, a toxic dinoflagellate.
Outbreaks are associated with disturbances to reefs from hurricanes, coral bleaching, dredging,
commercial harvesting offish or corals by destructive methods.
Resource Impacts
If there are cyclical changes in the distribution or potency of biotoxic organisms and their subsequent
effect on aquatic organisms, then there may be a connection between the food preferences
of the species affected, the level or type of toxin found, and associated disease outbreaks in
aquatic populations.
Public Health Impacts
Ciguatoxin is a lipid-soluble molecule that accumulates in the flesh offish that consume it.
Reef fish that acquire the toxin remain toxic permanently. Because these fish do not migrate,
they remain exposed to the toxin sources.
Economic Impacts
In the Caribbean, economic impacts are estimated to be over $10 million.
In the U.S. and Canada, costs for time off from work and hospitalization are estimated at $20 million.
Toxic Blue-Green Algae (Cyanobacteria) in Fresh/Estuarine Waters
Cyanobacteria blooms in Florida represent a major threat to water quality, ecosystem stability,
surface drinking water supplies, and public health.
A-15
-------
• Type of toxins (secondary metabolites) produced are neurotoxins, hepatotoxins,
and dermatotoxins, and their production can be affected by environmental variables.
• Molecular probes help to differentiate toxic and nontoxic strains.
Resource Impacts
Blue-green algae can reduce ambient light levels below those required for submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) to survive.
Blue-green algae can form surface scum with low dissolved oxygen levels (<0.5 ppm) to cause
lethal conditions in fish and invertebrates.
Public Health Impacts
Exposure to cyanobacteria can cause severe respiratory distress, kidney and liver disease, allergenic
asthma, neurointoxication, skin rashes or necrosis, and death.
Economic Impacts - have not been quantified
Harmful Microalgae as Tumor Promoters
Potential long-term effects of biotoxins on aquatic animals or on public health may be expressed in terms
of susceptibility to disease, immunosuppression, reduced growth, effects on reproduction, or the
development of tumors.
Resource Impacts
Development of tumors in aquatic organisms such as shellfish and fish consider several factors:
oncogenic viruses, genetic predisposition, chemical contaminants, ultraviolet radiation from sunlight,
or other environmental factors.
Public Health Impacts
Potential chronic effects on cyanobacterial toxins on human health is currently unknown.
• Possible link between human cancer and cyanobacteria in water supplies.
Economic Impacts
Chronic presence of natural toxins in food chain would likely affect endangered species and
commercial and recreational fisheries.
Macroalgae
Can adversely affect natural resources, fisheries, tourism, and local economies
Not as frequent as microalgal blooms, but they are dramatic because of sheer biomass
Florida waters support a wide range of green, brown, and red algae that can bloom.
Resource Impacts
Marine macroalgal blooms can smother the sea bottom, whether coral reef or sand, which often kills
the bottom community.
Can cause hypoxia and anoxia with the same result
• Can also occur in freshwater habitats
Public Health Impacts - no known impacts
Economic Impacts - affect local industries associated with recreational use of waters, such as
diving, fishing, and tropical fish collection
A-16
-------
Reference: Frankic, Anamarija, Ph.D. 1999. Coastal/Estuarine Management Issues and Information Needs
Report. Submitted by the Coastal States Organization, Project Contract Number: 40-AANC-8-01324. 37pp.
The Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET) receives information on
coastal and estuarine management issues to use as a guide for strategic planning and project selection. The
Coastal States Organization (CSO) identifies coastal and estuarine management priorities and information needs
in the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) and Coastal Zone Management Programs (CZMP).
Coastal Management Issues
Literature Review Results
Three key national coastal management issues are: 1) nutrient overload, 2) pathogens and toxic
contamination, and 3) habitat modification and loss.
Survey Results
Nutrient enrichment and habitat degradation/loss and restoration are identified as high priority issues
in all regions except the Pacific Region where pathogens and toxic contamination are the highest priorities.
Coastal States Management Technology/Information Needs
Survey responses and literature reviews identify three information and technology needs that apply to all
management issues: 1) need for comprehensive base-line data, 2) need for timely, accurate and cost-
effective monitoring, and modeling technology, and 3) need for improved ways to access and evaluate
information gathered through monitoring programs.
Organizations Similar or Comparable to CICEET Mission and Goals
There is no single agency addressing both coastal management issues, caused by anthropogenic
contamination, and developing relevant technology/information on the local and state scale. CICEET
is required to focus on projects and activities that link directly to management issues.
CICEET seeks to achieve its Mission by:
• effectively using the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) as living laboratories;
• fostering interdisciplinary work among biological and physical scientists, engineers, resource
managers, and policymakers;
• being problem-driven and solution-oriented;
• ensuring the distribution of innovative environmental technology and techniques to user groups;
and enhancing the current capabilities of estuarine science and management programs.
Project Findings
Literature Review on National and Regional Coastal Management Priority Issues and Information/
Technology Needs
National Coastal Management Issues
Nine major coastal environmental issues identified, as a basis for determining scientific priorities to
meet national coastal needs.
Association for National Estuary Program (ANEP) proposed the development of a "Technology
Transfer Document" that will provide guidance on water quality and living resources issues in
terms of translating and using technologies to develop and attain management objectives.
• CSO survey results identified and prioritized twelve management issues and needs of coastal
state management agencies.
Regional Coastal Management Issues
The Regional Marine Research Programs (RMRP) of the U.S. coastal areas were designed to identify
regional research needs, set priorities among them, carry out needed research and better coordinate existing
research.
A-17
-------
• Issues frequently identified in RMRPs were: ecosystem degradation, alteration and loss; nutrient
enrichment, eutrophication and HAB; habitat restoration; anthropogenic contamination and toxic
materials; erosion; invasive species; and freshwater input.
Information and Technology Needs
• Eight products and services were identified by coastal program managers to address coastal
management issues.
Three sections were identified to address technology, information, and research needs through
literature reviews: nutrient enrichment, habitat degradation/loss and restoration, pathogen and
toxic contamination.
Survey of Coastal States Priority Management Issues and Technology/Information Needs
Methodology
Primary goal was to identify priority coastal and estuarine management issues in coastal states and
territories that can be addressed by environmental monitoring, modeling, restoration/mitigation,
technology/technique and information transfer consistent with the CICEET Mission.
• Responses to the survey were received from 53 individual coastal and estuarine programs
representing 35 coastal states and territories.
Survey Results
All regions identified three general areas of management concern: nutrient enrichment (eutrophication,
HAB); habitat degradation/loss and restoration; and pathogens and toxic contamination.
Another high priority issue identified in the Pacific and Island regions was erosion and
sedimentation.
Other issues frequently identified by the survey included invasive species, dredging, negative
impacts of recreational uses, and hydrologic modifications.
• Three general areas of information and technology needs that apply to coastal and estuarine
management concerns are: comprehensive baseline data; timely, accurate, and cost-effective
monitoring, and modeling technology; and improved ways to access and evaluate information
gathered through monitoring programs.
Regional Survey Results
Survey results from the seven regions included: Great Lakes, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Gulf,
Pacific and Islands.
Findings on organizations with similar mission and goals to CICEET
The most relevant organization identified in this report is the EPA's Office of Research and
Development (EPA/ORD). Its research programs have been established to improve ecosystem risk
assessment and risk management as highest priority research areas for investment over the next 10
years. There is no mission to link activities with coastal management priorities or needs.
• Other agencies or programs that have relevant goals to CICEET are: NOAA/CSC (Coastal
Services Center), NOAA/C-CAP (Coastal Change Analysis Program), EPA/OST (Office of
Science & Technology), USGS/BEST (Bio-monitoring of environmental status & trends),
USDOE/NABIR (Natural & Accelerated Bioremediation Research Program), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service/Environmental Contaminant Program, NOAA/Sea Grant, and Battelle
(Science and Technology Institute).
Conclusions
One of the significant challenges facing coastal managers today is how to move toward an integrated,
ecosystem-based management that incorporates feedback from the natural environment.
To support restoration of coastal habitats, managers and researchers expressed a need for science and
technology transfer initiatives to establish "pilot studies" that relate to habitat change and process-oriented
research in situ.
A-18
-------
APPENDIX B: Issue - Specific Case Studies
To explore how the concepts described in the main body of the document apply to coastal issues,
case studies have been developed to highlight the similarities, as well as differences, in the
research and monitoring approaches. The following case studies are examples of some of the
most common environmental issues impacting coastal and estuarine systems.
Coastal Eutrophication
Excess growth of algae, stimulated by addition of nutrients to water bodies, is referred to as
eutrophication, a process that is responsible for degradation of water quality. An overgrowth of algae
is associated with low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, losses of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs),
and toxic and nuisance bloom events. Delivery of nutrients to water bodies from the surrounding
watershed, and in some cases airsheds is a natural process but, in recent decades, has been greatly
accelerated by various human activities. The concomitant degradation of water quality has also been
accelerated.
Eutrophication differs from many other environmental problems because the cause, excessive nutrients,
is much better understood than the causes of most other problems. Despite the cause-and-effect
linkage, some aspects of eutrophication are not well defined and the exact response of a water body to
nutrient additions cannot be predicted. For example, the level of nutrients that cause problems in one
estuary may not cause problems in another, and the symptoms may last from weeks to months in one
estuary and for only days in others. Despite the cause-and-effect linkage, some aspects of
eutrophication are not well defined and the exact response of a water body to nutrient additions cannot
be predicted. Additional variables may affect this relationship. These variables may include land use
patterns and physical modifications to the systems, changes in freshwater flows, changes in suspended
sediment levels or water color, flushing rates, density stratifications, increased suspended sediment and
sedimentation.
Furthermore, not all of these sources of nutrients and their contributions relative to one another are well
known. This information is important, in addition to information on the variables affecting the response of
the estuary, for developing management strategies. For example, how much of the nutrients come from
air pollution depositing either directly onto the estuary or to its watershed compared to point sources or
urban and rural runoff? There are also outstanding research questions related to sources of nutrients
such as how the marine atmosphere affects the deposition to coastal waters.
Studies conducted during the last 25 years have provided some understanding of the nutrient-symptom
linkage, and nutrient management strategies designed to reduce these problems have worked in several
estuaries. Results of a recent NOAA report on the characteristics, timing (duration and time of year),
and severity of eutrophication, on a national basis, revealed that, for 17 of 139 systems (12 percent)
included in the study, there was insufficient information from which to develop conclusions about
eutrophic conditions. For an additional 33 estuaries (24 percent), the conclusions made about
eutrophication were based on uncertain information. The report also describes development of an index
designed to predict and rank the susceptibility of estuaries to development of eutrophic symptoms. This
ranking, in addition to the eutrophic condition results, provides a basis for setting priorities for monitoring
and management action, and for resource allocation among the Nation's estuaries.
B-l
-------
Data, Information, and Assessment
The eutrophication case study provides some important lessons for coastal research and monitoring.
Assuming that an evaluation of estuarine eutrophication was limited by available data, NOAA found that
gathering expert experience-based knowledge of conditions and trends in an estuary, rather than attempting
to analyze a comprehensive database of water quality and response parameters, was a more effective
approach to assessing the scale and severity of eutrophication. Other assessments of environmental
problems could be conducted in a similar fashion. The results, although partly subjective, are comparable
and consistent and provide a starting point for design of monitoring programs.
Given these results, the following tiered monitoring strategy would be effective.
Tier 1A— Baseline Monitoring of Symptoms and Response Variables
For all estuaries, response variables, such as dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a, should be monitored
on an annual basis so that trends can be determined. Priority should be given to acquiring data for the 17
estuaries with insufficient information and for the additional 33 estuaries for which existing data were
uncertain. Based upon our knowledge of when problems are likely to occur, monitoring could be targeted
to specific time frames. Sampling once per year during critical periods might suffice for some systems.
Tier IB — Intensive Monitoring of Response Variables
For estuaries that are considered sensitive — those susceptible to developing problems based on physical
and hydrologic characteristics, but not yet showing evidence of eutrophication — more intensive monitoring
of response variables may be necessary. More intense monitoring should be a priority for estuaries that will
potentially receive significant nutrient loads, based on predicted population increases or land uses that are
direct sources of nutrients (e.g., animal feed lots).
Tier 2 — Monitoring Stressor/Response
For estuaries exhibiting eutrophication stress or moderate to well-developed symptoms, fall-line riverine
monitoring should be initiated to estimate annual loads and also direct inputs of nutrients. Where
atmospheric deposition may contribute nutrients, deposition monitoring should also be initiated. This will
permit calculation of initial nutrient budgets to determine the major source of the stressor. Appropriate
management actions may also be indicated.
Tier 3 — Site-Specific Studies
To develop specific management plans, additional data collection and analysis (e.g., developing estuarine
circulation models and higher-resolution of temporal load estimates) is necessary to determine the most
cost-effective management strategy. Recent successful efforts to limit nutrient inputs with positive water-
quality responses, such as those in Tampa and Sarasota Bays, could be used as examples of targeted
monitoring and research.
B-2
-------
Physical Change of Ecosystems
Physical modification of coastal ecosystems range in scale from obvious habitat losses in coastal forests,
wetlands, and estuaries, to subtle changes in physical parameters, such as stream diversity and complexity.
The principal drivers of these modifications are human population growth, with resulting urban, suburban,
and rural development and direct economic exploitation of natural resources through anthropogenic
activities, such as damming streams for hydroelectric power generation and irrigation, logging forests for
timber, converting land for agriculture, and building roads. Among the cumulative effects of these
modifications are degraded in-stream habitat conditions, loss or degradation of estuarine habitat, and
changes in nearshore sediment transport along the coast.
It is generally accepted that the quality of the riparian area adjacent to streams is the most important
characteristic for providing the kind of habitat needed for healthy biologic communities. In many coastal
watersheds, anthropogenic alterations, related to construction/excavation, agricultural/forestry practices,
and other activities, can result in significant loads of fine- and coarse-grained sediments that cover spawning
areas, suffocate eggs and larvae, and reduce production of macroinvertebrates, which are the food source
for coastal fish populations. Within and adjacent to estuaries and tidally influenced coastal streams,
physical modifications, such as dredging projects, frequently alter estuarine hydrologic patterns and, in turn,
affect timing and quantity of freshwater flow. Timing and quantity of fresh water are critical for riverine and
estuarine structure and function because they affect circulation, salinity patterns, nutrient availability,
transport and fate of contaminants, and the distribution of living resource populations.
Another detrimental effect of physical modification is loss of habitat by fragmentation. On occasion, as
wetland areas are fragmented, ecosystem production can initially increase with the increase in surface water
area. However, this trend is soon reversed as habitat structure and function of the remaining wetland is
affected, and populations of inshore-dependent species will decline.
Watershed analysis through research and monitoring is necessary to determine the health and problem
areas of watersheds and coastal areas. The selection of appropriate ecosystem parameters or indicators of
system function is important to relate trends (i.e., losses, fragmentation, and degradation) in the amount and
condition of habitat to effects on resource populations. Resulting data and information on habitat availability,
species usage, rates of habitat change, biologic community trends, scaling issues (such as regional
similarities and comparability of various habitat types, and functional values of natural and restored
habitats) will improve our capability to predict effects of physical and hydrologic changes on coastal and
estuarine habitats and systems.
Tier 1 — Baseline Monitoring of Symptoms and Response Variables
Impacted or coastal areas of concern should be monitored on an annual or cyclic basis so that
characteristics and trends can be determined for response variables such as:
Extent and density of aquatic habitat;
Sediment load;
Temperature;
• Salinity;
• Bathymetry, geomorphology, and grain size;
• Land cover and land use; and
• Community structure and productivity.
B-3
-------
Tier 2 — Monitoring Stressor/Response
More intensive monitoring could be indicated to measure water flow timing and amount in areas where
this is considered problematical and where baseline information is insufficient.
Tier 3 — Site-Specific Studies
Potential areas for research that would complement monitoring activities might be directed at studies to:
Develop improved methods to assess cumulative ecological effects of multiple physical
stressors on coastal ecosystems.
• Further refine GIS and other analysis methods for determining changes in terrestrial and/or
aquatic habitat cover, coupled with numerical models for assessing and predicting trends and
patterns of habitat change or loss.
• Identify and quantify the effects of natural variability that act in combination with human-
induced physical stresses on coastal systems.
Better define local-to-regional scaling and compatibility issues as they relate to comparing
environmental conditions among areas.
Invasive Species
Certain species can thrive in areas outside the habitat where they have evolved and naturally live. Such
nonindigenous or invasive species are being disseminated throughout the world, both intentionally and
inadvertently by human activities. Introductions of nonindigenous species can be very disruptive to the
ecosystems that they invade. Invasion of nonindigenous species is a leading cause of species
extinctions and loss of biodiversity in coastal ecosystems. Such introductions can (1) threaten the
abundance of native species, with which they compete or on which they feed as predators, parasites,
or pathogens; (2) change the productivity and other functions of receiving ecosystems; and (3) cause
significant damage to valued natural resources.
Aquatic invasive species are often spread in coastal ecosystems through introductions with ballast
water, which has been taken in at locations far from the site of subsequent release. The speed of
modern ships allows ballast-water organisms from one area to survive interocean voyages and,
therefore, facilitates the transfer of viable invasive organisms to a new compatible environment.
Nonindigenous invasive species, especially parasites and pathogens, are also spread inadvertently in
coastal waters through aquaculture operations and importing of ornamental and pet species. In some
cases, invasive species are also introduced and spread intentionally to control pests or for other
purposes.
A number of recent studies, often based on serendipitous discovery of invasive species, have
documented the appearance and spread of such species in U.S. coastal waters, including the Great
Lakes. Efforts to identify and track reports of invasive species, however, have only recently started to be
coordinated at a national level. Often this coordination is limited to a specific species (e.g., Zebra
Mussel), region (e.g., 100th Meridian Initiative), or mode of introduction (e.g., ballast water). A
comprehensive monitoring program is clearly needed to (1) detect invasive species, (2) identify their
B-4
-------
location and mode of initial release, (3) evaluate the spread of such species, (4) evaluate their impacts
on biodiversity, and (5) evaluate the success of control and mitigation measures.
Data, Information, and Assessment
Although a coordinated national program for monitoring the occurrence and spread of invasive species
can provide much valuable information and support for dealing with such species, additional information
regarding these species is often available as a by-product of unrelated efforts. Thus, the initial discovery
of a new invasive species in coastal waters may be made serendipitously, as part of a project being
conducted for a different purpose.
A national focal point for coordinating the collecting and organizing invasive species information and
data from all available literature, experts, specialized clearinghouses, and other sources should be
established. This focal point would use these data and information to develop assessments on the
threats associated with individual species, as well as on patterns in biological characteristics, locations
of origin, modes of introduction, and other factors that affect the introduction of problematic invasive
species.
The following monitoring strategy would be effective in addressing these needs.
Tier 1A — Baseline Monitoring of Biodiversity
Representative samples of the major biological communities (e.g., nekton, plankton, benthos) should be
collected from locations in the major coastal regions every few years. The composition and abundance
of species in these samples, as well as indicators of the species health, would be determined. Evidence
of parasitic and pathogenic infections in those biological communities and, if possible, the causative
agents for these infections should also be identified.
Tier 2 — Intensive Monitoring of Response Variables
In locations where new invasive species are identified, more detailed monitoring to assess the
magnitude and extent of occurrence, and the rate at which the species is spreading, would be carried
out to support the development of strategies for control and mitigation. Continuation of such monitoring
would track environmental fluctuations in the invasive species and in the biodiversity of the associated
biological communities to evaluate the success of control and mitigation measures.
Tier 3 — Site-Specific Studies
As more locations are studied for invasive species, and as the protocols for monitoring become more
standardized, a more systematic knowledge will be gained of anecdotally known regional variations in
invasion rates and species. Intensive study at specific locations where invasions had taken place, as
well as at ecologically and climatically similar locations with invasion observed to a different extent or
by different species, will help establish what factors put a particular area at risk from what species or
types of species.
B-5
-------
Toxic Contaminants
Toxic contamination relates to the release of toxic chemicals or their breakdown products into coastal
waters. The following case study is an example of toxic contamination of estuarine waters but similar
problems occur within other coastal waters.
Additions of toxic chemicals may affect estuarine biota by altering their reproductive success, growth
rates, competitive abilities, or simply by causing death. The typical response of the estuarine ecosystem
to toxic contaminants is incorporation of the contaminants into sediments and/or living tissues. These
accumulations can result in immediate responses (e.g., growth changes, community changes, mortality)
or similar kinds of longer-term changes, depending upon the persistence of the chemical.
Humans introduce heavy metals, such as lead and zinc, and organic chemicals, such as PCBs and
pesticides, into coastal areas through industrial and sewage outfalls, stormwater runoff, disposal from
boats, runoff from agricultural and suburban areas, river discharge, and in rain and dust. Additional
information is still needed on the pathways by which toxic contaminants enter the waterbodies, including
how much of the loadings come from each of the various pathways. For example, for toxic contaminants
deposited from the air, there are few monitors in coastal areas to determine how much is deposited.
Other outstanding questions in this area include what different forms of contaminants are emitted from
various types of facilities, how far the contaminants travel before they are deposited, and the
characteristics of mixtures of contaminants from cities. These materials may affect water quality or settle
to the bottom and contaminate the sediments in which important food web organisms live.
Toxic contamination in coastal areas differs from many other environmental problems because, like
eutrophication, its cause is well understood, but its effects on estuarine biota are not well known.
Clearly, fish and other estuarine organisms can bioaccumulate contaminants in their tissues, but the
effect of the bioaccumulation is not well understood. In the immediate area of high concentrations, toxic
contaminants can kill all marine life; however, rarely are toxic contaminants found at such lethal
concentrations in nature.
Studies conducted over the past two to three decades have provided clear evidence that additions of
contaminants to estuarine water and sediments can have negative biological and ecological effects,
although the direct dose-response relationships or the effects of contaminant mixtures are not well
understood. In addition, when contaminants are bioaccumulated in significant concentrations, the
potential for human health effects through ingestion of the contaminated products (e.g., fish or shellfish)
can be serious.
Results of recent monitoring studies have shown that about 75 percent of the Nation's estuarine
sediments are contaminated by heavy metals and organic chemicals, but generally in low
concentrations. Only about 5 percent of these sediments are contaminated at concentrations that are
expected to result in severe biological and ecological consequences (e.g., mortality of biota). However,
the effects of either short- or long-term exposure to contaminant concentrations generally found in
estuarine sediments are not well known.
Data, Information, and Assessment
This case study in toxic contamination is an important lesson in demonstrating that massive amounts of
data can exist and still result in a deficiency of information to assess ecological condition. While large
B-6
-------
amounts of toxic contamination data exist (for example, the EPA Sediment Inventory), little of this
information has been collected in a consistent manner that would permit its integration over space or
time. Even if such consistency were available, the lack of clear dose-response relationships, particularly
for mixtures, is apparent and limits the availability these data for decision making. Finally, specific
research is required to determine the roles of natural environmental variability on contaminant releases
and their effects on biota. The lack of consistency can be addressed by a Tier 1 coordinated survey, the
conversion of data to information is addressed by Tier 2 issue-based monitoring and studies, and the
role of natural variability could be addressed by Tier 3 specific studies.
Given this information, the following monitoring strategy would be effective.
Tier 1 — Baseline Monitoring of Symptoms and Response Variables
For all estuarine waters, response variables comprised of the benthic triad (benthic community, sediment
toxicity, and sediment chemistry) and tissue residues in target species should be monitored on an annual
or cyclic basis so that concurrent status and trends can be determined. Collection of the triad data and
tissue residue concentrations will provide sufficient information to gauge the condition of the estuarine
population and to discern whether deficiencies in condition are likely due to contamination.
Tier 2 — Monitoring Stressor/Response
Based on the results of Tier 1 monitoring, sensitive estuaries, impaired estuaries believed to be
sensitive, and estuarine segments that are contaminated by toxic chemicals would require more intense
spatial and temporal monitoring of response and stressor variables. Response variables would include
benthic community composition, bioaccumulation, and reproductive capacity. Stressor variables would
include sediment chemistry parameters, and physical and chemical attributes. Additionally, monitoring of
pathways by which contaminants may get into the coastal waters and sediments, such as air deposition,
would be important. Intensive Tier 2 monitoring would be completed along gradients of toxic
contamination to determine the dynamics of the relationship between the response variables and the
environmental stressors. Recommendations could then be made to either eliminate and/or repair the
environmental damage caused by the toxic components. As these "repairs" are made, estuarine
segments could be removed from the 303(d) list.
Tier 3 — Site-Specific Studies
To fully understand the interactions of toxic contaminants with the environment, and the relationships of
toxic-induced response variables to natural changes in the environment (e.g., salinity, temperature,
sediment composition) or to the potentials for mixing multiple contaminants and their interactions, a
small number of site-specific study areas would be established. At these sites, the details of process
mechanics, and small-scale temporal and spatial inter-relationships would be examined. Information
from the site-specific study areas would be useful for the Tier 2 monitoring because the efficacy of
proposed solutions at that level may be significantly influenced by the data from site-specific study areas.
Human Health Effects Associated with Harmful Algal Blooms
Algae are unicellular microscopic plant cells that are the foundation of life. An algal bloom develops in
the marine or freshwater environment when there is an excess of growth of these organisms due to
B-7
-------
changes in that environment. A harmful algal bloom (HAB) is defined as a bloom that has deleterious effects
on plants, animals and/or humans. HABs, such as red tides, have been occurring for centuries. Since the
1970s, they appear to be more frequent and extensive, both in the United States and worldwide. In the
United States, the coasts have become the prime target of HABs. Some of the most affected areas are
Florida, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, and Alaska.
HAB-associated human diseases are categorized into two groups, based on their primary transvectors.
Shellfish harbor the toxins that produce paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), neurotoxic shellfish
poisoning (NSP), diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP), and amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP).
• Fish carry the toxins responsible for ciguatera poisoning and tetrodotoxin (fugu or pufferfish)
poisoning.
The shellfish-associated diseases generally occur in association with algal blooms or "red tides," which may
be characterized by patches of discolored water and dead or dying fish. The fish-associated diseases are
more localized to specific reef areas (ciguatera poisoning) and fish (fugu poisoning). In addition, skin and
aerosol exposure have reportedly resulted in human health effects with brevetoxin red tides (also the cause
of NSP), allegedly the pfiesteria organism and its pf/esfer/a-like organisms, and the cyanobacteria (also
known as the blue green algae).
The primary target of HAB toxins is the neurologic system, although affected individuals usually present a
wide range of symptoms, resulting in a confusing clinical picture. Gastrointestinal symptoms begin minutes
to hours after eating contaminated seafood. In the case of PSP, fugu, and ciguatera, accompanying acute
respiratory distress may be fatal within hours. Ciguatera and ASP may also produce debilitating chronic
neurologic symptoms lasting months to years. Chronic disease (neurologic, immunologic, carcinogenic,
etc.) associated with the HAB toxins is an area of active scientific research. For example, the blue green
algae produce carcinogenic toxins that may be associated with an increased risk of liver cancer in humans
consuming contaminated drinking water.
Other Natural Marine HABs
Pfiesteria piscicida and the so-called Pf/esfer/a-like organisms were originally discovered in a laboratory
setting, and then implicated in subsequent fish kills in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Investigators
discovered the organism in some of the water and/or fish samples received from field biologists during
events such as lesioned fish and fish kills occurring in North Carolina estuaries. Over the past several years,
HABs in the Mid Atlantic States have been associated with extensive fish kills, as well as multiple reports of
a variety of human health effects associated with skin and aerosol exposure to HAB-contaminated water.
Other P/y'esfer/a-like organisms have been implicated in fish events, in addition to Pfiesteria piscicida. For
example, in February 1998, a new marine organism, a cryptoperidiniopsoid dinoflagellate resembling
Pfiesteria piscicida morphologically and genetically, was identified in the estuarine waters of the St. Lucie
River (St Lucie County, FL). This newly identified organism has been associated with fish lesions and has
been identified in the MidAtlantic fish events, often associated with Pfiesteria piscicida. No definitive
human health effects have been reported associated with exposure to the waters of this river, although there
has been considerable community and public health concern. To date, despite continued experiments, no
toxin(s) have been isolated in the laboratory from either Pfiesteria piscicida or the P/y'esfer/a-like organisms.
B-8
-------
The blue green algae or cyanobacteria represent a diverse group of organisms that produce highly
potent natural toxins. These organisms can form toxic blooms in freshwater, estuarine, and marine
environments. There have been numerous case reports of severe morbidity and mortality in domestic
animals from exposure to these toxins through drinking contaminated water. There have been relatively
few case reports or even epidemiologic studies of the effects of these toxins on humans. In one major
Brazilian epidemic, because of exposure to toxins over 100 persons on renal dialysis suffered from
severe liver disease with 50 percent mortality. An intriguing study by Yu et al. (1995) found an
increased association between primary liver cancer in humans and the use of surface drinking water
sources in China. A major potential route of human exposure to these toxins is through the consumption
of contaminated drinking water. Surface drinking water supplies are particularly vulnerable to the
growth of these organisms; current drinking water treatment in the United States does not monitor or
treat for the blue green algal toxins.
Data, Information, Assessment
The major goal associated with monitoring for HABs is the prevention of human health effects. In the
case of the HAB-associated human diseases, three needed levels of prevention are lacking.
Primary prevention: The exposure and the resulting human disease never occur due to the
prevention of exposure and the disease. Although primary prevention is the ideal, it is not
always achievable in the case of the HAB-associated diseases.
Secondary prevention: Decrease the prevalence of the disease by decreasing the number of
cases; this is traditionally performed by the early detection of cases to prevent additional
cases, as well as rapid intervention with those already exposed to prevent illness.
• Tertiary prevention: Decrease the extent or severity of the disease in persons already ill.
Unfortunately, although some wealthier nations conduct surveillance for the toxin-producing organisms
and/or toxin levels in specific shellfish beds, there is no accurate surveillance of human diseases caused
by the HAB-associated organisms. Even in the wealthier nations, reporting and surveillance are
inadequate. Both PSP and ciguatera are reportable diseases in the United States, but there is
considerable under-reporting. This is partially due to ignorance on the part of ill persons and healthcare
workers with respect to diagnosis and reporting, especially when contaminated seafood arrives in non-
endemic areas. In developing nations, especially in poor coastal and island communities, these
diseases have been tolerated endemically for years due to lack of surveillance, diagnosis, and
treatment. Thus, the true extent and impact of these diseases in the human population are unknown.
The major issue for the study of the HAB-associated human diseases, especially their epidemiology and
their impact on human health worldwide, is the lack of reliable data on number of incidences the number
of incidences and the possibility of their increasing incidence. In some countries with significant
resources (e.g., the United States), the shellfish-associated marine seafood toxin diseases receive
primary prevention through dinoflagellate/toxin monitoring of the shellfish beds; this type of primary
prevention is not available for other emerging HAB-associated diseases, especially in poorer countries
where the lack of data on incidence means that scarce resources are not allocated for primary
prevention. In the case of ciguatera, due to the more mobile fish transvector, primary prevention is
currently not practiced even in countries with significant resources. Furthermore, contamination of
drinking water sources with cyanobacteria appears to be an increasing problem.
B-9
-------
The HAB-associated diseases and their causative organisms are integrally linked with local and global
environmental changes. Evaluation of these factors, both epidemiologic and environmental, will be
multivariate and extremely complicated. Biomarkers of exposure and disease in humans must be developed
for the diagnosis and epidemiologic study of the HAB-associated diseases. Increased surveillance and
reporting of these diseases in human populations to evaluate acute and chronic health effects will only occur
with education of healthcare workers and occupationally exposed groups on the diagnosis, treatment,
prevention, and reporting of the HAB-associated diseases in humans. Epidemiologic and economic
evaluation of the incidence of disease in human populations and the environment secondary to HABs
should be performed. Finally, the integration of human health effects data with other databases and scientific
disciplines studying the environmental and toxicologic effects and causes of HABs is essential. This can only
be accomplished through the interdisciplinary collaboration of the scientists and agencies working on this
issue.
Given this information, the following monitoring strategy would be effective:
Tier 1 — Baseline Monitoring of Symptoms and Response Variables
Of note, many of the tools necessary even for Tier I monitoring are not yet available for human health
evaluation with regards to the HABs. Therefore, considerable research is necessary to develop these tools.
Furthermore, although reporting is officially required for several of the human health diseases associated
with HAB exposure, these diseases are highly under-diagnosed and under-reported.
Develop biomarkers to diagnosis exposure and disease in humans and conduct an epidemiologic
study of the HAB-associated diseases;
• Educate healthcare workers and occupationally exposed groups on the diagnosis, treatment,
prevention and reporting of the HAB-associated diseases in humans;
• Surveillance and increased reporting of these diseases in human populations to evaluate acute
and chronic health effects;
Tier 2 — Monitoring Stressor/Response
Surveillance and increased reporting of these diseases in human populations to evaluate acute
and chronic health effects;
Tier 3 — Site-Specific Studies
• Epidemiologic studies of the possible acute and chronic health effects of these diseases in human
populations;
Economic evaluation of the burden of disease in human populations and the environment
secondary to HABs;
• Integration of human health effects data with other databases and scientific disciplines studying
the environmental and toxicologic effects and causes of HABs.
B-10
------- |