United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development/Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/842-R-08-002
December 2008
http://www.epa.gov/nccr
National Coastal
Condition Report
-------
-------
Acknowledgments
This third National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR III) was prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water and Office of Research and Development
(ORD). The EPA Project Managers for this document were Barry Burgan and Greg Colianni, who
provided overall project coordination. The principal authors for this document were Barry Burgan
and Virginia Engle, Technical Director of ORD's National Coastal Assessment program within the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA was supported in the development of this
document by RTI International and Johnson Controls World Services. The content of this report was
contributed by EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with many local,
state, and federal agencies. The following team provided written materials, technical information,
reviews, and recommendations throughout the preparation of the document.
EPA
Darrell Brown, Office of Water
Barry Burgan, Office of Water
Greg Colianni, Office of Water
Virginia Engle, Office of Research and Development
James Harvey, Office of Research and Development
John Kiddon, Office of Research and Development
Henry Lee, Office of Research and Development
Walt Nelson, Office of Research and Development
Lisa Smith, Office of Research and Development
Kevin Summers, Office of Research and Development
Henry Walker, Office of Research and Development
NOAA
Marie-Christine Aquarone, National Marine Fisheries Service
Donna Busch, National Marine Fisheries Service
Jeff Hyland, National Ocean Service
Thomas O'Connor, National Ocean Service
Anthony Pait, National Ocean Service
Kenneth Sherman, National Marine Fisheries Service
Dave Whitall, National Ocean Service
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
FWS
Thomas Dahl, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation
uses
Jimmy Johnston, U.S. Geological Survey
Pete Bourgeois, U.S. Geological Survey
Special appreciation is extended to the following organizations that collaborated
with EPA to collect the NCA data presented in this document:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Delaware River Basin Commission
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission—Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Great Lakes National Program
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Puerto Rico Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
University of Hawaii at Manoa
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations xi
Executive Summary 1
Chapter 1 Introduction 2
Purpose of This Report 3
Why Are Coastal Waters Important? 3
Coastal Waters are Valuable and Productive Natural Ecosystems 3
Coastal Waters Have Many Human Uses 4
Why Be Concerned about Coastal Condition? 5
Assessment of Coastal Condition 5
Coastal Monitoring Data 6
Limitations of Available Data 10
Indices Used to Measure Coastal Condition 11
Water Quality Index 11
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 11
Chlorophyll a 12
Water Clarity 13
Dissolved Oxygen 14
Calculating the Water Quality Index 14
Sediment Quality Index 15
Sediment Toxicity 17
Sediment Contaminants 17
Sediment TOG 18
Calculating the Sediment Quality Index 19
Benthic Index 19
Coastal Habitat Index 21
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 24
Summary of Rating Criteria 24
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
How the Indices Are Summarized 28
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries Data 29
Interactions Between Fisheries and Coastal Condition 30
Fishery Management and Assessment 31
Assessment and Advisory Data 33
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessments 34
National Listing of Fish Advisories 36
Beach Advisories and Closures 36
Connections with Human Uses 36
Chapter 2 National Coastal Condition 37
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 44
Water Quality Index 44
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 44
Chlorophyll a 44
Water Clarity 45
Dissolved Oxygen 45
Sediment Quality Index 48
Sediment Toxicity 48
Sediment Contaminants 48
Sediment TOG 48
Benthic Index 48
Coastal Habitat Index 49
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 52
National Coastal Condition, Excluding Alaska and Hawaii 53
Trends of Coastal Monitoring Data—United States 57
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 64
Assessment and Advisory Data 68
Fish Consumption Advisories 68
Beach Advisories and Closures 71
Chapter 3 Northeast Coastal Condition 75
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 78
Water Quality Index 78
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 79
Chlorophylls 79
Water Clarity 79
Dissolved Oxygen 79
iv National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Sediment Quality Index 80
Sediment Toxicity 80
Sediment Contaminants 80
Sediment TOG 80
Benthic Index 81
Coastal Habitat Index 81
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 84
Trends of Coastal Monitoring Data—Northeast Coast Region/Virginian Province Subset 85
Temporal Change in Ecological Condition 85
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries—Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME 92
Demersal Fish Fisheries 93
Principal Demersal Fish Group 94
Management Concerns for Demersal Fish 95
Pelagic Fisheries 95
Invertebrate Fisheries 96
American Lobster 97
Atlantic Sea Scallop 97
Assessment and Advisory Data 100
Fish Consumption Advisories 100
Beach Advisories and Closures 100
Summary 104
Chapter 4 Southeast Coastal Condition 105
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 107
Water Quality Index 107
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 110
Chlorophylls 110
Water Clarity 110
Dissolved Oxygen 110
Sediment Quality Index 110
Sediment Toxicity 110
Sediment Contaminants Ill
Sediment TOG Ill
Benthic Index 112
Coastal Habitat Index 114
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 114
Trends of Coastal Monitoring Data—Southeast Coast Region 115
Temporal Change in Ecological Condition 115
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries—Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME 120
Reef Fish Resources 120
Sciaenids Fisheries 121
Menhaden Fishery 121
Mackerel Fisheries 122
Shrimp Fisheries 123
Assessment and Advisory Data 126
Fish Consumption Advisories 126
Beach Advisories and Closures 126
Summary 130
Chapter 5 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Condition 131
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 133
Water Quality Index 136
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 136
Chlorophyll a 137
Water Clarity 137
Dissolved Oxygen 138
Sediment Quality Index 139
Sediment Toxicity 140
Sediment Contaminants 140
Sediment TOG 140
Benthic Index 140
Coastal Habitat Index 140
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 141
Trends of Coastal Monitoring Data—Gulf Coast Region 144
Temporal Change in Ecological Condition 144
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries—Gulf of Mexico LME 150
Reef Fish Resources 150
Menhaden Fishery 151
Mackerel Fisheries 154
Shrimp Fisheries 154
Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 158
Assessment and Advisory Data 159
Fish Consumption Advisories 159
Beach Advisories and Closures 160
Summary 161
vi National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 West Coast Coastal Condition 163
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 166
Water Quality Index 166
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 166
Chlorophyll a 167
Water Clarity 167
Dissolved Oxygen 167
Sediment Quality Index 167
Sediment Toxicity 168
Sediment Contaminants 168
Sediment TOG 168
Benthic Index 168
Coastal Habitat Index 169
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 169
Trends of Coastal Monitoring Data—West Coast Region 172
Temporal Change in Ecological Condition 172
Changes and Trends in Puget Sound Sediments: Results of the Puget Sound
Ambient Monitoring Program, 1989-2000 172
Human-Driven Changes 173
Naturally Occurring Changes 173
Trends in Environmental Condition in San Francisco Bay 175
Trends in Coastal Sediment Condition in the Southern California Bight:
A Clean Water Act Success Story 180
Overall Trends 180
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries—California Current LME 185
Salmon Fisheries 185
Ecosystem Considerations 186
Pelagic Fisheries 186
Demersal Fish Fisheries 188
Assessment and Advisory Data 189
Fish Consumption Advisories 189
Beach Advisories and Closures 190
Summary 191
National Coastal Condition Report III vii
-------
Chapter 7 Great Lakes Coastal Condition 193
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 195
Water Quality Index 195
Sediment Quality Index 198
Benthic Index 198
Coastal Habitat Index 198
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 199
Trends of Coastal Monitoring Data—Great Lakes Region 202
Assessment and Advisory Data 202
Fish Consumption Advisories 202
Beach Advisories and Closures 204
Summary 206
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories 209
Alaska 210
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 212
Water Quality Index 213
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 214
Chlorophyll a 214
Water Clarity 214
Dissolved Oxygen 214
Sediment Quality Index 214
Sediment Toxicity 214
Sediment Contaminants 215
Sediment TOG 216
Benthic Index 216
Coastal Habitat Index 216
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 216
Trends of Coastal Monitoring Data—Alaska 217
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries—Gulf of Alaska and East Bering Sea LMEs 217
Salmon Fisheries 221
Pelagic Fisheries 222
Demersal Fish Fisheries 223
Shellfish Fisheries 224
Assessment and Advisory Data 224
Fish Consumption Advisories 224
Beach Advisories and Closures 224
viii National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Hawaii 225
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 227
Water Quality Index 227
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus 228
Chlorophylls 228
Water Clarity 228
Dissolved Oxygen 228
Sediment Quality Index 229
Sediment Toxicity 229
Sediment Contaminants 230
Sediment TOG 230
Benthic Index 230
Coastal Habitat Index 230
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 230
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries—Insular Pacific-Hawaiian LME 231
Invertebrate Fisheries 232
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Lobster 232
Precious Coral 232
Demersal Fish and Armorhead Fisheries 233
Demersal Fish 233
Pelagic Armorhead 234
Assessment and Advisory Data 235
Fish Consumption Advisories 235
Beach Advisories and Closures 235
Puerto Rico 236
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 236
Water Quality Index 237
Sediment Quality Index 240
Benthic Index 240
Coastal Habitat Index 241
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index 241
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries—Caribbean Sea LME 242
Assessment and Advisory Data 242
Fish Consumption Advisories 242
Beach Advisories and Closures 242
American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands 243
Coastal Monitoring Data—Status of Coastal Condition 243
National Coastal Condition Report III ix
-------
Large Marine Ecosystem Fisheries 243
Assessment and Advisory Data 246
Fish Consumption Advisories 246
Beach Advisories and Closures 246
Summary 247
Chapter 9 Health ofNarragansett Bay for Human Use 249
Overview of Narragansett Bay 250
Development Uses of Narragansett Bay 250
Land Use Changes and Development 252
Marine Transportation 253
Point-Source Discharges 254
Amenity-Based Uses of Narragansett Bay 258
Public Access 258
Beaches 258
Boating 259
Fishing 259
Commercial Fishing 259
Recreational Fishing 260
Estimates of Fish and Shellfish Abundance 260
Fishery Restrictions 264
Are Human Uses Being Met by Narragansett Bay? 265
Human Uses and NCA Environmental Indicators 266
Appendix A Quality Assurance 267
References 273
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AKMAP Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Program
AOC Area of Concern
ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criterion
BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and Health Program
BEQ benthic environmental quality
B-IBI Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
BRI Benthic Response Index
CBP Chesapeake Bay Program
C-CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program
CDF cumulative distribution function
CISNet Coastal Intensive Sites Network
CPR continuous plankton recorder
CPUE catch per unit effort
CRD Coastal Resource Division
CRMC Coastal Resources Management Council
CSO combined sewer overflow
CWCA Coastal Watershed Condition Assessment Program
DEC Department of Environmental Conservation
DDD p,p'-diclorodiphenyldichloroethane
DDE p,p'-diclorodiphenyldichloroethylene
DDT p,p'-diclorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DIN dissolved inorganic nitrogen
DIP dissolved inorganic phosphorus
DMAC data management and communications
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DQO data quality objective
EC50 effective concentration required to induce 50% reproductive failure
EC90 effective concentration required to induce 90% reproductive failure
ECOHAB Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms Program
EEZ U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
EMAP—VP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program—Virginian Province
National Coastal Condition Report
XI
-------
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERL effects range low
ERM effects range medium
ESA Endangered Species Act
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FMP fishery management plan
FRI Fish Response Index
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
GCRC Georgia Coastal Research Council
GEOSS Global Earth Observation System of Systems
GIS geographic information systems
GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office
GMP Joint Gulf States Comprehensive Monitoring Program
GNP gross national product
GOOS Global Ocean Observing System
HAB harmful algal bloom
H' benthic diversity
IEOS U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System
IEP Interagency Ecological Program
IFYLE International Field Years on Lake Erie Program
IOOS U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System
IWGOO Interagency Working Group on Ocean Observations
JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
kg/tow kilogram per tow
LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
LIDAR light detection and ranging technology
LME Large Marine Ecosystem
LNG liquid natural gas
m meter
MAIA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
MARMAP Marine Resources Monitoring, Assessment, and Prediction Program
mg/L milligram per liter
mg/m3 milligram per cubic meter
MHI Main Hawaiian Islands
mi2 square mile
mL/100m3 milliliter per 100 cubic meters
MMS Minerals Management Service
MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
MWRA Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
NAD National Assessment Database
NBEP Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
XII
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
NCA National Coastal Assessment
NCCR National Coastal Condition Report
NCCRI National Coastal Condition Report I
NCCR II National Coastal Condition Report II
NCCR III National Coastal Condition Report III
NCCR IV National Coastal Condition Report IV
NEFMC New England Fishery Management Council
NEP National Estuary Program
NEP CCR National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report
NERR National Estuarine Research Reserve
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
NFRA National Federation of Regional Associations
ng/g nanogram per gram
NHEERL National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NLCD National Land Cover Database
NLFA National Listing of Fish Advisories
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NMS National Marine Sanctuary
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOBOB no ballast on board
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources and Conservation Service
NS&T National Status & Trends Program
NSF National Science Foundation
NWHI Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NY/NJ New York/New Jersey
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PCE tetrachloroethylene
PFA polyfluoroalkyl compound
POP persistent organic pollutant
POTWs Publicly Owned Treatment Works
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
ppt parts per thousand
PRAWN BEACH PRogram tracking, beach Advisories, Water quality standards,
and Nutrients database
PSAMP Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
PSP paralytic shellfish poisoning
psu practical salinity unit
National Coastal Condition Report
XIII
-------
QA quality assurance
QAPP quality assurance project plan
QC quality control
REMAP Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
RIDEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
RMP Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances
SAB South Atlantic Bight
SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council
SAV submerged aquatic vegetation
SCB Southern California Bight
SCCWRP Southern California Coastal Water Resources Project
SCORE South Carolina Oyster Restoration and Enhancement Program
SeaWiFS Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor
SOLEC State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SQO sediment quality objective
SWiM System-wide Monitoring Program (NMS)
SWMP System-wide Monitoring Program (NEERS)
t metric tons
TDN total dissolved nitrogen
TDP total dissolved phosphorus
TOC total organic carbon
ug/g microgram per gram
ug/L microgram per liter
UME unusual mortality event
URI University of Rhode Island
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC volatile organic compound
WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology
WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
WRD Water Resources Division
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
XIV
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
EXECUTIVE
i " iiiiniii
SUMMARY'!!!!!!
-------
/e Summary
Executive Summary
Coastal waters in the United States include
estuaries, bays, sounds, coastal wetlands, coral
reefs, intertidal zones, mangrove and kelp forests,
seagrass meadows, and coastal ocean and upwelling
areas (deep water rising to surface). Coastal habitats
provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and
food for finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife.
These coastal resources also provide nesting, resting,
feeding, and breeding habitat for 75% of waterfowl
and other migratory birds.
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) report periodically on the condition
of the nation's coastal waters. As part of this process,
coastal states provide valuable information about
the condition of their coastal resources to EPA;
however, because the individual states use a variety
of approaches for data collection and evaluation,
it has been difficult to compare this information
among states or on a national basis.
To better address questions about national
coastal condition, EPA, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agreed to
participate in a multi-agency effort to assess the
condition of the nation's coastal resources. The
agencies chose to assess condition using nationally
consistent monitoring surveys to minimize the
problems created by compiling data collected using
multiple approaches. The results of these assess-
ments are compiled periodically into a National
Coastal Condition Report. This series of reports
contains one of the most comprehensive ecological
assessments of the condition of our nation's coastal
bays and estuaries. The assessment presented in each
report is based on data from more than 2,000 sites.
The nation's coasts are a popular vacation destination, with approximately I 80 million people visiting U.S. beaches
each year (courtesy of Andrew D. Stahl).
ES.2
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
The first National Coastal Condition Report
(NCCR I), published in 2001, reported that the
nation's coastal resources were in fair to poor
condition. The NCCR I used available data
collected from 1990 to 1996 to characterize about
70% of the nation's conterminous coastal waters.
Agencies contributing these data included EPA,
NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
and the USDA. The second National Coastal
Condition Report (NCCR II) was based on available
data from 1997 to 2000. The NCCR II data were
representative of 100% of the coastal waters of the
conterminous 48 states and Puerto Rico and
showed that the nation's coastal waters were slightly
improved and rated in fair condition. Agencies that
contributed data to the NCCR II included EPA,
NOAA, FWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). Several state, regional, and local organiza-
tions also provided information on the condition of
the nation's coasts.
This third National Coastal Condition Report
(NCCR III) assesses the condition of the nation's
estuaries and coastal embayments (collectively
referred to as "coastal waters" in this report),
including the coastal waters of Hawaii and
Southcentral Alaska, based primarily on EPA's
National Coastal Assessment (NCA) data collected
primarily in 2001 and 2002. The NCA; NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
National Ocean Service; FWS's National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI); and USGS contributed most of
the information presented in this report. As shown
in this report, the overall condition score (2.8)
for the nation's coastal waters has improved since
1990, but continues to be rated fair. This report
also presents analysis of temporal changes in coastal
condition from 1990 to 2002 for the nation and
by region.
With each National Coastal Condition Report,
the collaborating agencies strive to provide a more
comprehensive picture of the nation's coastal
resources and to communicate these findings to
the informed public, coastal managers, scientists,
members of Congress, and other elected officials.
The NCCR III builds on the foundation provided
by the NCCR I and NCCR II, and efforts
are underway to assess even more areas using
comparable and consistent analysis methods. In
The NCCR III includes an assessment of Hawaii's estuaries
and coastal embayments (courtesy of ErgoSumSS).
addition to the areas previously assessed in the
NCCR II, this report provides condition data for
Hawaii and Southcentral Alaska. It should be noted
that the Great Lakes data provided in this report
are not directly comparable with the data provided
for other regions; however, general comparisons
of the Great Lakes condition ratings are provided.
Although a freshwater ecosystem, the Great Lakes
are included as a coastal resource because Congress
has stipulated that the Great Lakes be considered in
coastal legislation. Ongoing monitoring efforts in
Alaska, Hawaii, and the island commonwealths and
territories will support comprehensive assessments
of coastal condition in future installments of the
National Coastal Condition Report series.
The NCCR III presents three main types of
data: (1) coastal monitoring data, (2) offshore
fisheries data, and (3) assessment and advisory
data. The ratings of coastal condition in this
report are based primarily on coastal monitoring
data because these are the most comprehensive
and nationally consistent data available related to
coastal condition. One source of coastal monitoring
data is EPA's NCA, which provides information
on the condition of coastal waters for all regions
of the United States. The NCCR III uses NCA
National Coastal Condition Report
ES.3
-------
/e Summary
and other data to evaluate five indices of coastal
condition—water quality index, sediment quality
index, benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish
tissue contaminants index—in each region of the
United States (Northeast Coast, Southeast Coast,
Gulf Coast, West Coast, Great Lakes, Southcentral
Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico). The resulting
ratings for each index are then used to calculate
the overall condition ratings for the regions, as
well as index and overall condition ratings for
the nation. The NCCR III assessment applies to
30 coastal states (22 ocean states, 6 Great Lakes
states, and 2 ocean/Great Lakes states) and Puerto
Rico (Figure ES-1). Trends in the NCA data are
discussed at the end of this Executive Summary.
In addition to rating coastal condition based on
coastal monitoring data, the NCCR III summarizes
available information related to offshore fisheries,
fish consumption advisories, and beach advisories
and closures. Although not directly comparable, this
information, together with descriptions of individual
monitoring programs, paints a picture of the overall
condition of the nation's coastal resources.
Overall Condition
U.S. Coastal Waters
Good Fair Poor
Ecological Health
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Overall Condition
Southcentral Alaska
Overall
Condition .
West Coast
5
Poor|
Hg
Overall
Condition J L
Great LakesX 7
Good Fair Poor
r&TWH
Overall
Condition , — ,
Northeast J L
Coast \ 7
Good Fair Poor
Overall Condition
Southeast Coast
Overall i—i
Condition J L
Gulf Coast\/
Good Fair
Good Fair Poor
Overall Condition
Hawaii
* Surveys completed, but no
index data available until
the next report.
Fair Poor L^,
o
Overall
Condition
Puerto Rico
* Surveys completed, but an
index rating was unavailable.
Good Fair Poor
Figure ES-I. Overall national and regional coastal condition based on data collected primarily between 2001 and 2002
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
ES.4
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Summary of the Findings
This report is based on the large amount of
monitoring data collected primarily between
2001 and 2002 on the condition of the coastal
and Great Lakes resources of the United States.
Ecological assessment of these data shows that
the nation's coastal waters are rated fair for overall
condition. With respect to the coastal waters of
the geographic regions assessed in this report, the
Puerto Rico region is rated poor; the Northeast
Coast, Gulf Coast, and Great Lakes regions are
rated fair to poor; the Southeast Coast and West
Coast regions are rated fair; and the Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii regions are rated good. No
overall condition assessments were available
for Guam, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
The major findings of the 2001—2002 study
period are as follows:
• The overall condition of the nation's coastal
waters is rated fair (overall condition score of
2.8) and has improved only slightly since the
initial NCCRI in 2001. This rating is based
on the five indices of ecological condition
assessed in this report: water quality index,
sediment quality index, benthic index, coastal
habitat index, and fish tissue contaminants
index (Tables ES-1 and ES-2). This report also
assesses component indicators for the water
quality index (dissolved inorganic nitrogen
[DIN], dissolved inorganic phosphorus [DIP],
chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved
oxygen) and the sediment quality index
(sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants,
and sediment total organic carbon [TOC]).
The water quality index score for the nation
has improved substantially, and smaller
improvements in the sediment quality and
benthic index scores were noted. The fish
tissue contaminants and coastal habitat index
scores have shown little or no improvement.
The water quality index for the nation's coastal
waters is rated good to fair, with 57% of the
nation's coastal area rated good for water quality
condition, 34% rated fair, and 6% rated poor.
Eighteen percent of the NCA stations where
fish were caught were rated poor for the fish
tissue contaminants index, based on the EPA
Advisory Guidance values used to assess the
fish tissue contaminants index for this report.
The coastal habitat, sediment quality, and benthic
indices show the poorest conditions throughout
the coastal United States, whereas the dissolved
oxygen and DIN indicators are most often rated
in good condition throughout the nation.
Table ES-I . Rating Scoresa by Index and Re|
Northeast
Index Coast
Water Quality
Index
Sediment Quality
Index
Coastal Habitat
Index
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants
Index
Overall
Condition
3
2
4
1
'
2.2
Southeast
Coast
3
3
3
5
4
3.6
;ion
Gulf
Coast
3C
1
1
1
5
2.2
West
Coast
3
2
1
5
1
2.4
Great
Lakes
3
'
2
2
3
2.2
Southcentral
Alaska Hawaii
5 5
5 4
d d
d d
5 — d
5.0 4.5
Puerto United
Rico Statesb
3 3.9
1 2.8
-d 1.7
1 2.1
— d 3.4
1 .7 2.8
a Rating scores are based on a 5-point system, where a score of less than 2.0 is rated poor; 2.0 to less than 2.3 is rated fair to poor;
2.3 to 3.7 is rated fair; greater than 3.7 to 4.0 is rated good to fair; and greater than 4.0 is rated good.
bThe U.S. score is based on an areally weighted mean of regional scores and includes the scores for Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii.
cThis rating score does not include the impact of the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf Coast waters.
dThis index was not assessed for this region.
National Coastal Condition Report
ES.5
-------
/e Summary
Describing Coastal Condition
Three types of data are presented in this report:
• Coastal Monitoring Data—Coastal
monitoring data are obtained from programs
such as EPA's Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) and NCA,
NOAAs National Status & Trends (NS&T)
Program, and FWS's NWI, as well as Great
Lakes information from the State of the Lakes
Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC). These data are
used to rate indices and component indicators
of coastal condition for the geographic regions
assessed in this report and for the nation.
These index scores are then used to calculate
overall condition scores and ratings for the
regions and the nation. The rating criteria for
each index and component indicator in each
region are determined based on existing criteria,
guidelines, interviews with EPA decision
makers and other resource experts, and/or
the interpretation of scientific literature.
• Offshore Fisheries Data—These data are
obtained from programs such as NOAAs
Marine Monitoring and Assessment Program
and Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment
Program. These data are used in this report
to assess the condition of coastal fisheries
in large marine ecosystems (LMEs).
• Assessment and Advisory Data—These data
are provided by states or other regulatory
agencies and compiled in nationally maintained
databases. These data provide information about
designated-use support, which affects public
perception of coastal condition as it relates
to public health. The agencies contributing
these data use different methodologies
and criteria for assessment; therefore, the
data cannot be used to make broad-based
comparisons among the different coastal areas.
Table ES-2. Percent Area in Poor Condition11 by Index (except Coastal Habitat Index) and Region
Northeast
Index Coast
Water Quality
lndexb
Sediment Quality
lndexd
Coastal Habitat
Index6
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants
lndexf
13
13
—
27
31
Southeast
Coast
6
12
—
7
10
Gulf
Coast
I4C
18
—
45
8
West
Coast
3
14
—
5
26
Great Southcentral Puerto United
Lakes Alaska Hawaii Rico States
0 496
1 5 61 8
— — — — —
35 27
0 18
aThe percent area of poor condition is the percentage of total surface area of estuaries and coastal embayments in the region or
the nation (proportional area information not available for the Great Lakes or the coastal habitat index).
bThe water quality index is based on measurements of five component indicators: DIN, DIR chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved
oxygen.
cThe area of poor condition does not include the hypoxic zone in offshore Gulf Coast waters.
dThe sediment quality index is based on measurements of three component indicators: sediment toxicity sediment contaminants,
and sediment TOG.
eThe fish tissue contaminants index is presented as the percentage offish samples analyzed (Northeast Coast region) or
monitoring stations where fish were caught (all other regions) and is based on analyses of whole-fish samples (not fillets).
ES.6
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Coastal Monitoring Data
The overall condition of the nation's coastal
waters is rated fair (Figure ES-2), based on ratings
for the five indices of coastal condition assessed for
this report: water quality index, sediment quality
index, benthic index, coastal habitat index, and fish
tissue contaminants index. The national indices
were assigned a good, fair, or poor rating based on a
weighted average of the index scores for each coastal
region of the United States. An average of the
national index scores was used to determine an
overall condition score and rating for the nation.
Supplemental information on the water and
sediment quality component indicators (e.g., DIN,
DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity, dissolved oxygen,
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and
sediment TOC), when available, is also presented
throughout this report.
Overall Condition
U.S. Coastal Waters (2.8)
i>
Good Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3.9)
Sediment Quality Index (2.8)
Benthic Index (2.1)
Coastal Habitat Index (1.7)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (3.4)
Figure ES-2. The overall condition of U.S. coastal waters
is rated fair (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Quality Index—The sediment
quality index for the nation's coastal waters is
rated fair. The sediment quality index is rated
poor for the Gulf Coast, Great Lakes, and
Puerto Rico regions; fair to poor for the West
Coast and Northeast Coast regions; fair for the
Southeast Coast region; good to fair for Hawaii;
and good for Southcentral Alaska. Many areas
of the United States have significant sediment
degradation, including elevated concentrations
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides,
and metals. Most of these sediments with
elevated contaminant concentrations occur
in the coastal waters of the Northeast Coast
region and Puerto Rico. Sediment toxicity was
observed most frequently in the coastal waters
of the Gulf Coast and West Coast regions.
High concentrations of sediment TOC (often
associated with the deposition of human,
animal, and plant wastes) were observed in 44%
of Puerto Rico's coastal waters.
Benthic Index—The benthic index for the
nation's coastal waters is rated fair to poor.
Poor benthic condition is observed in Gulf
Coast, Northeast Coast, and Puerto Rico
coastal waters, largely due to degraded sediment
quality; however, in some cases, poor benthic
condition is associated with poor water quality
conditions, such as low dissolved oxygen and
elevated nutrient concentrations. Both the
Southeast Coast and West Coast regions are
rated good for benthic condition. Benthic index
data were unavailable for Southcentral Alaska or
Hawaii.
A summary of each index is presented below.
• Water Quality Index—The water quality index
for the nation's coastal waters is rated good to
fair. The percent of coastal area rated poor for
water quality ranged from 0 in Southcentral
Alaska to 14% in the Gulf Coast region. Most
water quality problems in U.S. coastal waters
are associated with degraded water clarity or
increased concentrations of DIP or chlorophyll
a. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations
occur in only 4% of the U.S. coastal area.
The NCA monitoring data used in this
assessment were based on single-day
measurements collected at sites
throughout the United States during a
9- to 12-week period in late summer.
Data were not collected during other time
periods.
National Coastal Condition Report
ES.7
-------
/e Summary
Coastal Habitat Index—The coastal habitat
index for the nation's coastal waters is rated
poor. Coastal wetland losses from 1780 to 2000
were greater than or equal to 1% per decade
in each region. The index is rated poor for the
coastal wetland areas of the West Coast and
Gulf of Mexico. It should be noted that the
coastal habitat scores and ratings for the NCCR
III are identical to those presented in the
NCCR II due to a lack of available new data.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index—The fish
tissue contaminants index for the nation's
coastal waters is rated fair, with 18% of the
stations where fish were caught rated poor
for this index. The fish tissue contaminants
index is rated good for the Gulf Coast and
Southcentral Alaska regions, good to fair for the
Southeast Coast region, fair for the Great Lakes
region, and poor for the Northeast Coast and
West Coast regions. Fish tissue contaminants
data were unavailable for the coastal waters of
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Florida, and Louisiana.
Offshore Fisheries Data
The NMFS fisheries data were categorized by
LME. LMEs are areas of ocean characterized by
distinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity,
and trophic relationships. LMEs extend from river
basins and estuaries to the seaward boundaries of
continental shelves and the outer margins of major
current systems. Within these waters, ocean pollu-
tion, fishery overexploitation, and coastal habitat
alteration are most likely to occur. Sixty-four LMEs
surround the continents and most large islands and
island chains worldwide and produce 95% of the
world's annual marine fishery yields; 10 of these
LMEs are found in waters adjacent to the contermi-
nous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico,
and U.S. island territories (Figure ES-3). Organizing
the NMFS fisheries data by LME allows readers to
more easily consider fishery and coastal condition
data together. These data are more comparable using
LMEs for several reasons. Geographically, LMEs
contain both the coastal waters assessed by NCA
and the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
Gulf of
Alaska
Insular Pacific-
Hawaiian
Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
Conterminous
United States
California
Current
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
Puerto US Virgin
Rico I lslands
Gulf of
Mexico
Relevant Large Marine Ecosystems
Associated U.S. land masses
Figure ES-3. U.S. states and island territories are bordered by 10 LMEs (NOAA, 2007;
ES.8
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
waters containing the fisheries assessed by NMFS. In
addition, the borders of the LMEs coincide roughly
with the borders of the NCA regions.
This report presents offshore fisheries data by
LME through 2004. The index period was limited
to 2004 because this timeframe is more consistent
with the coastal condition and advisory data
presented in this report. This temporal consistency
allows the reader to consider all three types of data
together to get a clearer "snapshot" of conditions in
U.S. coastal waters.
In 2004, NOAA's Office of Sustainable Fisheries
reported on the status of 688 marine fish and
shellfish stocks with respect to their overfished and
overfishing condition. According to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act of 1996, a fishery is considered overfished
if the stock size is below a minimum threshold,
and overfishing is occurring if a stock's fishing
mortality rate (rate of deaths due to fishing) is
above a maximum level. These thresholds and levels
are associated with maximum sustainable yield-
based reference points and vary between individual
stocks, stock complexes, and species offish. Of
the 200 fish stocks whose status with respect to
overfished condition is known, 144 (72%) were not
overfished and 56 (28%) stocks or stock complexes
were overfished. The overfishing status of 236
stocks is known, of which 44 (19%) stocks or stock
complexes have a fishing mortality rate that exceeds
the overfishing threshold. The NMFS has approved
rebuilding plans for the majority of overfished
stocks. Five fishery management plan (FMP)
amendments were approved in 2004 to implement
final rebuilding plans for 23 stocks in the Northeast
U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf, Gulf of Alaska, and East Bering Sea LMEs.
The number of stocks considered to be overfished
has decreased from 92 in 2000 and 81 in 2001
to 56 in 2004. Some of the stocks whose status
has changed are located in the Gulf of Alaska,
California Current, Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf, and Gulf of Mexico LMEs. The Pacific
whiting (a demersal or bottom-dwelling fish)
stock of the Gulf of Alaska and California Current
LMEs has been fully rebuilt, and overfishing is
no longer occurring. Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME black sea bass stock is also no longer
National Coastal Condition Report III
overfished. Three more stocks—lingcod, Pacific
ocean perch (Gulf of Alaska and California Current
LMEs), and king mackerel (Gulf of Mexico
LME)—have increased in abundance to the point
that they also are no longer overfished. Rebuilding
measures for all these stocks will continue until
each stock has been fully rebuilt to a level that
provides the maximum sustainable yield.
Assessment and Advisory Data
States report water quality assessment
information and water quality impairments under
Section 305 (b) of the CWA States and tribes rate
water quality by comparing measured values to their
state and tribal water quality standards. The 305(b)
assessment ratings (submitted by the states in 2002)
are stored in EPA's National Assessment Database
(NAD). These data are useful for evaluating the
success of state water quality improvement efforts;
however, it should be emphasized that each state
monitors water quality parameters differently, so
it is difficult to make generalized statements about
the condition of the nation's coasts based on these
data alone. Because the reporting of 2002 305(b)
information was not complete for all coastal states
and territories, it was decided that this information
would not be summarized for inclusion in the
NCCR III. In addition, 305(b) data are reported
on a 2-year cycle, and there are no results for 2003-
Therefore, only data from the EPA's National
Listing of Fish Advisories (NLFA) database and
the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure,
and Health Program (BEACH) PRogram
tracking, Beach Advisories, Water quality
standards, and Nutrients (PRAWN) database are
presented for calendar year 2003 in this report.
Flower Garden Banks is a National Marine Sanctuary (NMS)
located in the Gulf of Mexico LME (courtesy of NOAA and
the University of North Carolina at Wilmington).
ES.9
-------
/e Summary
According to the EPA's NLFA data for 2003,
the number of coastal and estuarine waters under
fish consumption advisories represent an estimated
77% of the coastal waters of the conterminous
United States, including 81% of the coastal
shoreline miles and 56% of the estuarine area along
the Northeast Coast; 100% of the shoreline miles
along the Southeast Coast; 100% of the shoreline
miles and 23% of the estuarine area along the Gulf
Coast; and 10% of the shoreline miles and 31%
of the estuarine area along the West Coast (Figure
ES-4). Every Great Lake is under at least one fish
consumption advisory, and advisories cover 100%
of the Great Lakes shoreline. Although advisories
in U.S. estuarine and shoreline waters have
been issued for a total of 23 individual chemical
contaminants, most of the advisories issued resulted
from four primary contaminants: PCBs; mercury;
DDT and its degradation products, DDE and
DDD; and dioxins and furans. These four chemical
contaminants were responsible, at least in part, for
92% of all fish consumption advisories in effect
for estuarine and coastal marine waters in 2003-
These data are provided by states or other regulatory
agencies and compiled in nationally maintained
databases. The agencies contributing these data use
different methodologies and criteria for assessment;
therefore, the data cannot be used to make broad-
based comparisons among the different coastal areas.
For the 2003 swimming season, EPA gathered
information on 4,080 beaches monitored nationwide
(both inland and coastal) through the use of a
survey. The survey respondents were state and local
government agencies from coastal counties, cities, or
towns bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico,
Pacific Ocean, and the Great Lakes, and included
agencies in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
I I No advisories
America Samoa
Alaska
I I 2-4
I I 5-9
I I Noncoastal cataloging unit
Puerto Rico
Figure ES-4. The number of fish consumption advisories active in 2003 for U.S. coastal waters (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
ES.IO
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
A few of these respondents were regional (multiple-
county) districts. These respondents report the results
of their local monitoring programs; therefore, the
monitoring methods and closure criteria may vary
between respondents. EPA's review of coastal beaches
(U.S. coastal areas, estuaries, the Great Lakes, and
the coastal areas of Hawaii and the U.S. territories)
showed that, of the 4,080 beaches reported in the
survey responses, 4,070 were marine or Great Lakes
beaches. Of the coastal beaches monitored and
reported, 839 (or 20.5%) had an advisory or closing
in effect at least once during the 2003 swimming
season (Figure ES-5). Beach advisories or closings
were issued for a number of different reasons,
including elevated bacterial levels in the water,
preemptive reasons associated with rainfall events or
sewage spills, and other reasons. Some of the major
causes of public notifications for beach advisories
and closures were stormwater runoff, wildlife, sewer
line problems, and in many cases, unknown sources.
Beach advisories and closures are issued to protect
people against contact with water potentially
contaminated with pathogens (courtesy of Andrew D.
Stahl).
North Mariana
Islands
America Samoa U.S.Virgin Islands
Percentage of Beaches
with Advisories/Closures
I I None
I I 0.01-10.49
I I 10.50-50.49
I I 50.50-100.00
I I Not reported
Puerto Rico
Figure ES-5. Percentages of beaches with advisories/closures by coastal state in 2003. Percentages are based on the
number of beaches in each state that were reported, not the total number of beaches (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
National Coastal Condition Report
ES.I
-------
/e bummary
Limitations of Available Data
This report focuses on coastal regions for which
nationally consistent and comparable data are
available. Such data are currently available for
the conterminous 48 states, Southcentral Alaska,
Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Nearly 75% by area of
all the coastal waters, including the bays, sounds,
and estuaries in the United States, is located in
Alaska, and no national report on coastal condition
can be truly complete without information on the
condition of living resources and use attainment
of these waters. For this report, coastal monitoring
data were only available for the southcentral
region of Alaska. Other Alaskan regions will be
assessed in future installments of the National
Coastal Condition Report series. Coastal monitoring
information has not been available for the U.S.
Virgin Islands or the Pacific territories to support
estimates of condition based on the indices used
in this report. Although these latter systems make
up only a small portion of the nation's coastal
waters, they represent a set of estuarine subsystems
(such as coral reefs and tropical bays) that are not
located anywhere else in the United States, with
the exception of the Florida Keys and the Flower
Gardens off the Louisiana/Texas coast. These unique
systems were surveyed in 2004 and will be included
in future national coastal condition assessments.
This report makes the best use of available
data to characterize and assess the condition
of the nation's coastal resources; however, the
report cannot represent all individual coastal and
estuarine systems of the United States or all of the
appropriate spatial scales (e.g., national, regional,
and local) necessary to assess coastal condition.
This assessment is based on a limited number of
ecological indices and component indicators for
which consistent data sets are available to support
estimates of ecological condition on regional
and national scales. Through a multi-agency and
multi-state effort over the continuing decade, a
truly consistent, comprehensive, and integrated
national coastal monitoring program can be
realized. Only through the cooperative interaction
of the key federal agencies and coastal states will
the next effort to gauge the health of the coastal
ecosystems in the United States be successful.
Although most of the chapters in this
report use ecological indicators to address the
condition of coastal resources in each region,
Chapter 9 addresses coastal condition in the
context of how well coastal waters are meeting
expectations for human use. Only one coastal
waterbody, Narragansett Bay in Rhode Island
and Massachusetts, was evaluated for human use
expectations in this report. In the case of this
estuary, it appears that human uses are being met;
however, as with most other coastal waterbodies,
there are limitations on some uses, such as public
access to beaches, long-term changes in commercial
fishing stocks, and fish consumption advisories.
Boating is one of the many ways people use
Narragansett Bay (courtesy of Chris Deacutis).
Comparisons to Other National
Coastal Condition Reports
A primary goal of the National Coastal Condition
Report series is to provide a benchmark of coastal
condition to measure the success of coastal programs
over time. To achieve this end, the conditions
reported in each report need to be comparable.
For the first two reports (NCCRI and NCCRII),
there was insufficient information to examine the
potential trends in coastal condition that might be
related to changes in environmental programs and
policies. In the NCCR III, the information from
1990 through 2002 is evaluated for potential trends.
ES.I2
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Comparing data between the NCCR I, NCCR
II, and NCCR III is complicated because, in some
cases, indices and component indicators were
changed to improve the assessment. For example,
in the NCCR I, three separate indicators (dissolved
oxygen, water clarity, and eutrophication) were used
for water quality, whereas a single water quality
index (composed of five component indicators)
was used in the NCCR II. In addition, reference
conditions for some of the indices and component
indicators were modified to reflect regional
differences. In order to facilitate a comparison
between the NCCR I and NCCR II, the values
reported in the NCCR I Executive Summary
were recalculated, to the extent possible, using the
approaches followed in the NCCR II and NCCR
III (Table ES-3). For additional information about
how these values were recalculated, please refer to
Appendix C of the NCCR II, which is available
online at http//www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2.
Table ES-3. Rating Scores by lndexa and Region Comparing the NCCR 1, NCCR II, and NCCR lllb
Region
Gulf Coast
Southeast
Coast
Northeast
Coast
Southcentral
Alaska
Hawaii
West Coastc
Great Lakesc
Puerto Ricoc
United States6
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3f
v3g
Water Quality
1
3
3
4
4
3
1
2
3
—
-
5
_
-
5
1
3
3
1
3
3
—
3
3
1.5
3.2
3.3
3.9
Index
Sediment
Quality Coastal Habitat
3 1
3 1
1 1
4 2
4 3
3 3
2 3
1 4
2 4
— —
- -
5
_ —
-
4
2 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
— —
1
1
2.3 1.6
2. 1 1 .7
1.6 1.7
2.8 1.7
Benthic
1
2
1
3
3
5
1
1
1
—
-
-
_
-
-
3
3
5
1
2
2
—
1
1
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.1
Fish Tissue
Contaminants
3
3
5
5
5
4
2
1
1
—
-
5
_
-
-
3
1
1
3
3
3
—
-
-
3.1
2.7
2.9
3.4
Overall
Condition
1.8
2.4
2.2
3.6
3.8
3.6
1.8
1.8
2.2
_
-
S.0d
_
-
4.5d
2.0
2.0
2.4
1.4
2.2
2.2
_
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.8
^ Rating scores are based on a 5-point system, where a score of less than 2.0 is rated poor; 2.0 to less than 2.3 is rated fair to poor; greater than
2.3 to 3.7 is rated fair; greater than 3.7 to 4.0 is rated good to fair; and greater than 4.0 is rated good.
b AK and HI were not reported in the NCCR I or NCCR II. The NCCR I assessment of the Northeast Coast region did not include the Acadian
Province. The West Coast ratings in the NCCR I were complied using data from many different programs.
:West Coast, Great Lakes, and Puerto Rico scores for the NCCR III are the same as NCCR II (no new data forthe NCCR III except for the West
Coast benthic index).
d Overall condition scores for Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii were based on 2-3 of the 5 NCA indices.
° U.S. score is based on an areally weighted mean of regional scores.
f U.S. score excluding Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii.
8 U.S. score including Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii.
vl = NCCR (adjusted scores from Table C-l in NCCR II); v2 = NCCR II; v3 = NCCR III
National Coastal Condition Report
ES.I3
-------
/e bummary
Comparison of the overall condition scores
presented in each report shows that the overall
condition of U.S. coastal waters has improved
slightly since the 1990s. Although the overall
condition of U.S. coastal waters is rated fair to
poor or fair in all three reports, the score increased
from 2.0 in the NCCRI to 2.3 in the NCCRII
and NCCR III (without Southcentral Alaska and
Hawaii). With the addition of data for Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii, the score increased from 2.3 to
2.8 in the NCCR III. It should be noted that the
overall condition scores for Southcentral Alaska
and Hawaii are based on only 2 or 3 of the 5
NCA indices because data were not available for
all indices (see Chapter 8 for more information).
The water quality index score for U.S. coastal
waters has improved substantially since the NCCR
I, and smaller improvements in the sediment
quality and benthic index scores were also noted
during this time. The fish tissue contaminants and
coastal habitat index scores have shown little or no
improvement since the NCCR I. A more detailed
comparison of the assessment results from the
three reports appears in Chapter 2 of this report.
Future Efforts
NCA is continuing efforts to assess more U.S.
coastal waters using common methods. The
southeastern region of Alaska was surveyed in 2004,
and assessment of the vast Aleutian Islands region
of Alaska began in the summer of 2006, with field
work completed in the summer of 2007- Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American
Samoa were assessed in 2004—2005, and Hawaii was
resurveyed in 2006. These results will be presented
in the National Coastal Condition Report IV (NCCR
IV). New ecological monitoring programs will
permit a comprehensive and consistent assessment
of all of the nation's coastal resources by 2008.
Icy Bay is located in the southeastern region of Alaska and was assessed forthe NCA in 2004. The results of
this assessment will be presented in the NCCR IV (courtesy of Captain Budd Christman, NOAA).
ES.I4
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER I
=^—
Introduction
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Introduction
The National Coastal Condition Report series
assesses the condition of the estuarine, Great Lakes,
and coastal embayment waters (collectively referred
to as "coastal waters" in this report) and offshore
fisheries of the United States. The first National
Coastal Condition Report (NCCR I; U.S. EPA,
200 Ic) assessed the condition of the nation's coasts
using data collected from 1990 to 1996 that were
provided by several existing coastal programs,
including the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (FWS's) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI), and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National
Status & Trends (NS&T) Program. The second
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR II;
U.S. EPA, 2004a) provided information similar
to the information covered in the NCCR I,
but contained more recent (1997—2000) data
from these monitoring programs, as well as
data from EPA's National Coastal Assessment
(NCA) and NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). The data provided by the NCA
allowed for the development of coastal condition
indicators for 100% of the coastal area of the
conterminous 48 states and Puerto Rico.
This third National Coastal Condition Report
(NCCR III) is a collaborative effort among EPA,
NOAA, FWS, and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), in cooperation with other agencies
representing states and tribes. The NCCR III
continues the National Coastal Condition Report
series by providing updated regional and national
assessments of the condition of the nation's coastal
waters, including the coastal waters of Hawaii and
the southcentral portion of Alaska (henceforth
referred to as Southcentral Alaska), based primarily
on NCA data collected in 2001 and 2002. No new
information was available for the regions of Puerto
Rico or the Great Lakes; therefore, the chapters
covering these regions represent summaries of
the assessments presented in the NCCR II. The
assessment of offshore fisheries provided in this
report is based on long-term data collected since
monitoring of the individual fisheries began. In
addition, this report examines national and regional
(Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf coasts) trends in
coastal condition from the early 1990s to 2002.
NCA surveys of the nation's coastal waters have
been conducted annually from 2000 to 2006. The
results of surveys conducted after 2002 will be
available in 2008 and will be presented in the fourth
National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR IV) in
2011.
Purpose of This Report
The purpose of the NCCR III is to present a
broad baseline picture of coastal condition for
coastal waters across the United States for 2001
and 2002 and, where available, snapshots of the
condition of fisheries in offshore waters. This report
is written for the informed public, coastal managers,
scientists, members of Congress, and other elected
officials. English units are used in most of the
report because these units are most familiar and best
understood by the target audience in the United
States. The NCCR III uses currently available data
sets to discuss the condition of the nation's coastal
waters and is not intended to be a comprehensive
literature review of coastal information. Instead,
this report uses NCA and other monitoring data
on a variety of indicators to provide insight into
current coastal condition. The NCCR III also
examines national and regional trends in coastal
condition from the early 1990s to 2002. The
NCCR III will serve as a continuing benchmark
for providing data to analyze the progress of coastal
programs and will be followed in subsequent
years by reports on more specialized coastal issues.
This report will also serve as a reminder of the
data gaps and other pitfalls that natural resource
managers face and must try to overcome to make
reliable assessments of how the condition of the
nation's coastal resources may change with time.
In addition to the regional assessments provided
in this report, the NCCR III includes special
Highlight articles that describe several exemplary
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
programs related to coastal condition at the federal,
state, and local levels. The Highlight articles are
intended to enhance the discussion of coastal
condition as it is presented in the main body of the
report text. These articles offer insight into other
methods or indicators used to measure and assess
coastal condition, programs used to improve coastal
condition, and government programs developed in
response to the coastal condition findings (including
identified data limitations and areas found to be
in poor condition). The Highlight articles are
not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive
summaries of all coastal programs, but are presented
to show that information about the health of coastal
systems is being collected for decision making at
the local, state, regional, and national levels.
The final chapter of this report (Chapter 9)
explores the connections between the condition
indicators and human uses of coastal areas.
Although the type of assessment described in
Chapter 9 cannot be conducted on scales larger
than a single estuary, it is important to address
coastal condition at several spatial scales (e.g.,
national, regional, state, and local). Chapter 9 also
complements the national/regional approach by
combining the site-specific information for a single
estuary, Narragansett Bay, with the NCA results
for this estuary to evaluate coastal condition.
Why Are Coastal Waters
Important?
Coastal Waters Are Valuable and
Productive Natural Ecosystems
Coastal waters include estuaries, coastal wetlands,
seagrass meadows, coral reefs, intertidal zones,
mangrove and kelp forests, and coastal ocean and
upwelling areas. Critical coastal habitats provide
spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and food
for finfish, shellfish, birds, and other wildlife. The
coasts also provide essential nesting, resting, feeding,
and breeding habitat for 75% of U.S. waterfowl
and other migratory birds (U.S. EPA, 1998b).
Estuaries are bodies of water that receive fresh-
water and sediment influx from rivers and tidal
influx from the oceans, thus providing transition
zones between the fresh water of a river and the
saline environment of the sea. This interaction
produces a unique environment that supports
wildlife and fisheries and contributes substantially to
the economy of coastal areas. Estuaries also supply
water for industrial uses; lose water to freshwater
diversions for drinking and irrigation; are the critical
terminals of the nation's marine transportation
system and the U.S. Navy; provide a point of
discharge for municipalities and industries; and
are the downstream recipient of nonpoint-source
runoff.
Coastal wetlands are the interface between the
aquatic and terrestrial components of estuarine
systems. Wetland habitats are critical to the life
cycles offish, shellfish, migratory birds, and other
wildlife and help improve surface water quality
by filtering residential, agricultural, and industrial
wastes. Wetlands also buffer coastal areas against
storm and wave damage; however, because of
their close interface with terrestrial systems,
wetlands are vulnerable to land-based sources of
pollutant discharges and other human activities.
Rocky intertidal zones provide habitat for a variety of
species, including these sea stars in Kachemak Bay, AK
(courtesy of NOAA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Coastal Waters Have Many Human
Uses
Coastal areas are the most developed areas in the
United States. This narrow fringe of land—only 17%
of the total conterminous U.S. land area—is home to
more than 53% of the nation's population (Figure 1-
1). The total coastal population between the years
1980 and 2003 increased by 33 million people
(28%), which is roughly consistent with the nation's
rate of increase; however, continued population
growth in this limited coastal land area results in
increased population density and pressure on coastal
resources. The majority of the nation's most densely
populated areas are located along the coast. In fact,
23 of the 25 most densely populated U.S. counties
are coastal counties. The population density of
U.S. coastal counties averages 300 persons/square
mile (mi2), much higher than the national average of
98 persons/mi2 (Crossett et al., 2004).
In addition to being a popular place to live,
the nation's coasts are of great recreational value.
Beaches have become one of the most popular
vacation destinations in the United States, with
180 million people visiting the nation's coasts each
year (Cunningham and Walker, 1996). From 1999
to 2000, more than 43% of the U.S. population
participated in marine recreational activities,
including sport fishing, boating, swimming, and
diving (Leeworthy and Wiley, 2001).
Human use of coastal areas also provides
commercial services for the nation. The 425 U.S.
coastal counties generate $1.3 trillion of the gross
national product (GNP), and coastal and marine
waters support more than 28 million jobs
(Leeworthy, 2000; U.S. Senate, 2003). The annual
landings total of U.S. commercial fisheries was
5 million metric tons (t) from 2001 through 2003,
approximately 4.1% of the world's annual landings
(NMFS, 2002; 2003; 2004). Roughly 35% of the
nation's commercial landings are taken within
3 miles of shore (NMFS, 2004).
Why Be Concerned about
Coastal Condition?
Because a disproportionate percentage of the
nation's population reside in coastal areas, the
activities of municipalities, commerce, industry,
Figure I -1. Population distribution in the United States based on 2000 U.S. Census Bureau data (U.S. Census Bureau,
2001).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
and tourism have created environmental pressures
that threaten the very resources that make coastal
living desirable. Population pressures include
increased solid waste production; higher volumes
of urban nonpoint-source runoff; loss of green
space and wildlife habitat; declines in ambient
water and sediment quality; and increased demands
for wastewater treatment, irrigation and potable
water, and energy supplies. 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, and the quantity and timing of
freshwater flow, which is critical to riverine and
estuarine function, continue to be altered. In
effect, the same human uses that are desired of
coastal habitats also have the potential to lessen
their value. This report not only discusses the
indicators of coastal condition that gauge the
extent to which coastal habitats and resources have
been altered, but it also addresses connections
between coastal condition and the ability of coastal
areas to meet human expectations for their use.
Assessment of Coastal
Condition
Three sources of coastal information use
nationally consistent data-collection designs
and methods—EPA's NCA, NOAA's NS&T
Program, and FWS's NWI. The NCA collects
data from all coastal areas in the United States,
except the Great Lakes region, and these data are
representative of all coastal waters. The NS&T
Program collects data from all coastal regions in
the United States; however, the design of this
survey does not permit extrapolation of the data
to represent all coastal waters. The NWI provides
estimates of wetland acreage (including coastal
wetlands) by wetland type based on satellite
reconnaissance of all U.S. states and territories.
This report examines several available data sets
from different agencies and areas of the country and
summarizes them to present a broad baseline picture
of the condition of the nation's coastal waters.
Three types of data are presented in this report:
• Coastal monitoring data from programs
such as EPA's EMAP and NCA, NOAA's
NS&T Program, and FWS's NWI, along
with data from the Great Lakes National
Program Office (GLNPO), have been
analyzed for this report and were used to
develop indices of coastal condition
• Fisheries data for Large Marine Ecosystems
(LMEs) from NOAA's NMFS
• Assessment and advisory data provided
by states or other regulatory agencies and
compiled in national EPA databases.
This report presents available coastal monitoring
information on a national scale for the 50 states
and Puerto Rico; these data are then broken down
and analyzed by geographic region in six chapters:
Northeast Coast; Southeast Coast; Gulf Coast; West
Why Doesn't This Assessment Use More of the Available Data Sets?
Many other sets of monitoring data are available for estuarine and coastal areas around the United
States; however, these data sets were not included in this report for several reasons. Most of these
data sets were not collected using a probabilistic sampling design and, therefore, are not representative
of the entire region covered by the sampling program. For example, the locations of the monitoring
stations used to collect the data may have been selected to meet specific program goals, such as
monitoring water quality near wastewater-discharge points. Also, these monitoring programs are
conducted by different agencies or organizations and use various methods for data collection, analysis,
and evaluation. The parameters and time frames monitored may also vary between monitoring
programs. These types of monitoring programs often provide long-term data suitable for assessing
program goals or coastal condition in the areas targeted by these efforts; however, it would be difficult
to compare these data sets on a regional or national basis to assess coastal condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Coast; Great Lakes; and Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Island Territories. In most cases, these geographic
regions roughly coincide with the borders of the
10 LMEs surrounding U.S. states and island
territories (Figure 1-2, Table 1-1). Assessment and
advisory data for the regions are presented at the
end of each chapter. Although inconsistencies
in the way different state agencies collect and
provide assessment and advisory data prevent
the use of these data for comparing conditions
between coastal areas, the information is valuable
because it helps identify and illuminate some of
the causes of coastal impairment, as well as the
impacts of these impairments on human uses.
Table I -1. Comparison of NCA's Reporting
Regions and NOAA's LMEs
NCA Reporting
Regions
NOAA LMEs
Northeast Coast
Southeast
Coast
Gulf Coast
West Coast
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME
Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME
Gulf of Mexico LME
California Current LME
East Bering Sea LME, Gulf of
Alaska LME, Chukchi Sea LME,
Beaufort Sea LME
Insular Pacific-Hawaii LME
Caribbean Sea LME
Great Lakes
Coastal Area
West
Coastal
Area
and LME
Gulf Coastal Area
and LME
Northeast
Coastal Area
and LME
Southeast
Coastal Area
and LME
Hawaii
Coastal Area
and LME
Alaska Coastal
Area and LME
(southcentral area
shown in red)
Puetro Rico Coastal Area
and LME
Figure 1-2. Coastal and Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) areas presented in the chapters of this report (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
NCA Provides a "Snapshot" of
Conditions in U.S. Coastal Waters
NCA uses a probabilistic sampling design
to designate sampling-station locations and
collects a single sample from each station
on a single day in the summer of each year
when sampling occurs. These samples are
collected and analyzed in a consistent
manner to create areal estimates of
condition with a known level of
uncertainty (see Appendix A), and the
results can be compared across the United
States to create a "snapshot" of coastal
condition (U.S. EPA, 2001 b).
Coastal Monitoring Data
A large percentage of the data used in this
assessment of coastal condition comes from
programs administered by EPA and NOAA.
EPA's NCA provides representative data on biota
(e.g., plankton, benthos, and fish) and potential
environmental stressors (e.g., water quality,
sediment quality, and tissue bioaccumulation)
for all coastal states (except states in the Great
Lakes region) and Puerto Rico (Diaz-Ramos et al.,
1996; Summers et al., 1995; Olsen et al., 1999;
U.S. EPA, 2007b). The NCA data are stored in
the EMAP National Coastal Database, available
online at http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/data/
index.html. NOAA's NS&T Program provides
site-specific data on toxic contaminants and their
ecological effects for all coastal regions and Puerto
Rico. Coastal condition is also evaluated using
data from the NWI, which provides information
on the status of the nation's wetlands acreage.
Five primary indices of environmental condition
were created using data available from these national
coastal programs: a water quality index, sediment
quality index, benthic index, coastal habitat index,
and fish tissue contaminants index. The five
indices were selected because of the availability of
relatively consistent data sets for these parameters
for most of the country. The indices do not address
all of the coastal characteristics that are valued
by society, but they do provide information on
both the ecological condition and human use
of coastal waters. Component indicators for the
water quality index (dissolved inorganic nitrogen
[DIN], dissolved inorganic phosphorus [DIP],
chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen)
and the sediment quality index (sediment toxicity,
sediment contaminants, and sediment total organic
carbon [TOC]) are also assessed in this report.
Characterizing coastal areas using each of the
five indices involves two steps. The first step is
to assess condition at an individual monitoring
site for each index and component indicator. The
site condition rating criteria for each index and
component indicator in each region are determined
based on existing criteria, guidelines, interviews
with EPA decision makers, feedback from state and
local decision makers, and/or the interpretation
of scientific literature. For example, dissolved
oxygen conditions (a component indicator of the
water quality index) are considered poor if the
dissolved oxygen concentration measured at a site
is less than 2 mg/L. This value is widely accepted
as representative of hypoxic (low dissolved oxygen)
conditions; therefore, this benchmark for poor
condition is strongly supported by scientific
evidence (Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995; U.S. EPA,
2000a). See Appendix A for additional information
on how the rating criteria were determined.
The second step is to assign a regional index
rating based on the condition of the monitoring
sites within the region. For example, for a region to
be rated poor for the dissolved oxygen component
indicator, sampling sites representing more than
15% of the coastal area in the region must have
measured dissolved oxygen concentrations less
than 2 mg/L and be rated poor. The regional
criteria boundaries (i.e., percentages used to rate
each index of coastal condition) were determined
as a median of responses provided through a
survey of environmental managers, resource
experts, and the knowledgeable public. The
following sections provide detailed descriptions
of each index and component indicator, as well
as the criteria for determining the regional ratings
for the five indices as good, fair, or poor.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Highlight
U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System
Today, many changes that profoundly affect our society are
occurring in the oceans—from sea-level rise, hurricanes, and coastal
flooding to the occurrence of harmful algal blooms (HABs), fish kills,
declining fisheries, and environmental pollution. To address these
problems, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the National
Ocean Research Leadership Council, and the U.S. Ocean Action
Plan (CEQ, 2004) have identified the development of the U.S.
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) as a high priority. The
IOOS will significantly improve the nation's ability to achieve the
following goals:
• Improve predictions of weather and climate change and their
effects on coastal communities and the nation
IOOS
1% rn.ii vi! m* us iwstitt iv, viMt.u
Data are collected at IOOS observation stations and transferred to the data management and
communications subsystem (courtesy of Ocean.US).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
• Improve the safety and efficiency
of maritime operations
• More effectively mitigate the
effects of natural hazards
• Improve national and homeland security
• Reduce public health risks
• More effectively protect and restore
healthy coastal ecosystems
• Enable the sustained use of ocean
and coastal resources.
The IOOS will be a complex system that
integrates several subsystems to meet these goals.
These subsystems include observation, data
management and communications (DMAC), and
data modeling and analysis (Ocean.US, 2006). The
IOOS observation subsystem will be a sustained
network of buoys, satellites, ships, underwater
vehicles, and other observation platforms that will
routinely collect the data and information needed
for rapid and timely detection of changes in our
nation's estuaries, coastal waters, open ocean, and
Great Lakes (Nowlin, 2001; Ocean.US, 2002). The
DMAC subsystem will be composed of data systems,
regional data centers, and archive centers that are connected by the Internet and use shared standards
and protocols. The DMAC will integrate the coastal and global ocean components of the observation
subsystem and serve as a link between the observation subsystem and the end users (Ocean.US,
2005a; 2005b). The data modeling and analysis subsystem will use real-time and historical data from
the DMAC to evaluate and forecast the state of the marine environment (Ocean.US, 2005a).
The IOOS will be part of several larger systems that are used to assess the state of the environment
worldwide. The IOOS is the U.S. contribution to the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS)
and will also serve as the estuarine-marine-Great Lakes component of the U.S. Integrated Earth
Observation System (IEOS). IEOS includes ocean, terrestrial, atmospheric, and other observation
systems and is the U.S. contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
The IOOS is a key contribution toward attaining the benefits of the GOOS, IEOS, and GEOSS.
The IOOS is currently under development. Under the oversight of the federal Interagency
Working Group on Ocean Observations (IWGOO), the Ocean.US national office has generated and
will continue to create various plans and documents for the development and implementation of the
IOOS (Ocean.US, 2005a; 2006). Additional assistance is also being provided by the 11 U.S. IOOS
Regional Associations that comprise the National Federation of Regional Associations (NFRA).
Additional information about the IOOS, NFRA, and the Regional Associations' Regional Coastal
Ocean Observing Systems may be found at Ocean.US's Web site at
http://www.ocean.us or by contacting Brian Melzian (EPA/IWGOO) at melzian.brian@epa.gov.
Buoys are one type of observation platform
used by IOOS (courtesy of Adrian Jones, IAN
Network).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Limitations of Available Data
Coastal surveys of Southcentral Alaska and
Hawaii were completed in 2002, and assessments
of these coastal waters are included in this report.
These probabilistic surveys represented 20% of the
Alaska's coastline and 100% of Hawaii's coastline
(Sharma, 1979); however, NCA was unable to
evaluate the benthic and coastal habitat indices for
Southcentral Alaska and the benthic, coastal habitat,
and fish tissue contaminants indices for Hawaii.
Coastal condition in Alaska is difficult to assess
because very little information is available for most
of the state to support the type of analysis used in
this report (i.e., spatial estimates of condition based
on the indices and component indicators measured
consistently across broad regions). Nearly 75% of
the area of all the bays, sounds, and estuaries in the
United States is located in Alaska, and no national
report on coastal condition can be complete without
information on the condition of the living resources
and ecological health of these waters. Similarly,
information to support estimates of condition
based on the indices and component indicators
used in this report is limited for Hawaii, the Pacific
island territories (American Samoa, Northern
Mariana Islands, and Guam), and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Although these latter systems make up
only a small portion of the nation's coastal area,
they represent a unique set of coastal subsystems
(such as coral reefs and tropical bays) that are not
located anywhere else in the United States, except
for the Florida Keys and the Flower Gardens off
the Texas/Louisiana coast. A survey of Puerto Rico's
coastal condition was completed in 2000 and
reported in the NCCRII. No new information has
been collected for Puerto Rico since the NCCR
II was published; therefore, a summary of that
report's assessment is included in this NCCR III.
In order to attain consistent reporting for all
the coastal ecosystems of the United States, fiscal
and intellectual resources need to be invested
in the creation of a national coastal monitoring
program. The conceptual framework for such
a program is outlined in the National Coastal
Research and Monitoring Strategy (http://www.
epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/H2Ofin.pdf), which
calls for a national program that is organized at
the state level and carried out by a partnership
between federal departments and agencies (e.g.,
EPA, NOAA, the U.S. Department of the
Interior [DOI], and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture [USDA]), state natural resource and
environmental agencies, academia, and industry.
Such a monitoring program would provide the
capability to measure, understand, analyze, and
forecast ecological change at national, regional,
and local scales. A first step in the development
of this type of program was the initiation of EPA's
NCA, a national coastal monitoring program
organized and executed at the state level; however,
the NCA is merely a starting point for developing
a comprehensive national coastal monitoring
program that can offer a coastal assessment of
the entire nation at all appropriate spatial scales.
The developers of the assessment continue to
incorporate the new research findings and work
with decision makers and coastal experts to improve
the assessment methods and criteria. The NCA
currently supports rigorous quality assurance (QA)
and training programs for state, federal, and other
partners collecting and analyzing the data to ensure
consistency in the collection and analytical methods
and to minimize discrepancies and other sources
of error (see Appendix A). The NCA is designed
to minimize spatial variability in national and
regional estimates of coastal condition; however, the
sampling index period does not address temporal
Bamboo coral provides refuge, settlement substrate, and
feeding perches for crabs and larval fish on seamounts, such
as this one in the Gulf of Alaska LME (courtesy of NOAA).
10
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
variability. One approach for examining coastal
data at a more local spatial scale (an individual
estuarine system) is presented in the assessment
of Narragansett Bay provided in Chapter 9-
Indices Used to Measure
Coastal Condition
Water Quality Index
The water quality index is based on measure-
ments of five component indicators: DIN, DIP,
chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen.
Some nutrient inputs to coastal waters (such as DIN
and DIP) are necessary for a healthy, functioning
estuarine ecosystem; however, when nutrients from
various sources, such as sewage and fertilizers, are
introduced into an estuary, their concentrations
can increase above natural background levels. This
£?•
• i-
$
thrives on nutrients
Dissolved Oxygen
trapped in the upper,
lower-salinity layer
material
settles
Decomposition
I
Dissolved Oxygen used up
by microorganism respiration
Dissolved Oxygen
from wave action
and photosynthesis
Lower-density
surface water
Higher-density
bottom water
Nutrients
_re|eased by bottom sediments
Dissolved Oxygen consumed
Fish will avoid
hypoxia if possible
to escape
hypoxia
Decomposition of organic
matter in sediments
Figure 1-3. Eutrophication can occur when the
concentration of available nutrients increases above
normal levels (U.S. EPA/NCA).
increase in the rate of supply of organic matter is
called eutrophication and may result in a host of
undesirable water quality conditions (Figure 1-3),
including excess plant production (phytoplankton
or algae) and increased chlorophyll a concentrations,
which can decrease water clarity and lower concen-
trations of dissolved oxygen.
The water quality index used in this report is
intended to characterize acutely degraded water
quality conditions and does not consistently identify
sites experiencing occasional or infrequent hypoxia
(low dissolved oxygen conditions), nutrient enrich-
ment, or decreased water clarity. As a result, a rating
of poor for the water quality index means that the
site is likely to have consistently poor condition
during the monitoring period. If a site is designated
as fair or good, the site did not experience poor
condition on the date sampled, but could be
characterized by poor condition for short time
periods. Increased or supplemental sampling would
be needed to assess the level of variability in the
index at a specific site.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus are necessary and
natural nutrients required for the growth of
phytoplankton, the primary producers that form
the base of the food web in coastal waters; however,
excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphorus can
result in large, undesirable phytoplankton blooms.
DIN is the nutrient type most responsible for
eutrophication in open estuarine and marine
waters, whereas DIP is more likely to promote algal
growth in the tidal-fresh water parts of estuaries.
NCA data were only available for the dissolved
inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus (i.e.,
DIN and DIP), which were determined chemically
through the collection of filtered surface water at
each site. DIN and DIP represent the portion of
the total nitrogen and phosphorus pool in estuarine
and coastal waters that remains once these nutrients
have been assimilated by phytoplankton, benthic
microalgae, or higher aquatic plants. Although
DIN and DIP alone are not adequate indicators of
the trophic state or water quality of coastal waters,
susceptibility to eutrophication may be indicated
when high concentrations of DIN and DIP are
observed along with high chlorophyll levels, poor
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I Introduction
The NCA monitoring data used in this
assessment were based on single-day
measurements collected at sites through-
out the U.S. coastal waters (excluding the
Great Lakes) during a 9- to 12-week
period in late summer. Data were not
collected during other time periods.
water clarity, or hypoxia. This report also differs
from results provided in the NOAA report because
the nutrient assessment for the NCA surveys is
based only on summer concentrations, rather than
the annual average concentrations used by NOAA.
Due to phytoplankton uptake and growth, nutrient
concentrations in summer are generally expected to
be lower than at other times of the year for most of
the country (however, on the West Coast, Pacific
upwelling events in summer often produce the
year's highest nutrient concentrations). As a result,
the DIN and DIP reference surface concentrations
used to assess coastal condition in this report are
generally lower than those in the NOAA report.
Coastal monitoring sites were rated good, fair, or
poor for DIN and DIP using the criteria shown
in Tables 1-2 and 1-3- The site ratings were then
used to calculate an overall rating for each region.
Table 1-2. Criteria for Assessing Dissolved
Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN)
Area Good Fair Poor
Northeast,
Southeast,
and Gulf
Coast sites
West Coast
and Alaska
sites
Hawaii,
Puerto Rico,
and Florida
Bay sites
Regions
< 0. 1 mg/L
< 0.5 mg/L
< 0.05 mg/L
Less than
10% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition,
and more
than 50%
of the coastal
area is
in good
condition.
O.I -0.5 mg/L
0.5- 1.0 mg/L
0.05-
0.1 mg/L
10% to 25%
of the coastal
area is in
poor condi-
tion, or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is in
combined
poor and fair
condition.
> 0.5 mg/L
> 1 mg/L
> 0. 1 mg/L
More than
25% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition.
Chlorophyll a
One of the symptoms of degraded water quality
condition is the increase of phytoplankton biomass
as measured by the concentration of chlorophyll a.
Chlorophyll a is a measure used to indicate the
amount of microscopic algae (or phytoplankton)
growing in a waterbody. High concentrations of
chlorophyll a indicate the potential for problems
related to the overproduction of algae. For this
report, surface concentrations of chlorophyll a
were determined from a filtered portion of water
collected at each site. Surface chlorophylls
concentrations at a site were rated good, fair, or
poor using the criteria shown in Table 1-4. The
site ratings were then used to calculate an overall
chlorophyll a rating for each region.
Water Clarity
Clear waters are generally valued by society for
aesthetics and recreation. Water clarity in coastal
waters is important for light penetration to support
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which serves
as food and habitat for the resident biota. Water
clarity is affected by physical factors such as wind
and/or other forces that suspend sediments and
particulate matter in the water; by chemical factors
that influence the amount of dissolved organics
Table 1-3. Criteria for Assessing Dissolved
Inorganic Phosphorus (DIP)
Area Good Fair Poor
Northeast,
Southeast,
and Gulf
Coast sites
West Coast
and Alaska
sites
Hawaii,
Puerto Rico,
and Florida
Bay sites
Regions
< 0.01 mg/L
< 0.01 mg/L
< 0.005 mg/L
Less than
10% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition,
and more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is
in good
condition.
0.01-
0.05 mg/L
0.01 -O.I mg/L
0.005-
0.01 mg/L
10% to 25%
of the coastal
area is in
poor condi-
tion, or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is in
combined
poor and fair
condition.
> 0.05 mg/L
> O.I mg/L
> 0.0 1 mg/L
More than
25% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition.
12
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
measured as color; and by phytoplankton levels
in a waterbody. The naturally turbid waters of
estuaries, however, can also be valuable to society.
Turbid waters can support healthy and productive
ecosystems by supplying building materials for
maintaining estuarine structures (e.g., coastal
wetlands) and providing food and protection to
resident organisms; however, turbid waters can be
harmful to coastal ecosystems if sediment loads bury
benthic communities, inhibit filter feeders, or block
light needed by seagrasses.
NCA estimates water clarity using specialized
equipment that compares the amount and type of
light reaching the water surface to the light at a
depth of 1 meter, as well as by using a Secchi disk.
Local variability in water clarity occurs between
the different regions within an estuary, as well as at
a single location in an estuary due to tides, storm
events, wind mixing, and changes in incident
light. The probabilistic nature of the NCA study
design accounts for this local variability when the
results are assessed on larger regional or national
scales. Water clarity also varies naturally among
various parts of the nation; therefore, the water
clarity indicator is based on a ratio of observed
clarity compared to regional reference conditions
at 1 meter. The regional reference conditions were
Table 1-4. Criteria for Assessing Chlorophyll a
Area
Northeast,
Southeast,
Gulf, and
West Coast
sites
Hawaii,
Puerto Rico,
and Florida
Bay sites
Regions
Good
< 5 ug/L
< 0.5 ug/L
Less than
10% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition,
and more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is
in good
condition.
Fair
5-20 ug/L
0.5-1 ug/L
10% to 20%
of the coastal
area is in
poor condi-
tion, or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is in
combined
poor and fair
condition.
Poor
> 20 ug/L
> 1 Kg/t-
here than
20% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition.
determined by examining available data for each
of the U.S. regions (Smith et al., 2006). Reference
conditions for a site rated poor were set at 10%
of incident light available at a depth of 1 meter
for normally turbid locations (most of the United
States), 5% for locations with naturally high
turbidity (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Georgia, and Delaware Bay), and 20%
for regions of the country with significant SAV beds
or active programs for SAV restoration (Laguna
Madre, the Big Bend region of Florida, the region
from Tampa Bay to Florida Bay, the Indian River
Lagoon, and portions of Chesapeake Bay). Table 1-5
summarizes the rating criteria for water clarity for
each monitoring station and for the regions.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is necessary for all aquatic
life. Often, low dissolved oxygen conditions occur
as a result of large algal blooms that sink to the
bottom, where bacteria use oxygen as they degrade
the algal mass. In addition, low dissolved oxygen
conditions can be the result of stratification due to
strong, freshwater river discharge on the surface,
Table 1-5. Criteria for Assessing Water Clarity
Area Good Fair Poor
Sites in
coastal
waters with
naturally
high
turbidity
Sites in
coastal
waters with
normal
turbidity
Sites in
coastal
waters that
support
SAV
Regions
> 10% light
at 1 meter
> 20% light
at 1 meter
> 40% light
at 1 meter
Less than
10% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition,
and more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is
in good
condition.
5- 10% light
at 1 meter
10-20% light
at 1 meter
20-40% light
at 1 meter
10% to
25% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition,
or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is in
combined
poor and fair
condition.
< 5% light at
1 meter
< 10% light
at 1 meter
< 20% light
at 1 meter
More than
25% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
13
-------
Chapter I Introduction
which overrides the heavier, saltier bottom water
of a coastal waterbody. Many states use a dissolved
oxygen threshold average concentration of 4 to
5 rng/L to set their coastal water quality standards,
and concentrations below 2 mg/L are thought to be
stressful to many organisms (Diaz and Rosenberg,
1995; U.S. EPA, 2000a). These low levels (hypoxia)
or a lack of oxygen (anoxia) most often occur in
bottom waters and affect the organisms that live
in the sediments. Hypoxia frequently accompanies
the onset of severe bacterial degradation, sometimes
resulting in the presence of algal scums and
noxious odors; however, in some coastal waters,
low dissolved oxygen levels occur periodically or
may be a part of the waterbody's natural ecology.
Therefore, although it is easy to show a snapshot
of the dissolved oxygen conditions in the nation's
coastal waters, it is difficult to interpret whether any
poor conditions in this snapshot are representative
of eutrophication or the result of natural physical
processes. In addition, the snapshot may not be
representative of all summertime periods, such
as variable daily conditions (see text box). Unless
otherwise noted, the dissolved oxygen data
presented in this report were collected by NCA
at a depth of 1 meter above the sediment at each
station on only one day during the year. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations at individual monitoring
sites and over regions were rated good, fair, or
poor using the criteria shown in Table 1-6.
Table 1-6. Criteria for Assessing Dissolved
Oxygen
Area Good Fair Poor
Individual
sampling
sites
Regions
> 5 mg/L
Less than
5% of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition,
and more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is
in good
condition.
2-5 mg/L
5% to 1 5%
of the
coastal area
is in poor
condition,
or more
than 50% of
the coastal
area is in
combined
poor and
fair
condition.
< 2 mg/L
More than
15% of the
coastal
area
is in poor
condition.
Calculating the Water Quality Index
Once DIN, DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity,
and dissolved oxygen were assessed for a given
site, the water quality index rating was calculated
for the site based on these five component
indicators. The index was rated good, fair, poor,
or missing using the criteria shown in Table 1-7.
A water quality index was then calculated for each
region using the criteria shown in Table 1-8.
Temporal variations in dissolved oxygen depletion can have adverse biological effects (Coiro et al.,
2000). Stressful hypoxia may occur for a few hours before dawn in productive surface waters, when
respiration depletes dissolved oxygen faster than it is replenished. The NCA does not measure these
events because most samples are collected later in the day. The NCA estimates do not apply to
dystrophic systems, in which dissolved oxygen levels are acceptable during daylight hours, but decrease
to low (even unacceptable) levels during the night. Many of these systems and the biota associated with
them are adapted to this cycle—a natural process of oxygen production during the day and respiration
at night—which is common in wetland, swamp, and blackwater ecosystems. NCA sampling does not
address the duration of hypoxic events because each station is sampled on only one day during the
summer. In addition, year-to-year variations in estuarine dissolved oxygen levels can be substantial as
a result of a variety of factors, including variations in freshwater inflow, factors affecting water-column
stratification, and changes in nutrient delivery.
14
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Table 1-7. Criteria for Determining the Water
Quality Index Rating by Site
Sediment Quality Index
Rating
Criteria
Good A maximum of one indicator is rated fair,
and no indicators are rated poor.
Fair One of the indicators is rated poor, or two
or more indicators are rated fair.
Poor Two or more of the five indicators are
rated poor.
Missing Two component indicators are missing,
I and the available indicators do not suggest
a fair or poor rating.
Table 1-8. Criteria for Determining the Water
Quality Index Rating by Region
Rating
Criteria
_
Good Less than 10% of the coastal area is in poor
condition, and more than 50% of the coastal
area is in good condition.
Fair 10% to 20% of the coastal area is in poor
condition, or more than 50% of the coastal
area is in combined fair and poor condition.
Poor More than 20% of the coastal area is in
I poor condition.
Tide pool in southern California (courtesy of
Brad Ashbaugh).
Another issue of major environmental concern
in coastal waters is the contamination of sediments
with toxic chemicals. A wide variety of metals and
organic substances, such as polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and pesticides, are discharged into coastal
waters from urban, agricultural, and industrial
sources in a watershed. These contaminants adsorb
onto suspended particles and eventually accumulate
in depositional basins, where they can disrupt the
benthic community of invertebrates, shellfish, and
crustaceans that live in or on the sediments. To the
extent that the contaminants become concentrated
in the organisms, they pose a risk to organisms
throughout the food web—including humans.
Several factors influence the extent and severity
of contamination. Fine-grained, organic-rich
sediments are likely to become resuspended and
transported to distant locations and are also efficient
at scavenging pollutants. Thus, silty sediments high
inTOC are potential sources of contamination.
Conversely, organic-rich particles bind some
toxicants so strongly that the threat to organisms
can be greatly reduced. The NCA collected
sediment samples, measured the concentrations
of chemical constituents and percent TOC in the
sediments, and evaluated sediment toxicity by
measuring the survival of the marine amphipod
Ampelisca abdita following a 10-day exposure
to the sediments under laboratory conditions.
The results of these evaluations may be used to
identify the most-polluted areas and provide
clues regarding the sources of contamination.
The physical and chemical characteristics of
surface sediments are the result of interacting
forces controlling chemical input and particle
dynamics at any particular site. When assessing
coastal condition, researchers measure the
potential for sediments to affect bottom-dwelling
organisms. The sediment quality index is based
on measurements of three component indicators
of sediment condition: sediment toxicity,
sediment contaminants, and sediment TOC.
National Coastal Condition Report
15
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Some researchers and managers would prefer that
the sediment triad (sediment chemistry, sediment
toxicity, and benthic communities) be used to
assess sediment condition (poor condition would
require all three elements to be poor), or that poor
sediment condition be determined based on the
joint occurrence of elevated sediment contaminant
concentrations and high sediment toxicity (see
text box, Alternative Views for a Sediment Quality
Index). However, benthic community attributes are
included in this assessment of coastal condition as
an independent variable rather than as a component
of sediment quality.
In this report, the focus of the sediment quality
index is on sediment condition, not just sediment
toxicity. Attributes of sediments other than toxicity
can result in unacceptable changes in biotic
communities. For example, organic enrichment
through wastewater disposal can have an undesired
effect on biota, and elevated contaminant levels can
have undesirable ecological effects (e.g., changes in
benthic community structure) that are not directly
related to acute toxicity (as measured by the
Ampelisca test). For these reasons, the sediment
quality index in this report uses the combination of
Guidelines for Assessing Sediment
Contamination (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—
Determined values for each chemical as
the 50th percentile (median) in a database
of ascending concentrations associated
with adverse biological effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined
values for each chemical as the I Oth
percentile in a database of ascending
concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and
sediment TOC to assess sediment condition.
Sediment condition is assessed as poor (i.e., high
potential for exposure effects on biota) at a site if
any one of the component indicators is categorized
as poor; assessed as fair if the sediment contami-
nants indicator is rated fair; and assessed as good if
all three component indicators are at levels that
would be unlikely to result in adverse biological
effects due to sediment quality.
Alternative Views for a Sediment Quality Index
Some resource managers object to using ERM and ERL values to calculate the sediment quality index
because the index is also based on actual measurements of toxicity. Because ERMs are defined as
the concentration at which 50% of samples will exhibit toxicity, these managers believe that the same
weight should not be given to a non-toxic sample with an ERM exceedance as is given to a sample that
is actually toxic. O'Connor et al. (1998), using a 1,508-sample EPA and NOAA database, found that 38%
of ERM exceedances coincided with amphipod toxicity (i.e., were toxic), 13% of the ERL exceedances
(no ERM exceedance) were toxic; and only 5% of the samples that did not exceed ERL values were
toxic. O'Connor and Paul (2000) expanded the 1,508-sample data set to 2,475 samples, and the results
remained relatively unchanged (41% of the ERM exceedances were toxic, and only 5% of the non-
exceedances were toxic). In a database generated in the EPA National Sediment Quality Survey (U.S.
EPA, 2001 d), 2,761 samples were evaluated with matching sediment chemistry and 10-day amphipod
toxicity. Of the 762 samples with at least one ERM exceedance, 48% were toxic, and of the 919 samples
without any ERLs exceedances, only 8% were toxic (Ingersoll et al., 2005). These data also showed
a consistent pattern of increasing incidence of toxicity as the numbers of ERMs that were exceeded
increased. Although, these analyses are consistent with the narrative intent of ERMs to indicate an
incidence of toxicity of about 50% and ERLs to indicate an incidence of toxicity of about 10%, some
researchers and managers believe that the sediment quality index used in this report should not result
in a poor rating if sediment contaminant criteria are exceeded, but the sediment is not shown to be
toxic in bioassays.
16
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Sediment Toxicity
Researchers applied a standard direct test of
toxicity at thousands of sites to measure the survival
of amphipods (commonly found, shrimp-like
benthic crustaceans) exposed to sediments for
10 days under laboratory conditions (U.S. EPA,
1995a). As in all tests of toxicity, survival was
measured relative to that of amphipods exposed to
uncontaminated reference sediment. The criteria
for rating sediment toxicity based on amphipod
survival for each sampling site are shown in Table
1-9- Table 1-10 shows how these site data were used
to evaluate sediment toxicity by region. It should
be noted that for this component indicator, unlike
the others outlined in this report, only a good or
poor rating is possible—there is no fair rating.
Table 1-9. Criteria for Assessing Sediment
Toxicity by Site
Rating
Criteria
Good The amphipod survival rate is greater than
or equal to 80%.
Poor
The amphipod survival rate is less than 80%.
Table 1-10. Criteria for Assessing Sediment
Toxicity by Region
Rating
Criteria
Good I Less than 5% of the coastal area is in poor
condition.
Poor 5% or more of the coastal area is in poor
condition.
Sediment Contaminants
There are no absolute chemical concentrations
that correspond to sediment toxicity, but ERL
and ERM values (Long et al., 1995) are used as
guidelines in assessing sediment contamination
(Table 1-11). ERM is the median concentration
(50th percentile) of a contaminant observed to
have adverse biological effects in the literature
studies examined. A more protective indicator of
contaminant concentration is the ERL criterion,
which is the 10th percentile concentration of a
contaminant represented by studies demonstrating
adverse biological effects in the literature. Ecological
effects are not likely to occur at contaminant
concentrations below the ERL criterion. The criteria
1 Table l-l 1. ERM and ERL Guidelines for Sediment ^^^^B
(Longetal., 1995)
Metal* ERL
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
8.2
1.2
81
34
46.7
0.15
20.9
1
ISO
Analyte** ERL
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Flourene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Low molecular-weight
PAH
High molecular-weight
PAH
Total PAHs
4,4'-DDE
Total DDT
Total PCBs
16
44
85.3
19
70
160
240
261
430
384
63.4
600
665
552
1,700
4,020
2.2
1.6
22.7
^H
ERM
70
9.6
370
270
218
0.71
51.6
3.7
410
ERM
500
640
1,100
540
670
2,100
1,500
1,600
1,600
2,800
260
5,100
2,600
3,160
9,600
44,800
27
46.1
180
*units are \ig/g dry sediment, equivalent to ppm
**units are ng/g dry sediment, equivalent to ppb
for rating sediment contaminants at individual
sampling sites are shown in Table 1-12, and
Table 1-13 shows how these data were used to create
regional ratings for the sediment contaminants
component indicator.
National Coastal Condition Report
17
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Table 1-12. Criteria for Assessing Sediment
Contaminants by Site
Rating
Criteria
Good No ERM concentrations are exceeded,
I and less than five ERL concentrations are
exceeded.
Fair No ERM concentrations are exceeded,
and five or more ERL concentrations are
exceeded.
Poor An ERM concentration is exceeded for one
or more contaminants.
Table 1-13. Criteria for Assessing Sediment
Contaminants by Region
Rating
Criteria
Good Less than 5% of the coastal area is in poor
condition.
Fair 5% to 15% of the coastal area is in poor
condition.
Poor More than 15% of the coastal area is in
I poor condition.
Sediment TOC
Sediment contaminant availability or organic
enrichment can be altered in areas where there is
considerable deposition of organic matter. Although
TOC exists naturally in coastal sediments and is
the result of the degradation of autochthonous
and allochthonous organic materials (e.g.,
phytoplankton, leaves, twigs, dead organisms),
anthropogenic sources (e.g., organic industrial
wastes, untreated or only primary-treated sewage)
can significantly elevate the level of TOC in
sediments. TOC in coastal sediments is often a
source of food for some benthic organisms, and
high levels of TOC in coastal sediments can result
in significant changes in benthic community
structure and in the predominance of pollution-
tolerant species. Increased levels of sediment TOC
can also reduce the general availability of organic
contaminants (e.g., PAHs, PCBs, pesticides);
however, increases in temperature or decreases in
dissolved oxygen levels can sometimes result in
the release of these TOC-bound and unavailable
contaminants. Sediment toxicity from organic
matter is assessed by measuring TOC. Regions of
high TOC content are also likely to be depositional
sites for fine sediments. If there are pollution sources
nearby, these depositional sites are likely to be hot
spots for contaminated sediments. The criteria for
rating TOC at individual sampling sites are shown
in Table 1-14, and Table 1-15 shows how these data
were used to create a regional ranking.
Table 1-14. Criteria for Assessing TOC by Site
(concentrations on a dry-weight basis)
Rating
Criteria
Good
The TOC concentration is less than 2%.
Fair The TOC concentration is between 2%
and 5%.
Poor The TOC concentration is greater than 5%.
Table 1-15. Criteria for Assessing TOC by
Region
Rating
Criteria
Good Less than 20% of the coastal area is in poor
condition.
Fair 20% to 30% of the coastal area is in poor
condition.
Poor More than 30% of the coastal area is in
I poor condition.
18
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Calculating the Sediment Quality Index
Once all three sediment quality component
indicators (sediment toxicity, sediment contami-
nants, and sediment TOC) are assessed for a given
site, a sediment quality index rating is calculated for
the site. The sediment quality index was rated good,
fair, or poor for each site using the criteria shown
in Table 1-16. The sediment quality index was then
calculated for each region using the criteria shown
in Table 1-17-
Table 1-16. Criteria for Determining the
Sediment Quality Index by Site
Rating
Criteria
Good None of the individual component
indicators is rated poor, and the sediment
contaminants indicator is rated good.
Fair None of the component indicators is
rated poor, and the sediment contaminants
indicator is rated fair.
Poor One or more of the component indicators
is rated poor.
Table 1-17. Criteria for Determining the
Sediment Quality Index by Region
Rating
Criteria
Good Less than 5% of the coastal area is in poor
condition, and more than 50% of the coastal
area is in good condition.
Fair 5% to 15% of the coastal area is in poor
condition, or more than 50% of the coastal
area is in combined poor and fair condition.
Poor More than 15% of the coastal area is in
I poor condition.
Benthic Index
The worms, clams, crustaceans, and other
invertebrates that inhabit the bottom substrates
of coastal waters are collectively called benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos. These organisms
play a vital role in maintaining sediment and
water quality and are an important food source
for bottom-feeding fish, shrimp, ducks, and
marsh birds. Benthos are often used as indicators
of disturbance in coastal environments because
they are not very mobile and thus cannot avoid
environmental problems. Benthic population and
community characteristics are sensitive to chemical-
contaminant and dissolved-oxygen stresses, salinity
fluctuations, and sediment disturbance and serve as
reliable indicators of coastal environmental quality.
To distinguish degraded benthic habitats from
undegraded benthic habitats, EMAP and NCA have
developed regional (Southeast, Northeast, and Gulf
coasts) benthic indices of environmental condition
(Engle et al., 1994; Weisberg et al., 1997; Engle
and Summers, 1999; Van Dolah et al., 1999; Hale
and Heltshe, 2008). These indices reflect changes in
benthic community diversity and the abundance of
pollution-tolerant and pollution-sensitive species.
A high benthic index rating for benthos means
that sediment samples taken from a waterbody
contain a wide variety of benthic species, as well as
a low proportion of pollution-tolerant species and
a high proportion of pollution-sensitive species. A
low benthic index rating indicates that the benthic
communities are less diverse than expected, are
populated by more pollution-tolerant species than
expected, and contain fewer pollution-sensitive
species than expected. The benthic condition data
presented throughout this report were collected
by the NCA unless otherwise noted. Indices vary
by region because species assemblages depend on
prevailing temperatures, salinities, and the silt-
clay content of sediments. The benthic index was
rated poor at a site when the index values for the
Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf coasts' diversity
or species richness, abundance of pollution-
sensitive species, and abundance of pollution-
tolerant species fell below a certain threshold.
Not all regions included in this report have
developed benthic indices. Indices for the West
Coast, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and Hawaii are under
development and were unavailable for reporting
at this time. In these regions, benthic community
diversity or species richness were determined for
each site as surrogates for the benthic index. Values
for diversity or richness were compared with salinity
regionally to determine if a significant relationship
existed. This relationship was not significant for
Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii, and no surrogate
benthic index was developed; therefore, benthic
community condition was not assessed for these
National Coastal Condition Report
19
-------
Chapter I Introduction
regions. For the West Coast estuaries, there was a
significant relationship between species richness and
salinity (r2 =0.43, p < 0.01). A surrogate benthic
index was calculated by determining the expected
species richness from the statistical relationship to
salinity and then calculating the ratio of observed
to expected species richness. Poor condition was
defined as less than 75% of the expected benthic
species richness at a particular salinity. As in
Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii, the data from
Puerto Rico showed no significant relationship
between benthic diversity or species richness and
salinity; however, a different approach was used
to assess benthic condition in this region. Benthic
diversity (H') was used as a surrogate for a benthic
index for Puerto Rico by determining the mean and
95% confidence limits for diversity in unstressed
benthic habitats (i.e., sites with no sediment
contaminants, lowTOC, and absence of hypoxia).
Poor benthic condition was then defined as
observed diversity less than 75% of the lower 95%
confidence limit of mean diversity for unstressed
habitats in Puerto Rico. Table 1-18 shows the good,
fair, and poor rating criteria for the different regions
of the country, which were used to calculate an
overall benthic condition rating for each region.
Table 1-18. Criteria for Assessing Benthic Index
Area Good
Fair
Poor
Northeast Coast sites
Acadian Province
Virginian Province
Benthic index score
is greater than or
equal to 5.0.
Benthic index score
is greater than 0.0.
Benthic index score is
greater than or equal to
4.0 and less than 5.0.
NA*
Benthic index score
is less than 4.0.
Benthic index score
is less than 0.0.
Southeast Coast sites
Benthic index score
is greater than 2.5.
Benthic index score is
between 2.0 and 2.5.
Benthic index score is
less than 2.0.
Gulf Coast sites
Benthic index score
is greater than 5.0.
Benthic index score is
between 3.0 and 5.0.
Benthic index score is
less than 3.0.
West Coast sites
(compared to expected
diversity)
Benthic index score is
more than 90% of the
lower limit (lower 95%
confidence interval) of
expected mean diversity
for a specific salinity.
Benthic index score is
between 75% and 90%
of the lower limit of
expected mean diversity
for a specific salinity.
Benthic index score is less
than 75% of the lower limit
of expected mean diversity
for a specific salinity.
Southcentral Alaska and
Hawaii sites
NA*
NA*
NA*
Puerto Rico sites
(compared to upper
95% confidence interval
for mean regional benthic
diversity)
Benthic index score is
more than 90% of the
lower limit (lower 95%
confidence interval)
of mean diversity in
unstressed habitats.
Benthic index score is
between 75% and 90%
of the lower limit of
mean diversity in
unstressed habitats.
Benthic index score is less
than 75% of the lower
limit of mean diversity in
unstressed habitats.
Regions
Less than 10% of the coastal
area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of
the coastal area is in
good condition.
10% to 20% of the coastal
area is in poor condition,
or more than 50% of the
coastal area is in combined
poor and fair condition.
More than 20% of the
coastal area is in poor
condition.
*By design, this index discriminates between good and poor conditions only
**Benthic condition was not assessed in these regions.
20
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Coastal Habitat Index
Coastal wetlands are the vegetated interface
between the aquatic and terrestrial components of
coastal ecosystems and serve many purposes. Wetlands
are beneficial because they can filter and process
residential, agricultural, and industrial wastes, thereby
improving surface water quality. Wetlands buffer
coastal areas against storm and wave damage. Wetland
habitats are critical to the life cycles of fish, shellfish,
migratory birds, and other wildlife. Many species of
commercial and sport fish spend a portion of their
life cycles in coastal wetland and estuarine habitats.
Adult stocks of commercially harvested shrimp,
blue crabs, oysters, and other species throughout
the United States are directly related to wetland
quality and quantity (Turner and Boesch, 1988).
Wetlands throughout the United States have been
and are being rapidly destroyed by human activities
(e.g., flood control, agriculture, waste disposal, real
estate development, shipping, commercial fishing, oil/
gas exploration and production) and natural processes
(e.g., sea-level rise, sediment compaction, droughts,
hurricanes, floods). In the late 1970s and early 1980s,
the country was losing wetlands at an estimated rate
of 300,000 acres per year. The Clean Water Act, state
wetland protection programs, and programs such as
Swampbuster (USDA) have helped decrease wetland
losses to an estimated 70,000 to 90,000 acres per year.
Strong wetland protection is important nationally;
otherwise, fisheries that support more than a million
jobs and contribute billions of dollars to the national
economy are at risk (Turner and Boesch, 1988;
Stedman and Hanson, 2000), as are the ecological
functions provided by wetlands (e.g., nursery areas,
flood control, and water quality improvement).
Coastal wetlands, as defined here, include only
estuarine and marine intertidal wetlands (e.g., salt
and brackish marshes; mangroves and other shrub-
scrub habitats; intertidal oyster reefs; and tidal flats,
such as macroalgal flats, shoals, spits, and bars). This
index does not include subtidal SAV, coral reefs,
subtidal oyster reefs, worm reefs, artificial reefs, or
freshwater/palustrine wetlands. It should be noted
that the NWI data used in this assessment do not
distinguish between the natural and created wetlands
and that most created wetlands do not have all the
functions of natural wetlands (NAS, 2001). For more
information about wetlands, refer to EPA's wetlands
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands.
Because no new information on U.S. wetlands
was available from the NWI, the assessment of
coastal habitat from the NCCR II is used in this
report. The NWI (Dahl, 2002) contains data
on estuarine-emergent and tidal flat wetland
acreage from 1990 and 2000 for all coastal states,
except Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Data for Hawaii
and Puerto Rico are only available for 1980
and 1990. The proportional change in regional
coastal wetlands over the 10-year time period was
determined for each region and combined with the
long-term decadal loss rates for the period 1780 to
1990. The average of these two loss rates (historic
and present) multiplied by 100 is the regional
value of the coastal habitat index. The national
value of the coastal habitat index is a weighted
mean that reflects the extent of wetlands existing
in each region (different than the distribution of
the extent of coastal area). Table 1-19 shows the
rating criteria used for the coastal habitat index.
Table 1-19. Criteria for Determining the
Coastal Habitat Index
Rating
Criteria
Good
The index value is less than 1.0.
Fair
The index value is between 1.0 and 1.25.
Poor The index value is greater than 1.25.
Coastal wetlands provide critical habitat for a variety of
wildlife (courtesy of JohnTheilgard).
National Coastal Condition Report
21
-------
An Index of Benthic Condition for the Coastal Acadian
Biogeographic Province
Indices that combine several benthic community variables have been used by monitoring programs
to measure the spatial extent of environmental problems, locate problem areas for further study,
assess the effectiveness of remediation programs, and determine whether conditions are improving
or deteriorating. For the NCCRII, the NCA used the Shannon-Wiener H' index, a measure of
biodiversity, to evaluate the condition of benthic communities in the Acadian Province (Gulf of Maine).
The Virginian Province Benthic Index (Paul et al., 2001) did not work well in this area, and at the time,
there were not yet sufficient data to develop an index unique to the Acadian Province. Compared with
the Virginian Province (the area from south of Cape Cod to Virginia), the Gulf of Maine is colder,
deeper, better oxygenated, and more strongly flushed by tides. For the current report, NCA has used the
2000 and 2001 data to develop a specific Acadian Province Benthic Index (Hale and Heltshe, 2008).
During the spring of 2004, the NCA held a workshop in Portsmouth, NH, with Gulf of Maine
benthic ecologists to review candidate metrics, discuss preliminary indices, and learn about other
available benthic data sets. First, the NCA identified the stations with the highest and lowest benthic
environmental quality (BEQ). BEQwas defined as a function of nonbiological components, including
sediment contaminant concentrations, sediment TOC levels, sediment toxicity, and concentrations of
dissolved oxygen in bottom water. The aim was to use information from the benthic assemblage data to
build an index that could discriminate stations with high and low BEQ. Using the scientific literature,
the NCA developed a list of 40 possible candidates for benthic metrics that might be useful. These
metrics included diversity measures and relative proportions of pollution-tolerant or pollution-sensitive
taxa. The NCA used discriminant analysis with the candidate benthic metrics to identify those that
had discriminatory power. These metrics were used to build discriminant functions. The discriminant
functions that correctly classified at least 80% of the stations in the calibration data set became candidate
benthic indices. Three independent data sets were used to validate the candidate indices and to select the
best index. These data sets are the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) study of Boston
Harbor and Massachusetts Bay (Williams et al., 2002), a study in Casco Bay (Larsen et al., 1983), and
the NCA 2002 and 2003 data.
The discriminant function chosen as the Acadian Province Benthic Index for this report (see box)
correctly classified 87-6% of the calibration data set and about three-quarters of the stations in the
validation data sets. The map presents the classifications resulting from the application of this index at
sampling sites within the Gulf of Maine in three categories: high, medium, and low. It should be noted
that the NCA sampled few low- or intermediate-level saline estuaries in the Acadian Province, so the
applicability of the current index in low-salinity areas is unknown. This index provides environmental
managers with a way to assess the health of Gulf of Maine coastal benthic communities, both spatially
and temporally. Further refinements and validations will be made as more NCA data become available.
Acadian Province Benthic Index = 0.494 x Shannon + 0.670 x MN_ES50Q5 - 0.034 x PctCapitellidae
where
Shannon = Shannon-Wiener H' diversity index
A/lN_£S500s = Station mean of species tolerance values (Rosenberg et al., 2004)
PctCapitellidae = Percent abundance of capitellid polychaetes
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Canada
Acadian Province
Benthic Index
O High Benthic Index
O Medium Benthic Index
• Low Benthic Index
i i Sampling Estuaries
OO
00
New
Hampshire
Gulf of Maine
O o
CD
65
O O
Massachusetts
Rl
« 8*
o o o°
0 oc9°
Maine
O O
O
O-
O
o
o
o o
o
Canada
o
o o
•
o
o
Map Location
8
o
o
o
Q>
» :
• Maine
x O
O
0%
8 °°
T> O °o ° °O
0 ' 0 0
0 CD 0 0^ 0
n n O
cPo o o o
ocoo o0 0 QQ
New
Hampshire
Benthic index scores at monitoring sites from the validation data sets (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
23
-------
Chapter I Introduction
The NWI estimates represent regional
assessments and do not apply to individual sites
or individual wetlands. Before individual wetland
sites can be assessed, rigorous methodologies
for estimating the quantity and the quality of
wetlands must be developed. Until these methods
are available and implemented, only regional
assessments of quantity losses can be made.
Although a 1% loss rate per decade may seem small
(or even acceptable), continued wetland losses at
this rate cannot be sustained indefinitely and still
leave enough wetlands to maintain their present
ecological functions.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Chemical contaminants may enter a marine
organism in several ways: direct uptake from
contaminated water, consumption of contaminated
sediment, or consumption of previously contami-
nated organisms. Once these contaminants enter
an organism, they tend to remain in the animal's
tissues and may build up with subsequent feedings.
When fish consume contaminated organisms, they
may "inherit" the levels of contaminants in the
organisms they consume. The same inheritance of
contaminants occurs when humans consume fish
with contaminated tissues. Contaminant residues
can be examined in the fillets, whole-body portions,
or specific organs of target fish and shellfish species
and compared with risk-based EPA Advisory
Guidance values (U.S. EPA, 2000c) for use in
establishing fish advisories. EPA has also developed
an Ambient Water Quality Criterion (AWQC) for
methylmercury in fish and shellfish tissue (U.S.
EPA, 200le) and prepared draft guidance for
implementing this AWQC (U.S. EPA, 2006a).
For the NCA surveys, both juvenile and adult
target fish species were collected from all monitoring
stations where fish were available, and whole-body
contaminant burdens were determined. The target
species typically included demersal (bottom-
dwelling) and slower-moving pelagic (water
column-dwelling) species that are representative of
each of the geographic regions (Northeast Coast,
Southeast Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, and
Southcentral Alaska). These intermediate trophic-
level (position in the food web) species are prey for
larger predatory fish of commercial value (Harvey
et al., 2008). Where available, 4 to 10 individual
fish from each target species at each sampling
site were analyzed by compositing fish tissues.
Although the EPA risk-based fish advisory
recommendations were developed to evaluate the
health risks of consuming market-sized fish fillets,
they also may be used to assess the risk of whole-
body contaminants in fish as a basis for estimating
advisory determinations—an approach currently
used by many state fish advisory programs (U.S.
EPA, 2000c). These advisory values may also be
used (as NCA uses them) as surrogate benchmark
values to examine contaminants in non-commercial,
juvenile and adult fish to compare levels of pollutant
contamination across geographic regions and
provide a national baseline assessment. The NCA
compared whole-body contaminant concentrations
in fish to the EPA-recommended values used by
states as a basis for setting fish advisories for
recreational fishers (Table 1-20) (U.S. EPA2000c).
The AWQC for methylmercury (U.S. EPA, 2001e)
was not used in this assessment. Although EPA fish
consumption recommendations are generally based
on fillet tissue samples, they are also appropriate to
compare to data from whole-fish or organ-specific
body burdens that are used by many states for those
fish consumers whose culinary practices include
consumption offish tissues other than the fillets.
The whole-fish contaminant information collected
by NCA for U.S. coastal waters was compared with
risk-based threshold values based on a 154-pound
adult human's consumption of four 8-ounce meals
per month for selected contaminants (the approach
used by most state fish advisory programs) and
assessed for non-cancer and cancer health endpoints
(U.S. EPA, 2000c). Table 1-21 shows the rating
criteria for the fish tissue contaminants index for
each station sampled, and Table 1-22 shows how
these ratings were used to create a regional index
rating.
Summary of Rating Criteria
The rating criteria used in this report are
summarized in Table 1-23 (primary indices) and
Tables 1-24 and 1-25 (component indicators).
24
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Table 1-20. Risk-based EPA Advisory Guidance
Values for Recreational Fishers (U.S. EPA, 2000c)
Contaminant
EPA Advisory
Guidelines
Concentration
Range (ppm)a
Health
Endpoint
Arsenic (inorganic)b
Cadmium
Mercury
(methyl mercury)c
Selenium
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane
Mi rex
Toxaphene
PAHs
(benzo(a)pyrene)
PCB
0.35-0.70
1 .2-2.3
0. 1 2-0.23
5.9-12.0
0.59-1.2
0.59-1.2
0.059-0. 1 2
7.0-14.0
0.35-0.70
0.0 1 5-0.03 1
0.94-1.9
0.35-0.70
0.23-0.47
0.29-0.59
0.00 1 6-0.0032
0.023-0.04
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
non-cancer
cancel
non-cancer
a Range of concentrations associated with non-cancer and
cancer health endpoint risk for consumption of four 8-ounce
meals per month.
bInorganic arsenic concentrations were estimated to be 2/6 of
the measured total arsenic concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
cThe conservative assumption was made that all mercury is
present as methylmercury because most mercury in fish and
shellfish is present primarily as methylmercury and because
analysis for total mercury is less expensive than analysis for
methylmercury (U.S. EPA, 2000a).
d A non-cancer concentration range for PAHs does not exist.
Table 1-21. Criteria for Determining the Fish
Tissue Contaminants Index by Station
Rating
Criteria
Good For all chemical contaminants listed in
Table I -20, the measured concentrations in
fish tissue fall below the range of the EPA
Advisory Guidance* values for risk-based
consumption associated with four 8-ounce
meals per month.
Fair For at least one chemical contaminant listed
in Table I -20, the measured concentration
in fish tissue falls within the range of the
EPA Advisory Guidance values for risk-
based consumption associated with four
8-ounce meals per month.
Poor For at least one chemical contaminant listed
in Table I -20, the measured concentrations
in fish tissue exceeds the maximum value
in the range of the EPA Advisory Guidance
values for risk-based consumption associ-
ated with four 8-ounce meals per month.
*The EPA Advisory Guidance concentration is based on
the non-cancer ranges for all contaminants except the
concentration for PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene), which is based on
a cancer range because a non-cancer range for PAHs does
not exist (see Table I -20).
Table 1-22. Criteria for Determining the Fish
Tissue Contaminants Index by Region
Rating
Criteria
Good Less than 10% of the fish samples analyzed
(Northeast Coast region) or the monitor-
ing stations where fish were caught (all
I other regions) are in poor condition, and
more than 50% of the fish samples analyzed
(Northeast Coast region) or the monitor-
ing stations where fish were caught (all
other regions) are in good condition.
Fair 10% to 20% of the fish samples analyzed
(Northeast Coast region) or monitoring
stations where fish were caught (all other
regions) are in poor condition, or more
than 50% of the fish samples analyzed
(Northeast Coast region) or the monitor-
ing stations where fish were caught (all
other regions) are in combined poor and
fair condition.
Poor
More than 20% of the fish samples analyzed
(Northeast Coast region) or the monitor-
ing stations where fish were caught (all
other regions) are in poor condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
25
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Table 1-23. NCA Indices Used to Assess Coastal Condition
Icon
Water Quality Index —This index is based on measurements of five water quality component indicators
(DIN, DIP chlorophyll a, water clarity and dissolved oxygen).
Water
Quality
Index
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: No component indicators are rated poor,
and a maximum of one is rated fair
Fair: One component indicator is rated poor,
or two or more component indicators are
rated fair
Poor: Two or more component indicators are
rated poor
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good condition.
Fair: Between 10% and 20% of the coastal area is in poor
condition, or more than 50% of the coastal area is in
combined fair and poor condition.
Poor: More than 20% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Sediment Quality Index —This index is based on measurements of three sediment quality component indicators
(sediment toxicity sediment contaminants, and sedimentTOC).
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: No component indicators are rated poor,
and the sediment contaminants indicator
is rated good.
Fair: No component indicators are rated poor,
and the sediment contaminants indicator
is rated fair
Poor: One or more component indicators are
rated poor
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 5% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good
condition.
Fair: Between 5% and 15% of the coastal area is in poor
condition, or more than 50% of the coastal area is in
combined poor and fair condition.
Poor: More than 15% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Benthic Index (or a surrogate measure) -This index indicates the condition of the benthic community (organisms living
in coastal sediments) and can include measures of benthic community diversity, the presence and abundance of pollution-
tolerant species, and the presence and abundance of pollution-sensitive species.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good, fair, and poor were determined using
regionally dependent benthic index scores
(see Table 1-18).
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good
condition.
Fair: Between 10% and 20% of the coastal area is in poor
condition, or more than 50% of the coastal area is in
combined poor and fair condition.
Poor: More than 20% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Coastal Habitat Index —This index is evaluated using the data from the NWI (Dahl, 2002), which contains data on
estuarine-emergent and tidal flat acreage for all coastal states (except Hawaii and Puerto Rico) for 1780 through 2000.
Coastal
Habitat
Index
Ecological Condition by Site
The average of the mean long-term, decadal
wetland loss rate (1780-1990) and the present
decadal wetland loss rate (1990-2000) was
determined for each region of the United
States and multiplied by 100 to create a coastal
habitat index value.
Ranking by Region
Good: The coastal habitat index value is less than 1.0.
Fair: The coastal habitat index value is between 1.0 and 1.25.
Poor: The coastal habitat index value is greater than 1.25.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index -This index indicates the level of chemical contamination in target fish/shellfish
Fish
Tissue
Contaminants
Index
Fair:
species.
Ecological Condition by Site
Good: For all chemical contaminants listed in
Table I -20, the measured concentrations
in tissue fall below the range of the EPA
Advisory Guidance* values for risk-based
consumption associated with four 8-ounce
meals per month.
For at least one chemical contaminant
listed in Table 1-20, the measured
concentration in tissue falls within the
range of the EPA Advisory Guidance
values for risk-based consumption
associated with four 8-ounce meals
per month.
For at least one chemical contaminant
listed in Table 1-20, the measured
concentration in tissue exceeds the
maximum value in the range of the EPA
Advisory Guidance values for risk-based
consumption associated with four 8-ounce
meals per month.
Poor:
Ranking by Region
Good: Less than 10% of the fish samples analyzed (Northeast
Coast region) or the monitoring stations where fish were
caught (all other regions) are in poor condition, and more
than 50% of the fish samples analyzed (Northeast Coast
region) or the monitoring stations where fish were caught
(all other regions) are in good condition.
Fair: 10% to 20% of the fish samples analyzed (Northeast Coast
region) or the monitoring stations where fish were caught
(all other regions) are in poor condition, or more than
50% of the fish samples analyzed (Northeast Coast region)
or the monitoring stations where fish were caught (all other
regions) are in combined poor and fair condition.
Poor: More than 20% of the fish samples analyzed (Northeast
Coast region) or the monitoring stations where fish were
caught (all other regions) are in poor condition.
The EPA Advisory Guidance concentration is based on the non-cancer ranges for all contaminants except for PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene), which is
based on a cancer range because a non-cancer range for PAHs does not exist (see Table I -20).
26
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
Table I -24. NCA Criteria for the Five Component Indicators Used in the Water Quality Index to Assess
Coastal Condition
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN)
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Surface concentrations are less than 0.1 mg/L (Northeast,
Southeast Gulf), 0.5 mg/L (West, Alaska), or 0.05 mg/L (tropical*).
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good condition.
Fair: Surface concentrations are 0.1—0.5 mg/L (Northeast,
Southeast, Gulf), 0.5-1.0 mg/L (West, Alaska), or 0.05-0.1 mg/L
(tropical).
Fair: 10% to 25% of the coastal area is in poor condition, or
more than 50% of the coastal area is in combined fair and poor
condition.
Poor: Surface concentrations are greater than 0.5 mg/L (Northeast,
Southeast, Gulf), 1.0 mg/L (West, Alaska), or 0.1 mg/L (tropical).
Poor: More than 25% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus (DIP)
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Surface concentrations are less than 0.01 mg/L (Northeast,
Southeast, Gulf), 0.01 mg/L (West, Alaska), or 0.005 mg/L (tropical).
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good condition.
Fair: Surface concentrations are 0.01-0.05 mg/L (Northeast,
Southeast, Gulf), 0.01-O.I mg/L (West, Alaska), or 0.005-0.01 mg/L
(tropical).
Fair: 10% to 25% of the coastal area is in poor condition, or
more than 50% of the coastal area is in combined fair and poor
condition.
Poor: Surface concentrations are greater than 0.05 mg/L
(Northeast, Southeast, Gulf), 0.1 mg/L (West, Alaska), or 0.01 mg/L
(tropical).
Poor: More than 25% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Chlorophyll a
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Surface concentrations are less than 5 |jg/L (less than
0.5 |jg/L for tropical ecosystems).
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good condition.
Fair: Surface concentrations are between 5 pg/L and 20 pg/L
(between 0.5 pg/L and I pg/L for tropical ecosystems).
Fair: 10% to 20% of the coastal area is in poor condition, or
more than 50% of the coastal area is in combined fair and poor
condition.
Poor: Surface concentrations are greater than 20 |jg/L (greater
than I |jg/L for tropical ecosystems).
Poor: More than 20% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Water Clarity
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Amount of light at I meter is greater than 10% (coastal
waters with high turbidity), 20% (coastal waters with normal
turbidity), or 40% (coastal waters that support SAV) of surface
illumination.
Good: Less than 10% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good condition.
Fair: Amount of light at I meter is 5—10% (coastal waters with
high turbidity), 10-20% (coastal waters with normal turbidity), or
20-40% (coastal waters that support SAV) of surface illumination.
Fair: 10% to 25% of the coastal area is in poor condition, or
more than 50% of the coastal area is in combined fair and poor
condition.
Poor: Amount of light at I meter is less than 5% (coastal waters
with high turbidity), 10% (coastal waters with normal turbidity), or
20% (coastal waters that support SAV) of surface illumination.
Poor: More than 25% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Dissolved Oxygen
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Bottom-water concentrations are greater than 5 mg/L.
Good: Less than 5% of the coastal area is in poor condition,
and more than 50% of the coastal area is in good condition.
Fair: Bottom-water concentrations are between 2 mg/L and
5 mg/L.
Fair: 5% to 15% of the coastal area is in poor condition, or
more than 50% of the coastal area is in combined fair and poor
condition.
Poor: Bottom-water concentrations are less than 2 mg/L.
Poor: More than 15% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
*Tropical ecosystems include Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Florida Bay sites.
National Coastal Condition Report
27
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Table I -25. NCA Criteria for the Three Component Indicators Used in the Sediment Quality Index to Assess
Coastal Condition
SedimentToxicity is evaluated as part of the sediment quality index using a 10-day static toxicity test with the organism Ampelisca
abdita.
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: Mortality* is less than or equal to 20%.
Good: Less than 5% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Poor: Mortality is greater than 20%.
Poor: 5% or more of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Sediment Contamination is evaluated as part of the sediment quality index using ERM and ERL values.
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: No ERM values are exceeded, and fewer than five ERL
values are exceeded.
Good: Less than 5% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Fair: No ERM values are exceeded, and five or more ERL values
are exceeded.
Fair: 5% to 15% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Poor: One or more ERM values are exceeded.
Poor: More than 15% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
SedimentTotal Organic Carbon (TOC)
Ecological Condition by Site
Ranking by Region
Good: TheTOC concentration is less than 2%.
Good: Less than 20% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Fair: TheTOC concentration is between 2% and 5%.
Fair: 20% to 30% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
Poor: TheTOC concentration is greaterthan 5%.
Poor: More than 30% of the coastal area is in poor condition.
"Test mortality is adjusted for control mortality
How the Indices Are
Summarized
Overall condition for each region was calculated
by summing the scores for the available indices
and dividing by the number of available indices
(i.e., equally weighted), where good = 5; good to
fair = 4; fair = 3; fair to poor = 2; and poor = 1.
In calculating the overall condition score for a
region, the indices are weighted equally because
of the lack of a defendable, more-than-conceptual
rationale for uneven weighting. The Southeast Coast
region, for example, received the following scores:
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Total Score Divided by 5 = Overall Score
3
3
5
3
4
18/5 = 3.6
The overall condition and index scores for the
nation are calculated based on a weighted average
of the regional scores for each index. The national
ratings for overall condition and each index are then
assigned based on these calculated scores, rather
than on the percentage of area in good, fair, or poor
condition. The indices were weighted based on the
coastal area contributed by each geographic area. For
example, the weighted average for the water quality
index was calculated by summing the products of
the regional water quality index scores and the area
contributed by each region (Figure 1-4). These
weighting factors were used for all indices except
the coastal habitat index, which used the geographic
distribution of total area of coastal wetlands (Figure
1-5). The national overall condition score was
then calculated by summing each national index
score and dividing by five. Additional discussion
of this process is presented in Appendix A.
28
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
(Hawaii
Southcentral
Alaska
34%
(Puerto Rico < 1%)
Great Lakes
18%
Northeast
Coast
17%
Gulf Coast
17%
Southeast
Coast
Figure 1-4. Percentage of coastal area contributed by
each geographic region assessed in this report (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
West Coast
6%
Great Lakes
15%
Gulf Coast
57%
Northeast
Coast
Southeast
Coast
14%
Figure 1-5. Percentage of coastal wetland area
contributed by each geographic region assessed in this
report (U.S. EPA/NCA).
The snowy grouper (Epinephelus niveatus) commercial
fishery is managed by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC) and is subject to
limited-access permit requirements and gear restriction
(courtesy of Andrew Davis, NOAA, and Lance Horn,
University of North Carolina Wilmington).
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries Data
In addition to coastal monitoring data, a second
type of data used to assess coastal condition in
this report is LME fisheries data from the NMFS.
LMEs are areas of ocean characterized by distinct
bathymetry, hydrography, productivity, and
trophic relationships. LMEs extend from river
basins and estuaries to the seaward boundaries
of continental shelves and the outer margins
of major current systems. Within these waters,
ocean pollution, fishery overexploitation, and
coastal habitat alteration are most likely to occur.
Sixty-four LMEs surround the continents and
most large islands and island chains worldwide
and produce 95% of the world's annual marine
fishery yields; 10 of these LMEs are found in
waters adjacent to the conterminous United
States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and U.S.
island territories (NOAA, 1988; 2007g).
The NMFS fisheries data were organized by
LME to allow readers to more easily consider
fisheries and coastal condition data together.
These data are more comparable using LMEs for
several reasons. Geographically, LMEs contain
both the coastal waters assessed by NCA and the
U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters
containing the fisheries assessed by NMFS. In
addition, the borders of the LMEs coincide
roughly with the borders of the NCA regions.
When considered together, these two data sets
provide insight into the condition of U.S. marine
waters, especially considering how closely the
areas covered by these data sets are related.
This report presents the offshore fisheries
data by LME through 2004. This index period
was limited to 2004 because this timeframe
is more consistent with the coastal condition
and advisory data presented in this report. This
temporal consistency allows the reader to consider
all three types of data together to get a clearer
"snapshot" of conditions in U.S. coastal waters.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Interactions Between Fisheries
and Coastal Condition
Freshwater and saltwater coastal areas are
constantly changing as a result of both human
and natural forces, which make these areas both
resilient and fragile in nature (National Safety
Council, 1998). The ecosystems in these areas
are interconnected, and stressors on one of these
systems can affect the other systems. For example,
water quality in freshwater streams and rivers is vital
to providing a healthy environment, particularly for
anadromous (migratory) fish species such as salmon
that are born in freshwater streams, migrate to the
ocean as juveniles, utilize the ocean environment as
they mature into adults, and return to the streams of
their birth to spawn and ultimately die. Good water
quality in the spawning areas is required to ensure
development of the young. Good water quality
is also important for the species that are spawned
and develop as juveniles in estuaries, where fresh
and salt waters mingle, interact, and are refreshed
with the tidal change. When water quality in these
upstream freshwater areas is negatively impacted,
the survival of juvenile fish in the estuarine nursery
areas may decrease, ultimately affecting the
offshore fishery stocks of adults for these species.
The coastal and offshore waters, as well as the
resources they contain, face many stressors. For
example, land-based stressors include increasing
coastal population growth coupled with inadequate
land-use planning and increasing inputs of
pollutants from the development of urban areas
and from agricultural and industrial activities.
Pollutant inputs to our freshwater, estuarine, and
near-coastal waters include excessive amounts
of nutrients from land runoff; toxic chemical
contaminants discharged from point sources;
nonpoint-source runoff; accidental spills; and
deposition from the atmosphere. Degradation
or loss of habitat (e.g., loss of wetland acreage),
episodes of hypoxia, and pressures from overfishing
by both recreational and commercial fisherman
jgl^l
Freshwater Rivers and Lakes
Estuary
Coastal
Waters
EEZ
(Extends from 3 miles to
200 miles overlaping
Territorial Sea)
Continental
Shelf
> 200 miles
offshore
Figure 1-6. Linkages between the stressors in freshwater systems, estuaries, and the coastal ocean (U.S. EPA/NCA).
30 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
also impact these coastal ecosystems and the species
they nurture. Offshore in the EEZ, stressors come
from oil spills, overexploitation of fishery stock
resources, and/or habitat loss associated with
damage to benthic communities (e.g., macroalgal
forests and coral reefs) from fishing activities or
development of mineral and energy resources.
The linkage between the stressors in the
freshwater rivers and estuaries and the coastal
ocean is shown in Figure 1-6. Aquatic and
estuarine fisheries resource managers direct their
efforts to preserving water quality conditions;
maintaining important spawning and nursery areas
associated with wetlands, marshes, and SAV beds;
and regulating fishing pressure by recreational
and commercial fishermen. In contrast, offshore
fisheries managers direct their efforts to managing
the exploitation of commercial fishery resources
of the adult stocks. Outside the EEZ, fisheries
managers have less control over the fishery stocks
unless established by international treaties.
These combined efforts to reduce pollution,
maintain habitat quality, and manage fisheries
help to ensure that healthy fishery stocks can be
maintained for many years into the future.
Assessment
Ultimately, the Secretary of Commerce has
management responsibility for most marine
life in U.S. waters and has entrusted the
management of these resources to NOAA's
NMFS. Most of the NMFS's management
and conservation responsibilities are derived
from the following acts of Congress:
• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act regulates fisheries within the
EEZ
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects species
that are in danger of extinction or likely to
become an endangered species
• Marine Mammal Protection Act regulates the
taking of marine mammals
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act authorizes
the collection of fisheries data and coordination
with other agencies for environmental decisions
affecting fisheries management regions
• Federal Power Act provides concurrent
responsibilities with the FWS on protecting
aquatic habitat (NMFS, In press).
The NMFS regulates fisheries in the waters
located 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore of the
United States in an area known as the EEZ. The
waters located landward of the EEZ (0—3 nautical
miles offshore) are managed by coastal states
and multistate fisheries commissions. Fishery
resources in the EEZ are managed largely through
fishery management plans (FMPs). FMPs may be
developed by the NMFS or by fishery management
councils (e.g., Pacific Fishery Management Council,
New England Fishery Management Council, Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council) through
extensive consultation with state and federal
agencies, affected industry sectors, public interest
groups, and, in some cases, international science
and management organizations (NMFS, In press).
Various data sources are used to assess fishery
stocks in the EEZ. Catch-at-age fisheries data
are reported to the NMFS by commercial and
recreational fisheries on the quantity offish caught,
the individual sizes offish and their basic biological
characteristics (e.g., age, sex, maturity), the ratio of
fish caught to time spent fishing (i.e., catch per unit
effort [CPUE]), and other factors. The NMFS also
conducts direct resource surveys using specialized
fishery research vessels to calculate the abundance
index (i.e., estimated population size) for some
species. The NMFS analyzes these data using several
metrics to gain an understanding of the status and
trends in U.S. fishery stocks. These metrics include
• Landings/Catch—Landings are the number
or pounds offish unloaded at a dock by
commercial fishermen or brought to shore
by recreational fishermen for personal use.
Landings are reported at the points where
fish are brought to shore. Catch is the total
number or pounds offish captured from an
area over some period of time. This measure
includes fish that are caught, but released or
discarded. The catch may take place in an area
different from where the fish are landed.
• Fishing Mortality Rate—The fishing mortality
rate is the rate at which members of the
population perish due to fishing activities.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I Introduction
• Yields (various)—The maximum sustainable
yields the largest average catch or yield that
can continuously be taken from a stock under
existing environmental conditions. The recent
average yield'is the average reported fishery
landings for a recent timeframe. The long-
term potentialyield'is the maximum long-term
average yield that can be achieved through
conscientious stewardship. The near-optimum
yield is based on the maximum sustainable yield
as modified by economic, social, or ecological
factors to provide the greatest overall benefit
to the nation with particular consideration for
food production and recreational opportunities.
• Overfishing/Overfished—According to the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1996, a fishery
is considered overfished if the stock size is
below a minimum threshold, and overfishing
is occurring if a stock's fishing mortality
rate is above a maximum level. These
thresholds and levels are associated with
maximum sustainable yield-based reference
points and vary between individual stocks,
stock complexes, and species offish.
• Utilization—The degree of utilization is
determined by comparing the present levels
of fishing effort and stock abundance to those
levels necessary to achieve the long-term
potential yield. A fishery can be classified as
underutilized, fully utilized, overutilized, or
unknown (NMFS, In press).
Once the status of a fishery is assessed, resource
managers may employ various management
tools to regulate where, when, and how people
fish, thus protecting and sustaining our nation's
fishery resources so that marine resources
continue as functioning components of marine
ecosystems, afford economic opportunities,
and enhance the quality of life for U.S. citizens
(NOAA, 2007c). When deemed necessary,
fishery resource managers can employ a variety
of different tools to regulate harvest depending
on the fish or shellfish species involved. These
fishery management tools include the following:
• Daily bag or trip catch limits that reduce or
increase the number offish caught per day or
per trip, respectively
Marine Fisheries Fuel the U.S. Economy
More than one-fifth of the world's most
productive marine waters lie within the LMEs
of the EEZ. The value of both commercial
and recreational fishing is significant to the
U.S. economy, thousands of private firms,
and individuals, families, and communities.
In 2004
• U.S. commercial fishermen landed
9.6 billion pounds offish and shellfish,
valued at $3.7 billion (Figure 1-7).
• The commercial marine fishing industry
contributed an estimated $31.6 billion
(in value added) to the nation's GNP.
• U.S. consumers spent an estimated
$61.9 billion for fishery products
(NMFS,2005c).
• Size limits that impose minimum fish lengths
that limit harvest to adults, thereby protecting
immature or juvenile fish
• Seasonal closures that prohibit commercial
and/or recreational harvesting of specific fish or
shellfish stocks during the spawning period
• Limited access programs that prevent
increased fishing participation by reducing the
number of fishing vessels through vessel buy-
out programs, placing a moratorium on new
vessel entrants into a fishery, or establishing a
permitting system for commercial fishermen
• Gear restrictions that limit the use of certain
types of equipment or mandate increases in
regulated mesh size, thereby protecting the
habitat from damage or excluding juveniles
from harvesting through the use of larger mesh
sizes, respectively
• Time and area closures that prohibit harvesting
of specific fish stocks in specific fishing grounds
or limit the allowable number of days at sea for
fishing for certain types of vessels (e.g., trawl
or gill-net) to protect habitat of juveniles or
spawning species or to reduce total catch
32
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
.g
1 51
D Shellfish
D Finfish
1990 1992 1994
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Years
$31
^ $!'
o
Q
$0^
7
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Years
Figure \-7. Volume and value of commercial fisheries landings, 1990-2006 (NMFS, 2007).
• Harvest quotas that limit the number of fish
of a particular species that can be harvested
annually from a particular region, thereby
preventing overfishing
• Establishment of Marine Protected Areas
within which the harvest of all species is
prohibited.
Through the use of these fishery management
tools, the NMFS makes stewardship decisions
and provides support for rebuilding stocks
through science-based conservation and resources
management to ensure that marine fishery
resources continue as healthy, sustainable, and
functioning components of marine ecosystems
(NOAA, 2007c). Unless otherwise noted, the
information provided for this report on living
marine resources within U.S. LMEs was compiled
from the NMFS productivity data and the
report Our Living Oceans (NMFS, In press),
which is issued periodically by the NMFS and
covers most living marine resources of interest
for commercial, recreational, subsistence, and
aesthetic or intrinsic reasons to the United States.
Assessment and Advisory Data
Assessment and advisory data provided by
states or other regulatory agencies are the third
set of data used in this report to assess coastal
condition. Several EPA programs, including the
Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Assessment
Program, the National Listing of Fish Advisories
(NLFA) Program, and the Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure, and Health (BEACH)
Program, maintain databases that are repositories
for information about how well coastal waters
support their designated or desired uses. These uses
are important factors in the public's perception of
coastal condition and also address the condition
of the coast as it relates to public health. The data
for these programs are collected by multiple state
agencies and reported to EPA, and data collection
and reporting methods differ among states. In
addition, advisories are precautionary and may
not reflect regional condition. Because of these
inconsistencies, data generated by these programs
are not included in and are not comparable to
the regional estimates of coastal condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
33
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Clean Water Act Section 305(b)
Assessments
States report water quality assessment
information and water quality impairments
under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
States and tribes rate water quality by comparing
measured values to their state and tribal water
quality standards. The 305(b) assessment ratings
(submitted by the states in 2002) are stored in
EPA's National Assessment Database (NAD) and
are useful for evaluating the success of state water
quality improvement efforts; however, it should
be emphasized that each state monitors water
quality parameters differently, so it is difficult to
make generalized statements about the condition
of the nation's coastal waters based on these data
alone. For the 2002 reporting cycle, several states
and island territories with estuarine and coastal
marine waters did not submit 305(b) assessment
information to EPA. For the states of North
Carolina and Washington, as well as the island
territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands, no data were available
for the 2002 reporting cycle in the NAD. Because
the reporting of 305(b) information was not
complete for all coastal states and territories, it
was decided that this information would not be
summarized for inclusion in the NCCR III. For this
report, only data from EPA's NLFA database and
the BEACH PRogram tracking, beach Advisories,
Water quality standards, and Nutrients (PRAWN)
database are presented for calendar year 2003-
How the NCA fish tissue contaminants index differs from the state fish advisory data
The results of the NCA fish tissue contaminants index provide a different picture of chemical
contamination in fish than the results obtained from the state fish consumption advisory programs.
The main difference between these two programs is that the NCA is designed to be a nationally
consistent ecological assessment of contaminant concentrations in fish tissue in a variety of ecologically
important target species. In contrast, the state fish advisory programs are designed to identify fish
tissue contaminant concentrations in fish species that are locally consumed by recreational fishers that
may be harmful to human health and warrant issuance of a fish advisory. These programs differ in several
other ways, including the contaminants analyzed, type of fish samples analyzed, and health benchmarks
used in the assessment. These differences are discussed in greater detail below and are summarized in
the table.
• The NCA analyzes each fish sample for a uniform suite of contaminants in all estuaries nationally.
In contrast, individual states monitor for specific contaminants, but each state selects the
contaminants of concern for a particular waterbody based on land-use practices in the watershed,
identified sources of pollution, and available state resources. Therefore, some states may monitor
for mercury and pesticides, while other states monitor for select heavy metals and PCBs.
• The NCA analyzes both juvenile and adult fish, most often as whole specimens, because this is the
way fish would typically be consumed by predator species. This approach is appropriate for an
ecological assessment. In contrast, most state programs assess the risk of contaminant exposure
to human populations and, therefore, analyze primarily the fillet tissue (portion most commonly
consumed by the general population). States may also conduct chemical analyses of whole fish
or species organs in areas where certain populations such as Native Americans, Southeast Asians,
or other ethnic groups consume whole fish or other fish tissues. The use of whole-fish samples
can result in higher concentrations of those contaminants (e.g., DDT, PCBs, dioxins and other
chlorinated pesticides) that are stored in fatty tissues and lower concentrations of contaminants
(e.g., mercury) that accumulate primarily in the muscle tissue. In contrast, the states' practice of
typically analyzing fillet samples can result in higher concentrations of those contaminants that
tend to concentrate in the muscle tissue and lower concentrations of those contaminants that are
typically stored in fatty tissues, which are not included in a fillet sample.
(continued)
34
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter I | Introduction
How the NCA fish tissue contaminants index differs from the fish advisory data
(continued)
• The NCA analyzes fish from a variety of species from intermediate trophic levels found in estuaries
and coastal marine waters; these species are often prey species for many commercially valuable
predator species. In addition, the NCA analyzes both juvenile and adult fish. In contrast, state
programs typically analyze only the larger marketable-sized specimens (adults) of the fish or
shellfish species that are consumed by members of the local population for making fish advisory
determinations. These fish species are often predators (e.g., bluefish, striped bass, king mackerel)
at the top of the estuarine or coastal food web and are more likely to have bioaccumulated higher
concentrations of contaminants than some of the target species sought by the NCA program.
Summary of Differences Between State Fish Consumption Advisory Programs and NCA Fish
Sampling Approach
Elements
State Fish Advisory Programs
NCA
Fish species
and sizes
sampled
Type offish
samples
analyzed
Number and
sample types
analyzed
Contaminants
analyzed in
tissues
f-
I
Health
benchmark
values used
Sample marketable-sized adult fish with a
focus on those species consumed by the
local fish-eating population.
Analyze primarily fillet tissue samples
(edible portion) to assess human health
concerns. Analysis of whole-body fish or
other tissue types is conducted when the
local consumer's culinary preference is to
eat whole fish or body parts other than
the fillet sample.
Analyze chemical contaminant residues in
both individual fish and composite samples
of varying numbers of adult fish. The
number of fish used per composite is set
by the state conducting the analyses.
Individual states monitor for any
contaminant or suite of contaminants
that are of concern to human health in a
particular waterbody in their jurisdiction.
The extent of analyses is often dependent
on available state resources.
Use EPA-recommended fish consumption
advisory values to identify fish species of
human health concern and to develop fish
advisories.
Samples target species (unique to
each geographic region) that includes
demersal or slow-moving pelagic
species from intermediate trophic
levels, including all sizes and ages
(juveniles and adults) offish in an
ecosystem.
Analyzes primarily whole-body
samples to assess the health of the
ecosystem. Some fish fillet sampling
has been conducted and will be
conducted in future assessments.
Typically analyzes chemical
contaminant residues in composite
samples offish of the same species.
Composite samples may contain
4 to 10 juvenile and adult fish.
Monitors for a specific suite of
contaminants at all sites nationally
including the following:
23 PAH compounds,
21 PCB congeners,
6 DDT derivatives and metabolites,
14 chlorinated pesticides (other than
DDT), and
3 metals (including mercury).
Uses EPA-recommended fish
consumption advisory values as
surrogate values to assess health of
the ecosystem.
National Coastal Condition Report
35
-------
Chapter I Introduction
of
States, U.S. territories, and tribes have primary
responsibility for protecting their residents from
the health risks of consuming contaminated, non-
commercially caught fish and shellfish. Resource
managers at the state, territory, or tribal level protect
residents by issuing consumption advisories for
the general population, including recreational and
subsistence fishers, as well as for sensitive groups
(e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers, children,
and individuals with compromised immune
systems). These advisories inform the public that
high concentrations of chemical contaminants (e.g.,
mercury or PCBs) have been found in local fish and
shellfish. The advisories include recommendations
to limit or avoid consumption of certain fish
and shellfish species from specific waterbodies
or, in some cases, from specific waterbody
types (e.g., all coastal waters within a state).
The 2003 NLFA is a database—available
from EPA and searchable on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish—that
contains fish advisory information provided to
EPA by the states and tribes. The NLFA database
can generate national, regional, and state maps that
illustrate any combination of advisory parameters.
There is growing concern in the United States
about public health risks posed by polluted bathing
beaches. Scientific evidence documenting the rise
of infectious diseases caused by microbial organisms
in recreational waters continues to grow; however,
not enough information is currently available to
define the extent of beach pollution throughout
the country. EPA's BEACH Program, established in
1997, is working with state and local governments
to compile information on beach pollution that will
help define the national extent of the problem.
From 1997 through 2002, beach monitoring
data were collected and submitted to EPA on a
voluntary basis. During this time, sampled areas
included coastal, Great Lakes, and some inland
waters. Beginning with the 2003 season, the
BEACH Act required that states submit data to
EPA for beaches that are in coastal and Great
Lakes waters and for all other beaches, as available.
Due to these new reporting requirements, the
2003 and 2004 data cannot easily be compared
to data gathered from 1997 through 2002, and
long-term patterns are difficult to analyze.
A few states have comprehensive beach
monitoring programs to test the safety of water for
swimming. Many other states have only limited
beach monitoring programs, and some states
have no monitoring programs linked directly to
water safety at swimmable beaches. The number
of beach closings and swimming advisories
that continue to be issued annually, however,
indicate that beach pollution is a persistent
problem. In 2003, there were 839 beaches
with at least one closure or advisory in coastal
and Great Lakes waters (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
The first eight chapters of this report address
the condition of the nation's coastal waters in
terms of how well these waters meet ecological
criteria. A related, but separate consideration is
how well coasts are meeting human expectations
in terms of the services they provide for
transportation, development, fishing, recreation,
and other uses. Human use does not necessarily
compromise ecological condition, but there are
inherent conflicts between human activities that
alter the natural state of the coast (e.g., marine
transportation) and activities (e.g., fishing) that
rely on the bounty of nature. In Chapter 9 of this
report, the emphasis is on the human uses of a
particular estuary—Narragansett Bay in Rhode
Island and Massachusetts—and how well these
uses are met. Because this approach relies on local
information, it can be pursued only at the level of
an individual estuary. The corresponding chapter
in the NCCRII centered on Galveston Bay, TX.
The choice of Narragansett Bay is to a large extent
dictated by the availability of long-term data on
the abundance of commercial and recreational fish
for this estuary. Fishing is not the only human use
of an estuary, but it is an important use thought to
be strongly connected with ecological indicators.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER 2
===-
National Coastal Condition
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
National Coastal Condition
As shown in Figure 2-1, the overall condition
of the nation's coastal waters is rated fair; the water
quality index is rated good to fair; the sediment
quality and fish tissue contaminants indices are
rated fair; the benthic index is rated fair to poor;
and the coastal habitat index is rated poor.
Figure 2-2 provides a summary of the percentage
of coastal area in good, fair, poor, or missing
categories for each index and component indicator.
This assessment is based on environmental stressor
and response data collected between 1998 and
2002 from 2,424 sites in the coastal waters of
the 24 coastal states of the conterminous United
States; Hawaii; Puerto Rico; and Southcentral
Alaska (Figure 2-3). About 85% of these data
were collected in 2001 and 2002. Please refer
to Chapter 1 for information about how these
assessments were made, the criteria used to
develop the rating for each index and component
indicator, and the limitations of the available data.
Our nation's coastal waters are important for ecological,
recreational, and economic reasons (courtesy of U.S.
EPA GLNPO).
Overall Condition
U.S. Coastal Waters (2.8)
Good Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3.9)
Sediment Quality Index (2.8)
Benthic Index (2.1)
Coastal Habitat Index (1.7)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (3.4)
Figure 2-1. The overall condition of U.S. coastal waters
is rated fair (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
JJ
20 40 60 80
Percent Coastal Area
100
Missing
Figure 2-2. Percentage of coastal area achieving each
ranking for all indices and component indicators—
United States (U.S. EPA/NCA).
38
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Overall Condition
Overall
U.S. Coastal Waters Condition
West Coast
Overall ._.
Condition J L
Great LakesX 7
Overall
Condition .—.
Northeast I L
Coast W
Good Fair Poor
Overall Condition
Southeast Coast
Ecological Health
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Overall i—i
Condition J L
Gulf Coast W
Coastal Habitat Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Overall Condition
Southcentral Alaska
C
>verall Condition
Hawaii
Overall
Condition
Puerto Rico
Good Fair Poor
Surveys completed, but no
index data available until
the next report.
Surveys completed, but an
index rating was unavailable.
Figure 2-3. Overall national and regional coastal condition based on data collected primarily in 2001 and 2002
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
The condition of U.S. coastal waters was
determined for this report by combining
assessments from the Northeast Coast, Southeast
Coast, Gulf Coast, Great Lakes, and West Coast
regions of the conterminous United States with
those from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Southcentral
Alaska (Figure 2-3). It should be noted that the
overall condition and index scores for the nation are
determined using a weighted average of the regional
scores, rather than the percent area rated good, fair,
and poor. Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii were not
included in the national assessment presented in
the NCCR II (U.S. EPA, 2004a) because data were
unavailable for the coastal areas of those states. A
comparison of coastal condition in 2001 and 2002
based on the inclusion of data for Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii versus coastal condition with
these data excluded is provided later in this chapter.
National Coastal Condition Report
39
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Good
Fair
Poor
Overall Condition
Water Quality
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Coastal Habitat Index
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Missing
Figure 2-4. Overall national and regional coastal condition, 2001-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Figure 2-4 summarizes the national (including
Hawaii and Southcentral Alaska) and regional
condition of the nation's coastal waters. The water
quality index is rated fair or good for regions
throughout the nation, although the coastal waters
of the West Coast region are rated poor for water
clarity and the coastal waters of Puerto Rico are
rated poor for chlorophyll a. The sediment quality
index is rated poor for the Gulf Coast, Puerto
Rico, and Great Lakes regions; fair to poor for
the Northeast Coast and West Coast regions; fair
for the Southeast Coast region; good to fair for
Hawaii; and good for Southcentral Alaska. The
benthic index shows that biological conditions are
rated poor in the coastal waters of the Northeast
Coast, Gulf Coast, and Puerto Rico regions; fair
to poor in the coastal waters of the Great Lakes
region; and good in the coastal waters of the West
Coast and Southeast Coast regions. The fish tissue
contaminants index is rated poor for the coastal
waters of the Northeast Coast and West Coast
regions; fair for the Great Lakes region; good to
fair for the Southeast Coast region; and good for
the Gulf Coast and Southcentral Alaska regions.
40
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
The population of the nation's collective coastal
counties increased by 33 million people between
1980 and 2003 (Figure 2-5), constituting a 28%
growth rate (Crossett et al., 2004). This growth
rate matched that of the nation's total population,
which increased by 63-3 million people during the
same time period (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006b);
however, because the land area of the nation's coasts
comprises roughly 17% of the U.S. total land
area, coastal population increases are frequently
accompanied by larger population density increases
and greater demands for limited resources (Crossett
et al., 2004). Figure 2-6 shows the distribution
of the U.S. coastal population in 2003-
200,000 -
150,000-
° 100,000
I
s
a.
1980
1990
2000
Year
2003
2008
Figure 2-5. Actual and estimated population of U.S.
coastal counties, 1980-2008 (Crossett et al., 2004).
Alaska
Hawaii < 1%
Great Lakes
18%
Gulf Coast
13%
Southeast
Coast
9%
Northeast
Coast
34%
Figure 2-6. Regional distribution of the nation's coastal
population in 2003 (Crossett et al., 2004).
Camden Harbor; ME (courtesy of Patricia A. Cunningham).
National Coastal Condition Report
41
-------
Highlight
Monitoring Coastal Land Cover Change
Land cover information helps users gauge current conditions and plays an important role when
crafting policies that direct future land-use decisions. Land cover maps document how much of a
region is covered by forests, wetlands, agriculture, impervious surfaces, and other land and water
types. By comparing maps from various years, users can see how the land surface has changed over
time. Instead of viewing changes from the ground, parcel by parcel, users can get the entire view
at once and access the information needed to assess current conditions and understand how the
community or region is changing.
The National Land Cover Database (NLCD) is an example of a land-coverage data set that
is used to generate land-coverage maps on different geographic scales. NLCD 2001 is a second-
generation, land-coverage data set that was produced from satellite imagery by the Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium was originally created to
meet the needs of several federal agencies and became a major provider of land cover information
by successfully mapping the conterminous United States based upon early- to mid-1990s Landsat
Thematic Mapper imagery. The continuing need for current, accurate, satellite-based information
resulted in an expanded MRLC Consortium effort to produce the NLCD 2001 (Homer et al., 2004;
MRLC Consortium, 2007).
NOAA's Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) contributes land cover information for coastal regions of
the United States (courtesy of NOAA).
42
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
NOAA's Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) contributes to the nationally standardized,
moderate-resolution NCLD 2001 database by creating land cover information for the coastal
regions of the United States (see map). C-CAP land cover products inventory coastal intertidal areas,
wetlands, and adjacent uplands, with the goal of monitoring changes in these habitats on a 1- to
5-year cycle (NOAA, 1995)- The program categorizes coastal lands into 29 land cover classes. Recent
efforts have led to completed NLCD and C-CAP products for all of the conterminous United States
and Hawaii. Additional imagery is being used to track land cover class changes in these areas through
time.
For example, the figure shows how West Coast land cover has shifted among 12 land cover classes
between 1996 and 2001. In terms of percentage and total area, the largest changes are associated with
increases in barren land and scrub/shrub, as well as decreases in evergreen forest cover and grasslands.
These changes are largely due to the forest management practices common in the Pacific Northwest
and the resulting cycle of harvest and reforestation. During these practices, forests are cut for their
timber, and the barren ground is colonized by grasses. The grassland subsequently develops into
scrubland and eventually returns to mature forest. Between 1996 and 2001, the net loss in area of
evergreen forest along the West Coast exceeded 1,000 mi2 (NOAA, 2003b).
Consistent land cover information at a national scale provides data for a wide variety of analyses
and applications. For example, trend information collected as part of this effort provides valuable
feedback to managers on the success of policies and programs and helps users gain a better
understanding of natural and human-induced changes.
1500
High- Low- Cultivated Grassland Deciduous Evergreen Mixed Scrub/Shrub Woody Herbaceous Barren Water
Intensity Intensity Land Forest Forest Forest Wetland Wetland Land
Developed Developed
Land Land Land Cover Class
Shifts in West Coast land cover classes, 1996-2001 (NOAA, 2003b).
National Coastal Condition Report
43
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data—
Status of Coastal Condition
This section presents the monitoring data
used to rate the five indices of coastal condition
assessed in this report. These calculations do not
include proportional-area and location data for
the Great Lakes because, due to sampling design
differences in the data sets, areal estimates for the
Great Lakes cannot be determined. Although these
two types of Great Lakes data are not presented
in this section, the Great Lakes regional index
and component indicator scores are included in
the national scores. Chapter 7 provides further
details of the Great Lakes monitoring data.
The NCA monitoring data used in this
assessment were based on single-day
measurements collected at sites
throughout the United States during a
9- to 12-week period in late summer.
Data were not collected during other time
periods.
Water Quality Index
The water quality index for the nation's coastal
waters is rated good to fair, with 6% of the coastal
area rated poor and 34% rated fair for water quality
condition (Figure 2-7). The water quality index
was determined based on measurements of five
component indicators: DIN, DIP, chlorophyll a,
water clarity, and dissolved oxygen. Based on the
NCA results, 40% of the nation's coastal waters
experience a moderate-to-high degree of water
quality degradation. Fair condition is generally
characterized by degradation in water quality
response variables (e.g., increased chlorophyll a
concentrations or decreased dissolved oxygen
concentrations). Although poor condition is
characterized by some degradation in response
variables, it is more likely to be characterized by
degradation due to environmental stressors (e.g.,
increased nutrient concentrations or reduced
water clarity). Although none of the regions
outlined in this report are rated poor for water
quality, the Gulf Coast region has the highest
proportion of coastal area rated poor for this
index (14%), followed by the Northeast Coast
(13%) and Puerto Rico (9%) regions. The West
Coast region has the lowest proportion of coastal
area (23%) rated good for water quality.
Figure 2-7. Water quality index data for the nation's
coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The nation's coastal waters are rated good
for DIN concentrations, with only 1% of the
coastal area rated poor. The highest percentage of
coastal area rated poor for DIN concentrations
occurred in the Northeast Coast (5%) region and
Hawaii (5%). U.S. coastal waters are rated fair
for DIP concentrations, with 8% of the coastal
area rated poor for this component indicator
and 53% of the area rated fair. Elevated DIP
concentrations were most often observed in the
coastal waters of the Gulf Coast region (22%).
Chlorophyll a
The nation's coastal waters are rated good
for chlorophyll a concentrations, with 3% of
the coastal area rated poor and 25% of the area
rated fair for this component indicator. Puerto
Rico was the only region of the country rated
poor for chlorophyll a concentrations, with
71% of the region's coastal area rated fair and
poor (combined) for this component indicator.
Other regions with significant percentages of area
rated fair and poor (combined) for chlorophyll a
concentrations were the Southeast Coast (59%)
and Gulf Coast (52%) regions. With the exception
of Puerto Rico, none of the regions experienced
large expanses of poor condition for chlorophyll a
concentrations (Hawaii = 13%, Northeast Coast =
9%, Southeast Coast = 9%, and Gulf Coast = 7%).
44
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Criteria for a Poor Rating
(Percentage of Ambient Surface Light
That Reaches a Depth of I Meter)
Coastal Areas
<20%
< 10%
Areas having high natural levels of suspended solids in the water
(e.g., Louisiana, Delaware Bay, Mobile Bay, Mississippi) or extensive wetlands
(e.g., South Carolina, Georgia).
Areas having extensive SAV beds (e.g., Florida Bay, Indian River Lagoon,
Laguna Madre) or desiring to reestablish SAV (e.g.Jampa Bay).
The remainder of the country.
Water Clarity
The nation's coastal waters are rated fair for
water clarity, with 17% of the U.S. coastal area
rated poor for this component indicator. Sites
with poor water clarity are distributed throughout
the country, but the regions with the greatest
proportion of total coastal area rated poor are the
West Coast (36%), Gulf Coast (22%), Northeast
Coast (20%), and Puerto Rico (20%) regions. Three
different reference conditions were established for
measuring water clarity conditions in U.S. coastal
waters (see Chapter 1 for additional information).
The box above shows the criteria for rating a site
in poor condition for water clarity in estuary
systems with differing levels of natural turbidity.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the nation's
coastal waters are rated good, with 4% of the
coastal area rated poor and 11% rated fair for this
component indicator. The Northeast Coast region
showed the greatest proportion of coastal area (9%)
experiencing low dissolved oxygen concentrations.
The NCA measures dissolved oxygen conditions
only in nearshore coastal waters and does
not include observations of dissolved oxygen
concentrations in offshore coastal shelf waters. The
Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is the largest zone
of anthropogenic coastal hypoxia in the Western
Hemisphere (CAST, 1999), and the occurrence of
hypoxia in Gulf of Mexico shelf waters is a well-
known and documented phenomenon. Between
1989 and 1999, the mid-summer hypoxic zone in
Gulf of Mexico bottom waters steadily increased
in area to include nearly 8,000 mi2. In 2000, the
hypoxic zone decreased in area to less than 1,800
mi2; however, the zone returned to about 8,000
mi2 in area in 2001 and 2002 (the years covered
by NCA surveys in this report). The reduction in
the size of the hypoxic zone in 2000 corresponds
to severe drought conditions in the Mississippi
River watershed and, presumably, to decreased
flow and loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the
river mouth. The long-term (1985—2005) average
area of the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is 4,800
mi2. A more complete discussion of the Gulf of
Mexico hypoxic zone is provided in Chapter 5
of this report, Gulf Coast Coastal Condition.
Interpretation of Instantaneous Dissolved Oxygen Information
Although the NCA results do not suggest that dissolved oxygen concentrations are a pervasive
problem, the instantaneous measurements on which these results are based may have underestimated
the magnitude and duration of low dissolved oxygen events at any given site. Longer-term observations
by other investigators have revealed increasing trends in the frequency and areal extent of low-
oxygen events in some coastal areas. For example, extensive year-round or seasonal monitoring data
over multiple years in such places as North Carolina's Neuse and Pamlico rivers and Rhode Island's
Narragansett Bay have shown a much higher incidence of hypoxia than is depicted in the present NCA
data (Paerl et al., 1998; Bergondo et al., 2005; Deacutis et al., 2006). These data show that while hypoxic
conditions do not exist continuously, they can occur occasionally to frequently for generally short
durations of time (hours).
National Coastal Condition Report
45
-------
Highlight
AN OCEAN BLUEPRINT
FOR THE 21 >t CENTURY
A National Water Quality Monitoring Network for
U.S. Coastal Waters and Their Tributaries
The annual cost of water quality monitoring in
U.S. coastal waters and their tributaries is hundreds
of millions of dollars. Yet, in recent years, numerous
reports have indicated that water quality monitoring
has been and remains insufficient and lacks coordi-
nation to provide comprehensive information about
U.S. water resources. In 2004, the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy recommended a national monitor-
ing network to improve management of coastal
resources (U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
2004a). In response, the Administration produced
a U.S. Ocean Action Plan (CEQ 2004), which
included a proposal for the creation of a National
Water Quality Monitoring Network as a key
element for advancing our understanding of the
oceans, coasts, and the Great Lakes. The network
was designed by the National Water Quality
Monitoring Council on behalf of the Advisory
Committee on Water Information and in response
to a request from the Council on Environmental
Quality and two subcommittees of the National Science and Technology Council (NWQMC, 2006).
Pilot-scale demonstrations of the proposed network are currently underway in select areas of the
country (USGS, 2006a).
The proposed national water quality monitoring network for U.S. coastal waters and their
tributaries (the "Network") shares many attributes with ongoing monitoring efforts, but is unique
in that it uses a multidisciplinary approach to address a broad range of resource components, from
upland watersheds to offshore waters. Specifically, the proposed Network has several key design
features, including the following:
• Clear objectives linked to important management questions
• Linkage with the IOOS
• Integration of water resource components from uplands to the coast, including physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of water resources
• Flexibility in design over time
• Importance of metadata, QA procedures, comparable methodology, and data management that
allow readily accessible data storage and retrieval.
This initial design of the proposed Network focuses on U.S. coastal waters and estuaries. Of the
149 estuaries included in the proposed Network design, 138 are in the conterminous United States
and represent more than 90% of the total surface area of conterminous U.S. estuaries and over
90% of the total freshwater inflow. The sampling scheme for these estuaries includes the following:
46
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
(1) probability-based sampling of estuaries in each IOOS region (see map) to determine the environmental
condition of individual estuaries, (2) targeted and flexible sampling to address estuary-specific resource
management issues and to determine temporal trends of selected parameters, and (3) selection of sampling
sites to determine short-term variability in parameters of interest, using moored, automated sensors. For
nearshore waters and the Great Lakes, the proposed Network design calls for probability-based sampling
supplemented with additional observations from shipboard surveys, satellite-mounted and aerial sensors,
shore-based sensors, and autonomous underwater vehicles. Shipboard sampling and remote sensing will help
to monitor the oceanic regime (NWQMC, 2006).
River monitoring is focused on sampling rivers that (1) represent 90% of the outflow of major inland
watersheds, (2) flow directly into Network estuaries, and (3) flow directly into the Great Lakes and drain
watersheds greater than 250 mi2 in area. Network river monitoring will allow calculation of seasonal and
annual fluxes of freshwater and loads of constituents from the uplands to coastal marine waters and the Great
Lakes (NWQMC, 2006).
Physical, chemical, and
biological constituents are to
be monitored throughout
the Network. Information
about specific constituents to
be monitored for each
resource type; recommended
monitoring frequencies; data
management, comparability,
storage, and access; metadata
standards; and quality
assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) considerations are
discussed in the Network
report (NWQMC, 2006).
The Network report and
appendices are available at
http://acwi.gov/monitoring/
network/design.
Pacific Northwest
Region
Central and
Northern
California
Region
£ Southern ^
California
Hawaiian Region
Island
Region
Caribbean
Region
Integrated Ocean Observing System geographic regions (Ocean. US, 2005b).
National Coastal Condition Report
47
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Sediment Quality Index
The sediment quality index for the nation's
coastal waters is rated fair, with approximately
8% of the coastal area rated poor for sediment
quality condition (Figure 2-8). The sediment
quality index is based on measurements of three
component indicators: sediment toxicity, sediment
contaminants, and sediment TOC. The region
showing the largest proportional area with poor
sediment quality was Puerto Rico (61%), followed
by the Gulf Coast (18%), West Coast (14%), and
Northeast Coast (13%) regions. Although there
are no areal estimates for poor sediment condition
in the Great Lakes region (see Chapter 7 for more
information), local, non-probabilistic surveys of
that region resulted in a sediment quality index
rating of poor. Hawaii and Southcentral Alaska
were the only regions that were rated good or
good to fair for sediment quality condition.
Poor
Missing
1%
Figure 2-8. Sediment quality index data for the nation's
coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Toxicity
The sediment toxicity component indicator
for the nation's coastal waters is rated good, with
4% of the U.S. coastal area rated poor for this
component indicator. Sediment toxicity was
observed most often in sediments of the West
Coast (17%) and Gulf Coast (13%) regions.
Sediment Contaminants
The sediment contaminants component indicator
for the nation's coastal waters is rated good. Poor
sediment contaminant condition was observed
in 3% of the coastal area, and fair condition was
observed in an additional 5% of the coastal area.
The highest proportion of area rated poor for
sediment contaminants occurred in Puerto Rico
(23%), followed by the Northeast Coast (9%)
region. Although there are no areal estimates
for poor sediment contaminant condition in
the Great Lakes region, local, non-probabilistic
surveys of that region produced results indicating
a poor rating for this component indicator.
Sediment TOC
The nation's coastal waters are rated good
for sediment TOC concentrations, with only
2% of the U.S. coastal area rated poor for this
component indicator. The only region rated
poor for this component indicator was Puerto
Rico, where coastal sediments showed high
levels of TOC in 44% of the coastal area.
Benthic Index
The benthic index for the nation's coastal waters
is rated fair to poor, with 27% of the nation's
coastal area rated poor for benthic condition
(i.e., the benthic communities have lower-than-
expected diversity, are populated by greater-than-
expected pollution-tolerant species, or contain
fewer-than-expected pollution-sensitive species, as
measured by multi-metric benthic indices) (Figure
2-9). The regions with the greatest proportion
of coastal area in poor benthic condition were
the Gulf Coast (45%), Puerto Rico (35%), and
Northeast Coast (27%) regions. The Southeast
Coast and West Coast are the only regions where
benthic condition was rated good. Data were
unavailable to assess the integrity of benthic
communities in Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Missing
2%
Figure 2-9. Benthic index data for the nation's coastal
waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal habitat index ratings outlined in
this report are the same as those reported in the
NCCR II because more recent data on coastal
habitat conditions were unavailable for this report.
Although the loss of wetland habitats in the
United States has been significant over the past
200 years, only small losses of coastal wetlands
were documented from 1990 to 2000. Table 2-1
shows the change in wetland acreage from 1990
The coastal habitat index value is the
average of the mean long-term, decadal
loss rate of coastal wetlands (1780-1990)
and the present decadal loss rate of
coastal wetlands (1990-2000).
to 2000; the mean long-term, decadal loss rate
of coastal wetlands from 1780 to 1990; and the
coastal habitat index value for each region and the
nation (including and excluding Alaska). It should
be noted that coastal wetland acreages for Puerto
Rico and Hawaii were unavailable in 2000, and
the Great Lakes region was assessed using different
methods. Also, the coastal wetland data presented
in Table 2-1 for Alaska were for the entire state.
Data for Southcentral Alaska were unavailable
as a separate data set; therefore, a coastal habitat
index score and rating for Southcentral Alaska
could not be determined. In order to be consistent
with the national coastal condition ratings for the
other indices, the national coastal habitat rating
is based on data for the conterminous United
States and excludes the data from Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Great Lakes region.
Table 2-1. Changes in Marine and Estuarine Wetlands, 1780-1990 and 1990-2000 (Dahl, 1990; 2003)
Area 1 990
Coastline or Area (acres)
Northeast Coast
Southeast Coast
Gulf Coast
West Coast
Conterminous U.S.
Coast (excluding
Great Lakes region)
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
452,310
1 , 1 07,370
3,777, 1 20
320,220
5,657,020
2, 1 32,900
31,150
1 7,300
Area 2000
(acres)
45 1 ,660
1 , 1 05, 1 70
3,769,370
318,510
5,644,710
2, 1 32,000
No data
No data
Change
1 990-2000
(acres) (%)
-650 (0. 1 4%)
-2,200 (0.20%)
-7,750(0.21%)
-1,710(0.53%)
-12,310(0.22%)
-900 (0.04%)
Mean Decadal
Loss Rate
1780-1990
1.86%
1.91%
2.39%
3.26%
2.30%
0.05%
0.06%
Index
Value
1.00
1.06
1.30
1.90
1.26
0.05
U.S. Coast
(conterminous
United States and
Alaska)
7,838,370
7,825,160 -13,210(0.17%)
1.25%
0.71
National Coastal Condition Report
49
-------
Highlight
NOAA COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM
Decision Analysis Series No. 23, Volume 2
Science-based Coastal Habitat Restoration
Restoration is the process of reestablishing a
self-sustaining habitat that, in time, can evolve
to closely resemble a natural condition in terms
of structure and function (Turner and Steever,
2002). The five key elements necessary for
successful restoration include the following:
• Reinstatement of ecological processes
• Integration with the
surrounding environment
• Development of a sustainable,
resilient system
• Re-creation of the historic type of physical
habitat that may not always result in the
historic biological community structure
• Development of a planning process
with specific project goals and
performance standards for measuring
achievement of restoration goals
(Society of Wetland Scientists, 2000).
Habitat restoration is a relatively new
science. Early restoration efforts frequently
took a shotgun approach, with limited
planning and limited or no monitoring of
project results. Unfortunately, these efforts
had limited success. The philosophy seemed
to be that if a project was completed, nature
would ensure that the newly reestablished
habitat would persist, all the component
parts would reappear independently, and the
habitat would be wholly functional again.
However, in recent years, there have been
many advances in the design of restoration
projects, the setting of project goals, and the
scientific approach to research and monitoring
of these projects (Thayer and Kentula, 2005).
Stakeholder involvement, appropriate goal
setting, and science-based monitoring are
SCIENCE FOR SOLUTIONS
; ;
*'-,;,*. •*
SCIENCE-BASED RESTORATION MONITORING OF
COASTAL HABITATS
Volume Two: Tools for Monitoring Coastal Habitats
Gordon W. Thayer David H. Merkey
Teresa A. McTigue Felicity M. Burrows
Ronald J. Salz Perry F. Gayaldo
April 2005
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
NATIONAL CENTERS FOR COASTAL OCEAN SCIENCE
CENTER FOR SPONSORED COASTAL OCEAN RESEARCH
Researchers observe the progress at a restoration site
in Palmetta Estuary, Manatee County, FL (courtesy of
Mark Sramek, NOAA).
50
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
critical to the success of both small- and large-scale restoration projects. Restoration monitoring contributes
to our understanding of complex ecological systems. Monitoring is also essential in documenting restoration
performance and adapting project designs based on performance, which should lead to more effective
restoration project results (Thayer et al., 2003; 2005).
The book Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats (Thayer et al., 2003) lays out the steps for
a scientifically based restoration monitoring plan that includes the following:
• Identification of project goals
• Collection of information on similar restoration projects to aide in maximizing efficiency of approaches
• Identification and description of the habitats within the area
• Identification of the basic structural and functional characteristics for those habitat types
• Consultation with experts (e.g., hydrologists, soils experts, botanists, ecologists)
• Development of hypotheses regarding the trajectories of restoration development and recovery
• Collection of historical data for the area
• Selection of reference sites that can be used to evaluate restoration progress
• Agreement on the length of time the project will be monitored
• Selection of monitoring techniques to be used
• Design of a monitoring review and revision process
• Development of a cost estimate for
implementation of the monitoring plan.
The incorporation of a scientific approach into the design
of the restoration monitoring plan will provide for more
successful habitat restoration (Turner and Steever, 2002)
and incorporate the five elements considered essential by the
Society of Wetland Scientists (2000).
Understanding of the value of restoring degraded and
damaged habitats has increased in the past decade, and the
U.S. Congress recognized this growing interest through the
Estuary Restoration Act, Title 1 of the Estuaries and Clean
Waters Act of 2000. Over time, better techniques have been
developed, results of restoration have been more successful,
and statistical rigor has been applied to both restoration and
monitoring activity. Additionally, it has become increasingly
evident that decisions regarding habitat restoration cannot be
made entirely by using ecological parameters alone, but must
involve consideration of the effects on and benefits to humans
(Thayer et al., 2005).
A soil conservation technician
examines sea oats recently planted
to stabilize erosion during hurricanes
and severe storms (courtesy of Bob
Nichols, Natural Resources and
Conservation Service [NRCS]).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
From 1990 to 2000, the conterminous United
States lost approximately 12,310 acres of coastal
wetlands (exclusive of the Great Lakes region),
resulting in a loss rate of about 0.2%. Averaging
this recent rate of decadal wetland loss with the
mean long-term decadal loss rate (2.3%) results in
a coastal habitat index value of 1.26 and a rating
of poor for the nation's coastal waters. The largest
index values were seen in the West Coast (1.90) and
Gulf Coast (1.30) regions, which are both rated
poor. Because Gulf Coast wetlands constitute two-
thirds of the coastal wetlands of the conterminous
United States, and the Gulf Coast coastal habitat
index value is high, the overall national rating for
the coastal habitat index is poor (index value of
1.26). For the Great Lakes region, researchers used
other measurement approaches to assess wetland
losses and rated this region as fair to poor for
coastal habitat condition. Figure 2-10 compares the
national and regional percentages of wetlands lost.
0.6
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
.53
.20
.21
.14
.22
.04
Northeast Southeast Gulf West Conterminous Alaska U.S.
Coast Coast Coast Coast U.S. Coast
Coast
Figure 2-10. Percentage of wetland area loss,
1990-2000 (Dahl, 2003).
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The fish tissue contaminants index for the
nation's coastal waters is rated fair. Figure 2-11
shows that 18% of all stations where fish were
caught demonstrated contaminant concentrations
in fish tissues above EPA Advisory Guidance
values and were rated poor. The NCA examined
whole-body composite samples (typically 4 to
10 fish of a target species per station) for specific
contaminants from 1,277 stations throughout
the coastal waters of the United States (excluding
Hawaii and Puerto Rico). To standardize sampling
methods across the United States and to coordinate
the fish sampling when other NCA coastal samples
were collected each year and across sampling
years, the fish and shellfish that were collected
were typically demersal (bottom-dwelling) and
slower-moving pelagic (water-column-dwelling)
species, usually smaller, younger juveniles. While
the fish caught and analyzed may not exhibit
commercial-grade consumable qualities, they do
represent intermediate trophic-level (position in
the food web) species that serve as prey for larger
fish that may be of commercial size and value.
Fish and shellfish analyzed included Atlantic
croaker, white perch, catfish, flounder, scup, blue
crab, lobster, shrimp, whiffs, mullet, tomcod,
spot, weakfish, halibut, soles, sculpins, sanddabs,
bass, and sturgeon. Stations in poor and fair
condition were dominated by samples with elevated
concentrations of total PCBs, total DDT, total
PAHs, and mercury. In the Northeast Coast region,
31% of the fish samples analyzed were rated poor
for fish tissue contaminant levels and 28% were
rated fair (the Northeast Coast showed poor or fair
condition for more than 50% of the fish samples
analyzed). Southcentral Alaska and the Gulf Coast
region were the only regions that received good
ratings for the fish tissue contaminants index.
Figure 2-11. Fish tissue contaminants index data for the
nation's coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
52
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
National Coastal Condition,
Excluding Alaska and Hawaii
A sampling survey of the ecological condition
of Alaska's coastal resources in the southcentral
region of the state was completed in 2002, the
results of which are included in this report. The
southcentral region of Alaska is referred to as the
Alaskan Province and includes Prince William
Sound and Cook Inlet. This portion of Alaska
encompasses 21,562 mi , or 35% of the total U.S.
coastal area surveyed for this report. The national
coastal condition scores and ratings represent areally
weighted averages of the regional scores; because
they encompass 35% of the total coastal area, the
condition of Southcentral Alaska's coastal waters has
a major influence on the nation's overall condition
and index scores. In contrast, the area of Hawaii's
estuaries and coastal embayments is 98 mi2, or
less than 1% of the total coastal area of the United
States; therefore, estimates of the condition of
Hawaii's coastal waters have little influence on the
national scores.
For this report, the condition of U.S. coastal
waters was determined by combining regional
assessments, including assessments of Hawaii,
Southcentral Alaska, and Puerto Rico. The NCCR
II did not include Alaska or Hawaii in its national
assessment because data were not available for
the coastal waters of those states. The following
assessment provides a comparison of the overall
condition and index scores for the nation from
2001 to 2002, including data for Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii, to scores based only on data for
the conterminous United States and Puerto Rico.
California beach (courtesy of Brad Ashbaugh).
National Coastal Condition Report
53
-------
Highlight
Assessing Coastal Watershed Conditions in the National Parks
The National Park System includes more than 5,100 miles of coast, including coral reefs, barrier
islands, kelp forests, estuaries, and other resources in over three million acres of ocean and Great
Lakes waters. Recognized for their beauty and national significance, these parks provide recreational
opportunities, havens for ocean wildlife, and economic benefits to local communities. The National
Park Service (NPS) is charged with conserving the natural and cultural resources within parks that
are unimpaired for the enjoyment of current and future generations. To achieve its mission, the NPS
must increase its scientific understanding of coastal park conditions, evaluate threats, and pursue
solutions to known resource problems. The NPS Coastal Watershed Condition Assessment (CWCA)
Program is providing scientific assessments of resource conditions in the coastal parks to address these
needs.
San Juan Island Ebe£s Landing
Olympic
Lewis and
Clark
Redwood
Point Reyes
—.
Golden Gate
Channel
Islands
Acadia
Saugus IronWorks
Boston Harbor Islands
Isle Royale
Pictured Rocks
Sleeping Bear Dunes
Cape Cod
Sagamore Hill
Fire Island
Gateway
Assateague Island
Cape Hatteras
Cape Lookout
Fort Pulaski
Cumberland Island
Timucuan
Canaveral
Cape Krusenstern
Bering
Land Bridge
Wrangell-St. Elias
Klondike Gold Rush
Glacier
Kenai Bay
Fiords Sitka
Virgin Islands Coral Reef
Salt River Bay^ --Buck Island Reef
" xPuukohola Heiau
Kaloko-Honokohau—•* 'v
Puuhonua o Honzuna.u'^'
Status of CWCA Program assessments as of June 2007 (courtesy of NPS).
54
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Example Stressor Matrix Table Showing
the Potential for the Degradation of Natural Resources in
Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park, HI (Hoover and Gold, 2005).
Stressor Anchialine
Pools
Nutrients
Fecal bacteria
Dissolved oxygen
Metals
Toxic compounds
Increased temperature
Reduced GW flux
Fish/shellfish harvest
Invasive species
Physical impacts
Sea-level rise
Sound pollution
Light pollution
PP*
OK*
OK
OK*
PP*
OK
PP*
PP*
EP*
OK
PP
OK*
PP*
Kaloko Pond
PP
OK*
OK*
OK*
PP*
OK
PP*
OK*
EP*
OK
OK
OK*
OK*
Wetlands
OK*
OK*
OK*
OK*
PP*
OK*
PP*
OK*
EP
OK
OK
PP*
OK*
Intertidal
OK*
OK*
OK*
OK*
OK*
OK*
OK*
PP
PP*
OK
PP
PP*
OK*
Coastal
Waters
OK*
OK*
OK*
PP*
OK*
PP*
OK*
OK*
PP*
OK*
OK
PP*
PP*
EP - existing problem, PP - potential problem, OK - not currently or expected to be a problem
*Limited data.
NFS works closely with scientists from universities to review and synthesize existing information to
determine the status of coastal park resources and condition indicators, including water quality, habitat
condition, invasive and feral species, extractive uses, physical impacts from resource use and coastal
development, and other issues affecting water resource health. Beginning in 2006, the assessments for the
remaining parks were expanded to evaluate the condition of upland natural resources within coastal park
boundaries. The NFS Water Resources Division (WRD) plans to complete assessments of 55 ocean and Great
Lakes parks, utilizing expertise in physical and biological sciences, including oceanography, water quality,
marine and estuarine sciences, and geographic information systems (GIS).
As of 2007, WRD has completed assessments of 23 ocean and Great Lakes parks (see map) characterizing
the relative health or status of natural resources, revealing factors that may cause impairment, clarifying needs
for field studies, and identifying the information gaps that hinder efforts to address resource problems or more
fully evaluate conditions. These assessments include the development of Stressor matrix tables, which are being
included in each report (see table). These tables are useful summaries of known and potential stressors and will
be used to provide a regional summary of the condition of the NFS coastal units by cross-walking with the
EPA NCA regional scorecards.
WRD is providing the CWCA reports to help guide resource management planning and support the
development of Vital Signs Monitoring Plans. These reports could be used to guide more intensive efforts
aimed at further explaining known park problems, identifying pollution sources or other resource stressors,
and developing restoration or cooperative watershed management strategies in parks and across the nation.
The NPS plans to work collaboratively with programs such as the NCA, as well as with federal, state, and local
agencies; watershed councils; landowners; and other community stakeholders, to address issues cooperatively
on a local watershed or regional oceanographic scale. Copies of completed coastal watershed condition
assessments may be found at http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/watershed_reports/WSCondRpts.htm. For
more information, contact Kristen Keteles by phone at (303) 969-2342 or via email at Kristen_Keteles@
partner.nps.gov.
55
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
The overall condition of U.S. coastal waters is
rated fair whether or not data for Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii are included in the assessment;
however, excluding data for Southcentral Alaska
and Hawaii reduces the nation's overall condition
score from 2.8 to 2.3, as shown in Figure 2-12.
Figure 2-13 provides a summary of the percentage
of conterminous U.S. coastal area in good, fair,
poor, or missing categories for each index and
component indicator. Removing Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii from the national score
calculations primarily affects the assessments for
the water quality and sediment quality indices.
The water quality index score is 3-9 (rated fair
to good) for U.S. coastal waters when data for
Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii are included, but
this score decreases to 3-3 (rated fair) if data for
Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii are excluded. The
sediment quality index score is 2.8 (rated fair) for
U.S. coastal waters when data for Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii are included, but this score
decreases to 1.6 (rated poor) when these data are
excluded. Benthic and coastal habitat indices were
unavailable for Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii, so
these scores do not change. Fish tissue contaminant
data were available for Southcentral Alaska, but
not for Hawaii. The condition rating for the fish
tissue contaminants index is fair regardless of
whether Southcentral Alaska data were included,
but the actual score changed from 3-4 (including
Southcentral Alaska data) to 2.9 (excluding
Southcentral Alaska data).
L -» •*l L*-*^
The estuaries and coastal embayments of Hawaii represent
less than I % of the nation's coastal area (courtesy of
James P. McVey NOAA).
Overall Condition
U.S. Coastal Waters (2.3)
(excludingAKand HI)
Good
Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3.3)
Sediment Quality Index (1.6
Benthic Index (2.1)
Coastal Habitat Index (1.7)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (2.9)
Figure 2-12. The overall condition of U.S. coastal waters
(excluding Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii) is fair (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
20 40 60 80
Percent Coastal Area
100
Good
Fair
Po
or
Missing
Figure 2-1 3. Percentage of estuarine area receiving
each ranking for all indices and component indicators—
United States (excluding Southcentral Alaska and
Hawaii) (U.S. EPA/NCA).
56
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Trends of Coastal Monitoring
Data—United States
Coastal condition for the United States has been
estimated since 1991, when both the Virginian
and Louisianian provinces (Figure 2-14) were
first surveyed concurrently. Annual surveys of
coastal condition were conducted in the Virginian
Province from 1990 through 1993 and 1997
through 1998; in the Louisianian Province from
1991 through 1994; in the Carolinian Province
from 1995 through 1997; and in the West Indian
Province in 1995- Beginning in 2000, the coastal
waters of all regions of the United States (exclusive
of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories) have
been surveyed and assessed annually. In 2001,
the NCCRI was produced and included
information for the period 1990 through 1996
from the Virginian, Carolinian, West Indian, and
Louisianian provinces (the Acadian, Californian,
and Columbian provinces; Island Territories;
Alaska; and Hawaii were largely excluded from
this report). In 2004, the NCCR II included an
assessment of all of the coastal ecosystems in the
conterminous United States and Puerto Rico for
the period 1997 through 2000. This NCCR III
provides an assessment of the entire continental
United States, Southcentral Alaska, Hawaii, and
Puerto Rico for the years 2001 and 2002.
Provinces
I I Acadian
I I Alaskan
I I Aleutian
I I Arctic
I I Bering
I I Carolinian
I I Columbian
I I Insular
^1 Lousianian
I I Virginian
Alaska
Hawaii America Samoa
I Californian I I West Indian
Puerto Rico
Figure 2-14. EMAP coastal provinces (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
57
-------
Highlight
Conditions in U.S. National Estuary Program Estuaries
Our nation's estuaries encompass a wide variety
of coastal habitats, including wetlands, salt marshes,
coral reefs, mangrove and kelp forests, seagrass
meadows, tidal mud flats, and upwelling areas. These
estuarine habitats include cold temperate waters, as
well as subtropical and tropical ecosystems. Estuaries
provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and
food for fish, shellfish, and other wildlife species,
as well as nesting, resting, feeding, and breeding
habitat for 75% of waterfowl and other migratory
birds (U.S. EPA, 1998b). Estuaries are also a vital
part of our national economy, providing areas used
for recreation, tourism, commercial fishing, and
port facilities for domestic and international trade.
The major objective of the National
Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report
(NEP CCR) is to document the condition
of the nation's 28 National Estuary Program
(NEP) estuaries—a subset of the nation's
estuaries that have been designated as Estuaries of National Significance. NEP estuaries were
nominated for inclusion in the NEP because they were deemed threatened by pollution, human
development, or overuse. The Clean Water Act requires that the EPA report periodically on
the condition of the nation's estuarine waters. As part of the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act, the Section 320 NEP promotes comprehensive planning efforts to help protect
these nationally significant estuaries through their individual estuarine-specific programs.
Data collected from 1999 to 2003 by EPA's NCA were used to rate the NEP estuaries individually,
regionally, and nationally using four primary indices of estuarine condition (water quality, sediment
quality, benthic condition, and fish tissue contaminant concentrations). The coastal habitat index was
not evaluated for this report because the NWI data were not available on the estuary level. The NEP
CCR presents the following two major types of data for each NEP estuary: (1) estuarine monitoring
data collected as part of the NCA, and (2) estuarine monitoring data collected by the individual NEPs
and/or NEP partners, which may include state agencies, universities, and volunteer monitoring groups.
The estuarine condition ratings developed in the NEP CCR are based solely on NCA estuarine
monitoring data because these data are the most comprehensive and nationally consistent data
available related to estuarine condition. The report uses these data in assessing estuarine condition
by evaluating the four selected indices of estuarine condition in each region of the United States
(Northeast Coast, Southeast Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, and Puerto Rico). The resulting ratings
for each index are then used to calculate an overall NEP estuary rating, an overall NEP regional
rating, and an overall NEP national rating of estuarine condition. This national assessment applies
58
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
to the 28 individual NEP-designated estuaries located in 17 coastal states and the island territory of Puerto
Rico (see figure). With the NEP CCR, the collaborating agencies and the individual NEPs strive to provide
a benchmark of estuarine condition that paints a comprehensive picture of the nation's NEP estuaries.
The major findings of the NEP CCR include the following:
• Ecological assessment of NCA data shows that the nation's NEP estuaries are generally in fair condition
nationally, but that regionally, the NEP estuaries are rated poor in Puerto Rico (San Juan Bay) and the
Northeast Coast region, fair in the Gulf Coast and West Coast regions, and fair to good in the Southeast
Coast region.
• The indices that show the poorest conditions throughout the United States are the sediment quality index,
followed by the fish tissue contaminants index and benthic index. The index that generally shows the best
condition is the water quality index.
• Nationally, 37% of NEP estuarine area is in poor condition. Regionally, roughly 100% of Puerto Rico's
NEP estuarine area is in poor condition, and 46% of the Northeast Coast, 46% of the Gulf Coast, 36%
of the West Coast, and 23% of the Southeast Coast NEP estuarine area is in poor condition (U.S. EPA,
2006b).
This report also provides individual NEP profiles of the nation's 28 nationally significant estuaries,
including a map, background information on the NEP estuary, environmental concerns of most importance
to the NEP and its stakeholders, population pressures affecting the individual NEPs, and environmental
indicators used by the NEP to assess estuarine health. This information, together with data from the NCA
monitoring program, provides a picture of the overall condition of the coastal resources of the nation's NEP
estuaries.
Overall Condition
U.S. NEP
Estuaries
Overall national and regional condition ratings for NEP estuaries
based on NCA results, 1999-2003 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
59
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
A traditional trend analysis cannot be performed
on the data presented in the National Coastal
Condition Report series because the underlying
population (i.e., the coastal resources included
in the survey) has changed for each assessment;
however, estimates have been made for the
overall condition of U.S. coastal waters in each
assessment. If we assume that the condition of any
unsampled waterbodies has a similar distribution
to the condition of those sampled, then the report
provides estimates for all the coastal waters of the
United States. Table 2-2 shows the primary index
and overall condition scores from the three reports
for each region and for the nation (including and
excluding Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii).
Table 2-3 shows the percent of the nation's
coastal area rated poor for overall condition
and the associated overall condition scores from
the three national assessments. An increase in
a score and/or a decrease in the percent area in
Table 2-2. Rating Scores by lndexa and Region Comparing the NCCR I, NCCR II, and NCCR lllb
Index
60
Region Water Quality
Gulf Coast
Southeast
Coast
Northeast
Coast
Southcentral
Alaska
Hawaii
West Coastc
Great Lakesc
Puerto Ricoc
United States6
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3
vl
v2
v3f
v3^
1
3
3
4
4
3
1
2
3
_
-
5
_
-
5
1
3
3
1
3
3
-
3
3
1.5
3.2
3.3
3.9
Sediment
Quality Coastal Habitat
3 1
3 1
1 1
4 2
4 3
3 3
2 3
1 4
2 4
_ _
- -
5
_ —
- -
4
2 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
1 2
1 2
- -
1
1
2.3 1.6
2. 1 1 .7
1.6 1.7
2.8 1.7
Benthic
1
2
1
3
3
5
1
1
1
_
-
-
_
-
-
3
3
5
1
2
2
-
1
1
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.1
Fish Tissue
Contaminants
3
3
5
5
5
4
2
1
1
_
-
5
_
-
-
3
1
1
3
3
3
-
-
-
3.1
2.7
2.9
3.4
Overall
Condition
1.8
2.4
2.2
3.6
3.8
3.6
1.8
1.8
2.2
_
-
S.0d
_
-
4.5d
2.0
2.0
2.4
1.4
2.2
2.2
—
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.8
'd Rating scores are based on a 5-point system, where a score of less than 2.0 is rated poor; 2.0 to less than 2.3 is rated fair to poor; greater than
2.3 to 3.7 is rated fair; greater than 3.7 to 4.0 is rated good to fair; and greater than 4.0 is rated good.
b AK and HI were not reported in the NCCR I or NCCR II.The NCCR I assessment of the Northeast Coast region did not include the Acadian
Province.The West Coast ratings in the NCCR I were complied using data from many different programs.
:West Coast, Great Lakes, and Puerto Rico scores for the NCCR III are the same as NCCR II (no new data forthe NCCR III except for the West
Coast benthic index).
d Overall condition scores for Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii were based on 2-3 of the 5 NCA indices.
" U.S. score is based on an areally weighted mean of regional scores.
f U.S. score excluding Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii.
8 U.S. score including Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii.
vl = NCCR (adjusted scores from Table C-l in NCCR II); v2 = NCCR II; v3 = NCCR III
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
poor condition reflects improving condition for
a particular index or for overall condition. In
principle, a positive change in a score should
correspond to a negative change in percent area in
poor condition. In general, this is the case shown
in Table 2-3; however, some inconsistencies exist
due to several reasons, including (1) the scores
represent ranges of condition, whereas the percent
area in poor condition is an exact number; (2)
the interpretation of values has changed as the
assessments have become more sophisticated; (3)
some index elements were measured only after
2000; and (4) in one case, the elements of an
index reversed in importance. Although some of
these inconsistencies can be adjusted through a
recalculation of the percent of area or the score
to "correct" differences to a common baseline
for reason 2 (see Appendix C in the NCCR
II), no adjustment can be made for reasons
1, 3, or 4. Figure 2-15 depicts the concurrent
percent area in poor condition for each index.
From the NCCR I to NCCR III, the water
quality index score for U.S. coastal waters
increased from 1.5 (rated poor) to 3-3 (rated fair),
with a corresponding decrease in percent area
rated poor from 40% to 11%. Although water
quality has likely improved during this time, the
dramatic change in the water quality assessment
from the NCCR I to the NCCR III is largely
due to the reliance on professional judgment for
eutrophication information in the NCCR I, rather
than on direct measurements from surveys used
for subsequent reports of the National Coastal
Condition Report series (NCCR II, NCCR III).
Nitrogen and phosphorus measurements were not
used in the NCCR I assessment; instead, a survey
of professional judgment conducted by NOAA was
used to assess the eutrophication status of estuaries.
These judgments were based on other measures (e.g.,
macroalgal abundance, SAV loss, HABs) (Bricker et
al., 1999). The NCCR I reported that 40% of the
nation's coastal area was rated poor for water quality
(rating score of 1.5). In the NCCR II, water quality
in the nation's collective coastal waters improved,
with a reduction in percent area rated poor
(11%) and an increase in the water quality index
score to 3-2 (rated fair); however, this apparent
improvement in the water quality index score and
the percent area in poor condition is likely not as
dramatic as the assessment suggests. In the current
assessment (NCCR III), 11% of the U.S. coastal
area is rated poor, and the water quality index score
is 3-3 (rated fair). This assessment demonstrates
Overall
Condition
Water
Quality Index
Sediment
Quality Index
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants
Index
1
1 1 1 NCCR III
1
D NCCR II
1 D NCCR 1
1
1
|
,
1
i i i i i i i i i
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Percent Area in Poor Condition
Figure 2-15. Comparison of percentage area in poor
condition for the three National Coastal Condition Report
assessments (U.S.EPA/NCA).
Table 2-3. Percentage of U.S. Coastal Area in Poor Condition and Corresponding Rating Score for the NCCR I
(1990-1995), NCCR II (1996-2000), and NCCR III* (2001-2002) National Ecological Condition Assessments
Category
% Area in Poor Condition
NCCR I
NCCR
NCCR
Score
NCCR I
NCCR
NCCR
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Overall Condition
Ov
40
10
22
26
44
I I
13
17
22
35
I I
14
27
19
1.5
2.3
1.5
3.1
3.2
2.1
2.0
2.7
3.3
1.6
2.1
2.9
*NCCR III assessment is for coastal waters in the conterminous United States (excluding Hawaii and Southcentral Alaska).
National Coastal Condition Report
61
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
no significant change in the water quality of U.S.
coastal waters since the publication of the NCCR II.
Although the percent area in poor condition
changed very little (from 10% to 14%) between the
NCCR I and the NCCR III, the sediment quality
index score decreased from 2.3 (rated fair) to 1.6
(rated poor), respectively, between the two reports.
Initially, this temporal pattern seems inconsistent
because a significant decrease in the sediment
quality index score should logically correspond
to a significant increase in percent area in poor
condition. This apparent inconsistency results from
the inclusion of a sediment quality index score
of 1.0 (rated poor) for the Great Lakes region in
determining the sediment quality index score for
the nation's coastal waters (Great Lakes were not
included in calculations of percent area). Although
the change in the nation's sediment quality index
score between the two reports appears to be more
significant than the change in the percent of coastal
area rated poor, the NCCR III rating would only
change from poor to fair to poor if it were based
solely on percent area in poor condition. According
to the regional assessment criteria, a region is rated
poor if more than 15% of a region's coastal area
is rated poor, and a region is rated fair if between
5% and 15% of the coastal area is rated poor.
Based on the regional criteria outlined in Chapter
1 and the percent of national coastal area rated
poor (14%), the sediment quality index score for
the NCCR III would be 2.0 (rated fair to poor);
however, when the national sediment quality index
score is calculated based on the weighted average
of the regional scores (including the Great Lakes
sediment quality score of 1.0), the national score is
reduced to 1.6 (rated poor). Similar comparisons
can be made for the subsequent assessments.
The approach used by NCA does not
provide any estimate of "resiliency" for
a given estuarine system. An area rated
poor may, in fact, be relatively healthy and
have the capacity to "bounce back" from
the measured poor condition at the single
point in time when sampling occurred;
meanwhile, some of the areas rated
good may be quite vulnerable over the
longer term. These phenomena should be
evaluated in concert with the trend data
before any decisive environmental action
is taken.
The coastal habitat index assessment has not
changed from the NCCR II to the NCCR III. No
new information is available to assess coastal habitat
changes for the NCCR III, and the scores presented
in this report are identical to those presented in the
NCCR II. Although some regional improvements
in the coastal habitat index rating occurred in
the Northeast Coast region between the NCCR I
(rated fair) and the NCCR II (rated good to fair),
the regions with most of the wetland acreage in
the United States (Gulf Coast, Southeast Coast,
and Great Lakes) showed little or no change in
their index ratings. The Gulf Coast and Southeast
Coast regions showed a continuing loss of wetlands
at about the same rate of approximately 0.2%
of available acreage between 1990 and 2000.
The benthic index, although consistent in
concept, is calculated differently for each region of
the United States; therefore, the assumption that
unsampled regions reflect the same distribution
pattern of poor conditions as those sampled is not
supported. The percent of coastal area with poor
62
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
benthic condition in the West Coast region and
Acadian Province of the Northeast Coast region is
consistently lower than in the Gulf Coast region
and the Virginian Province of the Northeast Coast
region. As a result, the U.S. benthic index score
of 1.5 (rated poor) in the NCCRI corresponds to
the 22% of coastal area in poor condition in the
Gulf Coast region, Southeast Coast region, and
Virginian Province of the Northeast Coast region.
When the West Coast region and Acadian Province
of the Northeast Coast region were included in
the NCCR II assessment, the percent of coastal
area with poor benthic condition decreased to
17% (within the uncertainty estimates for the
NCCR I) and the benthic index score increased to
2.0 (rated fair to poor). However, for the NCCR
III, the percent area with poor benthic condition
increased to 27% (an increase of 10%), and the
benthic index score increased from 2.0 to 2.1 (rated
fair to poor). The percent area with poor benthic
condition in the Gulf Coast region increased to
45% in the NCCR III. Although this increase in
the Gulf Coast region accounts for the sizeable
increase in the percent of U.S. coastal area in
poor condition, it has little affect on the national
benthic index score because, based on the criteria
described in Chapter 1, the regional rating would
be poor in both cases. This change in the Gulf
Coast region—coupled with small improvements
in benthic condition in the Southeast Coast and
West Coast regions—results in the apparent
inconsistency of a significant increase (degradation)
in percent coastal area with poor benthic condition
in the United States (+10%) coupled with a
minimal increase in overall benthic score (+0.1).
Guidelines for Assessing Sediment
Contamination (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—
Determined values for each chemical as
the 50th percentile (median) in a database
of ascending concentrations associated
with adverse biological effects.
^ ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined
values for each chemical as the I Oth
percentile in a database of ascending
concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
Please note that some of the percentages
discussed in this report differ from those
published in the NCCR I or NCCR II. In
some cases, data were reassessed to make
the results comparable across reports.
For example, the NCCR I reported that
35% percent of the national coastal area
was rated poor for sediment quality. This
assessment was based on criteria that
included both ERM exceedances and
five ERL exceedances in its estimate of
percent area rated poor. These criteria
changed in the NCCR II and NCCR III
to reflect only ERM exceedances when
calculating percent area rated poor. When
the NCCR I data are reassessed using the
updated criteria, the percent area rated
poor is reduced to 10%.
The fish tissue contaminants index shows a
consistent improvement from the NCCR I to
the NCCR III. The percent of stations rated poor
decreased from 26% of stations where fish were
caught (NCCR I) to 19% (NCCR III). This
reduction corresponds with an improvement of
the fish tissue contaminants index score from
the NCCR II (2.7) to the NCCR III (2.9), but
is inconsistent with the reduction of the score
from the NCCR I (3.1) to the NCCR II (2.7).
This inconsistency is the result of comparing
different methodologies. In the NCCR I, fish
tissue contaminant concentrations were measured
in edible fillets, whereas in both the NCCR II
and NCCR III, whole-fish concentrations were
measured. Currently, it is not possible to "adjust"
the NCCR I assessments (fillets) to whole-fish
concentrations and scores; however, research
completed from 2003 through 2004, where
both fillet and whole-fish concentrations were
determined, will likely provide the information
necessary to make that adjustment. At present,
the best interpretation seems to be that there is
little change in contaminant levels in fish tissue in
U.S. coastal waters, with the national fish tissue
contaminant index rated fair for all three reports.
National Coastal Condition Report
63
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries
Ten LMEs are found in the waters bordering
U.S. states and island territories around the world
(Figure 2-16). The climates of these LMEs vary
from subarctic to tropical, and their productivities
range from low to high based on global estimates
of primary production (phytoplankton). Some of
these LMEs (i.e., the Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf, Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, California
Current, Gulf of Alaska, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort
Sea LMEs) border multiple countries, such as the
United States and Russia. As a result, information
about fishery stocks in the Caribbean Sea, Chukchi
Sea, and Beaufort Sea LMEs is unavailable. In
addition, several of the U.S. island territories
in the Pacific Ocean are not located within an
LME. The fisheries in the waters surrounding
these territories are managed on a regional level
with the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian LME as the
NMFS Western Pacific Region (NOAA, 2007g).
As of 2004, many marine fish stocks in U.S.
LMEs were healthy, and other stocks were
rebuilt. Despite this progress, a number of the
nation's most significant fisheries still face serious
challenges, including the California Current and
Gulf of Alaska LME demersal fish, Southeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME snapper-grouper
complex, and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf
LME mixed-species stocks (NMFS, In press).
In 2004, NOAA's Office of Sustainable Fisheries
reported on the status of 688 marine fish and
shellfish stocks with respect to their overfished and
overfishing condition (NMFS, 2005c). According
\ \ Insular Pacific-
\ \ Hawaiian
y\ Hawaii
M
A\
IX
Chukchi
Sea
,AI_( r-^r^ Beaufort \
Gulf of
Alaska
Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
Conterminous
United States
California
Current
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
Puerto U.S.Virgin
Gulf of
Mexico
Caribbean
Sea
Relevant Large Marine Ecosystems
Associated U.S. land masses
Figure 2-16. U.S. states and island territories are bordered by 10 LMEs (NOAA, 2007g).
64
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act of 1996 (and reauthorized
in 2006), a fishery is considered overfished if the
stock size is below a minimum threshold, and
overfishing is occurring if a stock's fishing mortality
rate is above a maximum level. These thresholds
and levels are associated with maximum sustainable
yield-based reference points and vary between
individual stocks, stock complexes, and species
offish. Of the 200 fish stocks whose status with
respect to overfished condition is known, 144 were
not overfished and 56 stocks or stock complexes
were overfished (NMFS, 2002; 2005c). The
overfishing status of 236 stocks is known, of which
44 stocks or stock complexes (19%) have a fishing
mortality rate that exceeds the overfishing threshold.
The NMFS has approved rebuilding plans for
the majority of overfished stocks. Five FMP
amendments were approved in 2004 to implement
final rebuilding plans for 23 stocks in the Northeast
U.S. Continental Shelf, Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf, Gulf of Alaska, and East Bering Sea LMEs.
The number of stocks considered to be overfished
has decreased from 92 in 2000 and 81 in 2001 to
56 in 2004. Some of the stocks whose status has
changed are located in the Gulf of Alaska, California
Current, Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf, and
Gulf of Mexico LMEs. The Pacific whiting (a
demersal fish) stock of the Gulf of Alaska and
California Current LMEs has been fully rebuilt, and
overfishing is no longer occurring. Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME black sea bass stock is also
no longer overfished. Three more stocks—lingcod,
Pacific ocean perch (Gulf of Alaska and California
Current LMEs), and king mackerel (Gulf of Mexico
LME)—have increased in abundance to the point
they also are no longer overfished. Rebuilding
measures for all these stocks will continue until each
stock has been fully rebuilt to a level that provides
the maximum sustainable yield (NMFS, 2005a).
Commercial landings offish can be measured by
pounds offish landed and by the value (in dollars)
that those fish bring to the economy (Table 2-4). In
2004, Alaska led all states in pounds offish landed
(5-4 billion) and in the value of fisheries landings
($1.2 billion) (NMFS, 2005a). Alaska pollock,
Table 2-4. Top 1 0 Commercial Species Landed
in 2004 (NMFS, 2005c)
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Top 1 0 by Quantity
Pounds
Species (thousands)
Pollock 3,361,989
Menhaden 1,497,610
Salmon 737,935
Cod 602,732
Hakes 502,502
Flounders 440,699
Crabs 3 1 4,428
Shrimp 308,275
Herring 255,931
(sea)
Sardines 199,613
Top 1 0 by Value
Dollars
Species (thousands)
Crabs $447,978
Shrimp $425,605
Lobsters $344,070
Scallops $322,098
Flatfish $300,896
Pollock $277,029
Salmon $272,730
Cod $ 1 69,647
Clams $158,782
Oysters $ 1 1 1 , 1 25
described as the largest food fish resource in the
world, has been ranked first nationally (in pounds
harvested) of the major U.S. domestic commercial
species landed from 2001 through 2004. Menhaden
(e.g., fatback, bugfish, munnawhatteaug), an
industrial species used as bait and for fish meal and
oil, is one of the most important fisheries on the
Atlantic coast, with the majority offish caught from
estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Nationally,
the menhaden fishery ranked second by mass from
2000 through 2004, whereas the Pacific salmon
fishery ranked third from 2001 through 2004, and
the cod fishery (Atlantic and Pacific combined)
has consistently ranked fourth. The shrimp fishery
was ranked first by value in 2001 and 2002, then
second in 2003 and 2004—the reverse of the crab
fishery, which was ranked second in monetary
value for the first 2 years and then first for the
later 2 years (2003 and 2004). The American
lobster fishery was consistently ranked third by
value throughout this timeframe, Alaska pollock
ranked fourth in 2001 and 2002, and flatfish
and scallops ranked fourth in 2003 and 2004,
respectively (NMFS, 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005c).
National Coastal Condition Report
65
-------
Highlight
Integrating Science and Technology to Support Coastal
Management Needs: The National Estuarine Research Reserve
System-wide Monitoring Program
There are 27 National Estuarine Research Reserves (NERRs) covering more than 1 million acres
of estuarine waters and adjoining lands across the continental United States, Alaska, and Puerto Rico
(see map) (NERRS, 2003). NOAA's National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) was
established by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, which created reserves to protect estuarine
areas, provide education opportunities, promote and conduct estuarine research and monitoring,
and transfer critical information to coastal managers. In 1995, the NERRS established a System-
wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) to collect data on estuarine biodiversity and water and weather
conditions, as well as to classify watershed habitats and land-use changes. The SWMP was designed
to track short-term variability and long-term changes in estuarine ecosystems and to understand and
forecast how human activities and natural events can affect these ecosystems.
In 2005, the NERRS celebrated the SWMP's 10th anniversary. The long-term data sets of the
SWMP make it possible to establish baseline conditions, examine both intra-annual (seasonal) and
interannual patterns in estuarine systems, and study the effects of large-scale (e.g., El Nino and La
Nina climatic conditions, sea-level rise, hurricanes, Nor'easters) and localized (e.g., floods, drought,
contaminant spills) episodic events.
O NERR
• Proposed NERR
66
Estuaries of the NERRS are found on coastlines across the United States (NERRS, 2003).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
The NERRS has compiled a subset of examples from across the 27 sites that demonstrate the
application of water and weather monitoring data to local, regional, and national coastal management
needs. One such example is the Grand Bay Reserve in Mississippi.
Grand Bay Reserve, MS—SWMP Data Used
to Track Effects of a Phosphate Spill
The western border of the Grand Bay Reserve in southeastern Mississippi is lined with industrial
plants. Grand Bay Reserve staff rely on SWMP data to monitor baseline water quality conditions
and identify anomalies resulting from contaminant spills or other pollution episodes. One such
incident occurred on April 14, 2005, when levees surrounding containment ponds at a fertilizer
manufacturing plant collapsed after two weeks of record-breaking rain. A large volume of effluent
water from the plant entered an adjacent tidal lake that lies within the Grand Bay Reserve's
boundaries, resulting in an abrupt drop in pH levels. An SWMP datalogger located in the center of
the lake recorded that the water's pH level fell from 7-5 to 3-7 within an hour (see figure). Eleven days
later, phosphorus levels in the lake were ^5,000 times greater than before the spill and chlorophyll a
concentrations had fallen to zero, indicating that primary productivity had ceased. Continual
SWMP monitoring at Grand Bay Reserve captured the effects of this spill and will, in conjunction
with additional monitoring, document the full recovery of this vital ecosystem. Following this
incident, Grand Bay Reserve staff presented the SWMP data to the Mississippi Commission on
Marine Resources and worked with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality staff to
recommend corrective actions and restoration measures for the spill site (Owen and White, 2005).
More information about the NERRS program is available on NOAA's NERRS Web site at
http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov. Monitoring data for each national reserve are available from the NERR's
Centralized Data Management Office at http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu.
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
Q.
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
3 pH-unit drop in I hour
on April 15th
Verified pH measurement of 3.7
prior to low tide on April 15th
(datalogger exposed at low tide)
4- 1 -OS
4-5-05
4-10-05
4-15-05
Date
4-20-05
4-25-05
4-30-05
NERRS' SWMP measurements showing the effect of an April 1 4, 2005,
phosphate spill on pH in Bangs Lake, MS (Owen and White, 2005).
National Coastal Condition Report
67
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
A total of 90 fish consumption advisories were
in effect for the estuarine and coastal marine waters
of the United States in 2003, including about 77%
of the coastal waters of the conterminous 48 states
(Figure 2-17)- In addition, 30 fish consumption
advisories were in effect for the Great Lakes and
their connecting waters. An advisory may represent
one waterbody or one type of waterbody within
a state's jurisdiction and may cover one or more
species offish. Some advisories are issued as a single
statewide advisory for all estuarine or marine waters
within a state (Table 2-5). Although the statewide
coastal advisories have placed a large proportion
of the nation's coastal waters under advisory,
these advisories are often issued for the larger-size
classes of predatory species (e.g., bluefish, king
mackerel) because larger, older individuals have
had more time to be exposed to and accumulate
one or more chemical contaminants in their tissues
than younger individuals (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
The number and geographic extent of advisories
can serve as indicators of the level of contamination
in estuarine and marine fish and shellfish, but a
number of other factors must also be taken into
account. For example, the methods and intensity
of sampling and the contaminant levels at which
advisories are issued often differ among the states.
In the states with statewide coastal advisories, one
advisory may cover many thousands of square
miles of coastal waters and many hundreds of
miles of shoreline waters. Although advisories in
U.S. estuarine, Great Lakes, and coastal marine
waters have been issued for a total of 23 individual
chemical contaminants, most advisories issued have
resulted from four primary contaminants: PCBs,
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
I I No advisories
America Samoa
Alaska
CH 2-4
I I 5-9
I I Noncoastal cataloging unit
Puerto Rico
Figure 2-17. The number offish consumption advisories active in 2003 for U.S. coastal waters (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
mercury, DDT and its degradation products (DDD
and DDE), and dioxins/furans. These four chemical
contaminant groups were responsible, at least in
part, for 92% of all fish consumption advisories in
effect in U.S. estuarine and coastal marine waters
in 2003 (Figure 2-18; Tables 2-6 and 2-7). These
chemical contaminants are biologically accumulated
(bioaccumulated) in the tissues of aquatic
organisms to concentrations many times higher
than concentrations in seawater (Figure 2-19). In
addition, concentrations of these contaminants in
the tissues of aquatic organisms may be increased at
each successive level of the food web. As a result, top
predators in a food web may have concentrations of
these chemicals in their tissues that can be a million
times higher than the concentrations in seawater.
A direct comparison offish advisory contaminants
and sediment contaminants is not possible
because states often issue advisories for groups of
chemicals; however, 4 of the top 10 contaminants
associated with fish advisories (PCBs, dioxins,
DDT, and dieldrin) are among the contaminants
most often responsible for a Tier 1 National
Sediment Inventory classification (i.e., associated
adverse effects to aquatic life or human health
are probable) of waterbodies based on potential
human health effects (U.S. EPA, 2004b; 2004c).
PCBs |
c Mercury
c
E Dioxin 1
rt \
•u
c
0 Other
DDT, 1
DDD,
and DDE
• Table 2-5. Summary of States* with Statewide Fish ^^^^^H
Advisories for Coastal and Estuarine Waters ^^^^^|
(U.S.EPA,2004b)
State Pollutants
Alabama
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Fish Advisories
Listed for Each Contaminant
Figure 2- 1 8. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in U.S. coastal waters. An advisory can be
issued for more than one contaminant, so percentages
may add up to more than 100 (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
North Carolina
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Mercury
PCBs
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Dioxins
Mercury
PCBs
Mercury
PCBs
Mercury
PCBs
PCBs
Dioxins
Cadmium
Dioxins
Mercury
PCBs
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
^^m
Species under
Advisory
King mackerel
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
Bluefish
Cobia
Greater amberjack
Jack crevalle
King mackerel
Little tunny
Shark
Spotted sea trout
King mackerel
King mackerel
Bluefish
King mackerel
Lobster (tomalley)
Shark
Shellfish
Striped bass
Swordfish
Tilefish
All other fish
King mackerel
Lobster (tomalley)
Shark
Swordfish
Tilefish
Tuna
King mackerel
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
American eel
Bluefish
Striped bass
Lobster (tomalley)
American eel
Blue crab
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
C+ ' J U
Striped bass
King mackerel
Shark
Swordfish
Tilefish
Bluefish
Shark
Striped bass
Swordfish
King mackerel
King mackerel
"Hawaii has a statewide mercury advisory for several species of
National Coastal Condition Report III
marine fish.
69
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Table 2-6. The Four Bioaccumulative Contaminants Responsible, at Least in Part, for 92% of Fish Consumption
Advisories in Estuarine and Coastal Waters in 2003—U.S. Coastal Waters (marine) (U.S. EPA, 2004b)
Contaminant
Number of
Advisories
Comments
PCBs
Mercury
DDT ODD, and DDE
Dioxins and furans
60 Seven northeastern states (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NX Rl) had statewide
advisories.
31 Twelve states (AL, FL, GA, LA, MA, ME, MS, NC, NJ, Rl, SC.TX) had
statewide advisories in their coastal marine waters; eleven of these states
also had statewide advisories for estuarine waters. Seven states and the
Territory of American Samoa had advisories for specific portions of their
coastal waters.
I 5 All DDT advisories in effect were in California (I 2), Delaware (I), Oregon
(I), or the Territory of American Samoa (I).
22 Statewide dioxin advisories were in effect in three states (ME, NJ, NY).
Six states had dioxin advisories for specific portions of their coastal waters.
Table 2-7. The Four Bioaccumulative Contaminants Responsible, at Least in Part, for 92% of Fish Consumption
Advisories in Estuarine and Coastal Waters in 2003—U.S. Great Lakes Waters (U.S. EPA, 2004b)
Contaminant
Number of
Advisories
Comments
PCBs 30
Mercury j
DDT ODD, and DDE I
Dioxins 15
Eight states (IL, IN, Ml, MN, NX OH, PA, Wl) had PCB advisories for all five
Great Lakes and several connecting waters.
Three states (IN, Ml, PA) had mercury advisories in their Great Lakes
waters for Lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior, as well as for several
connecting waters.
One state (Ml) had a DDT advisory in effect for Lake Michigan.
Dioxin advisories were in effect in three states (Ml, NXWI) for all five
Great Lakes and several connecting waters.
Humans
Bald Eagle
Chinook Salmon
Sculpin «
*^ Alewife
Chub
Bottom Feeders
Smelt
Plankton
Bacteria and Fungi
Dead Plants
and Animals
Figure 2-19. Bioaccumulation process (U.S. EPA, I995b).
Boats rigged for commercial fisheries in Chincoteague
Bay, MD (courtesy of Tim Carruthers, IAN Network).
70
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
For the 2003 swimming season, EPA gathered
information on 4,080 beaches monitored nationwide
(both inland and coastal) through the use of a
survey. The survey respondents were state and local
government agencies from coastal counties, cities,
or towns bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
Mexico, Pacific Ocean, and the Great Lakes, and
included agencies in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
Islands. A few of the respondents were regional
(multiple-county) districts. Data are available only
for those beaches for which officials participated
in the survey. EPA conducts the survey each year
and displays the results on the BEACH Watch Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/OST/beaches. All data
cited in this report were derived from data collected
by the EPA's BEACH Watch Program during the
2003 swimming season (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
EPA's review of coastal beaches (e.g., U.S.
coastal areas, the Great Lakes, and the coastal
areas of Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. territories)
showed that, of the 4,080 beaches reported
in the survey responses, 4,070 were marine or
Great Lakes' beaches. Of the coastal beaches
monitored and reported, 839 (or 20.5%) had an
advisory or closing in effect at least once during
the 2003 swimming season (Figure 2-20). Beach
advisories or closings were issued for a number
of different reasons, including elevated bacterial
levels in the water, preemptive reasons associated
with rainfall events or sewage spills, and other
reasons (Figure 2-21). Figure 2-22 shows that
some of the major causes of public notifications
for beach advisories and closures were stormwater
runoff, wildlife, sewer line problems, and in many
cases, unknown sources (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Percentage of Beaches
with Advisories/Closures
North Mariana
Islands
America Samoa U.S.Virgin Islands
None
I I 0.01-10.49
I I 10.50-50.49
EZ1 50.50-100.00
I I Not reported
Puerto Rico
Figure 2-20. Percentages of monitored beaches with advisories/closures by coastal state in 2003. Percentages are
based on the number of beaches that were reported for each state, not the total number of beaches (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
National Coastal Condition Report
71
-------
Highlight
The green turtle (Chelonia mydas) is one of 60 endangered
or threatened species whose recovery is being addressed
by NMFS (courtesy of David Burdick, NOAA).
Recovery of Endangered and Threatened Species
The primary purpose of the ESA of
1973, as amended, is the conservation of
endangered and threatened species and
the ecosystems on which they depend.
Conservation efforts aim to recover
populations of endangered species to a
point where protection under the ESA
is no longer necessary. NOAA's NMFS
shares responsibility for implementing
the ESA with the FWS.
In 2004, the NMFS had jurisdiction
over a total of 60 species, comprised
of 52 domestic and 8 foreign (found
outside U.S. waters) species of salmon,
sturgeon, sawfish, sea grass, corals,
mollusks, sea turtles, and marine mammals.
Of the 52 domestic species, 24 were
listed as endangered and 28 were listed as
threatened. Between 2002 and 2004, the
status of 48% of the domestic endangered or threatened species listed under the ESA was stable or
improving. These numbers are encouraging, especially given the large number of highly imperiled
species listed in the past decade (NMFS, 2005b).
The recovery of threatened and endangered species is a long-term challenge. To organize and guide
the recovery process, the ESA requires the development of recovery plans for listed endangered and
threatened species. The ESA also requires that a report be sent to Congress every 2 years on the status
of efforts to develop and implement recovery plans and on the status of all species for which recovery
plans have been developed. In 2005, the NMFS published the Biennial Report to Congress on the
Recovery Program for Threatened and Endangered Species October 1, 2002—September 30, 2004 (NMFS,
2005b), which details recovery efforts for ESA-listed species and includes information on species
status, current threats and impacts, the conservation actions undertaken, and the priority actions
needed for recovery.
Of the 52 domestic species listed in 2004, 16 had recovery plans, and the recovery plans for
6 species (i.e., Hawaiian monk seal; eastern and western distinct population segments of Steller
sea lion; the North Atlantic right whale; loggerhead sea turtle; Kemp's ridley sea turtle) were
being updated. In addition, 32 recovery plans were in the draft stage, including those for
26 Evolutionary Significant Units of Pacific salmon. There are active recovery teams for the white
abalone, smalltooth sawfish, Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtles, Hawaiian monk seal, and
Steller sea lion. Additionally, take-reduction teams exist to curb the harassment, harming, pursuit,
hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collection of specific species on the
ESA list or the attempt to engage in any such conduct. Two active take-reduction teams, formed in
72
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, assist in the population recovery of ESA-listed
species. These are the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team for humpback, North Atlantic
right, and fin whales and the Pacific Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team for humpback and
sperm whales (NMFS, 2005b).
Species-recovery strategies are active for all ESA-listed species. Among ongoing conservation and
research activities, the following two efforts for sea turtles and the North American right whale are
especially noteworthy:
• One cause of sea turtle population decline occurs when turtles are caught as bycatch
(marine animals caught inadvertently in commercial fishing operations) and die. The
Strategy for Sea Turtle Conservation and Recovery is a comprehensive fishing-gear-
based approach to reducing sea turtle bycatch in the state and federal waters of the
Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. The strategy will result in bycatch-reduction
measures across jurisdictional boundaries and various fisheries by targeting gear types
that have the greatest affect on sea turtle populations. These actions will ultimately
help reduce sea turtle deaths and encourage population recovery (NMFS, 2005b).
• The North Atlantic right whale is one of the most severely endangered whale species; as a
result, there are two facets to North Atlantic right whale population recovery efforts. The
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan uses modifications to fishing gear and fishing
practices to reduce serious injury and death due to entanglement in commercial fishing
gear. In addition, the NMFS has developed a draft Right Whale Ship Strike Reduction
Strategy to minimize right whale deaths resulting from collisions with ships. This strategy
includes mariner education and outreach programs, interagency consultations, and
consideration of modifications to ships' operations to reduce ship strikes (NMFS, 2005b).
The NMFS is working to meet the challenge of recovery for ESA-listed species and to encourage
stakeholder involvement in both recovery planning and implementation. All NMFS's active recovery
teams either have stakeholder representation on their teams or hold stakeholder meetings to keep
the public informed of their progress and to obtain public comment. Stakeholders include federal,
state, and local government agencies; affected industries; conservation or other nongovernmental
organizations; or affected individuals. In some cases, recovery boards were appointed by a state's
Governor and recovery plans were written by local sub-basin recovery teams (e.g., Pacific salmon
recovery efforts in Washington). The NMFS helps support and actively participates on these teams
and is adopting the teams' plans as draft recovery plans to be published for public comment.
Experience has shown that true stakeholder involvement in the planning process results in buy-in
to the recovery plan, both during and after the planning process. Stakeholder involvement is also
emphasized in the NMFS's Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery Planning Guidance
(NMFS, 2006), which is now being field-tested in regional and field offices.
For further information on marine species protected by NOAA under the ESA, please visit the
NMFS Office of Protected Resources Web site at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr. Recovery plans for
domestic ESA-listed species under the NMFS's jurisdiction are also available at http://www.nmfs.
noaa.gov/pr/recovery/plans.htm.
National Coastal Condition Report III 73
-------
Chapter 2 | National Coastal Condition
Preemptive Closure
(Sewage)
656-
Preemptive Closure
(Rainfall)
7%
Elevated Bacteria
78%
Sewer Line Problem 3%
Publicly Owned
Treatment Works 1%
Other 6%
Combined Sewer
Overflow 1%
Wildlife 1%
rSanitary Sewer Overflow 7%
- Stormwater Runoff 10%
Unknown 71%
Figure 2-21. Reasons for beach advisories or closures
for the nation (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Figure 2-22. Sources of beach contamination resulting
in beach advisories or closures for the nation (U.S. EPA,
2006c).
Flamenco Beach in Puerto Rico on a stormy morning (courtesy of Oliver Zena).
74
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
! '
lium, i »•!•:*
CHAPTER 3
Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Ul-fm
*
—
'-
"
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
As shown in Figure 3-1, the overall condition
of the collective coastal waters of the Northeast
Coast region is rated fair to poor, with an overall
condition score of 2.2. The water quality index for
the region is rated fair, the sediment quality index
is rated fair to poor, the coastal habitat index is
rated good to fair, and the benthic and fish tissue
contaminants indices are rated poor. Figure 3-2
provides a summary of the percentage of coastal area
in good, fair, poor, or missing categories for each
index and component indicator. This assessment
is based on data collected from 723 water-, 507
sediment-, and 890 benthic-monitoring locations
throughout the Northeast Coast coastal waters.
Please refer to Chapter 1 for information about how
these assessments were made, the criteria used to
develop the rating for each index and component
indicator, and any limitations of the available data.
The Northeast Coast region contains diverse
landscapes, ranging from the mountains, forests,
and rocky coastal headlands of Maine to the coastal
plain systems of the Mid-Atlantic states. The ratio of
watershed drainage area to the area of estuary water
in the Northeast Coast region is relatively small
compared to the ratios in the Southeast Coast and
Gulf Coast regions. Cape Cod, MA, represents a
major biogeographic transition area for the region's
coastal area, dividing the more arctic waters to the
north of Cape Cod (Acadian Province) from the
warmer, temperate waters to the south of Cape Cod
(Virginian Province). The relatively larger average
tidal ranges of 7 to 13 feet in the Acadian Province
contribute to greater tidal mixing and flushing, in
contrast to the tidal ranges of 7 feet or less in the
coastal waters of the Virginian Province. The region's
Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United
States, is considered microtidal in character, having
average tidal ranges of less than 3 feet (Monbet,
1992; Hammar-Klose and Thieler, 2001). The total
area of Chesapeake Bay is 4,404 mi2, representing
59% of the coastal area of the Northeast Coast
region. The large size and volume of the Bay and the
relatively small tidal range contribute to a freshwater
Overall Condition
Northeast Coast (2.2)
Good Fair Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (2)
Benthic Index (I)
Coastal Habitat Index (4)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (I)
Figure 3-1. The overall condition of Northeast Coast
coastal waters is rated fair to poor (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
20 40 60 80
Percent Coastal Area
100
Good Fair
Pool
Missing
Figure 3-2. Percentage of coastal area achieving each
ranking for all indices and component indicators—
Northeast Coast region (U.S. EPA/NCA).
76
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
residence time of 7-6 months, much longer than
that of other estuaries in the Northeast Coast
region (Nixon et al., 1996). In contrast, Delaware
Bay, Narragansett Bay, and Boston Harbor have
freshwater residence times of 3-3, 0.85, and 0.33
months, respectively (Dettmann, 2001). Because
of the size of Chesapeake Bay, conditions in this
estuary heavily influence area-weighted statistical
summaries of Northeast Coast conditions.
The Northeast Coast region, which includes
the coastal waters and watersheds of Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Virginia, is the most densely populated coastal
region in the United States (Figure 3-3). In 2003,
the coastal population of the Northeast Coast
region was the largest in the country, with 52.6
million people, representing 34% of the nation's
total coastal population. Although coastal counties
along the Northeast Coast showed the slowest
rate of population increase (58%) between 1980
and 2003, the region gained the second-largest
number of people (almost 8 million) of all U.S.
regions during this time. Figure 3-4 presents
population data for Northeast Coast coastal
counties since 1980 (Crossett et al., 2004).
Although the data presented in this chapter are
summarized on a regional level, they are publicly
accessible and can be used to summarize conditions
by biogeographic province, state, and—where
sufficient data are available—by waterbody. The
NEP CCR (U.S. EPA, 2006b) is an example of
how these data may be assessed at a finer scale.
The NCA monitoring data used in this
assessment were based on single-day
measurements collected at sites through-
out the U.S. coastal waters (excluding the
Great Lakes) during a 9- to 12-week
period in late summer. Data were not
collected during other time periods.
Figure 3-3. Human population density by county
for watersheds that drain to the Northeast Coast
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
60,000 '
c
o
w
JS
3
D.
£
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1980 1990 2000 2003 2008
Year
Figure 3-4. Actual and estimated population of
coastal counties in Northeast Coast states, 1980-2008
(Crossett et al., 2004).
National Coastal Condition Report
77
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data—
Status of Coastal Condition
All sampling sites that contributed data for
this report were selected at random according to
probabilistic sampling designs and were generally
sampled during the summer months of 2001
and 2002 by states participating in the NCA;
however, there were some exceptions to this
scheme. Several areas, including parts of Maine,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut,
and New York (in the case of water quality
assessment), contributed data only in 2001, either
because of planned non-participation in 2002
or because of concerns regarding data quality.
Chesapeake Bay was not sampled as part of the
NCA survey in 2001 or 2002; therefore, the most
recent representative data available from other
programs were used for the assessment of this
waterbody. Specifically, water quality conditions
and benthic community data from 2001 and
2002 were provided by the Chesapeake Bay
Program (CBP), and sediment quality data for
the Bay were collected during NOAA's sediment
triad cruises from 1998 through 2001.
Conditions for the Northeast Coast region were
calculated and expressed in terms of the percentage
of coastal area rated good, fair, or poor, or for which
data were missing. For the areas not sampled in
the 2002 survey, the 2001 station-area weights
were doubled to ensure approximately equivalent
representation on a per-area basis throughout
the Northeast Coast region. An exception to this
method of areal weighting was the fish tissue
contaminants index, for which survey results were
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA survey
has been designed to estimate the percent of
coastal area (nationally or in a region) in varying
conditions and is displayed as pie diagrams.
Many of the figures in this report illustrate
environmental measurements made at specific
locations (colored dots on maps); however, these
dots (color) represent the value of the index
specifically at the time of sampling. Additional
sampling would be required to define temporal
variability and to confirm environmental
condition at specific locations.
unweighted and reported as the percentage offish
samples analyzed in good, fair, or poor condition.
Data from the 2002 survey were not included in
the trend analysis discussed later in this chapter.
Water Quality Index
The water quality index for the coastal waters of
the Northeast Coast region is rated fair, with 13%
of the coastal area rated poor and 47% of the area
rated fair for water quality condition (Figure 3-5).
The water quality index was based on measurements
of five component indicators: DIN, DIP, chloro-
phyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen.
Most of the Northeast Coast sites rated poor
for water quality were concentrated in a few
estuarine systems, in particular New York/New
Jersey Harbor; some tributaries of Delaware Bay;
the Delaware River; and the western and northern
tributaries of Chesapeake Bay. Although signs
of degraded water quality impacts are evident
throughout the Northeast Coast region, the water
Northeast Coast Water Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition.
O Good = No more than I is fair
O Fair = I is poor or 2 or more are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
O Missing
Missing
Poor 4%
13%
78
Figure 3-5. Water quality index data for Northeast
Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
quality index indicates that the degradation was
more evident in the coastal waters of the Virginian
Province than in the coastal waters of the Acadian
Province. Generally, the relatively open rocky
coasts; cold, salty waters; and high tidal ranges of
the Acadian Province favor well-mixed conditions.
In contrast, the historically unglaciated parts of
the Virginian Province have extensive watersheds
that funnel nutrients, sediment, and organic
material into secluded, poorly flushed estuaries
that are much more susceptible to eutrophication.
The pattern of water quality degradation in the
Northeast Coast region is also influenced by the
distribution of population density (see Figure 3-3).
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The Northeast Coast region is rated good for
DIN concentrations, with only 5% of the coastal
area rated poor for this component indicator.
Poor DIN concentrations (DIN concentrations
greater than 0.5 mg/L) were largely confined
to stations in New York/New Jersey Harbor;
the western tributaries of Chesapeake Bay; the
Delaware River; and the Delaware Inland Bays.
The Northeast Coast region is rated fair for
DIP concentrations, with 58% of the coastal area
rated fair or poor for this component indicator.
The highest DIP concentrations were most evident
at stations in parts of the New York/New Jersey
Harbor and Delaware River and were found to
a lesser extent in Narragansett Bay, Long Island
Sound, and the western tributaries of Chesapeake
Bay. Good conditions (low DIP concentrations)
were notable in Cape Cod Bay, coastal Rhode Island
waters, and the mainstem of Chesapeake Bay.
Chlorophyll a
The Northeast Coast region is rated fair for
chlorophyll a concentrations, with roughly 9% of
the coastal area rated poor and another 41% of
the area rated fair for this component indicator.
Generally, the broad pattern of chlorophyll a
concentrations is similar to that of nutrients, with
chlorophyll a levels much higher to the south of
Cape Cod (Virginian Province) than to the north
(Acadian Province). Chlorophyll a concentrations
mirror nutrient levels in the Maryland Coastal
Bays, Chesapeake Bay tributaries, and much of
the Northeast Coast coastal waters; however,
there is little apparent spatial correlation between
chlorophyll a and nutrient concentrations in the
Chesapeake Bay mainstem, Delaware Bay, or New
York/New Jersey Harbor areas. Spatial patterns in
nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations differ
for a number of reasons. Algae may not be able to
use nutrients effectively in very turbid water or in
regions with high flushing rates; dissolved nutrient
concentrations may be low due to nutrient uptake
by phytoplankton blooms; or locations of peak
nutrient and biomass concentrations may not
coincide in space or time.
Water Clarity
The Northeast Coast region is rated fair for water
clarity, with 20% of the coastal area rated poor for
this component indicator. Water clarity reference
levels varied across the Northeast Coast region (see
Chapter 1 for additional information). The box
below shows the criteria for rating a site in poor
condition for water clarity in estuarine systems
that have differing levels of natural turbidity.
Coastal Areas
Criteria for a Poor Rating
(Percentage of Ambient
Light that Reaches
I Meter in Depth)
Chesapeake Bay
Estuarine System
Delaware River/Bay
Estuarine System
All remaining
Northeast Coast
coastal waters
<20%
< 10%
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is rated fair for the Northeast
Coast region, with 9% of the coastal area rated poor
for this component indicator. Based on the NCA
and CBP data collected in 2001 and 2002, the
stations rated poor were primarily located in Long
Island Sound and the isolated, deep channels of the
Chesapeake Bay mainstem and western tributaries.
Although not reflected by the data collected for this
assessment, other areas of the Northeast Coast may
experience low dissolved oxygen levels on a diel
basis or due to prevailing wind events. Fair dissolved
National Coastal Condition Report
79
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
oxygen conditions were measured in another 19%
of the coastal area, notably at stations in Chesapeake
Bay, Long Island Sound, and Narragansett Bay.
Dissolved oxygen levels were rated good in more
than two-thirds of the Northeast Coast coastal
area. A recent review of factors affecting the extent
of hypoxic bottom water in Chesapeake Bay can
be found in Hagy (2002), Hagy et al. (2004), and
Kemp et al. (2005). In addition, more intensive
and complementary monitoring programs in upper
Narragansett Bay documented episodic dissolved
oxygen depletion events (dissolved oxygen < 2 mg/L)
during short time periods (Deacutis et al., 2006).
Sediment Quality Index
The sediment quality index for the coastal
waters of the Northeast Coast region is rated fair
to poor, with 13% of the coastal area rated poor
for sediment quality condition (Figure 3-6). Data
were missing for less than 1% of the coastal area.
This index is based on measurements of three
component indicators: sediment toxicity, sediment
contaminants, and sediment TOC. Hot spots of
poor sediment quality were evident at stations in
Narragansett Bay, western Long Island Sound, New
York/New Jersey Harbor, and the upper portions of
the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River. To a large
extent, the pattern of the sediment quality index for
the Northeast Coast region mirrors the pattern of
sediment contamination, a component indicator of
this index.
Sediment Toxicity
The Northeast Coast region is rated good for
sediment toxicity, with about 4% of the coastal
area rated poor for this component indicator.
Sites rated poor for sediment toxicity were located
predominantly in parts of Cape Cod Bay, western
Long Island Sound, New York/New Jersey Harbor,
and the tidal-fresh water parts of Delaware Bay. In
a previous report (U.S. EPA, 2004a), a generally
weak statistical relationship between sediment
contamination and amphipod survival was found
and may reflect, in part, the strict criterion of
mortality used to characterize toxicity in the amphi-
pod assay. This weak relationship also highlights
the need for a more complete analysis of the
bioavailability of the toxicants, i.e., an analysis that
considers the effect of equilibrium partitioning and
the mitigating effects of sequestering toxicants with
sulfides or organic carbon (DiToro et al., 1991; U.S.
EPA, 1993; Daskalakis and O'Conner, 1994).
Sediment Contaminants
The Northeast Coast region is rated fair for
sediment contaminant concentrations, with
9% of coastal area rated poor and 12% of the
area rated fair for this component indicator.
Stations rated poor for sediment contaminants
were clustered in areas neighboring major urban
centers. These areas included Narragansett Bay,
New York/New Jersey Harbor, western Long Island
Sound, upper Chesapeake Bay, and the upper
Potomac River. Elevated levels of metals (e.g.,
arsenic, chromium, mercury, nickel, silver, and
zinc), PCBs, and DDT were primarily responsible
for the poor sediment contaminant ratings.
Sediment TOC
The Northeast Coast region is rated good for
sediment TOC because only 1% of the coastal area
Northeast Coast Sediment Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number and condition of
component indicators.
O Good = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is good
O Fair = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Good
76%
Figure 3-6. Sediment quality index data for Northeast
Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
was rated poor. In addition, 23% of the coastal
area was rated fair, and 60% was rated good for
this component indicator. Generally, elevated TOC
levels were found at stations in the same locations
as contaminated sediments. The high percentage of
missing data (16%) for this component indicator
reflects concerns about the quality of the TOC
data analyzed for Connecticut's coastal waters.
Benthic Index
The benthic index for the coastal waters of the
Northeast Coast region is rated poor, with 27% of
the coastal area rated poor for benthic condition
(Figure 3-7). The Northeast Coast region features
two distinct biogeographic provinces: the Acadian
Province (north of Cape Cod) and the Virginian
Province (south of Cape Cod). Two separate
benthic indices were developed to evaluate the
unique benthic communities of these provinces: the
Acadian Province Benthic Index (Hale and Heltshe,
2008) and the Virginian Province Benthic Index
(Paul et al., 2001). Because of the way the indices
were developed, the Acadian Province Benthic Index
has three rating categories (good, fair, and poor),
whereas the Virginian Province Benthic Index
has only two rating categories (good and poor).
The benthic condition of the Acadian Province
is very different from the benthic condition
of the Virginian Province. Coastal conditions
in the Acadian Province are more oceanic and
have higher bottom-water salinity than those in
the Virginian Province. In the northern waters
(Acadian Province), benthic communities were
sampled at sites with an average depth of 57 feet,
36 feet deeper than the average depth of stations
sampled in the Mid-Atlantic coastal waters in the
southern portion of the Virginian Province. Poor
benthic condition is evident at stations in many
sections of the Virginian Province, including
Chesapeake Bay; portions of Delaware Bay;
New York/New Jersey Harbor; western Long
Island Sound; and upper Narragansett Bay. In
contrast, most sampling stations in the Acadian
Province show good or fair benthic condition.
The differences by province reflect exposure to
different stress levels by the benthic communities.
Northeast Coast Benthic Quality Index
Site Criteria:Acadian
Province Benthic Index Score.
O Good = > 5.0
O Fair = 4.0 to < 5.0
• Poor = < 4.0
O Missing
Site Criteria:Virginian
Province Benthic Index Score.
O Good = > 0.0
• Poor = < 0.0
O Missing
Figure 3-7. Benthic index data for Northeast Coast
coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Coastal Habitat Index
Wetlands are threatened by many human
activities, including loss and destruction due
to land development, eutrophication, and the
introduction of toxic chemicals. Losses can also
result from land subsidence, sea-level rise, and the
introduction and spread of exotic species (e.g.,
nutria). Ecologists estimate that more than one-
half of the coastal wetlands of the Northeast Coast
region have been lost since pre-colonial times.
Although modern legislation has greatly slowed
the rate of habitat loss, the Northeast Coast region
lost 650 acres between 1990 and 2000, which
amounts to a loss of 0.14% over 10 years. The rate
of wetland loss for this time period was the lowest
percent loss for all regions of the conterminous
United States. Based on the calculated coastal
habitat index value, the coastal habitat index
for the Northeast Coast is rated good to fair.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Highlight
Comparing Two Benthic Indices Applied to Monitoring Data
from NY/NJ Harbor
Scientists and managers have worked diligently to answer the question "Is this place relatively clean,
or is it stressed?" Evaluating a site can involve analyzing the levels of chemical and physical stress
on bottom-dwelling communities by directly measuring sediment chemical concentrations, relative
toxicity, and grain size. In addition, characterizing the salinity of the overlying water and the structure
and composition of the benthic community reflects exposures to chemical and physical stresses in the
environment. Indices of benthic condition have been developed to examine the complex conditions
that exist in the sediments, quantifying those conditions as a single numeric value. To help evaluate
the condition of the New York/New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor, two different, independently developed
benthic indices were applied to Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(REMAP) monitoring data from 1998 (Adams and Benyi, 2003). The resulting index ratings were
compared to evaluate the similarities and differences between classifications developed by applying
different benthic indices to the same set of data.
The two benthic indices used in this assessment were the Virginian Province Benthic Index and the
Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI). The Virginian Province Benthic Index (Paul et al., 2001)
was developed in the EMAP-Virginian Province (VP) for use in the waters along the East Coast of the
United States from Cape Cod to the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay and has been used to assess NCA
data for the Virginian Province in this NCCR III. The B-IBI (Adams et al., 1998) was developed
specifically for evaluating the benthic communities of the NY/NJ region. The approaches used in
developing the two indices were quite different. The Virginian Province Benthic Index uses statistical
techniques to evaluate appropriate metrics, whereas the B-IBI uses a method that was developed for
freshwater systems and involves applying values to select metrics based on established criteria derived
from reference stations (see box). Validation of the NY/NJ Harbor B-IBI using independent data from
72 sites in the Harbor showed that the index was 93% effective at distinguishing anthropogenically
stressed sites from reference sites (Adams et al., 1998).
Virginian Province Benthic Index,
developed using discriminant analysis, is
characterized by the following three metrics:
I) Gleason's Diversity Index,adjusted for
salinity
2) Expected number of tubificids,
adjusted for salinity
3) Abundance of spionid polychaetes
(Strobel et al., 1995).
Gleason's Diversity Index measures the variety
of invertebrates in the sediment. Tubificids are
a type of worm found, but not exclusively, in
enriched areas, and salinity adjustment makes
the presence of tubificids of great importance in
low-saline areas, but not of high importance in
estuarine areas. Spionid polychaetes are also a
type of worm.
Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI), developed
by testing the classification efficiency of candidate
measures, is characterized by the following five metrics:
I) Number of species
2) Abundance of species
3) Biomass
4) Percent of total abundance indicative of
pollution
5) Percent of total abundance sensitive to pollution.
The B-IBI is similar to the Index of Biotic Integrity
developed for freshwater benthic communities by Karr
(Kerens and Karr, 1994). Threshold values for these
metrics were defined for two salinity ranges (polyhaline
and euryhaline) and two sediment types (mud and sand).
The B-IBI was calculated by scoring each selected metric
based on whether its threshold value approximated
(5),deviated slightly (3),or deviated greatly (I) from
conditions at the best reference sites. Those metrics were
then averaged.
82
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
New Jersey
New York
Newark Bay
22.2% ^
O
•
Upper Harbor
20.0%
!
Long Island
Jamaica Bay
X 46.4%
* _•
.**•
All Stations 30.4%
O
O
Raritan
Bay
Lower Harbor 28.6%
• e*
Sandy Hook Bay
The REMAP sampling stations were
selected using a design common in
EMAP programs (probabilistic, stratified-
random design), with 28 stations located
in each of the four subbasins. Benthic
macro invertebrate data from two replicate
samples were averaged, and the benthic
index results were calculated for each
station. Overall, disagreement in the
classifications resulting from analyses using
the Virginian Province Benthic Index and
B-IBI occurred at only 30% of the stations
overall. In the map, a filled circle represents
each station, with the top half representing
the B-IBI classification and the bottom half
representing the Virginian Province Benthic
Index classification. When the halves of the
circle are colored differently, they disagree.
The percentage of disagreement between
the results obtained using the two indices is
included on the map for each subbasin.
Within the four subbasins, the percentage
of stressed sites ranged from a low of 8% to
a high of 93% using the B-IBI, and from
32% to 93% using the Virginian Province
Benthic Index. In most subbasins, the
percent of stations stressed was similar. For
example, in the Upper Harbor, both indices
identified 55% of stations in the subbasin
as stressed, and the two indices had the
strongest agreement by station. In contrast, the percent of stressed stations in Jamaica Bay was 46% for
the B-IBI and 93% for the Virginian Province Benthic Index. In this subbasin, the Virginian Province
Benthic Index classified two times as many stations as stressed as did the B-IBI (26 and 13 out of 28,
respectively). In addition, the highest percentage of disagreement between the results obtained using the
two indices (46%) occurred in this subbasin.
The Virginian Province Benthic Index and B-IBI use different metrics to come to an understanding
of a station's ecological health status. Although there might appear to be a fair amount of disagreement
between the classifications of stations, the overall agreement for the entire harbor was 70%. In areas
where there was disagreement, it is worth examining the reasons for the differences. At stations where
the B-IBI indicated stress and the Virginian Province Benthic Index did not, the primary metrics driving
the B-IBI classification were biomass and the abundances of pollution-sensitive and pollution-indicative
species; none of these metrics are measured in the Virginian Province Benthic Index. Since these two
indices are used as indicators of stress, it would be valuable to examine other metrics, such as chemical
concentrations of metals and organics in the sediment, to determine whether chemical stresses are
occurring.
Benthic index classifications and percent disagreement
between B-IBI and the Virginian Province Benthic Index
classifications for REMAP sampling stations in the NY/NJ
Harbor area (U.S. EPA).
National Coastal Condition Report
83
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The fish tissue contaminants index for the
Northeast Coast region is rated poor based on
concentrations of chemical contaminants found
in composites of whole-body fish and lobster
specimens. Thirty-one percent of the fish samples
analyzed were rated poor, and 28% were rated
fair (Figure 3-8). Although this figure gives
an accurate indication of where fish or lobster
specimens with appreciable contaminant levels
were collected, several associated factors should be
carefully considered before relating these findings
to human risk or to the evaluation of coastal
condition. For example, one factor that should be
considered is the species offish analyzed because
different tissue types have different affinities for
specific contaminants and these differences are
likely to be species dependent. Currently, detailed
information regarding these affinities is sparse. To
improve understanding, NCA sampling and analysis
protocols were altered in subsequent years to analyze
"split samples" (i.e., samples of edible portions of
fish and lobster are analyzed separately from inedible
portions, and lobster hep atop ancreas [tomalley]
is also analyzed separately from the other tissues).
In addition, it is helpful to consider the habits of
the fish species collected when interpreting results.
For instance, knowing the migration patterns of
a fish species may help researchers determine the
source of the contaminants measured in fish tissue.
Elevated concentrations of PCBs were responsible
for the fair or poor ratings for a large majority of
specimens, although other contaminants, such as
DDT or mercury, were also implicated. Based on
preliminary information from the split-sample study
mentioned above, only those contaminants (e.g.,
mercury) that have an affinity for muscle tissue are
likely to have significantly higher concentrations in
fillets than in whole fish; concentrations for many
other contaminants will be lower in fillets than in
whole-fish samples. NCA data suggest that there
may be a pronounced gradient increasing from
north to south in the incidence of contamination;
however, distinct differences also existed in the
types of organisms caught and analyzed across
the region (e.g., primarily lobster in Maine versus
fish such as white perch and summer flounder
farther south). It may be the case that cadmium
was preferentially accumulated in lobster, although
not to concentrations that exceeded Guidance
levels. PCBs and DDT were the contaminants
most frequently exceeding Guidance levels, with
the highest concentrations measured in white
perch and summer flounder. Further research is
needed to understand the relative importance of
the species and tissue affinity for contaminants
versus the availability of the contaminants.
Northeast Coast Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Site Criteria: EPA Guidance concentration
O Good = Below Guidance range
O Fair = Falls within Guidance range
• Poor = Exceeds Guidance range
Good
41%
Figure 3-8. Fish tissue contaminants index data for
Northeast Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Trends of Coastal Monitoring
Data—Northeast Coast
Region/Virginian Province
Subset
Temporal Change in Ecological
Condition
Beginning in the early 1990s, EPA and its
partners conducted a series of monitoring programs
to assess the ecological condition of the nation's
coastal waters. A hallmark of the various programs
was consistency, both in the probabilistic nature
of the sampling designs (sites were selected at
random to represent all coastal waters) and in the
fact that all programs used a core set of parameters
that were measured with equivalent protocols and
QA/QC procedures. This consistency eases the
task of tracking changes over time. The following
sections analyze these data to answer two trend-
related questions for the Northeast Coast region:
what is the year-to-year variability evident in
the proportions of the region's coastal area rated
in good, fair, and poor condition, and are there
significant changes in the area classified as poor
during the period from 1990 to 2001?
Several monitoring programs have assessed
portions of the Northeast Coast region since
the early 1990s, including the Environmental
Mentoring and Assessment Program-Virginian
Province (EMAP-VP), Mid-Atlantic Integrated
Assessment (MAIA), Maryland Coastal Bays
Program, and NCA. Details regarding these
assessments are described in the following text box.
Only common regions, indices, and component
indicators measured by these programs over two
time periods were considered. The trend analysis
for the coastal waters north of Chesapeake Bay,
through and including southern Cape Cod,
compares conditions measured in 1990—1993
with those assessed a decade later in 2000—2001.
The trend analysis is based on EMAP and NCA
probability survey data restricted to the Virginian
Province, exclusive of Chesapeake Bay. Core
parameters measured consistently in these studies
include dissolved oxygen, water clarity, sediment
contaminants, sediment toxicity, sediment TOC,
and benthic condition. Results for both periods
were expressed as the percentage of coastal area rated
good, fair, or poor based on the parameters assessed.
Standard errors for these estimates were calculated
according to methods listed on the EMAP Aquatic
Resource Monitoring Web site (http://www.epa.
gov/nheerl/arm). The reference values and guidelines
outlined in Chapter 1 were used to determine good,
fair, or poor condition for each indicator from both
time periods.
The trend analysis results discussed in this section
are restricted to a subset of the Virginian Province
monitoring results from probability surveys. More
detailed trend analyses can be done in estuaries with
established long-term monitoring programs (e.g., in
relation to hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, reported on
byHagyetal. [2004]).
In this analysis, water quality is represented
by two parameters: water clarity and bottom-
water dissolved oxygen concentrations. Figure
3-9 indicates that poor water clarity was evident
in 3% of the Northeast Coast coastal area in the
early 1 990s and was evident in 4% of the coastal
area in 2000 and 2001. There were no persistent
year-to-year trends of improvement or degradation,
and there was no significant difference between the
1990-1993 and 2000-2001 averages.
100
80
60
c
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Programs, Parameters, and Time Periods Considered in the Northeast Coast Trend
Analysis
Since the early 1990s, four monitoring programs have assessed portions of Northeast Coast coastal
waters using similar sampling designs and measurement protocols. For reasons outlined below,
data from only two of these programs were used in analyzing trends in the Northeast Coast region
over time. The contributing programs are the EMAP-VP (1990-1993) and the NCA (2000-2001).
Interannual variability in a variety of parameters common to both EMAP-VP and NCA are summarized
and used to help identify changes between these two time periods.
In the Northeast Coast region, the EMAP-VP project measured conditions in the Virginian Province
(Cape Cod through Chesapeake Bay) each summer from 1990 through 1993. Core parameters
measured included dissolved oxygen, water clarity, sediment contaminants, sediment toxicity, sediment
TOC, and benthic condition. No other water quality indicators, such as chlorophyll a or nutrient
concentrations, were measured. Results of the EMAP-VP survey were reported by Paul et al. (1999) and
in the NCCR I (U.S. EPA, 2001 c).
The Delaware and Maryland Coastal Bays were assessed in the summer of 1993 using EMAP methods,
and the results were reported in Assessment of the Ecological Condition of the Delaware and Maryland
Coastal Bays (Chaillou et al., 1996). These data were not included in this trend analysis because they
represent a small fraction of the Northeast Coast region, and these bays were assessed independently in
the EMAP-VP study.
The MAIA evaluated the coastal waters from Delaware Bay south through Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
System during the summers of 1997 and 1998. All core indicators listed above were measured, along
with several additional water quality parameters. Results were presented in the report Condition of
Mid-Atlantic Estuaries (U.S. EPA, 1998a) and were also included in the NCCR I. Because of the limited
overlap of the MAIA study area and Northeast Coast region considered here, MAIA data were not
included in the trend analysis.
The NCA sampled all waters in the Northeast Coast region (Maine through the Delmarva Peninsula,
with the exception of Block Island and Nantucket sounds) during the summers of 2000 and 2001, and
portions of the region in 2002 and later. Conditions were evaluated using the EMAP core indicators
listed above, as well as additional water quality parameters, such as chlorophyll a and nutrient
concentrations. Assessment of the data collected in 2000 was reported in the NCCR II (U.S. EPA,
2004a),and data from 2001 and 2002 are assessed in this current report (NCCR III). It should be noted
that NCA data from 2002 were excluded from the trend analysis because they were only collected
from portions of the Northeast Coast region.
Only portions of Chesapeake Bay were monitored by the NCA survey in 2000 and 2001. The
assessment of 2000 data, reported in NCCR II, utilized data from the CBP (http://www.chesapeakebay.
net) to evaluate water quality and benthic quality, and MAIA 1997-1998 data were used to assess
sediment quality for the Bay. A similar approach is used in the current report (NCCR III), which
includes water quality and benthic community data sampled in 2001 and 2002 from the CBP, along
with 1998-2001 sediment quality data from NOAA. Because of the different sampling designs and time
periods for documenting Chesapeake Bay conditions, Chesapeake Bay was excluded from the trend
analysis.
In summary, the data considered in the trend analysis for the Northeast Coast region were limited to
estuaries and coastal embayments from southern Cape Cod through the Delmarva Peninsula that were
sampled using data from consistent sampling designs for two time periods: 1990-1993 and 2000-2001.
Indicators measured consistently in these studies include dissolved oxygen, water clarity, sediment
toxicity, sediment contaminants, sediment TOC, and benthic condition.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Figure 3-10 shows the percentage of the
Northeast Coast coastal area rated good, fair,
or poor for dissolved oxygen during the periods
1990-1993 and 2000-2001. On average, 83%
of the region's coastal area had adequate dissolved
oxygen levels in the early 1990s, and less than
1% of the area was rated poor for this component
indicator. In the 2000—2001 time period, dissolved
oxygen levels were rated good in 73% of the coastal
area and poor in 4% of the area. The year-to-year
variation in dissolved oxygen concentrations is large,
and the differences between the two time periods are
not significant.
For the Virginian Province data subset being
used in this trend analysis, the condition of
coastal sediments was evaluated using three
component indicators: sediment toxicity, sediment
contaminants, and sediment TOC; however, the
overall sediment quality index was not compared.
Approximately 9% of the coastal area was rated
poor for sediment toxicity during each time
period (Figure 3-11). Figure 3-12 indicates that
the proportion of coastal area rated fair or poor
for sediment contaminants is variable and showed
no significant trends. For example, 7% of the
coastal area was rated poor and 18% was rated fair
in 1990—1993 as compared to 12% rated poor
and 17% rated fair in 2000-2001. Figure 3-13
shows that less than 2% of the Northeast Coast
region's coastal area had excessive concentrations
of TOC in sediments, and comparable areas
were classified as fair for this indicator.
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Dissolved Oxygen
IUU
80
40
20
0
1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
2000 2001
D Good
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing
Figure 3-10. Percent area of Northeast Coast coastal
waters in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for
bottom-water dissolved oxygen concentrations
measured over two time periods, 1990-1993 and
2000-2001 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment Toxicity
IUU
80
a
| 60
•u
c
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
100
80
60 '
40 '
20 '
•
-
1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
-
2000 2001
D Goc
D Fair
D Poo
D Miss
Figure 3-12. Percent area of Northeast Coast coastal
waters in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for
sediment contaminants measured over two time
periods, 1990-1993 and 2000-2001 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Sediment TOC
IUU
80
a
| 60
•u
c
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment TOC
Benthic Index
10 20 30 40
Percent Coastal Area in Poor Condition
50
Figure 3-15. Comparison of percent area of Northeast Coast coastal waters rated poor
for ecological indicators between two time periods, 1990-1993 and 2000-2001. Error
bars are 95% confidence intervals (U.S. EPA/NCA).
100
Although data processing was performed
to compare areas where sampling overlapped
geographically during the 1990—1993 and
2000—2001 time periods, comparison of other
properties indicated that there were some differences
between the samples from the two time periods.
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) for
depth indicates that similar water depths were
measured by the EMAP-VP (with Block Island
and Nantucket Sound samples excluded) and NCA
studies; however, Figure 3-16 shows the NCA depth
CDF slightly above the EMAP-VP CDF over the
range of 20—30 meters, indicating a slightly higher
NCA sampling frequency in this depth range. There
were much larger differences in the time of year
sampled for the two studies. EMAP-VP sampling
started slightly later in the year, but finished earlier
than the NCA sampling. In addition, there were
significant differences in surface water temperature
and salinity at the time of sampling. Significantly
warmer temperatures were measured by the NCA
than by the EMAP-VP, likely due to a higher
sampling frequency later in the summer for the
NCA than the EMAP-VP. The percent of the
coastal area with salinities below 25 ppt was the
same in both time periods; however, when the areas
with salinities above 25 ppt were compared, the
NCA samples exhibited slightly lower salinities.
^» NCA depth (mean)
NCA depth (upper limit)
NCA depth (lower limit)
— EMAP depth (mean)
EMAP depth (upper limit)
EMAP depth (lower limit)
20 30 40 50
Station Depth (m)
60
70
80
Figure 3-16. Cumulative distribution functions of station
depths measured in EMAP-VP and NCA studies. Upper
and lower limits are 95% confidence limits (U.S. ERA/
NCA).
Bowers Beach, DE, is located on the Delaware Bay
(courtesy of NOAA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Highlight
Whale watching is a popular activity in Stellwagen Bank
NMS (courtesy of NOAA).
Implementing System-Wide
Monitoring in the NOAA
National Marine Sanctuaries
In 2004, the NOAA National Marine
Sanctuary (NMS) Program launched a System-
Wide Monitoring Program (SWiM) for the
nation's 14 marine sanctuaries. The goal of SWiM
is to provide a consistent approach to the design,
implementation, and reporting of environmental
condition assessments in sanctuaries, while
allowing for tailored monitoring at individual
sanctuary sites. The information collected by
this program will contribute to and benefit from
other monitoring programs, such as IOOS.
Assessment reports will be developed for each
sanctuary at the local level following a consistent
model. The reports will serve as building blocks
for the system-wide monitoring approach and
allow for regional and national reports on environmental conditions at larger scales (NOAA, 2007h).
Implementation of SWiM began with the development of a guidance document (NOAA, 2004b)
and a pilot assessment report (NOAA, 2007d) for one site, the Stellwagen Bank NMS, located off the
Massachusetts coast. The Stellwagen Bank NMS is located 3 miles north of Cape Cod and 3 miles
southeast of Cape Ann, entirely within federal waters. The pilot assessment report will serve as a model
for the remaining 13 sanctuary assessments and as a means by which to answer questions about the
condition of sanctuary resources. These determinations will be key to tracking the condition of marine
ecosystems on the scale of individual sanctuaries, groups of sanctuaries, and system wide.
The Stellwagen Bank NMS assessment includes sections that describe sanctuary resources, pressures
that threaten the integrity of the marine environment (e.g., human activities), the current state of
resources, trends, and management responses to the pressures. The primary purpose of the document
is to report on the status and trends of water, habitat, living resources, and archaeological resources, as
well as on the human activities that affect them. Resource status is rated on a scale from poor to good,
and the timelines used for comparison vary from topic to topic. Trends are generally based on observed
status changes over the past 5 years and are reported as improving, declining, or not changing. Reports
summarizing resource status and trends will be prepared for each marine sanctuary once every 5 years
and, when possible, will coincide with the review of sanctuary management plans.
Development of the assessment report card relies on appraisal of the condition of the marine
environment, using 15 questions as a guide (see figure). The questions are widely applicable across the
system of marine sanctuaries and were derived from both a generalized ecosystem framework and the
NMS Program mission. The role of this national framework is not to encourage the same monitoring
at all sanctuaries; rather, its primary function is to apply a set of design, implementation, and reporting
principles for all monitoring within the NMS Program. Completion of the process will result in a
status and trends "report card" for sanctuaries at the local level that can be compiled to provide a
snapshot of system-wide conditions. As report cards are updated, time series data will be developed
to provide information on changes in the condition of the marine environments over time (NOAA,
2007d). For additional information about SWiM, please visit the NMS Program Web page at
http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/monitoring/welcome.html.
90
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
National Marine Sanctuary Assessment Report Card Format (NOAA, 2007d)
Status:
Good Good/Fair Fair Fair/Poor Poor BJ^&9
1 A Improving — Not Changing T Declining
Questions/Resources
Water
1
2
3
4
Are specific or multiple stressors, including
changing oceanographic and atmospheric
conditions, affecting water quality?
What is the eutrophic condition of sanctuary
waters, and how is it changing?
Do sanctuary waters pose risks to human
health?
What are the levels of human activities that
may influence water quality, and how are they
changing?
Captures shifts in conditions arising from changing natural processes
and human-induced inputs.
Potential overgrowth and other competitive interactions that can lead
to shifts in dominance in assemblages and food webs.
Human health concerns aroused by evidence of contamination in bathing
waters or fish intended for consumption, reports of respiratory distress,
and other disorders attributable to an increase in HABs.
Human activities that affect water quality, including direct discharges,
nonpoint-source discharges, airborne chemicals, and results of dredging
and trawling.
Habitat
5
6
7
8
What is the abundance and distribution of major
habitat types, and how are they changing?
What is the condition of biologically structured
habitats, and how is it changing?
What are the contaminant concentrations in
sanctuary habitats, and how are they changing?
What are the levels of human activities that
may influence habitat quality, and how are they
changing?
These key attributes compared with what would be expected without
human impacts, such as pollution, trawling, pipelines, fish traps, and
dredging.
Places where organisms form structures (habitats) on which other
organisms depend, including coral reefs, kelp beds, and intertidal
assemblages.
Risks posed by contaminants within benthic formations, including soft
sediments, hard bottoms, and biogenic organisms.
Human activities that degrade habitat quality by affecting structural,
biological, oceanographic, or chemical characteristics.
Living Resources
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
What is the status of biodiversity, and how is it
changing?
What is the status of environmentally sustainable
fishing, and how is it changing?
What is the status of nonindigenous species,
and how is it changing?
What is the status of key species, and how is it
changing?
What is the condition or health of key species,
and how is it changing?
What are the levels of human activities that may
influence living resource quality, and how are
they changing?
The condition of living resources based on expected biodiversity levels
and the interactions between species.
Whether harvesting is occurring at ecologically sustainable levels.
Important to know extraction levels and the impacts of removal.
The potential threat posed by nonindigenous species; in some cases,
by presence, in others, by measurable impacts.
( 1) Keystone species on which the persistence of a large number of other
species in the ecosystem depend, and (2) other key species, including
those that are indicators of ecosystem condition or change, those
targeted for special protection efforts, or charismatic species associated
with certain areas or ecosystems.
Measures of condition of key species that are important to determining
the likelihood that the species will persist and continue to contribute to a
vital ecosystem.
Human activities that degrade living resource quality by causing a loss
or reduction in species, disrupting critical life stages, impairing various
physiological processes, or promoting the introduction of nonindigenous
species or pathogens.
Maritime Archaeological Resources
15
16
17
What is the integrity of maritime archaeological
resources, and how is it changing?
Do maritime archaeological resources pose an
environmental hazard, and is this threat changing?
What are the levels of human activities that
may influence maritime archaeological resource
quality, and how are they changing?
The apparent levels of site integrity, previous disturbance, condition of
natural deterioration, and prospects for scientific investigation.
Environmental hazards, including leakage of contents/contaminants, such
as oil, in aging wrecks.
Human impacts with the potential to affect the quality of resources
include looting by divers, damage caused by scuba divers, improperly
conducted archaeology that does not fully document site disturbance,
anchoring, groundings, and commercial and recreational fishing activities.
m
Q
0
r-t
n>
t^J
Q
(/I
"3
n>
Q.
Q
§
s
V)
0
o-
-t
Q
CL
r-t
i
Q.
1/1
1
o-
o
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries—Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME
The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
extends from the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to
Cape Hatteras, NC, along the Atlantic Ocean
(Figure 3-17) and is structurally very complex,
with marked temperature and climate changes,
winds, river runoff, estuarine exchanges, tides, and
complex circulation regimes. In this temperate
ecosystem, intensive fishing is the primary driving
force for changes in the pounds offish harvested,
with climate as the secondary driving force. This
LME has an oceanographic regime marked by a
recurring pattern of interannual variability, but
showing no evidence of temperature shifts of the
magnitude described for other North Atlantic
LMEs, such as the Scotian Shelf LME to the north
(Zwanenburg et al., 2002). The Northeast U.S.
Canada
Relevant Large Marine Ecosystem
Associated U.S. land mass
Figure 3-17. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
(NOAA, 2007g).
92
Continental Shelf LME is one of the world's most
productive ecosystems and has been characterized
by robust average annual primary productivity
(phytoplankton) and relatively stable zooplankton
biomass for the past 30 years (Sherman et al.,
2002). The most visible natural resource capital
of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME is
its rich biodiversity offish, plankton, crustacean,
mollusk, bird, and mammal species. The coastal
states from Maine to North Carolina currently
receive $1 billion in economic benefits annually
from the fisheries of this LME (NMFS, In press).
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, intense foreign
fishing within the Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME led to a precipitous decline in the
biomass offish stocks (NMFS, 1999). The catch
of demersal (bottom-dwelling) fish stocks declined
from 750,000 t in 1965 to less than 100,000 t
in 1995- Significant biomass changes occurred
among dominant species. For example, dogfish
and skates increased in abundance in the 1970s,
whereas demersal fish and flounders declined.
The departure of foreign fleets in the mid-to-late
1970s was related to the 1976 Magnuson Fishing
Management Act that established the 200-mile
EEZ and extended U.S. jurisdiction over marine
fish and fisheries. This departure, combined with
management actions that reduced fishing effort
in this LME, has contributed to a recovery of
depleted herring and mackerel stocks and the start
of a recovery of depleted yellowtail flounder and
haddock stocks (Sherman et al., 2003). Long-
term monitoring data on the principal prey of the
pelagic fish (fish living within the water column)
component of the LME shows prey biomass (total
weight of prey) levels at or above a 32-year average
(1972-2004) for the past 5 years (NMFS, In press).
The evidence that shows species biomass
recovery following significant reduction in fishing
effort through mandated actions is encouraging.
Additional management efforts are underway to
rebuild the depleted condition of cod, haddock,
flounder, and other fish stocks to recover the
economic potential of these species. With
appropriate management practices, the ecosystem
should provide the necessary capital in natural
productivity for full recovery of depleted fish stocks
(NMFS, In press).
National Coastal Condition Report III
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Demersal Fish Fisheries
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME demersal
fish fisheries include about 35 species and stocks
in waters off New England and the Mid-Atlantic
states. In the New England subsystem, the demersal
fish complex is dominated by members of the
cod family (e.g., cod, haddock, hakes, pollock),
flounders, goosefish, dogfish sharks, and skates.
In the Mid-Atlantic subsystem, demersal fish
fisheries include mainly summer flounder, scup,
goosefish, and black sea bass (NMFS, In press).
Demersal fish resources of the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME occur in mixed-species
aggregations, resulting in significant bycatch
interactions among fisheries directed to particular
target species or species groups. Management
is complex because of these interactions. This
complexity is reflected, for example, in the use
of different fishing gear, mesh size, minimum
landing sizes, and seasonal closure regulations
set by the various management bodies in the
region (i.e., New England Fishery Management
Council [NEFMC], Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission [ASMFC], individual
states, and the Canadian government). Demersal
fish fisheries in New England were traditionally
managed primarily using indirect methods, such as
regulating the mesh sizes of fishing gear, imposing
minimum fish lengths, and closing some areas. The
principal regulatory measures currently in place
for the major New England demersal fish stocks
are limits on the number of allowable days at sea
for fishing, along with closure of certain fishing
areas, trip catch limits (for cod and haddock), and
targets for total allowable catch that correspond to
target fishing mortality rates (NMFS, In press).
Extensive historical data for the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME demersal fish fisheries
have been derived from both fishery-dependent
(i.e., catch and effort monitoring) and fishery-
independent (e.g., NOAA research vessel surveys)
sampling programs since 1963- The boundaries
of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
and its subareas are depicted in Figure 3-18.
Since 1989, a sea-sampling program has been
conducted aboard commercial fishing vessels
to document vessel discard rates and to collect
high-quality, high-resolution data on their catch.
Despite the past management record, some of
the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
demersal fish stocks (e.g., cod, yellowtail flounder,
haddock, American plaice, summer flounder) are
among the best understood and assessed fishery
resources in the country (NMFS, In press).
V
Gulf of Maine
Georges
Bank
: *
_/•
i • •,--' / South New England
Mid-Atlantic Bight
Figure 3-18. Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
subareas and sampling locations (Sherman et al., 2002).
National Coastal Condition Report
93
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
In the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME, fishing
pressure is the primary driving force for changes in
the pounds offish harvested (courtesy of Patricia A.
Cunningham).
Principal Demersal Fish Group
The principal demersal fish group of the
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME includes
important species of cod (e.g., Atlantic cod,
haddock, silver hake, red hake, white hake,
pollock), flounders (e.g., yellowtail, winter, witch,
windowpane, Atlantic halibut, American plaice),
ocean pout, and redfish. Recent yield of these
14 species (representing 19 stocks) in this LME
has averaged 81,000 t, of which 74% were U.S.
commercial, 16% were Canadian, and 10% were
U.S. recreational. The recent average yield is less
than the combined maximum sustainable yield
of about 222,000 t for these species (Figure 3-
19) because many of these stocks are considered
overfished and are currently rebuilding. Total
ex-vessel revenue (amount the commercial
fishermen receive from the quantity offish landed)
from the principal demersal fish group in 2003
was $123 million, compared to $121 million
in 2000 and $109 million in 1997 (NMFS, In
press). Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
demersal fish stocks also support important
recreational fisheries for summer flounder,
Atlantic cod, winter flounder, and pollock.
The research vessel survey abundance index for
the principal demersal fish group has fluctuated
over time and declined by almost 70% between
1963 and 1974 (Figure 3-19). This decline reflects
substantial increases in exploitation associated
with the advent of foreign distant-water fleets,
which operate for extended periods of time in
waters far from the ship's port of origin. Many
stocks in this group declined sharply during that
period, notably the Georges Bank haddock stock
and most silver and red hake and flatfish stocks.
The abundance index for the principal demersal
fish group partially recovered during the mid-to-
late 1970s because of the reduced fishing effort
associated with increasingly restrictive management.
The cod and haddock abundance indices increased
markedly, pollock stock biomass increased more
or less continually, and recruitment (addition of
new generations of young fish) and the abundance
index also increased for several flatfish stocks. The
principal demersal fish group abundance index
peaked in 1978, but subsequently declined and
fell to new lows in 1987 and 1988. After reaching
a 30-year low in 1992, this index has more than
tripled due to stock-rebuilding efforts (NMFS, In
press). The most recent changes in the principal
demersal fish group abundance index are strongly
influenced by the substantial biomass increases
observed for redfish since 1996 in the Gulf of
Maine subarea; however, the increased biomass of
haddock and yellowtail flounder in the Georges
Bank subarea and of cod in the Gulf of Maine
has also influenced the principal demersal fish
group abundance index (NEFSC, 2001; 2002).
800 n
'600-
o
o
o
MOO-
c
JJ 200
0-1
Landings
Survey index
- 160
• 140
• 120 .
• 100 .
•80
•60
_c
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Landings of most individual groundfish stocks
declined substantially during the mid-1990s.
Because of generally poor recruitment, landings
of many demersal fish stocks continue to remain
relatively low despite continued restrictions
on days at sea; low trip limits; and additional
area closures in the Gulf of Maine (NMFS, In
press). However, improved stock conditions were
observed for some stocks, including Georges
Bank yellowtail flounder and haddock stocks.
Increased landings of these two stocks have been
reported since 2000 due to sharp reductions in
fishing mortality combined with strong cohorts
(generations of young fish from the same year)
appearing in 1997 for the yellowtail flounder stock
and in 1998, 2000, and 2003 for the haddock
stock (NMFS, In press; NEFSC, 2002). Summer
flounder spawning stock biomass in this LME has
increased eight-fold over the past decade and is
regulated by fishing quotas. When these quotas
are attained, the fishery is shut down. Indications
are that the biomasses of the scup and black sea
bass stocks have also increased (NMFS, In press).
Management Concerns for Demersal Fish
During most of the 1980s and early 1990s,
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME demersal
fish harvests were regulated by indirect controls
on fishing mortality. These controls included
some fishing area closures and mesh- and fish-size
restrictions. These controls have been more stringent
and focused since March 1994, which marked
the beginning of an effort-reduction program to
address the requirement to eliminate the overfished
condition of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder
stocks in this LME. The regulatory-management
package included a moratorium on new vessel
entrants, a schedule to reduce the number of
days at sea for trawl and gill-net vessels, increases
in regulated mesh size, and the expansion of
closed areas to protect haddock. Since December
1994, three large areas—Closed Areas I and II on
Georges Bank and the Nantucket Lightship Closed
Area—have also been closed for all fishing to protect
the regulated demersal fish (NMFS, In press).
A demersal fish vessel-buyout program was
initiated in 1995, first as a pilot project and later
as a comprehensive fishing capacity-reduction
project. The program was designed to provide
economic assistance to fishermen who were
adversely affected by the collapse of the demersal
fish fishery and who voluntarily chose to remove
their vessels permanently from the fishery. This
reduction in the number of vessels helped fish
stocks recover to a sustainable level by reducing
the excess fishing capacity in the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME. The vessel-buyout
program, which concluded in 1998, removed 79
fishing vessels at a cost of nearly $25 million and
resulted in an approximate 20% reduction in the
fishing effort in the Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME demersal fish fishery (NMFS, In press).
In 2004, the NEFMC increased stock-rebuilding
efforts and implemented a new days-at-sea baseline
that allowed only 60% of one's days at sea to be
directed at regulated species in 2004 and 2005,
with further reductions scheduled through 2009-
The remaining 40% of days can only be used
in Special Access Programs that minimize the
catch of overfished stocks or in directed fishing
where it can be demonstrated that bycatch of
overfished stocks is minimal (NMFS, In press).
Pelagic Fisheries
The Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
pelagic fisheries are dominated by four species:
Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic herring, bluefish,
and butterfish. The abundance indices for
mackerel and herring are presently above average,
whereas the index for bluefish is near average
and the index for butterfish is below average.
During the early 1970s, the LME's two principal
pelagic species (Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic
herring) were exploited heavily by foreign fleets,
resulting in declines in stocks and fishery yields
to record-low levels by the late 1970s. Due to the
exclusion of foreign fleets, the abundance indices
and recruitment levels for these species have
increased, leading to stock sizes that are currently
at historically high levels (NMFS, In press).
The long-term trends in the abundance
indices for mackerel and herring have fluctuated
considerably during the past 25 years (Figure 3-20).
The combined abundance index for these two
species reached minimal levels in the mid-to-late
1970s, reflecting pronounced declines in stocks of
National Coastal Condition Report
95
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
both species and a collapse of the Georges Bank
herring stock; however, the index subsequently
increased steadily and peaked in 2001. Bottom-
trawl survey abundance indices for both species have
increased dramatically, with more than a ten-fold
increase between the late 1970s and the late 1990s.
Stock biomass of herring increased to more than
2.5 t by 1997 (NMFS, In press).
800-,
^ 600-
o
o
o
400-
M
200-
0-1
Total principal pelagic
group landings
Atlantic mackerel landings
Atlantic herring landings
Principal pelagic group
abundance index
r24
•22
•20 5
• 18 ^
•'« T
H4 J
•12 g
• 10 -D
I o 3
h8 jj
I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Figure 3-20. Landings in metric tons (t) and abundance
indices (kg/tow) for principal pelagic stocks, 1960-2003
(NMFS, In press).
Studies of primary productivity (phytoplankton)
and zooplankton biomass suggest that there are
ample food resources for stocks of mackerel and
herring. The zooplankton component of the
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME is in robust
condition (Figure 3-21), with biomass levels at or
above the levels of the long-term median values of
the past two decades. This zooplankton community
provides a suitable prey base for supporting a large
biomass of pelagic fish (herring and mackerel),
while also providing sufficient zooplankton
prey to support strong cohorts of recovering
haddock and yellowtail flounder stocks. No
evidence has been found in the fish, zooplankton,
temperature, or chlorophyll components to
indicate any large-scale oceanographic regime
shifts of the magnitude reported for the North
Pacific or Northeast Atlantic ocean areas.
Although historical catch data are generally
adequate for assessment purposes (except perhaps
for bluefish), stock assessments for the Northeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME pelagic resources
are relatively imprecise, owing to the highly
variable bottom-trawl survey abundance indices
used for calibrating cohort analysis models; the
short life span of butterfish; and the currently
low exploitation rates of mackerel and herring.
The development of more precise assessments
would require the use of hydroacoustic and
mid-water trawl surveys to estimate herring and
mackerel abundance, as well as alternative types of
sampling surveys to estimate bluefish abundance.
In the autumn of 1997, hydroacoustic surveys
were implemented to improve stock assessments
for Atlantic herring by indexing spawning
concentrations. Research is underway to estimate
the size of herring spawning groups directly from
these survey data and to combine these estimates
with data from traditional catch-at-age methods.
50
£
*T 4°
30
.0
10 20
Annual median
Time series median
^—^— Trend line
I VJ '—' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •
1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Year
Figure 3-21. Zooplankton biomass in the Northeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME, 1977-2004 (NOAA/NMFS).
Invertebrate Fisheries
Offshore fisheries for crustacean and molluscan
invertebrates are the most valuable fisheries of
the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME, with
average ex-vessel revenues of $605 million per
year during 2001—2003- The American lobster
fishery ranked first in value, with average annual
ex-vessel revenues of $287 million during 2000—
2002 and $326 million during 2003-2004, and
the Atlantic sea scallop fishery ranked second,
with average annual revenues of $226 million
during 2001—2003- Landings of all other offshore
96
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
invertebrates (e.g., ocean quahogs, surf clams, blue
mussels, squid) contributed roughly $92 million
in additional revenue annually (NMFS, In press).
American Lobster
A recent assessment of American lobster stocks
(ASMFC, 2000) indicated that fishing mortality
rates for lobster in Gulf of Maine waters were
double the overfishing level. For the inshore
resource distributed from southern Cape Cod
through Long Island Sound and for the offshore
stock in the Georges Bank subarea, fishing mortality
rates substantially exceeded the overfishing level.
Throughout its range, the lobster fishery has
become increasingly dependent on newly recruited
animals, and commercial catch rates have markedly
declined in heavily fished nearshore areas. In some
locations, more than 90% of the lobsters landed
are new recruits to the fishery, almost all of which
are juveniles (i.e., not yet sexually mature). Fishing
mortality rates for both inshore and offshore stocks
presently far exceed the levels needed to produce
maximum sustainable yields. Lobster landings
during 1998-2000 averaged 38,100 t (with a
record-high catch of 39,700 t in 1999), and during
2000-2002, landings averaged about 36,600 t.
Although high fishing mortality is a persistent
problem in lobster fisheries in the Northeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME, recent landings
(1997—2002) are the highest observed in the period
since 1940 (Figure 3-22) (NMFS, In press).
50 -,
40-
o
o 30
I
.£ 20
10-
0-1
L"H Landings
1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Figure 3-22. American lobster landings in metric
tons(t), 1940-2002 (NMFS, In press).
Atlantic Sea Scallop
In the United States, Atlantic sea scallops are
harvested in the Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME from Cape Hatteras, NC, to the U.S./
Canadian border on Georges Bank and in the Gulf
of Maine. Dredges are the principal harvesting gear,
although bottom trawls take a small proportion
of the landings (Serchuk and Murawski, 1997).
Management of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery
changed markedly in 1994, when measures affecting
the number of days at sea, vessel crew size, and
dredge-ring size were implemented to address
concerns about overfishing. Since December 1994,
the harvesting of sea scallops in the three areas
that were closed to protect demersal fish stocks has
been prohibited, except under highly controlled,
limited area-access provisions. In April 1998, two
areas in the Mid-Atlantic Bight subarea were also
closed to scallop fishing for 3 years to protect large
numbers of juvenile scallops (NMFS, In press).
A recent stock assessment (NEFSC, 2001)
indicated that sea scallop biomass in these closed
areas increased dramatically between 1994 and
2000. Small, but substantial, increases also occurred
in areas open to fishing as a result of reduced
fishing effort and good reproductive success.
Increases in stock biomass generated large increases
in U.S. scallop landings collected in this LME
(Figure 3-23) and associated revenues. Annual
landings from the Northeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME averaged 25,100 t during 2001-2003
and were 29,374 t in 2004 (NMFS, In press).
26-,
24-
22-
,-. 20-
o 18-
o
°- 16-
c
^
12-
— United States
Canada
1950
I960
1970
Year
1980
1990
2000
Figure 3-23. U.S. and Canadian landings in metric tons
(t) of Atlantic sea scallop caught in the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME, 1941-2003 (NMFS, In press).
National Coastal Condition Report
97
-------
Highlight
Zooplankton Boost in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
In 2004, NOAA scientists reported a
14-fold increase in the abundance of a
key zooplankton species for waters of the
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME.
This zooplankton species was the copepod,
Calanusfinmarchicus, which serves as prey
for haddock and cod in the early stages of
development, as well as for endangered
right whales, which inhabit the waters of
the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME.
Phytoplankton, which can be measured as
concentrations of chlorophyll a, constitute a
large part of the diet of Calanus finmarchicus,
and when food is abundant, populations
will increase. The boost in zooplankton
abundance was linked to a drop in surface
temperatures and a subsequent increase in
chlorophyll a concentrations in the area.
NOAA scientists have been employing
various scientific techniques to study the
relationships between surface temperatures,
chlorophyll a concentrations, and
zooplankton abundances (NOAA, 2004c).
Since I960, scientists have employed
commercial vessels to simultaneously collect
data on zooplankton abundance and sea
water conditions in the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME. The commercial
container vessels collect zooplankton
population data using continuous plankton
recorders (CPRs) on monthly transects
between Boston, MA, and Halifax, Nova
Scotia (NOAA, 2004c). Comparisons of
the 2004 CPR data with the 30-year spring
average (1961—1990) showed increased
zooplankton populations, decreased salinity,
and decreased surface water temperatures in
2004 (see figure).
Recently, scientists have paired CPR data
with data obtained by NOAA's satellite-borne
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
(AVHRR) temperature sensor and NASA's
A. Calanus finmarchicus
Boston, MA
20
Halifax, NS
I '
ft 12 H
4 -
Mass. 'Wilk. ' Central
Bay Basin Ledges
B. Surface Salinity
Boston, MA
34
' Crowell ' Scotian
Basin Shelf
Halifax, NS
33 -
32 -
a 3I -
30 -
29 -
28
Mass. ' Wilk. ' Central
Bay Basin Ledges
' Crowell '
Basin
C. Surface Temperature
Boston, MA
20 •
Scotian
Shelf
Halifax, NS
16 -
U
12 -
oi
«> 8 H
4 -
0
Mass. 'Wilk. ' Central
Bay Basin Ledges
Crowell
Basin
Scotian
Shelf
— 1961-1990 average
- - Variation from average
"fc Actual values from container ship data collected in 2004
Calanus concentrations, sea surface salinity, and sea surface
temperatures collected by commercial vessels traveling
across the northern Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf
LME (J.Jossi, NOAA/NMFS, Narragansett, Rl). (A) Above
average abundance of the zooplankton copepod Calanus
finmarchicus. (B) Below average salinity. (C) Below average
temperature.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) for chlorophyll to create a more robust analysis
of Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME conditions. This combined analysis indicated that the
boost in Calanus abundance was related to an incursion of a cold water mass into the waters of the
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME from the waters of the Labrador coast. The spring 2004
satellite-derived images show broad-scale chlorophyll increases and lower sea surface temperatures
over the northern area of the ecosystem (see maps).
In addition, longer time-series data sets from the multi-decadal Marine Resources Monitoring,
Assessment, and Prediction (MARMAP) Program provided a wider view of the path of the cold water
mass. Analysis of the MARMAP database indicated that the 2004 incursion of Labrador water into
the northern half of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME was related to events that occurred
further north. Canadian scientists reported that the Scotian Shelf and Newfoundland-Labrador
Shelf LMEs, which are located north of the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME, are also under
the influence of increasing incursions of cooler water from the north. These incursions may be the
result of warming Arctic waters and increasing volumes of cooler, lower salinity ice-melt waters being
carried southwestward into the Newfoundland-Labrador and Scotian Shelf LMEs (NOAA, 2004c).
Events such as the 2004 plankton boost provide opportunities for scientists to collect data on
ecosystem variables, define potential correlations, and possibly predict future events. Marine scientists
in Canada and the United States are closely monitoring the extent and volume of Labrador water
incursions into the LMEs of the northwest Atlantic in an effort to better understand the impacts of
cooler water on the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME.
For more information, contact Kenneth Sherman at Kenneth.Sherman@noaa.gov.
a Surface Temperature
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 34
I030>
7*,^ • ' f
V
Spring 2004 satellite imagery from SeaWiFS showing
above average chlorophyll levels in the northern
Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME (J. O'Reilly,
NOAA/NMFS, Narragansett, Rl).
Spring 2004 satellite imagery from AVHRR showing
cooler than average sea surface temperatures in the
northern Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
(J. O'Reilly, G. Wood, NOAA/NMFS, Narragansett,
Rl).
National Coastal Condition Report
99
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2003, 7 of the 10 Northeast Coast states
had statewide consumption advisories for fish in
coastal waters, placing nearly all of their coastal
and estuarine areas under advisory. The states
were Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode
Island. Due in large part to these statewide
advisories, an estimated 81% of the coastal miles
of the Northeast Coast and 56% of the region's
estuarine area was under fish consumption
advisories (Figure 3-24) in 2003, with a total of
37 different advisories active for the estuarine
and coastal waters of the Northeast Coast during
that year. These advisories were in effect for 10
different pollutants (Figure 3-25). Most of the
fish advisory listings (97%) were, at least in
part, caused by PCBs. Boston Harbor was listed
for multiple pollutants (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
I I No advisories
CH 2-4
CH 5-9
I I Noncoastal cataloging unit
c
a
c
E
r
o
U
PCBs (Total)
Dioxin
Mercury
Other
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlorinated
Pesticides
1
1
|
1
H
n
— 1
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Fish Advisories
Listed For Each Contaminant
Figure 3-25. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in Northeast Coast coastal waters. An
advisory can be issued for more than one contaminant,
so percentages may add up to more than 100 (U.S. EPA,
2004b).
Species and/or groups under fish consumption
advisory in 2003 for at least some part of the coastal
waters of the Northeast Coast region:
American eel
Atlantic needlefish
Bivalves
Bluefish
Blue crab
(whole and hepatopancreas)
Brown bullhead
Common carp
Channel catfish
Flounder
King mackerel
Largemouth bass
Lobster (whole and tomalley)
Northern hogsucker
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004b
Rainbow smelt
Scup
Shark
Shellfish
Smallmouth bass
Striped bass
Swordfish
Tautog
Tilefish
Tuna
Walleye
White catfish
White perch
Figure 3-24. The number of fish consumption advisories
active in 2003 for the Northeast Coast coastal waters
(U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 1,684 Northeast Coast beaches that
were reported to EPA in 2003, about 13-4% (226
beaches) were closed or under advisory for some
period of time during that year. The states with
the highest percentage of beaches with advisories/
closures were Connecticut and New York, where
43-3% and 37% beaches, respectively, were closed
or under advisory at least once in 2003- Table 3-1
presents the number of beaches monitored and
under advisories/closures for each state. Figure 3-26
100
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
shows the percentage of monitored beaches in each
county with at least one beach advisory or closure
in 2003- Maine and Delaware did not report for the
2003 cycle, and Virginia only reported the number
of beaches monitored (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Table 3-1. Number of Beaches Monitored and With
Advisories/Closures in 2003 for Northeast Coastal
States (U.S. EPA, 2006c)
No. of Percentage
Beaches of Beaches
No. of with Affected by
Beaches Advisories/ Advisories/
State Monitored Closures Closures
Maine
New
Hampshire
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
TOTAL
NR
12
736
208
67
21 1
324
NR
88
40
1,686
NR
1
73
19
29
78
24
NR
2
NR
226
NR
8.3
9.9
9.1
43.3
37
7.4
NR
2.3
NR
13.4
NR = Not Reported
The primary reasons for beach advisories
and closures implemented at Northeast Coast
beaches were elevated bacteria levels or preemptive
closures associated with rainfall events or sewage-
related problems (Figure 3-27). Most beaches
had multiple sources of waterborne bacteria that
resulted in advisories or closures. Figure 3-28
shows stormwater runoff and sanitary sewer
overflows were most frequently identified as
sources, and unknown sources accounted for
45% of the responses (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Percentage of Beaches
with Advisories/Closures
I I None
^H 0.01-10.49
IZZI 10.50-50.49
IZZI 50.50-100.00
I I Not reported
Figure 3-26. Percentage of monitored beaches with
advisories or closures, by county, for the Northeast
Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Preemptive Closure
(Sewage)
19%
Preemptive Closure
(Rainfall)
18%
Elevated Bacteria
62%
Figure 3-27. Reasons for beach advisories or closures in
the Northeast Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
20%
Sewer Line Problem 3%
Publicly Owned
Treatment Works 2%
Other 2%
Storm water
Runoff 28%
Unknown 45%
Figure 3-28. Sources of contamination resulting in
beach advisories or closures for the Northeast Coast
region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
National Coastal Condition Report
101
-------
Highlight
Spring 2005 Brings the Most Harmful Algal Bloom to New
England in over Three Decades
Alexandrium fundyense is a naturally occurring algal species that periodically forms HABs in the
Gulf of Maine. This algal species also produces potent neuro toxins that can accumulate in filter-
feeding shellfish. When humans or other higher trophic-level organisms, such as marine mammals,
consume shellfish contaminated with the neurotoxins, severe illness or death can result due to a
syndrome called paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). In most years, normal wind and water current
patterns prevent bloom transport to southern New England's nearshore waters; however, in the
spring of 2005, the most severe bloom of this toxic dinoflagellate (type of algae) occurred since 1972
and spread from Maine to Massachusetts, reaching as far south as Martha's Vineyard, MA. This
exceptionally expansive bloom may have been a result of elevated rainfall and snowmelt in the spring,
followed by two unusually late nor'easters in May. Scientists hypothesize that strong winds pushed
Mexandrium blooms down the coast, while nutrients supplied by increased runoff fueled their growth
(Anderson et al., 2005; NOAA, 2007J).
States in the Northeast Coast region maintain rigorous shellfish monitoring programs to protect
humans from PSP. During the 2005 bloom event, the findings of these programs resulted in
extensive—and in some locations unprecedented—closures of shellfish harvesting areas (see map).
State closures along the New England coast began as early as mid-May, disrupting shellfish sales
during the busiest period of the tourist season. In addition to the state closures, NOAA instituted
a closure of approximately 15,000 mi2 of federal waters at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and declared a commercial fisheries failure, which allowed for the mitigation
of financial impacts on commercial shellfishermen in the region (Anderson et al., 2005).
NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), through the interagency Ecology and
Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms (ECOHAB) Program, have funded a decade of research
on Mexandrium in the Gulf of Maine to advance understanding of Alexandrium bloom ecology.
Combined with additional research funded through the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful
Algal Blooms Program, the ECOHAB research has also enhanced event response, forecasting, and
mitigation capabilities for coastal managers. For example, new methods based on molecular biology
are used for the rapid detection and mapping of Alexandrium, providing coastal managers with early
warnings of shellfish toxicity (Anderson et al., 2005). These data, combined with oceanographic
and meteorological data from ships and moorings, have been used in recently developed, coupled
biological and physical models to forecast bloom movement and to understand the factors leading to
this unusual event (NOAA, 2007k).
During the bloom event, emergency support from NOAA funded expanded monitoring,
assessment, and prediction of the bloom extent and movement. Alexandrium abundance data
allowed managers to focus toxin sampling efforts on newly exposed areas, as well as on areas that
could possibly be reopened for shellfish harvesting. Researchers were also able to collect fish and
zooplankton samples for an investigation into the potential relationship between the food-web
transfer of toxins and whale mortalities in the region. Organizations involved in the emergency
response to this HAB event included the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI),
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA),
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown, and Cooperative
Institute for Climate and Ocean Research. Ancillary data from moorings were provided by the Gulf
102 National Coastal Condition Report III
-------
Chapter 3 | Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
• .;— SteHwogen
Bostonjg^Bay gaf)|
, Chatham
Monomoy
^ Island
Buzzards v
& Bay . , Nantucket
Marthas
Vineyard
Closure Issuance Dates
SI I /OS -SI IS/OS
^ S/16/05-5/3 I/OS
^ 6/1/05-6/15/05
^ 6/16/05-6/30/05
^ 7/1/05-7/15/05
7/16/05-7/30/05
Federal closure 6/15
(NMFS)
Georges Bonk
: Inshore locations (NH)
were closed between
5/16/05 and 5/3 1/05
Map of shellfish closure areas and area of temporary federal closure of offshore
waters with closure issuance dates during the 2005 Alexandhum fundyense bloom
in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts (Anderson et al., 2005).
of Maine Ocean Observing System and the USGS's instrumented mooring near the MWRA outfall
(NOAA, 2007J).
NOAA awarded additional funds to WHOI to sustain monitoring throughout the bloom period
and to support post-bloom research. The goals of this research were to improve bloom forecasting, to
enhance the efficiency of future monitoring and regulation, and to understand this particular event
by "hindcasting" its causative factors. In addition, because future forecasts will be influenced by the
"footprint" of dinoflagellate cysts (or seeds) left by this expansive bloom, scientists have developed
new cyst maps and will incorporate these into predictive models to aid bloom forecasting in future
years. Researchers will also monitor these new areas to see if Alexandrium cells originate from the
newly deposited cysts (NOAA, 2007J).
National Coastal Condition Report
103
-------
Chapter 3 Northeast Coast Coastal Condition
Summar
Based on data from NCA, CBP, and NOAA, the overall condition of
Northeast Coast coastal waters is rated fair to poor. Problems associated
with excess nutrients and low levels of dissolved oxygen are much less
prevalent in the Gulf of Maine than in the waters south of Cape Cod.
Clean sediments with low levels of chemical contamination, an absence
of acute toxicity, and moderate-to-low levels of sediment TOC are found
in 76% of the Northeast Coast region's coastal area. Benthic conditions
are considered to be poor in 27% of the coastal area, often in the
vicinity of high human population density. Fish tissue contamination
is also a concern in this region, with 31% of the samples rated poor.
When EMAP-VP and NCA data on water clarity, dissolved oxygen
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, sediment TOC, and benthic
communities from 1990—1993 and 2000—2001 were compared, a
slightly greater percentage of coastal area was rated poor in the later time
interval; however, none of these differences are statistically significant.
NOAA's NMFS manages several fisheries in the Northeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME, including principal demersal fish (e.g, cod,
flounder, ocean pout, redfish), pelagic fish (e.g, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic
herring, bluefish, butterfish), and invertebrates (e.g, American lobster,
Atlantic sea scallop). Many stocks of principal demersal fish in this LME are
considered overfished and currently rebuilding. The abundance indices for
mackerel and herring are presently above average, whereas the abundance
index for bluefish is near average and for butterfish is below average. The
fishing mortality rates of the region's American lobster are substantially
above the overfishing level. There have been substantial increases in scallop
biomass in the Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME since changes were
made to the Atlantic scallop fishery management measures in 1994.
Contamination in the coastal waters of the Northeast Coast region
has affected human uses of these waters. In 2003, there were 37 fish
consumption advisories in effect along the Northeast Coast, most of which
(> 90%) were issued for PCB contamination alone or in combination
with one or more other contaminants. In addition, approximately 13%
of the region's monitored beaches were closed or under advisory for some
period of time during 2003- Elevated bacteria levels in the region's coastal
waters were primarily responsible for the beach closures and advisories.
104
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER 4
Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
V
*
I y
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
As shown in Figure 4-1, the overall coastal
condition of the Southeast Coast region is rated fair,
with an overall condition score of 3-6. The water
quality, sediment quality, and coastal habitat indices
for the region are rated fair; the benthic index is
rated good; and the fish tissue contaminants index
is rated good to fair. Figure 4-2 provides a summary
of the percentage of coastal area in good, fair, poor,
or missing categories for each index and component
indicator. This assessment is based on environmental
stressor and response data collected by the NCA,
in collaboration with state resource agencies, from
294 locations throughout Southeast Coast coastal
waters using comparable methods and techniques.
Please refer to Chapter 1 for information about how
these assessments were made, the criteria used to
develop the rating for each index and component
indicator, and the limitations of the available data.
The Southeast Coast region contains a wealth of
resources, including barrier islands such as North
Carolina's Outer Banks; busy shipping ports in
Miami and Jacksonville, FL, Savannah, GA, and
Charleston, SC; quiet coastal wetlands that provide
a habitat for migratory birds and other animals;
and important commercial and recreational fishery
resources. The coastal resources of this region
are diverse and extensive, covering an estimated
4,487 mi2. The provinces of this region include
the Carolinian Province, which extends from
Cape Henry, VA, through the southern end of the
Indian River Lagoon, as well as part of the West
Indian Province along the east coast of Florida
from the Indian River Lagoon through Biscayne
Bay. The borders of the Southeast Coast region
roughly coincide with the borders of the Southeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME. Also included in
the Southeast Coast region is North Carolina's
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System, one of the
largest and most productive aquatic systems in
North America. The Albemarle-Pamlico system
represents North Carolina's key resource base
for commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and
tourism. Similarly, the coastal resources of other
Southeast Coast states provide the resource base
Overall Condition
Southeast Coast (3.6)
Good Fair Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (3)
Benthic Index (5)
Coastal Habitat Index (3)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (4)
Figure 4-1. The overall condition of Southeast Coast
coastal waters is rated fair (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
«
20 40 60
Percent Coastal Area
100
Good Fair
Poor
Missing
Figure 4-2. Percentage of coastal area achieving each
ranking for all indices and component indicators—
Southeast Coast region (U.S. EPA/NCA).
106
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
20,000 '
•O
C
in 1 i.UUU
3
O
^^
c
.2 10,000-
1
a.
£
-^ 5,000
1
o
U
0
1980 1990 2000
Year
~~
2003
~
2008
Figure 4-3. Actual and estimated population of coastal
counties in Southeast Coast states, 1980-2008 (Crossett
et al., 2004).
for fishing and tourism industries and generate
vast amounts of sales tax income for those states.
Between 1980 and 2003, coastal counties of the
Southeast Coast region showed the largest rate of
population increase (58%) of any coastal region in
the conterminous United States. Florida was largely
responsible for this growth, with a population
increase of 7-1 million people, or 75%, during this
time period. Figure 4-3 presents population data
for the Southeast Coast region's coastal counties
and shows that these populations have increased
significantly since 1980 (Crossett et al., 2004).
There is evidence of human-induced stress in some
areas of the Southeast Coast region. Given the influx
of people and businesses to southeastern coastal
states and the ensuing pressures on the coastal
zones of this region, there is an increased need for
effective management of the region's resources.
Coastal Monitoring Data-
Status of Coastal Condition
Several programs have monitored the coastal
waters of the Southeast Coast region, including
NOAA's NS&T and EPA's EMAP Carolinian
Province. EPA's NCA began partnerships with
coastal states in this region in 1999 (South
Carolina), 2000 (Georgia, Florida), and 2001
(North Carolina). Sampling sites were chosen
randomly to represent larger spatial scales.
Participating state partners sampled waters
during the summer, when conditions were
expected to be most stressful (i.e., experiencing
low dissolved oxygen levels). This probabilistic
sampling approach enabled comparison within
and across state boundaries and allowed for the
presentation of data in terms of percentages
of coastal area rated good, fair, and poor.
Water Quality Index
The water quality index for the coastal waters
of the Southeast Coast region is rated fair, with
only 6% of the coastal area rated poor and
48% of the area rated fair for water quality
condition (Figure 4-4). The water quality index
was developed based on measurements of five
component indicators: DIN, DIP, chlorophyll a,
water clarity, and dissolved oxygen.
Southeast Coast Water Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition.
O Good = No more than I is fair
O Fair = I is poor or 2 or more
are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
O Missing
Figure 4-4. Water quality index data for the Southeast
Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
107
-------
Highlight
EPA, NOAA, and Southeastern States Assess Ecological
Condition in Near-Coastal Shelf Waters of the South Atlantic
Bight
A study is under way by EPA, NOAA,
and partnering southeastern states to
assess the condition of aquatic resources
throughout near-coastal shelf waters of
the South Atlantic Bight (SAB). This SAB
study may be regarded as an extension
of previous EMAP efforts in estuaries
and inland waters to these offshore
areas, where such information has been
limited in the past. A similar effort is
also under way in shelf waters along the
western coast of the United States (see
Chapter 6, West Coast Coastal Condition).
The SAB sampling effort applies EMAP's
probabilistic sampling approach to
support statistical estimation of the
spatial extent of conditions with respect
to various measured ecological indicators.
The results of this study are intended to
serve as a baseline for monitoring potential
changes in these indicators over time due
to either human or natural factors.
Sampling was conducted in April 2004
at 50 random stations (see map) from
Nags Head, NC, to West Palm Beach, FL,
at depths of about 32.8—328 feet (roughly
from just offshore to the outer edge of
the continental shelf). Data from these
50 stations will allow the assessment of
conditions for the SAB offshore region
and contribute to broader estimates of conditions at the national level. In addition, a station was
included within the Gray's Reef NMS located off the coast of Georgia (Cooksey, 2004). NOAA also
has conducted recent site-intensive surveys of condition at multiple stations within the boundaries
of the Gray's Reef NMS, using the same protocols as in the present SAB-wide survey (Cooksey et al.,
2004; Hyland et al., 2006). Thus, results of these companion surveys (the first conducted in 2000,
and the second conducted in 2005) can be integrated with the present regional survey to assess the
condition of sanctuary resources within the context of the broader SAB ecosystem.
South Atlantic Bight
Grj/s Reef NMS
Outiidc NMS BoLtHfa
South Atlantic Bight sampling sites (Cooksey, 2004).
108
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
As in other EMAP efforts (including the
present NCCR III), multiple indicators were
measured synoptically at each station to
support weight-of-evidence assessments of
condition and the examination of associations
between biological characteristics and
potential environmental controlling factors
(U.S. EPA, 2002). Condition was assessed
using indicators of (1) habitat condition, (2)
general water quality, (3) biological condition
with a focus on benthic infauna and demersal
(bottom-dwelling) fish pathology, and (4)
exposure to stressors. The table lists the
specific indicators assessed during this study.
The consistent and systematic sampling
of the different biological and environmental
variables across such a large pool of stations
provides a tremendous opportunity for
learning more about the spatial patterns of
these near-coastal aquatic resources and the
processes controlling their distributions,
including potential associations between the
presence of stressors and biological responses.
For example, a key environmental concern
that the program will address with these data
is the extent to which pollutants and other
materials are being transported out of major
rivers located along the developed areas of the
coast. Another concern is how these pollutants
may affect biological resources.
The study also demonstrates the benefits of
performing science through partnerships that
bring together complementary capabilities
and resources from a variety of federal, state,
and academic institutions. The project is
principally funded by the EPA Office of Research and Development. NOAA also is a major partner
in the effort, working with EPA to provide overall management and interpretive support, in addition
to contributing ship time on the NOAA Ship Nancy Foster. State and academic partners include the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), Georgia DNR, Florida Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the College
of Charleston.
A final report is expected by March 2009- It is anticipated that the resulting information on the
condition of ecological resources in these deeper near-coastal waters will make a valuable contribution
to future NCCRs.
Environmental Indicators Used in the SAB Study
(Cooksey, 2004)
Habitat Condition Indicators
Salinity
Water depth
Dissolved oxygen
Wate r te m p e ratu re
Total suspended solids
Transmittance
Sediment grain size
Sediment percent total organic carbon (TOC)
Sediment color/odor
Presence of trash/marine debris
Water Quality Indicators
Chlorophyll a concentrations
Nutrient concentrations (nitrates, nitrites, ammonia,
phosphate)
Biological Condition Indicators
Benthic species composition
Benthic abundance
Benthic species richness and diversity
External indicators of disease in fish
Presence of nonindigenous species
Exposure Indicators
Chemical contaminants in sediment
Chemical contaminants in fish tissues
Low dissolved oxygen condition
Organic over-enrichment
National Coastal Condition Report
109
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA
survey has been designed to estimate the
percent of estuarine area (nationally or
in a region or state) in varying conditions
and is displayed as pie diagrams. Many
of the figures in this report illustrate
environmental measurements made at
specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the
value of the index specifically at the time
of sampling. Additional sampling would be
required to define temporal variability and
to confirm environmental condition at
specific locations.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The Southeast Coast region is rated good for
DIN concentrations because less than 1% of
the region's coastal area was rated poor and 9%
of the area was rated fair for this component
indicator. The Southeast Coast region is also
rated good for DIP concentrations, with only
9% of the coastal area rated poor and 38% of the
area rated fair for this component indicator.
Chlorophyll a
The Southeast Coast region is rated fair for
chlorophyll a because 59% of the coastal area was
rated fair and poor, combined, for this component
indicator.
Water Clarity
Water clarity in the Southeast Coast region is
rated good, with 17% of the coastal area rated fair
and 7% of the area rated poor for this component
indicator. The criteria used to assign water clarity
ratings varied across Southeast Coast coastal
waters, based on natural variations in turbidity
levels and local waterbody management goals
(see Chapter 1 for additional information). The
box shows the criteria for rating a site in poor
condition for water clarity in estuarine systems
with differing levels of natural turbidity.
Coastal Areas
Criteria for a Poor Rating
(Percentage of Ambient
Light that Reaches
I Meter in Depth)
Indian River Lagoon
Estuarine System
Albemarle-Pamlico
and Biscayne Bay
estuarine systems
All Remaining
Southeast Coast
estuarine systems
<20%
< 10%
The NCA monitoring data used
in this assessment were based on
single-day measurements collected at
sites throughout the U.S. coastal waters
(excluding the Great Lakes) during a 9- to
12-week period in late summer. Data were
not collected during other time periods.
Dissolved Oxygen
The Southeast Coast region is rated good for
dissolved oxygen concentrations, with 15% of
the coastal area rated fair and 3% of the area
rated poor for this component indicator.
Sediment Quality Index
The sediment quality index for the coastal
waters of the Southeast Coast region is rated
fair, with 2% of the coastal area rated fair and
12% of the area rated poor for sediment quality
condition (Figure 4-5). The sediment quality
index was calculated based on measurements of
three component indicators: sediment toxicity,
sediment contaminants, and sediment TOC.
Sediment Toxicity
The Southeast Coast region is rated good for
sediment toxicity, with 96% of the area rated
good and approximately 4% of the coastal area
rated poor for this component indicator.
I 10
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Sediment Contaminants
The Southeast Coast region is rated good
for sediment contaminant concentrations,
with approximately 3% of the coastal area
rated fair and less than 1 % of the area rated
poor for this component indicator.
Sediment TOC
The Southeast Coast region is rated good for
sediment TOC concentrations, with 15% of
the coastal area rated fair and only 7% of the
area rated poor for this component indicator.
Site Criteria: Number and condition of
component indicators.
O Good = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is good
O Fair = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Good
86%
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 4-5. Sediment quality index data for Southeast
Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Benthic Index
The biological condition of the coastal waters
of the Southeast Coast region, as measured by
the Southeast Coast Benthic Index, is rated good.
Van Dolah et al. (1999) developed the benthic
index based on several measures of benthic
community condition, including the total number
of species and integrated measures of species
dominance, species abundance, and abundance
of pollution-sensitive taxa. The index shows that
83% of the Southeast Coast region's coastal area
was rated good for benthic condition, 10% of
the area was rated fair, and 7% of the area was
rated poor (Figure 4-6). Stations rated poor
were located in portions of the Neuse River in
North Carolina and Medway River in Georgia.
Southeast Coast Benthic Quality Index
Site Criteria: Southeast Coast Benthic
Index Score.
O Good = > 2.5
O Fair = 2.0 - 2.5
O Poor = < 2.0
O Missing
Figure 4-6. Benthic index data for Southeast Coast
coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Highlight
Georgia's Marsh Dieback
In March 2002, areas of dying coastal salt marshes were reported to the Georgia DNR Coastal
Resource Division (CRD), who confirmed that dying marsh grasses (Spartina alterniflora andjuncus
roemerianus) were resulting in open mudflats. The affected areas initially reported to the CRD were
located in Liberty County and included several miles of creekside marsh die-off, as well as acres
of receding marsh along the Jericho River. Since 2002, areas of dead and dying marsh have been
reported in all six of Georgia's coastal counties, from the St. Mary's River in Camden County to Tybee
Island in Chatham County. The CRD has consulted with other states that have experienced similar
marsh epidemics (e.g., South Carolina, Louisiana), but the causes of the die-off in Georgia have not
yet been determined. An estimated 1,000 acres of marsh have been affected, with the vast majority of
this acreage located in Liberty County (Georgia DNR, 2003).
The CRD has collaborated with scientists from Savannah State University, the Sapelo Island
NERR, the Gray's Reef NMS, Georgia Sea Grant, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE),
the University of Georgia Marine Extension Service, the University of Georgia Marine Institute,
and the Skidaway Institute of Oceanography to collect data from the dying marsh sites via the
Georgia Coastal Research Council (GCRC). Quarterly field sampling has been conducted using
a standardized methodology developed by CRD and GCRC scientists. These marsh samples were
analyzed for soil and interstitial salinities, the presence of fungi and/or abnormal bacteria, and pH.
Although higher-than-normal salinities were detected, these levels were not high enough to denude
the amount of marsh that has been lost. No other abnormal readings have been detected. Researchers
are continuing field sampling to monitor and evaluate changes in salinities and vegetation (Georgia
DNR, 2003).
In addition, Savannah State University has established a working laboratory for testing vegetation
samples. Greenhouse trials were conducted to determine the effects of fresh water and examine the
variation in soils. Initial results of these trials have shown no difference between the Spartina plants
that were grown in soils from the die-off areas and those grown in healthy marsh soils. Spartina leaves
revealed no abnormal species counts; however, root and rhizome analyses are ongoing (Georgia DNR,
2003).
In response to the marsh die-off, the CRD has coordinated outreach and research activities.
Outreach activities included responding to concerned citizen reports and developing press releases
for local media. The CRD is also cataloging all reports of dying marshes through aerial and on-
the-ground photographic documentation and using GIS software to map and estimate the affected
acreage. In collaboration with GIS specialists from the University of Georgia Marine Extension
Service, the CRD is planning and implementing GIS classifications to delineate and track die-
off areas. Scientists from the GCRC have applied for various grants to address certain aspects of
the marsh die-off, including monitoring, transplant experiments, and plant tissue analysis studies
(Georgia DNR, 2003).
I I 2 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
The marsh die-off affects a vital coastal area of Georgia and has implications for wildlife, fisheries,
water quality, navigation, and flood control. Under the Georgia Coastal Marshlands Protection
Act (O.C.G.A. 12-5-280 et seq.), the State of Georgia recognizes that "the coastal marshlands of
Georgia comprise a vital natural resource system. The estuarine area... is the habitat of many species
of marine life and wildlife and, without the food supplied by the marshlands, such marine life and
wildlife cannot survive. The estuarine marshlands of coastal Georgia are among the richest providers
of nutrients in the world. Such marshlands provide a nursery for commercially and recreationally
important species of shellfish and other wildlife, provide a great buffer against flooding and erosion,
and help control and disseminate pollutants. The coastal marshlands provide a natural recreation
resource, which has become vitally linked to the economy of Georgia's coastal zone and to that
of the entire state. This...system is costly, if not impossible, to reconstruct or rehabilitate once
adversely affected." The results of these investigations into the dead marsh issue have long-term
implications for the preservation of Georgia's estuaries and the health of Georgia's coastal economy
(Georgia DNR, 2003).
Updates regarding the progress made on the marsh die-off issue can be found at the GCRC Web
site at http://www.gcrc.uga.edu or accessed through the CRD Web site at http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us.
Aerial survey of marsh dieback, Jerico River, GA (courtesy of Matt Ogburn,
GCRC).
National Coastal Condition Report
13
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal habitat index for the coastal waters of
the Southeast Coast region is rated fair. As reported
in the NCCRII (U.S. EPA, 2004a), wetlands
in the Southeast Coast region diminished from
1,107,370 acres in 1990 to 1,105,170 acres in
2000, representing a loss of 2,200 acres or 0.2%.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The fish tissue contaminants index for the coastal
waters of the Southeast Coast region is rated good
to fair. Fish tissue samples were collected at 218 of
the 294 NCA sampling sites (74%) in the Southeast
Coast region. Figure 4-7 shows that 10% of all
sites sampled where fish were caught were rated
poor using whole-fish contaminant concentrations
and EPA Advisory Guidance values. Total PAHs
and total PCBs were the only contaminants
with elevated concentrations in fish tissues
collected from Southeast Coast coastal waters.
Southeast Coast Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
Site Criteria: EPA Guidance concentration
O Good = Below Guidance range
O Fair = Falls within Guidance range
© Poor = Exceeds Guidance range
Figure 4-7. Fish tissue contaminants index data for
Southeast Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Intracoastal Waterway, Onslow County, NC (courtesy of Kimberly Matthews).
I 14
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Trends of Coastal Monitoring
Data—Southeast Coast Region
Temporal Change in Ecological
Condition
EMAP-Estuaries conducted annual surveys of
estuarine condition in the Carolinian Province from
1994 to 1997, the results of which were reported in
the NCCRI (U.S. EPA, 200Ic). In 2000, EMAP-
NCA initiated annual surveys of coastal condition
in the Southeast Coast region, which includes the
Carolinian Province and part of the West Indian
Province. The assessment of 2000 data was reported
in the NCCR II, and data from 2001 and 2002 are
assessed in this current report (NCCR III). These
seven years of monitoring data from Southeast
Coast coastal waters provide an ideal opportunity to
investigate temporal changes in ecological condition
indicators. The data can be analyzed to answer two
basic types of trend questions based on assessments
of ecological indicators in Southeast Coast coastal
waters: what is the interannual variability in the
percentages of area rated good, fair, or poor, and is
there a significant change in the percentage of area
rated poor from the mid-1990s to the present?
This comparison was conducted using data
for the same indicators, collected using similar
methods over the same geographic area. The
ecological parameters that can be compared
between these time periods include water clarity,
dissolved oxygen concentrations, sediment
toxicity, sediment contaminants, sediment TOC,
and benthic condition. Data supporting these
parameters were collected using similar protocols
and QA/QC methods. Fish tissue contaminants
data were also collected by both surveys during
both time periods; however, these data were
excluded from this trend analysis because the sample
preparation methods were not comparable. The
available water quality data on chlorophyll a and
nutrients from the EMAP-NCA survey (2000)
were also excluded because these parameters were
not evaluated during the EMAP-Estuaries surveys
(1994-1997). In addition, the spatial extent of
the EMAP-NCA Southeast Coast regional data
was reduced to match that of the Carolinian
Province surveyed during the EMAP-Estuaries
study. The Carolinian Province extends from
the Virginia—North Carolina state border to the
Indian River Lagoon on the east coast of Florida.
Both programs (EMAP-Estuaries and EMAP-
NCA) implemented probability-based surveys that
support estimations of the percentage of coastal
area rated in good, fair, or poor condition based
on the indices and component indicators assessed.
Standard errors for these estimates were calculated
according to methods listed on the EMAP Aquatic
Resource Monitoring Web site (http://www.epa.
gov/nheerl/arm). The reference values and guidelines
listed in Chapter 1 were used to determine
good, fair, or poor condition for each index and
component indicator from both time periods.
None of the indices or component indicators
assessed showed any significant linear trends over
time in the percent of coastal area rated poor
(Figures 4-8 through 4-13); however, when the
time periods were compared, some differences
were observed (Figure 4-14). The percentage of
coastal area rated poor for sediment toxicity was
significantly greater for the time period from 1994
to 1997 than for 2000 to 2002 (z = 3-67; p < 0.05).
100
80
Water Clarity
60
40
20
D Good
D Fair
• Poor
D Missing
1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002
Year
Figure 4-8. Percent area of Southeast Coast coastal
waters in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for water
clarity measured overtwotime periods, 1994-1997 and
2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
15
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Similarly, significantly greater percentage of
the coastal area was rated poor for sediment
contaminants from 1994 to 1997 than from 2000
to 2002 (z = 2.028; p < 0.05). In addition, the
percentage of coastal area rated poor was greater
(although not significantly) for the time period
1994_1997 than for 2000-2002 for all of the
other indicators measured, with the exception of
sediment TOC. Sediment TOC increased slightly
from 5-5% to 7-2%, although this increase was
not significant (p < 0.05). It should be noted
that sediment toxicity samples were not collected
in 1996, and these data were considered to be
missing for 100% of the coastal area in 1996.
100
Sediment Toxicity
60
40
20
D Good
D Poor
D Missing
1994 1995 1996 1997
2000 2001 2002
100
80
Dissolved Oxygen
Year
60
40
20
D Good
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing
Figure 4-10. Percent area of Southeast Coast coastal
waters in good, poor; or missing categories for sediment
toxicity measured over two time periods, 1994-1997
and 2000-2002. No data were collected in 1996 (U.S.
EPA/NCA).
100
80
Sediment Contaminants
60
1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002
Year
Figure 4-9. Percent area of Southeast Coast coastal
waters in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for
bottom-water dissolved oxygen concentrations
measured overtwotime periods, 1994-1997 and
2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
40
20
D Good
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing
1994 1995
1996 1997 2000 2001
Year
2002
Figure 4-11. Percent area of Southeast Coast coastal
waters in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for
sediment contaminants measured over two time
periods, 1994-1997 and 2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Porty spider crabs are bottom-dwelling scavengers found
in estuarine waters from Nova Scotia to the Gulf of
Mexico (courtesy of Andrew David, NMFS, and Lance
Horn, University of North Carolina at Wilmington).
I 16
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Sediment TOC
100
80
n)
£ 60
40
20
D Good 100
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing g()
a
S. 60
1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002
Year
Figure 4-12. Percent area of Southeast Coast coastal
waters in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for
sediment TOC measured overtwotime periods,
1994-1997 and 2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
40
20
Benthic Index
D Good
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing
1994 1995 1996 1997 2000 2001 2002
Year
Figure 4-1 3. Percent area of Southeast Coast coastal
waters in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for the
benthic index measured over two time periods,
1994-1997 and 2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water
Clarity
Dissolved
Oxygen
Sediment
Toxicity
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
TOC
Benthic
Index
I 1 1
D 1994-1997
*•
1 1
I 1
I
1 1
10 20 30 40
Percent Coastal Area in Poor Condition
Figure 4-14. Comparison of percent area of Southeast
Coast coastal waters rated poor for ecological indicators
between two time periods, 1994-1997 and 2000-2002.
Error bars are 95% confidence intervals (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Black-necked stilts are found along edges of
shallow waters, such as the ACE Basin NERR
(courtesy of NOAA).
National Coastal Condition Report
17
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Bottlenose Dolphin Tissue Contaminants
Bottlenose dolphins are apex predators in estuarine and nearshore waters along the Atlantic coast
from Long Island, NY, south to Florida and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. In many estuaries,
bottlenose dolphins are year-round residents, showing a high degree of site fidelity. As such, dolphins
can be good indicators of ecosystem contamination, particularly for very persistent pollutants such
as PCBs. Total PCB concentrations were measured in blubber from live dolphins sampled along
the Atlantic coast between 2000 and 2004 (Hansen et al., 2003). In the Gulf of Mexico, total PCB
concentrations were measured in blubber from live dolphins in Sarasota Bay, FL, in 2000-2001 (Wells
et al., 2005) and Florida Bay in 2002 (NOAA, 2003a), as well as from stranded bottlenose dolphins
near St. Joseph Bay, FL, during an unusual mortality event (UME) in 2004 (NIST, 2004). Researchers
have also examined concentrations of other organic compounds, including polyfluoroalkyl compounds
(PFAs), in dolphin blubber and blood.
Female dolphins transfer a majority of their PCB contaminant load to their offspring during
lactation, and it is difficult to interpret PCB concentrations from the blubber of a female dolphin
without knowledge of the dolphin's reproductive history. For this reason, this analysis used total
PCB concentrations analyzed in samples collected from male dolphins. The measured total PCB
concentrations were compared to estimated risk values proposed by Schwacke et al. (2002). These
risk values correspond with PCB concentrations that are estimated to cause reproductive failure (e.g.,
stillbirths, calf mortality) in dolphins. Measured total PCB levels of 33 pg/g lipid are considered to
be the effective concentration required to induce 50% reproductive failure (EC50). Levels of 51.2
|ig/g lipid are considered to be the effective concentration required to induce 90% reproductive failure
(EC90).
The results of these studies along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts are shown in the maps. For sites
where many dolphins were sampled (> 5), data are summarized as a pie chart showing the proportion
of the samples falling into each category. All of the dolphins sampled from Florida Bay and most
of the UME dolphins from St. Joseph Bay showed total PCB concentrations below the EC50. In
Sarasota Bay, 27% of dolphins had total PCB concentrations in their tissues above the EC50, but
Total PCBs in Dolphin Blubber
O Below ECSO
O Falls between ECSO-EC90
• Above EC90
Total PCB concentrations measured from the blubber of male dolphins sampled along the
U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast, 2000-2004 (Wells et al., 2005; NOAA, 2003a; NIST 2004).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
only 9% measured concentrations above the
EC90. In the Atlantic Coast estuaries around
Charleston, SC, and in Florida's Mosquito
Lagoon and the northern portion of the Indian
River Lagoon, more than 60% of the male
dolphins sampled showed total PCB values
above the EC90. In addition, all tissue samples
from the New Jersey coast measured PCB
concentrations above the EC90, but only a
few samples (n=4) were available. Dolphins
sampled from estuaries and coastal regions of
North Carolina and within the middle portion
of the Indian River Lagoon fared better, with no
individuals showing PCB concentrations above
the EC90. Concentrations of total PCBs were
higher than concentrations of other measured
organic compounds at all of the sampled
sites, and results of analyses of inorganic
contaminants (e.g., metals) in dolphin tissues are
not yet available.
Recently, scientists have identified other
emerging chemical contaminants of concern,
including PFAs, in the environment. PFA
concentrations were measured in dolphin
blood during capture-and-release studies in
Sarasota Bay, FL, and at three Atlantic Coast
sites (Houde et al., 2005). Differences in PFA
levels were observed between sampling sites,
but little is known about the potential health
effects of these compounds in dolphins. The
mean summed PFA concentration (900 ppb wet
weight) measured in dolphins from Sarasota,
FL, was similar to that measured in dolphins
from Indian River Lagoon, FL (800 ppb wet
weight) and less than that measured in dolphins
from Charleston, SC (1800 ppb wet weight),
and Delaware Bay, DE (1600 ppb wet weight).
Additional research is needed to determine
whether these levels of PFAs put dolphins at
increased health risk.
Total PCBs in Dolphin Blubber
O Below ECSO
O Falls between ECSO-EC90
• Above EC90
Total PCB concentrations measured from the
blubber of live male dolphins sampled along the
U.S.Atlantic Coast between 2000 and 2004. Data
sources: Charleston, SC; Indian River Lagoon, FL; and
Beaufort, NC, data from Hansen et al. (2003) and
from the NOAA Center for Coastal Environmental
Health and Biomolecular Research (unpublished) and
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (unpublished);
data for other sites from National Institute for
Standards and Technology (unpublished) and NMFS
(unpublished).
National Coastal Condition Report
19
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries—Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME
The Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
extends from Cape Hatteras, NC, to the Straits of
Florida (Figure 4-15) and is characterized by its
temperate climate. This LME is considered to be
moderately productive based on primary production
(phytoplankton) estimates, and upwelling along
the Gulf Stream front and intrusions from the Gulf
Stream can cause short-lived plankton blooms. The
Southeast U.S. Continental LME is distinguished
by a very high percentage of commercially
important crustacean catches. The valuable
coastal shrimp fishery accounts for 10% of the
total tonnage landed from this LME. Reef fishes,
sciaenid species, menhaden, and mackerel are also
important fisheries. The fisheries in this LME are
managed by NMFS and the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (SAFMC) (NOAA, 2007g).
Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf
| | Relevant Large
Marine Ecosystem
Figure 4-15. Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
(NOAA, 2007g).
The portion of the Atlantic coast of the United
States that borders the Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME includes diverse habitats ranging in
salinity, flora, and fauna. The coastal area includes
freshwater and estuarine habitats, nearshore
and barrier islands, and oceanic communities.
Watersheds that drain the lower Appalachian
Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plains empty
into the ecosystem along the coastlines of North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and eastern
Florida. The flow of fresh water mixes along the
coast with prevailing oceanic waters to create
diverse wetlands, marsh, and mangrove habitats that
transition gradually from freshwater to brackish-
water to saltwater areas. From an ecosystem
perspective, this thin fringe of estuaries is dynamic,
varying constantly with tidal fluctuations and
levels of runoff, and serves as important habitat for
invertebrates, fish, reptiles, waterfowl, mammals,
and a diverse array of plants. These estuaries also
act as a natural filter to remove pollutants and trap
sediments from upland regions. The Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME coastal area supports diverse
aquatic organisms and complex food webs in an
irreplaceable nursery system. This system promotes
the recruitment (addition of a new generation
of young fish) and development of juvenile fish
and invertebrate species that are important to
recreational, commercial, and ecological interests.
Reef Fish Resources
Reef fish are generally found in reef or reef-
like, hard-bottom habitats. Dominant reef fish
species in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf
LME include red, yellowtail, vermilion, and
mutton snappers; red and gag grouper; black sea
bass; and greater amberjack. In the Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME, the fishery for reef fishes
has historically been conducted within waters that
are less than 600-feet deep or within the area that
approximates the outer edge of the continental
slope. Reef fish fisheries are extremely diverse, have
many users (commercial and recreational), and vary
greatly by location and species (NMFS, In press).
Combined commercial and recreational landings
of reef fish from the Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME have fluctuated since 1976, showing a
slightly decreasing trend over time (Figure 4-16).
120
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
The recent average yield of reef fish species (2001—
2003) was 6,407 t. Meanwhile, fishing pressure has
increased significantly, with many stocks currently
considered overfished. Regulations pertaining to the
management of reef fish include prohibitions on the
use offish traps (except pots for black sea bass) and
trawl gear, minimum-size limits, permitting systems
for commercial fishermen, bag limits, quotas,
seasonal closures, Special Management Zones,
and the establishment of Marine Protected Areas
prohibiting the harvest of any species. Reef fish are
part of a complex, diverse multi-species ecosystem.
The long-term effects of harvesting on reefs are not
well understood, requiring cautious management
controls of targeted fisheries (NMFS, In press).
16-,
14-
C- 12-
o
§ 10-
M
.£ 6H
•D
j 4H
2-
0-
Q] Total landings
— Commercial landings
— Recreational landings
1980
1985
1990
Year
1995
2000
Figure 4-16. Reef fish landings from the Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME, 1978-2003, in metric tons (t)
(NMFS, In press).
Sciaenids Fisheries
Fish of the family Sciaenidae include 22
species in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf
LME. Some of the more notable members of this
family offish are red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus),
black drum (Pogonias cromis), Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus), weakfish (Cynoscion
regalis), spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus),
kingfish (Menticirrhus spp.), and spot (Leiostomus
xanthurus). Sciaenids have constituted an important
fishery resource along the Atlantic coast since
the late 1800s. Currently, these fish species
support substantial harvests for both commercial
and recreational fisheries and are captured with
almost every type of gear used to fish the coastal
waters of the Atlantic Ocean (NMFS, In press).
Of the sciaenid species for which an FMP has
been developed, red drum is currently classified
as overfished; weakfish is classified as recovered;
and there is not enough information available
to adequately determine the stock status of the
remaining species. Commercial landings of red
drum increased rapidly in the mid-1980s when
market demand grew suddenly for blackened
redfish, a gourmet seafood dish. In addition, large
numbers of sciaenids (e.g., small Atlantic croaker,
spot, and seatrout) are caught and killed as an
incidental catch in Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME shrimp fisheries. Because much of this
bycatch consists of juveniles, fishing mortality
from incidental catches may slow the recovery of
overfished stocks. Shrimp management regulations
require the use of bycatch-reduction devices, which
shrimpers in the Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME currently use. Use of these devices has
contributed to the rebound of some overfished
stocks, such as weakfish. Recent declines in the
spotted seatrout abundance index in Southeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME waters have been
attributed to increased coastal development
leading to habitat loss and heavy fishing pressure.
Regulations for sciaenid fishes in the Atlantic
Ocean vary by state and range from no restrictions
to complicated restrictions based on fish size and
daily bag limits. The populations of several species
of sciaenids, most notably Atlantic croaker and
spotted seatrout, appear to be closely linked to
environmental conditions, resulting in large annual
population fluctuations (NMFS, In press).
Menhaden Fishery
The geographical range of the Atlantic menhaden
extends from West Palm Beach, FL, to Nova
Scotia, Canada. Menhaden are prey for many
fish, marine mammals, and sea birds and form
an important component of both the Southeast
and Northeast U.S. Continental Shelf LMEs.
Menhaden landings from these LMEs are reported
by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center.
Landings and participation in the menhaden
fishery (23 factories and more than 100 vessels on
the Atlantic coast) increased rapidly after World
War II, reaching peak harvests between 1953 and
1962, with record landings of 712,100 t in 1956
National Coastal Condition Report
121
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
(Figure 4-17)- Sharp declines in landings thereafter
resulted in plant closings and vessel reductions.
Stock rebuilding occurred during the 1970s and
1980s, and menhaden landings climbed to 418,600
t in 1983- During the late 1980s and 1990s, the
fishery consolidated, primarily because of low
product prices. In 2003, only 2 reduction plants
and 12 vessels remained in operation on the Atlantic
coast. The Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay
is currently the center of the modern menhaden
fishery. In addition, an active baitfish fishery along
the coast operates primarily in Virginia and New
Jersey and harvests about 15% to 20% of the
medhaden landed by the industrial fishery. The
resource is almost fully utilized, with a maximum
sustainable yield of 408,9991 per year and a
recent average yield of 228,000 t annually for the
2001-2003 time period (NMFS, In press).
800 -,
700-
^f. 600-
o
§ 500-
& 400-
I
| 300-
J 200-
100-
0 -I
f_] Landings
Fecundity
-300
-250 -
-200
M
M
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
overfished, nor is overfishing occurring, although
it is near its estimated long-term potential yield.
Currently, there are restrictions for the commercial
fishing industry sector, including annual total
allocated catch restrictions, minimum-size
restrictions, gear restrictions, and catch trip limits.
For the recreational sector, restrictions include bag
limits, minimum-size limits, and annual quota
allocations. Current issues affecting the Southeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME king mackerel stock
concern the bycatch of juveniles in the shrimp trawl
fishery and the allocation of landings within the
mixing zone between Southeast U.S. Continental
and Gulf of Mexico LME stocks (NMFS, In press).
The total catch of Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME Spanish mackerel averaged 2,307 t per
fishing year from 1984 to 2001, with a maximum
of 3,188 t in 1991 and a minimum of 1,406 t in
1995- In 2001, the total catch was 2,305 t, and the
recent average yield was 2,716 t for the 2000—2001
to 2002-2003 time periods. For this LME, Spanish
mackerel landings have also been below the total
allowable catch limits, at least since 1991. The
1998 and 2003 stock assessments concluded that
the Spanish mackerel stock in this LME was not
overfished and that overfishing was not occurring,
although current estimates indicate that the stock
is exploited at its near-optimum, long-term yield
(which is based on the maximum sustainable
yield modified to account for economic, social,
or ecological factors). At present, management
restrictions for the commercial fishery of the
Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME Spanish
mackerel include minimum-size restrictions, gear
restrictions, trip limits, and quota allocations.
A major recreational fishery exists for Spanish
mackerel throughout its range, and the percentage
of landings by recreational anglers has increased
since the mid-1990s to about 50% of all landings of
the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME stock.
For the recreational fishery, there are minimum-size
restrictions, bag limits, and charter-vessel permit
requirements. Current issues affecting this stock
include bycatch from the shrimp trawl fishery and
the allocation of landings within the mixing zone
between Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf and
Gulf of Mexico LME stocks (NMFS, In press).
The trend in commercial landings of the
major shrimp species over the past 40 years
has remained stable, while fishing pressure has
increased. The shrimp stocks in the Southeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME appear to be more
affected by environmental conditions than by
fishing pressure. Both pink and white shrimp
populations are affected by cold weather. The
young of these species over-winter in estuaries and
can potentially "freeze out" if water temperatures
drop to lethal levels. The lower temperatures do
not affect brown and rock shrimp populations
because juveniles of these species are not found
in the estuaries during cold seasons. Annual
variations in white and pink shrimp populations
due to fluctuating environmental conditions are a
natural phenomenon that will likely continue to
occur despite management activities; however, the
recovery of the affected stocks can be mediated
by management practices (NMFS, In press).
The current shrimp FMP (SAFMC, 2005) uses
the mean total shrimp landings as a reasonable
proxy for maximum sustainable yield. The harvest
of shrimp in the Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf LME has fluctuated around stable levels
for several years. This trend in landings has been
maintained even though an increase in vessels has
been observed; therefore, it seems these stocks are
fully exploited. The recent average yield of brown,
pink, rock, and white shrimp from the Southeast
U.S. Continental Shelf LME was 10,984 t for
the 2001-2003 time period (NMFS, In press).
NMFS catch statistics indicate that commercial
shrimp species are being harvested at maximum
levels; therefore, an increase in fishing effort is not
likely to lead to an increase in catch. Although
fishing mortality may affect future shrimp stocks in
years experiencing harsh environmental conditions,
the greatest threat to shrimp populations is the
loss or destruction of habitat. Pollution or physical
alteration of the salt marsh and inshore seagrass
habitats results in changes to habitats that are critical
nursery areas for juvenile shrimp (NMFS, In press).
National Coastal Condition Report
123
-------
Highlight
Natural South Carolina intertidal reef adjacent to fringing salt marsh
(courtesy of South Carolina DNR).
South Carolina
Oyster Restoration
and Enhancement
(SCORE) Program
Oysters are important because
they not only provide a resource to
harvest and enjoy, but also provide
a number of ecosystem services.
These services include filtering vast
quantities of water, serving as an
important habitat for numerous
commercially and ecologically
important estuarine species, and
protecting marsh shorelines from
erosion. Populations of the native
eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica,
are declining throughout its range
extending from Canada to South America, with populations in some areas, such as the Chesapeake
Bay, at less than 1% of the historic abundance. In South Carolina, there are adequate breeding
stocks of oysters, but recruitment (settling of oyster larvae out of the water column) is limited by the
amount of substrate available for attachment (South Carolina DNR, 2007b).
The South Carolina DNR is responsible for managing the state's oyster resource habitats. In order
to increase oyster reef habitat at a minimum cost to taxpayers, South Carolina DNR has initiated the
South Carolina Oyster Restoration and Enhancement Program (SCORE) to increase the amount
of substrate available for oyster recruitment in the state's waters. Community-based restoration
and related monitoring are key components of SCORE. The program restores and enhances oyster
resources and habitat by planting recycled oyster shells into the intertidal environment. Volunteers
from across the state are helping to strategically place recycled oyster shells, thereby creating new
oyster shell habitats for natural recruitment in areas with little or no natural oysters or substrate for
recruitment (South Carolina DNR, 2007b).
SCORE also serves other uses beneficial to the state agencies and residents. The South Carolina
DNR uses SCORE's small oyster shell reefs (hundreds of bushels of shells) to evaluate approaches
for the department's larger oyster-planting program, which has involved placing tens of thousands
of bushels of recycled shells onto acres of formerly barren, intertidal habitat on public grounds. In
addition, the community-based aspect of SCORE helps to educate the public about the significant
ecological and economic role of oysters in South Carolina. It is important for the community to
understand that oysters are much more than a seafood treat and to learn about oysters' biology and
the human activities that can influence their well-being (South Carolina DNR, 2007b).
124
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Volunteers collect oyster shells before bagging them for use
in oyster habitat restoration projects (courtesy of South
Carolina DNR).
Appropriate management of oyster resources
includes the planting of appropriate shell material
(cultch) to provide substrate for larval oyster
recruitment onto the permanent substrate where
they will reside as adults. The best cultch material
is fresh oyster shells, but this material is getting
scarce. There is a nationwide shortage of oyster
shells to be used as cultch because many oyster
shells go to landfills or are used for decorative
purposes (tabby walls) or road bed coverage. Some
volunteer groups recycle their own shells, but
most use shells from the South Carolina DNR's
larger Shell Recycling Program, which encourages
the public to recycle oyster shells at one of the
more than 16 designated recycling centers located
along the South Carolina coast. The recycled shells
generated in this fashion are used for restoration
and enhancement of shellfish resources, reducing
the costs of these activities (South Carolina DNR,
2007a). Less than 10% of the oysters harvested in
South Carolina are returned to the South Carolina
DNR for restoration projects (South Carolina
DNR, 2007b). Additional shells may be recovered
if volunteer groups recycle shells as a service
project or if the shell material from restaurants,
caterers, and resorts were recovered before going
to a landfill.
Since May 2001, SCORE has used more than
13,000 bags (over 275 tons) of oyster shells to
complete over 120 reefs at 29 reef sites along the
South Carolina coast. As these shell-bag reefs
begin to recruit new oysters and attract other
inhabitants of the estuary, they are also being used
as living classrooms and South Carolina DNR
research platforms. Volunteer support is critical to monitoring the new reefs throughout the year to
increase understanding of how best to restore oyster habitats. Support to date has come from state
and federal agencies, foundations, and volunteers, more than 2,000 of whom have been involved in
one or more aspects of the program (South Carolina DNR, 2007b).
By working together, community members and South Carolina DNR biologists are restoring
oyster populations while also enhancing habitat for fish, shellfish, mammals, and birds; improving
water quality and the clarity of estuarine areas; and informing and educating children, industry,
and the general public. More information on SCORE and other oyster-related links are available
on SCORE's Web site at http://score.dnr.sc.gov. Information about the Shell Recycling Program is
available at the Web page http://saltwaterfishing.sc.gov/oyster.html.
South Carolina DNR's largest completed reef at Mt.
Pleasant, SC (courtesy of South Carolina DNR).
National Coastal Condition Report
125
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
Ten fish consumption advisories were active in
the coastal waters of the Southeast Coast region
in 2003 (Figure 4-18). All four coastal states of
this region—North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and Florida—had statewide advisories
covering all coastal waters to warn citizens against
consuming large quantities of king mackerel because
of potential mercury contamination. Florida and
South Carolina also had statewide advisories for
other species offish. Because of these statewide
advisories, 100% of the total coastline miles of
the Southeast Coast region were under advisory
in 2003- Most (91%) fish consumption advisories
for the Southeast Coast region were issued, at
least in part, because of mercury contamination
(Figure 4-19), with separate advisories issued for
only two other pollutants: PCBs and dioxins.
All of the fish advisories for PCBs covered
parts of Georgia, and the one fish advisory
for dioxin was in North Carolina's Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine System (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
No advisories
I
Noncoastal
cataloging unit
Figure 4-18. The number of fish consumption advisories
in effect in 2003 for the Southeast Coast coastal waters
(U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Mercury
c
rt
_c
I
o
(J
PCBs
(Total)
Dioxin
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Fish Advisories
Listed for Each Contaminant
Figure 4-19. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in Southeast Coast coastal waters. An
advisory can be issued for more than one contaminant,
so percentages may add up to more than 100 (U.S. EPA,
2004b).
Species and/or groups under fish consumption
advisory in 2003 for at least some part of the coastal
waters of the Southeast Coast region
Almaco jack
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blackfin tuna
Blue crab
Bluefish
Bowfin
Carp
Catfish
Clams
Cobia
Crevalle jack
Flounder
Greater amberjack
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004b
King mackerel
Ladyfish
Large mouth bass
Little tunny
Mussels
Oysters
Red drum
Shark
Silver perch
Snowy grouper
Spotted seatrout
Swordfish
Tilefish
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 487 Southeast Coast beaches reported to
EPA in 2003, only 12% (59 beaches) were closed
or under an advisory for any period of time during
that year. Table 4-1 presents the number of beaches
monitored and the number of beaches under
closures or advisories reported for each state. Figure
4-20 presents advisory and closure percentages for
each county within each state (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
126
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Table 4-1. Number of Beaches Monitored and With
Advisories/Closures in 2003 for Southeast Coast
States (U.S. EPA, 2006c)
No. of
Beaches
State Monitored
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
Georgia
Florida
(East Coast)
TOTAL
222
7
37
226
492
No. of
Beaches
With
Advisories/
Closures
21
2
NR
36
59
Percentage
of Beaches
Affected by
Advisories/
Closures
9.5
28.6
NR
15.9
12.0
NR = Not Reported.
Most beach advisories and closures were
implemented at beaches along the Southeast
Coast because of elevated bacteria levels
(Figure 4-21). Although stormwater runoff was
identified as a source of beach contamination
in the Southeast Coast region, unknown
sources accounted for 97% of the survey
responses (Figure 4-22, U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Percentage of Beaches
with Advisories/Closures
None
0.01-10.49
IZZI 10.50-50.49
LZZl 50.50-100.00
I I Not reported
Figure 4-20. Percentage of monitored beaches with
advisories or closures, by county, for the Southeast Coast
region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Preemptive Closure
(Rainfall)
3%
Elevated Bacteria
97%
Figure 4-21. Reasons for beach advisories or closures in
the Southeast Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Stormwater
Runoff
3%
Unknown 97%
Figure 4-22. Sources of contamination resulting in
beach advisories or closures in the Southeast Coast
region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Leatherback sea turtles nest occasionally on the beach
at Canaveral National Seashore.The leatherback is
an endangered species of sea turtle and is one of the
largest in the world. It can grow to be over 6 feet long
and weigh over 1,000 pounds (courtesy of NPS).
National Coastal Condition Report
127
-------
Responding to Sea-Level Rise
Sea level is expected to rise an average of 20 inches in the 21st century; about two to four times the
rate observed over the 20th century (Houghton et al., 2001). A 20-inch rise in sea level will result in
a substantial loss of coastal land and be associated with a host of other problems in coastal regions.
These problems include the following:
• Higher and more frequent flooding of wetlands and low-lying coastal land
• Transformation of one ecosystem class to another
• Alteration of the function of the coastal area
• Increased flooding during severe storms
• Increased wave energy in nearshore areas
• Saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwater aquifers
• Breaching of coastal barrier islands
• Damage to coastal infrastructure
• Negative impacts to coastal economies
• Coastal erosion and coastal retreat, including dune and cliff erosion.
Sea-level rise is of special concern along the Southeast and Gulf coasts of the United States. The
USGS evaluated vulnerability to sea-level rise by dividing the U.S. coastline into five categories based
on geomorphology, coastal slope, relative sea-level change, shoreline erosion rate, tidal range, and
mean wave height. The U.S. Southeast and Gulf coasts were determined to be the most vulnerable of
the nation's coasts because of their low lying and gently sloping shorelines. In addition, the land in
these regions is subsiding, while sea level is rising (Thieler and Hammar-Klos, 1999).
The prediction of shoreline retreat and land-loss rates is critical to the planning of future coastal
zone management strategies, as well as to assessing biological impacts due to habitat changes and
loss. To assist natural resource managers in mitigating the loss of coastal ecosystems resulting from
the existing and predicted acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, NOAA is developing digital
coastal elevation maps with a vertical resolution of 8 inches, coastal flooding models that show
the spatial extent of inundation for any projected rate of sea-level rise, and models of ecological
response to inundation. NOAA has initiated the mapping and coastal flooding portions of this
project for sections of the North Carolina coast. These sections include vulnerable areas and areas
whose topography has been mapped by state agencies using light detection and ranging (LIDAR)
technology, which is used to quantify coastal change with a rapidity of acquisition and very high data
density. The digital elevation maps, hydrological models, and ecological models will ultimately be
combined to produce forecasts of coastal change as a function of sea-level rise. One very important
use of the forecasts for coastal planners is predicting the coastal response to specific proposals for
coastal development.
In North Carolina, sea-level rise has occurred over the past several decades and has already had
a major impact on the state's coastlines. Based on NOAA tide gauge measurements, the state's
rate of relative sea-level rise ranges from 0.07 to 0.17 inches/year, with rates increasing from south
to north (Zervas, 2004). As sea-level rises, the shoreline receeds and one ecosystem class may be
transformed into another, significantly altering the function of coastal areas. Rates of shoreline
I 28 National Coastal Condition Report III
-------
Chapter 4 | Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Areas in red along North Carolina Outer Banks, Bogue Sound, Pamlico Sound,
and the Neuse River are projected to be inundated by a 40-inch rise in sea level
(Zervas, 2004).
recession vary dramatically
along the shore and are a
function of shoreline type,
geometry, and composition;
geographic location; size
and shape of the associated
coastal waterbody; coastal
vegetation; water level;
and storm frequency
and intensity. In North
Carolina, the coastal plain
has low topographic slopes,
and the majority of the
coastal zone is within several
feet of current sea level. As
a result, North Carolina has
lost almost 50 mi2 of coastal
area along the shoreline
from 1975 to 2000 and as
much as 60% of wetlands in the northeastern portion of the state (Riggs, 2001).
The coastal flooding model combined a hydrodynamic tide model of Pamlico, Albemarle, Core,
and Bogue sounds and adjacent estuarine and coastal waters with the high-resolution, topographic/
bathymetric digital elevation map based on the LIDAR topographic and bathymetric data (Zervas,
2004). The model forecasted the extent of inundation in Pamlico and Bogue sounds and the Neuse
River as a function of a 40-inch sea-level rise (see map).
In 2005, NOAA initiated development of ecological models for the area of North Carolina covered
by the coastal flooding model. A GIS-based database of shoreline variables (e.g., fetch, offshore bottom
character, shoreline geometry, height and composition of sediment banks, fringing vegetation, boat
wake, soil series, marsh zone width, land form type and location, elevation) will help forecast estuarine
shore-zone modification driven by sea-level rise. One type of ecological model will predict the effects
of present sea-level rise, increased storm surge intensity, bulkheads, and breakwaters on net primary
and secondary production within five types of habitat: subtidal un-vegetated, SAV, intertidal flat,
oyster reef, and marsh. Another model will predict the spatial distribution of biomass and sediment
accretion on salt marsh platforms based on vegetation responses to changes in mean sea level.
The results of the ecological models will allow researchers to examine and evaluate the connections
between different habitats and how these connections will be affected by sea-level rise in coastal
areas. For example, forecasts of the effects of sea-level rise on forests and forested wetlands will allow
researchers to link surface soil salinity to estuarine salinity using soil type maps and information about
vegetation/land cover and elevation. Forecasts will be used to determine feedback and transition
processes between marshes and forests and between marshes and subtidal environments, as well as
evaluate which specific thresholds are needed to initiate state changes from one zone to another due
to salinity, inundation regime, or episodic events. In addition, the ecological models will be integrated
with landscape models to assess the impact of land use activities on natural and cultural resources and
will be used to project the loss/alteration of habitat and resulting impact on biodiversity.
National Coastal Condition Report
129
-------
Chapter 4 Southeast Coast Coastal Condition
Summary
Based on data from the NCA, the overall condition of the coastal
waters of the Southeast Coast region is rated fair. The NCA monitoring
conducted by coastal states in 2001 and 2002 showed that DIN, DIP, and
bottom-water dissolved oxygen concentrations; water clarity; sediment
toxicity; sediment contamination; TOC levels; and benthic condition are
rated good for Southeast Coast coastal waters. Indices of concern include
the water quality index (54% of the coastal area is rated fair or poor,
combined) and coastal habitat index (rated fair). Although no significant
linear trends were observed in the available EMAP and NCA data (1994-
2001), increasing population growth in this region could contribute to
increased susceptibility for water quality degradation in the future.
NOAA's NMFS manages several fisheries in the Southeast U.S.
Continental Shelf LME, including reef fish, sciaenids, menhaden, mackerel,
and shrimp. Landings of reef fish have fluctuated, but are decreasing slightly
over time. Fish in the Sciaenidae family generally support substantial
harvests in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME, but one member, red
drum, is currently classified as overfished. The fishing effort for menhaden
in this LME has decreased since the 1950s, but NMFS considers this
resource to be almost fully utilized. Neither the king nor Spanish mackerel
stocks are considered overfished, but these stocks are at or near their long-
term potential and optimum long-term yields, respectively. Although
fishing pressure has increased, the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf LME
shrimp fishery has exhibited a 40-year stable trend in catch levels.
Contamination in Southeast Coast coastal waters has affected
human uses of these waters. In 2003, 10 fish consumption advisories,
most of which were issued for mercury contamination, were in effect
for the Southeast Coast region. In addition, 12% of the region's
monitored beaches were closed or under advisory for some period of
time during 2003- Elevated bacteria levels in the region's coastal waters
were primarily responsible for the beach closures and advisories.
Although the overall condition of Southeast Coast coastal
waters is rated fair for the 2001—2002 time period, the promotion
of a vigilant attitude and the continuation of environmental
education would help to protect and preserve this resource, as well
as to provide a measure of success for management actions.
130
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER 5
Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
As shown in Figure 5-1, the overall condition
of the coastal waters of the Gulf Coast region is
rated fair to poor, with an overall condition score of
2.2. The water quality index for the region's coastal
waters is rated fair; the sediment quality, benthic,
and coastal habitat indices are rated poor; and
the fish tissue contaminants index is rated good.
Figure 5-2 provides a summary of the percentage
of the region's coastal area rated good, fair, poor, or
missing for each index and component indicator.
This assessment is based on environmental stressor
and response data collected by the states of Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas from
487 locations, ranging from Florida Bay, FL, to
Laguna Madre, TX, in 2001 and 2002. Please
refer to Chapter 1 for information about how
these assessments were made, the criteria used to
develop the rating for each index and component
indicator, and the limitations of the available data.
The Gulf Coast coastal area comprises more
than 750 estuaries, bays, and sub-estuary systems
that are associated with larger estuaries. The total
area of the Gulf Coast estuaries, bays, and sub-
estuaries is 10,643 mi2. Gulf Coast estuaries
and wetlands provide critical feeding, spawning,
and nursery habitat for a rich assemblage of
fish and wildlife, including essential habitat for
shorebirds, colonial nesting birds, and migratory
waterfowl. The Gulf Coast is also home to an
incredible array of indigenous flora and fauna,
including endangered or threatened species such
as the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Gulf sturgeon,
Perdido Key beach mouse, West Indian manatee,
telephus spurge, and piping plover. This region's
coastal waters also support vegetated habitats that
stabilize shorelines from erosion, reduce nonpoint-
source loadings, and improve water clarity.
The coastal waters of the Gulf Coast region are
among the most productive natural systems, and
the region is second only to Alaska for domestic
landings of commercial fish and shellfish. In 2001
and 2002, commercial fish and shellfish landings
from Gulf Coast waters totaled 1.5 million t and
were valued at $1.5 billion (NMFS, 2003). The
Overall Condition
Gulf Coast (2.2)
Good Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (1)
Benthic Index (1)
Coastal Habitat Index (1)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (5)
Figure 5-1. The overall condition of Gulf Coast coastal
waters is rated fair to poor (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
20 40 60 80
Percent Coastal Area
100
Missing
Figure 5-2. Percentage of coastal area achieving each
ranking for all indices and components indicators—Gulf
Coast region (U.S. EPA/NCA).
132
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Gulf Coast led the United States as the source
of commercial shrimp landings in 2004 with
115,566 t, which accounted for 83% of the total
U.S. shrimp landings that year (NMFS, 2005c).
Gulf Coast coastal waters are located in two
biogeographical provinces: the Louisianian Province
and the West Indian Province. The Louisianian
Province extends from the Texas—Mexico border
east to Anclote Key, FL. The West Indian Province
extends from Tampa Bay, FL, on the Gulf Coast to
the Indian River Lagoon, FL, on the Atlantic Coast;
the portion of this province included in the Gulf
Coast region extends from Tampa Bay to Florida
Bay. The borders of the Gulf Coast region roughly
coincide with the borders of the Gulf of Mexico
LME. The estuaries and embayments sampled by
NCA in the Gulf Coast region range in size from
0.00946 mi2 (Bayou Chico, FL) to 1,196 mi2
(Florida Bay, FL).
The population of coastal counties in the Gulf
Coast region increased 45% between 1980 and
2003- Coastal counties in Texas and Florida are
leading the region in population change. Figure
5-3 presents population data for Gulf Coast coastal
counties and shows the increase in population of
these coastal counties since 1980 (Crossett et al.,
2004).
20,000 •
15,000-
3
O
£
c
o
•43
•5 10,000 —
a.
£
5 5,000 —
1
or
-
1980
1990
2000
Year
2003
2008
Figure 5-3. Actual and estimated population of coastal
counties in Gulf Coast states from 1980 to 2008
(Crossett et al., 2004).
The NCA monitoring data used in this
assessment were based on single-day
measurements collected at sites through-
out the U.S. coastal waters (excluding the
Great Lakes) during a 9- to 12-week
period in late summer. Data were not
collected during other time periods.
Coastal Monitoring Data—
Status of Coastal Condition
A variety of programs have monitored the coastal
waters of the Gulf Coast region since 1991. EMAP
focused its coastal monitoring efforts on Gulf Coast
coastal waters from 1991 to 1995 (Macauleyet
al., 1999; U.S. EPA, 1999). The Joint Gulf States
Comprehensive Monitoring Program (GMP) began
an assessment in 2000, in conjunction with EPA's
Coastal 2000 Program (U.S. EPA, 2000b). This
partnership has continued as part of the NCA,
with coastal monitoring being conducted by the
five Gulf Coast states through 2004. In addition,
NOAA's NS&T Program has collected contaminant
bioavailability and sediment toxicity data from
several Gulf Coast sites since the late 1980s (Long
et al., 1996). Data from the NS&T Program
Bioeffects Project are available at http://www.nos.
noaa.gov/cit/nsandt/download/bi_download.aspx.
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA
survey has been designed to estimate
the percent of coastal area (nationally
or in a region) in varying conditions
and is displayed as pie diagrams. Many
of the figures in this report illustrate
environmental measurements made at
specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the
value of the index specifically at the time
of sampling. Additional sampling would
be required to define temporal variability
and to confirm environmental condition at
specific locations.
National Coastal Condition Report
133
-------
Highlight
Assessing the Ecological Condition of the Coastal Waters
of Veracruz, Mexico
VERACRUZ, MEXICO
National Coastal Assessment
Water Quality Index
Gulf of Mexico
The influence of stressors,
either natural or anthropogenic,
on the coastal waters of the
Gulf of Mexico does not abate
across political boundaries. To
fully understand the ecological
condition of Gulf of Mexico
coastal waters, the entire
coastline needs to be assessed,
including waters in both the
United States and Mexico. In
May 2002, the EPA undertook
an international technology
transfer activity with the
Mexican State of Veracruz to
transfer information about the
NCA survey methodologies and
to assist the State in collecting
information to assess the
condition of its Gulf of Mexico
coastal waters. During the
summer of 2002, representatives
from EPA trained and assisted
Mexican biologists in the
application and implementation
of the NCA probability-based
survey design. Data were
collected to support some of the
same indices and component
indicators as those collected by
NCA for the U.S. Gulf Coast
region so that comparisons
between the ecological indicators
of these two areas could be made.
The joint U.S./Mexico team sampled 50 probability-based stations over a 3-week period. The samples
were split between EPA and the Offlcina de Subsecrataria de Medio Ambiente Gobierno del Estado
de Veracruz. The water quality and sediment quality indices were calculated using the data collected
during the survey (Macauley et al., 2007).
The water quality index was rated poor for 75% of the coastal area sampled in Veracruz, rated fair
for 24%, and good for 1% (see map). Poor water clarity, high levels of chlorophyll a, and elevated
concentrations of DIP and DIN contributed to the poor water quality ratings. Poor water quality was
Water quality index data for Gulf of Mexico coastal waters ofVeracruz,
Mexico (U.S. EPA/NCA).
134
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
VERACRUZ, MEXICO
National Coastal Assessment
Sediment Quality Index
Gulf of Mexico
spread uniformly throughout the
coastal waters. Inadequate treatment
of sewage and municipal runoff
are the candidate sources for these
elevated levels (Macauley et al.,
2007).
In contrast to the water quality
index, only 1% of the Veracruz
coastal area had poor sediment
quality, primarily as a result of
sediment contamination (see map).
Sampled sediments were rated
poor primarily due to exceedances
of the ERL level for a variety of
chemical contaminants, including
PAHs, mercury, cadmium,
chromium, copper, arsenic, silver,
and zinc. The sediment toxicity
and sediment TOC component
indicators made only minor
contributions to the poor rating of
the sediment quality. Industry is
concentrated around ports in the
southern portion of Veracruz. The
elevated concentrations of PAHs
and metals contributing to poor
sediment quality were detected only
in southern ports, such as Laguna
Sontecomapan and Laguna Ostion,
which support petrochemical and
pharmaceutical industries (Macauley
et al., 2007).
The inclusion of the Mexican
State of Veracruz in the assessment of coastal waters represents a significant step towards assessing coastal
condition throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Discussions are underway with the Mexican government to
include other Gulf Coast Mexican states in this ecological monitoring program (Macauley et al., 2007).
Bahia Verg
•" Rio Jamapa
Puerto de Veracruz
Sediment quality index data for Gulf of Mexico coastal waters ofVeracruz,
Mexico (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Guidelines for Assessing Sediment Contamination (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined values for each chemical as the 50th percentile
(median) in a database of ascending concentrations associated with adverse biological effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined values for each chemical as the I Oth percentile in a
database of ascending concentrations associated with adverse biological effects.
National Coastal Condition Report
135
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Water Quality Index
Based on the 2001 and 2002 NCA survey results,
the water quality index for the coastal waters of
the Gulf Coast region is rated fair, with 14% of
the coastal area rated poor and 49% of the area
rated fair for water quality condition (Figure 5-4).
The water quality index was developed based on
measurements of five component indicators: DIN,
DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved
oxygen. Estuaries with poor water quality conditions
were found in all five states, but the contributing
factors differed among states. At stations in Texas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi, poor water clarity and
high DIP concentrations contributed to poor
water quality ratings, whereas poor conditions at
stations in several Texas bays were also due to high
chlorophyll a concentrations. Only three sites in
Louisiana had high concentrations of both DIN
and DIP. Many of the stations rated poor or fair for
the various component indicators did not overlap,
resulting in a lower percentage of Gulf Coast coastal
area rated good for the water quality index than for
any of its component indicators (see Chapter 1 for
more information). This water quality index can
be compared to the results of NOAA's Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey (Brickler et al., 1999),
which rated the Gulf Coast as poor for eutrophic
condition, with an estimated 38% of the coastal
area having a high expression of eutrophication.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The Gulf Coast region is rated good for
DIN concentrations, but rated fair for DIP
concentrations. It should be noted that different
criteria for DIN and DIP concentrations were
applied in Florida Bay than in other areas of the
Gulf Coast region because Florida Bay is considered
a tropical estuary. DIN concentrations were
rated poor in 1% of the Gulf Coast coastal area,
representing three sites in Louisiana's East Bay,
Atchafalaya Bay, and the Intracoastal Waterway
between Houma and New Orleans, LA. Elevated
DIN concentrations are not expected to occur
during the summer in Gulf Coast waters because
freshwater input is usually lower and dissolved
nutrients are used more rapidly by phytoplankton
during this season. DIP concentrations were
rated poor in 22% of the Gulf Coast coastal area,
which included sites in Tampa Bay and Charlotte
Harbor, FL, where high DIP concentrations
occur naturally due to geological formations of
phosphate rock in the watersheds and artificially
due to significant anthropogenic sources of DIP.
Missing
Poor 2%
14%
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition.
O Good = No more than I is fair
O Fair = I is poor or 2 or more
are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
O Missing
Figure 5-4. Water quality index data for Gulf Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
136
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Potential for Misinterpretation of
Conditions for States with Smaller-
Coastlines
Alabama and Mississippi resource agencies
are concerned that the figures presented
in the Coastal Monitoring Data section of
this chapter could potentially represent
their estuaries unfairly. Both states have
at least fifty locations that were sampled
in the NCA 2001-2002 survey; however,
because of the high density of these sites
and the small area of estuarine resources
of these states, even one or two sites rated
poor (red circles) give the appearance
of poor condition dominating a large
portion of the entire coast of these states.
Although showing the entire Gulf Coast
region in a single graphic is consistent with
the goals of this report, these displays do
not provide a detailed view of all data,
particularly for Alabama, Mississippi, and
eastern Louisiana.
Chlorophyll a
The Gulf Coast region is rated fair for
chlorophyll a concentrations, with 7% of the coastal
area rated poor and 45% of the area rated fair for
this component indicator. It should be noted that
chlorophyll a concentrations were rated differently
in Florida Bay than in other areas of the region
because Florida Bay is considered a tropical estuary.
High concentrations of chlorophyll a occurred
in the coastal areas of all five Gulf Coast states.
Water Clarity
Water clarity in the Gulf Coast region is rated
fair, with 22% of the coastal area rated poor for
this component indicator. Lower-than-expected
water clarity occurred throughout the Gulf Coast
region, with poor conditions concentrated at
stations in Mississippi, the Coastal Bend region of
Texas, and Louisiana. The criteria used to assign
water clarity ratings varied across Gulf Coast coastal
waters (Figure 5-5) based on natural variations
in turbidity levels, regional expectations for light
penetration related to SAV distribution, and local
waterbody management goals (see text box).
Reference Threshold Range to Rate a Site Fair
20%-40% Light Transmissivity at I m
• 10%-20% Light Transmissivity at I m
• 5%-IO% Light Transmissivity at I m
Figure 5-5. Map of water clarity criteria used in Gulf Coast coastal waters to rate a site fair (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
137
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Although the current NCA approach used
to assess water clarity is an improvement
over the previous effort, it still may reach
inappropriate conclusions regarding water
clarity for parts of the Gulf Coast region.
Many of the areas of the Gulf Coast region
have naturally high silt and suspended
sediment loads. To modify the water
clarity approach for this natural condition,
researchers adjusted the approach by the
"expected" water clarity levels to lower
levels for much of the Gulf Coast region.
Although this adjustment appears to have
been successful for much of the Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana coasts,
further adjustments may be necessary for
Mississippi Sound and the Texas coast.
in the zone during mid-summer averaged 3,000
mi2, and the average area doubled to 6,500 mi2
between 1993 and 1997 (Rabalais et al., 1999). In
the summer of 2000, the area of the Gulf of Mexico
hypoxic zone was reduced to 1,700 mi2, following
severe drought conditions in the Mississippi River
watershed; however, by 2002, the hypoxic zone
had again increased in size to 8,500 mi (Figure
5-6). Current hypotheses speculate that the hypoxic
zone results from water column stratification that is
driven by weather and river flow, as well as from the
decomposition of organic matter in bottom waters
(Rabalais et al., 2002). River-borne organic matter,
along with nutrients that fuel phytoplankton growth
in the Gulf waters, enter the Gulf of Mexico from
the Mississippi River. Annual variability in the area
of the hypoxic zone has been related to the flows
of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers and, by
Dissolved Oxygen
The Gulf Coast region is rated fair for dissolved
oxygen concentrations, with 5% of the coastal
area rated poor for this component indicator.
Hypoxia in Gulf Coast waters generally results from
stratification, eutrophication, or a combination of
these two conditions. Mobile Bay, AL, experiences
regular hypoxic events during the summer that
often culminate in "jubilees" (i.e., when fish and
crabs try to escape hypoxia by migrating to the
edges of a waterbody); however, the occurrence
of jubilees in Mobile Bay has been recorded since
colonial times, and these occurrences are most likely
natural events for this waterbody (May, 1973).
Although hypoxia is a relatively local occurrence
in Gulf Coast coastal waters, the occurrence of
hypoxia in the Gulf Coast shelf waters is much
more significant. The Gulf of Mexico hypoxic
zone is the second-largest area of oxygen-depleted
waters in the world (Rabalais et al., 2002). This
zone, which occurs in waters on the Louisiana
shelf to the west of the Mississippi River Delta,
was not assessed by the NCA survey. From 1985
to 1992, the areal extent of bottom-water hypoxia
Hypoxic Zone - Gulf Coast
Bottom-Water Hypoxia July 22-26,2000
29.5-
28.5.
Sabin.
-94 -93.5 -93 -92.5 -92 -91.5 -91 -90.5 -90 -89.5 -89
Bottom-Water Hypoxia July 20-25,2001
30 - SabineL
29 -
-94 -93.5 -93 -92.5 -92 -91.5 -91 -90.5 -90 -89.5 -89
Bottom-Water Hypoxia July 21 -26,2002
30 - Sabin.
29 -
I Dissolved Oxygen
™ < 2.0 (mg/L)
-94 -93.5 -93 -92.5 -92 -91.5 -91 -90.5 -90 -89.5 -89
Figure 5-6. Spatial extent of the Gulf Coast hypoxic
zone during July 2000, 2001, and 2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA,
based on data provided by N. Rabalais, 2003).
138
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
The guideline used in the NCA analysis
for poor dissolved oxygen condition is
a value below 2 mg/L in bottom waters.
The majority of coastal states either use a
different criterion, ranging from an average
of 4 to 5 mg/L throughout the water
column to a specific concentration (usually
4 or 5 mg/L) at mid-water, or include a
frequency or duration of time that the low
dissolved oxygen concentration must occur
(e.g., 20% of observed values). The NCA
chose to use 2 mg/L in bottom waters
because this level is clearly indicative of
potential harm to estuarine organisms.
Because so many state agencies use higher
concentrations, the NCA evaluated the
proportion of waters that have dissolved
oxygen concentrations between 5 and
2 mg/L in bottom waters as being in fair
condition (i.e..threatened).
extension, to the precipitation levels that influence
these flows. Sediment cores from the hypoxic zone
show that algal production in the Gulf of Mexico
shelf was significantly lower during the first half of
the twentieth century, suggesting that anthropogenic
changes to the basin and its discharges have
resulted in the increased hypoxia (CENR, 2000).
Between 1980 and 1996, the Mississippi-
Atchafalaya River Basin discharged an annual
average of 952,700 t of nitrogen as nitrate and
41,770 t of phosphorus as orthophosphate to
the Gulf of Mexico (Goolsby et al., 1999). The
nitrate load, which constitutes the bulk of the
total nitrogen load from the Mississippi River
basin to the Gulf of Mexico, has increased
300% since 1970 (Goolsby et al., 2001). Non-
point sources, particularly from the agricultural
areas north of the confluence of the Ohio and
Mississippi rivers, contribute most of the nitrogen
and phosphorus loads to the Gulf of Mexico
(Goolsby et al.,1999). The potential importance
of phosphorus limitation in the eastern portion
of the hypoxic zone has led EPA to call for
reductions in both nitrogen and phosphorus loads
from the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin.
Freshwater flows and nutrient loads from the Mississippi River
are related to the extent of the hypoxic zone Gulf Coast shelf
waters (courtesy of Lieut. Commander Mark Moran, NOAA).
Estimates of hypoxia for the Gulf of Mexico shelf
have not been included in the NCA estimates of
hypoxia for Gulf Coast coastal waters; consequently,
the good rating for dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the Gulf Coast region provided in this report
should not be considered indicative of offshore
conditions.
Sediment Quality Index
The sediment quality index for the coastal waters
of the Gulf Coast region is rated poor, with 18%
of the coastal area rated poor for sediment quality
condition (Figure 5-7). The sediment quality index
was calculated based on measurements of three
component indicators: sediment toxicity, sediment
contaminants, and sediment TOC.
National Coastal Condition Report
139
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Sediment Toxicity
The Gulf Coast region is rated poor for sediment
toxicity, with 13% of the coastal area rated poor
for this component indicator. Previous bioeffects
surveys by NOAA (Long et al., 1996) and the
results reported in the NCCRII (U.S. EPA, 2004a)
showed less than 1 % toxicity in large estuaries
of the Gulf Coast region. Sediment toxicity is
commonly associated with high concentrations
of metals or organic chemicals with known toxic
effects on benthic organisms; however, nine sites
in Florida Bay were rated poor for sediment
toxicity in the absence of high contaminant
concentrations. The toxicity at these sites may have
been caused by naturally high levels of hydrogen
sulfide in the Bay's organic carbonate sediments,
rather than by anthropogenic contamination
(G. McRae, Florida Fish & Wildlife Research
Institute, personal communication, 2006).
Sediment Contaminants
The sediment contaminants component
indicator for the Gulf Coast region is rated good,
with 2% of the coastal area rated poor for this
component indicator. In addition, 1% of the
coastal area was rated fair, primarily due to sites
located in Alabama and in Pensacola Bay, FL.
The sediment contaminants measured in Gulf
Coast waters included elevated levels of metals,
pesticides, PCB, and, occasionally, PAHs.
Sediment TOC
The Gulf Coast region is rated good for sediment
TOC, with 14% of the coastal area rated fair for
this component indicator and only 4% of the area
rated poor.
Benthic Index
The condition of benthic communities in
Gulf Coast coastal waters is rated poor, with
45% of the coastal area rated poor for benthic
condition (Figure 5-8). This assessment is based
on the Gulf Coast Benthic Index (Engle and
Summers, 1999), which integrates measures of
diversity and populations of indicator species
to distinguish between degraded and reference
benthic communities. Most Gulf Coast estuaries
showed some level of benthic degradation.
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal habitat index for the coastal waters of
the Gulf Coast region is rated poor. The Gulf Coast
region experienced a loss of 7,750 acres of coastal
wetlands from 1990 to 2000, and the long-term,
Site Criteria: Number and condition of
component indicators.
O Good = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is good
O Fair = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 5-7. Sediment quality index data for Gulf Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
140
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
average decadal coastal wetlands loss rate is 0.21%.
Coastal wetlands in the Gulf Coast region constitute
66% of the total estuarine wetland acreage in the
conterminous 48 states (Dahl, 2003). Although
the Gulf Coast region sustained the largest net loss
of coastal wetland acreage during the past decade
compared with other regions of the country, the
region also has the greatest total acreage of coastal
wetlands (3,769,370 acres). Coastal development,
sea-level rise, subsidence, and interference with
normal erosional/depositional processes contribute
to wetland losses along the Gulf Coast.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The fish tissue contaminants index for the
coastal waters of the Gulf Coast region is rated
good, with 8% of all sites sampled where fish
were caught rated poor for fish tissue contaminant
concentrations (Figure 5-9). Contaminant
concentrations exceeding EPA Advisory Guidance
values in Gulf Coast samples were observed
primarily in Atlantic croaker, catfish, and pinfish.
Commonly observed contaminants included
total PAHs, PCBs, DDT, mercury, and arsenic.
Site Criteria: Gulf Coast Benthic
Index Score.
O Good = > 5.0
O Fair = 3.0 - 5.0
O Poor = < 3.0
O Missing
Figure 5-8. Benthic index data for Gulf Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Site Criteria: EPA Guidance concentration
O Good = Below Guidance range
O Fair = Falls within Guidance range
• Poor = Exceeds Guidance range
Good Fair Poor
Figure 5-9. Fish tissue contaminants index data for Gulf Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
141
-------
Highlight
Project GreenShores Shoreline Restoration Project
The shoreline along Bayfront Parkway on Pensacola Bay in Florida has been subjected to pressures
from human activities since as early as the 19th century. At that time, this portion of the bay was
filled with wharfs and teeming with ships transporting timber cut from the forests of northwest
Florida. Much of the bayfront and adjacent marsh areas were filled in, and the shorelines were
hardened. In fact, privately and city-owned plots with streets are delineated into the bay. As is the case
in many historic coastal communities, stormwater treatment is lacking in this older part of town, with
stormwater directly entering the bay.
Although the shoreline has been significantly altered over time, the project area supported some
SAV until the 1950s (Gulf of Mexico Foundation, 2007); therefore, there seemed to be enormous
potential for a successful habitat restoration and enhancement project that would increase public
awareness of the native species and habitats within the Pensacola Bay System. Project GreenShores
Sites 1 and 2 focus on the highly visible area of Bayfront Parkway (at the north end of the Pensacola
Bay Bridge) as the stage for a large-scale multi-habitat restoration project. Approximately 15 acres
of subtidal and intertidal zones at Site 1 have been restored with oyster reefs, SAV, and emergent
vegetation (Gulf of Mexico Foundation, 2007). As of August 2005, Site 2 had been designed and
partially funded, and the project had entered the final permitting stages. Site 2 will continue the
shoreline restoration project to the west along Bayfront Parkway and will add an additional 38 acres
of emergent vegetation, oyster reefs, tidal channels, and SAV.
Project Greenshores, Site I (courtesy of Amy Baldwin, Florida Department of Environmental Protection).
142
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Monitoring at Site 1 has shown an expanding oyster population and an increasing abundance and
diversity offish and birds. The reef has become populated with many typical reef species, including
blennies and gobies, stone crabs, blue crabs, anemones, and shrimp. Juvenile stone crabs have been
observed, and oyster spat are readily apparent. Schools of baitfish, gray snapper, mullet, sheepshead,
flounder, redfish, and speckled trout have all been documented around the reef and in the marsh. In
addition, recreational use of the area has increased, with more fishermen, canoers/kayakers, and bird
watchers taking advantage of the newly created habitat and the productivity in the area (Florida DEP,
2007).
Education has been a key focus of the restoration project. Local television and newspapers
have featured the project as it has progressed, providing an opportunity to reach members of the
public beyond the thousands who drive by it every day. A grant-funded educational cruise aboard
the American Star has hosted more than 4,000 students and civic group members. These cruises
provide participants with a visit to the site, an opportunity to "seed-the-reef" with oyster shell, and
worksheets for teachers to use as follow-up lessons to reinforce the learning experience.
A unique component of this habitat restoration project has been the community partnership
support that has developed as the project progressed. More than 60 partners have contributed
to the Project GreenShores restoration
effort, including local businesses, state
and local government, federal/state/local
granting organizations, citizen groups,
and individuals (Florida DEP, 2007).
Contributions have ranged from volunteer
time and expertise, to no- or low-cost
supplies and equipment, to financial
support. These cooperative and volunteer
activities have resulted in a project that has
provided many members of the community
with a sense of ownership in Project
GreenShores and are a focal point for •*^" • .
teaching students and community members
about environmental issues. Jhe Amencan oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus)
is one of the more than 65 species of birds that have
been spotted at Project Greenshores, Site I (courtesy
of Kevin! Edwards, IAN Network).
National Coastal Condition Report
143
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Trends of Coastal Monitoring
Data—Gulf Coast Region
Temporal Change in Ecological
Condition
The coastal condition of the Gulf Coast region
has been assessed since 1991- EMAP-Estuaries
conducted annual surveys of estuarine condition
in the Louisianian Province from 1991 to 1994;
this province extends from the Texas-Mexico
border to just north of Tampa Bay, FL. The results
of these surveys were reported in the NCCRI
(U.S. EPA, 2001 c). EMAP-NCA initiated
annual surveys of coastal condition in the Gulf
of Mexico in 2000, and these data were reported
in the NCCR II. Data from 2001 and 2002 are
assessed in the current report (NCCR III). Seven
years of monitoring data from Gulf Coast coastal
waters provide an ideal opportunity to investigate
temporal changes in ecological condition indicators.
These data can be analyzed to answer two basic
types of trend questions based on assessments
of ecological indicators in Gulf Coast coastal
waters: what is the interannual variability in
proportions of area rated good, fair, or poor, and
is there a significant change in the proportion of
poor area from the early 1990s to the present?
The parameters that can be compared between
the two time periods include the dissolved oxygen,
water clarity, sediment contaminants, sediment
toxicity, and sediment TOC component indicators,
as well as the benthic index. Data supporting
these parameters were collected using similar
protocols and QA/QC methods. Although EMAP-
NCA also evaluated chlorophyll a and nutrients
as part of its assessment of water quality, these
component indicators were not collected during
the EMAP-Estuaries surveys from 1991 to 1994.
Both programs implemented probability-based
surveys that support estimations of the percent
of coastal area in good, fair, or poor condition
based on the indicators. Standard errors for
these estimates were calculated according to
methods listed on the EMAP Aquatic Resource
Monitoring Web site (http://www.epa.gov/
nheerl/arm). The reference values and guidelines
listed in Chapter 1 were used to determine
good, fair, or poor condition for each index and
component indicator from both time periods.
In order to compare indices and component
indicators across years from the same geographic
area, the spatial extent of the EMAP-NCA Gulf
Coast data was reduced to match that of the
Louisianian Province monitored by EMAP-
Estuaries. Therefore, EMAP-NCA data collected
in Florida between Tampa Bay and Florida Bay
were excluded from this temporal comparison.
In addition, no data were collected from the
entire region between 1995 and 1999-
Only water clarity and dissolved oxygen data
were available for the comparison of water quality
conditions from 1991 to 2002. Neither of these
component indicators showed a significant linear
trend over time in the percent area rated in poor
condition (Figures 5-10 and 5-11). However, when
the two time periods were compared, significantly
more of the coastal area was rated poor for water
clarity in the 2000—2002 time period than in the
1991-1994 time period (z = 4.252; p < 0.05).
Water quality indicators are more likely to be
influenced by interannual variation in climate than
by long-term trends. To examine the potential
100
80
Water Clarity
60
40
20
D Good
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing
1991 1992 1993 1994 2000 2001 2002
Year
Figure 5-10. Percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters
in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for water clarity
measured over two time periods, 199 1-1994 and
2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
144
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
100
80
60
Dissolved Oxygen
40
20
D Good
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing
1991 1992 1993 1994 2000 2001 2002
Year
Figure 5-11. Percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters
in good, fair, poor, or missing categories for bottom-
water dissolved oxygen measured overtwotime
periods, 1991-1994 and 2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
effects of interannual variation in climate on
dissolved oxygen, the relationship between annual
rainfall and the percent area in good condition
for dissolved oxygen was examined. The estimated
annual rainfall for the Gulf Coast was calculated as
the sum of annual estimates for five states (Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) using
precipitation data available from NOAA (NOAA,
20071). Linear regression resulted in a significant
relationship between the percent coastal area in
good condition for dissolved oxygen and annual
rainfall estimates (R2 = 0.225; p < 0.05). This linear
relationship was used to predict the percent coastal
area rated good for dissolved oxygen from 1995 to
1999, when data were not collected (Figure 5-12).
Shrimp trawlers and cactus—a seemingly incongruous
but normal sight in southTexas (courtesy of William B.
Folsom, NMFS).
O 80
1
> 70
1
Q 60
o
$ 40
1 30
350
- 300
- 250 |
u
e
- 200 ±"
- ISO &
- 100 |
- 50
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Year
D
D
Actual Percent
Area Rated Good
for Dissolved Oxygen
Predicted Percent Area
Rated Good for
Dissolved Oxygen
Annual Precipitation
Estimates for
5 Gulf Coast States
Figure 5-12. Percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters with bottom-water dissolved oxygen concentrations > 5 mg/L
(rated good) compared to annual precipitation estimates for the five Gulf Coast states from 1991 to 2002. Predicted
dissolved oxygen levels from 1995 to 1999 are based on the significant linear relationship between percent area with
good dissolved oxygen and rainfall (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
145
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
100
80 -
The sediment quality component indicators
available for comparison were sediment
contaminants, sediment toxicity, and sediment
TOC. None of these indicators showed a significant
linear trend in the percent coastal area rated in poor
condition from 1991-2002 (Figures 5-13, 5-14,
and 5-15). There was also no significant difference
Sediment Toxicity
60 -
40 -
20 -
-
_l
199
i
1
—
99
i
I
99
i
3
99'
4
—
—
Z00(
3
—
ZOO
200
D Good
D Poor
D Missing
2
Year
Figure 5-1 3. Percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters
in good, poor; or missing categories for sediment toxicity
measured over two time periods, 1991-1994 and 2000-
2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA)
Sediment Contaminants
100
80
60
40
20
1991 1992 1993
1994 2000 2001
Year
2002
Figure S-14. Percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters
in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for sediment
contaminants measured over two time periods,
1991 -1994 and 2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
146
in the percent area rated poor for these component
indicators between the 1991-1994 and 2000-2002
time frames; however, the percent area rated
good for sediment contaminant concentrations
significantly increased (R2 = 0.77; p < 0.05) from
1992-2002, as shown in Figure 5-13- Although
the percent area rated poor remained stable, the
sediment contaminants component indicator has
improved in Gulf Coast coastal waters, as indicated
by a significant decrease (z = 3-96; p < 0.05) in the
total percent area rated poor and fair, combined,
from 16.4% in 1991-1994 to 5-9% in 2000-2002.
Sediment TOC
IUU
80
60
40
20
0
-
-
-
-
:
—
—
—
1991 1992 1993 1994
_
—
—
2000 2001 2002
U
D
D
D
Year
Good
Fair
Poor
D Missing
• Good
D Fair
D Poor
D Missing
Figure S-1 S. Percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters
in good, fair; poor; or missing categories for sediment
TOC measured over two time periods, 199 I -1994 and
2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
The benthic index for Gulf Coast coastal
waters is a multimetric indicator of the biological
condition of benthic macroinvertebrate
communities. Biological condition indicators
integrate the response of aquatic organisms to
changes in water quality and sediment quality
over time. Benthic condition degraded from
1991 to 2002, as indicated by a significant
increase in the percent area rated poor from
1991-1994 to 2000-2002 (z = 4.68; p < 0.05)
and a significant negative trend in the percent area
rated good (R2 = 0.61; p < 0.05) (Figure 5-16).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
In summary, sediment quality in Gulf Coast
coastal waters improved between the time periods
1991-1994 and 2000-2002, whereas both water
clarity and benthic community condition worsened
over these same time periods (Figure 5-17).
100
80
60
40
20
Benthic Index
1991 1992 1993
1994 2000 2001
Year
2002
Figure 5-16. Percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters
in good, fair, poor, or missing categories for the benthic
index measured over two time periods, 1991-1994 and
2000-2002 (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Little blue herons, such as this one resting in Charlotte
County, FL, breed in estuarine and freshwater habitats in
the Gulf Coast and Southeast Coast regions (courtesy
of Kevin I Edwards, IAN Network).
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Toxicitiy
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment TOC
Benthic Index
I 1 1
i | i D /'in,
• 199
an
J=3 — 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1
) 10 20 30 40
0-2002
1-1994
5
Percent Coastal Area in Poor Condition
Figure 5-17. Comparison of percent area of Gulf Coast coastal waters rated poor for
ecological indicators between two time periods, 199 I -1994 and 2000-2002. Error bars are
95% confidence intervals (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
147
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Summary of Marine Mammal Strandings along the Gulf and
Southeast Coasts
Strandings of marine mammals are a common event along the U.S. coast between North Carolina
and Texas. These events involve both live and dead cetaceans (a type of marine mammal) and can
include Strandings of individual animals, mass Strandings (where a large group of animals strand at the
same time), and UMEs, which can be extended, large-scale events with elevated stranding rates. Data
on marine mammal Strandings in the Southeast and Gulf Coast regions are collected by the Southeast
Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network, which is a diverse group of non-profit organizations,
academic institutions, private research institutions, and state and local agencies that volunteer time to
respond to and collect data from stranded marine mammals. Each organization, institution, or agency
in the network has a regional area of primary responsibility, but resources are often shared, particularly
when responding to mass Strandings or UMEs. The network's activities are coordinated through the
NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and the Southeast Regional Office, with the support of the
National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response program at NMFS headquarters.
The most commonly stranded species are the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the dwarf
and pygmy sperm whales (Kogia sp.). Together, these species have accounted for 73% of the stranded
animals, on average, over the past decade. Members of many other cetacean species are stranded
throughout the region, including offshore delphinids, sperm whales, and baleen whales. An average
of 575 bottlenose dolphins and 40 dwarf and pygmy sperm whales have stranded each year in the
Southeast and Gulf Coast regions over the past decade, and the number of animals stranding each
year has remained relatively constant throughout that time period (see graph). Geographically, the
Strandings are not distributed evenly and include several "hot spots," where the number of animals
stranding each year is relatively high. Notable hot spot areas include the Indian River Lagoon system
along the central Atlantic coast of Florida; the area around Charleston, SC; and along the entire
coastline and estuarine areas of North
Carolina (see map). It should be noted
that the observed spatial patterns
also reflect variations in the ability to
detect stranded animals. Along the
Gulf Coast of the United States, the
complexity of the coastline (including
expansive marsh areas) and a generally
lower level of local coverage by the
stranding network results in notable
gaps along the Florida panhandle and
the central Louisiana coast (NOAA,
2006c).
One of the primary goals of the
stranding network is to assess the
underlying causes for stranding
events. Extensive data-collection
protocols and training efforts exist The number of bottlenose dolphins and dwarf and pygmy
to allow network members to record sPerm whale Strandings in the Southeast and Gulf Coast
observations on each stranded animal, reg|ons between 1994-2004. These data include only
collect tissue samples, and conduct lndlvldual strandlng events and do not reflect elther mass
... -j . r .- .1 Strandings or UMEs (courtesy of Southeast Region Marine
autopsies to provide mtormation on the & v / &
Mammal Health and Stranding Response Network).
700 -
600 -
_w
5 rnn
'E
a
"o 400 -
L.
.a
£ 300 -
3
Z
200
0 -
-
—
n
-
Q Bottlenose Dolphin
H Dwarf and Fygmy Sperm Whales
-
—
—
-
-
-
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
148
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Bottlenose Dolphin
Strandings by County
1999-2004
Number of Animals
m 1-10
^g 11-20
21-30
j] 30-40
40-50
50-100
100-266
NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center
Southeast Region Marine Mammal Stranding Network
^*
Individual bottlenose dolphin strandings by county in the Southeast and Gulf Coast regions between 1999 and
2004. The number of events recorded in each county reflects both the rate of strandings and the ability of the
local network to detect stranding events (courtesy of Southeast Region Marine Mammal Health and Stranding
Response Network).
health and physiological condition of animals, where possible. In addition, carcasses are examined to
determine if human interactions (primarily with fishery activities) resulted in mortality. For 52% of
stranded bottlenose dolphins, it was not possible
to determine if human interaction contributed
to the stranding because of the advanced state
of carcass decomposition. Evidence of human
interactions was documented for 9% of the total
number of animals stranded between 1999 and
2004 (see figure). Other causes for marine mammal
strandings may include predation, disease, exposure
to environmental toxins or pollutants, and juvenile
and neonate morality. Directly identifying the cause
of an event is often difficult, and evaluating the
correlations between strandings and environmental
conditions, human activities, habitat quality,
exposure to pollutants, and other factors is a major
research effort within NMFS (NOAA, 2006c).
52%
Could Not
Be Determined
Individual bottlenose dolphin strandings between
1999 and 2004, categorized by whether human
interaction resulted in mortality (courtesy of
Southeast Region Marine Mammal Health and
Stranding Response Network).
National Coastal Condition Report
149
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries—Gulf of Mexico LME
The Gulf of Mexico LME extends from the
Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, to the Straits of
Florida, FL, and is bordered by the United States
and Mexico (Figure 5-18). In this tropical LME,
intensive fishing is the primary driving force, with
climate as the secondary driving force. The Gulf of
Mexico is considered a moderately productive LME
based on global estimates of primary production
(phytoplankton); however, the productivity of
this LME is complex and influenced by a variety
of factors of different scales. These factors include
wave effects, tides, river flow, and seasonal variations
in atmospheric conditions (NOAA, 2007g).
The Gulf of Mexico is partially isolated from
the Atlantic Ocean, and the portion of the Gulf of
Mexico LME located beyond the continental shelf
is a semi-enclosed oceanic basin connected to the
Caribbean Sea by the Yucatan Channel and to the
Atlantic Ocean by the Straits of Florida. Through
the narrow, deep Yucatan Channel, a warm current
of water flows northward, penetrating the Gulf
of Mexico LME and looping around or turning
east before leaving the Gulf through the Straits
of Florida. This current of tropical Caribbean
water is known as the Loop Current, and, along
its boundary, numerous eddies, meanders, and
Conterminous
United States
intrusions are produced and affect much of the
hydrography and biology of the Gulf. A diversity
offish eggs and larvae are transported in the
Loop Current, which tends to concentrate and
transport early life stages of fish toward estuarine
nursery areas, where the young can reside, feed,
and develop to maturity (NMFS, In press).
Reef Fish Resources
Reef fishes include a variety of species (e.g.,
grouper, amberjack, snapper, tilefish, rock and
speckled hind, hogfish, perch) that live on coral
reefs, artificial structures, or other hard-bottom
areas. Reef fish fisheries are associated closely
with fisheries for other reef animals, including
spiny lobster, conch, stone crab, corals and living
rock, and ornamental aquarium species. Reef fish
share many long life-history characteristics and
are vulnerable to overfishing due to slow growth
and maturity, ease of capture, large body size, and
delayed reproduction. Currently, about 100 species
in the Southeast U.S. Continental Shelf, Gulf of
Mexico, and Caribbean Sea LMEs are managed
as a unit by the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico,
and Caribbean Fishery Management councils.
Combined commercial and recreational landings
of reef fish from the Gulf of Mexico LME have
fluctuated since 1976 and show a slightly increasing
trend over time. Meanwhile, fishing pressure in this
Relevant Large
Marine Ecosystem
| | Associated U.S. land ma
Figure 5-18. Gulf of Mexico LME (NOAA, 2007g).
ISO
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
region has increased significantly. Of the dominant
reef fish within the U.S. waters of the Gulf of
Mexico LME, the red snapper and red grouper
stocks are currently overfished, and the gag grouper
and greater amberjack stocks are approaching
an overfished condition (NMFS, In press).
NOAA prohibits the use offish traps, roller
trawls, and power heads on spear guns within the
inshore, stressed area; places a 15-inch total length
minimum-size limit on red snapper; and imposes
data-reporting requirements. The red snapper
fishery has been under stringent management since
the late 1990s (NMFS, In press). A stock-rebuilding
plan (GMFMC, 2004a) proposed in 2001 provides
for bag limits, size limits, and commercial and
recreational seasons. This plan is expected to provide
stability and predictability in this important fishery
for both industry and consumers. Other regulations
pertaining to the management of reef fish within
the Gulf of Mexico LME include minimum size
limits for certain species; permitting systems for
commercial fishermen; bag limits; quotas; seasonal
closures; and the establishment of Marine Protected
Areas that prohibit the harvest of any species at two
ecological reserves near the DryTortugas off south
Florida and the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
Lumps off west-central Florida (NMFS, In press).
The regulatory measures and stock-rebuilding
plans currently under way are designed to
reduce fishing mortality and to continue or
begin rebuilding all these stocks. Reef species
form a complex, diverse, multi-species system.
The long-term harvesting effects on reef fish
are not well understood and require cautious
management controls of targeted fisheries and
the bycatch from other fisheries within the
U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico LME.
Menhaden Fishery
Gulf menhaden are found from Mexico's Yucatan
Peninsula to Tampa Bay, FL. This species forms
large surface schools that appear in nearshore Gulf
of Mexico LME waters from April to November.
Although no extensive coast-wide migrations are
known, some evidence suggests that older fish move
toward the Mississippi River Delta. Gulf menhaden
may live to an age of 5 years, but most specimens
landed are 1 to 2 years old. Landing records for the
Gulf of Mexico LME menhaden fishery date back
to the late 1800s; however, the data up to World
War II are incomplete. During the 1950s through
the 1970s, the commercial fishery grew in terms
of the number of reduction plants and vessels,
and landings generally increased with considerable
annual fluctuations (Figure 5-19). Record landings
of 982,800 t occurred in 1984 and subsequently
declined to a 20-year low of 421,400 t in 1992. This
decline was primarily due to low product prices,
consolidation within the menhaden industry, and
concurrent decreases in the commercial fishing
effort in the northern Gulf of Mexico LME and in
the number of vessels and fish factories dedicated
to this fishery. Landings in recent years (1998—
2002) are less variable, ranging between 486,200
and 684,300 t, with 574,500 t landed in 2002.
Average landings from 2001-2003 were 564,000 t.
Historically, the geographical extent of Gulf of
Mexico LME menhaden fishing ranged from the
Florida Panhandle to eastern Texas, and the current
extent of the fishery ranges from western Alabama
to eastern Texas, with about 90% of the harvest
occurring in Louisiana waters (NMFS, In press).
The 1999 stock assessment indicates that the
menhaden stock is healthy and that catches are
generally below long-term maximum sustainable
yield estimates of 717,000 to 753,000 t (NMFS,
In press). A comparison of recent fishing mortality
estimates to biological reference points does
not suggest that overfishing is occurring.
1200 -,
1000 -
?•
! 800 -
>
^600 -
?
j 400 -
200 -
f_] Landings
Fecundity
r400
-350
-300
-250
-200
- 150
- 100
-50
-0
1950 1955 I960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Figure 5-19. Menhaden landings in metric tons (t) and
fecundity (trillions of eggs), 1950-2002, Gulf of Mexico
LME (NMFS, In press).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Highlight
Gulf of Mexico Harmful Algal Blooms
Karenia brevis, often called the Florida red tide, is a phytoplanktonic organism that has been
implicated in the formation of HABs throughout the Gulf of Mexico. In U.S. waters, the blooms
occur almost annually during the fall in the waters along the West Florida shelf and less frequently
in the waters of the Florida Panhandle, Alabama, and Texas. Only once has a bloom occurred in
Mississippi or Louisiana. In addition to discoloring the water, Karenia brevis produces brevetoxins,
which are potent neurotoxins that can contaminate shellfish and cause neurotoxic shellfish poisoning
in humans (FWRI, 2007). Also, Karenia brevis can form aerosols along beaches that cause human
respiratory problems and can kill fish, marine mammals, turtles, and birds. As a result, these blooms
have major impacts on human health, tourism, shellfish industries, and ecosystems.
In January 2005, an unusually early and large bloom of Karenia brevis began on the West
Florida shelf, resulting in fish kills and respiratory irritation in beachgoers. In 2005, 81 of the 396
manatee deaths (about 20%) in Florida were confirmed positive for brevetoxins (FWRI, 2006). This
mortality event, following similar events in previous years, is casting doubt on the sustainability of
the southwest Florida manatee subpopulation. In early summer 2005, the bloom receded to a small
area in southern Tampa Bay, but then a unique set of oceanographic conditions led to the bloom
expanding offshore and being trapped near the bottom. The toxins produced by the algae killed fish
and bottom-dwelling organisms, and the dead organisms decayed, using up bottom-water dissolved
oxygen. A large area of anoxic and hypoxic bottom water was created, resulting in additional animal
mortalities in an area of more than 2,162 mi2 located west of central Florida. The last time a similar
event occurred was in 1971. In 2005, dissolved oxygen levels returned to normal after Hurricane
Katrina re-aerated the water in late August, but the Karenia brevis bloom persisted (NOAA, 2005b).
Unusually high marine turtle mortalities were reported in July and continued into September. At
about the same time, a Karenia brevis bloom occurred in the Florida Panhandle, closing shellfish
harvesting areas for an extended period of time. In September, Karenia brevis blooms were also
reported along the south Texas coast.
Many agencies and institutions are involved in addressing this HAB problem. NOAA, EPA, and
the State of Florida, in partnership with academic institutions, local governments, and business
organizations, have undertaken major initiatives to understand and predict the occurrence of Karenia
brevis blooms, improve monitoring and early warning identification of bloom events, investigate the
effects on threatened species, and test newly developed control strategies. The U.S. Navy Office of
Naval Research and the DOI Minerals Management Service (MMS) have also contributed to studies
of optics, physical oceanography, and modeling. The NSF and National Institute of Environmental
Health Studies (NIEHS) have funded studies related to the nutrient sources for blooms and the
effects of brevetoxins on human health.
In the past few years, there have been many advances in our understanding of Karenia brevis. In
1999, NOAA, with ground-truthing data provided by the HAB monitoring program conducted by
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, began
developing a system that utilizes satellite imagery to help detect and monitor blooms. By 2004, this
effort had significantly expanded and included models for projecting transport of the HABs using
improved analysis of satellite data and meteorological conditions to predict likely impacts of the
HABs. In October 2004, the forecast effort in Florida became operational as NOAA's Gulf of Mexico
152
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Harmful Algal Bloom Forecasting
System. The system produces an HAB
Forecasting System Bulletin, which
is now provided twice a week on an
operational basis to federal, state, and
local officials. The bulletin contains
a written summary and analysis of
bloom's levels and extent, which are
also illustrated in maps (see figure).
The bulletin is a resource used to guide
sampling efforts, assist in management
decisions, and provide information to the
public (NOAA, 2007e). As of September
2005, more than 70 bulletins were
provided to state and local managers
during the 2005 HAB event, with more
than 90% of the bulletins being used
(Fisher et al., 2006).
The recently completed NOAA- and
EPA-funded regional Florida project
studied the occurrence and causes
of Karenia brevis blooms for 5 years
and developed a coupled physical/
biological model to better understand
environmental factors controlling
blooms. Although the physiological and
optical properties, bloom maintenance,
termination, and transport of Karenia
brevis are better understood, the nutrient
sources supporting blooms and the
trophic transfer and affects of brevetoxins on higher trophic levels require further study.
Other efforts related to Karenia brevis HABs are also underway. Several agencies have supported
the development of an optical sensor that can discriminate between Karenia brevis and most other
phytoplankton (NOAA, 2005b). The sensor can be deployed on ships and Autonomous Underwater
Vehicles for mapping and on moorings for continuous, real-time monitoring. NOAA is supporting
the use of these new optical sensors as part of a networked system of autonomous sampling platforms,
incorporating physical/chemical-sensor and bio-sensor packages to provide data for predictive models
and to guide statewide adaptive field sampling. An effort is planned by NOAA to implement these as
part of the dataset for the HAB Forecasting System Bulletin. In addition, after a series of laboratory
feasibility studies, a recent field pilot project was conducted to test the efficacy of spraying a clay
slurry on a Karenia brevis bloom to make the cells fall to the bottom without releasing their toxin.
Although similar methods have been used in Asia, this was the first time a control method was tested
under field conditions in the United States.
Chlorophyll
Concentrations
High
Medium
Low fa
• Low a
O Very low fa
Very low a
Present
Not present
Map from Gulf of Mexico HAB Bulletin for October 20,
2005, showing data from September 30, 2005 (NOAA,
2005c).
National Coastal Condition Report
153
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Mackerel Fisheries
King and Spanish mackerel are two coastal
pelagic (water-column-dwelling) fish species
that inhabit the Gulf of Mexico LME. Coastal
pelagic fish are fast swimmers that school and feed
voraciously, grow rapidly, mature early, and spawn
over many months. U.S. and Mexican commercial
fishermen have harvested Spanish mackerel since
the 1850s and king mackerel since the 1880s.
The total catch of king mackerel from the Gulf of
Mexico LME averaged 3,467 t per fishing year from
1981 to 2000, with maximum landings of 5,599 t
in 1982 and minimum landings of 1,368 t in 1987-
In 2001, the total catch was 3,649 t, with the
recreational sector accounting for an average 62% of
the total catch. From 1986 to 1996, landings were
consistently above the total allocated catch, and
by 1997, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council had increased the total allocated catch to
4,812 t. Until recently, the Gulf of Mexico LME
king mackerel stock was considered overfished
because of previous overexploitation of the fishery,
and since 1985, the stock has been managed under
rigid rebuilding schedules. In 2003, the maximum
sustainable yield for the king mackerel stock in the
Gulf of Mexico LME was estimated at 5,175 t.
Results from the 2004 stock assessment suggest that
the stock is not overfished and that overfishing is
not occurring. At present, the commercial fishery for
Gulf of Mexico LME king mackerel has restrictions
on minimum size, regional quota allocations,
trip catch limits, and gear restrictions. Although
controlling the harvest of recreational fisheries is
complex and the degree of compliance is not clear,
the recreational fishery is regulated with restrictions
on minimum size and bag limits (NMFS, In press).
The U.S. and Mexican commercial fishery for
Spanish mackerel began in the waters off of New
York and New Jersey, but has shifted southward
over time to southern U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico waters. A major recreational fishery also
exists for Spanish mackerel throughout its range,
and the percent of landings by recreational anglers
has increased to account for about 80% of Gulf
of Mexico LME landings for the stock. The total
catch of Spanish mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico
LME averaged 2,081 t per fishing year from 1984 to
2001, with maximum landings of 4,586 t in 1987
Recreational anglers account for a significant portion of
the landings of king and Spanish mackerel from the Gulf
of Mexico LME (courtesy of NOAA).
and minimum landings of 995 t in 1996. Catches
dropped substantially (about 50%) in 1995-1996
because of a gill-net ban in Florida waters, where
a major portion of the commercial catch took
place. In 2001, the total catch was 1,737 t. Since
1989, the landings of Spanish mackerel from
this LME have been consistently below the total
allocated catch, and total landings have been about
50% of the total allocated catch since 1995- The
2003 stock assessment indicated that the stock is
currently exploited at the optimum long-term yield
level (similar to the long-term potential yield, but
modified for economic, social, or ecological factors),
but not overfished. At present, management
restrictions for the commercial fishery of Spanish
mackerel in the Gulf of Mexico LME include
minimum-size restrictions and quota allocation, as
well as gear restrictions in state waters. Minimum
size and daily bag restrictions are in place for the
recreational fishery. Current issues affecting this
stock involve mainly the bycatch of juveniles in
the shrimp trawl fishery (NMFS, In press).
Shrimp Fisheries
In the Gulf of Mexico LME, shrimp have been
fished commercially since the late 1800s. Brown,
white, and pink shrimp are found in all U.S. Gulf
of Mexico LME waters shallower than 395 feet.
Most of the offshore brown shrimp catch is taken
at depths of about 130 to 260 feet; white shrimp
in waters 66 feet deep or less; and pink shrimp in
154
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
waters approximately 130 to 200 feet deep. Brown
shrimp are most abundant in the waters off the
coast between Texas and Louisiana, and the greatest
concentration of pink shrimp is in the waters off the
coast of southwestern Florida (NMFS, In press).
Landings of brown, white, and pink shrimp
in the Gulf of Mexico LME have varied over the
years (Figure 5-20). Gulf of Mexico LME brown
and white shrimp landings increased significantly
from the late 1950s to around 1990, but landing
levels during most of the 1990s were below these
maximum values. In 2000, landing levels were
extremely good for both species, with near-record
levels reported. Landings in 2001—2003 were below
these record catch levels, but were still well above
average for both species. Pink shrimp landings
remained stable until about 1985 and then declined
to an all-time low in 1990. During the mid-1990s,
landings increased to above-average levels, but
have again shown a moderate declining trend in
recent years. The numbers of young brown, white,
and pink shrimp entering the fisheries (level of
recruitment) have generally reflected the level
of catch for each species (NMFS, In press).
150-1
120-
o
o
5- 90 J
6
-------
Highlight
Mobile Bay National Estuary Program Habitat Strategic
Assessment for Coastal Alabama
The Mobile Bay NEP led a strategic
assessment process to examine habitat
needs and deficiencies in coastal Alabama.
The goal was to identify, examine, and
prioritize sites of particular sensitivity, rarity,
or value for potential acquisition and/or
restoration using a multi-species approach.
This assessment resulted in the identification
of 17 priority sites for acquisition (or
other conservation/protection options)
and more than 30 other sites/habitat types
where restoration and/or enhancement
are considered necessary (Yeager, 2006).
Identification of sites for acquisition or where
restoration was considered necessary was
based in part on data developed in Efroymson
Coastal Alabama Conservation workshops
held in December 2003 and March 2004
in a partnership between the Mobile Bay
NEP and The Nature Conservancy. This
assessment can be used by the state and other
government organizations to more effectively
guide resource management activities in
coastal Alabama. Indeed, some state and
local agencies and organizations have already
River delta wetland habitat (courtesy of Mobile Bay
NEP).
acquired or are working to acquire certain sites on the priority site list (Yeager, 2006). Similarly,
restoration activities are underway or are being planned in a number of the identified areas.
The need for such an assessment arose from the lack of coordination and communication among
the many organizations and government agencies actively pursuing habitat acquisition, preservation
restoration, and management activities in the Mobile Bay area. Through the strategic assessment
process, the contributions of existing preservation and management programs and the capabilities of
all agencies and organizations involved in these programs are coordinated and maximized.
The process was organized by the Mobile Bay NEP to carry out habitat action plans contained in
its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (Mobile Bay NEP, 2002) and was funded by
the EPA's Gulf of Mexico Program (U.S. EPA, 2007a). The assessment involved an active partnership
with The Nature Conservancy in hosting a workshop to examine possible conservation strategies
and conservation targets for topics such as ecological systems and species, stresses, and threats. The
findings of this workshop provided critical background information to assist attendees of subsequent
workshops in the discussion of possible sites for acquisition, protection, and restoration, as well as
the development of strategies for accomplishing these activities. Other participants in this strategic
assessment covered a wide spectrum of federal, state, and public- and private-interest groups,
156
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
including the USAGE, FWS, the
USDA's Natural Resources and
Conservation Service (NRCS),
the Mississippi—Alabama Sea
Grant Consortium, the Alabama
Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, the Alabama
Forest Resources Council, the Weeks
Bay NERR, the Mobile and Baldwin
county governments, the Mobile
Bay Audubon Society, the Dauphin
Island Bird Sanctuary, the Alabama
Coastal Foundation, the Alabama
Power Company, and other local
conservationists and realtors.
Dune habitat (courtesy of Mobile Bay NEP).
Although long-term success
will be judged on the degree to
which identified sites are protected or restored, short-term results are promising. For example, sites
identified in the habitat strategic assessment have also been included as priorities for acquisition in
recent state planning documents in response to the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program
(Yeager, 2006). Furthermore, efforts to create a coastal habitat restoration database are in progress.
The Mississippi—Alabama Sea Grant Consortium initiated this database and funded its development
to track ongoing restoration projects. The Mobile Bay NEP will be responsible for managing and
maintaining the database as part of its data management system (Mississippi—Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium and Mobile Bay NEP, 2007). Finally, a steering committee called the Coastal Habitats
Coordinating Team has been created to promote a continuing focus on habitat needs. The Mobile
Bay NEP will work to develop the public—private partnerships necessary to effectively conserve
critical habitats throughout coastal Alabama.
Habitat conservation, protection, and
restoration are very much a community
concern in coastal Alabama. The
development of effective partnerships and
tools, such as the strategic assessment process,
has helped the Mobile Bay NEP better utilize
and target existing capabilities, resources, and
funding for achieving habitat goals and assist
in coordinating and maximizing various
individual organization efforts.
Coastal marsh habitat (courtesy of Mobile Bay NEP).
National Coastal Condition Report
157
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Impact of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita
Since mid-September 2005, NOAA/NMFS has
undertaken surveys of the northern Gulf of Mexico
LME in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita to assess the quality of marine resources used
in seafood products and to determine if these events
resulted in changes in the abundance or distribution
of important shrimp, crab, and finfish species.
NMFS will re-survey the northern Gulf of Mexico
LME area periodically to determine the abundance
of species and examine the potential for nursery
area disruptions caused by habitat damage in coastal
wetlands. Data obtained from the Gulf of Mexico
LME abundance survey conducted in October and
November 2005 provide a baseline from which
to evaluate short-term storm impacts and long-
term recovery actions. NMFS evaluated wetland
restoration projects underway in the Louisiana
wetlands and barrier islands after the hurricanes.
Eight of nine projects functioned as intended to
protect and begin to restore degraded habitats;
however, approximately 100 mi2 of wetlands in the
southeastern Louisiana marshes were lost because of
Hurricane Katrina. Studies are underway to evaluate
the effect of Hurricane Katrina on the fishery value
of shallow wetland nurseries (NMFS, In press).
NOAA announced in January 2006 that
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did not cause a
reduction in fish and shrimp populations in the
offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico LME. The
annual survey of shrimp and demersal (bottom-
dwelling) fish completed in November 2005 showed
that some species, such as the commercially valuable
and overfished red snapper, had a higher abundance
index in 2005 than the average calculated for the
period of 1972 to 2004. The survey also showed
that the abundance index for Atlantic croaker
doubled. The overall abundance indices of shrimp
and demersal fish increased by about 30% from
2004 levels, largely due to increases in Atlantic
croaker, white shrimp, and red snapper populations.
The reduction in fishing activities in the Gulf of
Mexico LME since the hurricanes could be a factor
contributing to the abundance index increases for
some of the shorter-lived species (NOAA, 2006b).
Hurricane Katrina interrupted fishing activities in the Gulf of Mexico LME by destroying fishery
infrastructure, such as the shrimp boats and barges shown here in Venice, LA (courtesy of Lieut.
Commander Mark Moran, NOAA).
158
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2003, 14 fish consumption advisories were
in effect for the estuarine and marine waters of
the Gulf Coast. Most of the advisories (12) were
issued for mercury, and each of the five Gulf
Coast states had one statewide coastal advisory
in effect for mercury levels in king mackerel. The
statewide king mackerel advisories covered all
coastal and estuarine waters in Florida, Mississippi,
Species and/or groups under fish consumption
advisory in 2003 for at least some part of the coastal
waters of the Gulf Coast region
Barracuda
Blue crab
Bluefish
Catfish
Crab
Cobia
Gafftopsail catfish
Gag grouper
Greater amberjack
Crevalle jack
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004b
King mackerel
Lad/fish
Little tunny
Permit
Red drum
Shark
Snook
Spanish mackerel
Spotted seatrout
Wahoo
Louisiana, and Alabama, but covered only the
coastal shoreline waters in Texas. As a result of the
statewide advisories, 100% of the coastal miles of
the Gulf Coast and 23% of the estuarine square
miles were under advisory in 2003 (Figure 5-21).
South Padre Island,TX (courtesy of Alisa Schwab).
Number of Consumption Advisories
Noncoastal cataloging unit
Figure 5-21. The number offish consumption advisories active in 2003 for the Gulf Coast coastal waters
(U.S. EPA, 2004b).
National Coastal Condition Report
159
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Fish consumption advisories placed on specific
waterbodies included additional fish species. Florida
had six mercury advisories in effect for a variety of
fish, in addition to the statewide coastal advisory.
In Texas, the Houston Ship Channel was under
advisory for all fish species because of the risk
of contamination by chlorinated pesticides and
PCBs. Potential dioxin contamination in catfish
and blue crabs resulted in additional advisories for
the Houston Ship Channel. Figure 5-22 shows the
number of advisories issued along the Gulf Coast
for each contaminant (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 619 coastal beaches in the Gulf Coast
region reported to EPA, 23-3% (144 beaches)
were closed or under an advisory for some period
of time in 2003- Table 5-1 presents the numbers
of beaches monitored and under advisory or
closure for each state. As shown in the table,
Florida's west coast had the most beaches with
advisories or closures, and Louisiana did not
report any data for EPA's 2003 survey. Figure 5-23
presents advisory and closure percentages for each
county within each state (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Mercury
Dioxin
c
o
U
PCBs
(Total)
Chlorinated
Pesticides
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 5-22. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in Gulf Coast coastal waters. An advisory
can be issued for more than one contaminant, so
percentages may add up to more than 100 (U.S. EPA,
2004b).
Table 5-1. Number of Beaches Monitored and With
Advisories/Closures in 2003 for Gulf Coast States
(U.S.EPA,2006c)
No. of Percentage
Beaches of Beaches
No. of With Affected by
Beaches Advisories/ Advisories/
State Monitored Closures Closures
Florida
(Gulf Coast)
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Texas
TOTAL
407
25
21
NR
166
619
103
10
1 1
NR
20
144
25.3
40.0
52.3
NR
12.3
23.3
NR = Not Reported.
Percentage of Beaches
with Advisories/Closures
I I None
^M 0.01-10.49
I I 10.50-50.49
I I 50.50-100.00
I I Not reported
Figure 5-23. Percentage of monitored beaches with advisories or closures, by county, for the Gulf
Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
160
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
ChapterS | Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Most beach advisories and closings were
implemented at coastal beaches along the Gulf
Coast because of elevated bacteria levels (Figure
5-24). Figure 5-25 shows that unknown sources
accounted for 99% of the responses (U.S. EPA,
2006c).
Preemptive Closure
(Sewage)
2%
Wildlife 1%
Unknown 99%
Figure 5-25. Sources of beach contamination resulting
in beach advisories or closures for the Gulf Coast region
(U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Elevated Bacteria
98%
Figure 5-24. Reasons for beach advisories or closures
for the Gulf Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Galveston.TX (courtesy of Oscar Boleman).
National Coastal Condition Report
161
-------
Chapter 5 Gulf Coast Coastal Condition
Summary
Based on the indicators used in this report, the overall condition of Gulf
Coast coastal waters is rated fair to poor. Coastal wetland loss, sediment
quality, and benthic condition are rated poor in Gulf Coast coastal waters
for 2001—2002, and water quality was also of concern (rated fair). Benthic
index values were lower than expected in 45% of the Gulf Coast coastal
area. Although elevated sediment contaminant concentrations were found
in only 2% of the coastal area, sediments were toxic in 13% of the coastal
area. Decreased water clarity and elevated DIP concentrations were observed
in more than 22% of the coastal area, and elevated levels of chlorophyll a
were observed in 7% of the area. DIN and dissolved oxygen concentrations
rarely exceeded guidelines. The overall condition rating of 2.2 in this
report represents only a slight decrease from the rating of 2.4 observed in
the previous report (NCCRII), but still represents an improvement in
overall condition since the early 1990s. Increasing population pressures
in the Gulf Coast region warrant additional monitoring programs and
increased environmental awareness to correct existing problems and to
ensure that indicators that appear to be in fair condition do not worsen.
NOAA's NMFS manages several fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico LME,
including reef fishes, menhaden, mackerel, and shrimp. Of the dominant
reef fishes, red snapper and red grouper are currently overfished, and
the gag grouper and greater amberjack are approaching an overfished
condition. These issues are being addressed with regulatory measures
and stock-rebuilding plans. The menhaden stock in this LME is healthy,
and catches are generally below long-term maximum sustainable yield
estimates. The Gulf of Mexico LME king and Spanish mackerel are
currently not overfished, but the Spanish mackerel stock is exploited
at its optimum long-term yield. Recruitment overfishing is not evident
in any of the Gulf shrimp stocks; however, all three of the commercial
shrimp species are being harvested at maximum levels. Loss of habitat
has the potential to cause future reductions in shrimp catch.
Contamination in Gulf Coast coastal waters has affected human uses
of these waters. In 2003, there were 14 fish consumption advisories
in effect along the Gulf Coast, most of which were issued for mercury
contamination. In addition, approximately 23% of the region's
monitored beaches were closed or under advisory for some period of
time during 2003- Elevated bacteria levels in the region's coastal waters
were primarily responsible for the beach closures and advisories.
162
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER 6
West Coast Coastal Condition
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
West Coast Coastal Condition
As shown in Figure 6-1, the overall condition
of the coastal waters of the West Coast region is
rated fair. The water quality index is rated fair; the
sediment quality index is rated fair to poor; the
benthic index is rated good; and the coastal habitat
and fish tissue contaminants indices are rated poor.
These ratings were primarily driven by NCA survey
results for the Puget Sound and San Francisco
Bay estuarine systems, which together represent
a large percentage of the total coastal area of the
West Coast region. The watersheds surrounding
these two systems, together with coastal watersheds
in southern California, also have the highest
population densities in the West Coast region. In
contrast, the majority of smaller estuarine systems
along the West Coast were estimated to be in better
condition. Figure 6-2 provides a summary of the
percentage of coastal area in good, fair, poor, or
missing categories for each index and component
indicator. This assessment of West Coast coastal
waters is based on environmental stressor and
response data collected by NCA from 210 sites
in 1999 and 171 sites in 2000 as part of a pilot
project. Data on sediment contaminants for 41 of
the 71 Puget Sound sites were collected by NOAA's
NS&T Program in 1997-1999- NOAANS&T
also provided sediment and infauna data for 33 of
the 50 sites in San Francisco Bay in 2000. Please
refer to Chapter 1 for information about how
these assessments were made, the criteria used to
develop the rating for each index and component
indicator, and limitations of the available data.
Although the majority of the data discussed in
this chapter were also presented in the NCCR II
(U.S. EPA, 2004a), this report presents slightly
different rating results for the West Coast region.
During the interval between the publication of the
NCCR II and the NCCR III, benthic community
data collected in 2000 from San Francisco Bay
became available, and all benthic community
data collected from coastal waters during 2000
(Puget Sound, Columbia River, San Francisco
Bay) were included in this NCCR III assessment.
As a result of the inclusion of these new data, the
ii
tfKJ
m
\^~
•*H
Overall Condition
West Coast (2.4)
{>
Good Fair Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (2)
Benthic Index (5)
Coastal Habitat Index (1)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (1)
Figure 6-1. The overall condition ofWest Coast coastal
waters is rated fair (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
FishTissue
Contaminants Index
20 40 60 80 100
Percent Coastal Area
3ood Fair Poor Missing
Figure 6-2. Percentage of coastal area achieving each
ranking for all indices and component indicators—West
Coast region (U.S. EPA/NCA).
164
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
The NCA monitoring data used in
this assessment were based on single-
day measurements collected at sites
throughout the United States during a
9- to 12-week period in late summer.
Data were not collected during other
time periods.
overall condition rating for the coastal waters of
the West Coast region changed from a rating of
fair to poor, with an overall condition score of 2.2
(NCCRII), to the current rating of fair, with an
overall condition score of 2.4. The benthic index
rating for the region also changed from a rating
of fair (NCCR II) to the current rating of good.
In addition, water column means, rather than
surface sample results, were inadvertently used in
the NCCR II assessment of the DIN, DIP, and
chlorophyll a data collected during 1999 and 2000.
Although the reassessment of these data resulted in
changes to the percent of coastal area rated good,
fair, and poor for these component indicators and
for the water quality index, the ratings for the water
quality index and component indicators remain
unchanged from those presented in the NCCR II.
Data QC and refinement since the NCCR II also
caused some slight differences in the percent area
rated good, fair, or poor for the other indices and
component indicators assessed in this report.
The West Coast coastal area comprises more than
410 estuaries and bays, including the sub-estuary
systems that are associated with larger estuaries. The
size range of these West Coast coastal waterbodies
is illustrated by five order-of-magnitude size classes
of the systems sampled by EMAP/NCA—from
0.0237 mi2 (Yachats River, OR) to 2,551 mi2 (Puget
Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA). The
total coastal area of the West Coast estuaries, bays,
and sub-estuaries is 3,940 mi2, 61.5% of which
consists of three large estuarine systems—the San
Francisco Estuary, Columbia River, and Puget
Sound (including the Strait of Juan de Fuca).
Sub-estuary systems associated with these large
systems make up another 26.8% of the West Coast
coastal area. The remaining West Coast coastal
waterbodies combined comprise only 11.7% of
the total coastal area of the West Coast region.
West Coast coastal waters are located in two
provinces: the Columbian Province and the
Californian Province. The Columbian Province
extends from the Washington—Canada border
south to Point Conception, CA. Within the United
States, the Californian Province extends from
Point Conception south to the Mexican border.
There are major transitions in the distribution of
human population along the West Coast, with
increased population density occurring in the
Seattle—Tacoma area of Puget Sound, around
San Francisco Bay, and generally around most
of the coastal waters of southern California.
In contrast, the section of coastline north of
the San Francisco Bay through northern Puget
Sound has a much lower population density.
The coastal waters of the West Coast region
represent a valuable resource that contributes to
local economies and enhances the quality of life for
those who work in, live in, and visit these areas. In
the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and
Washington, the majority of the population lives
in coastal counties. The coastal population of the
West Coast region increased 47% between 1980
and 2003 to a total of 37-5 million (Figure 6-3),
and 2003—2008 population growth rates for the
counties bordering the San Diego, San Francisco,
and Puget Sound estuaries are projected to be more
than 40% (Crossett et al., 2004). These growth rates
suggest that human pressures on West Coast coastal
resources will increase substantially in future years.
s
!
c
o
w
JS
1
o
U
5U.UUU
20,000
1 0,000
1980 1990 2000 2003
Year
2008
Figure 6-3. Actual and estimated population of coastal
counties in West Coast states from 1980 to 2008
(Crossett et al., 2004).
National Coastal Condition Report
165
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA
survey has been designed to estimate the
percent of coastal area (nationally or in a
region or state) in varying conditions, and
the results are displayed as pie diagrams.
Many of the figures in this report illustrate
environmental measurements made at
specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent
the value of the indicator specifically at
the time of sampling. Additional sampling
would be required to define temporal
variability and to confirm environmental
condition at specific locations.
Coastal Monitoring Data-
Status of Coastal Condition
Relatively few national programs monitor the
coastal waters of the West Coast region. NOAA's
Estuarine Eutrophication Survey (NOAA, 1998)
examined a number of eutrophication variables
for West Coast coastal waters through the use of a
survey questionnaire. In addition, NOAA's NS&T
Program collects data for several locations along the
West Coast (Long et al., 2000), but these sites are
not representative of all West Coast coastal waters.
EMAP-like surveys have also been completed in
the Southern California Bight (SCB) (SCCWRP,
1998). In comparison with these geographically
focused studies, the NCA sampled small western
estuaries in 1999 and 2001 (Oregon only), large
estuaries in 2000, the intertidal areas of small
and large estuaries in 2002, and the waters of the
continental shelf in 2003- A reassessment of coastal
condition along the West Coast was conducted
in 2004 for the NCA. Unfortunately, most of
these data are not yet available for use in this
report; therefore, this section focuses only on the
assessment of data collected in small and large West
Coast coastal waterbodies from 1999 to 2000.
Water Quality Index
The water quality index for the coastal waters of
the West Coast region is rated fair, with 74% of the
coastal area rated fair and 3% rated poor for water
quality condition (Figure 6-4). The water quality
index was developed based on measurements of five
component indicators: DIN, DIP, chlorophyll a,
water clarity, and dissolved oxygen. The sites
rated poor for water quality condition were found
primarily in California. The only sampling site
outside California with poor water quality was
located in southern Hood Canal, WA. Low ratings
for the water quality index were driven primarily by
high DIP concentrations and poor water clarity.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The West Coast region is rated good for DIN
concentrations, with 8% of the coastal area rated
West Coast Water Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number of
component indicators in
poor or fair condition.
O Good = No more than
I is fair
O Fair = I is poor or 2 or
or more are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are
poor
O Missing
Good Fair
Poor
Figure 6-4. Water quality index data forWest Coast
coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
166
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
fair and less than 1% of the area rated poor for
this component indicator. The West Coast region
is rated fair for DIP concentrations, with 83% of
the coastal area rated fair and 9% rated poor for
this component indicator. Upwelling may be an
important contributing factor to the DIN and DIP
concentrations measured in the coastal waters of
the West Coast region during the summer season.
Chlorophyll a
The West Coast region is rated good for
chlorophyll a concentrations, with 37% of
the coastal area rated fair for this component
indicator. Less than 1 % of the area was rated
poor for chlorophyll a concentrations, with
the sites rated poor located in California and
Washington (southern Hood Canal).
Water Clarity
Water clarity is rated poor for the West Coast
region, with 16% of the area rated fair and
approximately 36% of the coastal area rated poor
for this component indicator. The same criteria
were used to assess water clarity across the region,
with a sampling site receiving a rating of poor if less
than 10% of surface illumination was measured at
a depth of 1 meter. The results of the 2000-2001
NCA assessment are consistent with those made
by the NOAA Estuarine Eutrophication Survey
(NOAA, 1998), which reported high turbidity
in 20 of the 38 West Coast estuaries surveyed.
Dissolved Oxygen
The West Coast region is rated good for dissolved
oxygen concentrations, with 25% of the coastal
area rated fair for this component indicator.
Approximately 1% of the coastal area was rated poor
for dissolved oxygen concentrations, with the sites
rated poor located in some sub-estuaries of Puget
Sound (Dabob Bay and southern Hood Canal).
Puget Sound is a deeper, fjord-like system and may
often have low dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the bottom waters of its more restricted arms.
Sediment Quality Index
The sediment quality index for the coastal
waters of the West Coast region is rated fair to
poor, with 14% of the coastal area rated poor
for sediment quality condition (Figure 6-5). The
sediment quality index was developed based on
measurements of three component indicators:
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and
sediment TOC. Elevated metal concentrations at
stations in San Francisco Bay and high metal and
organic compound concentrations at stations in
the harbors and bays of the Puget Sound system
(e.g., Duwamish River, Commencement Bay)
impacted the region's sediment quality index rating.
Toxic sediments collected at sites within Puget
Sound, the Columbia River, and Willapa Bay
were the second-most important contributor to
West Coast Sediment Quality Index
Poor
14%
Site Criteria: Number and
condition of component indicators.
O Good = None are poor, and
sediment contaminants
is good
O Fair = None are poor, and
sediment contaminants
is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Good Fair
Poor
Figure 6-5. Sediment quality index data forWest Coast
coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
167
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
the areal estimate of poor condition for the West
Coast region. In addition, sites in several other
areas had either elevated sediment contaminant
concentrations or high sediment toxicity (e.g.,
Smith River in northern California, Los Angeles
Harbor), but these sites constituted a relatively
small percentage of the West Coast coastal area.
Sediment Toxicity
The West Coast region is rated poor for
sediment toxicity, with 17% of the coastal area
rated poor for this component indicator.
Sediment Contaminants
The West Coast region is rated good for the
sediment contaminants component indicator, with
17% of the coastal area rated fair and 3% rated
poor for this component indicator. Elevated levels
of DDT; chromium, mercury, copper, or other
metals; PAHs; or PCBs were primarily responsible
for poor ratings at West Coast sampling sites.
Sediment TOC
The West Coast region is rated good for
sediment TOC, with 11% of the coastal
area rated fair and none of the area rated
poor for this component indicator.
Benthic Index
Benthic condition in West Coast coastal waters
is rated good, with 7% of the coastal area rated
fair and 5% rated poor (Figure 6-6). Although
several efforts are underway and indices of benthic
community condition have been developed for
sections of the West Coast (e.g., Smith et al., 2001),
there is currently no single benthic community
index applicable for the entire West Coast region. In
lieu of a West Coast benthic index, the deviation of
species richness from an estimate of expected species
richness was used as an approximate indicator of
benthic condition. This approach requires that
species richness be predicted from salinity. A
significant linear regression between log species
richness and salinity was found for the region,
although it was not strong (R2 = 0.43; p < 0.01).
West Coast Benthic Quality Index
Poor
Fair 5%
7%
Site Criteria: Compared
to the lower limit of the
expected mean diversity for
a specific salinity.
O Good = > 90%
O Fair = 75% - 90%
© Poor = < 75%
O Missing
Good Fair
Pool-
Tide pools form along the West Coast's rocky shoreline
(courtesy of Brad Ashbaugh).
Figure 6-6. Benthic index data for West Coast coastal
waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Coastal Habitat Index
The coastal habitat index for the coastal waters
of the West Coast region is rated poor. From 1990
to 2000, the West Coast experienced a loss of
1,720 acres (0.53%) of the region's wetlands (Dahl,
T., FWS, personal communication, 2002). The
long-term, average decadal loss rate of West Coast
wetlands is 3-4%. Although the number of acres
lost for the West Coast region was less than the
losses noted in other regions of the United States,
the relative percentage of existing wetlands lost in
the West Coast region was the highest nationally.
West Coast wetlands constitute only 6% of the
total coastal wetland acreage in the conterminous
48 states; thus, any loss will have a proportionately
greater impact on this regionally limited resource.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The fish tissue contaminants index for the coastal
waters of the West Coast region is rated poor. Based
on whole-fish contaminant concentrations and
EPA Advisory Guidance values, 11% of all stations
sampled where fish were caught were rated fair
and 26% of stations were rated poor (Figure 6-7).
The contaminants found most often in fish tissue
samples included total PCBs and DDTs, although
elevated mercury levels were occasionally detected.
West Coast Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index
Site Criteria: EPA Guidance
concentration
O Good = Below Guidance range
O Fair = Falls within Guidance
range
© Poor = Exceeds Guidance
range
Good Fair
Poor
Figure 6-7. Fish tissue contaminants index data for
West Coast coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Coastal wetlands provide critical habitat for migratory birds (courtesy of San Francisco Estuary Project).
National Coastal Condition Report
169
-------
Highlight
EPA, NOAA, and West Coast States Assess Ecological
Condition of Near-Coastal Waters Along the Western
U.S. Continental Shelf
WA
Near-Coastal 2003 Stations
• Within NMS boundaries
0 Outside NMS boundaries
X Unsamplable
An effort is underway by the EPA, NOAA, and
West Coast states to assess the condition of aquatic
resources in near-coastal waters along the western
U.S. continental shelf. The study is based largely
on the protocols of EPA's EMAP and thus may be
regarded as an extension of previous EMAP efforts
in estuaries and inland waters to these offshore
areas, where such information has been limited
in the past. This near-coastal monitoring effort
included EMAP's probabilistic-sampling approach
to support statistical estimation of the spatial extent
of condition with respect to various measured
ecological indicators (U.S. EPA, 2002). Results
are intended to serve as a baseline for monitoring
potential changes in these indicators over time due
to either human or natural factors.
Sampling was conducted successfully in the
summer of 2003 at 150 stations (see map) located
between the Straits of Juan de Fuca, WA, and
Channel Islands, CA, at depths ranging from
100-395 feet (Cooksey et al., 2003). Astratified-
random sampling design positioned 50 stations off
each West Coast state (Washington, Oregon, and
California). In addition, 60 of the 150 stations were
located within NOAA NMSs, with 30 of these
stations located within the Olympic Coast NMS
off the coast of Washington and the remaining 30
stations distributed among the four other West
Coast NMSs (Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell Bank,
Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands), which are
located off the California coast. Thus, the design
allows for comparison of condition in NMSs
to surrounding, nonsanctuary areas of the shelf
(Cooksey et al., 2003).
As in EMAP efforts (including the present NCCR III), multiple indicators were measured
synoptically at each station to support the weight of evidence assessments of condition and the
examination of associations between biological characteristics and potential environmental controlling
factors (U.S. EPA, 2002). Condition was assessed using indicators of (1) habitat condition, (2) general
water quality, (3) biological condition with a focus on benthic infauna and demersal fish pathology,
and (4) exposure to stressors. The table lists the specific indicators assessed during this study.
'.
• -1
Western U.S. Continental Shelf sampling sites
(NOAA, 2007b).
170
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
The consistent sampling of these variables
across such a large number of stations
provides a tremendous opportunity for
learning more about the spatial patterns
of near-coastal resources and the processes
controlling their distributions, including
potential associations between the presence
of stressors and biological responses. For
example, a key environmental concern that
the program will address with these data is the
extent to which pollutants and other materials
are being transported out of major rivers,
such as the Columbia River, located along the
developed areas of the coast. Another concern
is how these pollutants may affect biological
resources.
The study also demonstrates the benefits of
performing science through partnerships that
bring together complementary capabilities
and resources from a variety of federal,
state, and academic institutions. The project
is principally funded by the EPA Office
of Research and Development. NOAA is
also a major partner in the effort, working
with EPA to provide overall management
and interpretive support, in addition to
contributing ship time on the NOAA
Ship McARTHURII. NOAAs Northwest
Fisheries Science Center also provided field
support and analysis offish pathologies
for the June 2003 survey and supplied fish
for contaminant analysis from samples
collected through the NOAA West Coast
Slope Survey fisheries assessment program.
State and academic partners include the
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE), Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, and the Southern California Coastal Water Resources
Project (SCCWRP). A separate companion survey led by the SCCWRP was also conducted to assess
condition in shelf waters of the SCB using similar methods and indicators. Data from the two surveys
will be integrated to provide a comprehensive assessment of ecological condition of near-coastal
waters along the majority of the U.S. western continental shelf between the Canadian and Mexican
borders. A final report is expected by September 2008. It is anticipated that the resulting information
on the condition of ecological resources in these deeper near-coastal waters will make valuable
contributions to future reports in the NCCR series.
Environmental Indicators Used in the SAB Study
(Cooksey, 2004)
Habitat Condition Indicators
Salinity
Water depth
Dissolved oxygen
~~
Wate r te m p e ratu re
Total suspended solids
Transmittance
Sediment grain size
Sediment percent total organic carbon (TOC)
Sediment color/odor
Presence of trash/marine debris
Water Quality Indicators
Chlorophyll a concentrations
Nutrient concentrations (nitrates, nitrites, ammonia,
phosphate)
Biological Condition Indicators
Benthic species composition
Benthic abundance
Benthic species richness and diversity
External indicators of disease in fish
Presence of nonindigenous species
Exposure Indicators
Chemical contaminants in sediment
Chemical contaminants in fish tissues
Low dissolved oxygen condition
Organic over-enrichment
National Coastal Condition Report
171
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Trends of Coastal Monitoring
Data—West Coast Region
Temporal Change in Ecological
Condition
As a pilot project, the NCA survey of the West
Coast region was initially designed to develop
trends in condition. The region was reassessed in
2004—2006 to determine trends, but these data were
unavailable for inclusion in this report; therefore,
a regional assessment of trends for West Coast
coastal condition is not possible at this time.
Three local monitoring programs have sampled
significant percentages of the coastal area of the
West Coast region for periods up to nearly 35
years, and these programs measure many of the
same parameters (e.g., sediment contaminants) as
the NCA. The Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program (PSAMP) conducted annual assessments
of sediment contamination, sediment properties,
and benthic community composition at 10 fixed
sites from 1989 through 2000. The principal
agency conducting the sediment assessment is the
WDOE, which was also the lead agency for the
1999-2000 NCA survey in Washington. Within San
Francisco Bay, the Regional Monitoring Program for
Trace Substances (RMP) has monitored chemical
contaminant levels in water, sediments, and biota
since 1993- The longest-running monitoring study
in the region has been conducted primarily by the
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD)
to assess the condition of sediment and benthic and
fish communities, as well as the levels of chemical
contaminants in fish, for a series of sites on the
Palos Verdes Shelf within the SCB. Although these
long-term monitoring data have been collected
from fixed stations, probability-based assessments
within the SCB have also been conducted.
Changes and Trends in Puget
Sound Sediments: Results of the
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring
Program, 1989-2000
As part of the PSAMP, the WDOE sampled
sediments at 10 fixed sites that were chosen from
a variety of habitats and geographic locations in
Puget Sound (Figure 6-8). Sediments from each
site were analyzed for particle size, organic carbon
content, and sediment contaminant concentrations,
as well as for the types and abundances of benthic
organisms present. Samples were collected each
spring between 1989 and 2000; however, samples
collected between 1997 and 1999 were not analyzed
for sediment contaminant concentrations. Changes
in sediment condition over the 1989—2000 time
period provide evidence for both human-driven
and naturally occurring influences on the marine
ecosystem (Partridge et al., 2005).
Blaine
Port Gardner
Everett
Point Pully
hea Foss Waterway
:oma
Anderson Island
Budd Inlet1? -
Olympia
Figure 6-8. Locations of the 10 long-term PSAMP
sediment monitoring stations in Puget Sound (courtesy
of WDOE).
172
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Human-Driven Changes
The PSAMP analyzed sediment samples for
more than 120 contaminants, such as metals
(i.e., priority pollutant and ancillary) and organic
compounds (e.g., PAHs, chlorinated pesticides,
PCBs). The most notable changes in sediment
chemistry were in metal and PAH concentrations.
The concentrations of most metals did not change
significantly over the study period; however, those
that did change generally decreased. Significant
decreases were observed in copper levels across all
stations and in metal concentrations, in general, at
stations in Port Gardner and Budd Inlet (Partridge
et al., 2005). Freshwater and estuary sediment
metal concentrations have exhibited similar declines
nationwide since the mid-1970s. These trends
may reflect decreases in emissions to air and water
from municipal and industrial sources following
the implementation of federal clean water and air
regulations; however, despite these improvements,
metal concentrations remain above sediment quality
guidelines in many urban bays of Puget Sound,
emphasizing the need for continued monitoring and
cleanup (Lefkovitz et al., 1997; Mahler et al., 2004).
PortTownsend.WA (courtesy of Gary Wilson, NRCS).
The concentrations of most PAH compounds in
sediment did not change significantly during the
PSAMP study period; however, most of those that
did change increased in concentration. Significant
increases in benzofluoranthene levels were observed
throughout the study area, and increases in PAH
concentrations were observed at sites in Bellingham
Bay, Port Gardner, and Anderson Island. In
contrast, there was a significant decrease in PAH
concentrations at the Point Pully site (Partridge
et al., 2005). These results are consistent with
nationwide trends. After peaking between the mid-
1940s and the 1960s, nationwide PAH levels in
sediment core samples decreased through the 1980s
and have more recently increased. It is believed that
the early declines in PAH concentrations can be
attributed to the switch from coal to oil and natural
gas for home heating, improvements in industrial
emissions controls, and increases in the efficiency
of power plants, whereas more recent increases have
been linked to increasing urban sprawl and vehicle
traffic in urban and suburban areas (Lefkovitz
et al., 1997; Van Metre et al., 2000; Van Metre
and Mahler, 2005). Recent studies by the USGS
have also measured high PAH concentrations in
stormwater runoff from parking lots sealed with
coal-tar-based asphalt sealants (Mahler et al., 2005).
Naturally Occurring Changes
From 1989 through 1995, the amount of
fine-grained sediment (percent silt) at the Strait
of Georgia site varied between 25% and 50%.
Between 1995 and 1997, the percent silt in the
sediment rose to approximately 90%, then declined
to about 50% between 1998 and 2000. During
the PSAMP study, the benthic community in the
Strait of Georgia changed from one characterized
by multiple annelid worm species (i.e., Prionospio,
Pholoe, and Cossura) to one consisting primarily
of Cossura, a mobile burrower that tolerates
living in a wide range of sediment grain sizes,
and finally to one dominated by the bivalve
mollusks Macoma and Yoldia, which are also active
burrowers (Figure 6-9) (Partridge et al., 2005).
Examination of the flow and discharge plume
of British Columbia's Fraser River, which can carry
heavy sediment loads into the Strait of Georgia,
suggested a possible cause for the observed changes.
National Coastal Condition Report
173
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
700 -
Mollusca
^m Yoldia
I I Macoma
Annelida
I I Prionospio
Pholoe
I I Cossura
mmm Precipitation
(as percent of
1997 value)
— Fraser River flow
(as percent of
1997 value)
-O- Percent Silt
(Source of river flow and
precipitation data:
Environment Canada,
source of other data:
Partridge et al., 2005)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year
Figure 6-9. Changes in percent silt and abundance of dominant annelids and mollusks at the Strait of Georgia station,
along with patterns in Fraser River flow and precipitation at the Vancouver International Airport. River flow and
precipitation displayed as percent of highest value (courtesy ofWDOE).
Annual rainfall, Fraser River flow volumes, and the
percent silt at the Strait of Georgia site all exhibit
similar temporal patterns. It is hypothesized that
the changes in the sediment community observed in
the Strait of Georgia were driven by above-average
precipitation in 1996—1997, which increased the
flow in the Fraser River and resulted in increased
deposition of fine sediments in northern Puget
Sound. Changes in grain size are known to influence
community structure (Partridge et al., 2005).
Changes in the Strait of Georgia's sediment
community in response to naturally occurring
variations in rainfall and river flow clearly show the
value of long-term monitoring for understanding
the effects of stressors on the Puget Sound
ecosystem. Understanding these processes at a local
scale can help with assessments of similar changes
in other regions. For example, the sediment-
community changes observed in the Strait of
Georgia may hold the key to understanding recent
declines in San Juan Island eelgrass populations.
Acting on the results of the PSAMP sediment
monitoring program, investigators from the
University of Washington and the USGS are
conducting sediment surveys to determine if the
decline in eelgrass abundance can also be linked
to the deposition of fine-grained sediments
from the Fraser River (Partridge et al., 2005).
The PSAMP's long-term monitoring provides
a vital record of sediment conditions in Puget
Sound and gives insight into the effects of both
natural and human-driven stressors on the estuary.
The fixed "sentinel" stations monitored in this
program can raise red flags, highlighting important
environmental changes that affect Puget Sound.
These results are critical for guiding the policy and
regulatory decisions needed to effectively manage
and maintain the environmental health of Puget
Sound. General information and data generated
from this survey can be accessed from WDOE's
Marine Sediment Monitoring Web site: http://www.
ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/mar_sed/msm_intr.html.
174
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Trends in Environmental Condition
in San Francisco Bay
San Francisco Bay (Figure 6-10) has had the
benefit of several long-term monitoring programs,
including the RMP, sampling and analysis by the
USGS, and the Interagency Ecological Program
(IEP). The RMP has investigated chemical
contamination in the water, sediments, and
biota of the Bay since 1993 and provides data on
spatial patterns and long-term trends for use in
management of the estuary (SFEI, 2003)- The
USGS has 35 years of water quality data, including
data on parameters such as chlorophyll, nutrients
(phosphorus and nitrogen), suspended sediments,
and dissolved oxygen. These data provide a record
of biological and chemical changes in the Bay, such
as improvements in dissolved oxygen concentrations
in the South Bay and changes in phytoplankton
production in Suisun Bay (USGS, 2006b). The
IEP has monitored fisheries and the effects of
freshwater diversions on the biota of the Bay and
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta since 1971 (IEP,
2006). Recent IEP data have shown drastic declines
in important Delta fish species, such as striped bass,
delta smelt, and longfin smelt (Hieb et al., 2005).
Other local, state, and national programs, such as
the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program,
state Mussel Watch Program, Coastal Intensive
Sites Network (CISNet), EMAP, and NOAA's
NS&T Program, have also provided data on the
water, sediments, and biota of San Francisco Bay.
Current and historical activities have contributed
PCBs, pesticides, and mercury and other heavy
metals (e.g., silver, copper) to the sediments
of San Francisco Bay. Although many of these
contaminants have been banned, they are persistent
in the environment, biomagnify through the food
web, and bioaccumulate in fish and wildlife. The
highest concentrations of sediment contaminants
are most often found at the urbanized edges of
the Bay, and the distribution of contaminants
is primarily driven by two factors: inputs from
industrial and military sources near San Jose and
the South San Francisco, Oakland, and East Bay
shorelines and the distribution of fine particles to
which these contaminants are sorbed. Many of the
areas with high concentrations of PCBs, DDT,
and/or chlordane in sediment correspond to areas of
San Pablo Bay
Suisun Bay
Berkeley
•
.Oakland Inner Harbor
San Francisco
Waterfront
South Bay
Figure 6-10. Map of San Francisco Bay (courtesy of San
Francisco Estuary Institute).
the estuary (i.e., South San Francisco Bay, San Pablo
Bay, and along the East Bay shorelines) with high
percentages of fine sediments (Connor et al., 2004).
Mercury contamination in San Francisco Bay
dates back to 19th-century mining practices,
and sediment cores from the South Bay reflect
historic changes in concentrations over time
(SFEI, 2004). Pre-mining concentrations were
about four to five times lower than today's
concentrations (Conaway et al., 2003). A peak
in mercury concentrations occurred during the
early to mid-20th century, coinciding with the
height of mining activities at the New Almaden
Mercury Mine. This mine was the richest mercury
mine in the state and is located on the Guadalupe
River, which drains into the South Bay.
Contaminant levels in fish and wildlife have
been the main concerns of theTMDLs being
developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Board. For example, 25 years after the ban
on the use of PCBs in California, concentrations
in some Bay sport fish remain 10 times higher than
National Coastal Condition Report
175
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Leopard Shark
Striped Bass
DT Concentration (ppb lipid
UJ — SJ
o o o
8 88
a
S 2,000 -
H
1,000
o
;?
'5.
= 12,000 -
a.
a.
c
o
!
| 11,000-
V
o
u
1-
a
Q
S
.0
0
Q Med an concentration
• Indiv dual concentrations
/ . ^
•
• "
Shiner Surfperch
Q Median concentrat on
• Individual concentrations
1 * •
• * I
2 1 1 r-l-n
I i ,— •— , i
i !
i •
so.ooo/
8,000 -
/ 6,000 -
4,000 -
2000 -
o
5,000 -
4,000 -
3,000 -
3,000 -
0
" O Median concentrat on
• Individua concentrations
•
•
m
, ^ j^ •
• T T T
White Croaker
O Median concentration
• Individual concentrations _
I
4^ • 1
T i X
! ^ T •
f m^ I
1 • • t^
1
1994 1997 2000 2003
Year
1994 1997 2000 2003
Year
Figure 6-11. Total DDT concentrations in leopard shark, shiner surfperch, striped bass, and white croaker in ppb
lipid weight, 1994-2003 (courtesy of San Francisco Estuary Institute).
human health consumption guidelines (Davis et
al., 2006). Fish contaminants data have also been
analyzed to determine whether there have been
long-term changes in contaminant levels. Over the
long term, concentrations of lipid-normalized DDTs
in leopard shark, shiner, and white croaker suggest
statistically significant declines in concentrations
from 1994 to 2003 (Figure 6-11) (Connor et al.,
2004). No long-term trends have been detected in
lipid-normalized PCB data. PCB levels in leopard
shark, white croaker, and striped bass were higher
in 1994 compared to other years, but interannual
variation since 1994 has fluctuated without a clear
decline. Mercury concentrations in striped bass
have shown no decline during the period from
1970-2003 (Figure 6-12) (Greenfield et al., 2005).
Declining concentrations of PCBs in
transplanted mussels have suggested that water
quality has improved in the Bay. Linear regression
analyses have shown exponential declines in PCB
concentrations in mussels at most transplant
locations from 1980 to 2003- Similar declines in
concentrations of legacy pesticides have also been
seen in Bay transplanted mussels (Davis et al.,
2006).
176
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
L8-
1.6-
1.4-
1 .2 -
1.0.
0.9-
0.8-
0.7.
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0 1
•
Q Median fish Hg concentration
•
ndiv dual fish Hg concentrations
• 1
| 8
i
i
!
r*i
i
•
.
•
;
s
t
i
fii
i
i
i
•
1970 1971 1972
1994 1997 1999 2000 2003
Year
Figure 6-12. Mercury concentrations in ppm wet
weight in striped bass from 1970-2003. Concentrations
expressed as an average for a 55 cm fish (courtesy of
San Francisco Estuary Institute).
Other contaminants have shown more declines.
Copper concentrations in water, clams, and
sediments from the South Bay declined from
1979 to 2003- RMP water data show statistically
significant declines in copper concentrations
at all historical South Bay stations, and USGS
data show corresponding declines in copper
concentrations measured in the clam Macoma
balthica and in sediments from the South Bay.
Declines of copper in Macoma have been correlated
with declines in copper in effluents from the
Palo Alto wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)
located in the South Bay (SFEI, 2004).
Primary production in San Francisco Bay has
historically been light-limited because of this
waterbody's turbidity (SEFI, 2004). In recent years,
chlorophyll levels in the southern reaches of the
Bay have increased (Figure 6-13), which may be
due to increased light penetration (SFEI, 2006). A
South Bay suspended-sediment model, developed
by USGS, predicts that increases in wetland area (as
proposed under the South Bay Salt Pond Project)
could result in increased sediment deposition onto
wetlands and a subsequent decrease in suspended
sediments in the water column (Shellenbarger et al.,
2004). The resulting increase in light penetration
could cause higher phytoplankton productivity.
In the northern reaches of the estuary, chlorophyll
concentrations have dramatically decreased in
Suisun Bay sites (Figure 6-14) since the invasion
of the freshwater clam Corbula amurensis in 1986.
The high abundance of this filter-feeding clam
has resulted in declines in chlorophyll in Suisun
Bay, from an average of 9-8 mg/L (pre-invasion)
to 2.1 mg/L (post-invasion) (SFEI, 2003).
South Bay
1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004
Year
Figure 6-1 3. Chlorophyll a concentrations (mg/L) in
South Bay, 1977-2004 (based on USGS data, courtesy
of San Francisco Estuary Institute).
Suisun Bay
1974 1979
1984 1989
Year
1994 1999 2004
Figure 6-14. Chlorophyll a concentrations (mg/L) in
Suisun Bay, 1977-2004 (based on USGS data, courtesy
of San Francisco Estuary Institute).
National Coastal Condition Report
177
-------
Highlight
Development of Sediment Quality Objectives in California
An often overlooked benefit of the partnership between the EPA NCA and the states is the
development of assessment tools. The California State Water Resources Control Board is required
by the State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code,
Division 7- Water Quality, Section 13393) to develop sediment quality objectives (SQOs) as part of a
comprehensive program to protect existing and future beneficial uses within California's enclosed bays
and estuaries. The process of developing SQOs has proven to be difficult both for EPA on a national
basis and for many states on an individual basis. California is making progress toward developing
direct-effects SQOs, in large part because of the data generated through probability-based, regional
monitoring efforts supported by EMAP, the EMAP Western Pilot Project, and NCA beginning in
1999 (SWRCB, 2006).
Direct-effects SQOs are established to protect those organisms that are directly exposed to
pollutants in sediments and to determine if sediment quality is negatively impacting those organisms.
Reference condition is used to determine protected or optimal conditions. The State of California
has proposed using a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach to SQOs, based upon a measure of
exposure and two measures of biological condition. The three indicators that are being proposed are
sediment contaminant concentrations, sediment toxicity, and benthic community condition. These
indicators were selected to provide greater confidence in the decision-making process because benthic
invertebrates are the focus of direct-effects SQOs. NCA data from bays and estuaries on the West
Coast have provided an unbiased, synoptic data set to test various approaches. These data have been
merged with other high-quality, site-specific data sets, such as the data for San Francisco Bay from
the RMP Approximately half of the data are being used to evaluate the utility of various measures of
exposure, toxicity, and benthic community structure to assess sediment condition. The other half of
the data set will be used to validate the approach for statewide application (SWRCB, 2006).
A summary of the process for developing and ultimately for implementing these SQOs can be
found on California Environmental Protection Agency State Water Resources Control Board's Web
site: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/bptcp/sediment.html. For more information, contact Chris Beegan at
(916) 341-5577.
178
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Direct-Effects Sediment Quality Objectives
Because the benthic invertebrates are the focus of direct-effects SQOs, sediment contaminant
concentrations, sediment toxicity, and benthic comminity condition will be applied to provide greater
confidence in the decision-making process. The steps involved in setting and implementing SQOs are
described below.
1. Set a Direct Effects SQO: An example of a direct-effects narrative objective is "Sediment quality
shall be maintained at a level that protects benthic invertebrates from degradation caused by bio-
available pollutants in sediments."
2. Implement the Narrative Direct-Effects SQO: A narrative objective must be linked to a
methodology that describes how the narrative objective is implemented. Multiple thresholds will
be developed for each indicator and used to assess a response at a particular station (see table).
3. Assess Each Station Using Three Lines of Evidence and the Tool-Specific Thresholds: Finally,
a method to integrate the three results will be developed to describe sediment quality at the
station level.
Sediment Sediment Contaminant Benthic Community
Toxicity Concentrations Condition
Response
X
Threshold
T°tox
T'tox
T2tox
T3tox
T4tox
Response
X
Threshold
T° chem
T1 chem
T2 chem
T3 chem
T4 chem
Response
X
Threshold
T°ben
T1 ben
T2ben
T3ben
T4ben
Notes: The implementation tools cannot be used to identify the cause of impairment.This is the
fundamental limitation with these current tools. Before any mitigation or restoration can begin, the
stressor must be identified.
Although bulk chemistry data can quantify which pollutants are present, these data do not provide
any information on bio-availibility. Many pollutants are bound by organics oranions in the sediment
that prevent the pollutant from causing toxicity.
The implementation of the narrative SQO is based solely on the application of multiple lines of
evidence. No single line of evidence should be used in any application because of the limitations
associated with the tool used to quantify the condition or response of the indicator or the
limitations associated with the indicator itself.
National Coastal Condition Report
179
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Trends in Coastal Sediment
Condition in the Southern California
Bight: A Clean Water Act Success
Story
The SCB is the most densely populated coastal
region in the nation, and its municipalities rely
upon coastal waters for the disposal of treated
wastewater. Nineteen publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) discharge 1,200 million gallons per
day to the SCB. Of these POTWs, the LACSD's
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP),
which discharges to the Palos Verdes Shelf, is one
of the largest in volume and industrialization.
Prior to the Clean Water Act of 1972, the
primary goal for treatment systems was public
health protection. Following the Clean Water
Act, treatment processes and outfall designs were
upgraded with the goal of also protecting aquatic
life in the ambient environment. During the next
30 years, mass emission rates of effluent-suspended
solids and contaminants were reduced as industrial
waste source-control measures and treatment plant
upgrades were implemented. In addition, receiving-
water monitoring programs were instituted to
assess the effects of discharge on the condition
of the nearshore environment. The monitoring
program established along the Palos Verdes Shelf
area near the outfall of the JWPCP has the longest
consistent record of monitoring receiving waters in
the SCB, allowing assessment of the environmental
response to effluent quality improvements
(LACSD, 2006). This monitoring has been
conducted primarily by the LACSD. The location
of the outfall and receiving water monitoring
sites discussed below are shown in Figure 6-15-
By 1970, the historic discharge had
contaminated the seafloor of the Palos Verdes
shelf with organic matter and chemicals (e.g.,
metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons). Organic
matter loading resulted in sediment hypoxia and
hydrogen sulfide in surface sediment pore waters.
Potentially toxic metals and synthetic organic
compounds, notably DDT and PCBs, were present
in the sediments at levels well above those typically
associated with biological effects. These alterations
were severe enough to sharply degrade the benthic
communities over the entire shelf (Stull, 1995).
33°50' -
33°45' -
33°40' -
Monitoring Sites
• Benthic monitoring stations
"Trawl collection stations
II8°2S'
II8°20'
Figure 6-15. JWPCP outfall system and monitoring sites
within the SCB. Stations indicated with C in the station
ID are benthic monitoring stations, whereas those with
T in the station ID are trawl collection stations (courtesy
of SCCWRP based on data from LACSD).
As effluent contaminant emissions decreased
from 1970 onward, so did the levels of organic
matter, metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and
other contaminants in the upper layers of seafloor
sediments. Examples of sediment quality trends
are shown in Figure 6-16. Similar reductions
have been observed for other contaminants,
including numerous metals and other chlorinated
hydrocarbons (LACSD, 2006).
The unfavorable sediment conditions that
developed over decades degraded benthic
communities in much of the Palos Verdes shelf.
Impacts were greatest near the outfall, where
pollution-tolerant species dominated. Species
richness was extremely low, crustaceans and
echinoderms were rare, and many benthic species
common to reference areas were conspicuously
absent. Over time, the severity of biological
effects lessened as sediment conditions improved
(LACSD, 2006). This pattern of response is
summarized by the Benthic Response Index (BRI)
(Smith et al., 2001), which is a regional assessment
180
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
0.9-
5 0.6
g"
Organic Nitrogen
0 |
1970 1975 I960 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
1,000
1,000 -
500 -
Total Chromium
0
1970 1975
I960
1985 1990
Year
1995 2000 2005
tool calculated as the abundance of pollution-
tolerant species within a sample. Whereas loss
in community function, and even loss of the
community altogether, was apparent at all sampling
stations in the 1970s, even the sites closest to the
outfall had only minor deviation from reference
condition by the mid-2000s (LACSD, 2006).
As with the benthic communities, the demersal
(bottom-dwelling) fish communities on the Palos
Verdes shelf exhibited evidence of community-
level impacts in the 1970s. Near-outfall sites
were characterized by smaller populations, lower
biomass, fewer species, and less diversity than
sites distant from the discharge. Many species
that were rare in the 1970s have become more
abundant and widespread in the past two decades.
Previously abundant pollution-tolerant species
that had been associated with the discharge have
declined in population (LACSD, 2006). These
trends are summarized by an index of demersal fish
biointegrity, the Fish Response Index (FPJ) (Allen
et al., 2001), with index values below 45 indicating
reference biointegrity. The FPJ has fallen over time
(Figure 6-17), with all sites near the outfall currently
within reference condition (LACSD, 2006).
Q.
Q.
o
1
o
U
300
200-
Total DDT
1970 1975 I960 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Year
Sediment Sampling Stations
•9C ^IOC
Figure 6-16. Trends in sediment quality represented
by changes in concentrations of organic nitrogen, total
chromium, and total DDT in sediment samples in the
SCB, 1972-2004 (based on data from LACSD, courtesy
of SCCWRP).
1973
2003
Figure 6-17. Trends in the condition of the demersal
fish community in the SCB, 1972-2004, as represented
by the Fish Response Index (based on data from
LACSD, courtesy of SCCWRP).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Another indicator of pollution-related impacts
within demersal fish communities is fin erosion.
This disease manifests as the degeneration of
fins and is thought to result from a complex set
of causes, including contact with contaminated
sediments, low dissolved oxygen environments,
and secondary bacterial infections. In the past,
fin erosion was commonly observed among
demersal fish off Palos Verdes. Thirty-one of 69
species collected off the Palos Verdes Peninsula
during 1969—1972 trawl surveys exhibited fin
erosion, with Dover sole showing the highest
incidence. This flatfish species prefers muddy
bottoms, where it feeds on benthic organisms. Fin
erosion was most commonly found on specimens
from near-outfall sampling sites and was rare in
specimens from the most distant sampling site.
Fin erosion virtually disappeared from Dover sole
and all other species of demersal fish collected
off Palos Verdes by 1988 (LACSD, 2006).
In the SCB, DDT and PCBs are the persistent
synthetic chlorinated hydrocarbons of greatest
concern. DDT inputs to the JWPCP sewer system
ended in 1971, and other sources of this chlorinated
hydrocarbon have been eliminated. Use of PCBs
was prohibited in 1979, and this compound has
been virtually undetected in effluent since 1986
(Steinberger and Stein, 2004). However, the
persistence of these legacy pollutants in the buried
reservoir of historically contaminated sediments
results in their continued appearance in the food
web and tissues of local sea life. Although tissue
burdens in local fish have fallen over time (Figure
6-18), levels in some species are still sufficiently high
to justify consumption advisories (LACSD, 2006).
The long-term monitoring results on the Palos
Verdes shelf cumulatively provide evidence of
the effectiveness of the Clean Water Act. There
is clear linkage between reductions in discharge
from the POTW and improvements in sediment
quality, which in turn has led to improvements in
the biological integrity of the system. Although
the example provided was for a single facility,
similar patterns have been observed at each of the
other southern California POTWs that maintain
monitoring programs. The JWPCP typifies the
successful response by POTWs in the SCB to
the challenges presented by the Clean Water Act.
Population in the coastal plain is expected to
increase substantially over the next 30 years, and
pressure on the local marine environment may
increase. The requirements of the Clean Water
Act will continue to assure that the gains of the
past 30 years are sustained, and the monitoring
programs associated with those facilities will
provide a means of assessing that success.
c
o
I
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Overall Trends
Monitoring of fixed stations over an 11-year
period in Puget Sound has shown that the general
trend for metals in the sediments has been to
decrease over time. Among the 10 priority pollutant
metals sampled at 10 stations, a total of 39 cases
(single metal at a single location) exhibited
statistically significant differences over time. Of
these 39 cases, 4 exhibited significant increases, and
the rest were significantly decreasing. The Puget
Sound PAH data demonstrate that different types of
pollutants may have differing temporal trajectories.
In contrast to metals, of the 45 cases where a
significant temporal trend in PAH concentrations
was detected, 41 instances were increases. The
Puget Sound benthic monitoring data also strongly
suggest that natural environmental variability
can have impacts on certain environmental
indicators, such as sediment grain size and benthic
community composition. Separation of such
natural sources of variation from anthropogenic
changes remains a significant challenge for the
interpretation of long-term monitoring data.
The data from the long-term monitoring
programs within San Francisco Bay present a mixed
picture of changes over time. As was the case in
Puget Sound, sediment copper concentrations
have generally declined. PCBs have shown declines
in mussel tissue used in a monitoring program
since the 1970s, but have shown no decline in
the decade since 1994 in samples of various
fish tissues. In contrast, DDT and chlordane
pesticides have declined in the same fish species
over the same time period. Of continued concern
in San Francisco Bay is the fact that there is no
indication of decreases of mercury over a 30-
year period. In contrast, some stations in Puget
Sound had significant decreases in sediment
concentrations of mercury over only a decade.
The long-term data from the monitoring of
fixed stations in the SCB was more focused on the
evaluation of system responses near point sources
of pollutants from POTWs, in contrast to the
more regional assessments reported from Puget
Sound and San Francisco Bay; therefore, the trends
described tended to be much clearer. Reductions
in effluent contaminant levels from the early 1970s
onward have reduced the amount of organic matter,
metals, and organic contaminants, such as DDT, in
the surface sediments. The demersal fish and benthic
communities have both responded favorably to
these reductions in pollutant loads. As was the case
in San Francisco Bay, the levels of synthetic organic
contaminants (e.g., DDT, PCBs) in fish tissues have
decreased over time, but in both regions, there is a
highly persistent legacy of these pollutants in the
sediments that continue to accumulate in fish at
levels sufficient to require consumption advisories.
The temporal trends in benthic pollutants
within these three large coastal areas of the West
Coast demonstrate a number of significant
reductions over periods of monitoring, ranging
from one to three decades. The increasing trend for
PAH concentration with time in Puget Sound is
potentially a result of the large increases in human
population in the region. Observation of increasing
trends for pollutants indicates that there is still
a major need for programs that address existing
problems, as well as for programs to prevent
environmental conditions from getting worse
over time.
The sunflower sea star; Pycnopodia helianthoides, is
found on a variety of subtidal bottoms and in extremely
low intertidal zones from Unalaska Island, AK, to
California, Mexico (courtesy of NOAA).
National Coastal Condition Report
183
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Marine Mammal Strandings Along the West Coast
Seals and sea lions live and breed along the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California
(King, 1983). These marine mammals share their habitat with humans and consume many of the same
fish species. California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), Pacific harbor seals (Phoca mtulina richardsif),
and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) are the pinniped species that commonly come
ashore or "strand" on West Coast beaches when they are ill or in distress. Members of the Southwest
and Northwest regions of the National Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Network respond to
these strandings when they occur along the California and Oregon-Washington coasts, respectively.
The network was formalized by the 1992 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act and
is managed by the NMFS. Live stranded animals are admitted for care to rehabilitation centers, and
investigations into cause of death are conducted for animals that die.
From 2000 to 2004, a total of 4,804 live pinnipeds were stranded along the West Coast. The
map shows that the majority of animals were stranded along the California coast (64%), compared
to Oregon (7%) and Washington (29%). The highest proportion of animals was stranded in central
California, and these animals were most commonly sea lions (75%), followed by elephant seals (18%)
and harbor seals (7%).
Major causes of mortality for California sea lions (see pie chart) included the bacterial disease
leptospirosis (26%), malnutrition (23%), trauma (18%), domoic acid toxicity (11%), and carcinoma
(1%). Domoic acid is a biotoxin produced by some marine algae, especially during HABs.This acid
binds to receptors in the brain and
is responsible for amnesic shellfish
poisoning in humans (Teitelbaum et al.,
1990). The first UME associated with
Number of live
pinniped strandings,
2000 to 2004
(courtesy of NOAA)
domoic acid toxicity was documented
along the coast of California in 1998
(Scholin et al., 2000). During that year,
approximately 400 sea lions died with
clinical signs of domoic acid toxicosis.
Since 1998, recurrent toxin-producing
events have occurred on a regular basis
and have affected hundreds of animals.
California sea lions are high-level
predators that feed on some of the same
species (e.g., anchovies, sardines, hake,
rockfish, salmon, market squid) that often
enter the human seafood market, and the
detection of domoic acid in California
sea lions dying along California's coast
is helping to raise public awareness of
the presence of this biotoxin in a variety
of seafood species. These concerns are
exacerbated by increasing reports of
HABs that threaten both human and
marine life safety (U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, 2004b).
1-27
28-87
88-251
252-502
503-835
Causes of Mortality for
California Sea Lions
(courtesy of NOAA)
• Carcinoma
• Domoic acid
• Leptospirosis
D Malnutrition
D Other diseases
D Trauma
D Unknown
184
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries—California Current
LME
The California Current LME extends along
the Pacific Coast of North America from the
northwestern corner of Washington to the southern
end of the Baja California Peninsula in Mexico
(Figure 6-19)- Puget Sound and a portion of
Washington's northwestern coastline are part of the
Gulf of Alaska LME, which is discussed in Chapter
8. The California Current LME is temperate and
represents a transition zone between subtropical
and subarctic water masses. Major driving forces in
this LME are the effects of shifting oceanic climate
regimes and intensive commercial fishing. The LME
is considered to have moderately high productivity
based on primary productivity (phytoplankton)
estimates. The major commercial fish species are
Pacific salmon, pelagic (water-column-dwelling)
fishes (e.g., Pacific sardine, northern anchovy, jack
mackerel, chub Pacific mackerel, Pacific herring)
and demersal fish (e.g., Pacific halibut, Dover sole,
shortspine thornyhead, longspine thornyhead,
sablefish). Shrimp, crab, clam, and abalone have
high commercial value (NOAA, 2007g).
Coastal upwelling, El Nino, and the El Nino-
Southern Oscillation result in strong interannual
variability in the productivity and, consequently,
the landings of different species and groups in the
California Current LME (NOAA, 2007g). There
are major fluctuations in the LME's total landings,
ranging from about 100,000 t in 1952 to an historic
high of almost 800,000 t in 2000, with decreases
in 1984 and 1992 (University of British Columbia,
2007). These forces are believed to be resulting
in long-term shifts in abundance levels of both
sardines and anchovies. Long-term monitoring
data from 1956 to 1980 on zooplankton biomass
show evidence of a decline in zooplankton
abundance, which is a possible indication of a
major oceanic regime shift. There is speculation
about the causes of these fluctuations and a need
for a better understanding of the climate's role, of
seasonal change in the regulation of populations
and communities, and of the feedback loops that
determine community structure and regulate energy
flow and population dynamics (NOAA, 2007g).
Canada
Relevant Large
Marine Ecosystem
Associated U.S.
land mass
Figure 6-19. California Current LME (NOAA, 2007g).
Salmon Fisheries
Pacific salmon in the California Current LME
include five species: Chinook, coho, sockeye, pink,
and chum salmon. Chinook and coho salmon
are harvested recreationally and commercially in
the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound, and freshwater
rivers on their spawning migrations. All species
are also harvested by Native American tribes for
subsistence and ceremonial purposes. From 1995
through 1997, the average annual commercial
salmon landings were 13,100 t, providing revenues
averaging almost $22 million at dockside. From
2001 through 2003, the annual commercial
salmon landings increased to average 19,000 t
and provided revenues averaging approximately
$26 million at dockside. If recreationally caught
fish were valued at a conservative $20/fish, the
National Coastal Condition Report
185
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
2001—2003 average landings of 1.2 million fish
would have been worth about $24 million annually.
Figure 6-20 demonstrates the changes over time in
the landings of Chinook salmon from this LME.
For all species, there is excess fishing power on
this resource and overcapitalization of the fishing
fleets. Although harvest rates in recent years have
been held near or below levels that would produce
the maximum sustainable yield, environmental
conditions in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in
generally poor ocean survival rates for Chinook
and coho salmon stocks, as well as some individual
stocks of the other species (NMFS, In press).
a
g
|
]'
I960 I?U K70 1975 I9K) 1965 1990 1995 1000
Year
Figure 6-20. Chinook salmon landings in millions of
individual fish, 1960-2003 (NMFS, In press).
Following coast-wide status reviews for all
species of salmon and anadromous trout, numerous
evolutionarily significant units (i.e., population
or group of populations that is substantially
reproductively isolated and represents an important
component in the evolutionary legacy of the species)
of all species except pink salmon have been listed
as threatened or endangered under the ESA. The
management of this resource is complex, involving
many stocks originating from various rivers and
jurisdictions. Ocean fisheries are managed primarily
by gear restrictions, minimum-size limits, and time
and area closures, although harvest quotas and
cumulative impact quotas have also been placed
on individual fisheries in recent years. Pacific
salmon in the California Current LME depend on
freshwater habitat for the spawning and rearing of
juveniles. The quality of freshwater habitat is largely
a function of land management practices; therefore,
186
salmon production is heavily influenced by entities
not directly involved in the management of fisheries.
Salmon management involves the cooperation
of the DOI Bureau of Land Management,
FWS's Bureau of Reclamation, USAGE, EPA,
Bonneville Power Administration, state resource
agencies, Native American tribes, municipal utility
districts, agricultural water districts, private timber
companies, and landowners (NMFS, In press).
Ecosystem Considerations
The coho salmon abundance index reached
a peak in 1976 and suffered a dramatic decline
through the late 1990s. The Chinook salmon
abundance index has also generally declined since
the mid-1970s, although there was a brief increase
in the index during the late 1980s. These declines
affected both hatchery and natural stocks and
appeared to indicate a period of declining ocean
survival. These declines were also coincident with
a change in the oceanographic regime off the
West Coast that occurred around 1978. Since
then, the coastal waters off California, Oregon,
and Washington, where many Chinook and
coho salmon stocks mature, have been warmer
and less productive than they were during the
period from 1950 to 1978. The decline in ocean
productivity off the Pacific Coast appears to be
linked to increased productivity in the Gulf of
Alaska LME. The abundance indices of sockeye,
pink, and chum salmon, which migrate further
offshore than Chinook and coho salmon, were
relatively stable or increasing during the same
period that Chinook and coho salmon populations
declined. For sockeye salmon, Fraser River runs
were strong through the mid-1990s, but ocean
conditions have caused a large proportion of the
fish to migrate north of Vancouver Island, where
they are unavailable to U.S. fisheries. In addition,
the late run of sockeye salmon has been entering
the river as much as six weeks earlier in the year
than runs occurring prior to 1996, and early river
entry has been associated with high pre-spawning
mortality. This phenomenon has concerned fishery
managers and resulted in severe restrictions on
harvest in sockeye fisheries (NMFS, In press).
Within the past few years, marine conditions
again became favorable for Chinook and coho
salmon. In 1999, water temperatures were lower
National Coastal Condition Report III
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Red sockeye salmon (courtesy of Greg A. Syverson,
FWS).
than normal off the coasts of California, Oregon,
and Washington. In 2000, the marine plankton
assemblages in the Pacific Northwest area shifted
from species characteristic of temperate regions to
species more characteristic of sub-arctic regions,
and baitfish became abundant. Until 2005,
marine conditions remained favorable for the
growth and survival of all salmon species in the
Pacific Northwest; however, California Current
LME coho and Chinook salmon landings from
the June 2005 surveys were lower than in June
1998, during El Nino (NMFS, In press).
Pacific salmon are particularly vulnerable to
habitat degradation because of their dependence
on freshwater habitat for spawning and juvenile
rearing. Dam construction, logging, agriculture,
grazing, urbanization, and pollution have
degraded freshwater habitat throughout their
range. Water extraction and flow manipulation
for hydropower, irrigation, flood control, and
municipal needs directly compete with salmon
for the freshwater on which they depend. As
the human population in the western United
States continues to increase, so will the pressures
on salmon habitat. The continued existence of
salmon in harvestable quantities is a tribute to
the resilience of these fish (NMFS, In press).
Pelagic Fisheries
Several stocks of small pelagic fish species support
fisheries along the California Current LME. The
major species are Pacific sardine, northern anchovy,
jack mackerel, chub (Pacific) mackerel, and Pacific
herring. Sardine, anchovy, and the two mackerels
are primarily concentrated and harvested off
California and Baja California. Pacific herring are
harvested along the West Coast from California
to Washington. Populations of these small pelagic
fish tend to fluctuate widely (NMFS, In press).
Commercial fishing for small pelagic fish species
has a long history in the California Current LME,
and sardine and anchovy are the most prominent
of these fisheries from an historical perspective.
California sardines supported the largest fishery in
the western hemisphere during the 1930s and early
1940s, when total landings averaged 500,000 t.
The sardine abundance index and landings declined
after World War II, and the stock finally collapsed
in the late 1950s. In the mid-1940s, U.S. processors
began canning anchovy as a substitute for sardine;
however, consumer demand for canned anchovy
was low, and landings from the mid-1940s to mid-
1950s averaged only 20,000 t per year. Landings
declined and remained low before starting to
increase in 1965 after the sardine collapse. Together
with landings from Mexico, the total landings
from this LME increased to 250,000 t per year
during 1975-1980, but declined thereafter due
to significant price reductions for fishmeal. The
biomass trend for the anchovy resource hit a peak
of 1.6 million t in 1973 and declined steadily to
392,000 t by 1994. Northern anchovy landings
in California have fluctuated more in response to
market conditions than to stock abundance, and
low prices and market problems continue to prevent
a significant U.S. reduction fishery (i.e., fishery that
reduces the fish caught to meal, oil, and soluble
protein) for anchovy. Landings by the United
States have varied and have been used mostly for
live bait and other non-reduction uses. The current
yield for the Unites States is 25,000 t or 30% of
the maximum sustainable yield, although recent
landings have been much lower (about 8,500 t) due
to a lack of commercial markets (NMFS, In press).
All these pelagic fishery resources are currently
under management. The well being of ecologically
related species in the California Current LME is
important in the management of these resources.
For example, the endangered brown pelican
depends on anchovy as a critical food source,
National Coastal Condition Report
187
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
and so to protect the ecological balance, the
FMP (PFMC, 1998) has specified a threshold for
determining optimum yield that prevents depletion
of the anchovy stock and provides adequate
forage for marine fishes, mammals, and birds.
Demersal Fish Fisheries
The demersal fish fishery of the California
Current LME is conducted along the entire
extent of the coastlines of Washington, Oregon,
and California and includes a diverse range of
habitats and species. The fishery has four sectors:
commercial limited entry, commercial open
access, recreational, and tribal (NMFS, In press).
In recent years, a number of dramatic changes
have occurred in the California Current LME
demersal fish fishery. Between 1999 and 2002,
nine stocks were declared overfished, and the
implementation of rebuilding plans for these stocks
have sharply curtailed fishing opportunities for
these species and for associated species throughout
nearly all sectors of the fishery. As a result, allowable
harvests and landings are at or near historical lows
for many species. Two of the overfished stocks
(Pacific hake and lingcod) have since been declared
rebuilt, but rebuilding for many of the other
stocks is expected to take decades. In addition
to rebuilding plans for the recovery of overfished
stocks, many strides have been made to improve
management of the demersal fish fishery. These
include the completion of a trawl permit buy-back
to reduce fishing capacity, implementation of a
coast-wide observer program to monitor bycatch,
and expansion of demersal fish resource surveys
(NMFS, In press; NWFSC, 2006; PFMC, 2006).
In 2003, U.S. commercial landings of California
Current LME demersal fish totaled 168,987 t,
generating $60.2 million in ex-vessel revenue
(amount the commercial fishermen receive from
the quantity offish landed). Pacific hake landings
dominate the California Current LME demersal fish
landings, accounting for 84% of the fishery's total
landed weight in 2003; however, with its low unit
value, Pacific hake revenue composed only 29% of
the demersal fish fishery's revenue in this LME. The
demersal fish fishery's most valuable component is
the "Dover sole-shortspine thornyhead-longspine
thornyhead-sablefish" complex, which accounted
for nearly $29 million, or 48%, of all demersal fish
revenue from this LME in 2003- The trawl fleet
(including those aimed at Pacific hake) comprises
the largest gear component of the fishery, generating
72% of the ex-vessel revenue (NMFS, In press).
Although traditional management measures
such as annual catch quotas have been in place
for up to 20 years, some demersal fish stocks have
declined during that period to less than 25%
of their estimated unfished levels. At least three
primary factors have contributed to these declines.
First, during the 1980s and into the 1990s, little
information was available on the life history and
productivity of many demersal fish species, and
target harvest rates were based upon knowledge
of the productivity of other species. This was a
reasonable approach in light of the absence of
species-specific information, but it turned out that
harvest rates were overly optimistic for most of the
long-lived, slow-growing rockfishes. Additionally,
resource survey information was insufficient to
estimate stock abundance indices with adequate
precision, and with no observer program in place,
there was no way to verify that the total catch,
including bycatch, did not exceed the intended
level. Finally, a decline in the basic productivity of
the California Current LME from 1977 until the
late 1990s (including evidence of the decline in
zooplankton abundance mentioned earlier and of
ocean warming during the late 1970s) coincided
with increases in demersal fish harvests in the
late 1970s. This decline in productivity likely
contributed to the decline in the overall abundance
index and recruitment (addition of new generation
of young fish) of demersal fish species (NMFS,
In press).
Vermilion rockfish, Sebostes miniatus, are caught in
West Coast waters and have not been singled out for
species management (courtesy of Wayne Davis, U.S. EPA
Biological Indicators ofWatershed Health Photo Library
http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2003, 25 fish consumption advisories were
in effect for the estuarine and coastal waters of the
West Coast region (Figure 6-21). A total of 31% of
the estuarine square miles on the West Coast were
under advisory in 2003, and all of the estuarine area
under advisory was located within the San Francisco
Bay/Delta region or within Puget Sound. Only 10%
of the region's coastal miles were under advisory;
more than one-half of these miles were located in
southern California, and the rest were located on
the coastal shoreline of Washington's Puget Sound.
None of the West Coast states (California, Oregon,
or Washington) had statewide coastal advisories
in effect during 2003 (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Seventeen different contaminants or groups of
contaminants were responsible for West Coast fish
advisories in 2003, and 13 of those contaminants
were listed only in the waters of Puget Sound and the
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
cn
en
en
en
No advisories
I
2-4
5-9
Noncoastal
cataloging unit
bays emptying into the Sound. These contaminants
were arsenic, chlorinated pesticides, creosote,
dioxin, industrial and municipal discharge, metals,
multiple contaminants, PAHs, pentachlorophenol,
pesticides, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl
chloride, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
In California, Orgeon, and Washington, PCBs
were partly responsible for 71% of advisories
(Figure 6-22). DDT was partly responsible for 12
advisories issued in California. Although there were
only two advisories issued for mercury on the West
Coast, the entire San Francisco Bay was covered
by one of these advisories (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
PCBs
(Total)
rt Other
= DDT
o
U
Metals
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 6-22. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in West Coast coastal waters. An advisory
can be issued for more than one contaminant, so
percentages may add up to more than 100 (U.S. EPA,
2004b).
Species and/or groups under fish consumption
advisory in 2003 for at least some part of the coastal
waters of the West Coast region
Figure 6-21. The number of fish consumption advisories
active in 2003 for the West Coast coastal waters (U.S.
EPA, 2004b).
All fish
Black croaker
Bivalves
Bullhead
Clams
Corbina
Common carp
Crabs
Gobies
Kelp bass
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004b
Largescale sucker
Peamouth chub
Queenfish
Rockfish
Sculpin
Shark
Shellfish
Striped bass
Surfperch
White croaker
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 499 monitored coastal beaches in the
West Coast region reported to EPA for 2003,
33-5% (167 beaches) were closed or under an
advisory for some period of time during that
year. Table 6-1 presents the number of beaches
monitored and under advisories or closures for
each state. California reported the greatest number
of monitored beaches to the EPA survey (430), as
well as the most beaches with at least one advisory
or closure in 2003 (156). It should be noted that
the total number of beaches with advisories and
closures may not be indicative of increased health
risks to swimmers, but is generally indicative
of more intensive bacterial sampling efforts
conducted at the surveyed beaches (U.S. EPA,
2006c). Figure 6-23 presents advisory and closure
percentages for each county within each state.
Table 6-1. Number of Beaches Monitored and With
Advisories/Closures in 2003 for the West Coast
States (U.S. EPA, 2006c)
No. of Percentage
Beaches of Beaches
No. of With Affected by
Beaches Advisories/ Advisories/
State Monitored Closures Closures
California
Oregon
Washington
TOTAL
430
58
*l 1
499
156
7
4
167
36.3
12.1
36.4
33.5
* Washington did not report number of beaches for 2003;
therefore, the number of beaches monitored in Washington
during 2004 is presented here (U.S. EPA, 2005a).
Percentage of
Beaches with
Advisories/
Closures
I I None
^H 0.01-10.49
EZI 10.50-50.49
CZI 50.50-100.00
I I Not reported
Figure 6-23. Percentage of monitored beaches with
advisories or closures, by county, for the West Coast
region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Preemptive Closure
(Sewage)
Preemptive Closure
(Rainfall)
3%
Other
42%
Chemical (Oil)
1%
Elevated Bacteria
53%
Figure 6-24. Reasons for beach advisories or closures
for the West Coast region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Most of the advisories implemented on the
West Coast were reported as due to elevated
bacteria (53%), although many (42%) of the
advisories were due to other reasons (Figure
6-24). Most beaches had multiple sources of
waterborne bacteria that resulted in advisories
or closures. Figure 6-25 shows that unknown
sources accounted for 66% of the responses
from West Coast beaches (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Sewer Line Problem 5%
Other 19%
Combined Sewer
Overflow 2%
Wildlife 2%'
Sanitary Sewer Overflow 4%
Stormwater Runoff 2%
Unknown 66%
Figure 6-25. Sources of beach contamination resulting
in beach advisories or closures for the West Coast
region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
190
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Summary
Based on data from the NCA, the overall condition of West Coast
coastal waters is rated fair. Additional benthic community data have
become available since the NCCR II and were included in the analysis for
this report; other data have been refined. As a result, the overall condition
score and the benthic index rating for the West Coast region have changed
since the NCCR II, and the percent of coastal area rated good, fair, or
poor has been refined for several indices and component indicators.
Currently, NCA data for the West Coast region are only available for
1999 and 2000, and long-term trends in coastal condition cannot be
evaluated; however, local monitoring programs have been used to examine
long-term trends for several areas of the region. As measured by the PSAMP,
no significant changes in the concentrations of most metals and PAHs
in the sediments of Puget Sound occurred over time; however, where
significant changes were observed, metal concentrations decreased and
PAH levels increased. The PSAMP also observed changes in the percent silt
over time, and these changes affected Puget Sound's benthic community
composition. In San Francisco Bay, levels of DDT in some finfish species
have declined over time due to natural environmental variation, although
no trends have been observed for PCB or mercury concentrations in
finfish. PCB levels in transplanted mussels have decreased in the Bay,
and copper concentrations have decreased in water, clams, and sediment.
Chlorophylls levels have shown increasing trends in the northern reaches of
San Francisco Bay and decreasing trends in the Bay's southern reaches. Since
1970, conditions in the SCB have improved, and levels of organic matter,
metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and other contaminants have decreased
in sediments. Demersal fish and benthic communities have also improved
in the region, and DDT and PCB concentrations in fish have decreased.
NOAA's NMFS manages several fisheries in the California Current
LME, including salmon, pelagic fish, and demersal fish. Landings of the
five species of Pacific salmon within the California Current LME are
near or below the maximum sustainable yield, and most of these species
are listed as threatened or endangered. Pacific salmon are particularly
vulnerable to habitat degradation due to human-induced pressures, such
as construction, logging, and urbanization. Ocean conditions in the 1980s
and 1990s resulted in decreased abundances of Chinook and coho salmon
in this LME. During the same time period, abundances of sockeye, pink,
and chum salmon were either stable or increasing. Populations of the
small pelagic fish in this LME tend to fluctuate widely, and both anchovy
and sardine landings are low due to market constraints. Nine stocks of
California Current LME demersal fish were declared overfished between
1999 and 2002, and only two of these stocks are considered rebuilt.
National Coastal Condition Report
191
-------
Chapter 6 | West Coast Coastal Condition
Summary
Contamination in West Coast coastal waters has affected human
uses of these waters. In 2003, there were 24 fish consumption
advisories in effect along the West Coast, most of which were issued
for PCBs contamination. In addition, 33-5% of the region's monitored
beaches were closed or under advisory for some period of time
during 2003- Elevated bacteria levels in the region's coastal waters
were primarily responsible for the beach closures and advisories.
192
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER 7
= ' _
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Great Lakes Coastal Condition
As shown in Figure 7-1, the overall condition of
the coastal waters of the Great Lakes region between
2001 and 2002 is rated fair to poor, with an overall
condition score of 2.2. The water quality and fish
tissue contaminants indices for the Great Lakes
are rated fair, the sediment quality index is rated
poor, and the coastal habitat and benthic indices
are rated fair to poor. The overall condition and
index ratings were derived from indicator findings
and the ecological condition of the St. Lawrence
River, each of the five Great Lakes, and the St.
Clair River-Lake St. Clair-Detroit River Ecosystem
presented in the document State of the Great Lakes
2003 (Environment Canada and U.S. EPA, 2003).
This report is the fifth biennial report issued jointly
by the governments of Canada and the United
States. No additional assessment data for the Great
Lakes were collected for the 2001-2002 time
period since the results presented in NCCRII (U.S.
EPA, 2004a); therefore, the condition estimates
presented in this chapter remain unchanged from
that report. The next National Coastal Condition
Report (NCCR IV) will present and discuss data
presented in the report State of the Great Lakes
2005 (Environment Canada and U.S. EPA,
2005) to generate updated condition estimates.
Overall Condition
Great Lakes (2.2)
B
Good
Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (I)
Benthic Index (2)
Coastal Habitat Index (2)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (3)
Figure 7-1. The overall condition of Great Lakes
coastal waters is rated fair to poor (based on data from
Environment Canada and U.S. EPA, 2003).
The 158 coastal counties of the Great Lakes
region support a third of the region's population
and represent the third-largest coastal population in
the nation. The population of Great Lakes coastal
counties increased by 6% (1.5 million people)
between 1980 and 2003 (Figure 7-2) (Crossett et
al., 2004).
30,000 •
c 25,000 —
I
| 20,000 —
^^
c
•| 15,000 —
10,000-
1 S.OOO
o
U
1980
1990
2000
Year
2003
2008
Figure 7-2. Actual and estimated population of coastal
counties in the Great Lakes region from 1980 to 2008
(Crossett et al., 2004).
194
Lake Superior is the largest (in volume), deepest, and
coldest of North America's five Great Lakes (courtesy
ofU.S.EPAGLNPO).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Coastal Monitoring Data—
Status of Coastal Condition
Although an extensive monitoring network exists
for the Great Lakes region, Great Lakes monitoring
is not directly comparable to monitoring conducted
under NCA for coastal estuaries and marine waters.
The GLNPO uses best scientific judgment to select
monitoring sites that represent the overall condition
of the Great Lakes, whereas the NCA survey uses
a probabilistic survey design to represent overall
ecosystem condition and to attain a known level of
uncertainty (see Appendix A). The two programs
use different methods, and spatial estimates
of coastal condition cannot be assigned to the
Great Lakes because they would be inconsistent
and incomparable with those calculated for the
marine coastal regions of the United States. The
GLNPO and Great Lakes scientists assess the
overall status of eight ecosystem components of
the Great Lakes, some of which are similar to
NCA indices and indicators. The results of these
efforts, along with relevant technical information,
are available from two Web sites: the State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conferences (SOLEC) site,
available at http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/solec,
and the GLNPO site, available at http://www.
epa.gov/glnpo. These results were used to quantify
and categorize NCA indices and component
indicators for the Great Lakes in the NCCRII
and will be summarized briefly in the following
sections. The condition values are based primarily
on expert opinion and were integrated with other
regional condition data to evaluate the overall
condition of the nation's coastal environment.
Water Quality Index
The NCCR II assessment combined several
SOLEC indicators (e.g., eutrophic condition,
water clarity, dissolved oxygen levels, phosphorus
concentrations) into a water quality index to
allow for comparison of water quality condition
estimates for the Great Lakes with the NCA water
quality index for U.S. marine coastal waters. The
NCCR II rated the Great Lakes water quality as
fair. Of the four SOLEC indicators used to develop
the water quality index, eutrophic condition was
rated fair to poor, phosphorus concentrations
were rated fair, water clarity was rated good to
fair, and dissolved oxygen concentrations were
rated good. It should be noted that low dissolved
oxygen levels continue to be a problem in the
central basin of Lake Erie during the late summer.
The Great Lakes region
hosts the third-largest
coastal population in the
nation (courtesy of U.S.
EPA GLNPO).
National Coastal Condition Report
195
-------
International Field Years on Lake Erie (IFYLE) Program
One of NOAA's long-term goals is to provide enhanced ecosystem forecasts that predict patterns
of biological, physical, and chemical variables in response to natural- and human-induced changes to
the system across a variety of spatial and temporal scales. These changes may include extreme natural
events, climate change, land and resource use, pollution, invasive species, and fisheries impacts.
Ecosystem forecasts ultimately should benefit coastal communities, including those along the Great
Lakes, by providing the foundation for the following:
• Improved decision-making for resource stewardship
• Mitigation of potentially hazardous human activities
• Reduced impacts of natural hazards
• Enhanced communication between scientists and managers
• More effective prioritization of science.
Some of the water quality and ecosystem health issues that persist within the Great Lakes are
of concern to the user community and researchers and remain a challenge to Great Lakes resource
management. These issues include, but are not limited to, HABs, reduced oxygen availability
(hypoxia/anoxia), and the introduction of exotic species. All of these issues have the potential to
negatively influence food web dynamics, native biodiversity, and biological production (e.g., fisheries
yield). The development of tools to provide reliable forecasts of the Great Lakes ecosystem and its
chemical, biological, and physical subsystems would help resource agencies choose among potential
management options (NOAA, 2006a).
To improve the ability to provide reliable ecosystem forecasts in the Great Lakes, the NOAA
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) has been working toward development
of an integrated (multi-agency), multidisciplinary research program for Lake Erie to deal with these
important management issues. Lake Erie is an ideal candidate for a pilot ecosystem-forecasting
framework development effort. It is small in size relative to coastal marine systems and the other
Great Lakes; therefore, cost-effective field sampling can be performed to test hypotheses over the
entire lake. A wealth of historical monitoring and research data has been compiled for this system and
is available to use for model parameterization/calibration, validation, and ecological scenario testing.
In addition, several predictive physical models (e.g., watershed-hydrology models, hydrodynamics
models) already exist for Lake Erie. Finally, a large research and policy infrastructure (e.g., Lake Erie
Millennium Network, Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan) already exists and will facilitate efforts
to develop truly integrative, multidisciplinary programs aimed at conducting the needed research for
ecosystem forecasting (NOAA, 2006a).
This effort to develop a large-scale, integrative research program on Lake Erie began in 2005 with
ship support from NOAA and the initiation of the International Field Years on Lake Erie (IFYLE)
Program (NOAA, 2007'£)• This program is based largely on the research hypotheses, ideas, and needs
that were generated at a large, international Lake Erie Science Planning Workshop that was hosted by
NOAA-GLERL on March 4-5, 2004 (NOAA, 2004a). The three primary objectives of the IFYLE
program are the following:
• To quantify the spatial extent of hypoxia across the lake and gather information that can help
forecast its timing, duration, and extent
196 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
To assess the ecological consequences of hypoxia to the Lake Erie food web, including the
impacts on bacteria, phytoplankton, microzooplankton, mesozooplankton, and fish
To identify factors that control the timing, extent, and duration of HABs (including toxin
formation) in Lake Erie, as well as enhance our ability to use remote sensing as a tool to rapidly
map HAB distributions in the lake (NOAA, 2007f).
>= Sampling location
Preliminary estimation of dissolved oxygen concentrations (mg/L) in Lake Erie bottom waters
during September 2005 (courtesy of GLERL, NOAA).
The IFYLE program has become one of the largest international, multidisciplinary research efforts
of its kind in Lake Erie's history, costing approximately $5 million and involving about 40 scientists
from NOAA, academia, and private institutions throughout North America, Canada, and Europe
(NOAA, 2007f). This program can truly be considered integrative, given involvement by numerous
U.S. and Canadian universities and federal, state, and provincial agencies. The IFYLE serves as an
example of how NOAA and other federal agencies are fulfilling the Presidential Executive Order
13340 (Bush, 2004) to execute the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration among agencies, including
NOAAs ship support, EPA GLNPO, NOAA GLERL, the National Sea Grant College Program, the
Ohio and New York Sea Grant College programs, Environment Canada, USAGE, Ohio DNR, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Michigan DNR, Pennsylvania Fish
and Boat Commission, and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (NOAA, 2006a).
The 2005 field program centered on determining the factors regulating the distribution of oxygen
concentrations in Lake Erie (see map) and the consequences of low oxygen on the abundance,
distribution, and condition offish and their prey. The remainder of 2005 and all of 2006 were
devoted to sample processing, data analysis, testing and refining hypotheses, and building models that
can be used for both understanding and forecasting purposes. During 2007, another intensive field
season with more focused sampling objectives was conducted (NOAA, 2006a).
For additional information on the IFYLE program, see http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/ifyle or contact
Dr. Stuart A. Ludsin (Stuart.Ludsin@noaa.gov) and Dr. Stephen B. Brandt (Stephen.B.Brandt@noaa.
gov), co-coordinators of the IFYLE program, Ann Arbor, MI.
National Coastal Condition Report
197
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Sediment Quality Index
The NCCR II assessment indicated that, for the
SOLEC indicators measured, the primary problem
in the Great Lakes coastal waters was degraded
sediment quality. The sediment quality index for
the coastal waters of the Great Lakes region is rated
poor, with sediment contamination contributing
to the poor condition assessed in many harbors
and tributaries and affecting the beneficial uses at
all 31 of the U.S. and binational Great Lakes Areas
of Concern (AOCs) throughout the region (Figure
7-3). Contaminated sediments are also the leading
cause offish consumption advisories for this region
and serve as a source of contaminants to open
water as a result of sediment-resuspension activities
(Environment Canada and U.S. EPA, 2003).
Benthic Index
The benthic condition of the Great Lakes, as
measured by benthic community health, was rated
fair to poor in the NCCR II. This rating was based
on results of the GLNPO's benthic invertebrate
monitoring and surveillance monitoring programs.
Populations of the benthic invertebrates Diporeia
(in cold, deepwater habitats) and Hexagenia (in
mesotrophic habitats) were used for evaluating
benthic heath because of their importance at the
base of the Great Lakes food web (Figure 7-4).
Coastal Habitat Index
More than one-half of the Great Lakes coastal
wetlands were lost between 1780 and 1980, with
the largest losses in Ohio (90%) and the smallest
in Minnesota (42%) (Figure 7-5). The coastal
habitat index used to assess the condition of Great
Lakes wetland condition in the NCCR II was
based on amphibian abundance and diversity,
wetland-dependant bird diversity and abundance,
the areal extent of coastal wetlands by type, and
the effects of water level fluctuations. Based on
these measures, the coastal habitat index for
the Great Lakes region is rated fair to poor.
Nipigon Bay Jackfish Bay
Canada
USA
St. Lawrence River
St. Louis River
• United States AOCs
O Canadian AOCs
O Binational AOCs
Peninsula
Harbour
St. Mary s River
Spanish Harbour
Severn Sound
Collingwood
Harbour
Port
Hope
Metro
Toronto
Hamilton
Harbour
Menominee River
Saginaw River;
Saginaw Bay
Muskegon
Lake "St. Clair
White Lake River
Clinton River
Rouge River
oo River
River Raisin
Lower Green Bay
and Fox River
Milwaukee Estuary
Waukegan Harbor
Oswego River
Rochester Embayment
Eighteen Mile Creek
Niagara River
Buffalo River
Presque Isle Bay
Ashtabula River
Cuyahoga River
Black River
Grand Calumet River
Detroit River
Figure 7-3. Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs) (U.S. EPA, 2007c).
198
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Highlight
Residual Ballast Water and Sediments Pose Aquatic Nuisance
Species Threats to the Great Lakes Ecosystem
A 3-year, multi-institutional study (Johengen et al.,
2005) completed in 2005 characterized a previously
overlooked threat of nonindigenous aquatic species
introductions by foreign commercial shipping into the
Great Lakes ecosystem. The study was funded by the
Great Lakes Protection Fund, NOAA, EPA, and the
U.S. Coast Guard. The study examined both types of
ballast-related threats to the Great Lakes: the regulated
discharge of ballast water from vessels entering the Great
Lakes from foreign ports, and the unregulated discharge
from vessels that enter the Great Lakes with no ballast
on board (NOBOB). The project team included
scientists from NOAA, the University of Michigan,
the University of Windsor (Canada), Old Dominion
University, and the Smithsonian Institution, as well as a
ship-operations expert (Philip T. Jenkins and Associates,
Ltd.) from Canada.
NOBOB vessels are ships loaded to capacity with
cargo and therefore carry no declarable ballast on board;
however, these empty ballast tanks may hold residual
water and sediment containing live organisms, their
resting stages, and microorganisms, including human
pathogens. Once in the lakes, NOBOB vessels have to
ballast with Great Lakes water as they offload cargo,
allowing the water to mix with the foreign residuals in
the ballast tanks. As outbound cargo is subsequently loaded onto these ships, the mixed ballast water
containing the foreign residuals will be discharged. Ballast operations often occur at multiple ports
within the Lakes during any single overseas ship transit, providing several opportunities for foreign
organisms to be discharged. On average, about 90% of ocean-going ships entering the Great Lakes are
NOBOBs (Transport Canada, 2007) and are thus not covered by the ballast water exchange regulations
implemented in 1993 by the U.S. Coast Guard (58 FR 18330). These regulations require that pumpable
ballast water from foreign sources must be exchanged with open-ocean water and have a salinity
exceeding 30 ppt.
The results of three ballast water exchange experiments conducted within this study demonstrated that
exchange can be highly effective in reducing the concentration of organisms entrained with coastal ballast
water. Comparison across target taxa indicates that, in most cases, ballast water exchange efficacy was
> 90%. Results of experiments to determine the additional benefits of "salinity shock" (i.e., replacing low
salinity or freshwater ballast taken on in-port with open-ocean seawater) were highly variable, depending
on taxa and the form in which they are found in ballast tanks, and should be regarded with caution.
The study concluded that ballast water exchange is an imperfect, but generally beneficial management
practice in the absence of more effective and consistent treatment options (Johengen et al., 2005).
During the study (Johengen et al., 2005), researchers
found small bivalves, including zebra mussels such as
those shown above, in the residual ballast sediment
from several ships; however, the frequency and
abundance of these bivalves was generally low overall
(courtesy of the University of Michigan, Center for
Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences and the U.S. EPA
GLNPO).
200
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Ballast sampling includes collection of water
and sediment samples to examine the
diverse collection of phytoplankton and other
invertebrate fauna (courtesy of NOAA Great
Lakes NOBOB Assessment Program).
In another study, the team surveyed 103 NOBOB vessels
about their ballast management practices and boarded 42 of
those vessels to enter and sample residual water and sediment
in 82 ballast tanks (see photo). About one-third of the 103
surveyed vessels entered the Great Lakes with freshwater residual
ballast. Ships in this condition present the most serious threat
of inoculation of new freshwater organisms into the Great Lakes
ecosystem. The survey found the total amount of residuals (water
plus sediment) per ship ranged from negligible to 200 t, with
sediment accumulation generally averaging between 10—15 t
(Johengen et al., 2005).
Microbial pathogens and a diverse assemblage of
phytoplanton and invertebrate biota, including several species
not indigenous to the Great Lakes, were found in the residual
ballast water and sediments sampled. The presence of one or
more microbial pathogens was detected in 26 of the 42 ships
sampled, but the research method only determined presence, not
absolute concentrations, so the study cannot definitively assign
a human health risk. More than 80% of the samples produced
significant phytoplankton growth when inoculated in freshwater
media. From these grow-out experiments, 41 nonindigenous taxa
were reported, although concentrations tended to be < 5% of
the total in most trials. The density of invertebrate resting stages
in ship sediments was also examined. Seventy-six distinct taxa were hatched and identified from resting eggs
separated from sediment residuals, including 21 nonindigenous species (Johengen et al., 2005).
The study concluded that results of the microbial, phytoplankton, and invertebrate analyses confirm that
NOBOB vessels are vectors for the introduction of nonindigenous species to the Great Lakes Basin. Several
lines of evidence indicated a decrease in organism abundance in ballast residuals with increasing salinity of
residual water and/or flushing with open-ocean water. In addition, tanks that were regularly flushed with
small amounts of open-ocean water had, in general, accumulated or retained less sediment. These findings
suggest that regular flushing of the tanks with seawater may reduce (but not eliminate) the invasion risk
associated with residual ballast material in NOBOB ballast tanks (Johengen et al., 2005). In 2005, the
U.S. Coast Guard issued a new policy asking NOBOB vessels entering the Great Lakes to take steps as
appropriate to increase the salinity of their residual ballast water to > 30 ppt by saltwater flushing, if not by
ballast water exchange (70 FR 51831). In 2006, Canada began enforcing new regulations that all water in
ballast tanks of ships arriving from overseas (including the residual water in NOBOBs) must have a salinity
> 20 ppt, achieved by ballast water exchange or saltwater flushing, in order for those ships to discharge their
ballast water in the Great Lakes (SOR/2006-129 pursuant to section 657-1 of the Canada Shipping Act).
Although the study provided a more comprehensive scientific basis for developing new policies and for
identifying possible preventive measures and treatments, the authors recognized that managing the risk
posed by NOBOB vessels is a complex problem, and they suggested that such policies and solutions are
best developed by participation and cooperation among all involved constituencies, including regulatory
agencies, the scientific community, the shipping industry, and the public. New regulations must be carefully
considered and constructed to be practicable, enforceable, and verifiable, or they are likely to be ineffective
(Johengen et al., 2005).
National Coastal Condition Report
201
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Trends of Coastal Monitoring
Data—Great Lakes Region
The NCCRII rated the overall condition of
the Great Lakes as fair to poor for the period
1998 through 2000. No additional assessment
data for the Great Lakes were collected in
2001 and 2002, the time period of the current
report; therefore, the analysis of trends in
environmental condition estimates for the
Great Lakes cannot be made at this time.
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
Fishing in the Great Lakes region is a way of
life and a valued recreational and commercial
activity for many people. To protect citizens from
the risks of eating contaminated fish, the 8 states
bordering the Great Lakes had a total of 30 fish
consumption advisories in effect during 2003 for
the waters and connecting waters of the Great
Lakes. During 2003, every Great Lake had at least
one advisory, and advisories covered 100% of
the Great Lakes shoreline that year (Figure 7-6).
Michigan, which borders four of the five Great
Lakes and encompasses four of the six connecting
waterbodies, issued the largest number offish
consumption advisories (13) (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Great Lakes fish consumption advisories
were issued for six pollutants: mercury, mirex,
chlordane, dioxins, PCBs, and DDT. All of the
advisories listed PCBs, and one-half (50%) also
listed dioxins (Figure 7-7). Lake Superior, Lake
Michigan, and Lake Huron were under advisory for
at least four pollutants each in 2003 (Table 7-1);
however, some of the advisories were of limited
geographic extent, and advisories in most locations
were applied primarily to larger, older individual
fish high in the food web (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Fishing from shore (courtesy of U.S. EPA GLNPO).
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
I I No advisories
• 2-4
I I 5-9
I I Noncoastal
cataloging unit
Figure 7-6. The number of fish consumption advisories in effect in 2003 forthe U.S. Great Lakes
waters (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
202
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
PCBs (Total)
v Dioxin
1
.- Mercury
'c Chlordane
o
U
Mi rex
DDT
1
1
1
:
10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Total Number of Advisories
Listing Each Contaminant
Figure 7-7. Pollutants responsible for fish consumption
advisories in Great Lakes waters. An advisory can be
issued for more than one contaminant, so percentages
may add up to more than 100 (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
The Great Lakes have a long history of fishing activity, as
shown by this I 30-year old commercial fishing village in
Leland, Ml (courtesy of the Michigan Travel Bureau and
U.S. EPA GLNPO).
Table 7-1. Fish Advisories Issued for Contaminants in Each of the Great Lakes (U.S. EPA, 2004b)
Great Lakes
PCBs
Dioxins Mercury Chlordane
DDT
Mi rex
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
Species and/or groups under fish consumption advisory in 2003 for at least one of the Great Lakes or
their connecting waters:
American eel
Black crappie
Bloater
Blue catfish
Bluegill sunfish
Bowfin
Brook trout
Brown bullhead
Brown trout
Burbot
Channel catfish
Chinook salmon
Chub
Coho salmon
Common carp
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Lake herring
Lake sturgeon
Lake trout
Lake whitefish
Large mouth bass
Longnose sucker
Northern hogsucker
Northern pike
Pink salmon
Quillback carpsucker
Rain bow trout
Rock bass
Round goby
Silver redhorse
Siscowet trout
Smallmouth bass
Smelt
Splake trout
Steelhead trout
Walleye
White bass
White perch
r
White sucker
Yellow perch
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004b.
National Coastal Condition Report
203
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Beach Advisories and Closures
Of the 533 Great Lakes coastal beaches
reported to EPA, about 33-6% (179 beaches) were
closed or under an advisory for some period of
time in 2003- Table 7-2 presents the number of
beaches monitored and the number of beaches
that were closed or under advisory for each state.
The highest percentage of beaches closed or
under advisory occurred in Ohio, with 100% of
monitored beaches reporting at least one public
beach notification in 2003- Pennsylvania did
not report the number beaches monitored or
advisories/closures issued in 2003- Figure 7-8
presents advisory and closure percentages for each
county within each state (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Table 7-2. Number of Beaches Monitored and Beaches With Advisories/Closures in 2003 for Great Lakes
Coastal States (U.S. EPA, 2006c)
State
No. of Beaches
Monitored
No. of Beaches With
Advisories/Closures
Percentage of Beaches Affected
by Advisories/C losu res
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
New York
TOTALS
27
I I I
46
25
276
20
Not reported
28
533
5
76
33
18
10
20
Not reported
17
179
18.5
68.5
71.7
72.0
3.6
100
Not reported
60.7
33.6
Percentage of Beaches
with Advisories/Closures
| | None
| 1 0.01-10.49
| | 10.50-50.49
I I 50.50-100.00
I I Not reported
Figure 7-8. Percentage of monitored beaches with advisories or closures, by county, for the Great
Lakes region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
204
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Most beach advisories and closures were
implemented at coastal beaches along the
Great Lakes because of elevated bacteria levels
(Figure 7-9)- Some beaches had multiple
sources of waterborne bacteria that resulted
in advisories or closures. Figure 7-10 shows
that unknown sources accounted for 89%
of the responses (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Preemptive Closure
(Rainfall)
4%-. r Preemptive Closure
(Sewage)
2%
Other 2%
Wildlife 2%
Sewer Line Problem 2%
Sanitary Sewer Overflow I %
Stormwater Runoff 4%
Unknown 89%
Other
2%
Figure 7-10. Sources of beach contamination resulting
in beach advisories or closures for the Great Lakes
region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Elevated Bacteria
92%
Figure 7-9. Reasons for beach advisories or closures for
the Great Lakes region (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Lake Michigan beach near Elberta, Ml (courtesy of the Michigan Travel Bureau and U.S. EPA GLNPO).
National Coastal Condition Report
205
-------
Chapter 7 | Great Lakes Coastal Condition
Summary
Although the Great Lakes has an extensive monitoring network with
respect to objectives, design, and approaches, Great Lakes monitoring
is not directly comparable with monitoring done by the NCA for
estuarine and coastal waters. For example, GLNPO monitoring sites are
at locations selected according to best scientific judgment to represent
the overall condition of the Great Lakes, whereas the NCA survey
monitoring sites are at locations selected using a probabilistic sampling
design to yield direct, representative estimates of overall condition with
known levels of uncertainty. Consequently, coastal condition spatial
estimates that are consistent and comparable with those prepared for the
marine coastal regions surveyed by NCA cannot be calculated for the
Great Lakes. Instead, the best professional judgment of knowledgeable
scientists was used to assess the overall status of eight ecosystem
components in relation to established endpoints or ecosystem objectives,
when available. The Great Lakes were rated fair to poor using available
assessment information. Future reports in the NCCR series will use the
NCCR I and subsequent reports as a baseline for the overall health of
the Great Lakes to determine if conditions improve in the future as a
result of management and control strategies. The results of these future
assessments will be used as a basis to compare and integrate the overall
condition of the Great Lakes with other coastal resources in this report.
Contamination in the Great Lakes has affected human uses of these
waters. In 2003, there were 30 fish consumption advisories covering
100% of the shoreline of the Great Lakes. All of these advisories
were issued for PCB contamination (alone or in conjunction with
other contaminants). In addition, 33-6% of the region's monitored
beaches were closed or under advisory for some period of time
during 2003- Elevated bacteria levels in the region's coastal waters
were primarily responsible for the beach closures and advisories.
' ' 206
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER 8
Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Island Territories
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Island Territories
Currently, very little routine monitoring of
coastal resources occurs in Alaska, Hawaii, and
the island territories of the Pacific or Caribbean
regions. EPA Regions 2 (Puerto Rico and U.S.
Virgin Islands), 9 (Hawaii, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), and 10
(Alaska), as well as the attendant state natural
resource agencies, conduct some water quality
monitoring, but it is often irregular and focused on
specific locations or site-specific pollution problems.
No consistent monitoring programs cover all of
the coastal resources in these states, territories,
and commonwealths. Efforts conducted through
EPA's NCA are starting to fill this void for Alaska
(ongoing), Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa; however, no
plans are currently in place to survey conditions
associated with the Northern Mariana Islands.
This chapter briefly describes the surveys and
presents the assessment findings from monitoring
conducted in Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii
during 2002. The southeastern region of Alaska
was surveyed in 2004, and an assessment of the
vast Aleutian Islands region of Alaska began in
the summer of 2006, with field work completed
during the summer of 2007- Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa were
assessed in 2004—2005, and Hawaii was resurveyed
in 2006; however, the results of these assessments
were not available for inclusion in this report.
The NCA monitoring data used in this
report were based on single-day
measurements collected at sites
throughout the United States during a
9- to 12-week period in late summer.
Data were not collected during other
time periods.
Alaska
The overall condition of Southcentral Alaska's
coastal waters is rated good, based on three of the
indices assessed by the NCA (Figure 8-1). The
water quality, sediment quality, and fish tissue
contaminants indices for Southcentral Alaska
are each rated good, and the NCA was unable to
evaluate the benthic and coastal habitat indices
for this region. Figure 8-2 provides a summary
of the percentage of coastal area in good, fair,
poor, or missing categories for each index and
component indicator. This assessment is based
on environmental stressor and response data
collected from 55 locations along Southcentral
Alaska's coastline in 2002. Please refer to Chapter
1 for information about how these assessments
were made, the criteria used to develop the
rating for each index and component indicator,
and limitations of the available data.
Overall Condition
Southcentral Alaska
Coastal Waters (5.0)
Water Quality Index (5)
Sediment Quality Index (5)
Benthic Index (Missing)
Coastal Habitat Index
(Missing)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (5)
Figure 8-1. The overall condition of Southcentral
Alaska's coastal waters is rated good (U.S. EPA/NCA).
210
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
20 40 60 80 100
Percent Coastal Area
Good Fair Poor
Missing
Figure 8-2. Percentage of coastal area achieving each
ranking for all indices and component indicators-
Southcentral Alaska (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Alaska has a marine shoreline length of
approximately 45,000 miles, constituting more
than 50% of total U.S. coastline miles. The surface
area of coastal bays and estuaries in Alaska is
33,211 mi2. Much of the southeast and southcentral
coast of Alaska is very convoluted, and contains
of hundreds of bays, estuaries, coves, fjords, and
other coastal features. In addition, most of Alaska's
extensive coastline is inaccessible by road, which
makes a statewide coastal monitoring program both
extremely difficult and expensive.
Alaska's coastal resources are often thought to be
in pristine or near-pristine condition due to Alaska's
low population density, the distance between most
of its coastline and major urban or industrial areas,
and the state's limited agriculture activities. Some
contaminant concentrations have indeed been
measured as having levels significantly lower than
those in the rest of the coastal United States. For
example, recent sampling of both commercial and
subsistence fish for contaminants by the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
showed that organochlorine levels are very low
(Alaska DEC, 2007). However, contaminants such
as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and mercury
have been observed accumulating in the Alaska
marine food web, raising ecological and human
health concerns (AMAP, 2004a; 2004b). In a recent
report, POPs were identified as a particular concern
in Alaska, in part because of the subsistence lifestyle
of many Native Alaskan communities (Chary, 2000).
Although localized pollution sources exist
in Alaska, long-range atmospheric and oceanic
transport from more-developed population and
industrial centers are believed to be responsible
for the majority of the contaminants deposited in
Alaska. In addition, the state's coastal environment
may represent long-term sinks for POPs and
mercury due to the processes of cold condensation
and the polar solar sunrise effect (AMAP, 2004a;
2004b). For example, even though this region
has a low human population density, Steller
sea lions and sea otters in the Aleutian Islands
exhibit high levels of POPs and methylmercury
than do specimens from other regions, such
as California and southeastern Alaska (Bacon
et al., 1999; Barren et al., 2003). Overall, the
Arctic, including Alaska's coastal arctic region,
is now seen as a potential sink for significant
amounts of bioavailable mercury (Ebinghaus
et al., 2004). Rapid economic development in
Asia coupled with the long-range atmospheric
transport of contaminants suggests the potential for
increasing levels of some contaminants in Alaska
(Wright et al., 2000; AMAP, 2004a; 2004b).
Prince William Sound, AK (courtesy of Commander John
Bortniak, NOAA).
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Between 1980 and 2003, coastal counties
along the Alaskan Coast showed the largest rate of
population increase (63%) of any coastal region in
the entire United States. In addition, the population
of Matanuska-Susitna County grew by more than
200%, which was the third-largest population
change in the nation over that period of time.
Figure 8-3 presents population data for Alaskan
coastal counties since 1980 (Crossett et al., 2004).
600
•O
C
500
400'
•a 300
200
mi
$
8
o
U
100
1980
1990
2000
Year
2003
2008
Figure 8-3. Actual and estimated population of coastal
counties in Alaska from 1980 to 2008 (Crossett et al.,
2004).
Coastal Monitoring Data—
Status of Coastal Condition
In 2001, the NCA developed a sampling design
in conjunction with the Alaska DEC and EPA
Region 10 to assess all of the coastal resources in
Alaska by monitoring 250 sites spread throughout
the state. Because of the geographic expanse of
Alaska, the reduced sampling window in Arctic
regions, and the unique fiscal and logistical
challenges of sampling the state's coastal resources, it
was not feasible to survey the entire state at a single
point in time. The NCA, EPA Region 10, Alaska
DEC, and other state natural resource agencies
determined that the sampling design for Alaska
would be executed in five phases—Southcentral
Alaska, Southeastern Alaska, the Aleutian Islands,
the Bering Sea, and the Beaufort Sea (Figure 8-4).
Each sampling phase surveys one of these five
areas, and the target schedule for the completion
of statewide surveys is 5 to 10 years. Before this
collaboration between Alaska's resource agencies
and EPA, the Alaska DEC routinely assessed only
about 1% of the state's coastal resources, focusing
its efforts on waterbodies known or suspected to be
impaired (Alaska DEC, 1999). In June 2005, the
Alaska DEC released its Water Quality Monitoring
Alaska Monitoring and Assessment
Program (AKMAP)
NCA Biogeographical Provinces
Beaufort Sea
Not yet scheduled.
Bering Sea
Not yet scheduled.
Aluetian Islands
Field work completed 2006-2007.
\
Southeastern Alaska
Field work completed 2004.
Southcentral Alaska
Field work completed 2002.
Figure 8-4. Five Alaskan provinces used in the NCA sampling design (Alaska DEC, Division ofWater).
212
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
and Assessment Strategy and Environmental
Monitoring & Assessment Program Implementation
Strategy to guide its stewardship of Alaska's marine
and freshwater resources (Alaska DEC, 2005b;
2005a).
In 2002, Alaska's southcentral coast (Alaskan
Province) was selected as the first portion of the
state to be assessed by the NCA because of the
importance of this area's major estuarine resources
(Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet) to aquatic
living resources and to local and state economies.
Due to the long distances between sites (even in
this reduced area), the surveys were conducted
using a large (100-foot), ocean-going research
vessel equipped with a powered skiff for shallow-
water work. The survey collected data at sites with
approximate depths ranging from 13 to 1,155
feet. Many of the shallowest stations occurred in
nearshore areas of Cook Inlet, which is known for
wide intertidal depth fluctuations and extensive
sediment depositional zones. The deepest stations
were located in Prince William Sound. A report
on the 2002 sampling effort in southcentral Alaska
was produced by Alaska DEC (Saupe et al., 2005).
The environmental index and component
indicator data collected during the survey of the
southcentral region correspond to the parameters
that will be collected in future surveys of the other
regions. Alaska's southeastern coast (Juneau and the
island passage area) was assessed by NCA in 2004,
and a draft report on the results of this survey will
be produced in 2008.
The sampling conducted in the EPA NCA
survey has been designed to estimate the
percent of coastal area (nationally or in a
region) in varying conditions and is displayed as
pie diagrams. Many of the figures in this report
illustrate environmental measurements made
at specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the value
of the index specifically at the time of sampling.
Additional sampling would be required to
define temporal variability and to confirm
environmental condition at specific locations.
Water Quality Index
The water quality index for the coastal waters of
Southcentral Alaska is rated good. This index was
developed based on measurement of five component
indicators: DIN, DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity,
and dissolved oxygen. Most (88%) of the coastal
area was rated good for water quality condition,
with the remainder of the area rated fair (Figure 8-
5). Fair conditions were largely due to elevated DIP
concentrations or low water clarity measurements,
both of which are likely the result of naturally
occurring conditions and not human influences.
Southcentral Alaska Water Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number of component indicators
in poor or fair condition.
O Good = No more than I is fair
O Fair = I is poor or 2 or more are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
O Missing
Figure 8-5. Water quality index data for Southcentral Alaska's coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report III
213
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
DIN concentrations in the coastal waters of
Southcentral Alaska are rated good, with 100%
of the coastal area rated good for this component
indicator. DIP concentrations are rated fair for
Southcentral Alaska's coastal waters, with 66%
of the coastal area rated fair. The DIP levels
may be of natural origin, based on historic data
that suggest that seasonal upwelling brings in
deeper, DIP-rich Gulf of Alaska waters into
the lower waters of Cook Inlet. This seasonal
supply of nutrients may account for the high
productivity rates measured in late summer,
which result in some of the most productive
high-latitude shelf waters in the world (Larrance
et al., 1977; Sambrotto and Lorenzen, 1986).
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a concentrations in Southcentral
Alaska's coastal waters are rated good, with 100%
of the coastal area rated good for this component
indicator. Although no areas of Southcentral Alaska
showed high concentrations of water column
chlorophyll a, this may not indicate low, land-based
loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus. Many Alaskan
waters have large intertidal areas, so nutrient
utilization by benthic algae may be of greater
importance than nutrient uptake by phytoplankton;
however, data are not currently available to address
this issue.
Water Clarity
Water clarity in the coastal waters of Southcentral
Alaska is rated fair, with 12% of the coastal area
rated poor for this component indicator. Water
clarity was rated poor at a sampling site if light
penetration at 1 meter was less than 10% of
surface illumination. The coastal area rated poor
represents only four sites, which were located in
the Upper Cook Inlet area. At these sites, very high
loadings of glacial river sediments occur during
the summer peak-flow period. Three of the area's
primary glacial rivers (the Knik, Matanuska, and
Susitna rivers) have a combined peak discharge of
about 24 million gallons/second in July and August
and contribute, on average, more than 250,000
pounds of suspended sediment per day to Upper
Cook Inlet (MMS, 1995). These waters then mix
with the more saline waters in Cook Inlet and flow
along the western edge of the Inlet to the Shelikof
Strait. Thus, the low levels of light penetration
observed at the four sampling sites are indicative of
naturally occurring conditions representing summer
high-flow inputs of suspended sediments at the
time of sampling. During the period of low flow
in the winter, glacial river inputs and suspended
sediment loadings significantly decrease. In
addition, the large tidal amplitude occurring along
the Southcentral Alaska coast may contribute to the
re-suspension of deposited glacial river sediments.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in the coastal waters
of Southcentral Alaska are rated good, with 100%
of the coastal area rated good for this component
indicator. Although conditions in the Southcentral
Alaska region appear to be generally good for
dissolved oxygen, measured values reflect daytime
conditions, and it is possible that some areas may
still experience hypoxic conditions at night.
Sediment Quality Index
The sediment quality index for the coastal waters
of Southcentral Alaska is rated good, with only
1% of the coastal area rated poor (Figure 8-6).
The sediment quality index was calculated based
on measurements of three component indicators:
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and
sediment TOC. There were very few instances where
any of the component indicators were rated either
fair or poor.
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment toxicity for Southcentral Alaska's
coastal waters is rated good, with only 1% of the
coastal area rated poor. Sediment toxicity was
determined using a static, 10-day acute toxicity test
with the amphipod Ampelisca abdita. Although use
ofAmpelisca standardizes the sediment toxicity test
within the EMAP/NCA process, this test may or
may not reflect the actual response of the specific
benthic organisms indigenous to Southcentral
Alaska. The State of Alaska has yet to select
specific benthic species for use in sediment toxicity
studies, but considers the EMAP work important
214
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
in supporting future efforts to develop a sediment
toxicity test for Alaska. One of the sites rated poor
for sediment toxicity also had the highest chromium
and nickel concentrations of any of the sites sampled
in Southcentral Alaska during this survey. These
trace metals are likely elevated due to the historic
chromium-mining operations in the vicinity of this
site. The other site rated poor for sediment toxicity
exhibited the highest percent TOC measurement
(6.43%) of any NCA site sampled in Southcentral
Alaska. These elevated TOC measurements were
influenced by the large amount of decomposing
eelgrass mixed in with this sediment sample.
Elevated trace metal and TOC levels have been
shown to be detrimental to some benthic organisms.
Guidelines for Assessing Sediment
Contamination (Long et al., 1995)
ERM (Effects Range Median)—Determined
for each chemical as the 50th percentile
(median) in a database of ascending
concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
ERL (Effects Range Low)—Determined
values for each chemical as the I Oth
percentile in a database of ascending
concentrations associated with adverse
biological effects.
Sediment Contaminants
The coastal waters of Southcentral Alaska
are rated good for sediment contaminant
concentrations, with 1% of the coastal area
rated poor and 2% of the area rated fair for this
component indicator. It should be noted that this
evaluation of sediment contamination excluded
nickel because the ERM value for this metal has a
low reliability for areas of the West Coast, where
high natural crustal concentrations of nickel exist
(Long et al., 1995). A study of metal concentrations
in cores collected along the West Coast determined
the range of historic background concentrations of
nickel to be 35—70 ppm (Lauenstein et al., 2000),
which brackets the value of the ERM (51.6 ppm).
Some researchers have also suggested that West
Coast crustal concentrations for mercury may be
naturally elevated; however, no conclusive evidence
is available to support this suggestion. Therefore,
mercury data were not excluded from this
assessment of Southcentral Alaska's coastal waters.
In addition, only one exceedance was counted if
a site exceeded the ERL for low molecular weight
PAHs, high molecular weight PAHs, and/or total
PAHs to ensure that the analysis was not biased by
PAHs. The site rated poor was located in Chrome
Bay and exhibited elevated levels of chromium.
The site rated fair was located in Prince William
Sound, where elevated levels of metals (chromium,
copper, zinc) and individual PAHs were detected.
Southcentral Alaska Sediment Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number and condition of component
indicators.
O Good = None are poor, and sediment contaminants
is good
O Fair = None are poor, and sediment contaminants
is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Fair
Poor
Figure 8-6. Sediment quality index data for Southcentral Alaska's coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
215
-------
Highlight
The NCA Survey of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, 2006-2007
Within the region known as the "Cradle of Storms," the Aleutian Islands stretch over a 1,180-
mile span of ocean, jutting westward from the Alaska Peninsula to form an arc that separates the
North Pacific Ocean from the Bering Sea. The Aleutian Islands are the exposed peaks of a submerged
mountain range. Along the southern edge of the island arc is a curving submarine trench, which has
depths as great as 24,930 feet and extends across the North Pacific for 1,990 miles from the Gulf of
Alaska to Kamchatka Peninsula. The Aleutian Islands rose from the volcanic activity caused by the
convergence of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates. Today, this region is one of the most
seismically and volcanically active regions in the world, and new islands are still being created.
The marine environment around the Aleutian Islands consists of highly productive, biologically
diverse marine ecosystems. Significant upwelling occurs in this region, bringing nutrients to the
surface and creating a green belt of high levels of primary and secondary production along the
Aleutian Arc. As a consequence, numerous species offish, mollusks, crustaceans, birds, and marine
mammals live in this region. Fisheries harvests in this region provide more than 50% of the nation's
total harvest and around 10% of the global marine harvest offish and shellfish (Alaska DCED,
2003). The Aleutian Islands are also within the major migratory pathways of many of the food species
(e.g., fish, marine mammals) used for subsistence by the Aleut Natives.
Although the Aleutians may seem remote, numerous portions of the islands have been
contaminated with petroleum products, as well as with PCBs and several heavy metals. Many
contaminated sites originated with World War II and subsequent Cold War activities. For example,
Amchitka Island, which is located mid-way along the Aleutian Arc, was the site the United States'
largest underground nuclear tests, and leakage of radionuclides from this nuclear testing into
the marine environment remains a long-term concern. International shipping activities may also
contribute contaminants to the environment. In 2004, the M/V Selendang Ayu lost an estimated
321,052 gallons of
intermediate fuel oil and
14,680 gallons of marine
diesel fuel, in addition to
its cargo of approximately
60,000 tons of soybeans,
into the marine
environment (Alaska
DEC, 2006). Hundreds
of ships a year travel along
a major Pacific shipping
route between the West
Coast and Asia through
the Aleutian Island chain.
As the Arctic ice pack
recedes due to climate
change, a major increase
in shipping through this
region is expected to occur
The Aleutian Islands host the largest nesting population of seabirds in North
America (courtesy of FWS).
216
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
as the northern sea routes open up for longer periods. Increased shipping traffic has the potential for
increasing environmental impacts. In addition, pollutants from Pacific Rim countries are delivered to
the Aleutians by the wind and ocean currents and pose potential threats to the marine ecosystem.
To complete the NCA survey of the Aleutian Islands personnel from the Alaska DEC served in
the lead role, and support was provided from personnel from the University of Alaska Fairbanks
and other state and federal agencies. The Aleutian component of the NCA survey is based on a
combination of the procedures and methods of the NCA coupled with specialized methods for
sampling hard- bottom habitats. The specialized methods were first developed for the 2002 NCA
assessment in Hawaii (Nelson et al., 2007). A total of 50 randomly selected sites (see map) between
the 0 and 60-foot depth contours sampled during the summers of 2006 and 2007 (25 sites per
year). The 2-year duration period for the sampling effort was dictated by the long cruising distances
between sampling stations and the difficult logistics of sampling in the Aleutian Islands.
The extent and effects of numerous anthropogenic stressors, ranging from impacts of commercial
fisheries to invasive species, need to be understood if resource managers are to preserve and protect
the ecological diversity of this coastal resource. The NCA survey in the Aleutian Islands will provide
the Alaska DEC with the ability to assess the current ecological status and, as future assessments are
completed, to assess trends in contaminant levels and ecosystem changes in the region.
(P
o
Alaska
Aleutian Province NCA
Sampling Design
O
String Sot
o
o
o
O O
Sampling Locations
O Base Site
Pacific Ocean
Sampling locations forthe 2006-2007 NCA survey of the Aleutian Islands (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
217
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Sediment TOC
The coastal waters of Southcentral Alaska are
rated good for the sediment TOC component
indicator. One site, representing about 1% of
the area of the Southcentral Alaska's coastal
waters, was rated poor. The poor rating at this
site was influenced by the large amount of
decomposing eelgrass present in this sediment
sample. Another 7% of the coastal area was
rated fair. These sites are spatially separated,
span a range of depths, and presumably contain
elevated levels of organic matter deposited from
natural rather than anthropogenic sources.
Benthic Index
The benthic index for the coastal waters of
Southcentral Alaska could not be evaluated.
Although several efforts are underway and indices
of benthic community condition have been
developed for some regions of the West Coast (e.g.:
Smith et al., 1998), there is currently no benthic
community index applicable for Southcentral
Alaska. In lieu of a benthic index for Southcentral
Alaska, the deviation of species richness from an
estimate of expected species richness was used
as an approximate indicator of the condition of
the benthic community. This approach requires
that species richness be predicted from salinity,
and, in the case of the Southcentral Alaska
survey data, the regression was not significant.
Coastal Habitat Index
Although estimates of habitat loss are
available for Alaska as a whole, data were not
available to correspond with the geographic
region sampled by the NCA survey; therefore,
a coastal habitat index could not be calculated
for the coastal waters of Southcentral Alaska.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The fish tissue contaminants index for the coastal
waters of Southcentral Alaska is rated good. Two
percent of the stations where fish were caught
were rated fair due to mercury concentrations
within the range of concern (Figure 8-7). This
percentage represented one composite sample
made up of three fish from one sampling station.
Southcentral Alaska Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Site Criteria: EPA Guidance concentration
O Good = Below Guidance range
O Fair = Falls within Guidance range
• Poor = Exceeds Guidance range
Figure 8-7. Fish tissue contaminants index data for Southcentral Alaska's coastal waters (U.S. EPA/
NCA).
218
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Snow-covered mountains meet the sea near Girdwood,
AK (courtesy of Dave LaForest).
Trends of Coastal Monitoring
Data—Southcentral Alaska
The 2002 NCA survey of Southcentral Alaska
coastal waters was the first probabilistic survey of its
kind in the state. Historically, coastal assessments
have focused on areas of known or suspected
impairment to examine the impacts of natural
resource extraction activities, such as mining or
oil exploration and production. One large-scale
assessment occurring before resource development
was the Alaska Outer Continental Shelf
Environmental Assessment Program, conducted by
NOAA in the 1970s. A large amount of physical,
chemical, and biological data were collected
through this program. Although much of these
data remain difficult to locate, a summary may be
found in Hood and Zimmerman (1986). Numerous
assessments have also been conducted along the
portion of Alaska's coastline affected by the Exxon
Valdez oil spill in 1989, and this area continues to
be monitored. In addition, several programs have
provided an assessment of contaminants in Alaska
as part of larger national assessments. For example,
NOAA's NS&T Program analyzed contaminants in
sediments and demersal (bottom-dwelling) fish at
several sites along Alaska's coast as part of its Benthic
Surveillance Program and measured contaminants
in intertidal mussels and sediments as part of its
Mussel Watch Program. Due to a lack of comparable
data in the region, trends could not be evaluated for
Southcentral Alaska's coastal waters at this time.
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries—Gulf of Alaska and
East Bering Sea LMEs
Alaska is surrounded by 4 sub-arctic LMEs
(Figure 8-8). The Beaufort Sea LME is located off
the northern coast of Alaska and stretches eastward
into Canadian waters. West of the Beaufort Sea LME
is the Chukchi Sea LME, which is located off the
northwest coast of Alaska and extends westward to the
northeast coast of Siberia in Russia. The East Bering
Sea LME, which is located off the west coast of Alaska,
extends from the Bering Strait, through the Bering
Sea, and southward into the Pacific Ocean. Alaska's
southern coast is bordered by the Gulf of Alaska
LME, which extends along the coastline from the
Alaska Peninsula southward through Canada to the
northwestern coast of Washington (NOAA, 2007g).
Only the fisheries in the East Bering Sea and Gulf
of Alaska LMEs will be discussed in this chapter.
The East Bering Sea LME is considered to have
moderately high productivity based on estimates
of primary production (phytoplankton). The
LME is characterized by a wide shelf and has
historically had seasonal ice cover of up to 80%
in March (NOAA, 2007g). More recent winter
temperatures have been above the freezing point,
indicating little or no sea ice in the southeastern
East Bering Sea LME between 2000 and 2004
(NOAA, 2007a). Accompanying this change is a
shift in the trophic structure of the ecosystem, with
walrus population centers moving northward with
the ice and an eastward extension in the movement
of Alaska pollock (Overland and Stabeno, 2004).
National Coastal Condition Report
219
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Relevant Large Marine Ecosystems
Associated U.S. land masses
Figure 8-8. Alaska is surrounded by 4 LMEs (NOAA, 2007g).
Recruitment responses of many East Bering
Sea LME fish and crabs are linked to decadal-
scale patterns of climate variability. Decadal-scale
changes in the recruitment of some flatfish species
in the East Bering Sea LME appear to be related
to patterns seen in atmospheric forcing. The Arctic
Oscillation and Aleutian Low are two examples
of atmospheric forcing in this LME. The Arctic
Oscillation tracks the variability in atmospheric
pressure at the polar region and mid-latitudes
and tends to vary between negative and positive
phases on a decadal scale. The negative phase brings
higher-than-normal pressure over the polar region,
and the positive phase does the opposite, steering
ocean storms farther north. In winter, these patterns
in atmospheric condition may influence surface
wind patterns that transport fish larvae on or off
the continental shelf. The recruitment (addition
of a new generation of young fish) of some species
(e.g., Bering Sea herring, walleye pollock, and
Pacific cod) shows interannual variability that
appears more related to climate variability. Years
of strong onshore transport, typical of warm years
220
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
and the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation in
this LME, correspond with strong recruitment of
walleye pollock, possibly due to separation of young
fish from cannibalistic adults. Alaskan salmon
also exhibit decadal-scale patterns in production,
and these patterns are inversely related to salmon
production patterns in the California Current
LME (discussed in Chapter 6). An Aleutian Low
is a low-pressure cell located near the Aleutian
Islands, and strength variations in this cell can
affect wind directions and larvae transportation
patterns. For example, periods of strong Aleutian
Lows are associated with weak recruitment for
some East Bering Sea LME crab species and are
unrelated to recruitment of others, depending on
species-specific life-history traits. Winds from the
northeast favor retention of crab larvae in offshore
mud habitats that serve as suitable nursery areas
for young Tanner crabs to burrow in sediment for
protection (Livingston and Wilderbuer, 2007).
Winds from the opposite direction promote the
inshore transport of crab larvae to coarse, shallow-
water habitats in inner Bristol Bay, which serve
as nursery areas for red king crabs to find refuge
among biogenic structures (Rosenkranz et al., 1998;
2001; Livingston and Wilderbuer, 2007). The
timing and composition of the plankton blooms
may also be important because red king crab larvae
prefer to consume diatoms (phytoplankton),
whereas Tanner crab larvae prefer copepod nauplii
(zooplankton) (Livingston and Wilderbuer, 2007).
Similar to the East Bering Sea LME, the Gulf
of Alaska LME is sensitive to climate variations
on time scales ranging from interannual to
interdecadal. These variations and large-scale
atmospheric and oceanographic conditions have
an effect on the overall productivity of the LME,
including plankton production and plankton
species composition. The Gulf of Alaska LME
presents a significant upwelling phenomenon linked
to the Alaska Current and is considered a highly
productive ecosystem based on primary productivity
estimates. Changes in zooplankton biomass have
been observed in both the Gulf of Alaska LME
and the California Current LME directly to
the south. These biomass changes appear to be
inversely related to each other (NOAA, 2007g).
Salmon Fisheries
The abundance index for Pacific salmon is
currently high in the Gulf of Alaska LME. The
contributing factors to the high abundance
index include (1) habitats with minimal impacts
from extensive development, (2) favorable ocean
conditions that promote high survival rates of
juveniles, (3) improved management of the fisheries
by state and federal agencies, (4) elimination of
high-seas drift net fisheries by foreign nations,
(5) hatchery production, and (6) reduction of
bycatch in fisheries for other finfish species.
Quality spawning and nursery habitat, favorable
oceanic conditions, and sufficient numbers of
spawning fish are most likely the paramount
factors affecting current abundance levels. Alaska
salmon management continues to focus on
maintaining pristine habitats and ensuring adequate
escapements; however, ocean conditions that favored
high marine survival rates in recent years can
fluctuate due to interdecadal climate oscillations.
Recent evidence indicates that a change in the
ocean conditions of the northern Pacific Ocean
and the Gulf of Alaska LME may be underway,
possibly reflecting the downturn in the abundance
index for Alaska salmon runs observed in 1996 and
1997- Historic commercial landings show a distinct
cyclic pattern of alternating high and low harvests,
often lasting decades. Much of this fluctuation
is now believed to be due to interdecadal climate
oscillations in the ocean environment that affect the
marine survival of juveniles. A pattern associated
Chinook salmon (courtesy of USGS).
National Coastal Condition Report
221
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
with Alaska's cyclic salmon harvest appears to
be inversely related to abundance patterns for
California Current LME salmon (NMFS, In press).
All five species of Alaska salmon (pink, sockeye,
chum, coho, and Chinook) are fully utilized, and
stocks in most regions of the Gulf of Alaska and
East Bering Sea LMEs have rebuilt to near or
beyond previous high levels. Although there has
been a high abundance index for salmon in these
LMEs, there are issues of serious concern for salmon
stocks, especially for some species and regions.
For example, stocks in western Alaska, especially
Chinook and chum salmon, have generally been
at depressed levels since the mid-1990s. Some
of the same issues implicated in the declines of
California Current LME salmon stocks are also
of concern in certain areas of Alaska. These issues
include overfishing, incidental take of salmon as
bycatch in other fisheries, and loss of freshwater
spawning and rearing habitats (NMFS, In press).
Alaska commercial salmon harvests generally
have increased during the past three decades. After
reaching record-low catch levels in the 1970s, most
populations rebounded, and fisheries in recent years
have been at or near all-time peak levels in many
regions of the Gulf of Alaska and East Bering Sea
LMEs. The record-high commercial landings of
218 million salmon in 1995 were 17% higher than
the previous record of 196 million salmon in 1994.
Beach seining for juvenile pink and chum salmon (courtesy of
NOAA.Auke Bay Laboratories).
Throughout the mid-to-late 1990s, recreational
and subsistence fishermen harvested between 2
and 3 million salmon annually (NMFS, In press).
Pelagic Fisheries
Pacific herring is the major pelagic (water-
column-dwelling) species harvested in the Gulf of
Alaska and East Bering Sea LMEs. These fisheries
occur in specific inshore spawning areas. In the Gulf
of Alaska LME, spawning fish concentrate mainly
off of southeast Alaska in Prince William Sound
and around the Kodiak Island-Cook Inlet area. In
the East Bering Sea LME, the centers of abundance
are in northern Bristol Bay and Norton Sound.
The Gulf of Alaska LME herring industry
began as early as 1878, when 30,000 pounds were
marketed for human consumption. The fishery
expanded rapidly in the late 1800s and early 1900s,
with markets shifting from salt-cured herring to
reduction products for fishmeal and oil. By 1934,
the catch from the Gulf of Alaska LME alone had
reached a record 140,000 t. The East Bering Sea
LME fishery began in the late 1920s, initially with
a small salt-cure plant in Dutch Harbor. A large,
foreign offshore fishery developed in the 1950s.
Catches in this LME peaked in 1970 at over
145,000 t and then fell off sharply to 16,000 t in
1975- Since 1977, East Bering Sea LME herring
have been harvested primarily in inshore sac roe
fisheries, and catches have risen slowly, but steadily,
since that time. A portion of the East Bering Sea
LME harvest is taken as bycatch in the offshore
federally managed demersal fish fishery. Retention
of herring in these fisheries is prohibited, with
regulations limiting herring bycatch to no more
than about 1,000 t annually (NMFS, In press).
Currently, the herring stocks in both LMEs
remain at moderate levels and are in relatively stable
condition, with the exception of populations in
the Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet areas.
Populations of Prince William Sound herring
continue to be depressed from a disease outbreak
in 1993- In more recent years, Alaska herring
harvests have averaged about 35,000 t, with a
value of around $10 million (NMFS, In press).
222
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Demersal Fish Fisheries
The demersal fish complex is the most abundant
of all fishery resources in the Gulf of Alaska and the
East Bering Sea LMEs, with an estimated biomass
of more than 26.4 million t. From 1999 to 2001,
demersal fish catches from these LMEs averaged
1.8 million t. Prior to 1976, the only demersal fish
species of significant commercial value to domestic
fisheries was Pacific halibut, with foreign fisheries
harvesting most other targeted commercial species.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act extended federal fisheries
management jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles
offshore and stimulated the growth of a domestic
Alaskan demersal fish fishery that rapidly replaced
the foreign fisheries. Much of the demersal fish
catches are exported, particularly to Asia, and such
trade contributes prominently as a major source
of revenue for U.S. fishermen (NMFS, In press).
Demersal fish biomass in the East Bering Sea
LME has been maintained at relatively high levels
since implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. Walleye pollock produce the largest catch of
any single species inhabiting the EEZ. The recent
average yield for East Bering Sea LME (including
the Aleutian Islands) demersal fish from 2001-2003
was just over 1.9 million t, compared to the 1997
catch of 1.74 million t. The dominant species
harvested were walleye pollock (76%), Pacific cod
(10%), yellowfin sole (4%), Atka mackerel (3%),
and rock sole (2%). The Eastern Bering Sea LME
stock can be considered to be slightly underutilized
because its catch quota has been reduced from
the full current yield to reduce the risk of
overfishing and to mitigate the food competition
with species that prey on pollock, including
marine birds and the threatened and endangered
Steller sea lion populations (NMFS, In press).
The demersal fish abundance index for the Gulf
of Alaska LME has increased since 1977, peaking at
an estimated biomass of 5-3 million t in 1982 and
1988, and most recently, at 5-49 million t in 1997-
Since then, the estimated biomass has remained
relatively stable, fluctuating between about 4 and
5 million t. The recent average yield for Gulf of
Alaska LME demersal fish was nearly 200,000 t
for 2001-2003- Gulf of Alaska LME demersal
fish catches have ranged from a low of 129,640 t
in 1978 to a high of 352,800 t in 1984. Demersal
fish catches are dominated by walleye pollock,
followed by Pacific cod, flatfish, and rockfish.
Since 1989, demersal fish catches have fluctuated
around 200,000 t. The pollock abundance index
increased dramatically during the 1970s, peaked
in the mid-1980s, and subsequently declined. The
current abundance index is similar to stock size
in the early 1970s. Current evidence suggests that
extreme variation in the pollock abundance index
is primarily a result of environmental forcing.
Pollock are carefully managed due to concerns
about fishery impacts on the endangered and
threatened populations of Steller sea lions because
pollock is a major prey item of Steller sea lions
in the Gulf of Alaska LME. Sea lion protection
measures include closed areas around rookeries and
"haul outs" (areas where sea lions rest onshore);
division of the western-central Gulf of Alaska LME
pollock total allowable catch over 3 years and four
seasons; and use of a more conservative harvest
policy to determine the acceptable biological catch.
The pollock stock in this area is considered fully
utilized, and Pacific cod stocks are considered
healthy and fully utilized. In general, flatfish stocks
are abundant, largely due to great increases in
arrowtooth flounder biomass, and underutilized due
to halibut bycatch considerations. Rockfish (e.g.,
slope rockfish, pelagic shelf rockfish, thornyhead
rockfish, demersal shelf rockfish) are conservatively
managed due to their long life spans and consequent
sensitivity to over-exploitation (NMFS, In press).
Yelloweye rockfish, Sebostes ruberrimus, are the target
of a commercial longline fishery in Southeastern Alaska
(courtesy of NOAA, National Undersea Research
Program and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game).
National Coastal Condition Report
223
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Shellfish Fisheries
Major shellfish fisheries were developed during
the 1960s in the Gulf of Alaska LME and
subsequently expanded to the East Bering Sea LME.
Shellfish landings in 2003 generated an estimated
ex-vessel value of $181.6 million, compared with
the ex-vessel value of $151 million in for 1997; king
and snow crabs account for a majority of this value
($161 million) (NMFS, In press).
Three king crab species (red, blue, and golden or
brown) and two Tanner crab species (Tanner crab
and snow crab) have traditionally been harvested
commercially in these two major LMEs of Alaska.
Alaska crab resources are fully utilized, and quotas,
seasons, and size and sex limits restrict catches to
protect the crab resource and maintain product
quality. Landings are limited to large male crabs,
and seasonal closures are set to avoid fishing during
times when crabs are molting or mating, as well
as during soft-shell periods. In 2004, two Alaska
crab stocks (the St. Matthew Island blue king
crab stock and the Eastern Bering Sea Tanner crab
stock) were determined to be overfished (NMFS,
In press). There are rebuilding plans for these stocks
(NPFMC, 2000a; 2000b), and fishing of these
species is not allowed. Since 1999, exploratory
fisheries on new deep-water stocks of scarlet king
crab, grooved Tanner crab, and triangle Tanner
crab have begun; however, they have produced
only minor landings to date (NMFS, In press).
The northern pink shrimp is the most important
of the five species that comprise Alaska shrimp
landings. The domestic shrimp fishery in western
Gulf of Alaska LME waters is currently at a low
level, and shrimp abundance is too low in the
Bering Sea to support a commercial fishery. The
western Gulf of Alaska LME has been the main
area of operation for Alaska's shrimp fishery, with
shrimp landings indicating that catches in this
area rose steadily to about 58,000 t in 1976 and
then declined precipitously. As with crabs, the
potential yields of shrimp stocks in both LMEs
are not well understood (NMFS, In press).
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
In 2003, no consumption advisories were in
effect for chemical contaminants in fish and shellfish
species harvested in Alaskan waters (U.S. EPA,
2004b).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Alaska did not report monitoring, advisory, or
closing information for any beaches in 2003 (U.S.
EPA, 2006c).
Kazakof Bay, AK (courtesy of Poppy Benson, FWS).
224
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Hawaii
The overall condition of Hawaii's coastal
waters is rated good based on two of the indices
assessed by NCA (Figure 8-9)- The water quality
index is rated good, and the sediment quality
index is rated good to fair. The NCA was unable
to evaluate the benthic, coastal habitat, or fish
tissue contaminants indices for Hawaii's coastal
waters. Figure 8-10 provides a summary of the
percentage of coastal area in good, fair, poor, or
missing categories for each index and component
indicator. This assessment is based on environmental
stressor and response data collected by the NCA,
in conjunction with state agencies, EPA Region 9,
and the University of Hawaii, from 79 locations
along the islands of the Hawaiian chain in 2002.
Please refer to Chapter 1 for information about how
these assessments were made, the criteria used to
develop the rating for each index and component
indicator, and limitations of the available data.
The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated
archipelago in the world. Hawaii's isolation has
resulted in the highest percentage of endemic
flora and fauna species anywhere in the world.
However, this singular distinction has a downside:
Hawaii has suffered the greatest number of
known extinctions of fauna and flora during
the past 200 years due to the development and
westernization of the islands (Loope, 1998).
Overall Condition
Hawaii Coastal
Waters (4.5)
Good
Fair
Poo
Water Quality Index (5)
Sediment Quality Index (4)
Benthic Index (Missing)
Coastal Habitat Index
(Missing)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (Missing)
Figure 8-9. The overall condition of Hawaii's coastal
waters is rated good (U.S. EPA/ NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
1
1
1
1
1
i i i i
20 40 60 80
Percent Coastal Area
100
Good Fair Poor
Missing
Figure 8-10. Percentage of coastal area achieving each
ranking for all indices and components indicators—
Hawaii (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Hawaiian monk seals are an endangered species that is
native to Hawaii (courtesy of James Watt, DOI).
National Coastal Condition Report
225
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
The human population of the Hawaiian Islands
has fluctuated over time. Following contact with
the West, disease took its toll on the islands'
native population, and there were less than
60,000 individuals remaining on the islands by
the 1870s. By 1900, the total population had
grown to 154,000 people, primarily through the
importation of labor for agriculture. Figure 8-11
shows that the population of Hawaiian coastal
counties increased by 0.3 million people (30%)
between 1980 and 2003 (Crossett et al., 2004). As
of 2004, Hawaii's population exceeded 1.2 million
people, and more than 90% of residents lived in
urban centers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006a).
Human development, increases in population,
and economic growth have all exacerbated
the impacts to native ecosystems because of
the relatively small land area of the Hawaiian
Islands. Sedimentation problems associated
with land-use changes may be especially acute
in the coastal areas of Hawaii because of the
combination of steeply sloped coastal watersheds,
high seasonal rainfall, and agricultural and other
land development (Cox and Gordon, 1970;
Meier et al., 1993). Human population growth in
Hawaii is a principal driver for many ecological
stressors (e.g., habitat loss, pollution, nutrient
enhancement), which may alter coastal ecosystems
and affect the sustainability of coastal ecological
resources. Increased globalization of the economy
is a major driver influencing the introduction of
exotic species into Hawaiian ports and harbors.
1,400-
Coastal Population (thousanc
I.2UU
800
•400
n
1980 1990 2000 2003 2008
Year
Figure 8-11. Actual and estimated population of the
Hawaiian Islands from 1980-2008 (Crossett et al.,
2004).
Compared to other regions considered in the
NCCR III, estuaries and coastal embayments are
a small, but ecologically significant, component
of Hawaii's coastal resources. These coastal waters
represent less than 1% of the coastal ocean area
around the Hawaiian Islands and are best developed
on the older islands (Kauai and Oahu). Pearl
Harbor, which is the largest remaining Hawaiian
estuary, has a water surface area of approximately
22 mi2 and is one of the country's largest naval
ports. However, most of Hawaii's estuaries and
coastal embayments are small, occupying less than
half a square mile. Historically, these coastal waters
were more significant than they are today. In the
Moiliili-Waikiki-Kewalo districts of Honolulu on
Oahu, approximately 48% of the land area was
occupied by wetland/estuarine habitat in 1887-
Today, these aquatic features are absent, and the
remaining estuarine waters are channelized conduits
that rapidly transport stormwater runoff to the
sea (Cox and Gordon, 1970; Meier et al., 1993).
Estuaries and coastal embayments serve as
important nursery habitat for a number of
commercial and recreational Hawaiian fishery
resources. These aquatic features also act as natural
biological filters by sequestering sediments and
pollutants adsorbed to particulate materials,
thus lessening the impact of stormwater runoff
on adjacent coral reefs. The development of the
hinterland surrounding most of Hawaii's largest
estuaries, combined with concurrent pollution
and alien species introductions, have resulted in
tremendous changes to the abundance and species
composition of important coastal communities.
Causal mechanisms responsible for these changes
have not been quantitatively defined, and the
rate of these changes has not been measured.
226
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Coastal Monitoring Data—
Status of Coastal Condition
The principal population and commercial
center for the Hawaiian Islands is located on the
south shore of Oahu in an area encompassing
Pearl Harbor, the Port of Honolulu, and several
other estuaries or embayments. These coastal
systems are highly altered and surrounded by
a high-density, urban setting. The rest of the
Hawaiian Islands have a much lower population
density. Although one might presume that the
magnitude of anthropogenic impacts would
be highest in the urbanized estuaries of Oahu,
this hypothesis needs to be rigorously tested.
Hawaii does not yet have a comprehensive
coastal monitoring program. Some monitoring
occurs in Oahu and is planned for adjacent coral
reef ecosystems; however, most coastal resource
monitoring is targeted to address specific bays
and/or issues, such as nonpoint-source runoff and
offshore discharges. For example, Mamala Bay
has been sampled intensively to examine WWTP
outfalls from Oahu into the Bay. This sampling
showed that the discharge areas were not statistically
different from reference areas; however, data were
lacking to interpret these findings in a statewide
or regional context (Swartz et al., 2002). In 2002,
the NCA, in conjunction with state agencies,
EPA Region 9, and the University of Hawaii,
conducted the first comprehensive survey of the
coastal condition of Hawaii. The survey sampled
50 stations spread across the main islands and 29
stations concentrated along the south shore of
Oahu within the urbanized estuaries, including
Pearl Harbor and Honolulu Harbor. For this
assessment, the coastal area assessed included semi-
enclosed coastal embayments and true estuaries.
Water Quality Index
The water quality index for Hawaii's coastal
waters is rated good. This index was developed
based on measurements of five component
indicators: DIN, DIP, chlorophyll a, water clarity,
and dissolved oxygen. Most (78%) of the coastal
area was rated good for water quality condition,
18% of the area was rated fair, and 4% of the area
was rated poor (Figure 8-12). Most cases of fair
condition were driven by elevated concentrations
of DIP and chlorophyll a. The finding that 22% of
the area has either poor or fair water quality should
be considered preliminary. As described below,
water clarity measurements were not obtained at
many stations. Determination of an acceptable level
for DIP concentrations may also require further
consideration.
Hawaii Water Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition.
• Good = No more than I is fair
O Fair = I is poor or 2 or more
are fair
• Poor = 2 or more are poor
O Missing
Figure 8-12. Water quality index data for Hawaii's coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
227
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
he sampling conducted in the EPA NCA
survey has been designed to estimate
the percent of coastal area (nationally
or in a region) in varying conditions
and is displayed as pie diagrams. Many
of the figures in this report illustrate
environmental measurements made at
specific locations (colored dots on maps);
however, these dots (color) represent the
value of the index specifically at the time
of sampling. Additional sampling would
be required to define temporal variability
and to confirm environmental condition at
specific locations.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Hawaii's coastal waters are rated good for DIN
concentrations, with only 5% of the coastal area
rated poor and 12% rated fair for this component
indicator. Sites with high nitrogen levels tended
to be located in harbors or urban estuaries. For
example, sites in the Ala Wai Canal in downtown
Honolulu, Kahalui Harbor, and Hilo Bay exhibited
elevated DIN concentrations.
Hawaii's coastal waters are also rated good for
DIP concentrations, with 31% of the coastal area
rated fair for this component indicator. Only
1% of the coastal area, representing one site in
Pearl Harbor, received a poor rating for DIP
concentrations.
Chlorophyll a
Hawaii's coastal waters are rated fair for
chlorophyll a concentrations, with 13% of
the coastal area rated poor and 17% rated fair
for this component indicator. Approximately
two-thirds of sites rated poor for chlorophyll a
concentrations were located within the urbanized
estuaries of Honolulu on the island of Oahu.
Water Clarity
Water clarity in Hawaii's coastal waters is rated
good. Water clarity was rated poor at a sampling
site if light penetration at 1 meter was less than
20% of surface illumination. Approximately
2% of the coastal area was rated poor for this
component indicator, and 98% of the area was
rated good. In Hawaii, estimates of water clarity
were obtained using a Secchi disk. At more than
half of the stations, the Secchi disk was still visible
at the bottom, and a valid reading of Secchi
depth for estimating water clarity could not be
obtained; therefore, these estimates of water clarity
have a high degree of uncertainty and should be
considered preliminary. Given the situation of
having the Secchi disk visible at the bottom, it
is likely that the estimate of good condition for
water clarity in these waters is conservative.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen conditions in Hawaii's
coastal waters are rated good, with only 6% of
the area rated fair and none of the coastal area
rated poor for this component indicator. The sites
rated fair were located in Pearl Harbor (2 sites)
and Keechi Lagoon. At each of these stations,
the dissolved oxygen concentrations were just
below 5 mg/L. Although conditions in Hawaii
appear to be generally good for dissolved oxygen,
measured values reflect daytime conditions,
and some areas with restricted circulation may
still experience hypoxic conditions at night.
Garden of Eden, Maui, HI (courtesy of Ben Fertig, IAN
Network).
228
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Sediment Quality Index
The sediment quality index for Hawaii's coastal
waters is rated good to fair, with 7% of the coastal
area rated fair and 5% of the area rated poor for
sediment quality condition (Figure 8-13)- The
sediment quality index was calculated based on
measurements of three component indicators:
sediment toxicity, sediment contaminants, and
sediment TOC. Poor sediment quality ratings
were primarily a result of metal and organic
contaminant concentrations in the urbanized
estuaries on the south shore of Oahu. Amphipod
toxicity at two sites (one on Oahu and one
on Kauai) was the second-most important
contributing factor to the areal estimate of poor
condition. Sites rated fair for sediment condition
were almost exclusively associated with elevated
levels of sediment contaminants, primarily
metals and individual PAHs, within the ports,
harbors, and canals of Honolulu on Oahu.
Sediment Toxicity
Hawaii's coastal waters are rated good for
sediment toxicity, with 97% of the coastal area
rated good and 3% of the area rated poor for
this component indicator. Toxic sediments were
found at only two sites (Wahiawa Bay, Kauai, and
Kaneohe Bay, Oahu), and sediment samples from
these sites also exhibited elevated levels of arsenic
and DDT, respectively. Since no other sediment
contaminant concentrations were elevated at these
sites, it is unclear whether the sediment toxicity
was directly caused by the contamination.
Small sea anemone on volcanic rock (courtesy of
NOAA, National Undersea Research Program).
Hawaii Sediment Quality Index
o
Site Criteria: Number and condition of
component indicators.
O Good = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is good
O Fair = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is fair
© Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Figure 8-1 3. Sediment quality index data for Hawaii's coastal waters (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
229
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Sediment Contaminants
Hawaii's coastal waters are rated good for
sediment contaminant concentrations, with 7% of
the coastal area rated fair and 2% of the area rated
poor for this component indicator. Six of the 7 sites
rated poor were located in the urbanized estuaries
of Oahu, and the remaining site was located in
Paukaulia Stream on the north shore of Oahu.
Primarily, these sites exhibited elevated levels of
copper and mercury; however, high concentrations
of chromium and PAHs were found in sediments
collected from Paukaulia Stream and Honolulu
Harbor, respectively. All of the sites rated fair were
located in the urbanized estuaries of Oahu and were
primarily rated fair due to elevated concentrations
of metals (e.g., chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
silver, zinc) and some individual PAHs.
It should be noted that nickel was excluded
from this evaluation of sediment contamination
in Hawaii's coastal waters because the ERM
value for this metal has a low reliability for areas
of the West Coast, where high natural crustal
concentrations of nickel exist (Long et al., 1995).
A study of metal concentrations in cores collected
along the West Coast determined the range of
historic background concentrations of nickel to
be 35—70 ppm (Lauenstein et al., 2000), which
brackets the value of the ERM (51-6 ppm).
Some researchers have also suggested that West
Coast crustal concentrations for mercury may
be naturally elevated, although no conclusive
evidence is available to support this suggestion;
therefore, mercury data were not excluded from
this assessment. In addition, it should be noted
that only one exceedance was counted if a site
exceeded the ERL for low molecular weight PAHs,
high molecular weight PAHs, and/or total PAHs to
ensure that the analysis was not biased by PAHs.
Sediment TOC
The coastal waters of Hawaii are rated good for
sediment TOC. A total of 8% of the coastal area was
rated fair, and none of the area was rated poor. The
majority of sites that were rated fair for sediment
TOC were located within Pearl Harbor, which
is both extensively modified and has a restricted
connection to the ocean. Sites in Reeds Bay and
Hilo Bay on the island of Hawaii were also rated fair.
Benthic Index
Benthic condition in Hawaii's coastal waters
as measured by a benthic index could not be
evaluated. As was the case for Alaska, a benthic
condition index for Hawaii is not currently
available. In lieu of a benthic index for Hawaii,
the deviation from an estimate of expected species
richness was used as an approximate indicator of
the condition of the benthic community. This
approach requires that species richness be predicted
from salinity, and, in the case of the Hawaii
survey data, the regression was not significant.
Coastal Habitat Index
Estimates of coastal habitat loss are not available
for Hawaii; therefore, a coastal habitat index could
not be calculated. It is clear that there have been
major alterations and losses of coastal wetlands in
Hawaii. Modification of coastal wetlands prior to
western contact was probably generally limited to
the conversion of these marshes into taro cultivation
ponds. Later, agricultural activities (e.g., cattle
ranching, sugarcane/pineapple production) in
the islands modified or eliminated many coastal
wetlands. Commercial and military navigation
projects also resulted in losses of wetlands on Kauai,
Maui, Oahu, and Hawaii; however, perhaps the
most extensive loss of coastal wetlands occurred
as the result of housing and resort construction
following World War II, heavily impacting
wetlands on Oahu (Meier et al., 1993).
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
The NCA survey of Hawaii did not produce
estimates of contaminant levels in fish. Instead,
a preliminary feasibility study was conducted
to determine whether sea cucumbers could be
utilized to assess tissue body burdens. Samples of
two species of sea cucumbers were analyzed for
tissue contaminant levels in the pilot method-
development effort. Some heavy metals (e.g.,
mercury, cadmium, silver) were undetected in sea
cucumber tissue samples. PCBs and DDT were
detected at low levels in some tissue samples,
whereas PAHs and other pesticides were not
230
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
detected. These results have a high degree of
uncertainty because the total sample size was small
and analytical issues were present with the tissue
matrix. As a result, a fish tissue contaminants
index could not be calculated for Hawaii.
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries—Insular Pacific-
Hawaiian LME
The Insular Pacific-Hawaiian LME surrounds the
Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) of Hawaii, Maui,
Lanai, Molokai, Oahu, Kauai, and Niihau, as well
as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI)
(Figure 8-14). This tropical LME is influenced by
equatorial currents and predominantly northeasterly
trade winds. The Insular Pacific-Hawaiian LME
is classified as a low-productivity ecosystem
based on estimates of primary productivity
(phytoplankton). The waters of this LME have high
levels of marine diversity and support a variety of
fisheries; however, maximum sustainable yields are
relatively low due to limited ocean currents. The
NMFS manages this LME as part of its Western
Pacific Region, which includes the fisheries of
American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, and other U.S.
Pacific island possessions (NOAA, 2007g).
In 2006, the NWHI were designated as a U.S.
Marine National Monument. The islands extend
from 160 miles northwest of Kauai into the Pacific
Ocean approximately 1,200 miles, cover nearly
140,000 mi2 of ocean, and include 70% of the
tropical, shallow-water coral reefs in U.S. waters.
Commercial and recreational harvest of precious
coral, crustaceans, and coral reef species are
prohibited in monument waters, and commercial
fishing is being phased out over a 5-year period.
Commercial activities within the state waters of
the NWHI were banned in 2005- Additional
information about the Marine National Monument
is available at: http://www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov.
Relevant Large Marine Ecosystem
Associated U.S. land mass
Figure 8-14. Insular Pacific-Hawaiian LME (NOAA, 2007g).
National Coastal Condition Report
231
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Invertebrate Fisheries
The dominant invertebrate species fished in
the state, territorial, commonwealth, and remote
island waters of the NMFS Western Pacific Region
include lobsters, shrimp, squid, octopus, and
precious corals. Most of these fisheries operate
on a small scale and are regulated solely by local
island fisheries agencies. The NWHI lobster fishery
and the Hawaii precious coral fishery are the only
invertebrate fisheries managed by NMFS in this
area. Although the NWHI lobster trap fishery is
the major commercial marine invertebrate fishery
in this region, small-scale, primarily recreational
fisheries for different species of lobster exist in
the MHI, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands. A resource of deep-water
precious coral (gold, bamboo, and pink corals) and
shallow-water coral (black) exists in Hawaii and
possibly other western Pacific areas. A short-lived,
domestic precious coral fishery operated in Hawaii
from 1974 to 1979, but there was no significant
precious coral harvest for 20 years until 1999
through 2001. A deep-water shrimp resource is
found throughout the Western Pacific Region, but
currently is relatively unexploited (NMFS, In press).
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Lobster
A commercial lobster trap fishery operated
in the NWHI from the mid-1970s through
1999- Although this multi-species fishery
primarily targeted the Hawaiian spiny lobster and
slipper lobster, three other species (green spiny
lobster, ridgeback slipper lobster, and Chinese
slipper lobster) were caught in small numbers.
Historically, traps set at deeper depths caught
slipper lobster, while the shallower sets caught
spiny lobster. In later years, slipper lobsters
(particularly at Maro Reef) have been caught at
shallow depths; this shift was presumably caused
in part by the fishing pressure on spiny lobsters
and the availability of suitable habitat formerly
occupied by spiny lobster (NMFS, In press).
The estimated populations of spiny and slipper
lobsters declined dramatically from the mid-1980s
through the mid-1990s. Much of this decline
has been attributed to a shift in oceanographic
conditions that affected recruitment in the mid-
1980s. Although oceanographic conditions have
232
returned to a more typical long-term state and
the fishery has been closed since 2000, recent
NMFS research surveys have not indicated any
increase in spiny lobster populations at Necker
Island or Maro Reef. Variability in oceanographic
conditions may have contributed to the decline of
NWHI spiny lobster; however, improvements in
our understanding of the spatial structure of the
NWHI spiny lobster population, the dynamics
of larval transport, and commercial fishery data
suggest that spiny lobster populations in the NWHI
constitute a metapopulation and that a suite of
factors (both anthropogenic and biotic) contributed
to the observed decline (NMFS, In press).
A metapopulation is a group of populations
inhabiting discrete patches of suitable
habitat that are connected by the dispersal
of individuals between patches; the degree
of isolation for local populations may vary
depending on the distance between habitat
patches.
Precious Coral
The waters of the MHI host commercial
fisheries for deep-water and shallow-water corals.
For the first time since the mid-1970s, deep-
water precious corals (pink, gold, and bamboo
corals) were harvested commercially in Hawaii
from 1999 to 2001. A single company collected
corals at the established coral-harvesting bed of
Makapu'u, Oahu, and in an exploratory coral
harvesting bed off Keahole, Hawaii. The allowable
harvest quotas were not filled in either location.
Although the fishery remains open, the company
has suspended harvesting activities due to the
high cost of operating submarines and the low
bid price for coral. The only shallow-water coral
species that are currently harvested are black corals.
Black corals are collected by three independent
divers working at depths less than 260 ft; all within
the Au'au Channel, Maui (NMFS, In press).
In 2000 and 2001, scientists surveyed all
known deep-water and shallow-water precious
coral beds in the Hawaiian Archipelago using
submersibles that belong to the Hawaii Undersea
National Coastal Condition Report I
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Research Laboratory. These surveys provided
the first real insight into the relative abundance
of precious corals across the archipelago. Post-
harvest inspections of the deep-water coral beds
at Makapu'u and Keahole found numerous live
colonies and little evidence of damage associated
with commercial coral-harvesting activities. The
2001 survey of the Makapu'u bed will be compared
with pre-harvest survey data collected at Makapu'u
in 1997 to evaluate possible harvesting impacts.
Both divers and submersibles were used to survey
the black coral bed of the Au'au Channel in 2000
and 2001. At depths shallower than 260 feet, divers
surveyed the size structure of black coral trees and
their associated fish assemblages. The submersible
surveys conducted at depths below 260 feet
observed an invasive species of soft coral (Carijoa
nisei) overgrowing black coral trees. A follow-up
survey of coral size and structure was conducted
in 2004 and will be used to revisit the harvesting
regulations presently in place (NMFS, In press).
Deep-sea coral on seamount in Northwest Hawaiian
Islands (courtesy of NOAA Office of Ocean
Exploration).
Monitoring the activities related to the precious
coral fishery in Hawaii is important because these
activities and their effects could possibly interfere
with the feeding habits of endangered Hawaiian
monk seal populations. Studies of monk seal
foraging patterns using seal-mounted satellite tags
documented a small number of seals visiting sites
with deep-water precious coral beds (Parrish et al.,
2002). Another study recorded seals visiting black
coral beds on successive nights to feed on eels hiding
amongst the corals. These and other studies of seal
diving and foraging behavior have spurred concern
that coral harvesting might impact the seals' use of
the deep-water fish community. In 2003, a seal was
observed by a submersible at a depth of about 1,750
feet near precious coral, further strengthening the
link between seals and precious coral beds (NMFS,
In press).
Demersal Fish and Armorhead
Fisheries
The Western Pacific Region hosts fisheries for
demersal fish and pelagic armorhead. The demersal
fish fishery geographically encompasses the Insular
Pacific-Hawaiian LME, Guam, the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American
Samoa. In contrast, pelagic armorhead are
harvested in this region from the summits and
upper slopes of a series of submerged seamounts
along the southern Emperor-northern Hawaiian
Ridge. This chain of seamounts is located just
west of the International Date Line and extends
into the northernmost portion of the NWHI.
Demersal Fish
The Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and MHI
demersal fish fisheries employ relatively small
vessels on one-day trips close to port; either part-
time or sport fishermen take much of the catch.
In contrast, demersal fish in the NWHI are fished
by full-time fishermen on relatively large vessels
that range far from port on trips of up to 10
days. Fishermen use the hand-lining technique in
which a single weighted line with several baited
hooks is raised and lowered with a powered reel.
The demersal fish fisheries are managed jointly
by the Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council and territorial, commonwealth,
or state authorities (NMFS, In press).
In Hawaii, the demersal fish species fished
include several snappers (ehu, onaga, opakapaka,
and uku), jacks (ulua and butaguchi), and a
grouper (hapu'upu'u). In the more tropical waters
of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and American Samoa, the fisheries
National Coastal Condition Report
233
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
include a more diverse assortment of species within
the same families as in Hawaii, as well as several
species of emperors. These species are found on
rock and coral bottoms at depths of 170 to 1,350
feet. Catch weight, size, and fishing effort data
are collected for each species in the five areas (i.e.,
MHI, NWHI, Guam, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa);
however, the sampling programs vary in scope
between these areas. About 90% of the total
landings are taken in Hawaii, with the majority of
the landings taken in the MHI. Although somewhat
limited, stock assessment indicate that the spawning
stocks of several important MHI species (ehu,
hapu'upu'u, onaga, opakapaka, and uku) are at
only 5% to 30% of unfished levels. Onaga and ehu
presently appear to be the most stressed among
MHI demersal fish species (NMFS, In press).
Pelagic Armorhead
The seamount demersal fish fishery has targeted
just one species—the pelagic armorhead. The
commercial seamount fishery for pelagic armorhead
was started by bottom-trawl vessels of the former
Soviet Union in 1968. During 1969, Japanese
trawlers entered this fishery, and by 1972, CPUE
(based on Japanese data) peaked at 54 t per hour.
The United States has never been a participant in
this fishery. By the end of 1975, the two foreign
fleets had harvested a combined cumulative total
of 1,000,000 t of pelagic armorhead. Facing a
steady decline in CPUE beginning in 1972, the
former Soviet fleet left the fishery after 1975-
The combined catch index for all seamounts has
remained depressed since the late 1970s. In 1977,
the southermost seamounts (Hancock Seamounts)
were included in the EEZ, and subsequently, a small
portion of the fishery was managed in a limited
way. A preliminary FMP was developed that year
and provided for limited foreign harvesting at the
Hancock Seamounts under a permit system between
1978 and 1984 (NMFS, In press). However,
catches remained low, and all fishing in this area
ceased after 1984. Under the FMP for this region's
demersal fish fisheries (WPRFMC, 1986), a 6-year
fishing moratorium was imposed on the Hancock
Seamounts in 1986. The moratorium was extended
for three additional 6-year periods, the latest starting
in 2004 and ending in 2010 (NMFS, In press).
Since 1976, Japanese trawlers have conducted
this fishery almost exclusively around the
seamounts in international waters beyond the
Hancock Seamounts. The fishing grounds of the
Hancock Seamounts represent less than 5% of the
total fishing grounds for the pelagic armorhead.
The maximum sustainable yield is 2,123 t, but
recovery to the fishery's former levels has not yet
occurred. Standardized stock assessments were
conducted between 1985 and 1993- Research
cruises focused on Southeast Hancock Seamount,
and the armorhead stock was sampled with
bottom long lines and calibrated against Japanese
trawling effort. Catch rates varied, but have not
shown the increases expected after the fishing
moratorium was implemented. Furthermore, the
increase in the 1992 seamount-wide CPUE caused
by high recruitment was apparently short lived
because CPUE declined appreciably in 1993 and
thereafter. Closure of only the small EEZ portion
of the pelagic armorhead's demersal habitat may
not be sufficient to allow population recovery
because these seamounts remain the only part
of the fishery currently under management. The
primary issue for the armorhead seamount fishery
is how to implement some form of management
on an international basis to provide conditions
conducive to stock recovery (NMFS, In press).
Kona coast (courtesy of Calbear22).
234
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
Since 1998, the State of Hawaii has advised the
general population not to consume fish or shellfish
caught in the Pearl Harbor area on the island of
Oahu due to PCB contamination (Figure 8-15).
In addition to the existing estuarine advisory, a
statewide advisory took effect in 2003- The new
statewide advisory targets sensitive populations
(e.g., pregnant women, nursing mothers, children)
and provides data on mercury contamination for
several species of marine fish (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Hawaii did not report monitoring, advisory, or
closing information for any beaches in 2003 (U.S.
EPA, 2006c).
Freshwater pools leading to the ocean in Haleakala
National Park on the southeastern coast of Maui
(courtesy of NPS).
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
I I No advisories
• I
CH 2-4
I I 5-9
I I Noncoastal cataloging unit
Figure 8-15. Fish consumption advisory for Hawaii, location approximate. Hawaii also has a
statewide advisory for marine fish consumption by sensitive populations, although this is not
mapped (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
National Coastal Condition Report
235
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
P^uerto^Rko _
Coastal Monitoring Data—
Status of Coastal Condition
The overall condition for Puerto Rico's coastal
waters presented in the NCCRII (U.S. EPA,
2004a) was poor based on three of the indices
used by NCA (Figure 8-16). The water quality
index is rated fair, and the sediment quality and
benthic indices are rated poor. NCA was unable
to evaluate the coastal habitat or fish tissue
contaminants indices for Puerto Rico. Figure 8-17
provides a summary of the percentage of coastal
area in good, fair, poor, or missing categories
for each index and component indicator. This
assessment was based on the results of sampling
conducted at 50 sites in 2000. Please refer to
Chapter 1 for information about how these
assessments were made, the criteria used to
develop the rating for each index and component
indicator, and limitations of the available data.
Overall Condition
Puerto Rico
Coastal Waters (1.7)
E
Good Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (I)
Benthic Index (I)
Coastal Habitat Index
(Missing)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (Missing)
Figure 8-16. The overall condition of Puerto Rico's
coastal area is rated poor (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
20 40 60 80 100
Percent Coastal Area
Good Fair Poor Missing
In Puerto Rico, manatees are most abundant along the
south and east coasts of the island (courtesy of USGS).
Figure 8-17. Percentage of area receiving each ranking
for all indices and component indicators - Puerto Rico
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
236
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Although another NCA sampling event for
Puerto Rico occurred in 2004, these results are not
yet available for publication and will be presented
in the NCCRIV. This section of the NCCR III
summarizes the results that were presented in
NCCR II. The NCCR II assessment indicated that,
for the indices and component indicators measured,
the primary problems in Puerto Rico's coastal waters
are degraded sediment quality, degraded benthos,
and some areas of poor water quality. Sampling
stations with consistently low scores for the water
quality, sediment quality, and benthic indices were
located in San Juan Harbor, the Cano Boqueron,
Laguna del Condado, and Laguna San Jose.
Water Quality Index
As described in the NCCR II, the water
quality index for Puerto Rico's coastal waters is
rated fair. This water quality index was developed
using five water quality indicators: DIN, DIP,
chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen.
Although only 9% of the coastal area was rated
poor, 63% of the area was rated poor and fair,
combined (Figure 8-18). Nutrient levels were
rated fair and good for DIN and DIP, respectively.
Low scores for chlorophyll a (poor) and water
clarity (fair) contributed to the overall rating.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in Puerto
Rico coastal waters were rated good. Estimates
showed that only 1% of bottom waters have
hypoxic conditions (< 2 mg/L) on a continuing
basis in late summer; however, dissolved oxygen
data were missing for 27% of the coastal area.
Limestone cliffs near Los Morillos Lighthouse, Cabo
Rojo, PR (courtesy of Smylere Snape).
Puerto Rico Water Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number of component
indicators in poor or fair condition.
O Good = No more than I is fair
O Fair = I is poor or 2 or more
are fair
O Poor = 2 or more are poor
O Missing
Missing
Poor 2%
Good Fair Poor
Figure 8-18. Water quality index data for the coastal waters of Puerto Rico (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
237
-------
The Condition of Coral Reefs in Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands
The current condition of coral reef ecosystems in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
which constitute the U.S. Caribbean, was summarized recently in the report The State of Coral Reef
Ecosystems of the United States andPacific Freely Associated States: 2005(Waddell, 2005). This report
contains quantitative results of assessment and monitoring activities conducted in shallow-water coral
reef ecosystems by federal, state, territory, commonwealth, non-government, private, and academic
partners. Additionally, it is based primarily on recent, quantitative monitoring data collected in situ
in each of 14 jurisdictions, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Florida, Navassa Island,
Flower Garden Banks, and other banks in the Gulf of Mexico, MHI, NWHI, U.S. Pacific Remote
Island Areas, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the
Freely Associated States of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,
and the Republic of Palau.
Coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. Caribbean comprise a mosaic of habitats that host a large
diversity of marine organisms, including coral and other hard-bottom areas, seagrass beds, and
mangroves. These biologically rich ecosystems provide important services to coastal areas (e.g.,
shoreline protection) and support valuable socio-economic activities (e.g., fishing, tourism); however,
coral reefs are also affected directly and indirectly by these activities. Coral reefs generally form three
types of reef structures: fringing reefs, patch reefs, or spur and groove reefs. These structures are
distributed around the islands (Adey, 1975; Hubbard et al., 1993; Garcia-Sais et al., 2003). Recent
estimates of the spatial extent of coral reef ecosystems from Landsat satellite imagery indicate that
coral reef ecosystems in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands potentially cover about 1,022 mi
within the 60-ft depth contour or 2,945 mi2 within the 600-ft depth contour (Rohmann et al.,
2005).
Coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. Caribbean face several threats, including climate change,
disease, tropical storms, coastal development and runoff, coastal pollution, tourism and recreation,
fishing, and ships, boats, and groundings. Point and non-point source discharges into the marine
environment remain a major concern and may be contributing to an increase in the abundance
and incidence of coral diseases, such as black band disease. Where they exist, rivers represent the
main sources of pollutants and sediments to coastal waters (CH2M Hill, Inc., 1979; Anderson and
MacDonald, 1998; IRF, 1999).
In Puerto Rico, the highest cover of live corals generally occurs on reefs located on the leeward
side of the islands (e.g., Desecheo, Mona); at offshore islands (e.g., Vieques, Culebra, Cayo Diablo);
and along the south and west coast of the main island (e.g., La Boya Vieja, Tourmaline). Boulder
star coral (Montastrea annularis) is the dominant coral species on reefs with relatively high coral
cover, whereas the great star coral (Montastrea cavernosa), massive starlet coral (Siderastrea spp.),
and finger coral (Porites astreoides) constitute the main coral assemblage of degraded reefs. Coral
reefs with high live coral cover generally exhibit relatively a high abundance and diverse assemblage
of zooplanktivorous fishes (such as Chromis spp., Clepticus spp., and Stegastespartitus that feed on
zooplankton), whereas coral reefs with low live coral cover are dominated numerically by a single
species, the dusky damselfish (Stegastes dorsopunicans) (Garcia-Sais et al., 2005).
238 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Large flower corals in coral reefs communities in the
Jobos Bay NERR (NOAA).
In the U.S. Virgin Islands, current
assessments indicate that marine water
quality is good, but declining because of
increases in point and non-point sources of
pollution. Generally, coral cover on reefs is
low relative to the abundance of macro- and
filamentous algae, which indicate a possible
phase-shift from coral-dominated reefs to
algal-dominated reefs. Additionally, the dense
stands of elkhorn coral (Acropora palmata)
that were once the dominant shallow-water
species of coral in some areas four decades ago
have not recovered (Jeffrey et al., 2005).
Several management actions have been
taken to conserve coral reef ecosystems
in the U.S. Caribbean. Marine-protected
areas have been established or expanded
throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands to provide varying levels of protection
for resources and to serve as fishery management tools. Puerto Rico's Department of Natural and
Environmental Resources recently revised fisheries laws to halt major declines in recreational and
commercial catches, which have fallen as much as 70% between 1979 and 1990 (Garcia-Sais et
al., 2005). In the U.S. Virgin Islands, 3,250 mooring buoys have been installed to reduce ship
groundings and protect benthic habitats from anchor damage caused by commercial and recreational
boat usage. Recent monitoring data from marine protected areas in both Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands suggest that commercially important reef fishes such as red hind grouper (Epinephelus
guttatus) are increasing in size and abundance within reserve boundaries (Jeffrey et al., 2005; Nemeth,
2005).
Although these management actions have had some success in protecting coral reef ecosystems,
they could be more effective with greater enforcement. Current coral reef ecosystem conditions would
improve further with
• Reductions in the number and intensity of the major threats affecting coral reefs
• Greater enforcement of existing marine protected areas and regulations that govern resource use
and extraction
• Increased environmental education and awareness among island residents and visitors.
Additionally, coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. Caribbean would benefit substantially from stronger
coordination and collaboration among the federal, territorial, and non-governmental agencies and
organizations that have an interest in marine conservation in these islands.
National Coastal Condition Report
239 '•"
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Sediment Quality Index
Overall, sediment quality in Puerto Rico's coastal
waters is rated poor. A sediment quality index was
developed for Puerto Rico coastal waters using three
sediment quality component indicators: sediment
toxicity, sediment contaminants, and sediment
TOC. More than 60% of Puerto Rico's coastal area
was rated poor for one or more of the component
indicators (Figure 8-19)- Puerto Rico's sediment
toxicity was rated good because only 3% of the
coastal area contained sediments that were toxic
to the test organism. The sediment contaminants
component indicator was rated poor in 23% of the
coastal area. Puerto Rico sediments were also rated
poor with respect to sediment TOC. In this area,
elevated sediment TOC values are often associated
with contributions to a waterbody's organic loads
from untreated wastewater, agricultural runoff,
and industrial discharges; however, occasionally,
these levels are associated with natural processes
in mangrove estuaries. Although it is difficult
to discern whether the high levels of TOC in
Puerto Rico are due to anthropogenic sources
or natural mangrove habitat, many of the areas
rated poor for TOC are also relatively devoid of
mangrove systems and are known to have high
levels of poorly treated sewage discharge.
Benthic Index
The benthic index for Puerto Rico's coastal
waters is rated poor, with 35% of the coastal area
rated poor (Figure 8-20). Currently, no benthic
community index has been developed for Puerto
Rico. As a surrogate for benthic condition, the
benthic samples were evaluated using standard
ecological community indicators: biological
diversity, species richness, and abundance. Biological
diversity and species richness are measurements that
contribute to all of the benthic indices developed
by the NCA in the Northeast Coast, Southeast
Coast, and Gulf Coast regions. Biological diversity
is directly affected by natural gradients in salinity
and silt-clay content. Analyses using Puerto
Rico data showed no significant relationships
between benthic diversity and either salinity or
silt-clay content; therefore, benthic diversity was
used to directly evaluate benthic condition.
Puerto Rico Sediment Quality Index
Site Criteria: Number and condition of
component indicators.
• Good = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is good
O Fair = None are poor, and sediment
contaminants is fair
• Poor = I or more are poor
O Missing
Missing
Good Fair Poor
Figure 8-19. Sediment quality index data for the coastal waters of Puerto Rico (U.S. EPA/NCA).
240
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Puerto Rico Benthic Quality Index
Site Criteria: Com pared
to expected diversity.
O Good = > 90%
O Fair = 75% - 90%
0 Poor = < 75%
O Missing
Good Fair Poor
Figure 8-20. Benthic index data for the coastal waters of Puerto Rico (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Coastal Habitat Index
Estimates of coastal habitat loss are not
available for Puerto Rico; therefore, the coastal
habitat index could not be calculated.
Fish Tissue Contaminants Index
Estimates offish tissue contaminants are not
available for Puerto Rico; therefore, the fish tissue
contaminants index could not be calculated.
In conjunction with the San Juan Bay Estuary
Partnership, fish tissue sampling was conducted
in the San Jose Lagoon, and the results are
available in the NEP CCR (U.S. EPA, 2006b).
Castillo de San Felipe del Morro, also known as El Morro, in San Juan, PR (courtesy of Tony Santana, USACE).
National Coastal Condition Report III
241
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries—Caribbean Sea LME
Puerto Rico is located within the Caribbean
Sea LME (Figure 8-21). This semi-enclosed LME
is bounded by the Southeast U.S. Continental
Shelf and Gulf of Mexico LMEs to the north,
Central America to the west, South America to
the south, and the Atlantic Ocean to the east.
The Caribbean Sea LME is considered a low-
productivity ecosystem with localized areas of higher
productivity along the coast of South America. This
LME is bordered by 38 countries and dependencies
and lacks a coordinated effort to monitor and
manage the ecosystem (NOAA, 2007g). There is no
information available for the fisheries of this LME.
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
Puerto Rico did not report fish consumption
advisory information to EPA in 2003 (U.S. EPA,
2004b).
Beach Advisories and Closures
Puerto Rico did not report monitoring, advisory,
or closing information for any beaches in 2003
(U.S. EPA, 2006c).
Figure 8-21. Caribbean Sea LME (NOAA, 2007g).
242
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
American Samoa, Guam,
Northern Mariana Islands, U.S.Virgin Islands
Coastal Monitoring Data-
Status of Coastal Condition
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
were not assessed by NCA in 2001 or 2002.
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern
Mariana Islands are located in the Pacific Ocean
(Figure 8-22), and the U.S. Virgin Islands are
found in the Caribbean Sea (Figure 8-21).
Large Marine Ecosystem
Fisheries
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and
American Samoa are not located within an LME.
The NMFS Western Pacific Region manages
the fisheries in these waters in conjunction with
those of the Insular Pacific-Hawaiian LME. These
fisheries were discussed in the Hawaii section of
this chapter. The U.S. Virgin Islands are located
within the Caribbean Sea LME, which is discussed
in the Puerto Rico section of this chapter.
Northern Mariana Islands
f
Guam
Papua
New Guinea
I*
Hawaii
American Samoa
Fiji
South Pacific Ocean
v:
New Zealand
Figure 8-22. Locations of the U.S. Pacific island territories (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
243
-------
Highlight
The NCA Survey of Guam, 2004
The island of Guam is a 212-mi2, unincorporated territory of the United States, with a population
of approximately 166,000 residents. The entire island of Guam is classified as a coastal zone.
Practically all residences are served by public/military community water supply systems, with a large
number of single-family dwellings using individual septic tank/leaching field systems. Approximately
1 million tourists visit Guam annually, largely drawn by the island's tropical climate and clean,
recreational, fresh and marine waters. The Guam Environmental Protection Agency currently
monitors some indicators of the physical and chemical condition of marine receiving waters; however,
the lack of quantitative baseline information for water, sediment, and tissue pollutant concentrations
limits the ability to provide a comprehensive assessment of receiving waterbodies. The establishment
of long-term comprehensive monitoring programs is needed as a first step toward developing any
program of pollution abatement and habitat restoration. As a first step in this process, the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency has participated in the NCA survey (Guam Environmental
Protection Agency, 2006).
The Guam component of the NCA survey is based on a combination of the procedures and
methods of the NCA coupled with specialized methods for sampling hard-bottom habitats such as
coral reefs (Guam Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). These specialized methods were first
developed and used by the 2002 NCA assessment for Hawaii (Nelson et al., 2007). Thus, the Guam
assessment is consistent with the broader NCA, while taking into account modifications that have
been developed for tropical coral reef island environments.
The Guam NCA survey used some of the same indices and indicators as the NCA surveys of
other regions, but some indices/indicators were added or modified. The Guam assessment included
such standard NCA indices as the fish tissue contaminants index and the benthic index, as well
as component indicators such as water-column nutrient levels, bottom-water dissolved oxygen
concentrations, water clarity, and sediment contaminant concentrations. Coral disease identification
is under consideration as an indicator for use in future monitoring efforts. The major modifications to
the NCA index/indicator list and protocols include the following:
• Replacement offish trawls, which are very destructive to coral reef communities, with visual
census protocols in conjunction with reef and pelagic fish standing stock estimates for fish
community assessments
• Use of sea cucumber or crab samples rather than fish samples for the fish tissue contaminants
index
• Addition of storm wave-impact estimates
• Addition of water-column analyses for microbial contamination
• Addition of hard-bottom benthic habitat monitoring using transect and quadrat measurements
of the percent cover of macroinvertebrate and algal composition on rock outcrops and coral
substrates (Guam Environmental Protection Agency, 2006).
The coastal resource definition for the NCA in Guam encompasses all waters with salinity greater
than 0.5 psu and a depth between mean low water and the 60-ft depth contour. Within this depth
contour, two sampling strata were created. The estuary stratum consisted of estuaries and more
protected embayments, whereas the nearshore stratum consisted of the more open coastlines of
the island. There was one exception to the depth criterion. NCA sampling was conducted in Apra
244
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
NCA-2004
Sample Sites
Guam
Philippine Sea
0°
o
ooo
o
o
o
Sampling
Frame
Harbor, which was designated as a
special study area where water depth
often exceeds 60 feet. At stations
located within Apra Harbor and
with depths greater than 60 feet, a
modified sampling procedure was
utilized to sample only for water-
column parameters, sediment
contaminants, and benthos. The
Guam assessment is designed to be
conducted during the island's wet
season, July through December,
during even numbered years. To
conduct the sampling, fisheries
experts from the staff of the
Government of Guam Department
of Agriculture's Division of Aquatic
and Wildlife Resources collaborated
with staff scientists from the
Monitoring Program of the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency.
The field sampling for the Guam
NCA was initiated in November
2004 and completed in August
2005- High seas proved to be a
major challenge to conducting field
work in the near-coastal area of
Guam because tropical typhoons
in the region frequently generated
rough weather. Additional difficulties
were encountered in the deepest
areas of Apra Harbor. In spite of an
attempt to use grab samplers in this area, five stations could not be sampled with the vessel available
due to excessive depth and strong currents; alternate stations were added as replacements. All of
the dropped stations were at depths greater than 120 feet. During the NCA in 2004, 50 stations
were successfully sampled (see map). Samples collected during the study period are still undergoing
analyses.
The Guam NCA represents a major effort on the part of the Guam Environmental Protection
Agency to improve its approach to monitoring the coastal resources of the island. The effort would
not have been possible without the collaboration and support of scientists from EPA NCA and the
EMAP, the staff of EPA Region 9 Pacific Islands Office, and the dedicated personnel from multiple
agencies of the Government of Guam.
O
Estuary
Nearshore
Sampling
Site
O
o o
o o
Estuarine and nearshore sampling stations used in the 2004 NCA
survey of the island of Guam (U.S. EPA/NCA).
National Coastal Condition Report
245
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Assessment and Advisory Data
Fish Consumption Advisories
Since 1993, American Samoa has had a fish
consumption advisory in effect for chromium,
copper, DDT, lead, mercury, zinc, and PCBs
in Inner Pago Pago Harbor (Figure 8-23).
This estuarine advisory recommends that all
members of the general population (including
sensitive populations of pregnant women,
nursing mothers, and children) not consume
any fish, fish liver, or shellfish from the waters
under advisory. In addition, these same waters
are also under a commercial fishing ban that
precludes the harvesting offish or shellfish
for sale in commercial markets. Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands did not report fish consumption advisory
information to EPA in 2003 (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
Beach Advisories and Closures
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands did not report
monitoring, advisory, or closing information
for any beaches in 2003 (U.S. EPA, 2006c).
o
Number of Consumption
Advisories per USGS
Cataloging Unit in 2003
I I No advisories
CH 1-4
I I 5-9
I I Noncoastal cataloging unit
Figure 8-23. Fish consumption advisory for American Samoa, location approximate (U.S.
EPA,2004b).
Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa (courtesy of NPS).
246
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 8 Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Summary
During 2002, NCA conducted sampling in the coastal waters of
Southcentral Alaska and in Hawaii. Puerto Rico was assessed by NCA in
2000, and those results were presented in the NCCRII and are summarized
here. Sampling was conducted in Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands in 2004—2005; however, these results are not included in
this NCCR III. Currently, no plans have been made to assess the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Based on the NCA data, overall condition is rated good for Southcentral
Alaska's coastal waters, good in Hawaii's coastal waters, and poor in the
coastal waters of Puerto Rico. The water quality, sediment quality, and fish
tissue contaminants indices are rated good for Southcentral Alaska. All of
the component indicators, except for DIP and water clarity, are also rated
good for Southcentral Alaska, and DIP and water clarity are rated fair.
The coastal habitat and benthic indices were not assessed for Southcentral
Alaska's coastal waters. In Hawaii, the water quality index is rated good
and the sediment quality index is rated fair to good. Chlorophyll a is the
only component indicator rated fair for Hawaii; the rest of the indicators
are rated good. The coastal habitat, benthic, and fish tissue contaminants
indices were not assessed in Hawaii during 2002. As reported in the NCCR
II, Puerto Rico's water quality index is rated fair, and the sediment quality
and benthic indices are rated poor. The coastal habitat and fish tissue
contaminants indices were not assessed in Puerto Rico. Trends in NCA data
could not be evaluated for Alaska, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico.
NOAA's NMFS manages several fisheries in the LMEs bordering Alaska
and Hawaii, as well as those in the waters surrounding Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. No information is available for the
fisheries of LME surrounding the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. The
East Bering Sea LME and the Gulf of Alaska LME are two of the LMEs
that surround Alaska, and NMFS manages the salmon, herring, demersal
fish, and shellfish fisheries in these waters. In general, salmon and crab
resources are fully utilized; East Bering Sea LME demersal fish stocks are
slightly underutilized; herring and Gulf of Alaska LME demersal fish stocks
are relatively stable; and shrimp stocks are low. The Insular Pacific-Hawaiian
LME consists of the waters around Hawaii and is managed by the NMFS
Western Pacific Region in conjunction with the waters surrounding Guam,
the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The fisheries managed
in these waters include invertebrate, demersal fish, and pelagic armorhead
fisheries. The lobster and pelagic armorhead fisheries are closed or under
a fishing moratorium; the coral fishery is open, but only shallow-water,
black coral is being harvested. Limited stock assessments indicate that MHI
spawning stocks of demersal fish are at 5% to 30% of unfished levels.
National Coastal Condition Report
247
-------
Chapter 8 | Coastal Condition of Alaska, Hawaii, and the Island Territories
Summary
Contamination in the coastal waters of Hawaii and American Samoa
has affected human uses of these waters. In 2003, there was one fish
consumption advisory in effect for Pearl Harbor, HI, and one in effect
for Inner Pago Pago Harbor, American Samoa. Hawaii's advisory was
for PCBs, and American Samoa's advisory was for chromium, copper,
DDT, lead, mercury, zinc, and PCBs. Alaska, Puerto Rico, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands did not report fish
consumption advisory information to EPA in 2003- None of these areas
reported beach monitoring, advisory, or closure information to EPA for
2003-
248
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
CHAPTER 9
Health of Narragansett Bay
for Human Use
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
The previous chapters of this report address
the condition of the nation's coasts in terms of
how well they meet ecological criteria. A related,
but separate consideration is how well coasts
are meeting human expectations in terms of the
goods and services they provide for transportation,
development, fishing, recreation, and other uses.
Human use does not necessarily compromise
ecological condition, but there are inherent
conflicts between human activities (e.g., marine
transportation) that alter the natural state of the
coasts and activities (e.g., fishing) that rely on the
bounty of nature. The emphasis of this chapter is
on human uses and how well they are met. For
uses that are not being fully met, the question
arises as to how the shortfall is related to coastal
condition as described by ecological indicators.
Because determining the effect of human
uses on an estuary is specific to an estuary's
surrounding area and relies on local information,
such an assessment can be pursued only at the
level of individual estuaries. The corresponding
chapter in the NCCRII centered on Galveston
Bay, TX, for this assessment; in this report, the
chosen estuary is Narragansett Bay in Rhode
Island and Massachusetts. To a large extent, this
choice is dictated by the availability of data, and
Narragansett Bay is an estuary for which high-
quality, long-term data exist on the abundance
of commercial and recreational fishes. Although
fishing is not the only human use of an estuary,
it is an important use that is thought to be
strongly connected with ecological indicators.
Overview of Narragansett Bay
Narragansett Bay (Figure 9-1), which includes
the Providence and Seekonk rivers, is approximately
48 miles long, 37 miles wide, and 132 mi2 in
area (Ely, 2002). Although the Bay lies almost
entirely within Rhode Island, a small portion of
northeastern Mount Hope Bay is located within
Massachusetts. The Bay's watershed includes parts
of all five Rhode Island counties (Bristol, Kent,
Newport, Providence, and Washington) and five
counties (Worcester, Middlesex, Norfolk, Bristol,
and Plymouth) in Massachusetts. The total area
of the watershed is 1,820 mi2, and approximately
40% of this area is located in Rhode Island (Ries,
1990; Crawley et al., 2000). The three main
rivers that drain into Narragansett Bay are the
Pawtuxet, Blackstone, and Taunton rivers.
This chapter will examine the human uses
of the Bay (bounded at its seaward end by a
line running southwest from Sakonnet Point to
Point Judith) and its watershed. Data associated
with Block Island and the coast of mainland
Rhode Island running along Block Island Sound
from Point Judith to the Connecticut state
line will not be included in this assessment.
Wickford Harbor on the west shore of Narragansett
Bay (courtesy of NBEP).
250
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
WORCESTER
COUNTY
MIDDLESEX
COUNTY
NORFOLK
COUNTY
Blackstone River
Watershed
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICU
PLYMOUTH
COUNTY
RHODE ISLAND Woonsocket
Taunton River
Watershed
•Taunton
PROVIDENCE
COUNTY
Providence Eait Providence
Providence Ri
Pawtuxet River
KENT Watershed
COUNTY
WASHINGTON
COUNTY
Narragansett Bay watershed
Figure 9-1. The Narragansett Bay watershed and surrounding counties (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Development Uses of
Narragansett Bay
Development uses are human activities that
alter the natural state of Narragansett Bay and
its watershed. Some of the most important
of these activities are land use changes and
development in the Bay's watershed; marine
transportation; and point-source discharges of
cooling water and wastewater to the Bay.
Land Use Changes and
Development
By the 18th century, a merchant economy had
developed to replace agriculture as the primary
National Coastal Condition Report III
economic force in Rhode Island. The deep, sheltered
harbors and availability of fresh water helped to
spur the transformation of Newport into one
of the premier centers for maritime trade and
shipbuilding. By the middle of the 19th century,
another transformation had occurred: the rivers
draining into Narragansett Bay were being used
to provide both power and transportation for a
rapidly developing industrial economy. Textile
mills, metalworking operations, and jewelry
manufacturing plants lined many of the watershed's
rivers (Crawley et al., 2000); however, by the 20th
century, industrial production had declined, in
part due to the migration of textile industries to
the south. Currently, land use in the Narragansett
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Bay watershed is divided among a number of
categories (Table 9-1)- The largest categories of
developed land are residential and agricultural.
Throughout the 20th century, the counties in the
Narragansett Bay watershed have been a popular
place to live (Figure 9-2). The human population
in the watershed doubled between 1900 and 1980.
The population of the watershed has moved from
urban areas to the more suburban and rural parts of
the watershed since 1980 due to the advent of better
transportation and changing lifestyles, resulting
in a population decline in several cities, including
East Providence, Warwick, Newport, Barrington,
and Woonsocket in Rhode Island, and Worcester
and Taunton in Massachusetts (Burroughs,
2000; Crawley et al., 2000). Although the rate of
population growth in Rhode Island has been slow
since 1980, residential development, particularly
single-family homes, has increased markedly
(Rhode Island Department of Administration,
2000). Currently, the watershed's population is
estimated at approximately 1.8 million people,
and residential land accounts for more than 20%
of the area, representing the largest area of any
developed land use category in the watershed
(Crawley et al., 2000; Save the Bay, Inc., 2006).
Table 9-1 . Land Use in the Narragansett Bay
Watershed (Crawley et al., 2000)
Land Use
Residential
Agricultural
Commercial
Recreational
Institutional
Industrial
Transportation and Utilities
Roads
Commercial/Industrial Mix
Urban Vacant
Gravel Pits and Quarries
Waste Disposal
Wetlands, Water, Barren
Forest
Area (mi2)
216.6
76.7
20.7
19.4
16.7
13.4
10.7
10.2
2.3
6.9
8.4
4.4
203.3
470.4
Percent
20.1
7.1
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.4
18.8
43.6
The approximately 77 mi2 of farmland in the
Narragansett Bay watershed represent approximately
7% of the total land area (Crawley et al., 2000).
Major agricultural crops in Rhode Island and
Massachusetts include corn and turf. Although
Newport County, RI, has the highest percentage
(15%) of agricultural area in the watershed,
Worcester County, MA, has the greatest number
of acres (104,000 acres) dedicated to agriculture
(USDA, 2004a; 2004b). It should be noted that
these data are presented on a county level and may
include agricultural area located within the county,
but outside of the Narragansett Bay watershed.
Although the economy of Rhode Island
has moved towards a mix of service industries,
specialized businesses, and tourism and recreation
since World War II, industrial operations remain
in the area. Land used for industrial operations
accounts for a little over 1% of the land area
in the Narragansett Bay watershed (Crawley et
al., 2000). According to the Economic Census,
the manufacturing industry in Rhode Island
produced $10.5 billion in sales and employed
more than 75,000 people in 1997 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2000b). The computer manufacturing and
electronics, fabricated metal, electrical equipment
and appliances, and textile industry sectors offered
the major employment opportunities in the
Bristol, RI
Kent, RI
- Newport, RI
Providence, RI
Washington, RI
Bristol, MA
Norfolk, MA
Plymouth, MA
Worcester, MA
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Figure 9-2. Population trends by county in the
Narragansett Bay watershed (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
252
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Industrial production in the Narragansett Bay watershed
developed in the middle of the 19th century (courtesy
of Marcbela).
region (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a; 2000b). For
example, manufacturing in Worcester County,
MA, accounts for $11.3 billion annually and
employs 61,000 people, primarily in computer,
metal fabrication, and chemical manufacturing. In
Bristol County, MA, computer, electronics, and
primary metal manufacturing activities accounted
for $7-7 billion in 1997 and employed more than
49,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a).
Marine Transportation
Marine transportation is integral to the
economy of Narragansett Bay. There are two main
shipping channels (Providence River and Quonset/
Davisville) and three public ports (Providence, Fall
River, and Quonset/Davisville). The majority of
commercial marine vessels entering Narragansett
Bay carry petroleum products. In 1997, 86% of
the 8.78 million t of cargo entering Narragansett
Bay were petroleum products, primarily fuel
oil and gasoline carried on barges. Cruise ships
and ferries are also an important part of the
economy of Narragansett Bay, and the number
of cruise ships heading to Newport, RI, has
increased since 1994 (Anderson et al., 2000).
Recently, the citizens of Rhode Island were faced
with three marine transportation issues. Since last
dredged in 1971, the Providence Ship Channel
had become so shallow and narrow that the U.S.
Coast Guard restricted the passage of two-way ship
traffic and deep-draft vessels in the upper portion
of the Channel located within the Providence
River. As a result of these restrictions, petroleum
products had to be transferred from tankers onto
barges before delivery to Providence Harbor.
Dredging was required to return the Channel
to its authorized 40-ft depth and to increase the
efficiency of marine transportation to the Harbor.
After some debate, dredging operations began in
April 2003 and were completed in January 2005,
resulting in the removal of 6 million cubic yards
of sediment (USAGE, 2001; 2005). A second
issue concerned the development of a container
ship terminal at the former U.S. Naval facility
at Quonset Point in North Kingstown (Ardito,
2002). The project was dropped in 2003, and
other plans are being developed for the area.
Finally, there have been a number of proposals
to develop liquid natural gas (LNG) terminals
at various locations in Narragansett Bay. Safety,
security, and environmental concerns have been
raised over the transport and storage of LNG.
Point-Source Discharges
Narragansett Bay is also used to receive point-
source discharges of cooling water, industrial
wastewater, and municipal wastewater. EPA
reports that there are more than 40 major point-
source dischargers in the Narragansett Bay
watershed (Figure 9-3) (U.S. EPA, 2005c). The
largest of these dischargers is the Brayton Point
power plant in Somerset, MA. Brayton Point
is the largest fossil-fuel power plant in New
England and produces approximately 6% of the
region's electricity (Ardito, 2002). This plant uses
approximately 800 million gallons of water from
the Bay per day as cooling water; after the water is
used, warm water is discharged to the Bay. Studies
have shown that the discharge of heated water
from the Brayton Point facility to the Bay has
contributed to the collapse of the Mount Hope
Bay winter flounder fishery. In recognition of this
possible conflict between competing human uses,
renewal of the plant's discharge permit contains
provisions to decrease water withdrawals from
the Bay by 94% and reduce the annual heat
discharge by 96% (U.S. EPA, 2003). The next-
largest point-source facility in the watershed is
the Dominion Energy power plant in Providence,
RI, with a discharge flow of approximately 260
million gallons per day (U.S. EPA, 2005c).
National Coastal Condition Report
253
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Wastewater from industrial and municipal
sources is also discharged from point sources
located within the Narragansett Bay watershed. A
number of paint/pigment manufacturers, seafood
processors, and petroleum bulk stations and
terminals operate in Rhode Island and discharge
industrial wastewater to the Bay and its watershed.
The majority of the other large point-source
dischargers are WWTPs. There are ten major
WWTPs in the watershed, with design capacities of
more than 10 million gallons per day; three plants
are located in Massachusetts (Worcester, Brockton,
and Fall River), and seven are located in Rhode
Island (Field's Point [Providence], Bucklin's Point
[East Providence], East Providence, Cranston,
West Warwick, Woonsocket, and Newport) (U.S.
EPA, 2005c). Although the total population of the
watershed has continued to increase, the number
of area residents using these WWTPs has remained
steady over the past 30 years (Nixon et al., 2005).
Industrial and municipal wastewater can
contribute heavy metals to the Bay. In the context
of detailing metal inputs to Narragansett Bay, Nixon
(1995) described the history of development and
industrialization in Rhode Island from colonial
times to the present. Metal inputs began to decline
remarkably after about I960. Some of this decrease
can be attributed to the state's changing economic
base, but increasing controls on metal releases from
a variety of sources, upgrades to STPs, and the
cessation of sewage sludge dumping in the Bay has
also contributed to the decline (Nixon, 1995).
Major Point Sources
• Seafood processor
Industry
• Power plant
• Wastewater treatment plant
Figure 9-3. Major point sources in the Narragansett Bay watershed (U.S. EPA, 2005c).
254
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Nitrogen and phosphorus are other pollutants
that can enter the Bay through point-source
discharges of industrial and municipal wastewater.
Nixon et al. (2005) examined nitrogen and
phosphorus inputs to the Bay from the direct
discharge of municipal wastewater, as well as inputs
from the some of the Bay's tributaries, which can
provide insight into contributions from upstream
point and non-point sources of nitrogen and
phosphorus (including WWTPs). Overall, nitrogen
inputs to the Bay have not increased in recent
decades, and phosphorus inputs have decreased.
The study also concluded that these tributaries
contributed 1.5 times more nitrogen and 2.7 times
more phosphorus than the combined discharges
from the area's three largest WWTPs (Nixon et al.,
2005); however, a large portion of the nutrient load
to these tributaries comes from other municipal
WWTPs.
Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus,
support vegetative growth and are essential to
marine life; however, high levels of nutrients can
lead to excessive vegetative growth. The subsequent
decay of this plant matter consumes oxygen and
lowers dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
waterbody. Bergondo et al. (2005) and Deacutis et
al. (2006) found that summer oxygen measurements
in both deep and shallow waters in certain areas of
upper Narragansett Bay can drop below 2 mg/L (a
level that is intolerably low to some organisms even
when maintained over short periods [hours]). These
hypoxic conditions are due to nutrient-induced algal
growth coupled with the lower mixing rates that
occur during neap tides, which are periods of low
wind and strong stratification that isolate deep water
from surface waters. Bergondo et al. (2005) also
reviewed dissolved oxygen measurements collected
since 1959 during summertime neap tides in the
deep waters of upper Narragansett Bay. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations (< 3 mg/L) were only observed
in 18% of the measurements, indicating that the
presently observed conditions are likely a relatively
new feature of Narragansett Bay. Further information
on dissolved oxygen levels in Narragansett Bay is
available at http://www.geo.brown.edu/georesearch/
insomniacs. In recognition of the low oxygen
levels in the upper Bay and their connection with
nutrient levels, the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (RIDEM) has initiated
a program to reduce nitrogen concentrations in
effluent from WWTPs (RIDEM, 2005b).
The Rose Island Lighthouse is located in the southern portion of the Narragansett Bay, near Newport, Rl (courtesy of
NBEP).
National Coastal Condition Report
255
-------
Summer Dead Zone Kills Billions of Narragansett Bay
Mussels
During the summer of 2001, low dissolved oxygen levels (hypoxia) caused fish kills, foul odors,
and closed beaches throughout Narragansett Bay (Lawton, 2006). At the same time, scientists
discovered a massive die-off of blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), which are a foundation species and
vital to the health of the Bay. Oxygen depletion in bottom waters suffocates sea life, particularly
sedentary bottom dwellers that are unable to leave the area, such as the blue mussels. These species
are frequently keystones of coastal ecosystems, providing water filtration and circulation, as well as
habitat for other species (Altieri and Witman, 2006). As they filter the water, these sedentary bottom
dwellers consume phytoplankton or algae, and the declines in bivalve populations may result in the
inability to avoid future hypoxic events caused by algal blooms.
Increased nutrient levels from sources such as fertilizer applications, sewage spills, or septic tanks
can initiate hypoxic events in estuarine waters. Paired with warm summer temperatures and a lack of
water circulation, nutrient pulses to the estuary create ideal conditions for exponential increases in
phytoplankton populations, resulting in massive algal blooms. As the algae from the blooms die and
sink to the bottom, bacteria consume them along with dissolved oxygen, creating hypoxic areas or
"dead zones" in estuarine bottom waters (Lawton, 2006).
By consuming phytoplankton, suspension feeders such as bivalve mollusks (e.g., blue mussels)
have the potential to help control the eutrophication that ultimately fuels the development of
hypoxic events (Officer et al., 1982); however, bivalves are frequently the casualties of hypoxia due to
their sedentary nature. When hypoxia reduces bivalve populations, the bivalves filter less water and
consume less phytoplankton. A decreased filtration capacity may lead to increased occurrences of
hypoxia and further mortality of these suspension feeders; therefore, these catastrophic hypoxic events
and their resulting localized extinctions may trigger a downward spiral, with coastal zones less able to
cope with environmental degradation (Altieri and Witman, 2006).
One month before the 2001 hypoxia event occurred, surveys of nine mussel reefs in Narragansett
\' Bay revealed healthy, densely packed mussels covering the sea floor. As the summer progressed,
researchers noted the greatest reductions in mussel densities on reefs where bottom-water dissolved
oxygen concentrations were lowest. One of the nine reefs studied experienced complete mussel
extinction, and seven more were severely depleted. Approximately 4.5 billion mussels, about 80%
of the reefs' populations, died that summer. In the fall of 2002, one year after the die-off event, the
'' mussel population on only one of the nine reefs was recovering (Altieri and Witman, 2006).
In order to help assess the effects of the die-off on the Bay, Altieri and Witman (2006) calculated
the filtering capacity of mussels on the reefs. Before the 2001 hypoxic event, healthy mussel
populations took approximately 20 days to filter the equivalent of the entire water volume of
Narragansett Bay. During the summer of 2001, the filtering capacity of the nine mussel reefs studied
declined by more than 75%, increasing the number of days needed to filter the volume of the Bay
to approximately 79 days (Altieri and Witman, 2006). With the mussel population and its filtering
capacity severely depleted, Narragansett Bay may lose the ability to prevent future dead zones from
forming. Dead zones have occurred in Southeast Coast estuaries as a result of the near extinction
of oysters (Crassostrea virginica), which in turn contributed to further hypoxia and failure of oyster
;-, populations to recover (Ulanowicz andTuttle, 1992; Lenihan and Peterson, 1998).
256 National Coastal Condition Report III
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
The loss of a foundation species such as the blue mussel, which filters water and provides food
and habitat for other estuarine organisms, can have a significant, long-lasting effect on the local
Narragansett Bay ecosystem; however, it is not an isolated incident. According to a 2004 United
Nations Environment Programme report (UNEP, 2004), the number of coastal areas affected by
hypoxia worldwide has doubled since 1990. Dead zones similar to those experienced in Narragansett
Bay can also be found along the East Coast of the United States, in European coastal waters, and off
the coasts of Australia, Brazil, and Japan. One of the largest dead zones occurs annually in the Gulf
of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi River Delta, where the hypoxic zone has been know to
extend along the coastline covering up to 8,500 mi2, an area the size of New Jersey (Rabalais et al.,
2002).
When excess nutrients are introduced to poorly flushed waters, massive algal blooms, such as this dense
green macroalgal bloom near Warwick, Rl, can occur These blooms can initiate hypoxic events in estuarine
waters (courtesy of Giancarlo Cichetti, IAN Network).
National Coastal Condition Report
257
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Amenity-Based Uses of
Narragansett Bay
Amenity-based uses depend on the natural
resources of Narragansett Bay and include accessing
the shoreline, swimming, boating, and commercial
and recreational fishing. Over time, many of these
uses have been impacted by human activities
and population pressures in the watershed.
Amenity-based uses contribute economic
and recreational value to the area's residents. For
example, more than 12 million people visit the
Bay area each year, contributing to the area's major
tourism industry (Save the Bay, Inc., 2006). In
1998, this industry was second only to health
services in terms of total wages for the area, and
30% of tourism was associated with amenity-based
uses of Narragansett Bay (Colt et al., 2000). Colt
et al. (2000) estimate that the great economic
value of the Bay's tourism industry is probably far
exceeded by its recreational value to area residents.
Public Access
The Rhode Island Constitution (Article I, Section
17) states that "The people shall continue to enjoy
and freely exercise all rights of fishery, and privileges
of the shore, to which they have been heretofore
entitled under the charter and usages of the state...
'Privileges of the shore' include 'fishing from the
shore, the gathering of seaweed, leaving the shore
to swim in the sea, and passage along the shore.'"
Nonetheless, Bay access is limited because most of
the area landward of high tide is privately owned.
Although there are 16 miles of public beaches,
most of the Bay's 256-mile shoreline is not publicly
accessible (Colt et al., 2000; Ely, 2002; Allard
Cox, 2004). Of the 80 licensed beaches along
Narragansett Bay, 10 are operated by the state or a
town and 70 are privately owned (RIDOH, 2005).
Some of the private and town-owned beaches are
open to the public for a fee. In 1978, the Rhode
Island Coastal Resources Management Council
(CRMC) began to establish public rights-of-way
to the coast. Of the 252 locations described in the
guidebook Public Access to the Rhode Island Coast
(Allard Cox, 2004), 191 access rights-of-way routes
established by the CRMC cross otherwise private
lands to areas where, depending on the particular
right-of-way, the public can reach areas for viewing
nature; fishing; swimming; or launching a boat.
Beaches
Bacterial contamination in Narragansett Bay
has resulted in periodic closures of licensed private
and public beaches. These closures are due to
exceedances of bacterial standards and are generally
associated with stormwater runoff after rainstorms
in the northern, more populated part of the Bay. For
example, episodic closures occur near Providence
due to overflows from combined storm and sanitary
sewers. In other areas, periodic closures occur due
to spills. Table 9-2 lists the number of licensed
beaches in each county and the number of closings/
advisories issued for 2001 to 2004. The Rhode Island
Department of Health maintains a Web site (http://
www.ribeaches.org/closures.cfm) listing current
beach closures. In addition, a general advisory has
been issued to discourage swimming and other
full-body contact activities in the Providence River
portion of upper Narragansett Bay because "These
waters are directly affected by pollution inputs due
to heavy rains and discharges from area wastewater
treatment facilities. Water contact should be avoided
for a minimum of 3 days after heavy rainfall"
(RIDOH, 2005). A combined sewer overflow
(CSO) project is underway in Providence to create
a tunnel that will divert up to 62 million gallons of
storm water for later treatment rather than allowing
it to flow directly into the Bay (Samons, 2002).
Boating is a popular pastime, but the number of slips and
moorings in Narragansett Bay has not risen in proportion
to boat registrations (courtesy of Chris Deacutis).
258
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Table 9-2. Total Number of Licensed Beaches and Closure/Advisory Days (NRDC, 2005)
Number of
County Beaches
Providence
Bristol
Kent
Newport
Washington*
Total
1
4
4
18
44
71
2001
15
4
26
13
4
62
Closure/Advisory Days
2002 2003
6 0
9 132
67 55
21 39
0 79
103 305
2004
38
16
3
192
2
251
^Washington County beaches include those along Rhode Island Sound.
Boating
The number of registered boats in Rhode Island
increased from about 29,000 in 1993 to 41,000
in 2002 (NBEP, 2002), and it is probably fair to
assume that most are used in Narragansett Bay.
In 1988, there were 13,500 slips and moorings in
Narragansett Bay (Colt et al., 2002). New docks
and marinas are disallowed along 70% of the
statewide Rhode Island shoreline, and the number
of slips and moorings has not risen in proportion
to boat registrations (Rhode Island CRMC, 1996;
Liberman, 2005). As a result, most boaters in
Narragansett Bay must tow boats to one of the 32
public or 12 private boat ramps, many of which
have no or limited space for parking cars and
trailers (Allard Cox, 2004; RIDEM, 2005c).
Fishing
Fishing is a popular and rewarding recreational
and commercial activity in Narragansett Bay.
Although the Bay supports commercial and
recreational fishing, the species sought and landed
have changed over time.
Commercial Fishing
In 1880, Narragansett Bay supported a variety
of commercial fisheries, including alewife, tautog,
scup, lobster, and winter flounder. As time
passed, however, the Bay's commercial fisheries
grew smaller as offshore fishing increased. By the
1960s, Narragansett Bay no longer supported
a large commercial finfish fishery (Oviatt et al.,
2003). Currently, the annual commercial fish
catch for Rhode Island fetches more than $70
million (RIDEM, 2005a). The great bulk of these
commercial landings consists offish caught in
Rhode Island Sound or further offshore; however,
Narragansett Bay remains commercially important
for shellfish. An estimated 10-20% of Rhode
Island's total lobster landings are caught in the Bay
(Ely, 2002). In addition, the state's quahog fishery
is contained mostly within the Bay, with average
landings of 1.5 million pounds for the period 1990—
2004 and a value of $7-5 million (NOAA, 2005a).
Although the causes for many of the declines in
the Narragansett Bay fisheries are unknown, some
of them can be traced to changes in environmental
conditions (Ardito, 2003; Oviatt et al., 2003).
For example, habitat loss can play a key role in
fisheries decline. Eelgrass beds are critical habitat
for bay scallops. Narragansett Bay once supported
a large, commercial bay scallop fishery. In 1880,
more than 300,000 bushels of bay scallops were
harvested from Narragansett Bay, a quantity that
would be worth more than $33 million on today's
wholesale market; however, in 2003, the bay scallop
landings from the Bay were nonexistent. The loss of
this fishery can be traced to the loss of the scallop's
habitat—eelgrass beds (Ardito, 2003). Eelgrass beds
were widespread in Narragansett Bay as late as the
1860s, and historical accounts record eelgrass beds
at the head of the Bay in the lower Providence River.
During the 1930s, wasting disease—a widespread
infection partly attributed to the slime mold
Labryinthula zosterae—decimated Atlantic coast
eelgrass populations, including those in Narragansett
Bay (Short et al., 1987). The Bay's eelgrass beds
continued to shrink throughout the 20th century,
due largely to decreased light penetration from
nutrient pollution and algal growth (Ardito, 2003;
Lipsky, 2003). Approximately 100 acres of eelgrass
remain in Narragansett Bay today (Save the Bay,
Inc., 2006). Many former scallop-harvesting areas
of the Bay now support the quahog fishery (Ardito,
2003).
National Coastal Condition Report
259
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Recreational Fishing
About 300,000 sport anglers seek finfish and
shellfish in Rhode Island's marine waters (RIDEM,
2005a). Since 1981, the NMFS has maintained a
database (NOAA, 2005d) containing information
gathered from a survey on recreational catches. It
should be noted that this database shows data on
a statewide level and combines catches in the Bay
with those reported in Rhode Island's sounds. In
the 24-year period from 1981 to 2004, the NMFS
recreational survey showed that the total number
of fish caught annually fluctuated with no overall
trend (Figure 9-4). The median recreational catch
since 1981 has been 2 million fish, and nine species
have been among the five most commonly reported
recreationally caught fish in any given year (Table
9-3) (NOAA, 2005d). On the basis of information
from the RIDEM, an estimated one-third to one-
half of the state's recreational catch is taken from
within the Bay as opposed to Rhode Island Sound,
Block Island Sound, or areas further offshore (Ely,
2002). Narragansett Bay's recreational fishery is
estimated at more than $300 million per year
(NBEP, 2006).
5,000,000
4,000,000
j
' 3,000,000
i
I
• 2,000,000
1,000,000
19801982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998200020022004
Year
Figure 9-4. Recreational fish catches in Rhode Island by
year (NOAA 2005d).
Table 9-3. The Most Commonly Reported
Recreationally Caught Fish in Rhode Island Between
1981 and 2004 (NOAA,2005d)
Number of Years
Fish Species Listed in the Top 5
Bluefish
Scup
Winter flounder
Striped bass
Summer flounder
Tautog
Herrings
Gunner
Atlantic mackerel
24
24
1 1
10
10
10
6
7
5
Estimates of Fish and Shellfish Abundance
Data from systematic trawls and estimates
of recreational fish landings have been used to
monitor shifts in species abundance in Narragansett
Bay. The University of Rhode Island (URI) has
maintained a weekly fish trawl at Fox Island since
the 1960s (Oviatt et al., 2003). RIDEM has also
conducted fishery-independent estimates offish
abundances in the Bay using biannual (spring
and fall) systematic trawling of Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island Sound, and Block Island Sound.
Starting in 1990, the Narragansett Bay biannual
trawling was augmented with monthly trawling at
12 stations randomly selected from a pre-set grid
(Lynch, 2005). The NMFS recreational survey
database (NOAA, 2005d) supplies information on
recreation landings in Rhode Island, and these data
are used in conjunction with trawl data to provide
additional insight into shifts in species abundance.
The species that dominated the URI weekly fish
trawl at Fox Island in the 1960s and 1970s were sea
robins, winter flounder, and windowpane flounder.
These species comprised a much smaller portion
of the catch in the 1980s and a very small portion
in the 1990s. The opposite trend was observed for
crabs and lobsters, which were a very small part of
the total in the 1960s, but grew to dominate the
Fox Island catch in the 1990s (Oviatt et al., 2003).
260
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Figure 9-5 and Table 9-4 combine data on
annual numbers offish taken in RIDEM biannual
trawl surveys with the recreational catch numbers
from the NMFS database. It should be noted that
these two sets of data were collected over different
geographic regions. The RIDEM data used in this
Winter Flounder
7000
1975
2005
Summer Flounder
1975
2000 2005
Bluefish
2500
2000 -
1500 -
1000 -
500 -
1975
2005
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
analysis were collected in Narragansett Bay, whereas
the NMFS data set includes recreational landings
from Rhode Island coastal sounds. This comparison
is not ideal, but is necessary because NMFS does
not segregate their data to distinguish landings in
Narraggansett Bay from those outside of the Bay.
250
200
I 150
I
| 100
z
50
1975
50000
40000
,? 30000
E 20000
10000
1975
250
1975
Tautog
1980
1985
1990
Year
Scup
1995
2000 2005
1980
1985
1990
Year
Gunner
1995
2000 2005
2005
RIDEM trawls
- Recreational catch/1000
Figure 9-5. Number of fish of six species annually taken in RIDEM trawls in Narragansett Bay and number reported
by recreational anglers to NMFS in Narragansett Bay and the Rhode Island coastal sounds (based on data from Lynch,
2005 and NOAA, 2005d).
National Coastal Condition Report
261
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
262
Table 9-4. Comparison of the Most Commonly Harvested Fish Species during RIDEM Trawls Conducted
from 1979-2004 in Narragansett Bay, and Recreational Fishing Efforts Reported to NMFS from 1981-2004 in
Narragansett Bay and the Rhode Island Coastal Sounds (Lynch, 2005; NOAA, 2005d)
Species
RIDEM
Median
(number of fish)
Recreational3
Trendb Median Trendb
(number of fish)
Bay anchovy
Scup
Longfin squid
Butterfish
Winter flounder
Weakfish
Atlantic herring
American lobster
Bluefish
Skates
Windowpane flounder
Alewife
Atlantic moonfish
Blueback herring
Red hake
Summer flounder
Tautog
Spotted hake
Gunner
Striped searobin
Striped bass
Atlantic mackerel
3 1 ,000
8,400
3,800
2,600 1
750 D
470
440 1
350
180
190
120 D
80 1
72 1
60
56 D
42
38 D
26
20 D
20
0 1
0
none
440,000
none
none
89,000
1,700
70,000
none
39,000
1 3,000
none
none
none
**c
none
77,000
100,000
none
79,000
1 6,000
85,000
29,000
—
—
—
—
D
D
1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
—
1
—
3 Recreational landings included fish caught in Rhode Island and Block Island sounds.
bTrends are indicated as increasing (I) or decreasing (D) if Spearman rank correlation coefficient between numbers offish and year was greater
than 0.5 or less than -0.5, respectively.
c Blueback herring are probably included in the recreational landings for"herring."
The graphs in Figure 9-5 plot the annual numbers
of six species commonly caught by the RIDEM
trawls and the landings by recreational anglers
from the NMFS database. These graphs reflect the
large year-to-year variability in annual catch data,
which is characteristic of many species, and provide
the opportunity to evaluate the different results
obtained using the two sampling methods: trawls
(RIDEM) vs. recreational hook-and-line fishing
(NMFS). Table 9-4 displays data for the 20 species
with the highest median annual RIDEM trawl
catch numbers over the 1979—2004 time period
and for the 12 species that were most commonly
taken by recreational anglers between 1981 and
2004. Some of the commonly trawled species are
not taken by recreational anglers, and the median
NMFS recreational catch numbers for these species
are listed as "none" in the table. Conversely, two of
the species commonly taken by anglers (striped bass
and Atlantic mackerel) are often absent in RIDEM
trawls (medians of zero indicate that no fish of
that species were collected during more than half
National Coastal Condition Report II
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
of the years). Table 9-4 also shows whether trawl
catch or recreational landing numbers exhibited
an increasing (I) or decreasing (D) trend over the
time period. Although this correlation was an
objective definition of trends, similar conclusions
can be made by simply looking at the time series
in Figure 9-5 for several of the species (i.e., winter
flounder, tautog, and cunner catches are decreasing,
whereas summer flounder are increasing). It should
be noted that the species and data listed in Table
9-4 are based on long-term data sets; therefore,
species exhibiting large catch numbers over the
short term were excluded. For example, menhaden
were present at high numbers (median of 9,800
fish) in RIDEM trawls collected between 1999
and 2004; however, this species does not appear
in Table 9-4 because the median number offish
collected in trawls over the long-term (1979-2004)
is only 18. Furthermore, although long-term data
may show decreasing trends, some individual
species (e.g., tautog, winter flounder) may be
increasing over shorter time scales (i.e., 2001 to
2006) (personal communication, Lynch, 2006).
All of the fish species caught in Narragansett
Bay forage in the Bay, and some of these species
also spawn in the Bay; however, most species
spawn offshore and move into the Bay as part of
their annual migration. The species that spawn in
Narragansett Bay would seem to be most sensitive
to environmental quality in the Bay. Two of the
species that spawn in the Bay (i.e., tautog and
winter flounder) are recreationally important and
have exhibited decreasing abundances. In addition
to fishing pressure, tautog and winter flounder
population declines are possibly related to the
summertime hypoxia reported in the upper portions
of the Bay (Bergondo et al., 2005; Deacutis, In
press), but these declines could also be related
to large-scale environmental changes unrelated
to any human use of Narragansett Bay. For
example, species shifts in parts of North America
and Europe have been correlated with cyclic
climate changes induced by the North Atlantic
Oscillation (Drinkwater et al., 2003). In addition,
a steady rise in sea surface water temperature has
been observed since the mid-1960s in the coastal
waters of the northeastern United States (Nixon
et al., 2004). If these temperature patterns are
representative of the water column as a whole,
winter flounder populations could be impacted.
Under experimental conditions, warmer water
decreased the survival rates of winter flounder
eggs. These results were attributed to increased
predation on the eggs by sand shrimp (Keller and
Klein-MacPhee, 2000; Taylor and Danila, 2005).
Newport Bridge, Rl (courtesy of NBEP).
National Coastal Condition Report III
263
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Fishery Restrictions
Regardless of the cause for decreasing abundance
of any species, removal of fishing pressure should
benefit the population. The abundance of winter
flounder is so low in Narragansett Bay that
recreational or commercial harvest of this species
is prohibited in parts of the Bay (RIDEM, 2005a).
Because high concentrations of bacteria indicative
of mammalian fecal material were found in water
and in mollusks that are often eaten raw, 34% of the
Bay was permanently closed to shellfishing in 2005
and another 16% was closed for some period after
rainfall events (RIDEM, 2005a). In the absence of
these closures, the quahog landings may have been
greater.
Narragansett Bay encompasses estuarine
and coastal areas in both Rhode Island and
Massachusetts. Although no waterbody-specific
fish advisories are in effect for Narragansett Bay,
both of these states have issued fish consumption
advisories for all estuarine and coastal waters
within their respective jurisdictions, including the
waters of Narragansett Bay (U.S. EPA, 2005b).
Table 9-5 summarizes the fish consumption
advisories covering Narragansett Bay and includes
information on the contaminants for which the
advisories have been issued, the fish and shellfish
species covered in the advisory, and the population
(general population or sensitive subpopulation)
for whom the advisory has been issued.
Fish consumption advisories are issued based
on the level of chemical contaminants detected
in the fish tissue. The PCB advisories have been
in effect since 1993 (Rhode Island) and 1994
(Massachusetts), whereas the mercury advisories
were first issued in 2001 (Massachusetts) and
2002 (Rhode Island). For two popular recreational
species, striped bass and bluefish, the states advise
sensitive populations against consuming any of
these fish because of the levels of mercury and total
PCB concentrations in their tissues (Rhode Island)
or because of PCBs in their tissues (Massachusetts).
In addition, the State of Massachusetts advises
all members of the general population against
consuming the heptatopancreas tissue (tomalley)
of lobster because of elevated concentrations of
PCBs in this tissue. The State of Rhode Island
also recommends that members of the general
population limit consumption to one meal per
month of striped bass because of the PCB levels in
this fish tissue (U.S. EPA, 2005b). In addition, a
commercial fishing ban was in effect for all striped
Table 9-5. Fish Consumption Advisories in Effect for Narragansett Bay in 2004 (U.S. EPA, 2005b)
State Chemical Contaminant
Mercury
Massachusetts — all estuarine and
coastal marine waters
PCBs
Mercury
Ph^de Island — all estuarine and
coastal marine waters PCBs
Populations Targeted by
the Advisory
NCSP
NCSP
NCGP
NCSP
NCSP
RGP
CFB
Fish Species Under Advisory
King mackerel
Shark
Swordfish
Tilefish
Tuna (steaks)
Bluefish
Lobster (tomalley)
Striped bass
Bluefish
Shark
Swordfish
Striped bass
Bluefish
Striped bass
Striped bass 26-37" in length*
NCSP=No-consumption recommended for sensitive populations (pregnant and nursing women and children)
NCGP=No-consumption recommended for the general population
RGP=Restricted consumption for the general population to one meal/month
CFB=Commercial fishing ban
*This ban has since been lifted (personal communication, Deacutis, 2006)
264
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
bass from 26—37 inches in length (U.S. EPA,
2005b); however, this ban has since been lifted
(personal communication, Deacutis, 2006).
It is important to note that fish advisories are
issued by state governments; therefore, some
differences between state advisories may occur in
estuarine areas that span state borders. It should
also be understood that many species offish, such
as striped bass and bluefish, are highly migratory
in nature. The mercury and PCB concentrations
bioaccumulated in the tissues of these species are
not solely derived from chemical contamination
in Narragansett Bay, but have been accumulated
from exposure to contamination along the species'
migratory routes, which include many of the
estuaries and coastal areas of the Northeast.
by
Human uses are being met by Narragansett Bay;
however, as with most any other estuary, there are
some limitations. Development uses are presently
met, but there is controversy. Earlier plans to build a
container ship terminal at Quonset Point have been
dropped, but plans are being pursued to develop
LNG terminals at various locations in Narragansett
Bay. In order to decrease the frequency and spatial
extent of summertime hypoxia in the deep waters
of the upper Bay, nitrogen inputs are being reduced
by increasing the level of treatment required at
WWTPs from secondary to tertiary treatment.
Rhode Islanders and tourists relish the Bay's
natural amenities. The shoreline is public in Rhode
Island, and while ready access to most of it is
enjoyed by property owners, an increasing number
of public access points are being established.
Boat registrations indicate that the popularity of
boating is on the rise; however, participants in
this activity would benefit from improved access
points. The availability of slips and mooring
space has not kept pace with the rise in boat
registrations, and many of the shore access points
do not have parking space for boat trailers.
Bacterial contamination causes periodic beach
closures and is the basis of a permanent advisory
against recreational water contact in the Providence
River. Closures generally occur after storm events
carry runoff into the Bay. In Providence, a CSO
project is proceeding to capture storm water
before it enters the Bay. The successful completion
of this project may lead to the removal of a
permanent advisory against recreational water
contact in some areas. Bacteria are also the cause
of permanent shellfish bed closures in over 34%
of Bay waters, with an additional 16% of the area
closed after storms. These closures are effectively
removing some predation on quahogs in the
closed areas, and these populations may be serving
as the seed stock to sustain the quahog fishery
in the rest of the Bay (Oviatt et al., 2003).
The Rhode Island commercial fishery has
moved offshore during the past 50 years. With the
exception of the quahog and small lobster fisheries,
the Bay no longer supports a major commercial
fishery; however, the recreational fishery attracts
over 300,000 anglers each year and is a major
part of Rhode Island's tourist industry. Although
winter flounder dominated the recreational catch
in the early 1980s, the abundance of this species
has been decreasing since the late 1980s, and there
is a current ban on harvesting winter flounder
in most of the Bay. The total annual number of
all fish species harvested recreationally has been
relatively constant (no positive or negative trend),
and the decrease in the catch of demersal fish
(e.g., winter flounder, tautog) has been countered
by the increase in catch of summer flounder
and pelagic fish (e.g., bluefish, striped bass).
Because the total recreational catch has remained
relatively constant, winter flounder population
declines have not decreased the overall value
of Narragansett Bay to recreational anglers.
Although recreational catches remain relatively
constant in the Bay, fish advisories first issued for
PCBs in the 1990s and for mercury in the early
2000s remain in effect. These advisories recommend
that sensitive populations (e.g.,pregnant and
nursing women, young children) not consume
any of the listed species from the Bay. In addition,
advisories in effect for the general population
recommend no consumption of lobster tomalley
(Massachusetts) and restricted consumption of
striped bass (Rhode Island). These advisories restrict
uses of Narragansett Bay's fishery resources.
National Coastal Condition Report
265 '
-------
Chapter 9 | Health of Narragansett Bay for Human Use
Human Uses and NCA
Environmental Indicators
As reported in the NEP CCR (U.S. EPA, 2006b),
the overall condition of Narragansett Bay is rated
poor based on the four NCA indices of estuarine
condition (Figure 9-6). The water quality index for
Narragansett Bay is rated fair, the benthic index is
rated fair to poor, and the sediment quality and fish
tissue contaminants indices are both rated poor.
Figure 9-7 provides a summary of the percentage
of estuarine area in good, fair, poor, or missing
categories for each parameter considered. Please
refer to Chapter 1 for a summary of the criteria used
to develop the rating for each index and component
indicator. This environmental assessment is
based on data from 56 NCA sites sampled in the
Narragansett Bay estuarine area in 2000 and 2001.
In general, the water quality, sediment quality,
and benthic index data demonstrate a north-to-
south gradient, with poorer conditions found in the
northern, more populated portion of the estuary.
These findings are consistent with the human uses
being compromised in the same portion of the Bay.
The fish tissue contaminants index was rated poor
for 91% of the fish and shellfish samples collected
from the Bay, and all whole-fish samples surveyed
contained quantities of PCBs that exceeded or fell
within EPA's Advisory Guidance values for fish
consumption. These results were consistent with
the fish advisories issued for the Bay. It should be
noted that migratory fish species can bioaccumulate
contaminants across a wide geographic range;
therefore, high contaminant concentrations
measured in fish collected in Narragansett Bay are
not necessarily indicative of high levels of pollution
in the Bay. This index is best examined in context
with other environmental indicators.
Overall Condition
Narragansett Bay
(1.75)
Good Fair
Poor
Water Quality Index (3)
Sediment Quality Index (I)
Benthic Index (2)
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (I)
Figure 9-6. The overall condition of the Narragansett
Bay estuarine area is poor (U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen (DIN)
Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
20 40 60 80
Percent Estuarine Area
100
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Figure 9-7. Percentage of estuarine area achieving
each rating for all indices and component indicators
Narragansett Bay (U.S. EPA/NCA).
266
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
APPENDIXA
=—
Quality Assurance
-------
Appendix A | Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance
The primary purpose of this appendix is to
provide information regarding the sample collection,
data quality, and data analysis methods used in this
report. This appendix provides additional specific
detail and explanation on the analysis of uncertainty
(i.e., error estimates) and the assignment of ratings
and calculation of scores used in the regional and
national assessments. An important programmatic
goal is to provide researchers with a large, robust
database of coastal environmental information
of known data quality. The National Coastal
Assessment (NCA) partners have already written
many peer-reviewed journal articles using these data.
It is our hope that other researchers will recognize the
utility of this large database and add to the body of
knowledge on coastal monitoring and assessment.
Analysis of Uncertainty
Background
As one of the largest and most comprehensive state
partnership programs, the NCA allows assessment of
ecological condition at state, regional, and national
scales. The program partners use the NCA Quality
Assurance (QA) Program to monitor and assess the
quality of the data collected through NCA activities.
The NCA QA Program is conducted under the
guidance of the National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) Director
of Quality Assurance. The NCA QA team
consists of the following team members:
• National QA Coordinator—Assures that a
QA program is in place and being followed
and that the known quality of the data
sets developed by the national contract
laboratories is properly documented.
• Four regional QA coordinators—Assure that
the QA program is being followed and develop
the documentation supporting the known
quality of the data collected in the NCA.
• Twenty-four state QA coordinators—
Responsible for reviewing and qualifying all
data sets sent to the program from their
respective states.
A detailed Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) was developed by the NCA (U.S. EPA,
200 Ib) and provided to all participants in the
program. Compliance with the QAPP is assessed
through extensive field training exercises, site
visits, reviews, and audits. The QAPP addresses
multiple levels of the program, ranging from
the collection and laboratory processing of field
samples to the review of data sets compiled
from the field and laboratory activities. The
NCA QA team is responsible for performing
assessments of the adequacy of these activities.
Sample Collection
Approximately 2,200 water quality sites were
sampled in both the 1999-2000 and 2001-2002
time frames. This count includes Chesapeake
Bay water quality sites, Puerto Rico 2000 sites,
and sites in Southcentral Alaska and Hawaii.
The number of sites varied slightly among the
media sampled based on the acceptance/rejection
criteria detailed in the field sampling manual and
the QAPP; however, more than 2,000 sites were
sampled for each media (except fish tissue, see
below) in each of the National Coastal Condition
Report (NCCR) time periods. To ensure the
comparability of data between states, NCA
conducted a 4- to 5-day training workshop for all
state partners participating in the program. The
workshop included training on the application of
the probability-based design to state monitoring
activities and implementation of the standardized
methods required for sample collection. Each
state field crew was evaluated on their ability to
apply the protocols and received certification after
the training based on a field trial. As outlined in
the National Coastal Assessment Field Operations
Manual (U.S. EPA, 200la), field crews were
audited throughout the duration of the program
to ensure comparable sampling methods were
used. Each field crew is visited once at the
beginning of each sampling season and reviewed
for adherence to the protocols in the QAPP.
268
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Appendix A | Quality Assurance
Data Quality
Before the sampling event began in 2000, NCA
convened a diverse panel of environmental scientists
to help formulate a list of core indicators to ensure
that the NCA collected the appropriate types of
data to support its mission. These indicators and
the application of these indicators are reviewed
prior to NCA data analysis and the publication
of each NCCR. In order to ensure that the data
collected were of appropriate quality to generate
sound estimates on environmental condition, the
NCA utilized the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) concept of data quality objectives
(DQOs) to set the overall level of data quality
required by management to make informed
decisions. In other words, how much error can
be tolerated within the measurement process
before the data are deemed unacceptable?
NCA developed an a priori, program-level
DQO for estimates of condition: "For the
cumulative distribution function (CDF) of each
index and component indicator of condition,
estimate the portion of the resource in degraded
condition within ±10% for the overall system and
±10% for subregions, with 90% confidence based
on a completed sampling regime." Table A-l shows
that this requirement was met by the estimates
of condition in this report for the indices and
component indicators in all regions, with the
exception of Puerto Rico and the Great Lakes. It
should be noted that the uncertainty associated
with areal estimates of ecological condition in the
Great Lakes cannot be determined because areal
estimates of condition were not available for the
Great Lakes. Also, the fish tissue contaminants
index is expressed as a percentage offish samples
analyzed (Northeast Coast region) or stations where
fish were caught (all other regions); therefore,
the uncertainty associated with areal estimates
of ecological condition cannot be determined.
Data Assessment Methods
In general, all data assessments for this report
followed the methods outlined in the National
Coastal Condition Report II (NCCR II) (U.S. EPA,
2004a). For most of the regions, the data used in the
assessments of condition were collected in 2001 and
2002 (some exceptions exist; see Table A-2). In the
Gulf Coast, Southeast Coast, and Northeast Coast
regions, these data were compared to similar survey
data collected in the 1990s and 2000 to conduct
an initial estimate of trends in estuarine condition.
Table A-l . Levels of Uncertainty Associated with the Estimate of Proportion of Area in Poor Condition ^^^^^H
(200 1-2002, except West Coast 1 999-2000, and Puerto Rico 2000) ^^^H
Northeast
Index/Indicator Coast
Water Quality Index
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment TOC*
Coastal Habitat Index
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue
Contaminants Index
4%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
6%
-------
Appendix A | Quality Assurance
Table A-2. Years Assessed for NCCR III Condition
Estimates and for Trends in Condition
Years Assessed Years Assessed
Region for NCCR III for Trends
Northeast Coast
Southeast Coast
Gulf Coast
West Coast
Great Lakes
Southcentral
Alaska and Hawaii
Puerto Rico
2000-2002
2001-2002
2001-2002
1 999-2000
2001-2002
2002
2000
1990-1993,
2000-200 1
1994-1997,
2000-2002
1991-1994,
2000-2002
NA
NA
NA
NA
Assignment of Ratings and
Calculation of Scores
Determining Rating Scores for
Indices
The data analysis methods that were used to
determine rating scores for the regional and national
condition indices and component indicators were
similar to those used in the NCCR II. These
methods are outlined below and summarized in a
series of tables showing the ranges of values used for
the indices, component indicators, and rating scores.
The data analysis process includes several steps,
which are outlined in Chapter 1. Briefly, each site
receives a rating of "good," "fair," or "poor" for each
index and component indicator (see Tables 1-23, 1-
24, and 1-25 in Chapter 1), depending on the value
of that index or component indicator. The range
of values for these indicators was determined from
literature, best professional judgment, or expert
opinion (Table A-3). In some cases, different value
ranges were determined for different regions based
on comments from peer reviewers and consultations
with state water quality managers. These ranges
are reevaluated for each NCCR by groups of
experts including academic scientists, government
scientists, and others. For the component indicators
and the benthic and fish tissue contaminants
indices, the rating at each station (or fish samples
analyzed for the fish tissue contaminants index in
the Northeast Coast region) is then translated to
scores (good = 5, fair = 3, poor =1). The water
quality and sediment quality index, which are the
two indices with component indicators, ratings
for each station are calculated based on how many
component indicators received a poor rating.
Table A-3. Sources of Information to Establish Ranges of Indicator Values for Good, Fair, or Poor Ratings
Index or Component Indicator
Source
Water Quality Index
Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN)
Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus (DIP)
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Toxicity
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment TOC
Benthic Index
Benthic Diversity (in lieu of benthic index)
FishTissue Contaminants Index
Best professional judgment; consultations with experts and selected
state water quality managers
Bricker et al., 1999; selected state criteria for chlorophyll a in coastal
waters
Smith et al., 2006; best professional judgment; consultations with
selected state water quality managers
Diaz and Rosenberg, 1995; U.S. EPA, 2000a; selected state criteria for
dissolved oxygen in coastal waters
Best professional judgment; consultations with experts and selected
state water quality managers
U.S. EPA, 1994
Long et al., 1995; consultations with experts
Best professional judgment; consultations with experts and selected
state water quality managers
Engle et al., 1994; Weisberg et al., 1997; Engle and Summers, 1999;
Van Dolah et al., 1999; Hale and Heltsche, 2008
Best professional judgment; consultations with experts
U.S. EPA, 2000c; consultations with experts
270
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
Appendix A | Quality Assurance
To determine the regional ratings, an areally
weighted CDF is then calculated for each index
and component indicator (except for the fish tissue
contaminants index) for the distribution of sites
in each region to show what percentage of the area
in each region has scores of 1 (poor), 3 (fair), and
5 (good). The CDF also calculates error estimates
and 95% confidence intervals. The region is then
rated overall as good, fair, or poor for each index
or component indicator based on the percent
area that is rated poor and fair for each index or
indicator. The regional rating for the fish tissue
contaminants index is based on the percentage of
fish samples analyzed (Northeast Coast region) or
monitoring stations where fish were caught (all
other regions) in poor or fair condition. For the
all of the indices of condition, the "fair" rating
can have a score of 2, 3, or 4. This distinction was
based on best professional judgment and was used
to determine when final scores were "fair to poor"
or "good to fair" rather than just fair. The specific
ranges in percent area with poor ratings that result
in scores of 2, 3, or 4 are shown in Table A-4. If a
region has < 50% of its coastal area (or for the fish
tissue contaminants index, fish samples analyzed
[Northeast Coast region] or stations where fish were
caught [all other regions]) rated good, then the
score is 3 and the region is rated fair. The regional
rating for the coastal habitat index is determined
based on the average rate of wetland loss as
indicated by data from the NWI (Dahl, 2002).
Additional steps are required to calculate the
"overall condition" score for each region. The overall
condition score for a region is an average of the
final scores for each index. In this calculation, the
"fair" rating can also have a score of 2, 3, or 4.
To create the national index scores, an areally
weighted average was calculated from the regional
index scores. Each regional index score was
areally weighted by the percentage of total area
of U.S. estuaries and coastal embayments in each
region. For example, the weighted average for
the national water quality index was calculated
by summing the products of the regional water
quality index scores and the coastal area contributed
by each region (Table A-5). The national overall
condition score was then calculated by summing
each national index score and dividing by five.
Table A-4. Ranges of Percent Area Rated Poor that Result in Scores of 1 - 5
Index
Water Quality Index
Sediment Quality Index
Benthic Index
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Index (% of sites)
Poor(l)
>20%
> 15%
>20%
>20%
Fair to Poor (2)
1 8-20%
13-15%
1 8-20%
1 8-20%
Fair (3)
13-17%
8-12%
13-17%
13-17%
Good to Fair (4)
10-12%
5-7%
10-12%
10-12%
Good (5)
< 10%
< 10%
< 10%
Table A-5. Calculation of the National Water Quality Index Score
Region
Northeast Coast
Southeast Coast
Gulf Coast
West Coast
Southcentral Alaska
Hawaii
Great Lakes
Puerto Rico
Water Quality
Index Score (A)
3
3
3
3
5
5
3
3
Proportion of U.S.
EstuarineArea (B)
0.167
0.075
0.171
0.063
0.347
0.002
0.175
0.001
Product
(AxB)
0.501
0.225
0.513
0.189
1.735
0.010
0.525
0.003
National Water
Quality Index Score
Sum (A x B) = 3.70 1
National Coastal Condition Report
271
-------
Appendix A | Quality Assurance
Fish Tissue Contaminant
Assessments in NCCR III
There is currently no EPA guidance available
for evaluating the ecological risk of whole-body
contaminant burdens in fish. EPA's Guidance
for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use
in Fish Advisories: Volume 2: Risk Assessment and
Fish Consumption Limits (U.S. EPA, 2000c)
provides guidance for estimating the contaminant
risk that non-commercial fish and shellfish pose
to consumers. This guidance is intended to
be used by the local, state, regional, and tribal
environmental health officials responsible for
issuing fish consumption advisories. To that end,
the assessments offish tissue contaminants in the
NCCR II and the National Coastal Condition
Report III (i.e., NCCR III) relied on the suggested
human health "benchmarks" provided in this
guidance document. In essence, if concentrations
of contaminants found in the fish tissue met or
exceeded a human health consumption endpoint,
then best professional judgment determined that
the fish were likely exposed to an environmentally
available contaminant.
The methodology recommended in the EPA fish
advisory guidance document (U.S. EPA, 2000c)
and cited in the two previous NCCR documents
was used as a surrogate method for establishing an
"ecological threshold value" for fish and shellfish.
The EPA guidance document was designed to
provide a method for assessing the health risks to
consumers of eating chemical-contaminated fish and
shellfish that are harvested from local waterbodies by
recreational or subsistence fishers (those who rely on
fish as a primary source of protein). The guidance
provides a methodology for developing fish
consumption limits for 25 high-priority chemical
contaminants (i.e., target analytes). These target
analytes were selected by EPA's Office of Water as
significant contaminants based on their documented
occurrence in fish and shellfish, persistence in the
environment, potential for bioaccumulation in
aquatic food webs, and oral toxicity to humans.
The fish advisory threshold values used in the
NCCR reports (see Table 1-20) are based on
values for adults in the general population who
fish recreationally and consume their catch. The
EPA guidance also provides information on input
values for use in calculating fish advisory threshold
values so that they are applicable to more vulnerable
populations (e.g., pregnant and nursing women,
or young children) as well as to subsistence fishers
who typically consume larger quantities of fish
from local waterbodies than the general population.
The NCA analyzed fish tissues for 81 chemical
analytes, 16 of which matched the target analyte list
provided in the fish advisory guidance document
(U.S. EPA, 2000c). These 16 analytes were the only
chemical contaminants monitored by the NCA for
which quantifiable surrogate "ecological threshold
values" could be calculated to evaluate fish tissue
contaminant concentrations. For each analyte, a
concentration range was calculated that provided
for safe consumption of four 8-oz fish meals per
month by a 154-pound adult. For example, the risk-
based EPA Avisory Guidance values for mercury
ranged from 0.12 to 0.23 ppm of mercury in fish
tissue. If the NCA measured a concentration in
fish that was less than 0.12 ppm of mercury, then
the fish sample analyzed (in the Northeast Coast
region) or the monitoring station where fish were
caught (in all other regions) was rated good. If
the contaminant concentration measured in fish
tissue was within the EPA Advisory guidance value
range, then the fish sample analyzed or monitoring
station where fish were caught was rated fair;
and if the mercury concentration exceeded 0.23
ppm, then the fish sample analyzed or monitoring
station where fish were caught was rated poor.
272
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
REFERENCES
-------
References
Refe
erences
Adams, D.A., and S. Benyi. 2003- Sediment Quality of the NY/NJ Harbor System: A 5-year Revisit.
An Investigation under the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(REMAP). EPA/902-R-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Division of
Environmental Science and Assessment, Edison, NJ.
Adams, D.A, J.S. O'Connor, and S.B. Weisberg. 1998. Final Report: Sediment Quality oftheNY/NJ
Harbor System—An Investigation under the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (REMAP). EPA/902-R-98-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2,
Division of Environmental Science and Assessment, Edison, NJ.
Adey, WH. 1975- The algal ridges and coral reefs of St. Croix: Their structure and Holocene
development. Atoll Research Bulletin 187:1—67.
Alaska DCED (Department of Community and Economic Development). 2003- Alaska Economic
Performance Report 2003. Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development,
Division of Community Advocacy, Juneau, AK.
Alaska DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation). 1999- Alaska's 1998 FINAL 303(d) List.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Anchorage, AK.
Alaska DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation). 2005a. Environmental Monitoring &
Assessment Program Implementation Strategy. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Water, Anchorage, AK.
Alaska DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation). 2005b. Water Quality Monitoring &
Assessment Strategy. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water,
Anchorage, AK.
Alaska DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation). 2006. Current Situation Report for
M/V Selendang Ayu Grounding. Situation Report #111 and Final. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Prevention and
Emergency Response Program, Juneau, AK.
Alaska DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation). 2007- Fish Monitoring Program. Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation online information. Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Health, State Veterinarian, Anchorage,
AK. Available at: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/vet/fish.htm (Accessed September 2007).
Allard Cox, M. (ed.). 2004. Public Access to the Rhode Island Coast. Rhode Island Sea Grant,
Narragansett, RI.
Allen, M.J., R.W Smith, and V. Raco-Rands. 2001. Development of Biointegrity Indices for Marine
Demersal Fish and Mega Invertebrate Assemblages of Southern California. Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA
Altieri, AH., and J.D. Witman. 2006. Local extinction of a foundation species in a hypoxic estuary:
Integrating individuals to ecosystem. Ecology #7(3):717—730.
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). 2004a. AMAP'Assessment 2002: Persistent
Organic Pollutants in the Arctic. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway.
274 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme). 2004b. Arctic Pollution: Persistent Organic
Pollutants; Heavy Metals; Radioactivity; Human Health; and Changing Pathways: 2002. Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, Norway.
Anderson, D.M., and L.H. MacDonald. 1998. Modeling road surface sediment production using a
vector geographic information system. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 23:95—107-
Anderson, R.W, D.A. Carey, Y.T. Chang, T. Grigalunas, M. Luo, B. Marti, PA. Popko, J.B. Torgan,
H. Twichell, W.R. Webster, and S. Whitehouse. 2000. Commercial Marine Transportation on
Narragansett Bay: Status, Trends and Issues. White paper prepared for Narragansett Bay Summit
2000. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Providence, RI.
Anderson, D.A., B.A. Keafer, D.J. McGillicuddy, M.J. Mickelson, K.E. Keay, PS. Libby, J.P Manning,
C.A. Mayo, D.K. Whittaker, J.M. Hicky, R. He, D.R. Lynch, and K.W Smith. 2005- Initial
observations of the 2005 Alexandrium fundyense bloom in southern New England: General
patterns and mechanisms. Deep-Sea Research II52:2856—2876.
Aquatic Sciences, Inc. 1996. Examination of Aquatic Nuisance Species Introductions to the Great Lakes
through Commercial Shipping Ballast Water and Assessment of Control Options, Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Final Report, Project E9225/E9285- Aquatic Science, Inc., St. Catherines, ON.
Ardito, T. 2002. Issues to reckon with: Brayton Point is one of several Bay controversies. Narragansett
Bay Journal l(2):l, 6-9.
Ardito, T. 2003- Can we restore the Bay? Narragansett Bay Journal 6~(Fall):l, 16-17-
ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2000. American Lobster Stock Assessment for
Peer Review. Stock Assessment Report No. 00-01 (Supplement). Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission Special Report 61. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC.
Bacon, C.E., WM. Jarman, J.A. Estes, M. Simon, and R.J. Norstrom. 1999- Comparison of
organochlorine contaminants among sea otter (Enhdyra lutris) populations in California and
southeast Alaska. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry /5(3):452—458.
Barren, M.G., R. Heintz, and M.M. Krahn. 2003- Contaminant exposure and effects in pinniped:
Implications for Steller sea lion declines in Alaska. Science of the Total Environment 311(\— 3):
11-33-
Bergondo, D., D.R . Kester, H.E. Stoffel, and WL. Woods. 2005- Time series observations during
the low sub-surface oxygen events in Narragansett Bay during summer 2001. Marine Chemistry
5^7:90-103.
Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999- National
Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and the National Centers for
Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD.
Burroughs, R. 2000. Narragansett Bay Ecosystem Management: Goals, Trends, and Issues. White paper
prepared for Narragansett Bay Summit 2000. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Providence, RI.
National Coastal Condition Report III 275
-------
References
Bush, G.W 2004. Executive Order 13340—Establishment of Great Lakes Interagency Task Force
and Promotion of a Regional Collaboration of National Significance for the Great Lakes—
May 18, 2004. In: The American Presidency Project. ]. Woolley and G. Peters, 2007- University
of California, Santa Barbara online information. University of California, Santa Barbara, CA.
Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=6l434 (Accessed May 2007).
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 1999- Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia: Land and Sea
Interactions. Task Force Report No. 134. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames,
IA.
CENR (Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources). 2000. Integrated Assessment of
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council, Committee
on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 2004. U.S. Ocean Action Plan: The Bush Administrations
Response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Council on Environmental Quality, Committee
on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC.
CH2M Hill, Inc. 1979- A Sediment Reduction Program. Prepared for the Government of the Virgin
Islands of the United States, Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, St. Thomas, VI.
Chaillou, J.C., S.B. Weisberg, F.W Kutz, T.E. DeMoss, L. Mangiaracina, R. Magnien, R. Eskin,
J. Maxted, K. Price, and J.K. Summers. 1996. Assessment of the Ecological Condition of the
Delaware and Maryland Coastal Bays. EPA/620/R-96/004. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Chary, L.K. 2000. Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Alaska: What Does the Science Tell Us?
Circumpolar Conservation Union, Washington, DC.
Coiro, L., S.L. Poucher, and D. Miller. 2000. Hypoxic effects on growth of Palaemonetes vulgaris larvae
and other species: Using constant exposure data to estimate cyclic exposure response. Journal of
Experimental Biology and Ecology 247:243—255.
Colt, A.B., T Tyrrell, and V Lee. 2000. Marine Recreation and Tourism in Narragansett Bay: Critical
Values and Concerns. White paper prepared for Narragansett Bay Summit 2000. Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program, Providence, RI.
Conaway, C.H., E.B. Watson, J.R. Flanders, and A.R. Flegal. 2003- Report on Mercury Deposition in a
Tidal Marsh Downstream of the Historic New Almaden Mining District, California. Submitted to
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, CA.
Connor, M., J.A Davis, J. Leatherbarrow, and C. Werme. 2004. Legacy Pesticides in San Francisco
Bay: Conceptual Model/Impairment Assessment. SFEI Contribution #313- Prepared by the San
Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA, for the Clean Estuary Partnership, Oakland, CA.
Cooksey, C. 2004. NOAA Ship Nancy Foster NF-04-08-CL (March 30-April 11, 2004): Spring 2004
Survey of Ecological Conditions of the U.S. South Atlantic Bight. Cruise Report. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research, Charleston, SC.
276 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
Cooksey, C, R. Fairey, and S. Wilson. 2003- NOAA Ship McArthur II Cruise AR-03-01-NC
(June 1—26, 2003): EMAP Summer '03 Survey of Ecological Conditions of the Western U.S.
Continental Shelf. Cruise Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Environmental Health
and Biomolecular Research, Charleston, SC.
Cooksey, C., J. Hyland, W.L. Balthis, M. Fulton, G. Scott, and D. Bearden. 2004. Soft-bottom Benthic
Assemblages and Levels of Contaminants in Sediments and Biota at Gray's Reef National Marine
Sanctuary and Nearby Shelf Waters Off the Coast of Georgia (2000 and 2001). NOAA Tech.
Memo. NOS NCCOS 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, National Center for Coastal Environmental Health and
Biomolecular Research, Charleston, SC.
Cox, D.C., and L.C. Gordon, Jr. 1970. Estuarine Pollution in the State of Hawaii. Vol. 1: Statewide
Study. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Water Resources Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
Crawley, K., M. Pryor, R. Ribb, S. Kaplan, A. Langhauser, and M. Peck. 2000. Land Use and
Transportation in the Narragansett Bay Watershed: Issues and Challenges. White paper prepared for
Narragansett Bay Summit 2000. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Providence, RI.
Crossett, K.M.,T.J. Culliton, PC. Wiley, andT.R. Goodspeed. 2004. Population Trends along the
Coastal United States: 1980 — 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Management and Budget Office, Special
Projects, Silver Spring, MD.
Cunningham, C., and K. Walker. 1996. Enhancing public access to the coast through the CZMA
Current: The Journal of Marine Education l4(l):8—12.
Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands - Losses in the United States, 1780s to 1980s. Report to Congress. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Group,
St. Petersburg, FL.
Dahl, T.E. 2002. Results of the 2000 Wetlands Inventory. Personal communication from Tom Dahl, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetland Inventory, Madison, WI.
Dahl, T.E. 2003- Results of the 2000 National Wetlands Inventory. Report to Congress. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Daskalakis, K.D., and T.P. O'Conner. 1994. Inventory of Chemical Concentrations in Coastal and
Estuarine Sediments. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 76. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Davis, J.A, F. Hetzel, and J.J. Oram. 2006. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in San Francisco Bay.
Pp. 40—52. In: The Pulse of the Estuary: Monitoring and Managing Water Quality in the San
Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA
Deacutis, C.F. 2006. Personal communication from Christopher F. Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program, to Emaly N. Simone, RTI International. December 6.
National Coastal Condition Report III 277
-------
References
Deacutis, C.E In press. Evidence of ecological impacts from excess nutrients in upper Narragansett
Bay. In: Ecosystem-Based Management of a Southern New England Estuary: A Case Study of
Narragansett Bay. Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, RI.
Deacutis, C.E, D. Murray, W. Prell, E. Saarman, and L. Korhun. 2006. Hypoxia in the upper half of
Narragansett Bay, RI, during August 2001 and 2002, in natural and anthropogenic influences on
the Mount Hope Bay Ecosystem. Northeastern Naturalist /3(Special Issue 4): 173-198.
Dettmann, E.H. 2001. Effect ofwater residence time on annual export and denitrification of nitrogen
in estuaries: A model analysis. Estuaries 2^:481—490.
Diaz, R.J., and R. Rosenberg. 1995- Marine benthic hypoxia: A review of its ecological effects and the
behavioral responses of benthic macro fauna. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review
33:245-303-
Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and AR. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistical Methods Manual.
EPA/620/R-96/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Corvallis, OR.
DiToro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, D.J. Hansen, WJ. Berry, R.C. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P Pavlou,
H.E. Allen, N.A Thomas, and PR. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment
quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals using equilibrium partitioning. Environmental
Toxicology Chemistry 10:1541-1583.
Drinkwater, K.E, A. Belgrano, A. Borja, A. Conversi, M. Edwards, C.H. Greene, G. Ottersen,
A.J. Pershing, and H. Walker. 2003- The response of marine ecosystems to climate variability
associated with the North Atlantic oscillation. Pp. 211—234. In: The North Atlantic Oscillation:
Climate Significance and Environmental Impact. Geophysical Monograph 134. American
Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.
Ebinghaus, R., C. Temme, S.E. Lindberg, and K.J. Scott. 2004. Springtime accumulation of
atmospheric mercury in polar ecosystems. Journal de Physique IV 121:195—208.
Ely, E. 2002. An Overview of Narragansett Bay. Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, RI.
Engle, V.D., and J.K. Summers. 1999- Refinement, validation, and application of a benthic condition
index for northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 22(3 A) :624—635.
Engle, V.D., J.K. Summers, and G.R. Gaston. 1994. A benthic index of environmental condition of
Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 17:372—384.
Environment Canada and U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003- State of the Great Lakes
2003- EPA/905-R-03-004. Prepared by Environment Canada, Federal Great Lakes Program,
Gatineau, Quebec, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Environment Canada and U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005- State of the Great Lakes
2005. EPA/905-R-06-001. Prepared by Environment Canada, Federal Great Lakes Program,
Gatineau, Quebec, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL.
278 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
Fisher, K.M., A.L. Allen, H.M. Keller, Z.E. Bronder, L.E. Fenstermacher, and M.S. Vincent. 2006.
Annual Report of the Gulf of Mexico Harmful Algal Bloom Operational Forecast System (GOM
HAB-OFS): October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005. NOAATech. Rep. NOS CO-OPS 047-
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Service, Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, Silver Spring, MD.
Florida DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). 2007- Northwest District—Project GreenShores.
State of Florida online information. Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Northwest District, Tallahassee, FL. Available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/northwest/ecosys/
section/greenshores.htm (Accessed April 2007).
FWRI (Fish and Wildlife Research Institute). 2006. FWC Biologists Preliminary 2005 Manatee
Mortality Data — Red Tide Contributes to Second-Highest Mortality Year on Record. Press Release.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute,
St. Petersburg, FL.
FWRI (Fish and Wildlife Research Institute). 2007- Features. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission online information. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and
Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, FL. Available at: http://www.floridamarine.org/
features/default.asp?id=1018 (Accessed February 2007).
Garcia-Sais, ]., ]. Morelock, R. Castro, C. Goenaga, and E. Hernandez-Delgado, 2003- Puertorican
reefs: Research smtesis, present tretas and management perspectives. Pp. 111—130. In: Latin
American Coral Reefs. ]. Cortez (ed.). Elsevier Science B.V.
Garcia-Sais, ]., R. Appeldoorn, A. Bruckner, C. Caldow, J.D. Christensen, C. Lilyestrom, M.E.
Monaco, J. Sabater, E. Williams, and E. Diaz. 2005- The state of coral reef ecosystems of Puerto
Rico. Pp. 91—134. In: The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely
Associated States: 2005. ]. Waddell (ed.). NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11.
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science,
Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment's BiogeographyTeam, Silver Spring, MD.
Georgia DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 2003- Georgia's Marsh Dieback. Online
information. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, Brunswick,
GA. Available at: http://crd.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=436
(Accessed April 2007).
GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2004a. Final Amendment 22 to the Reef Fish
Fishery Management Plan to Set Red Snapper Sustainable Fisheries Act Targets and Thresholds,
Set a Rebuilding Plan, and Establish Bycatch Reporting Methodologies for the Reef Fish Fishery.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL.
GMFMC (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council). 2004b. Final Amendment Number 13
to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, U.S. Waters with
Environmental Assessment Regulatory Impact Review and Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Tampa, FL.
National Coastal Condition Report III 279
-------
References
Goolsby, D.A., WA. Battaglin, G.B. Lawrence, R.S. Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper, D.R. Keeney,
and GJ. Stensland. 1999- Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi-Atchafalaya River
Basin: Topic 3 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Decision
Analysis Series No. 17- U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD.
Goolsby, D.A, WA. Battaglin, B.T. Aulenbach, and R.P. Hooper. 2001. Nitrogen input to the Gulf of
Mexico. Journal of Environmental Quality 30:329—336.
Greenfield, B.K., J.A Davis, R. Fairey, C. Roberts, D. Crane, and G. Ichikawa. 2005- Seasonal,
interannual, and long-term variation in sport fish contamination, San Francisco Bay. Science of
the Total Environment 336(1) :25-43.
Guam Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. 2006 Integrated Report. Guam Environmental
Protection Agency, Barrigada, GU.
Gulf of Mexico Foundation. 2007- Year 2005 Restoration Projects - NOAA CRP Restoration Projects -
Project #4002: GreenShores Site 2, Pensacola, FL. Gulf of Mexico Foundation online information.
Gulf of Mexico Foundation, Corpus Christi, TX. Available at: http://www.gulfmex.org/crp4002.
html (Accessed April 2007).
Hagy, J.D. 2002. Eutrophication, hypoxia and trophic transfer efficiency in Chesapeake Bay. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Hagy, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Keefe, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950-
2001: Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries 27(4):634—658.
Hale, S.S., and J.F. Heltshe. 2008. Signals from the benthos: Development and evaluation of a benthic
index for the nearshore Gulf of Maine. Ecological Indicators 5:338—350.
Hammar-Klose, E.S., and E.R. Thieler. 2001. Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: A Preliminary
Database for the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico Coasts. Digital Data Series DDS-68.
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA.
Hansen, L.J., L.H. Schwacke, G.B. Mitchum, A.A. Hohn, R.S. Wells, E.S. Zolman, PE. Rosel, and
PA. Fair. 2003- Geographic variation in polychlorinated biphenyl and organochlorine pesticide
concentrations in the blubber of bottlenose dolphin from the U.S. Atlantic Coast. Science of the
Total Env ironment 319:147—72.
Harvey, J., L. Harwell, and J.K. Summers. 2008. Contaminant concentrations in whole-body fish and
shellfish from U.S. estuaries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 737:403-412.
Hieb, K., M. Bryant, M. Dege, T. Greiner, S. Slater, and K. Souza. 2005- Fishes in the San Francisco
Estuary, 2004 status and trends. IEPNewsletter 18(2):l9-36.
Homer, C., C. Huang, L. Yang, B. Wylie, and M. Coan. 2004. Development of a 2001 national
land-cover database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 70(7):
829-840.
Hood, D.W, and S. Zimmerman (ed.). 1986. "The Gulf of Alaska: Physical Environment and Biological
Resources. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Washington, DC.
280 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
Hoover, D., and C. Gold. 2005- Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Hawaii. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-
2005/344. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Water Resources Division,
Fort Collins, CO.
Houde, M., R. Wells, P. Fair, G. Bossart, A. Hohn, T. Rowles, J. Sweeney, K. Solomon, and D. Muir.
2005- Polyfluoroalkyl compounds in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus)
from the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. Environmental Science and Technology 39'.
6591-6598.
Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, PJ. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and
C.A Johnson (eds.). 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Prepared by Contribution
of Working Group 1 to the 3rd Assignment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY.
Hubbard, D.K., E.H. Gladfelter, and J.C. Bythell. 1993- Comparison of biological and geological
perspectives of coral-reef community structure at Buck Island, U.S. Virgin Islands. Pp. C13—
C19- In: Proceedings of the Colloquium on Global Aspects of Coral Reefs: Health Hazards and
History, 1993. Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Miami.
Hyland, J., C. Cooksey, WL. Balthis, M. Fulton, D. Bearden, G. McFall, and M. Kendall. 2006. The
soft-bottom macrobenthos of Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary and nearby shelf waters off
the coast of Georgia, USA. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 330:307—326.
IEP (Interagency Ecological Program). 2006. CA Department of Water Resources Interagency Ecological
Program (I.E.P.). California Department of Water Resources online information. California
Department of Water Resources, Interagency Ecological Program, Sacramento, CA. Available at:
http://www.iep.ca.gov/ (Accessed June 2006).
Ingersoll, C.G., S.M. Bay, J.L. Crane, L.J. Field, T.H. Cries, J.L. Hyland, E.R. Long, D.D.
MacDonald, andT.P O'Connor. 2005- Ability of SQGs to estimate effects of sediment-
associated contaminants in laboratory toxicity tests or in benthic community assessments.
In: R.J. Wenning, G.E. Batley, C.G. Ingersoll, and D.W Moore, (eds). Use of Sediment Quality
Guidelines & Related Tools for the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments (SQG). SETAC Press,
Pensacola, FL.
IRF (Island Resource Foundation). 1999- Abbreviated 1998 Water Quality Assessment of the United
States Virgin Islands. Submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
by the Government of the Virgin Islands of the United States, Department of Planning and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, St. Thomas, VI.
Jeffrey, C.F.G., U. Anlauf, J. Beets, S. Caseau, W Coles, A. Friedlander, S. Herzlieb, Z. Hillis-
Starr, M. Kendall, V Mayor, J. Miller, R. Nemeth, C. Rogers, and W Toller. 2005- The state
of coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Pp. 45—90. In: The State of Coral Reef
Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. J. Waddell (ed.). NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 11. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration,
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment's
Biogeography Team, Silver Spring, MD.
National Coastal Condition Report III 28 I
-------
References
Johengen, T., D.E Reid, G.L. Fahnenstiel, HJ. Maclssac, EC. Dobbs, M. Doblin, G. Ruiz, and
P.T. Jenkins. 2005- A Final Report for the Project "Assessment of Transoceanic NOBOB Vessels,
Low-Salinity Ballast Water as Vectors for Non-indigenous Species Introductions to the Great Lakes."
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great
Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI, and the University of Michigan,
Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research, Ann Arbor, MI.
Keller, A.A., and G. Klein-MacPhee. 2000. Impact of elevated temperature on the growth, survival,
and trophic dynamics of winter flounder larvae: A mesocosm study. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 57(12):2382-2392.
Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.E Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell,
T.R. Fisher, EM. Gilbert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D.
Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005- Eutrophication
of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series
303:1-29.
Kerans, B.L., and J.R. Karr. 1994. A benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for rivers of the
Tennessee Valley. Ecological Applications 4:768—785-
King, J.E. 1983- Northern phocids. Pp. 79-85- In: Seals of the World, 2nd edition. British Museum
(Natural History) London, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
LACSD (Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts). 2006. Palos Verdes Ocean Monitoring Annual
Report, 2005- Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Whittier, CA
Larrance, J.D., D.A Tennant, AJ. Chester, and PA. Rufflno. 1977- Phytoplankton and primary
productivity in the northeast Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet final report. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration/Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf Annual
Reports of Principal Investigators 10(1977):!—136.
Larsen, PE, A.C. Johnson, and L.E Doggett. 1983- Environmental Benchmark Studies in Casco Bay-
Portland Harbor, Maine, April 1980. NOAATechnical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-19- U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Lauenstein, G.G., E.A Crecelius, and A.Y. Cantillo. 2000. Baseline Metal Concentrations of the U.S.
West Coast and Their Use in Evaluating Sediment Contamination. Presented at the Society for
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, November 12—15-
Lawton, W. 2006. Marine Ecology: "Dead Zone" Summer Killed Billions of Ocean State Mussels. Brown
University online information. Brown University, Office of Media Relations, Providence, RI.
April 11, 2006. Available at: http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2005-06/
05-108.html (Accessed 2006).
Leeworthy, V.R. 2000. Preliminary Estimates from Versions 1—6: Coastal Recreation Participation,
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Oceans and Coasts, Special Projects Office,
Silver Spring, MD.
282 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
Leeworthy, V.R., and EC. Wiley. 2001. Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation, National
Survey of Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) 2000. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects,
Silver Spring, MD.
Lefkovitz, L.E, V.I. Cullinan, and E.A Crecelius. 1997- Historical Trends in the Accumulation of
Chemicals in Puget Sound. NOAATech. Memo. NOS ORCA 111. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver
Spring, MD.
Lenihan, H.S., and C.H. Peterson. 1998. How habitat degradation through fishery disturbance
enhances impacts of hypoxia on oyster reefs. Ecological Applications 5:128—140.
Liberman, E. 2005- Give 'em the slip. Rhode Island Monthly May:25-26
Lipsky, A. 2003- From shucking houses to seeding machines, restoring the bay's eelgrass. Narragansett
Bay Journal 6(fall):8.
Livingston, PA, and T.K. Wilderbuer. 2007- What is the Impact of the Ecosystem on Fishery Resources
in the Bering Sea? National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Fisheries-Oceanography Investigations Program, Seattle WA Available at: http://www.
beringclimate.noaa.gov/essays_livingston.html (Accessed May 2007).
Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and ED. Calder. 1995- Incidence of adverse biological
effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments.
Environmental Management 1.9(1): 81—97.
Long, E.R., A. Robertson, D.A. Wolfe, J. Hameedi, and G.M. Sloane. 1996. Estimates of the
spatial extent of sediment toxicity in major U.S. estuaries. Environmental Sciences & Technology
30:3585-3592.
Long, E.R., T. Hameedi, A. Robertson, M. Dutch, S. Aasen, K. Welch, S. Magoon, R. Carr,
CK ' J ' ' ' ' ' o ' '
T. Johnson, J. Biedenbach, K. Scott, C. Mueller, and J. Anderson. 2000. Sediment Quality in
Puget Sound: Year 2, Central Puget Sound. NOS NCCOS CCMA Technical Memo No. 147
and Ecology Publication No. 00-03-055- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD; and Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA.
Loope, L.L. 1998. Hawaii and Pacific Islands. In: Status and Trends of the Nations Biological Resources.
M.J. Mac, PA Opler, C.E. Puckett Haecker, and PD. Doran (eds.). U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Lynch, T.R. 2005- Assessment of Recreationally Important Finfish Stocks in Rhode Island Waters — Coastal
Fishery Resource Assessment — Trawl Survey 1979 to Present. Database output. Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish & Wildlife, Marine Fisheries,
Jamestown, RI.
Lynch, T.R. 2006. Personal communication from Timothy R. Lynch, Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management, to David Whitall, NOAA. December.
National Coastal Condition Report III 283
-------
References
Macauley, J.M., J.K. Summers, and V.D. Engle. 1999- Estimating the ecological condition of the
estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 57:59--83.
Macauley, J.M., L.C. Harwell, and H.V. Alafita. 2007- The ecological condition of Veracruz, Mexico
estuaries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 133(1— 3): 177—85-
Mahler, B., P. Van Metre, and E. Callender. 2004. National-Scale Trends in Metals in Urban and
Reference Lake Sediment Cores, 1975 to Present. Abstract and oral presentation at The Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 25th Annual Meeting in North America.
Mahler, B.J., P.C. Van Metre, T.J. Bashara, J.T. Wilson, and D. A. Johns. 2005- Parking lot sealcoat:
An unrecognized source of urban polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environmental Science &
Technology 39(l5):5560-5566.
May, E.B. 1973- Extensive oxygen depletion in Mobile Bay, Alabama. Limnology and Oceanography
18:353-366.
McRae, G. 2006. Personal communications from G. McRae, Florida Fish & Wildlife Research
Institute, to Virginia Engle, U.S. EPA/ORD via phone and e-mail. May 2006.
Meier, K., J. P. Laurel, and J. E. Maragos. 1993- Hawaii (USA). In: A Directory ofWetlands in Oceania.
D.A. Scott (ed.). IWRB, Slimbridge, U.K. and AWB, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium and Mobile Bay NEP (National Estuary Program).
2007- Mississippi—Alabama Habitat Database. Mobile Bay National Estuary Program online
information. Mobile Bay National Estuary Program, Mobile, AL. Available at: http://restoration.
disl.org/www/ (Accessed April 2007).
MMS (Minerals Management Service). 1995. Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149:
Final Environmental Impact Statement. MMS 95-0066. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Minerals Management Service, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Region, Anchorage, AK.
Mobile Bay NEP (National Estuary Program). 2002. Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan, Volume I—A Call to Action. Mobile Bay National Estuary Program, Mobile, AL.
Monbet, Y. 1992. Control of phytoplankton biomass in estuaries: A comparative analysis of microtidal
and macrotidal estuaries. Estuaries 15(4): 563—571.
MRLC (Multi-resolution Land Characteristics) Consortium. 2007- MRLC Consortium. Online
information. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Multi-resolution Land
Characteristics Consortium, Sioux Falls, SD. Available at: http://www.mrlc.gov/index.asp
(Accessed March 2007).
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 2001. Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water
Act. Prepared by the Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses, National Research Council,
National Academy of Sciences. Published by National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Safety Council. 1998. Coastal Challenges: A Guide to Coastal and Marine Issues. National
Safety Council, Environmental Health Center, Washington, DC.
NBEP (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program). 2002. More boats in R.I. Narragansett Bay Journal 1(2):9.
284 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
NBEP (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program). 2006. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. Narragansett
Bay Estuary Program online information. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Providence, RI.
Available at: http://www.nbep.org/ (Accessed November 2006).
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2001. TRACAdvisory Report on Stock Status -A report
of the Fourth Meeting of the Transboundary Resources Assessment Committee (TRAC), St. Andrews
Biological Station, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, April 17—20, 2001. Northeast Fisheries Science
Center Ref. doc. 01-08. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods
Hole, MA.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2002. Assessment of 20 Northeast Groundfish Stocks
through 2001 — A Report of the Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM), Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, October 8—11, 2002. Northeast Fisheries Science
Center Reference Document 02-16. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Nelson, WG., R. Brock, H. Lee, J.O. Lamberson, and F. Cole. 2007- Condition of Estuaries and Bays
of Hawaii for 2002: A Statistical Summary. EPA/620-R-07/001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Nemeth, R. 2005- Population characteristics of a recovering U.S. Virgin Island red hind spawning
aggregation following protection. Marine Ecology Progress Series 286:81—97.
NERRS (National Estuarine Research Reserve System). 2003- NationalEstuarine Research Reserve
System Strategic Plan 2003—2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Silver
Springs, MD.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2004. Data on PCB concentrations in dolphins
measured during an unusual mortality event in St. Joseph Bay, Florida in 2004. Unpublished.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Marine Analytical Quality Assurance
Program, Charleston, SC.
Nixon, S.W 1995- Metal Inputs to Narragansett Bay: A History and Assessment of Recent Conditions.
Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, RI.
Nixon, S.W, J.W Ammerman, L.P Atkinson, V.M. Berounsky, G. Billen, WC. Boicourt, WR.
Boynton, T.M. Church, D.M. DiToro, R. Elmgren, J.H. Garber, A.E. Giblin, R.A Jahnke,
N.J.P Owens, M.E.Q. Pilson, and S.P Seitzinger. 1996. The fate of nitrogen and phosphorus at
the land-sea margin of the North Atlantic Ocean. Biogeochemistry 35:141—180.
Nixon, S.W, S. Granger, B.A Buckley, M.L. Lament, and B. Rowell. 2004. A one hundred and
seventeen year coastal water temperature record from Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Estuaries
27(3):397-404.
Nixon, S., B. Buckley, S. Granger, L. Harris, A. Oczkowski, L. Cole, and R. Fulweiler. 2005-
Anthropogenic Nutrient Inputs to Narragansett Bay: A Twenty-five Year Perspective. Prepared by
University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography. Prepared for Narragansett Bay
Commission, Providence, RI, and Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, RI.
National Coastal Condition Report III 285
-------
References
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999- Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of U.S.
Living Marine Resources, 1999. NOAATech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-41. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2002. Fisheries of the United States 2001. Current Fishery
Statistics, No. 2001. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2003- Fisheries of the United States 2002. Current Fishery
Statistics, No. 2002. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2004. Fisheries of the United States 2003. Current Fishery
Statistics, No. 2003- U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005a. 2004 Report to Congress: The Status of U.S. Fisheries.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005b. Biennial Report to Congress on the Recovery Program
for Threatened and Endangered Species: October 1, 2002—September 30, 2004. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Springs, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005c. Fisheries of the United States 2004. Current Fishery
Statistics, No. 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2006. Interim Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery
Planning Guidance. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Springs, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2007- Fisheries of the United States 2006. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). In press. Our Living Oceans: Report on the Status of U.S.
Living Marine Resources. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1988. Fishery resource assessment
programs and Large Marine Ecosystems, Folio Map No. 7- In: A National Atlas: Health and Use
of Coastal Waters, United States of America. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Oceanography and Marine
Assessment, Rockville, MD.
286 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1995- NOAA Coastal Change Analysis
Program (C-CAP): Guidance for Regional Implementation. NOAA Technical Report NMFS
123- U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Washington, DC.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1998. NOAA's Estuarine Eutrophication
Survey—Volume 5: Pacific Coast Region. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment, Silver Springs, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003a. Final Report: Assessment of
Contaminant Concentrations in Tissues ofBottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in Florida
Bay. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research,
Charleston, SC.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003b. Pacific Coast Land Cover
2000-ERA Land Cover/Land Use. Data set. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Services Center, Charleston, SC.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004a. Lake Erie Research Planning
Workshop, March 4-5, 2004, GLERL/NOAA Ann Arbor, MI. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great Lakes Environmental Research
Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004b. National Marine Sanctuaries:
A Monitor ing Framework for the National Marine Sanctuary System. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2004c. News- Plankton Boost Detected
in Northern Ocean Water off the U.S. Press Release. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast
Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, MA. October 5-
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005a. Commercial Fishery Landings
Database. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of
Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver
Spring, MD. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/stl/commercial (Accessed December 2005).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005b. CSCOR Sponsored Research
Cruise Documents Low Oxygen and Animal Mortalities Associated with Florida Toxic Algal Bloom.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Center for
Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, Silver Spring, MD.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005c. Gulf of Mexico Harmful Algal
Bloom Bulletin—20 October 2005. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National Environmental Satellite, Data,
and Information Service, Silver Spring, MD.
National Coastal Condition Report III 287
-------
References
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2005d. Marine Recreational
Fishery Statistics Survey Database. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
online information. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries
Statistics Division, Silver Spring, MD. Available at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/stl/recreational
(Accessed December 2005).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2006a. International Field Years on
Lake Erie. Fact Sheet. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2006b. Latest Tests of NOAA Gulf
Fish Surveys Show No Negative Impact on Seafood Quality. Press Release. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, MD. January.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2006c. NOAA Fisheries: Office of
Protected Resources. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. Available at: http://www.
nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/contact.htm (Accessed July 2006).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007a. Bering Climate—A Current
View of the Bering Sea Ecosystem and Climate. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
online information. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Fisheries-Oceanography Investigations Program, Seattle, WA Available at:
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/ (Accessed May 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007b. CEP Project #02E0052.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Environmental Health
and Biomolecular Research, Charleston, SC. Available at: http://www.chbr.noaa.gov/default.
aspx?category=cep&pageName=project%2002E00052 (Accessed September 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007c. Fisheries Management: Building
a Sustainable Future for America's Fisheries. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
online information. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, DC. Available at: http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/visions/
fisheries/welcome.html (Accessed July 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007d. Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank
National Marine Sactuary Condition Report 2007- U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring,
MD.
National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007e. Harmful Algal Bloom Forecasting
System. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Silver Spring, MD. Available
at: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/habf (Accessed February 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007f International Field Years on Lake
Erie (IFYLE). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Great Lakes
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, MI. Available at: http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/
ifyle/ (Accessed May 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007g. Large Marine Ecosystems—
Information Portal. Online information hosted by the University of Rhode Island.
Information prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,
Narragansett, RI. Available at: http://woodsmoke.edc.uri.edu/Portal/ptk (Accessed May 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007h. National Marine Sanctuaries
Monitoring. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. Available at: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/
monitoring/welcome.html (Accessed March 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 20071. U.S. Climate at a Glance.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Satellite and Information
Service, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National Climatic
Data Center, Asheville, NC. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/
cag3.html (Accessed April 2007).
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2007J. Worst New England Harmful
Algal Bloom in 30 Years. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration online information.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Center
for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, Silver Spring, MD. Available at: http://www.cop.noaa.
gov/news/fs/ne_hab_200505-html (Accessed March 2007).
Nowlin, W.D. 2001. Developing the U.S. Sustained and Integrated Ocean Observing System.
Ocean.US, Arlington, VA
NPFMC (North Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2000a. Amendment 11 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. Prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK, for the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska
Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Juneau, AK.
National Coastal Condition Report III 289
-------
References
NPFMC (North Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2000b. Amendment 15 to the Fishery
Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs. Prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK, for the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska
Region, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Juneau, AK.
NRDC (National Resources Defense Council). 2005- Testing the Waters: A Guide to Water Quality
at Vacation Beaches. National Resources Defense Council, New York, NY.
NWFSC (Northwest Fisheries Science Center). 2006. West Coast Groundfish Observer Manual.
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, WA.
NWQMC (National Water Quality Monitoring Council). 2006. A National Water Quality Monitoring
Network for U.S. Coastal Waters and Their Tributaries. U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey, Advisory Committee on Water Information, National Water Quality
Monitoring Council, Providence, RI.
O'Connor, T.P, and J.F. Paul. 2000. Misfit between sediment toxicity and chemistry. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 40:59-64.
O'Connor, T.P, K.D. Daskalakis, J.L. Hyland, J.F. Paul, andJ.K. Summers. 1998. Comparisons of
sediment toxicity with predictions based on chemical guidelines. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 17(3): 468-471.
Ocean.US. 2002. An Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observing System (IOOS) For the United States:
Design and Implementation. Ocean.US, Arlington, VA
Ocean.US. 2005a. Data Management and Communications Plan for Research and Operational Integrated
Ocean Observing Systems. Ocean.US. Publication No. 6. Ocean.US, Arlington, VA.
Ocean.US. 2005b. National Office for Integrated and Sustained Ocean Observations: Ocean.US.
Ocean.US online information. Ocean.US, Arlington, VA. Available at: http://www.ocean.us
(Accessed January 2006).
Ocean.US. 2006. The First U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) Development Plan: A Report
of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council and the Interagency Committee on Ocean Science
and Resource Management Integration. Ocean.US Publication No. 9- Ocean.US, Arlington, VA.
Officer, C.B., T.J. Smayda, and R. Mann. 1982. Benthic filter-feeding: A natural eutrophication
control. Marine Ecology Progress Series 9:203—210.
Olsen, A.R., J. Sedransk, D. Edwards, C.A. Gotway, W Liggett, S. Rathburn, K.H. Reckhow, and
L.J. Yyoung. 1999- Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United
States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54:1—45-
Overland, J.E., and PJ. Stabeno. 2004. Is the climate of the Bering Sea warming and affecting the
ecosystem? Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 55(33):309—316.
Oviatt, C., S. Olsen, M. Andrews, J. Collie, T. Lynch, and K. Raposa. 2003- A century of fishing and
fish fluctuations in Narragansett Bay. Reviews of Fisheries Science ll(3):22l—242.
290 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
Owen, B., and S. White (eds.)- 2005- National Estuarine Research Reserve System 10th Anniversary
Report on the System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP) Data Applications: 1995-2005. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, Silver Springs, MD.
Paerl, H.W, J.L. Pinckney, J.M. Fear, and B.L. Peierls. 1998. Ecosystem responses to internal and
watershed organic matter loading: Consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse River
Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 166:17—25.
Parrish, F.A., K. Abernathy, G.J. Marshal, and B.M. Buhleier. 2002. Hawaiian monk seals (Monachus
schauinslandi) foraging in deep-water coral beds. Marine Mammal Science 18(1).
Partridge, V., K. Welch, S. Aasen, and M. Dutch. 2005- Temporal Monitoring ofPuget Sound Sediments:
Results of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program, 1989—2000. Ecology Publication No.
05-03-016. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
Paul, J.F., J.H. Gentile, K.J. Scott, S.C. Schimmel, D.E. Campbell, and R.W Latimer. 1999- EMAP-
Virginian Province Four-Year Assessment (1990-93). EPA/620-R-99-004. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
Paul, J.F., K.J. Scott, D.E. Campbell, J.H. Gentile, C.S. Strobel, R.M. Valente, S.B. Weisberg,
A.F. Holland, and J.A Ranasinghe. 2001. Developing and applying a benthic index of estuarine
condition for the Virginian Province. Ecological Indicators 7:83—99-
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 1998. Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery
Management Plan Incorporating a Name Change to The Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management
Plan. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2006. Pacific Coast Groundfish Management Plan for
the California, Oregon, and Washington Groundfish Fishery — As Amended Through Amendment 19
(Including Amendment 16-4). Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, OR.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, D. Justif, Q. Dortch, and WJ. Wiseman, Jr. 1999- Characterization of
Hypoxia: Topic 1 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Decision
Analysis Series No. 15- U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Coastal Ocean Program, Silver Spring, MD.
Rabalais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and WJ. Wiseman, Jr. 2002. Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. "The Dead
Zone." Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33:235—263-
Rhode Island CRMC (Coastal Resources Management Council). 1996. Coastal Resources Management
Program, As Amended (a.k.a. the "Red Book"). Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management
Council, Wakefield, RI.
Rhode Island Department of Administration. 2000. Rhode Island Land Use Trends and Analysis
(Including Land Use Surveys for the Period 1970—1995). Technical Paper 149- Rhode Island
Department of Administration, Division of Planning, Statewide Planning Program, Providence,
RI.
National Coastal Condition Report III 29 I
-------
References
RIDEM (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). 2005a. Bay Assessment &
Response Team (BART)—Fishing in Narragansett Bay, Providence, RI. Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management online information. Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management, Bay Assessment & Response Team, Providence, RI. Available at: http://www.dem.
ri.gov/bart/fishing.htm (Accessed December 2005).
RIDEM (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). 2005b. Plan for Managing
Nutrient Loadings to Rhode Island Waters. Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management, Providence, RI.
RIDEM (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management). 2005c. Rhode Island Public Boat
Launching Sites. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management online information.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife,
Providence, RI. Available at: http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bnatres/fishwild/boatlnch.htm
(Accessed December 2005).
RIDOH (Rhode Island Department of Health). 2005- Beach Water Quality Monitoring. Rhode Island
Department of Health online information. Rhode Island Department of Health, Bathing
Beaches Monitoring Program, Providence, RI. Available at: http://www.ribeaches.org (Accessed
December 2005).
Ries, K.G., III. 1990. Estimating Surface-Water Runoff to Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island and
Massachusetts. Water Resources Investigation Report 89-4164. U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey, Providence, RI.
Riggs, S.R. 2001. Shoreline Erosion in North Carolina Estuaries. North Carolina Sea Grant Publication
UNC-SG-1-11. North Carolina Sea Grant, Raleigh, NC.
Rohmann, S.O., J.J. Hayes, R.C. Newhall, M.E. Monaco, and R.W Grigg. 2005- The area of
potential shallow-water tropical and subtropical coral ecosystems in the United States. Coral Reefs
24(3):370-383.
Rosenberg, R., M. Blomqvist, H.C. Nilsson, H. Cederwall, and A. Dimming. 2004. Marine quality
assessment by use of benthic species-abundance distributions: A proposed new protocol with in
the European Union Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49:728—739.
Rosenkranz, G.E., A.V. Tyler, G.H. Kruse, and H.J. Niebauer. 1998. Relationship between wind
and year-class strength of Tanner crabs in Southeastern Bering Sea. Fishery Research Bulletin
5(ll):18-24.
Rosenkranz, G.E., A.V. Tyler, and G.H. Kruse. 2001. Effects of water temperature and wind on
year-class success ofTanner crabs in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Fisheries Oceanography 10(\):\—12.
SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2005- Final Amendment 6 to the Fishery
Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the South Atlantic Region. South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, Charleston, SC.
Sambrotto, R.N., and C.J. Lorenzen. 1986. Phytoplankton and primary production. Chapter 9,
pp. 249—284. In: The Gulf of Alaska: Physical Environment and Biological Resources. D.W Hood
and S.T Simmerman (eds.). University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
292 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
Samons, J. 2002. Cleaner waters in pipeline, $550 million project launched. Narragansett Bay Journal
, 4.
Saupe, S., J. Gendron, and D. Dasher. 2005- AKMAP — Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Program:
The condition of Southcentral Alaska's Bays and Estuaries Technical Report and Statistical Summary.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Fairbanks, AK.
Save the Bay, Inc. 2006. Save The Bay — Narragansett Bay. Save the Bay, Inc., online information.
Save the Bay, Inc., Providence, RI. Available at: http://www.savebay.org/ (Accessed April 2006).
SCCWRP (Southern California Coastal Water Research Project). 1998. Southern California Bight
1994 Pilot Project. Volumes I— V. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project,
Westminster, CA.
Scholin, C.A., E Gulland, G.J. Doucette, S. Benson, M. Busman, EP Chavez, J. Cordaro,
R.D. DeLong, A. Vogelaere, J. Harvey, M. Haulena, K. Lefebvre, T. Lipscomb, S. Loscutoff,
L.J. Lowenstine, R. Marin, III, PE. Miller, WA. McLellan, P.D.R. Moeller, C.L. Powell,
T. Rowles, P. Silvagni, M. Silver, T. Spraker, V. Trainer, and EM.Van Dolah. 2000. Mortality of
sea lions along the central California coast linked to a toxic diatom bloom. Nature 403:80—84.
Schwacke, L.H., E.G. Voit, L.J. Hansen, R.S. Wells, G.B. Mitchum, A.A. Hohn, and PA. Fair. 2002.
Probabilistic risk assessment of reproductive effects of polychorinated biphenyls on bottlenose
dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus) from the southeast United States coast. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 21:2752-64.
Serchuk, EM., and S.A. Murawski. 1997- The offshore molluscan resources of the Northeastern Coast
of the United States: Surfclams, ocean quahogs, and sea scallops. Pp. 45—62. In: The History,
Present Condition, and Future of the Molluscan Fisheries of North and Central America and Europe,
Vol. 1, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. C.L. MacKenzie, Jr., V.G. Burrell, Jr., A. Rosenfield, and
WL. Hobart (eds.). NOAATech. Rep. 127- U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
SFEI (San Francisco Estuary Institute). 2003- The Pulse of the Estuary: Monitoring and Managing
Contamination in the San Francisco Estuary. SFEI contribution 74. San Francisco Estuary
Institute, Oakland, CA.
SFEI (San Francisco Estuary Institute). 2004. The Pulse of the Estuary: Monitoring and Managing Water
Quality in the San Francisco Estuary. SFEI contribution 78. San Francisco Estuary Institute,
Oakland, CA.
SFEI (San Francisco Estuary Institute). 2006. Pulse of the Estuary: Monitoring and Managing Water
Quality in the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.
Sharma, G.D. 1979- The Alaska Shelf- — Hydrographic, Sedimentary, and Geochemical Environment.
Springer-Verlag, NY.
Shellenbarger, G.G., D.H. Schoellhamer, and M.A. Lionberger. 2004. A South San Francisco Bay
Sediment Budget: Wetland Restoration and Potential Effects on Phytoplankton Blooms. Proceedings
of the 2004 Ocean Research Conference, Honolulu, HI, February 15—20.
National Coastal Condition Report III 293
-------
References
Sherman, K., J. Kane, S. Murawski, W Overholz, and A. Solow. 2002. The U.S. Northeast Shelf
Large Marine Ecosystem: Zooplankton trends in fish biomass recovery. Pp. 195—215-
In: Large Marine Ecosystems of the North Atlantic. K. Sherman and H.R. Skjoldal (eds.). Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Sherman, K., J. O'Reilly, and J. Kane. 2003- Assessment and sustainability of the U.S. Northeast
Shelf Ecosystem. Pp. 93—120. In: Large Marine Ecosystems of the World: Trends in Exploitation,
Protection, and Research. G. Hempel and K. Sherman (eds.). Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Short, F.T., L.K. Muehlstein, and D. Porter. 1987- Eelgrass wasting disease: Cause and recurrence of a
marine epidemic. Biological Bulletin 173:557—562.
Smith, R.W, M. Bergen, S.B. Weisberg, D. Cadien, A. Dalkey, D. Montagne, J.K. Stull, and
R.G.Velarde. 1998. Benthic Response Index for Assessing Infaunal Communities on the Mainland
Shelf of Southern California. 1997—98 Annual Report. Southern California Coastal Water
Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Smith, R.W, M. Bergen, S.B. Weisberg, D. Cadien, A. Dalkey, D. Montagne, J.K. Stull, and
R.G. Velarde. 2001. Benthic response index for assessing infaunal communities on the southern
California mainland shelf. Ecological Applications //:1073—1087-
Smith, L.M., V.D. Engle, and J.K. Summers. 2006. Assessing water clarity as a component of water
quality in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 115:291— 305-
Society of Wetland Scientists. 2000. Position Paper on the Definition of Wetland Restoration. Society of
Wetland Scientists, McLean, VA.
South Carolina DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 2007a. Oyster Recycling and Restoration
Program. South Carolina Department of National Resources online information. South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division, Charleston, SC. Available at:
http://saltwaterfishing.sc.gov/oyster.html (Accessed April 2007).
South Carolina DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 2007b. South Carolina Oyster Restoration
and Enhancement. South Carolina Department of National Resources online information.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Division, Charleston, SC.
Available at http://score.dnr.sc.gov/index.php (Accessed April 2007).
Stedman, S.M., and J. Hanson. 2000. Habitat Connections: Wetlands, Fisheries and Economics in
the South Atlantic Coastal States. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Steinberger, A, and E.D. Stein. 2004. Effluent discharges to the Southern California Bight from large
municipal wastewater treatment facilities in 2001 and 2002. Pp. 2—15- In: Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project 2003-2004 Biennial Report. S.B. Weisberg and D. Elmore (eds.).
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Strobel, C.J., H.W Buffum, S.J. Benyi, E.A. Petrocelli, D.R. Reifsteck, and D.J. Keith. 1995-
Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Virginian Province—1990 to 1993. EPA/620-R-94-026.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory-Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.
294 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
Stull, J. 1995- Two decades of biological monitoring, Palos Verdes, California, 1972 to 1992.
Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences 94:21—45-
Summers, J.K., J.E Paul, and A. Robertson. 1995- Monitoring the ecological condition of estuaries
in the United States. Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 49:93—108.
Swartz, R.C., J.H. Bailey-Brock, WJ. Cooke, and E.A. Kay. 2002. Regional Monitoring of Benthic
Fauna in Mamala Bay, O'ahu, Hawai'i, August 2001. Project Report PR-2002-07- University of
Hawai'i at Manoa, Water Resources Research Center, Honolulu, HI.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2006. Development of Sediment Quality Objectives
for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. CEQA Scoping Meeting Information Document. State Water
Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, Sacramento, CA.
Taylor, D.L., and D.J. Danila. 2005- Predation on winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) eggs
by the sand shrimp (Cragnon septemspinosa). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
62(7):1611-1625.
Teitelbaum, J.S., R.J. Zatorre, S. Carpenter, D. Gendron, A.C. Evans, A. Gjedde, and N.R. Cashman.
1990. Neurologic sequelae of domoic acid intoxication due to the ingestion of contaminated
mussels. New England Journal of Medicine 322:1781—1787.
Thayer, G.W, and M.E. Kentula. 2005- Coastal restoration: Where have we been, where are we now,
and where should we be going? Journal of Coastal Research Special Issue 40:1—5.
Thayer, G.W, T.A McTigue, R.J. Bellmer, EM. Burrows, D.H. Merkey, AD. Nickens, S.J. Lorenzo,
PJ. Gayaldo, PJ. Polmateer, and P.T. Pinit. 2003- Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal
Habitats Volume 1: A Framework for Monitoring Plans Under the Estuaries and Clean Water Act of
2000 (Public Law 160-457). NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 23,
Volume 1. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Sponsored
Coastal Ocean Research, Silver Spring, MD.
Thayer, G.W, T.A. McTigue, R.J. Salz, D.H. Merkey, EM. Burrows, and P.P. Gayaldo (eds.). 2005-
Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats Volume 2: Tools for Monitoring Coastal
Habitats. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Sponsored
Coastal Ocean Research, Silver Spring, MD.
Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 1999- National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to
Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Atlantic Coast. USGS Open-file Report 99-593-
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA.
Transport Canada. 2007- The Canadian Ballast Water Program. Transport Canada online information.
Transport Canada, Marine Safety, Ottawa, ON. Available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/marinesafety/
oep/environment/ballastwater/management.htm (Accessed May 2007).
National Coastal Condition Report III 295
-------
References
Turner, R.E., and D.E Boesch. 1988. Aquatic animal protection and wetland relationships: Insights
gleaned following wetland loss or gain. In: The Ecology and Management of Wetlands. Volume 1:
Ecology of Wetlands. D.D. Hook, WH. McKee, Jr., H.K. Smith, J.Gregory, V.G. Burrell, Jr.,
M.R. Devoe, R.E. Sojka, S. Gilbert, R. Banks, L.H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T.D. Matthews, and
T.H. Shear (eds.). Timber Press, Portland, OR.
Turner, R.E., and B. Steever. 2002. Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration: Northern Gulf of Mexico.
SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. 1997Economic Census, Manufacturing, Geographic Area Series—
Massachusetts. EC97M31A-MA. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. 1997Economic Census, Manufacturing, Geographic Area Series—Rhode
Island. EC97M31A-RI. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Your Gateway to Census 2000. U.S. Census Bureau online information.
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Available at: http://
www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html (Accessed November 2006).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006a. State and County Quickfacts. U.S. Census Bureau online information.
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Available at: http://
quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html (Accessed August 2006).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006b. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006. U.S. Department of
Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004a. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC.
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004b. Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
Governors' Draft. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1993- Proposed Sediment Quality Criteria for the
Protection ofBenthic Organisms: Acenaphthene. EPA/822-F-93-006. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-
Associated Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. EPA/600/R-94/025. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995a. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program (EMAP): Laboratory Methods Manual—Estuaries, Volume 1: Biological and Physical
Analyses. EPA/620-R-95-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Narragansett, RI.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory—1994
Report to Congress. EPA/841-R-95-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries.
EPA/600-R-98-147- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
296 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. The Beach and Your Coastal Watershed.
EPA/842-F-98-10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1999- Ecological Condition of Estuaries in the Gulf of
Mexico. EPA/620-R-98-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology
Division, Gulf Breeze, FL.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved
Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. EPA/822-R-00-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. A Framework for an Integrated and
Comprehensive Monitoring Plan for Estuaries on the Gulf of Mexico. EPA-620/R-00/005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, MS.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000c. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant
Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits.
EPA/823-B-00-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. National Coastal Assessment Field Operations
Manual. EPA/620-R-01-003- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance
Project Plan. EPA/620-R-01-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001c. National Coastal Condition Report.
EPA/620-R-01-005- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001d. National Sediment Quality Survey Database:
1980-1999. Database. EPA/823-F-01-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001e. Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of
Human Health: Methylmercury. EPA/823-R-01-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Research Strategy, Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program. EPA/620-R-02-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003- Brayton Point Station, Somerset, MA:
Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Fact Sheet.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2004a. National Coastal Condition Report II.
EPA/620-R-03-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC.
National Coastal Condition Report III 297
-------
References
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2004b. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Database—
2003- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Standards and Health Protection Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2004c. The Incidence and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey: Second
Edition. EPA/823-R-04-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology, Standards and Health Protection Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. EPA's BEACH Program: 2004 Swimming Season
Update. EPA/823-F-05-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of
Science and Technology, Standards and Health Protection Division, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. National Listing of Fish Advisories Database.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency online information. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Available at: http://epa.gov/waterscience/fish/
advisories/ (Accessed December 2005).
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005c. Water Discharge Permits-Permit Compliance
System (PCS) Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency online information. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington,
DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs/index.html (Accessed December 2005).
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2006a. Draft Guidance for Implementing the January
2001 Methyl-mercury Water Quality Criterion. EPA/823-B-04-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2006b. National Estuary Program Coastal Condition
Report. EPA/842-B-06-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office
of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2006c. PRAWN Database (September 11, 2006).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007a. Alabama Habitat Strategic Assessment Workshop,
Project #MX964002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency online information. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis Space Center, MS.
Available at: http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/projects/ala-habitat_intro.html (Accessed April 2007).
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007b. Aquatic Resources Monitoring. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency online information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/index.htm (Accessed
October 2007).
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007c. Areas of Concern (AoCs) On-line. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency online information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, IL. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/
index.html (Accessed May 2007).
298 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
References
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007d. Benthic Community Health. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency online information. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes
National Program Office, Chicago, IL. Available at http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/glindicators/
biology/benthica.html (Accessed May 2007).
U.S. Senate. 2003- Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act. (to accompany S. 861) (S. Rpt. 108-
158). Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
Ulanowicz, R.E., and J.H. Tuttle. 1992. The trophic consequences of oyster stock rehabilitation in
Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 75:298—306.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2004. GEO Year Book 2003. United Nations
Environmental Program, Division of Early Warning and Assessment, Global Environment
Outlook Team, Nairobi, Kenya.
University of British Columbia. 2007- Sea Around Us Project—Web Products: Large Marine Ecosystems.
University of British Columbia online information. University of British Columbia, Aquatic
Ecosystems Research Laboratory, Fisheries Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Available at:
http://www.seaaroundus.org/LME/lme.aspx# (Accessed May 2007).
USAGE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. Providence River and Harbor Maintenance Dredging
Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England
District, Concord, MA.
USAGE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2005- Rhode Island, Corps to Mark Completion of Providence
River and Harbor Maintenance Dredging Project. News Release RI 2005-04. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, New England District, Concord, MA. January 10.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2004a. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series, Part 21—Massachusetts State and County Data. AC-02-A21. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2004b. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Geographic
Area Series, Part 39—Rhode Island State and County Data. AC-02-A39. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2006a. National Water Quality Network Pilot Underway. News
Release. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2006b. Water Quality of San Francisco Bay: A Long-term Program of
the U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Geological Survey online information. U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. Available at: http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/access/
wqdata/ (Accessed June 2006).
Van Dolah, R.E, J.L. Hyland, A.E Holland, J.S. Rosen, andT.T. Snoots. 1999- A benthic index of
biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern USA. Marine
Environmental Research ^5:(4-5):269-283-
Van Metre, PC., and B.J. Mahler. 2005- Trends in hydrophobic organic contaminants in urban
and reference lake sediments across the United States, 1970—2001. Environmental Science and
Technology 39:5567-5574.
National Coastal Condition Report III 299
-------
References
Van Metre, P.C., BJ. Mahler, and E.T. Furlong. 2000. Urban sprawl leaves its PAH signature.
Environmental Science and Technology 3^:4064—4070.
Waddell, J.E. (ed.). 2005- The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the United States and Pacific Freely
Associated States: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOG NCCOS 11. U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service,
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment,
Biogeography Team, Silver Spring, MD.
Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.D. Dauer, L.C. Schnaffer, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. Frithsen. 1997- An
estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20(1): 149— 158.
Wells, R.V., V. Tornero, A. Borrell, A. Aguilar, T.K. Rowles, H.L. Rhinehart, S. Hofmann, W.M.
Jarman, A.A. Hohn, and J.C. Sweeney. 2005- Integrating life-history and reproductive success
data to examine potential relationships with organochlorine compounds for bottlenose dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Science of the Total Environment 349:106— 19.
Williams, I. P., N.J. Maciolek, J.D. Boyle, D.T Dahlen, and E. Baptiste Carpenter. 2002. Combined
Workl Quality Assurance Plan for Benthic Monitoring: 2002-2005. MWRA Miscellaneous
Report Number ms-076. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Environmental Quality
Department, Boston, MA.
WPRFMC (Western Pacific Region Fishery Management Council). 1986. Combined Fishery
Management Plan, Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review for the Eottomfish
and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Western Pacific Region Fishery
Management Council, Honolulu, HI.
Wright, B.A., J.W Short, T.J. Weingartner, and PJ. Anderson. 2000. The Gulf of Alaska, Chapter
20, pp. 373—384. In: Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. Volume I — Regional
Chapters: Europe, The Americas andWest Africa. C.R.C. Sheppard (ed.). Pergamon, Amsterdam.
Yeager, D.W 2006. Estuary reflections. Alabama Current Connection
Zervas, C. 2004. North Carolina Bathymetry/Topography Sea Level Rise Project: Determination of Sea
Level Trends. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 041. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Center for
Operational Oceanographic Products and Services, Silver Spring, MD.
Zwanenburg, K.C.T., D. Bowen, A. Bundy, K. Drinkwater, K. Frank, R.O'Boyle, D. Sameoto, and
M. Sinclair. 2002. Decadal changes in the Scotian Shelf large marine ecosystem. In: Large Marine
Ecosystems of the North Atlantic: Changing States and Sustainability. K. Sherman and H.R. Skjoldal
(eds.). Elsevier, Amsterdam.
300 National Coastal Condition Report
-------
•&* ~0 O
g CD z£
o g Q:
Tl 5'
5- (D
< (/)
05 (/)
^H-
(D
(D
^g
W O
— 3
DO <£
Tl
(D
TJ C
|I
O' CD
D <
O 0^
IX) 05
g>
^ ^
o P
(Q
(D
O
(D
m
(D
•—H
05
m
3
SJ.
o"
3
SL
O
o
CD
(0
cn
o
O
o
3
Q.
5"
3
7]
CD
^5
O
(o
------- |