EPA/620-R-07/001
February 2007
Condition of Estuaries and Bays of
Hawaii for 2002:
A Statistical Summary
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
List of Authors
Walter G. Nelson1, Richard Brock2, Henry Lee II1, Janet 0. Lamberson1, Faith Cole1
Author Affiliations
1 Western Ecology Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport OR 97365
2 University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
-------
Preface
This document is one of a series of statistical summaries for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), National Coastal Assessment Western regional component
(NCA-West). The program is the coastal component of the nationwide Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). This document is the first statistical
summary for the program for the state of Hawaii estuaries and bays. The NCA in the
western region is a collaborative effort between EPA and the states of Hawaii, Alaska,
California, Oregon and Washington, the territories of Guam and American Samoa, and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The program is
administered through the EPA and implemented through partnerships with a
combination of federal and state agencies, universities and the private sector.
The appropriate citation for this report is:
Nelson, Walter G.; Brock, Richard; Lee II, Henry; Lamberson, Janet 0.; Cole,
Faith. 2007. Condition of Estuaries and Bays of Hawaii for 2002: A Statistical
Summary. Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA/620-R-07/001.
Disclaimer
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under a Cooperative Agreement with the University of
Hawaii (CR-832114). It has been subjected to review by the National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
-------
Acknowledgments
The NCA-West involves the cooperation of a significant number of federal, state, and
local agencies. The project has been principally funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. Moss Landing Marine
Laboratory provided training for the Hawaii field crews.
Project wide information management support during initial phases of the Hawaii
sampling effort was provided by SCCWRP as part of their cooperative agreement.
Many individuals within EPA made important contributions to Western Coastal EMAP.
Critical guidance and vision in establishing this program was provided by Kevin
Summers of Gulf Ecology Division. Virginia Engle and Linda Harwell of Gulf Ecology
Division were extremely helpful with issues on data analysis. Tony Olsen of Western
Ecology Division has made numerous comments which have helped to improve the
quality of this document. Terrence Fleming of the Region 9 Office of EPA ably served as
the regional liaison with the state participants. Robert Ozretich of WED performed a
detailed review of the database contents used for this analysis, and we additionally
thank him for his extensive quality assurance review of this document.
We thank Pam Tsai and Terrence Fleming of EPA Region 9, and Terence Teruya of the
Hawaii Department of Health for their reviews of the draft report.
IV
-------
The success of the Western Coastal pilot has depended on the contributions and
dedication of many individuals. Special recognition for their efforts is due the following
participants:
University of Hawaii
Julie Bailey Brock
Bill Cooke
Christine Frazier
Alan Kam
Andrea Messer
Brian Paavo
Southern California Water Resources Research Project (SCCWRP)
Larry Cooper
Steve Weisberg
Moss Landing Marine Laboratory
Russell Fairey
Cassandra Roberts
Hawaii Department of Health
Terence Teruya
Denis Lau
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Tony Olsen
Steve Hale
John Macauley
Craig McFarlane
Region 9
Terrence Fleming
Janet Hashimoto
Cindy Lin
Indus Corporation
Patrick Clinton
CSC Corporation
Dan Guzman
-------
Table of Contents
Preface iii
Disclaimer iii
Acknowledgments iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xvi
List of Acronyms xviii
Executive Summary xx
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Program Background 1
1.2 The Hawaii Context for a Coastal Condition Assessment 2
1.3 Objectives 3
2.0 Methods 5
2.1 Sampling Design and Statistical Analysis Methods 5
2.1.1 Background 5
2.1.2 Hawaii Sampling Design 6
2.1.3 Field Sampling 7
2.2 Data Analysis 15
2.3 Indicators 18
2.3.1 Water Measurements 20
2.3.1.1 Hydrographic Profile 20
vi
-------
2.3.1.2 Water Quality Indicators 20
2.3.2 Sediment Toxicity Testing 21
2.3.2.1 Sediment Collection for Toxicity Testing, Chemical
Analysis and Grain Size 21
2.3.2.2 Amphipod Toxicity Tests 21
2.3.3 Biotic Condition Indicators 22
2.3.3.1 Benthic Community Structure 22
2.3.3.2 Fish Community Structure 24
2.3.3.3 Holothurian Contaminant Sampling and Chemistry Analys§§
2.3.3.4 Bacterial Indicators 26
2.3.4 Sediment Chemistry 26
2.4 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses 29
2.4.1 Metals in Sediment 30
2.4.2 Organics in Sediment 31
2.4.3 Chemical Residues in Tissues 31
2.5 Data Management 38
2.6 Unsamplable Area 38
2.7 Lessons Learned 39
3.0 Indicator Results 40
3.1 Habitat Indicators 40
3.1.1 Water Depth at Sample Sites 40
3.1.2 Salinity 40
3.1.3 Water Temperature 41
vii
-------
3.1.4 pH 41
3.1.5 Sediment Characteristics 41
3.1.6 Water Quality Parameters 42
3.1.7 Water Column Stratification 44
3.2 Exposure Indicators 64
3.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen 64
3.2.2 Sediment Contaminants 67
3.2.2.1 Sediment Metals 67
3.2.2.2 Sediment Organics 85
3.2.3 Sediment Toxicity 93
3.2.4 Tissue Contaminants 95
3.2.5 Bacterial Indicators 98
3.3 Biotic Condition Indicators 103
3.3.1 Infaunal Abundance, Species Richness and Taxonomic
Composition 103
3.3.2 Hard Bottom Habitat Composition 118
3.3.2.1 Algal Composition 118
3.3.2.2 Coral Composition 122
3.3.2.3 Macroinvertebrate Composition 122
3.3.3 Fish Species Richness, Abundance and Biomass 124
4.0 References 128
VIM
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2.1-1. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the islands of Kauai
and Niihau 8
Figure 2.1-2. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the island of Oahu, excluding
the Oahu urbanized estuary study sites 9
Figure 2.1-3. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the islands of Maui
and Molokai 10
Figure 2.1-4. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the island of Hawaii 11
Figure 2.1-5. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites for the intensification study within
the urbanized estuaries on the island of Oahu 12
Figure 3.1-1. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. bottom
depth 46
Figure 3.1-2. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. bottom
depth 46
Figure 3.1-3. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. salinity
of bottom waters 47
Figure 3.1-4. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. salinity
of bottom waters 47
Figure 3.1-5. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. temperature
of bottom waters 48
Figure 3.1-6. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs.
temperature in bottom waters 48
Figure 3.1-7. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. pH in
bottom waters 49
Figure 3.1-8. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. pH in
bottom waters 49
Figure 3.1-9. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. percent
silt-clay of sediments 50
Figure 3.1-10. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. percent
silt-clay of sediments 50
ix
-------
Figure 3.1-11. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. percent
total organic carbon of sediments 51
Figure 3.1-12. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. percent
total organic carbon of sediments 51
Figure 3.1-13. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean concentration of chlorophyll a 52
Figure 3.1-14. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column concentration of chlorophyll a 52
Figure 3.1-15. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean nitrate concentration 53
Figure 3.1-16. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean nitrate concentration 53
Figure 3.1-17. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean nitrite concentration 54
Figure 3.1-18. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean nitrite concentration 54
Figure 3.1-19. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column ammonium concentration 55
Figure 3.1-20. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column ammonium concentration 55
Figure 3.1-21. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration. . . 56
Figure 3.1-22. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration. . . 56
Figure 3.1-23. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean orthophosphate concentration 57
Figure 3.1-24. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean orthophosphate concentration 57
Figure 3.1-25. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean ratio of total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration
to total orthophosphate concentration 58
-------
Figure 3.1-26. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean ratio of total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration
to total orthophosphate concentration 58
Figure 3.1-27. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean silicate concentration 59
Figure 3.1-28. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean silicate concentration 59
Figure 3.1-29. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. bottom
water turbidity 60
Figure 3.1-30. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. bottom
water turbidity 60
Figure 3.1-31. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. surface
water turbidity 61
Figure 3.1-32. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. surface
water turbidity 61
Figure 3.1-33. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column Secchi depth 62
Figure 3.1-34. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column Secchi depth 62
Figure 3.1-35. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. Aot
stratification index 63
Figure 3.1-36. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. Aot
stratification index 63
Figure 3.2-1. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. dissolved
oxygen of bottom waters 65
Figure 3.2-2. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. dissolved
oxygen of bottom waters 65
Figure 3.2-3. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. dissolved
oxygen of surface waters 66
Figure 3.2-4. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. dissolved
oxygen of surface waters 66
xi
-------
Figure 3.2-5. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of arsenic 74
Figure 3.2-6. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of arsenic 74
Figure 3.2-7. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of cadmium 75
Figure 3.2-8. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of cadmium 75
Figure 3.2-9. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of chromium 76
Figure 3.2-10. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of chromium 76
Figure 3.2-11. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of copper 77
Figure 3.2-12. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of copper 77
Figure 3.2-13. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of lead 78
Figure 3.2-14. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of lead 78
Figure 3.2-15. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of mercury 79
Figure 3.2-16. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of mercury 79
Figure 3.2-17. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of nickel 80
Figure 3.2-18. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of nickel 80
Figure 3.2-19. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of selenium 81
XII
-------
Figure 3.2-20. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of selenium 81
Figure 3.2-21. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of silver 82
Figure 3.2-22. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of silver 82
Figure 3.2-23. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of tin 83
Figure 3.2-24. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of tin 83
Figure 3.2-25. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of zinc 84
Figure 3.2-26. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of zinc 84
Figure 3.2-27. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of total PAHs 89
Figure 3.2-28. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of total PAHs 89
Figure 3.2-29. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of total PCBs 90
Figure 3.2-30. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of total PCBs 90
Figure 3.2-31. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of total DDT 91
Figure 3.2-32. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of total DDT 91
Figure 3.2-33. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of alpha-chlordane 92
Figure 3.2-34. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. vs.
sediment concentration of alpha-chlordane 92
XIII
-------
Figure 3.2-35. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. percent
control corrected survivorship of Ampelisca abdita 94
Figure 3.2-36. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. percent
control corrected survivorship of Ampelisca abdita 94
Figure 3.2-37. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. surface
water sample enterococci colony counts 100
Figure 3.2-38. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. surface
water sample enterococci colony counts 100
Figure 3.2-39. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. surface
water sample Clostridium colony counts 101
Figure 3.2-40. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. surface
water sample Clostridium colony counts 101
Figure 3.2-41. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. surface
water sample fecal coliform counts 102
Figure 3.2-42. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. surface
water sample fecal coliform counts 102
Figure 3.3-1. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. total
number of species of benthic infauna 115
Figure 3.3-2. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. total number
of species of benthic infauna 115
Figure 3.3-3. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. H'
diversity of the benthic infaunal community 116
Figure 3.3-4. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. H'
diversity of the benthic infaunal community 116
Figure 3.3-5. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. total
abundance of benthic infauna 117
Figure 3.3-6. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. total
abundance of benthic infauna 117
Figure 3.3-7. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. total
number offish species observed on visual transects 126
Figure 3.3-8. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. the H'
xiv
-------
diversity index for fishes observed on visual transects 126
Figure 3.3-9. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs.
abundance of fishes observed on visual transects 127
Figure 3.3-10. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. the
estimated biomass of fishes observed on visual transects 127
xv
-------
List of Tables
Table 2.1-1. Hawaii sampling sites with station coordinates of locations sampled. 13
Table 2.3-1. Core environmental indicators for the National Coastal Assessment
survey 19
Table 2.3-2. List of stations with collection of holothurians for tissue analysis 25
Table 2.3-3. Compounds analyzed in sediments and holothurian tissues 27
Table 2.3-4. Summary of NCA chemistry sample collection, preservation, and holding
time requirements for sediment and tissue samples 28
Table 2.4-1. Units, method detection limits (MDL), reporting limits (RL), analytical
method, and responsible laboratory for sediment chemistry 33
Table 2.4-2. Units, method detection limits (MDL), reporting limits (RL), analytical
method, and responsible laboratory for tissue chemistry 35
Table 2.4-3. Summary of performance of Hawaii analytical laboratories with regard to
QA/QC criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and
relative percent differences (RPD) of duplicates 37
Table 3.2-1. Summary statistics for sediment metal concentrations (ug/g, dry weight)
for the Hawaii estuaries and bays stations (N=45) 72
Table 3.2-2. Summary statistics for sediment metal concentrations (ug/g, dry weight)
for the Oahu urbanized estuaries stations (N=26) 73
Table 3.2-3. Summary statistics for sediment organic pollutants (ng/g, dry weight)
for the Hawaii estuary and bay stations (N=42) 87
Table 3.2-4. Summary statistics for sediment organic pollutants (ng/g, dry weight)
for the Oahu urbanized estuary stations (N=28) 88
Table 3.2-5. Holothurian tissue residues of metals (ug/g wet weight) from 11 Hawaii
estuaries and bays sites and 2 Oahu urbanized estuaries sites 96
Table 3.2-6. Holothurian tissue residues of total PCBs, PAHs, total DDT, and
additional pesticides (ng/g wet weight) in samples from 11 Hawaii estuaries
and bay sites and 2 Oahu urbanized estuaries sites 97
Table 3.2-7. Summary of bacteria sampling results, with data presented both for all
samples collected and for samples that met the 6-hour holding time criteria. . 99
xvi
-------
Table 3.3-1. Summary of the soft bottom taxa identified from 74 Hawaii EMAP
stations where sediment was sampled 105
Table 3.3-2. Summary of biological parameters at all stations where underwater
transect measurements were carried out 119
Table 3.3-3. The ten most abundant algal taxa observed on the underwater
transects 121
Table 3.3-4. The ten most abundant coral taxa observed on the underwater
transects 121
Table 3.3-5. The ten most abundant macroinvertebrate taxa observed on the
underwater transects 123
Table 3.3-6. The ten most abundant fish taxa observed on the underwater
transects 125
XVII
-------
List of Acronyms
BEST
CDF
CEB
CPU
CRM
CVAA
CWA
DO
DQO
EMAP
EPA
ERI
ERM
GAO
GCECD
GCMS
GFAAS
CIS
GPL
HDOH
ICPAES
ICPMS
ICPOES
IM
LCM
LCS
MDL
MQO
MS
NCA
NCA-West
NCL
NOAA
N/P
NTU
ORD
PAH
PCB
QA/QC
QAC
RL
Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program
Cumulative distribution function
Coastal Ecology Branch, Western Ecology Division (EPA)
Colony Forming Units
Certified Reference Material
Cold Vapor Atomic Adsorption
Clean Water Act
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
Data Quality Objectives
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Institute, Univ. of Conn
Effects Range Median
U. S. General Accounting Office
Gas Chromatography and Electron Capture Detection
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy
Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
Geographic Information System
GPL Laboratories
Hawaii Department of Health
Inductively-Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer
Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectroscopy
Information Manager
Laboratory Control Material
Laboratory Control Standard
Method Detection Limit
Methods Quality Objectives
Matrix Spike
National Coastal Assessment
National Coastal Assessment - Western regional component
EPA's National Contract Laboratory
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Nitrogen to Phosphorus
Turbidity
EPA Office of Research and Development
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Reporting Limit
XVIII
-------
RPD Relative Percent Difference
RSG Random Sampling Generator
RTS Random Tessellation Stratified
SCCWRP Southern California Water Resources Research Project
SDTP Standardized Data Transfer Protocols
SRM Standard Reference Material
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TSS Total Suspended Solids
WED Western Ecology Division
XIX
-------
Executive Summary
As a part of the National Coastal Assessment (NCA), the Environmental Monitoring
and Assessment Program (EMAP) of US EPA initiated a pilot study of the estuarine
resources of the main islands of Hawaii in 2002. This study provides the first
probabilistic assessment of the condition of the estuaries and bays of Hawaii. The
objectives of the program were: to assess the condition of estuarine resources of
Hawaii based on a range of indicators of environmental quality using an integrated
survey design; to establish a baseline for evaluating how the condition of the estuarine
resources of Hawaii changes with time; to develop and validate improved methods for
use in future coastal monitoring and assessment efforts in Hawaii; and to transfer the
technical approaches and methods for designing, conducting and analyzing data from
probability based environmental assessments to the state of Hawaii.
For Hawaii, the focus of the study during 2002 was all estuaries and the semienclosed
coastal embayments of the state. The study utilized a stratified, random sampling
design, with the base study consisting of 50 sites probabilistically assigned across the
estuaries and bays of Hawaii. Additionally, an intensification study was conducted
that consisted of 30 sites distributed among the urbanized estuaries located within the
city of Honolulu on the south shore of the island of Oahu. The two data sets were
analyzed separately. Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) were produced using
appropriate sampling area weightings to represent the areal extent associated with
given values of an indicator variable for both the Hawaii estuaries and bays study and
the Oahu urbanized estuary study.
The environmental condition indicators used in this study included measures of: 1)
general habitat condition (depth, salinity, temperature, pH, sediment characteristics),
2) water quality indicators (chlorophyll a, nutrients, turbidity), 3) pollutant exposure
indicators (dissolved oxygen concentration, sediment contaminants, invertebrate
tissue contaminants, sediment toxicity), and 4) benthic condition indicators (diversity
and abundance of benthic infauna and fishes).
In contrast to the mainland west coast, the indicators of general habitat condition
(temperature, salinity, pH) showed relatively narrow ranges of values, e.g. water
temperatures ranged only from 24 to 28 °C, with a maximum surface to bottom
difference of 2.5 °C. About 73% of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had
sediments composed of sands, about 21% was composed of intermediate muddy
sands, and about 6% was composed of muds. The Oahu urbanized estuaries (29
stations) had a greater proportion of area characterized by muds (62%), and less area
characterized by sands (15%) or intermediate muddy sands (23%). The 90th percentile
of area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had a sediment TOC level of <1 %. The 90th
percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a sediment TOC level of 2.1
%, which is expected given the more depositional character of these harbors.
xx
-------
The ranges of values of chlorophyll a were very similar between the Hawaii estuaries
and bays and the Oahu urbanized estuaries. Maximum values were several orders of
magnitude lower that those typical of coastal sites on the mainland west coast. Total
nitrogen and phosphorus indicators generally showed similar patterns in their CDFs,
with high values being observed in a very small percentage of area, thus generating
extensive right hand tails to CDF distributions. For example, the average water column
concentration of total nitrogen of Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 2.5 to 284 ug
L"1, but only 10% of estuarine area had nitrate values that exceeded concentrations of
67 ug L"1. Approximately 40% of area of Hawaii estuaries and bays, and 74% of area
in Oahu urbanized estuaries, had molar ratios of average water column total nitrogen
to total phosphorus (N/P) values < 16, suggesting nitrogen limitation.
Turbidity at the surface was below 3.4 ntu, representing 90% of area of both the
Hawaii estuaries and bays and the Oahu urbanized estuaries. Valid Secchi depth
readings were obtained at too few stations to provide a useful indicator of water clarity.
In most cases this was due to the high degree of water clarity, such that the Secchi
disk was still visible at the bottom. There was little indication of water column
stratification within either the Hawaii estuaries and bays or the Oahu urbanized
estuaries sampled, suggesting well mixed water columns are typical during the
sampling period.
Among pollutant exposure indicators, approximately 7% of estuarine area for the
Hawaii estuaries and bays and 8% in the Oahu urbanized estuaries had bottom water
dissolved oxygen concentrations slightly < 5 mg/L.
High values of potentially toxic metals generally occurred in a very small percentage of
the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays sampled. With the exception of nickel for which
the Effects Range Median concentration (ERM) is unreliable, chromium and mercury
exceeded the ERM in < 1% of the area. While concentrations of metals were
generally higher in the Oahu urbanized estuaries, only copper and mercury exceeded
the ERM values, and only in 4% and 5% of area, respectively. Eighty-seven percent
of area of Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable concentrations of PAHs, as
compared to only 8% of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries. Thirty-nine percent
of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable concentrations of
PCBs, as compared to only 12% of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries. Thirty-
four percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable levels of
DDT, as compared to 36% of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries. There were
no exceedances of the ERM for any organic compound analyzed at any station.
Sediment toxicity tests with the amphipod Ampelisca abdita found no instances of
elevated sediment toxicity (control corrected survivorship < 80 %) in Oahu urbanized
estuaries, but in approximately 10% of the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays
amphipod survivorship was less than 80%.
XXI
-------
Samples of two species of holothurians (sea cucumbers) were analyzed for tissue
contaminants in pilot method development effort. Mercury, cadmium, and silver were
undetected in holothurian tissue samples. PCBs and DDT were detected in some
tissue samples at low levels, while PAHs and other pesticides were not detected. Total
sample size was small and analytical issues were present with the tissue matrix, so
that these results have high uncertainty.
Sampling for three bacterial indicators (enterococci, Clostridium perfringens, fecal
coliforms) showed that in most cases the density of colony forming units was low in
the waters of Hawaii. Approximately 4% of the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays and
13% of Oahu urbanized areas exceeded the Hawaii criterion for enterococci. The state
enterococci criterion requires multiple samples, and the EMAP samples are single
events, so results should not be interpreted to mean that locations with values above
the criterion would technically violate water quality standards for bacteria.
Sediments were encountered at all but five stations in the 79 sites sampled. A total of
214 soft sediment benthic taxa were recorded. Benthic species richness on a per
sample basis ranged from 4 to 52 species per sample in the samples from Hawaii
estuaries and bays, and from 3 to 43 species per sample from the Oahu urbanized
estuaries. On an areal basis, 50% of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had a
species richness less than 22 species per sample, and 90% had a richness less than
38.5 species per sample. The Oahu urbanized estuaries had a lower richness, with
50% of the area of these estuaries having fewer than 8 species per sample and 90%
of the area having less than 21 species per sample.
Benthic infaunal density in samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 5 to
1927 individuals per sample, and had a similar range of 8 to 1872 individuals per
sample in samples from Oahu urbanized estuaries. On an areal basis, 50% of the
area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had a benthic density less than 270 individuals
per sample, while in the Oahu urbanized estuaries, 50% of the area had benthic
densities less than 76 individuals. Abundance was dominated by nematodes,
oligochaetes, and polychaetes. Fully 57 % of the polychaete taxa are classified as
nonindigenous in origin.
Underwater biological surveys to assess condition of hard substrata were carried out
by SCUBA divers at 38 of the 79 (48%) completed survey sites, only three of which
were located in the Oahu urbanized estuaries. Mean algal percent cover ranged
between 0 and 70%, with 90% of the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays having an
algal percent coverage less than approximately 14%. Corals were found at 26 of 38
(68%) stations surveyed. At sites with corals present, the number of coral species
ranged from 1 to 9 per transect, with a mean of 4 species per transect. Coral
coverage at the 26 sites with corals present ranged from 0.2% to 99.7% with a mean
of 16.4%.
XXII
-------
Visual censuses of fishes were carried out at 38 of the 79 Hawaiian stations and
fishes were encountered at 34 of the 38 sites. In total, 110 species/taxa were
encountered. The mean number of fish taxa per transect was 9, mean number of
fishes/transect was 56 and mean estimated biomass was 19 g/m2 per transect. Fish
species richness on a per sample basis ranged from 0 to 31 species per transect in
the samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays, and on an areal basis, approximately
50% of the area had less than 8 species per transect. Fish abundance per transect
ranged from 0 to 278 individuals, and on an areal basis, 50% of the area had less than
48 individuals per transect. Estimated fish biomass per transect in samples from
Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 0 to 18.6 kg per transect, and on an areal
basis, 50% of the area had less than 0.6 kg per transect.
The NCA assessment of condition of Hawaiian waters represents the first quantitative
estimates of condition across the Hawaiian Islands for many parameters. The project
also successfully demonstrated the application of techniques, such as underwater
visual surveys of hard substrates, which are new to the NCA program.
XXIII
-------
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Program background
Safeguarding the natural environment is fundamental to the mission of the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The legislative mandate to undertake this
part of the Agency's mission is embodied, in part, in the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Sections of this Act require the states to report the condition of their aquatic resources
and list those not meeting their designated use (Section 305b and 303d respectively).
Calls for improvements in environmental monitoring date back to the late 1970's, and
have been recently reiterated by the U. S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO,
2000). The GAO report shows that problems with monitoring of aquatic resources
continue to limit states' abilities to carry out several key management and regulatory
activities on water quality. At the national level, there is a clear need for coordinated
monitoring of the nation's ecological resources. As a response to these needs at state
and national levels, the EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
undertaken research to support the Agency's Regional Offices and the states in their
efforts to meet the CWA reporting requirements. The Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) is one of the key components of that research and
EMAP-West is the newest regional research effort in EMAP. From 1999 through 2005,
EMAP-West has worked to develop and demonstrate the tools needed to measure
ecological condition of the aquatic resources in the 14 western states in EPA's
Regions 8, 9, and 10.
The Coastal Component of EMAP-West began as a partnership with the states of
California, Oregon and Washington, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Program
(BEST) of the U.S. Geological Survey to measure the condition of the estuaries of
these three states. Sampling began during the summer of 1999 and the initial phase of
estuarine sampling was completed in 2000. Data from this program is the basis for
individual reports of condition for each state, as well as to providing data to the
National Coastal Assessment.
The US EPA's National Coastal Assessment (NCA) is a five-year effort led by EPA's
Office of Research and Development to evaluate the assessment methods it has
developed to advance the science of ecosystem condition monitoring. This program
has surveyed the condition of the Nation's coastal resources (estuaries and offshore
waters) by creating an integrated, comprehensive coastal monitoring program among
the coastal states to assess coastal ecological condition. The NCA is accomplished
through strategic partnerships with all 24 U.S. coastal states. Using a compatible,
probabilistic design and a common set of survey indicators, each state conducts the
survey and assesses the condition of their coastal resources independently. Because
of the compatible design, these estimates can be aggregated to assess conditions at
the EPA Regional, biogeographical, and national levels.
-------
This report provides a statistical summary of the data from 2002 for the estuarine
systems of the state of Hawaii. A second assessment of condition of coastal
resources of the Hawaiian Islands is planned for the summer of 2006.
1.2 The Hawaii Context for a Coastal Condition Assessment
The Hawaiian Islands are the most isolated archipelago in the world. This isolation
has resulted in Hawaii's flora and fauna having the highest percentage of endemic
species of anywhere in the world. This singular distinction has a downside: over the
last 200 years with development and westernization, Hawaii has suffered the greatest
number of known extinctions for any fauna and flora. There are many reasons for this
great loss of native species; habitat destruction, pollution, human over use and the
introduction of alien species have all played key roles.
The population of Hawaii has fluctuated through time. Following contact with the
West, disease took its toll on the native population such that by the 1870's there were
less than 60,000 individuals. In 1900 the population had grown to 154,000 people
primarily through the importation of labor for agriculture. Today, Hawaii's population
exceeds 1.2 million people and more than 90% live in urban centers. Because of the
relatively small land area of the islands, development, population and economic
growth have all exacerbated the impacts to native ecosystems. Human population
growth in Hawaii is a principal driver for many ecological stressors such as habitat
loss, pollution, and nutrient enhancement which 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 port and
harbors.
Estuaries represent less than 1% of the coastal ocean area around the Hawaiian
Islands and these are best developed on the older islands (Kauai and Oahu). Most of
these estuaries are small occupying less than a square kilometer. Pearl Harbor which
is the largest remaining Hawaiian estuary has a water surface area of approximately
58 km2 and is the country's largest naval port. However, historically, estuarine waters
were once more important. In the Moiliili-Waikiki-Kewalo districts of Honolulu on
Oahu, approximately 48% of the land area was formerly occupied by
wetland/estuarine habitat in 1887. Today these aquatic features are absent and
remaining estuarine waters are all channelized conduits that rapidly transport storm
water runoff directly to the sea. Sedimentation problems associated with land use
changes may be especially acute in coastal areas of Hawaii because of the
combination of steep coastal watersheds, high seasonal rainfall, and agricultural and
other land development.
Estuaries serve as important nursery habitat for a number of commercial and
recreational Hawaiian fishery resources. These aquatic features also serve as natural
biofilters sequestering sediment and pollutants adsorbed to particulate materials thus
lessening the impact of storm water runoff to adjacent coral reefs. The development
-------
of the hinterland surrounding most of Hawaii's largest estuaries with concurrent
pollution and alien species introductions has resulted in tremendous changes to the
abundance and species composition of important estuarine species. Causal
mechanisms responsible for these changes have not been quantitatively defined and
the rate of these changes has not been measured.
Within estuaries and coastal embayments, benthic environments are areas where
many types of impacts from the stressors described above will tend to accumulate.
Deposition of toxic materials, accumulation of sediment organics, and oxygen
deficiency of bottom waters typically have a greater impact on benthic organisms than
on planktonic and nektonic organisms because of their more sedentary nature. Long-
term studies of the macrobenthos (Reish, 1986, Holland and Shaughnessey, 1986)
demonstrate that macrobenthos is a sensitive indicator of pollutant effects. Benthic
assemblages are also closely linked to both lower and higher trophic levels, as well as
to processes influencing water and sediment quality, and therefore appear to integrate
responses of the entire estuarine system (Leppakoski, 1979; Holland and
Shaughnessey, 1986).
Quantitative baseline information and establishment of long-term comprehensive
monitoring programs are needed as a first step for any rational program of pollution
abatement and habitat restoration. Not only should the impacted areas be studied but
parallel studies must be undertaken in remaining high quality habitats to ascertain if
mitigation programs are being successful.
The principal population and commercial center for Hawaii is on the south shore of
Oahu, in an area encompassing Pearl Harbor, the Port of Honolulu, and several other
estuaries or embayments that are highly altered and surrounded by a high density
urban setting. The rest of the Hawaiian Islands has a much lower population density.
While it may be presumed that the magnitude of anthropogenic impacts will be highest
in the urbanized estuaries of Oahu, this hypothesis has not yet been tested.
Therefore, in addition to the assessment of condition for the Hawaiian Islands as a
whole, an intensified level of sampling was conducted within the Oahu urbanized
estuaries.
1.3 Objectives
The EMAP sampling program conducted in Hawaii in 2002 was a pilot program to
determine the feasibility of conducting condition assessments of coastal resources
throughout the island group and had the following objectives:
1. To assess the condition of estuarine and coastal embayment resources of Hawaii
based on a range of indicators of environmental quality using an integrated survey
design;
-------
2. To establish a baseline for evaluating how the conditions of the estuarine resources
of Hawaii may change with time;
3. To develop and validate improved methods for use in future coastal monitoring and
assessment efforts in Hawaii and U.S. Pacific Island territories;
4. To transfer the technical approaches and methods for designing, conducting and
analyzing data from probability based environmental assessments to the state of
Hawaii.
-------
2.0 Methods
2.1 Sampling Design and Statistical Analysis Methods
2.1.1 Background
The EMAP approach to evaluating the condition of ecological resources is described
in reports such as Diaz-Ramos et al. (1996), Stevens (1997), Stevens and Olsen
(1999) and is also presented in summaries provided on the internet at the URL:
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/index.htm
A brief summary from these documents follows.
Given the fact that it is generally impossible to completely census an extensive
resource, such as the set of all estuaries and bays in Hawaii, a more practical
approach to evaluating resource condition is to sample selected portions of the
resource using probability based sampling. Studies based on random samples of the
resource rather than on a complete census are termed sample surveys. Sample
surveys offer the advantages of being affordable, and of allowing extrapolations to be
made of the overall condition of the resource based on the random samples collected.
Survey methodologies are widely used in national programs such as forest
inventories, agricultural statistics surveys, national resource inventory, consumer price
index, labor surveys, and such activities as voter opinion surveys.
A survey design provides the approach to selecting samples in such a way that they
provide valid estimates for the entire resource of interest. Designing and executing a
sample survey involves five steps: (1) creating a list of all units of the target population
from which to select the sample, (2) selecting a random sample of units from this list,
(3) collecting data from the selected units, (4) summarizing the data with statistical
analysis procedures appropriate for the survey design, and (5) communicating the
results. The list or map that identifies every unit within the population of interest is
termed the sampling frame.
The sampling frame for the EMAP Western Coastal Program was developed from
USGS 1:100,000 scale digital line graphs and stored as a CIS data layer in ARC/INFO
program. A series of programs and scrips (Bourgeois et al., 1998) was written to
create a random sampling generator (RSG) that runs in ArcView. Site selection
consisted of using the RSG to first overlay a user-defined sampling grid of hexagons
over the spatial resource which consisted of all estuaries of Hawaii. The area of the
hexagons was controlled by adjusting the distance to hexagon centers, and by
defining how many sample stations were to be generated for each sampling region.
After the sampling grid was overlaid on the estuarine resource, the program randomly
selected hexagons and randomly located a sampling point within the hexagon. Only
one sampling site was selected from any hexagon selected. The program determined
-------
whether or not a sampling point fell in water or on land, and sites that fell on land were
not included. The RSG is run iteratively until a hexagon size is determined which
generates the desired number of sampling sites within the resource (Bourgeois et al.,
1998).
Hexagon size may be different for classes of estuarine systems of different areal
extent. The final data analysis which provides the estimates of resource condition
(see Section 2.2) then weights the samples based on the area of the estuarine class.
Stevens (1997) terms this a random tessellation stratified (RTS) survey design applied
to each estuarine resource class. Because of the area weights, estimates provided in
this report of the percentage of estuarine area associated with given values of the
indicators are not the same as simple proportions based on the number of stations in
a condition category.
2.1.2 2002 Hawaii Sampling Design
The assessment of the condition of Hawaiian estuaries and coastal embayments
included two design elements. The base study was an assessment of these water
bodies for the main Hawaiian Island chain. An intensification study was also
conducted to assess the condition of the urbanized ports and harbors of the south
shore of the Island of Oahu adjacent to Mamala Bay. The complete Hawaii
assessment combines data from all stations in both design elements for analysis,
using the inclusion probabilities, defined as the total estuarine area in km2 within a
given design stratum
(= estuarine size class), to weight the representation of samples in the combined
analysis.
The Hawaii sampling frame was constructed as a CIS coverage that included the total
area of the polygons representing the estuaries and coastal bays in the state.
Available CIS coverages were not perfect representations of the estuarine resource,
and so the coverages were defined to ensure that they included the resource, but may
have possibly included some nearby land or inland water. The inland boundary of the
sampling frame was defined as the head of salt water influence, while the seaward
boundary was defined by the confluence with the ocean. Sample locations could fall
within any water depth contained within the estuarine resource which was bounded by
the shoreline. Emergent salt marsh areas, if present, were not included in the
sampling frame. For coastal bays, the offshore boundary was constrained to a depth
of 60 ft in order to be conservative in terms of safety for the SCUBA divers used to
obtain bottom samples. There was also considerable uncertainty associated with the
bathymetry used to define this offshore boundary.
The sampling design for the 2002 Hawaii base study included all estuaries and coastal
bays of the main Hawaiian Island chain, and consisted of a total of 50 sites (Sites 1-
50, Table 2.1-1, Figures 2.1-1,2.1 -2, 2.1 -3, 2.1 -4). Sample site selection utilized four
hexagonal grid sizes reflecting these four estuary size classes: 0.55, 2.5, 4.98 and
-------
6.78 km2 (see Table 2.1-1 for association of grid size with estuary stratum).
Approximately equal sampling effort was placed in each of four design strata to ensure
that there was at least some level of sampling across the entire range of sizes of
estuaries and bays. No alternate or oversample sites were selected during the
design, and thus any sites which could not be sampled were not replaced.
Improvements to subsequent versions of the RSG produced after this study allow
incorporation of alternate sample sites if future assessment studies for Hawaii.
The sampling design for the 2002 Hawaii intensification study included Pearl Harbor,
Honolulu Harbor, and the other ports, harbors, marinas and canals located along the
waterfront of the city of Honolulu, with Mamala Bay, and consisted of a total of 30 sites
(Sites 51 -80, Table 2.1-1, Figure 2.1 -5). The design for this intensification study
incorporated 2 hexagonal grid sizes: 0.86 and 1.24 km2. The hexagonal grid sizes
were used to locate random sample sites within a total of two strata representing
differing total areas of the estuarine resource in the Oahu urbanized estuaries (see
Table 2.1-1 for association of grid size with estuary stratum). No alternate or
oversample sites were selected during the design, and thus any sites which could not
be sampled were not replaced.
2.1.3 Field Sampling
Field sampling began on April 1, 2002 and concluded on October 30, 2002. Samples
from the Hawaii base study were completed by September 30, 2002. Sampling for the
urbanized estuaries of Oahu began in April, but did not conclude until the end of
October. Pearl Harbor was sampled between Oct. 7-11, 2002. The extended period
required for field work resulted from the logistical issues associated with sampling the
multiple islands of the Hawaiian Island chain, and from delays in receiving permission
to sample within military areas on Oahu.
Sampling methods are described in detail in the following sections. Water column
measurements and samples were obtained from small boats using standard NCA
methods following guidance provided in the NCA Quality Assurance Project Plan
document (US EPA, 2001). One exception to the use of small boats was a "walk-in"
station located in Halekou Pond on Oahu. Bottom samples and other biotic
measurements were obtained by divers using either snorkel or SCUBA gear. Boats
used in sampling included a kayak to reach a shallow site in Pearl Harbor, a 22 ft. boat
with outboard motor used for much of the sampling on the island of Oahu, and a 43 ft.
chartered vessel used for sampling stations located on the other islands. Because of
the predominant use of small boats, weather conditions were generally moderate, with
maximum wind speeds estimated at 10 mph. Drizzle was encountered only in
sampling station HI02-006 at Wahiawa Bay, Kauai.
-------
Keawanui Bay
Keawanui
Bay
Wainiha Bay
Waimea Bay
Hanapepe Bay
Wahiawa Bay
N
Hanamaulu Stream
Legend
) Sample Sites
Location
5Q Kilometers
Figure 2.1-1. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the islands of Kauai and Niihau.
8
-------
Paukauila Stream
Bay
Halekou Pond
Nuupia Pond
t
Waimanalo Bay
Pearl
Harbor Keehi
Lagoon
N
Maunalua Bay
Legend
"*\ Sample Sitesi
s
20
Location
40 Kilometers
Figure 2.1-2. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the island of Oahu, excluding the Oahu urbanized estuary study
sites.
-------
Maliko Bay
Kahului Bay_ Uaoa Bay
Kaunakakai Harbor
KAHOOLAWE
3* 30 40 SO
Figure 2.1-3. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the islands of Maui and Molokai.
Location
10
-------
Keawanui Bay
Kawailiae Bay
Kawalhae Bay
Makaiwa Bay
Anaehaornalu Bay
Kua Bay
Pohakumanu Bay
HI|D Bay
Reeds Bay
Wtiiluku River
Legend
Sam
nd I
ple S^al •
A^J
Location
Figure 2.1-4. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites on the island of Hawaii.
11
-------
Kewalo Basin
Ala Wai Harbor
Location
OA.HU
...
Figure 2.1-5. Location of Hawaii EMAP survey sites for the intensification study within the urbanized estuaries on the
island of Oahu.
12
-------
Table 2.1-1. Hawaii sampling sites with station coordinates of locations sampled.
Station numbers 51-80 constitute the Oahu urban estuaries intensive study. The Frame
Area represents the total estuarine area within a stratum.
EMAP Sta.
No.
HI02-0001
HI02-0002
HI02-0003
HI02-0004
HI02-0005
HI02-0006
HI02-0007
HI02-0008
HI02-0009
HI02-0010
HI02-0011
HI02-0012
HI02-0013
HI02-0014
HI02-0015
HI02-0016
HI02-0017
HI02-0018
HI02-0019
HI02-0020
HI02-0021
HI02-0022
HI02-0023
HI02-0024
HI02-0025
HI02-0026
HI02-0027
HI02-0028
HI02-0029
HI02-0030
HI02-0031
HI02-0032
HI02-0033
HI02-0034
HI02-0035
HI02-0036
HI02-0037
HI02-0038
HI02-0039
HI02-0040
HI02-0041
HI02-0042
HI02-0043
HI02-0044
HI02-0045
HI02-0046
HI02-0047
HI02-0048
HI02-0049
Latitude
21.965
21.941
22.217
21.951
21.903
21.897
21.991
21.575
21.498
21.494
21.372
21.476
21.472
21.470
21.451
21.352
21.432
21.435
21.436
21.433
21.311
21.339
21.320
21.278
21.271
21.085
20.919
20.907
20.898
20.937
20.790
20.936
20.776
20.764
20.706
20.117
20.038
20.017
19.982
19.976
19.943
19.914
19.811
19.873
19.772
19.756
19.750
19.723
19.735
Longitude
-160.124
-160.144
-159.534
-159.673
-159.593
-159.575
-159.349
-158.096
-157.839
-157.837
-157.986
-157.808
-157.803
-157.783
-157.800
-157.896
-157.788
-157.778
-157.752
-157.748
-157.891
-157.684
-157.669
-157.720
-157.728
-157.026
-156.480
-156.459
-156.469
-156.341
-156.499
-156.269
-156.473
-156.466
-155.994
-155.887
-155.839
-155.840
-155.845
-155.838
-155.870
-155.891
-156.007
-155.103
-155.084
-155.091
-155.072
-155.098
-155.079
Estuary or
Coastal Bay
Keawanui Bay (Niihau)
Keawanui Bay (Niihau)
Wainiha Bay
Waimea Bay
Hanapepe Bay
Wahiawa Bay
Hanamaulu Stream
Paukauila Stream
Kaneohe Bay
Kaneohe Bay
Pearl Harbor
Kaneohe Bay
Kaneohe Bay
Kaneohe Bay
Kaneohe Bay
Moanalua Stream
Kaneohe Bay
Kaneohe Bay
Halekou Pond
Nuupia Pond
Keehi Lagoon
Waimanalo Bay
Waimanalo Bay
Maunalua Bay
Maunalua Bay
Kaunakakai Harbor
Kahului Bay
Kahului Bay
Kahului Harbor
Maliko Bay
Maalaea Bay
Uaoa Bay
Maalaea Bay
Maalaea Bay
Pohakuloa Harbor
Keawanui Bay (Hawaii)
Kawaihae Bay
Kawaihae Bay
Kawaihae Bay
Kawaihae Bay
Makaiwa Bay
Anaehoomalu Bay
Kua Bay
Pohakumanu Bay
Hilo Bay
Hilo Bay
Hilo Bay
Wailuku River
Hilo Bay
Hex
Size
4.98
4.98
2.5
4.98
2.5
0.55
2.5
0.55
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
0.55
6.78
6.78
0.55
2.5
4.98
4.98
4.98
4.98
4.98
2.5
4.98
4.98
2.5
0.55
6.78
2.5
6.78
6.78
0.55
0.55
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
0.55
2.5
2.5
2.5
6.78
6.78
6.78
0.55
6.78
Frame
Area km2
72.873
72.873
26.160
72.873
26.160
5.168
26.160
5.168
120.848
120.848
120.848
120.848
120.848
120.848
120.848
5.168
120.848
120.848
5.168
26.160
72.873
72.873
72.873
72.873
72.873
26.160
72.873
72.873
26.160
5.168
120.848
26.160
120.848
120.848
5.168
5.168
120.848
120.848
120.848
120.848
5.168
26.160
26.160
26.160
120.848
120.848
120.848
5.168
120.848
Stratum
HIOO-003
HIOO-003
HIOO-002
HIOO-003
HIOO-002
HIOO-001
HIOO-002
HIOO-001
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-001
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-001
HIOO-002
HIOO-003
HIOO-003
HIOO-003
HIOO-003
HIOO-003
HIOO-002
HIOO-003
HIOO-003
HIOO-002
HIOO-001
HIOO-004
HIOO-002
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-001
HIOO-001
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-001
HIOO-002
HIOO-002
HIOO-002
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-004
HIOO-001
HIOO-004
13
-------
EMAP Sta.
No.
HI02-0050
HI02-0051
HI02-0052
HI02-0053
HI02-0054
HI02-0055
HI02-0056
HI02-0057
HI02-0058
HI02-0059
HI02-0060
HI02-0061
HI02-0062
HI02-0063
HI02-0064
HI02-0065
HI02-0066
HI02-0067
HI02-0068
HI02-0069
HI02-0070
HI02-0071
HI02-0072
HI02-0073
HI02-0074
HI02-0075
HI02-0076
HI02-0077
HI02-0078
HI02-0079
HI02-0080
Latitude
19.728
21.378
21.373
21.383
21.372
21.359
21.379
21.359
21.369
21.379
21.349
21.359
21.374
21.360
21.375
21.354
21.365
21.373
21.344
21.318
21.328
21.288
21.285
21.293
21.318
21.307
21.316
21.315
21.305
21.311
21.309
Longitude Estuary or
Coastal Bay
-155.062
-158.014
-158.009
-157.989
-158.011
-158.017
-157.988
-158.007
-157.973
-157.961
-157.987
-157.974
-157.952
-157.958
-157.947
-157.961
-157.946
-157.936
-157.966
-157.973
-157.968
-157.841
-157.841
-157.858
-157.902
-157.905
-157.896
-157.898
-157.891
-157.866
-157.873
Reeds Bay
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Pearl Harbor
Ala Wai Canal
Ala Wai Harbor
Kewalo Basin
Keehi Lagoon Borrow Pit
Keehi Lagoon
Keehi Lagoon Reef Flat
Keehi Lagoon Reef Flat
Mokauea Isle Reef Flat
Honolulu Harbor
Honolulu Harbor
Hex Frame
Size Area km2
0.55
0.13
0.13
0.07
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.86
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
5.168
0.210
0.210
0.011
7.492
7.492
7.492
7.492
7.492
7.492
7.492
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
20.341
Stratum
HIOO-001
PearlOO-010
PearlOO-010
PearlOO-01 1
PearlOO-012
PearlOO-012
PearlOO-012
PearlOO-012
PearlOO-012
PearlOO-012
PearlOO-012
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
PearlOO-013
14
-------
2.2 Data Analysis
Analysis of indicator data was conducted by calculation of cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs), an analysis approach that has been used extensively in other EMAP
coastal studies (Summers et al. 1993, Strobel et al. 1994, Hyland et al. 1996). The
CDFs describe the full distribution of indicator values in relation to their areal extent
across the sampling region of interest. The approximate 95% confidence intervals for
the CDFs also were computed based on estimates of variance. A detailed discussion of
methods for calculation of the CDF's used in EMAP analyses is provided in Diaz-Ramos
etal. (1996).
The Horvitz-Thompson ratio estimate of the CDF is given by the formula:
F(x*) = estimated CDF (proportion) for indicator value x*
n = number of samples
y/= the sample response for site i
x* = the k th CDF response indicator
\ {\y><**
l(y,
-------
The Horvitz-Thompson unbiased estimate of the variance for the ratio estimate is given
by the formula:
"df_+""dd fj_j -\_]
V (F(xk)] = -^ "'" A*'*' X'J •
A/2
N = ^]—, cf,. = /(y < x*) - F(Xk), dj = l(yj < x«) - F(x*)
F(x*) = estimated CDF (proportion) for indicator value x*
f 1 V, < XK
l(y,
-------
When estimating the CDF across several strata, the above estimates for each stratum
must be combined. The equations are
F(xk) = estimated CDF
A
Fjfa) = estimated CDF for stratum i
A, = area for stratum i
S = number of strata
A = total area of all strata
and the variance estimate across strata is
V = estimated variance for all strata
A
Vj = estimated variance for stratum i
A, = area for stratum i
S = number of strata
A = total area of all strata
17
-------
2.3 Indicators
The condition of Hawaii estuarine resources was evaluated by collecting data for a
standard set of core environmental parameters at all stations within the survey (Table
2.3-1). Field procedures followed methods outlined in the US EPA National Coastal
Assessment Field Operations Manual (US EPA, 2001 b). The environmental indicators
were similar to those used in previous EMAP estuarine surveys in other regions of the
country (Weisberg et al., 1992; Macauley et al., 1994, 1995; Strobel et al., 1994, 1995;
Hyland et al., 1996, 1998). Indicators were divided into classes representing general
habitat condition (Habitat Indicators), condition of benthic and demersal faunal
resources (Biotic Condition Indicators), and exposure to pollutants (Exposure
Indicators). Habitat indicators describe the general physical and chemical conditions at
the study site, and are often important in providing information used to interpret the
results of biotic condition indicators (e.g., salinity and sediment grain size with regard to
benthic community composition). Biotic condition indicators are measures of the status
of the benthic biological resources in response to site environmental conditions. The
exposure indicators used in this survey quantify the amounts and types of pollutant
materials (metals, hydrocarbons, pesticides) that may be harmful to the biological
resources present. Some indicators may overlap the above categories. For example,
dissolved oxygen is clearly an indicator of habitat condition, but may also be considered
an exposure indicator because of the potentially harmful effects of low dissolved oxygen
levels to many members of the benthic community.
The Hawaii NCA program added several indicators to the NCA core group of
parameters. Dissolved silicate was added because of its importance as a conservative
tracer of groundwater input. Because of the extensive presence of hard bottom habitat
in Hawaiian waters, indicators derived from quadrat and transect assessments of hard
bottom communities were added, such as percent macroalgal and coral cover. In
contrast to other states in the NCA program, bottom trawling was not feasible in Hawaii,
and visual surveys of the entire fish community, rather than measurement of demersal
fishes only, was carried out. Fish biomass estimates were added because they are a
measure of importance in understanding the trophic structure of sample locations.
Three bacterial indicators were also measured in the Hawaii NCA assessment.
18
-------
Table 2.3-1. Core environmental indicators for the National Coastal Assessment survey.
Supplemental indicators measured in Hawaii but not in other states participating in the
National Coastal Assessment are indicated by *. All fish visible in the water column were
censussed visually in Hawaii, as contrasting with trawl samples of demersal species
only for other states.
Habitat Indicators
Salinity
Water depth
PH
Water temperature
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Chlorophyll a concentration
Nutrient concentrations (nitrate,
nitrite, ammonium,
orthophosphate, silicate*)
Percent light transmission
(not assessed)
Secchi depth
Percent silt-clay of sediments
Percent total organic carbon (TOC)
in sediments
Benthic Condition Indicators
Infaunal species composition
Infaunal abundance
Infaunal species richness and diversity
(Demersal) fish species composition
(Demersal) fish abundance, biomass*
(Demersal) fish species richness and
diversity
External pathological anomalies in fish
(not assessed)
Percent cover of dominants on
hard bottom*
Exposure Indicators
Dissolved oxygen concentration (DO)
Sediment contaminants
Holothurian tissue contaminants*
Sediment toxicity (Ampelisca abdita
acute toxicity test)
Bacteria*
19
-------
2.3.1 Water Measurements
2.3.1.1 Hydrographic Profile
Once a station was located and the vessel was anchored on station, a continuous,
vertical water column profile was carried out using a Hydrolab® H20 Datasonde coupled
to a field display and lap top computer. The instrument measured temperature, depth,
dissolved oxygen, pH and turbidity (NTU). The time of day and tide state were noted for
each station. Methods and procedures used for hydrographic profiling followed
guidance provided in the NCA Quality Assurance Project Plan document (US EPA,
2001).
Secchi depth was determined by using a standard 20-cm diameter black and white
Secchi disc. The disc was lowered to the depth at which it could no longer be discerned,
then was slowly retrieved until it just reappeared. The depth of reappearance was
recorded as Secchi depth (rounded to the nearest 0.1 m). Water clarity at many
stations in the Hawaii base study was such that Secchi depth was equal to the bottom.
In such cases, the true value of the Secchi depth can not be determined, and such
values were set to missing in the analysis of this parameter. Valid data for Secchi depth
were obtained from only 14 of 50 stations in the base study, although 23 of 30 sites
from the more turbid Oahu estuaries produced valid Secchi depth readings.
Salinity was determined using an AGE laboratory salinometer (limit of detection =
0.0001 ppt, accuracy = 0.003 ppt). Standard seawater (Copenhagen Water) was used
to calibrate the instrument. Turbidity samples were collected as unfiltered water, and
stored on ice in 125-ml polyethylene bottles until measurements were made. Turbidity
was measured on a Monitek Model 21 nephelometer following procedures as described
in Standard Methods (1985) and data were recorded in NTU.
2.3.1.2 Water Quality Indicators
Once the physical measurements were completed at a station, water samples were
collected at three depths for each station: within 20 cm of the surface, mid-depth in the
water column, and at approximately 1-m above the sea floor, using a 2.2 liter Niskin
sample bottle. Subsamples were withdrawn for nutrients (orthophosphate, nitrate,
nitrite, ammonia), dissolved silica and a bacteria sample. The nutrient samples were
collected in acid-rinsed polyethylene bottles that were triple-rinsed with the sample
water. These samples were held on ice for transportation to the laboratory. The
nutrient samples were filtered through Whatman glass fiber filters (GF/F, 0.7- urn
particle retention) into 125-ml acid-washed, triple-rinsed polyethylene bottles and
immediately placed on ice. Samples were air shipped to the NCA national contract
laboratory for analysis.
All laboratory methods used in processing water column samples followed standard
accepted protocols including those as given in Standard Methods (1985), Strickland and
20
-------
Parsons (1972), Grasshoff (1983). Analyses for the various nutrients were be carried
out by national contract laboratories following standard procedures, protocols and
QA/QC. Water samples were held on ice for no more than 24 hours prior to sample
processing. If a holding time greater than 24 hours was required, nutrient samples were
frozen. The exception was for the silica sample which was refrigerated
Dissolved oxygen was measured with a Hydrolab® DO sensor on the Hydrolab® H20
datasonde.
2.3.2 Sediment Toxicity Testing
2.3.2.1 Sediment Collection for Toxicity Testing, Chemical Analysis and Grain
Size
Composite samples of sediment were collected and analyzed for organic and inorganic
contaminants (i.e., those elements and compounds as given in Table 2.3-3), toxicity
bioassays and determination of physical characteristics. At sample sites that were
within diving depths, the sediment samples were hand-collected by divers in pre-
cleaned one-liter Teflon® lined jars with Teflon lined lids, pushing the jar into the
substratum, digging alongside of the jar in the sediment and using the lid to cover the jar
mouth so it could be extracted. At stations where a grab was used the jar was handled
the same way to sample sediment from the grab. Samples for various analyses were
taken within a one-square meter area of substratum and included the sediment from the
surface through the upper 10 cm of material. Samples were chilled and sent within 48
hours of collection by overnight carrier to EPA-approved contract laboratories for
appropriate sample processing and sediment toxicity testing. Holding times for sample
measurements are given in Table 2.3-4.
2.3.2.2 Amphipod Toxicity Tests
The 10-day, solid-phase toxicity test with the marine amphipod Ampelisca abdita was
used to evaluate potential toxicity of sediments from all sites. Procedures followed the
general guidelines provided in ASTM Protocol E1367-92 (ASTM 1991), the EPA
amphipod sediment toxicity testing manual (US EPA, 1994a), and the EMAP Laboratory
Methods Manual (US EPA 1994b). The Ampelisca test is a 10-d acute toxicity test
which measures the effect of sediment exposure on amphipod survival under static
beaker conditions with aeration. Toxicity tests were conducted with sediment collected
from a one-square meter area within which the sediment for analysis of organic and
trace metal contaminants and other sediment characteristics was also collected. Some
toxicity test sediment was collected several months later than sediment for
contaminants due to problems with the handling of the sediment for toxicity testing.
Ampelisca tests were conducted by an EPA contract laboratory in Pensacola, FL using
amphipods collected from San Pablo Bay in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, CA. All
21
-------
tests were monitored daily during the test for water quality (temperature, salinity,
dissolved oxygen, pH, and total ammonia in the overlying water). Test temperature for
A. abdita ranged from 19 to 21 °C and salinity ranged from 29 to 34 %o. Test pH at test
initiation ranged from 8 to 8.4 and maximum total ammonia concentration was 1.47
mg/L. The general health of each batch of amphipods was evaluated in a reference
toxicity test ("positive control") with the reference toxicant cadmium chloride or sodium
dodecyl sulfate (SDS). LC50 values were computed for comparison with other reported
toxicity ranges for the same reference toxicant and test species.
Treatments for the definitive tests with field samples consisted of five replicates of each
sediment sample (100% sediment) and a negative control consisting of sediment from
the amphipod collection site. A negative control was run with each batch of field
samples. The negative controls provided a basis for comparison to determine statistical
differences in survival in the field sediments and also provided a measure of the
acceptability of final test results. Test results with A. abdita were considered valid if
mean control survival (among the 5 replicates) was > 90% and survival in no single
control replicate was less than 80%. Test results are reported as control-corrected
values. Mean control survival for A. abdita ranged from 90 to 98% throughout the
various tests, but three control batches had minimum replicate survival < 80%. Test
batches where negative control QA requirements were not met were included in the
CDF analysis. This situation occurred with 24% of the sediments tested.
A variety of quality control procedures were incorporated to assure acceptability of
amphipod test results and comparability of the data with other studies. As described
above, these provisions included the use of standard ASTM and EMAP protocols,
negative "performance" controls run with reference sediment from the amphipod
collection site, positive controls with reference chemicals to determine the health of the
amphipods, and routine monitoring of water quality variables to identify any departures
from optimum tolerance ranges.
2.3.3 Biotic Condition Indicators
2.3.3.1 Benthic Community Structure
A single sample of approximately 500 cm3 was collected at each station by SCUBA
divers using jars of 11.2 cm in diameter inserted into the sediment to a depth of
approximately 5 cm. Samples of this volume are adequate because the soft bottom
infauna are both small in size and usually very abundant (Nelson 1986, Swartz et al.
2000). These samples were fixed in their labeled collection containers with buffered
formalin (15%).
All benthic sample processing was carried out at the University of Hawaii. The protocol
for sample handling/processing was as follows: in the laboratory each sediment sample
was handled in a manner identical to the protocol used in the EPA-approved monitoring
program for Honolulu deep ocean sewer outfalls (Swartz et al. 2000). The fixed
22
-------
samples were elutriated using the technique of Sanders et al. (1965). This method
successfully removes from the sediment all organisms that are not heavily calcified.
The samples were washed several times, and the water from each was poured through
0.5-mm mesh sieves. Polychaetes and other invertebrates retained on the sieve were
transferred to alcohol, stained with rose bengal solution, and stored in 70% ethanol.
When large carbonate rubble fragments were collected in the sediment samples, the
rubble fragments were carefully washed and visually examined to ensure that any
organisms on the external surfaces were removed. The fragments were then placed in
a nitric acid bath for 24 hours or longer to dissolve the carbonate and to recover
organisms living in burrows. The acid dissolution technique used was modified from the
methods of Brock and Brock (1977), as described in Nelson (1986).
All specimens were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. As a QA/QC
check, all specimens were double checked by a second individual to ascertain that
sorting was complete and identifications were accurate. Any disparity between the
identifications of the two taxonomists was discussed, and discrepancies were resolved
by a sequential process. Additional specimens were examined to compare to the
specimen in question, the literature was searched for additional information, and finally
international specialists of the genus or family were contacted. Voucher specimens
were submitted to taxonomic specialists for verification when necessary. All specimens
will be archived and maintained for six years by the University of Hawaii.
Duplicate field collections of benthic samples were conducted at 10 percent of the
sample sites. This sampling strategy is identical to that employed in the ongoing
studies in Mamala Bay carried out as part of the monitoring requirements for Honolulu's
deep ocean outfalls (Swartz et al. 2000). Comparisons were made between the
duplicate samples. In the case of sites with coralline rubble substratum, two replicate
samples were taken for analysis and served the same purpose.
Many of the EMAP stations in Hawaii estuaries and bays are located in areas occupied
by coral reefs. The diversity of life forms on coral reefs dictates that a number of
techniques be used to quantify the larger, diurnally active species present.
Following a visual transect census for fish (Section 2.3.3.2), an enumeration of
epibenthic invertebrates (excluding corals) was undertaken using the same 25 m
transect line as established for fishes. Exposed invertebrates, usually greater than 2 cm
in some dimension, are censussed in the 4 m x 25 m area. This sampling methodology
is quantitative for a few invertebrate groups, e.g., some of the echinoderms (some
echinoids and holothurians), mollusks, and crustaceans. Most coral reef invertebrates
(other than corals) are cryptic or nocturnal in their habits making accurate assessment
of them in areas of topographical complexity very difficult. These factors, coupled with
the fact that the majority of these cryptic invertebrates are small, necessitates the use of
techniques as described for the infaunal component of this study (see also Brock and
Brock 1977). Recognizing these constraints, the macroinvertebrate censusing
technique used here attempts to assess those few species that are diurnally exposed.
23
-------
Exposed sessile benthic forms such as corals and macrothalloid algae were
quantitatively surveyed by use of quadrats and photographic techniques. Quadrat
sampling consisted of recording benthic organisms, algae and substratum type present
as a percent cover in six, one-meter square frames placed at five-meter intervals along
the transect line established for fish censusing (at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 m). At these
same locations a camera mounted on a 0.67 x 1 m frame was also placed and the
substratum was photographed. Photographs provided a permanent record from which
additional coverage estimates of corals and other sessile forms can be made. All
sessile forms were recorded as percent cover. With the macrothalloid algae, emphasis
was placed on those species that are visually dominant, and no attempt was made to
quantitatively assess the multitude of microalgal species that constitute the "algal turf"
so characteristic of many coral reef habitats.
The benthic infaunal data were used to compute total numbers of individuals and total
number of species per 0.0985 m2 sample. The Shannon-Weaver information diversity
index H' was calculated (log base 2) per 0.0985 m2 sample.
Species collected in the infaunal sampling were classified as to origin, using the
following categories: native species, nonindigenous species, cryptogenic species,
indeterminate origin, and unclassified. These assignments were made by the taxonomic
specialists in Hawaii based on their knowledge of components of the fauna, supported
by a variety of publications (Englund et al., 2000; Preskitt et al., 2001).
2.3.3.2 Fish Community Structure
Once a station was located and the vessel appropriately anchored, two SCUBA
equipped divers entered the water. The lead diver was equipped with a slate and pencil
and the assistant carried a 25 m transect line. Fish abundance and diversity is often
related to small-scale topographical relief over short linear distances. A long transect
may bisect a number of topographical features (e.g., cross coral mounds, sand flats,
and algal beds), thus sampling more than one community and increasing the variance in
the resulting data. To alleviate this problem, a short transect (25 m in length) has
proven adequate in sampling many Hawaiian benthic communities (Brock and Morris
1989) and was approved by US EPA Region IX for survey work assessing Hawaiian
ocean sewer outfalls (Brock 1998a, 1999a). Studies have demonstrated that the visual
census technique probably provides the most accurate, nondestructive method
available for the assessment of diurnally-active coral reef fishes (Brock 1982).
The lead diver located the sample site and commenced to visually enumerate all fishes
present in a 4 x 25 m corridor from the bottom to the surface. Directly behind the lead
diver, the second diver payed out the 25-m transect line. This strategy avoided
underwater activity in the area which could frighten wary fishes. All individuals of all
species were counted and estimates were made on the standard length of each fish
seen. The length was converted to standing crop estimates using linear regression
24
-------
techniques (Richer 1975). The regression coefficients have been developed over 40
years of study in the Hawaiian Islands by a number of authors (Brock 1954, Evans
1974, Brock and Morris 1989) from weight and body length measurements of captured
fishes; for many species, the coefficients have been developed using sample sizes in
excess of a hundred individuals.
2.3.3.3 Holothurian Contaminant Sampling and Chemistry Analyses
Residues of a suite of metals, PCBs, and pesticides were measured in the whole-body
tissues of two species of holothurians (Holothuria atra and H. whitmaei) at 11 stations in
the Hawaii estuaries and bays and 2 stations in the Oahu urbanized estuaries (Table
2.3-2). At each station, the sample team looked for the presence of holothurians in the
immediate vicinity of the sample site (within 10 m). If either of these two species of
holothurians was seen, they were collected. While underwater, holothurians were
placed in zip top plastic bags for transport to the surface. Once on the surface, they
were immediately individually wrapped in tin foil, labeled, placed in a plastic bag with a
second label, sealed and frozen. All samples were sent in a frozen state to the NCA
national contract laboratory for analysis. Guts were not cleared, and thus may have
contained some level of sediments which may have contributed to observed
contaminant levels.
Table 2.3-2. List of stations with collection of holothurians for tissue analysis.
EMAP Station
H 102-0001
HI02-0003
H 102-001 2
H 102-001 3
HI02-0024
HI02-0030
HI02-0033
HI02-0037
HI02-0038
HI02-0040
H 102-0041
HI02-0069
HI02-0078
Date
18-Jun-02
16-Jun-02
10-May-02
21-May-02
1-Apr-02
3-Apr-02
9-Jun-02
7-Jun-02
7-Jun-02
7-Jun-02
8-Jun-02
11-0ct-02
16-Apr-02
Number Collected
1
1
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
Species
Holothuria whitmaei
Holothuria atra
Holothuria atra
Holothuria atra
Holothuria atra
Holothuria atra
Holothuria whitmaei
Holothuria atra
Holothuria atra
Holothuria atra
Holothuria whitmaei
Holothuria atra
Holothuria whitmaei
A total of 13 inorganic metals, 23 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 20
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs,), DDT and its primary metabolites, and an additional
14 pesticides (Table 2.3-3) were measured in the holothurian samples. PCB congener
110 was not reported, but the values for PCB77 are likely to actually represent
PCB110/77. Table 2.3-4 summarizes the sample collection, preservation, and holding
25
-------
time requirements for tissue samples. Table 2.4-2 summarizes the analytical methods
used for tissues. The analytical QA/QC procedures for tissue chemistry analysis are
described in Section 2.4.
2.3.3.4 Bacterial Indicators
Water samples for bacterial analysis, collected at three depths (section 2.3.1.2) were
transferred to sterile 125-ml polyethylene bottles and placed on ice for transport to the
laboratory. Because of the time-sensitive nature of the bacterial samples, upon return
of the survey crew to land (generally within 6 hours), these samples were given to
personnel from the Hawaii Department of Health for immediate on-island sample
processing. On return to the laboratory, enterococci samples were filtered through 0.4 u
sterile membrane filters. Enterococci were measured using techniques described in
"Test Methods for Escherichia coll and Enterococci in Water by the membrane filter
procedure" (EPA 600/4-85/076). Fecal coliforms were measured by the method 9222D,
Fecal Coliform Membrane Filter Procedure (Standard Methods, 1998). Clostridium
perfringens was analyzed by the membrane filtration enumeration method (Bisson and
Cabelli, 1979).
2.3.4 Sediment Chemistry
A total of 15 metals, 20 PCB congeners (PCBs), DDT and its primary metabolites, 13
pesticides, 23 polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and total organic carbon (TOC) were
measured in sediments (Table 2.3-3). PCB congener 110 was not reported, but the
values for PCB77 are likely to actually represent PCB 110/77. With a few additions, this
suite of compounds is the same as measured in the NOAA NS&T Program.
Sediment for chemical analysis was collected from the top 15 centimeters by hand and
stored in pre-cleaned glass containers with Teflon® lids (see Table 2.3-4). Sediment
samples for chemical analysis were taken from a one-square meter area within which
the sediment for toxicity testing and analysis of other sediment characteristics was also
collected. Approximately 250-300 ml of sediment were collected from each station for
analysis of organic pollutants and another 250-300 ml for analysis of metals and TOC
(Table 2.3-4). Once collected, samples were held in coolers and chilled and once
ashore were sent by overnight carrier to the EPA-approved contract laboratories for
processing.
Analysis for sediment contaminants was conducted by EPA's National Contract
Laboratory (NCL). Table 2.4-1 lists the analytical methods used for each compound.
The analytical QA/QC procedures for sediment chemistry analysis are described in
Section 2.4.
26
-------
Table 2.3-3. Compounds analyzed in sediments and holothurian tissues. TOC, antimony, and manganese were analyzed
only in sediments. Toxaphene was analyzed only in tissues.
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs)
Low Molecular Weight PAHs
1 -methylnaphthalene
1-methylphenanthrene
2-methylnaphthalene
2,6-dimethylnaphthalene
2, 3, 5-tri methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Biphenyl
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
High Molecular Weight PAHs
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenzothiophene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Pyrene
PCB Congeners
(Congener Number and
Compound)
8: 2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl
18: 2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl
28: 2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl
44: 2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
52: 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
66: 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
77: 3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl
1 01 : 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl
105: 2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl
118: 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
126: 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl
128: 2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl
138: 2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
153: 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl
1 70: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl
1 80: 2,2', 3,4,4', 5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl
187: 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl
195: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl
206: 2,2',3,3',4,41,5,51,6-nonachlorobiphenyl
209: 2,2'3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6 '-decachlorobiphenyl
DDT and Other
Chlorinated
Pesticides
DDTs
2,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDT
Cyclopentadienes
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Chlordanes
Alpha-Chlordane
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Trans-Nonachlor
Others
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
Mi rex
Toxaphene (tissue only)
Metals and Misc.
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony (sediment only)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese (sediment
only)
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Miscellaneous
Total organic carbon
(sediment only)
27
-------
Table 2.3-4. Summary of NCA chemistry sample collection, preservation, and holding time requirements for sediment and
tissue samples. Modified from Table 5-3 of the Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001-2004 (U.S. EPA, 2001 a).
Parameter
Sediment -
Organics
Sediment -
Metals
Sediment -
TOO
Tissue
Container Volume
500-ml pre- 250 -300 ml
cleaned glass
125-mlHDPE 100 -150 ml
wide-mouth
bottle
Glass jar 100 -150 ml
Whole NA
holothurian
individually
wrapped in
Al foil, then
placed in
water-tight
plastic bag.
Sample Size
300 g
(approx.)
75- 100 g
(approx.)
30 -50 ml
(approx.)
NA
Sample Max. Max. Extract
Preservation Sampling Holding Time
Holding
Time
Freeze (-1 8° C) 1 year 40 days
Freeze (-1 8° C) 1 year a
Cool (4° C) 6 months a
Freeze (-1 8° C) 1 year 40 days
a - No EPA criterion exists. Every effort should be made to analyze the sample as soon as possible following extraction,
or in the case of metals, digestion.
28
-------
2.4 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses
The goals of the NCA QA/QC procedures are to promote the generation of analytical
results achieving the stated objectives and to provide levels of uncertainty in terms of
accuracy and precision of the results. The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
program for the National Coastal Assessment - West program is defined by the
"Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal
Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001-2004" (US EPA, 2001 a), which
established both Methods Quality Objectives (MQOs) and Data Quality Objectives
(DQO). The specific DQOs for the NCA for estimates of current status for indicators of
condition are: "For each indicator of condition, estimate the portion of the resource in
degraded condition within ±10% for the overall system and ±10% for subregions (i.e.,
states) with 90% confidence based on a completed sampling regime." Measurement
quality objectives (MQO) for all NCA field and laboratory parameters are expressed in
terms of accuracy, precision, and completeness goals in the NCA QA Project Plan (US
EPA, 2001 a, Table A7-1). These MQOs were established from considerations of
instrument manufacturers' specifications, scientific experience, and/or historical data.
However, accuracy and precision goals may not be definable for all parameters due to
the nature of the measurement type (e.g., fish pathology, no expected value). In
general, the quality assurance elements for the National Contract Laboratory (NCL)
included communication of sampling and analytical requirements to the NCL, initial
laboratory capability exercises, program-wide audits of laboratory operations,
documentation of chain-of-custody, and maintaining open lines of communication and
information exchange.
Details of the general quality assurance procedures to generate sediment and tissue
chemical concentrations with acceptable levels of precision and accuracy are given in
U.S. EPA (2001 a). Briefly, a performance-based approach was used, which depending
upon the compound included 1) continuous laboratory evaluation through the use of
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs), Laboratory Control Materials (LCMs), or
Standard Reference Material (SRM); 2) laboratory spiked sample matrices, 3)
laboratory reagent blanks, 4) calibration standards, 5) analytical surrogates, and 6)
laboratory and field replicates.
One measure of the accuracy of the analytical results is control limit criteria for "relative
accuracy" based on comparing the laboratory's value to the true or "accepted" values in
CRMs or LCMs (see U.S. EPA, 2001 a for details). The requirements for PAHs, PCBs,
and pesticides are that the "Lab's value should be within ±30% of true value on average
for all analytes; not to exceed ±35% of true value for more than 30% of individual
analytes." (U.S. EPA 2001 a). For metals and other inorganic compounds, the
laboratory's value for each analyte should be within ±20% of the true value of the CRM,
LCM, or SRM. Another measure of accuracy is the percent recovery from matrix
spikes, where a known quantity of the analyte is added to sediment or tissue before
analysis. High percent recoveries indicate that the analytical method and instruments
can adequately quantify the analyte. However, matrix spikes do not evaluate the ability
29
-------
of the extraction method to actually extract the compound bound to the tissue or
sediment. A measure of precision is the "relative percent differences" (RPD) of duplicate
samples, with the objective that the RPD should be <30%. RPDs were determined from
sample replication (if done), matrix spike duplicates, and SRM/CRM/LCM replicates.
Measures of whether the analytical procedure is sufficient to detect the analytes at
environmental levels of concern are the Method Detection Limits (MDLs). An MDL is
"the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with
99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined
from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte." (Code of Federal
Regulations 40 CFR Part 136). Approved laboratories were expected to perform in
general accord with the target MDLs presented for NCA analytes (US EPA, 2001 a,
Table A7-2). Because of analytical uncertainties close to the MDL, there is greater
confidence with concentrations above the Reporting Limit (RL), which is the
concentration of a substance in a matrix that can be reliably quantified during routine
laboratory operations. Typically, RLs are 3 to 5 times the MDL. Concentrations
between the MDL and the RL were used in generating the CDF and mean for the
analyte. Any reported values below the MDL were set to 0 and this value was used in
calculating both the CDFs and means.
A post-analysis assessment of the success of the analytical laboratories in meeting
NCA QA/QC guidelines was conducted by the QA manager of the Western Ecology
Division. The accuracy of results was assessed by determining whether the laboratory
values for SRMs, CRMs, or LCMs were within the NCA guidelines for sediment and
tissues, while precision was assessed by the RPDs. An overview of the QA/QC results
is given below.
2.4.1 Metals in Sediments
Table 2.4-1 lists analytical method for each of the metals in the sediment samples. The
analytical methods are those used in the NOAA NS&T Program (Lauenstein and
Cantillo,1993) or documented in the EMAP Laboratory Methods Manual (U.S. EPA,
1994b). Table 2.4-1 also lists the units and method detection limits (MDL) for each
metal. The laboratory MDL met or were below the target MDL for all the sediment
metals. Reporting limits (RLs) were not reported for the metals, but as mentioned they
are typically 3 to 5 times the MDL.
The percent recovery from certified/standard materials, recovery from matrix spikes,
and the average RPD for non-zero sample duplicates and matrix spikes for the
sediment metals are summarized in Table 2.4-3. No defined sediment
certified/standard reference materials were reported for metals, and thus this aspect of
the DQOs can not be directly assessed. However, the matrix spike samples had
sufficiently low concentrations that the sediment samples were likely to have been
sufficiently accurate for the project goals. One caveat is that the laboratory reported QC
results from the batches containing only 26 of 85 stations. Averaged across all metals,
30
-------
the recovery for sediment metals from matrix spikes met the DQO of being within +50%
of the true values. Exceptions were aluminum, which deviated by 157% from the matrix
spike, and iron, which deviated by 79%. On average, the RPDs for metals were <30%.
Manganese slightly exceeded the criterion (33%), while aluminum and iron failed the
DQO with RPDs of 87% and 75%, respectively.
2.4.2 Organics in Sediments
Table 2.4-1 lists analytical method for each of the organic compounds in the sediment
samples. The analytical methods are those used in the NOAA NS&T Program
(Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1993) or documented in the EMAP Laboratory Methods
Manual (U.S. EPA, 1994b). Table 2.4-1 also lists the units, method detection limit
(MDL), and reporting limits (RL) for each organic compound. The laboratory MDLs met
or were below the target MDL for all of the sediment organics.
The percent recovery from certified/standard materials, recovery from matrix spikes,
and the average RPD for non-zero sample duplicates and matrix spikes are
summarized in Table 2.4-3. No defined sediment reference materials were reported for
organics, and thus this aspect of the DQOs can not be directly assessed. However, the
matrix spike samples had sufficiently low concentrations that the sediment samples
were likely to have been sufficiently accurate for the project goals. One caveat is that
the laboratory reported QC results from the batches containing only 26 of 85 stations.
Averaged across all compounds within a class, the matrix spikes were within +50% of
the true values for PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides. Individual compounds where the
average percent difference among matrix spikes was >50% included pyrene (51%),
PCB 18 (191%), Endosulfan I (61%), and Endosulfan II (94%). The average RPDs for
all sediment analytes met the DQO of duplicates being within 30%. The individual
compounds with >30% difference among matrix spike duplicates included 2-
methylnaphthalene (43%), PCB 18 (138%), Endosulfan I (36%) and Endosulfan II
(67%).
2.4.3 Chemical Residues in Tissues
Table 2.4-2 lists analytical method for each of the metals and organic compounds
measured in tissue samples. The analytical methods are those used in the NOAA
NS&T Program (Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1993) or documented in the EMAP Laboratory
Methods Manual (U.S. EPA, 1994b). Table 2.4-2 also lists the units, method detection
limit (MDL), and reporting limits (RL) for each metal or organic compound. The
laboratory MDLs were met or were below the target MDL for all of the compounds
except for tin.
The percent recovery from certified/standard materials, recovery from matrix spikes,
and the average RPD for non-zero sample duplicates and matrix spikes for tissue
metals and organics are summarized in Table 2.4-3. Spiked cod fillets from NSI were
31
-------
used as a laboratory control material. The percent recovery for the metals in these cod
fillets for the six metals analyzed were all within +30% of the true value. The percent
recovery for the metals in the matrix spikes with the cod tissue met the criterion of being
with +50% of the true value. No sample duplicates or matrix spike duplicates were
reported, so it is not possible to assess the RPD for tissue metals.
Recovery of PAHs, PCBs, and the pesticides was poor in the cod laboratory control
material, exceeding the DQO of being within +30% of the true value for every individual
compound. The matrix spikes for all PCBs met the DQO of being within +50% of the
true values, although PCB 126 exceeded the criterion. In comparison, the average for
both PAHs and pesticides exceeded the DQO for matrix spikes, with most individual
compounds exceeding +50% criterion. No non-zero duplicate tissue results were
reported, so it is not possible to assess the RPD for tissue organics. In summary, the
organic tissue residue data are suspect, and the lack of detection of a compound does
not necessarily mean that the compound was not present.
32
-------
Table 2.4-1. Units, method detection limits (MDL), reporting limits (RL), analytical
method, and responsible laboratory for sediment chemistry. Target MDLs are from the
National Coastal Assessment (US EPA, 2001 a). NR = not reported. NA = not
applicable.
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
PAHs (23 compounds)
PCB (20 congeners)
DDT, ODD, and DDE
Aldrin
Alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor
Units
(dry wt.)
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
Target
MDL
1500
0.2
1.5
0.05
5.0
5.0
500
1.0
1.0
0.01
1.0
0.1
0.05
0.1
2.0
10.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
MDL/RL
28/NR
0.1/NR
0.1/NR
0.05/NR
0.7/NR
0.7/NR
14/NR
0.1/NR
0.7/NR
0.01/NR
0.7/NR
0.1/NR
0.01/NR
0.1/NR
1.4/NR
4.97/16.79
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
Method
ICPOES
ICPMS
GFAAS
ICPMS
ICPOES
ICPOES
ICPOES
ICPMS
ICPOES
CVAA
ICPOES
ICPMS
ICPMS
ICPMS
ICPOES
GCMS
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
Laboratory
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
33
-------
Analyte
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
Mi rex
Trans-Nonachlor
TOC
Percent fines
Units
(dry wt.)
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
percent
percent
Target
MDL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
MDL/RL
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
0.18/0.89
NR
NR
Method
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
SEDM-TC
Gravimetric
Laboratory
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
ERI
Analytical Methods: GCMS = gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy; ICPOES =
Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectroscopy; ICPMS = Inductively
Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, GFAAS = graphite furnace atomic absorption
spectrometry; CVAA = cold vapor atomic adsorption, GCECD = gas chromatography
and electron capture detection, SEDM-TC = organic and inorganic analysis by EPA
method 440.
Analytical Laboratories: ERI = Environmental Research Institute, Univ. of Connecticut.
34
-------
Table 2.4-2. Units, method detection limits (MDL), reporting limits (RL), analytical
method, and responsible laboratory for tissue chemistry. Target MDLs are from the
National Coastal Assessment (US EPA, 2001 a, Table A7-2). NA = not applicable.
Analyte
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
PAHs (average23
compounds)
PCB (20 congeners)
DDT, ODD, and DDE
Aldrin
Alpha-Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Lindane (gamma-BHC)
Units
(wet wt.)
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
Target
MDL
10.0
2.0
0.2
0.1
5.0
50.0
0.1
0.01
1.0
0.5
0.05
0.05
50.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
MDL/RL
0.41/9.3
0.13/0.93
0.01/0.27
0.04/0.23
0.05/0.36
1.16/6.9
0.04/0.46
0.009/0.018
0.05/0.36
0.13/0.93
0.04/0.14
0.14/1.1
0.43/2.3
6.2/20
0.1/2
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
0.01/1
Method
ICPAES
GFAA
ICPMS
ICPAES
ICPAES
ICPAES
ICPMS
CVAA
ICPAES
ICPMS
ICPMS
ICPMS
ICPAES
GCMS
GCMS
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
GCECD
Laboratory
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
GPL
35
-------
Analyte
Mi rex
Toxaphene
Trans-Nonachlor
Units
(wet wt.)
ng/g
ng/g
ng/g
Target
MDL
2.0
2.0
2.0
MDL/RL
0.01/1
0.01/50
0.01/1
Method
GCECD
GCMS
GCECD
Laboratory
GPL
GPL
GPL
Analytical Methods: Analytical Methods: GCMS = gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy, ICPMS = Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry, GFAA =
graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry, ICPAES = Inductively-Coupled
Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer, CVAA = cold vapor atomic adsorption, GCECD
= gas chromatography and electron capture detection,
Analytical Laboratories: GPL = GPL Laboratories.
36
-------
Table 2.4-3. Summary of performance of analytical laboratories for Hawaii samples
with regard to data quality objectives (DQOs) for analysis of reference materials, matrix
spike recoveries, and relative percent differences (RPD) of duplicates. MS = matrix
spike, SRM = Standard Reference Material, CRM = Certified Reference Material, LCM =
Laboratory Control Material, None = the QC material was not analyzed or QC activity
not performed. NA = not applicable. DQOs for organics for recovery from reference
materials is +30% for organics and +20% for metals.
Analyte Material
(#
analytes)
Metals Sediment
(15) Tissue
PAHs Sediment
(23) Tissue
PCBs Sediment
(21) Tissue
Pestici Sediment
des
(20) Tissue
Average met If No, % difference from true
DQO for value /
comparison p analytes reported) /
to standard? type of reference material
None None
Yes NA / 7 / LCM
None None
No 73% / 16 /LCM
None None
No 72% / 8 / LCM
None None
No 73% / 13 /LCM
Matrix spike
recovery within
50% -150% and (%
difference from
matrix spike)
Yes (33%)
Yes (5%)
Yes (38%)
No (71%)
Yes (17%)
Yes (35%)
Yes (20%)
No (71%)
Average RFD of
sample replicates
and matrix spike
duplicates <30%
Yes
None
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
37
-------
2.5 Data management
Data management for the Hawaii stations sampled in 2002 is a component of the
overall National Coastal Assessment - West Information Management Program. The
Information Management System is based on a centralized data storage model using
standardized data transfer protocols (SDTP) for data exchange among program
participants. The data are submitted to the NCA - West Information Manager (IM)
located at the U.S. EPA laboratory in Newport, Oregon, for entry into the relational
database (Microsoft Access).
The data flow consists of interactions among four levels. Field crew leaders and
laboratory supervisors are responsible for compiling data generated by their
organizations and for entering the data into one or more of the SDTP tables. The State
Information Management (IM) Coordinator is responsible for compiling all data
generated within a state into a unified state database. The NCA - West IM Coordinator
is responsible for working with State Coordinators to develop the SDTP, and for creation
and management of the centralized West Coast EMAP database. The EMAP IM
Coordinator, located at the Atlantic Ecology Division of EPA at Narragansett, Rhode
Island, is responsible for accepting data from Western EMAP, for placing it in the
national EMAP database, and for transferring it to other EPA databases, such as
STORET.
Once all data tables of a particular data type (e.g. all tables containing fish data) were
certified by the NCA - West IM Coordinator, integrated multi-state data tables were
provided to the Western EMAP Quality Assurance Coordinator (QAC). The QAC
reviewed the data with respect to scientific content. Necessary corrections resulting
from this review process were returned to the NCA - West IM Coordinator who was
responsible for working with the State IM Coordinator to make necessary changes.
Following certification of all portions of the data by the QAC, the NCA - West IM
Coordinator submitted the integrated multi-state data set to the EMAP IM Coordinator
who is the point of contact for data requests about the integrated data set.
Details of the Western EMAP Information Management process are provided in Cooper
(2000). The structure of each of the relational data base tables and supporting database
look-up tables used by the states to submit data to the NCA - West IM Coordinator are
provided in this document.
2.6 Unsamplable Area
All stations in Hawaii were sampled except station HI02-0065. This station was located
within the East Loch of the Pearl Harbor Naval base, and access to this location was
denied by the U.S. Navy due to classified (military) activities occurring in the area during
the period of time that the EMAP field survey team was present in the harbor. No
sediment was obtained at stations HI02-0004, HI02-0012, HI02-0030, HI02-0032, and
38
-------
H102-0037. Underwater visual surveys could not be conducted at many stations due to
poor water visibility, particularly those in the Oahu urbanized harbors.
2.7 Lessons Learned
The EMAP survey of the Hawaiian Islands utilized several approaches which were new
to the National Coastal Assessment program. Some of the approaches proved useful,
and others were less successful. The sampling of holothurian tissue was attempted as a
substitute for the usual analysis of fish tissue for chemical contaminants. Specimens
were obtained at only 13 stations, demonstrating that this taxon was much less widely
distributed than anticipated. The analytical laboratory also had considerable difficulty
with the tissue matrix, and the recovery of target analytes from the holothurian tissues
was less than desired in some cases. Alternate approaches to collection of tissue for
contaminant analysis should be explored.
Visual survey methods for fish community analyses were highly effective wherever
water conditions permitted visual transects to be conducted. However, surveys could
only be conducted at 38 of the 79 (48%) sites, and tended to be unsuccessful in the
more turbid, estuarine conditions. Given the heterogeneous nature of the bottom types
in Hawaii which precluded general use of trawls, this limitation on fish community
assessment remains problematic.
The Hawaii field team did not collect PAR data in the water column, but did collect
Secchi depth measurements. In many NCA assessments, Secchi depth has proved an
acceptable indicator of water clarity. In Hawaii, Secchi depth was not a useful indicator
for water quality because in the very clear waters typical of many areas, the Secchi disc
was still visible at the bottom, and thus the true Secchi depth could not be measured.
Secchi depth tended to be measurable at more turbid sites, thus introducing a bias into
the data for Secchi depth as a measure of water clarity. It is therefore critical that PAR
measurements be obtained in order to develop a useful indicator of water clarity for the
Hawaiian Islands.
39
-------
3.0 Indicator Results
Presentation of results for individual indicators utilizes cumulative distribution functions
(CDFs) representing the percentage area of the sample frame associated with given
values of the indicator. In the case of some parameters, area estimates associated with
benchmark values of the indicator are presented, e.g. sediment contaminants are
referred to values of the Effects Range Median (ERM) or Effects Range Low (ERL) if
these values are available (see Section 3.2.2). In other cases where there are no
relevant benchmarks, the area estimates associated with statistical percentiles (50th,
90th) are presented. The state of Hawaii has water quality criteria for marine waters for
several indicators measured by EMAP (see (Section 11-54-8, Hawaii Department of
Health, Amendment and Compilation of Chapter 11-54, Hawaii Administrative Rules,
August 31, 2004). However, these criteria are expressed as geometric means of
multiple sample events, and are different for specific estuaries, bays and coastal
regions. The EMAP sampling frame was not designed with these specific water quality
classes, and samples were taken at only one date per station. Therefore, we have
chosen to present water quality indicators in reference to statistical percentiles.
3.1 Habitat Indicators
3.1.1 Water Depth at Sample Sites
Bottom depth for the 50 stations sampled in Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from
0.25 m to 21.3 m. The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays
sampled had a water depth of 6.1 m while the 90th percentile had a depth of 14.8 m
(Figure 3.1 -1). Bottom depth for sample sites in the Oahu urbanized estuaries ranged
between 0.25 m and 16.5 m. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized
estuaries had a bottom depth of 6.7 m while the 90th percentile had a depth of
approximately 13.2 m (Figure 3.1-2).
3.1.2 Salinity
Salinity in the bottom water for the 50 stations sampled in Hawaii estuaries and bays
ranged only from 20.9 psu to 37.2 psu. The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii
estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a bottom salinity of 35.2 psu, while the 90th
percentile had a salinity of 35.7 psu (Figure 3.1-3). Nearly the entire area (99.6%) of
the Hawaii estuaries would be classified as euhaline (>30 psu) based on the EMAP
sampling of bottom waters. The sites in the Oahu urbanized estuaries had bottom
salinities in a similar range, 30.6 psu to 36.5 psu (Figure 3.1-4). The 50th percentile of
area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a bottom salinity of 35.7 psu while the 90th
percentile had a value of 36.2 psu. Only approximately 8% of the area of the Oahu
urbanized estuaries had salinity less than or equal to 28.4 psu. In interpreting these
results, it is important to recognize that salinity can vary both tidally and seasonally, as
well as with depth in the water column, and that these single measurements are
"snapshots" during the sampling events.
40
-------
3.1.3 Water Temperature
Temperature in the bottom water for the 50 stations sampled in Hawaii estuaries and
bays ranged from 23.9 °C to 27.5 °C (Figure 3.1-5). The range of surface water
temperatures was virtually identical to that for bottom water temperatures (23.9 °C to
27.6 °C). Within a station, the maximum temperature difference between surface and
bottom waters was 2.5 °C. The Oahu urbanized estuaries showed a similar range of
bottom (25.4 °C to 27.9 °C) (Figure 3.1-6) and surface water temperatures (24.6 °C to
29.9 °C). These temperatures are representative of summer conditions in the region.
The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a
bottom temperature of 23.9 °C, while the 90th percentile had a salinity of 23.9 °C (Figure
3.1-5). The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a bottom
temperature of 25.7 °C while the 90th percentile had a value of 26.7 °C.
3.1.4 pH
The pH of bottom waters for the 50 stations sampled in Hawaii estuaries and bays
ranged from 7.7 to 8.2 (Figure 3.1-7). The Oahu urbanized estuaries showed a very
similar range of bottom water pH from 7.4 to 8.1 (Figure 3.1-8). The range for pH in
surface water samples was virtually identical to that for bottom waters (7.6 - 8.2). The
50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a pH of
8.07 while the 90th percentile had a pH of 8.1 (Figure 3.1-7). The 50th percentile of area
of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a bottom water pH of 7.97 while the 90th percentile
had a pH of 8.1 (Figure 3.1 -8).
3.1.5 Sediment Characteristics
The percent silt-clay of sediments ranged from 0% to 92.5% at the 45 stations sampled
in Hawaii estuaries and bays from which soft sediment samples could be obtained
(Figure 3.1-9). About 73% of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had sediments
composed of sands (<20% silt-clay), about 21% was composed of intermediate muddy
sands (20-80% silt-clay), and about 6% was composed of muds (>80% silt-clay). The
Oahu urbanized estuaries (29 stations) had a greater proportion of area characterized
by muds (62%), and less area characterized by sands (15%) or intermediate muddy
sands (23%) (Figure 3.1-10). The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and
coastal bays sampled had a percent silt-clay of sediments of 3.1 %, while the 90th
percentile had a percent silt-clay of 53% (Figure 3.1-9). The 50th percentile of area of
the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a percent silt-clay of 83.9%, while the 90th percentile
had a percent silt-clay of 96.5% (Figure 3.1-10).
Percent total organic carbon (TOC) in sediments ranged from 0.05% to 2.47% at the 31
stations within the base study from which soft sediment samples for TOC analysis were
obtained (Figure 3.1-11). The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and coastal
bays sampled had a sediment TOC level of 0.19%, while the 90th percentile had a
sediment TOC level of 0.96%. The range of TOC values was 0.19% to 3.86% at the 18
41
-------
stations within Oahu urbanized estuaries for which TOC samples were analyzed (Figure
3.1-12). The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a sediment
TOC level of 1.8%, while the 90th percentile had a sediment TOC level of 2.1%, which is
expected given the more depositional character of these harbors.
3.1.6 Water Quality Parameters
Water quality parameters are presented as water column mean values based on the
concentration averaged over the surface, mid-water, and bottom water samples.
Chlorophyll a
The average water column concentration of chlorophyll a for the 50 stations sampled in
Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 0.1 to 8.7 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-13). The 50th
percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a chlorophyll a
concentration of 0.34 ug L"1, while the 90th percentile had a chlorophyll a concentration
of 1.2 ug L"1. Chlorophyll a concentration within the Oahu urbanized estuaries ranged
between 0.1 and 5.6 ug L"1. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries
had a chlorophyll a concentration of 0.8 ug L"1, while the 90th percentile of area had a
chlorophyll a concentration of approximately 2.8 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-14).
Nutrients
The average water column concentration of nitrate in Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged
from 0 to 212 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-15). The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries
and coastal bays sampled had a nitrate concentration of 2.5 ug L1, with the 90th
percentile of area characterized by a nitrate concentration of 11 ug L"1. Less than 5% of
estuarine and coastal bay area exceeded concentrations of 14 ug L1. Nitrate
concentration within the Oahu urbanized estuaries ranged between 0 and 68.7 ug L"1
The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a nitrate concentration
of 3.2 ug L"1, with the 90th percentile of area characterized by a nitrate concentration of
12ugl_-1 (Figure 3.1-16).
The average water column concentration of nitrite in Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged
from 0 to 7 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-17). The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries
and coastal bays sampled had a nitrite concentration of 0 ug L1, with the 90th percentile
of total area characterized by a nitrite concentration of 3.6 ug L"1. Nitrite concentration
within the Oahu urbanized estuaries was within the similar range of 0 to 5 ug L1. The
50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a nitrite concentration of 0
ug L1, with the 90th percentile of total area characterized by a nitrite concentration of 3.4
ugL1 (Figure 3.1-18).
The average water column concentration of ammonium in Hawaii estuaries and bays
ranged from 2.5 to 77.6 ug L1 (Figure 3.1-19). The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii
estuaries and coastal bays sampled had an ammonium concentration of 31.7 ug L"1,
42
-------
with the 90th percentile of total estuarine area characterized by an ammonium
concentration of 57 ug L~1. Ammonium concentration within the Oahu urbanized
estuaries ranged from 0 to 34 ug L~1. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized
estuaries had an ammonium concentration of 10 ug L~1, with the 90th percentile of total
area characterized by an ammonium concentration of 25.7 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-20).
The average water column concentration of total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (nitrogen
as nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) in Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays ranged from 2.5
to 284 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-21). The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and
coastal bays sampled had a total nitrogen concentration of 36.5 ug L"1, with the 90th
percentile of total area characterized by a total nitrogen concentration of 66.5 ug L"1.
Total nitrogen concentration within the Oahu urbanized estuaries ranged from 0 to 97.7
ug L"1. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a total nitrogen
concentration of 19 ug L"1, with the 90th percentile characterized by a total nitrogen
concentration of 35 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-22).
The average water column concentration of orthophosphate in Hawaii estuaries and
coastal bays ranged from 0 to 33 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-23). The 50th percentile of area of
the Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays sampled had an orthophosphate concentration of
4.4 ug L"1, with the 90th percentile of total estuarine area characterized by a
concentration of 7.1 ug L"1. Orthophosphate concentration within the Oahu urbanized
estuaries ranged between 0 and 396.7 ug L"1. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu
urbanized estuaries had an orthophosphate concentration of 2.7 ug L"1, with the 90th
percentile of area characterized by a concentration of 6.4 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-24).
The ratio of total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (nitrogen as nitrate + nitrite + ammonium)
concentration to total orthophosphate concentration was calculated as an indicator of
which nutrient may be controlling primary production. A ratio above 16 is generally
considered indicative of phosphorus limitation, and a ratio below 16 is considered
indicative of nitrogen limitation (Geider and La Roche, 2002). The N/P ratio ranged
from 2.4 to 36.4, across the 49 stations in Hawaii estuaries and bays where sufficient
measurements were collected to compute the ratio (Figure 3.1-25). Approximately 40%
of estuarine area had N/P values < 16. The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii
estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a ratio of 20.7, while the 90th percentile of area
had a ratio of 27. The N/P ratio ranged from 0 to 64.6, across the 29 stations in Oahu
urbanized estuaries where sufficient measurements were collected to compute the ratio
(Figure 3.1-26). Approximately 74% of estuarine area in Oahu urbanized estuaries had
N/P values < 16. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a
ratio of 7.8, while the 90th percentile of area had a ratio of 25. The long right hand tail of
the CDF was due to one station representing 8% of area with an N/P ratio of 64.6.
The average water column concentration of silicate in Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays
ranged from 57.3 to 14,710 ug L"1 (Figure 3.1-27). The 50th percentile of area of the
Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a silicate concentration of 230 ug L"1,
with the 90th percentile of area characterized by a concentration of 1468 ug L"1 (Figure
43
-------
3.1-27). Silicate concentration within the Oahu urbanized estuaries ranged between 70
and 10,090 ug L~1. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a
silicate concentration of 839 ug L~1, with the 90th percentile of area characterized by a
concentration of 2988 ug L1 (Figure 3.1-28).
Turbidity
The bottom turbidity in Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays ranged from 0 to 1423 NTU.
The 50th percentile of area of the Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a
bottom turbidity of 0.8 NTU, with the 90th percentile of area characterized by a bottom
turbidity of 204 NTU (Figure 3.1 -29). Bottom turbidity within the Oahu urbanized
estuaries ranged from 1.7 to 1746 NTU. The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu
urbanized estuaries had a bottom turbidity of 340 NTU, with the 90th percentile of area
characterized by a bottom turbidity of 1065 NTU (Figure 3.1-30).
The surface turbidity ranged from 0 to 355 NTU. The 50th percentile of area of the
Hawaii estuaries and coastal bays sampled had a surface turbidity of 0.09 NTU, with the
90th percentile of area characterized by a turbidity level of only 3.4 NTU (Figure 3.1-31).
The surface turbidity within the Oahu urbanized estuaries ranged from 0 to 970 NTU.
The 50th percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a surface turbidity of
3.8 NTU, with the 90th percentile of area characterized by a turbidity level of 75 NTU
(Figure 3.1-32).
Secchi Depth
The Secchi depth of the water column in Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 0.8 to
9.4 m at the 14 sites where measurements were obtained. Because the Secchi depth
was equal to the bottom depth at many sites, information from this CDF should be
interpreted cautiously (Figure 3.1-33), and percentiles are not presented. Sites with
Secchi depths included in the analysis will tend to be either those that were deeper, or
those that were more turbid. The Secchi depth within the Oahu urbanized estuaries
ranged from 0.6 to 6.9 m at the 23 sites where measurements were obtained. The 50th
percentile of area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a Secchi depth of 3.2 m, with the
90th percentile of area represented by a value of 5.5 m (Fig. 3.1-34).
3.1.7 Water Column Stratification
As an indicator of water column stratification, an index was calculated with temperature
and salinity data. The index (Aot) was the difference between the computed bottom and
surface ot values, where ot is the density of a parcel of water with a given salinity and
temperature relative to atmospheric pressure.
The Aot index for stations from Hawaii estuaries and bays had values ranging from
-0.07 to +10.1. Approximately 4% of the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays showed Aot
index values < 0, indicating bottom waters less dense than surface waters (Figure 3.1-
44
-------
35). Approximately 18% of the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays had Aot index values
> 2, indicating strong stratification. The Aot index for stations from Hawaii estuaries and
bays had values ranging from -1.1 to +21.2. Approximately 11 % of the area of Oahu
urbanized estuaries showed Aot index values < 0, indicating bottom waters less dense
than surface waters (Figure 3.1-36). Approximately 65% of estuarine area had Aot
index values > 2, indicating strong vertical stratification.
The limited indication of strong water column stratification within the Hawaii estuaries
and coastal bays indicates water bodies that are well mixed. The Oahu urbanized
estuaries show a much higher indication of strong vertical stratification.
45
-------
•£ 100
o>
fc 80
°- co
o a) 60
£ <
^ 40
3 20
O
0
Depth
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
10
15
20
m
25
Figure 3.1-1. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. bottom
depth.
Depth
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
a)
100
80
- co
o a> 60
£ <
•5 40
3 20
O
0
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
10
m
15
20
Figure 3.1-2. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. bottom
depth.
46
-------
Bottom Salinity
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
"c
0
0.
60
40
20
n
Cumulative Percent
- — 95% Confidence Interval
-
"/
~r
i
10 15 20 25
Salinity (psu)
30
35
40
Figure 3.1-3. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. salinity of
bottom waters.
Bottom Salinity
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
^
§
0)
CL
0)
1
E
3
O
100
80
60
40
20
n
Cumulative Percent 9
. ... 95% Confidence Interval |I
Ji
li
X
\t
f\
X
fJl
" \
10 15 20 25
Salinity (psu)
30
35
40
Figure 3.1-4. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. salinity of
bottom waters.
47
-------
Bottom Temperature
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
100
o>
o
o>
Q.
d>
I 40
3
E
3
O
80
60
20
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5
Temperature (°C)
28
Figure 3.1-5. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. temperature
of bottom waters.
Bottom Temperature
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
100
o>
o
o>
0.
d>
I 40
3
E
3
O
80
60
20
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
23.5 24 24.5 25 25.5 26 26.5 27 27.5 28
Temperature (°C)
Figure 3.1-6. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. temperature
in bottom waters.
48
-------
re
o>
< 100
+rf
§ 80
!_
d>
0.
d>
60
_re
3
E
3
o
40
20
7.3
Bottom pH
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
7.5
7.7
7.9
8.1
PH
8.3
Figure 3.1-7. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. pH in
bottom waters.
Bottom pH
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
£! 100
80
S. 60
o>
£ 40
re
20
O
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence interval
7.3
7.5
7.7 7.9
PH
8.1
8.3
Figure 3.1-8. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. pH in
bottom waters.
49
-------
Percent Silt-Clay Content
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
— - 95% Confidence Interval
20
40 60
Percent Silt-Clay
80
100
Figure 3.1-9. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. percent silt-
clay of sediments.
Percent Silt-Clay Content
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
o>
o
o>
a.
o>
_re
3
E
3
O
100
80
60
40
20
0
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
20
40 60 80
Percent Silt-Clay
100
Figure 3.1-10. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. percent
silt-clay of sediments.
50
-------
(0
< 100
+J
8 80
0- 60
<1>
±j 40
E 20
o
I
0.5
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
1.5
2 2.5
Percent
3.5
4.5
Figure 3.1-11. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. percent
total organic carbon of sediments.
Sediment Total Organic Carbon
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
100 -
S so H
o
I 60 H
a)
~ 40
(0
O
0.5
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
1.5
2 2.5
Percent
3.5
4.5
Figure 3.1-12. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. percent
total organic carbon of sediments.
51
-------
re
o>
O
100
d>
o
o>
0.
d>
I 40
3
80
60
20
Mean Chlorophyll a Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
4 6
Concentration (ug/L)
10
Figure 3.1-13. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean concentration of chlorophyll a.
Mean Chlorophyll a Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
o>
o
o>
a.
o>
^5
_re
3
E
3
O
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
4 6
Concentration (ug/L)
10
Figure 3.1-14. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column concentration of chlorophyll a.
52
-------
Mean Nitrate Nitrogen Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
<
+rf
o>
0
0>
0.
d>
_>
!5
_re
3
£
0
100
80
60
40
20
n
/J"
il '
•A'
//'
I.1
'/
•
• Cumulatrv
95% Con
e Percent
fide nee Interval
50 100 150
Concentration (ug/L)
200
250
Figure 3.1-15. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean nitrate concentration.
Mean Nitrate Nitrogen Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
o>
o
o>
a.
o>
^5
_re
3
E
3
O
100
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
50 100 150
Concentration (ug/L)
200
250
Figure 3.1-16. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean nitrate concentration.
53
-------
Mean Nitrite Nitrogen Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
100 -
•£ 80
o>
0)
Q.
D
E
3
o
60 -
40 -
20 -
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
012345678
Concentration (pg/L)
Figure 3.1-17. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean nitrite concentration.
Mean Nitrite Nitrogen Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
100 -
80 -
60 -
d>
o
d>
Q.
d>
I 40 H
3
20 -
O
Cumulative Percent
— - 95% Confidence Interval
345
Concentration (ug/l_)
Figure 3.1-18. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean nitrite concentration.
54
-------
Mean Ammonium Nitrogen Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
100
d) 80
o
o>
Q.
60
d>
I 40
3
| 20
O
Cumulative Percent
- - - 95% Confidence Interval
20 40 60
Concentration (ug/L)
80
100
Figure 3.1-19. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column ammonium concentration.
Mean Ammonium Nitrogen Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
100
d>
o
o>
Q.
d>
I 40
3
O
80
60
20
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
20 40 60
Concentration (ug/L)
80
100
Figure 3.1-20. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column ammonium concentration.
55
-------
re
o>
O
100
§ 80
i_
o>
0- 60
d>
I 40
20
Mean Total Nitrogen Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
50 100 150 200
Concentration (ug/L)
250
300
Figure 3.1-21. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration.
Mean Total Nitrogen Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
O
100
80
60
d>
O
0>
Q.
d>
I 40
3
20
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
50 100 150 200
Concentration (ug/L)
250
300
Figure 3.1-22. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration.
56
-------
Mean Orthophosphate Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
£100
o5 80
o
o>
Q- 60
o>
'•re 40
O
20
-Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
100 200 300
Concentration (ug/L)
400
500
Figure 3.1-23. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean Orthophosphate concentration.
re
0)
0.
0)
1 40
3
I 20 -
O
100 -
80 -
60 -
Mean Orthophosphate Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
-Cumulative Percent
..... 95% Confidence Interval
100 200 300
Concentration (ug/L)
400
500
Figure 3.1-24. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean Orthophosphate concentration.
57
-------
Mean N:P Molar Ratio
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
o>
o
o>
Q.
d>
3
E
3
O
100
•S 40
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
10
20
30 40
Molar Ratio
50
60
70
Figure 3.1-25. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean ratio of total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration
to total orthophosphate concentration.
Mean N:P Molar Ratio
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
100
d>
o
o>
Q.
d>
I 40
3
O
80
60
20
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
10
20
30 40
Molar Ratio
50
60
70
Figure 3.1-26. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean ratio of total nitrogen (nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration
to total orthophosphate concentration.
58
-------
Water Column Dissolved Silicate Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Concentration (ug/L)
12000
14000
16000
Figure 3.1-27. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column mean silicate concentration.
Mean Dissolved Silicate Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
— Cumulative Percent
• - 95% Confidence Interval
2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Concentration (ug/L)
12000
14000
16000
Figure 3.1-28. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column mean silicate concentration.
59
-------
Bottom Turbidity
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
si
0>
0.
d>
!5
_re
3
E
3
O
100
80
60
40
20
-Cumulative Percent
- 95% Confidence Interval
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
NTU
Figure 3.1-29. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. bottom
water turbidity.
Bottom Turbidity
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
100
S 80 -\
0)
Q. 60
5
_re
3
E
3
O
40
20
95% Confidence Interval
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
NTU
Figure 3.1-30. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. bottom
water turbidity.
60
-------
Surface Turbidity
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
8! 100 --
c
0)
0)
CL
>
'+->
_re
3
E
3
O
80 -
60 -
40 -
20H
200
— Cumulative Percent
• - - 95% Confidence Interval
400
600
NTU
800
1000
1200
Figure 3.1-31. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. surface
water turbidity.
0)
^
_re
D
E
3
O
40 -
20 -
Surface Turbidity
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
200
400
600
NTU
800
1000
1200
Figure 3.1-32. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. surface
water turbidity.
61
-------
100 H
•£ 80
0)
£ 60
0)
1 40 -
3
E
O 20
Secchi Depth
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
— Cumulative Percent
- - - 95% Confidence Interval
m
10
Figure 3.1-33. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. water
column Secchi depth.
Secchi Depth
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
* 100
c
0)
o
^
0)
Q.
0)
80 -
60 -
« 40
=
E
O 20
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
10
m
Figure 3.1-34. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. water
column Secchi depth.
62
-------
C
^80 -
c
0)
0)
Q.
0)40
•520 H
5 °
-5
Aat
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
- Cumulative Percent
---- 95% Confidence Interval
5 10 15
(at bottom-at surface)
20
25
Figure 3.1-35. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. Aot
stratification index.
re
2! 100
o>
o
0>
0.
d>
^
_re
3
E
3
O
80
60
40
20
-5
Aa,
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
5 10 15
(a, bottom-a, surface)
20
25
Figure 3.1-36. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. Aot
stratification index.
63
-------
3.2 Exposure Indicators
3.2.1 Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the bottom water for the Hawaii estuaries and
bays ranged from 4.4 mg/L to 8.4 mg/L, across the 50 stations where dissolved oxygen
concentrations were measured. Approximately 7% of estuarine area had a bottom
water DO concentration < 5 mg/L (Fig. 3.2 -1). The range of dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations in the surface waters of Hawaii estuaries and bays was very similar to
that for bottom waters (4.6 mg/L to 8.5 mg/L; Fig. 3.2 -3). Only approximately 3.2 % of
the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays had surface DO concentrations < 5 mg/L.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in both the surface and bottom water for the
Oahu urbanized estuaries had a range from 4.2 mg/L to 8.8 mg/L, across the 29
stations where dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured. Approximately 92
percent of the area of Oahu urbanized estuaries had surface and bottom water DO
concentrations > 5 mg/L (Fig. 3.2 -2, Fig. 3.2 -4).
64
-------
Bottom Dissolved Oxygen
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
•£ 100
0)
£ 80
°- CO
o 0) 60
£ <
40
20
0
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
246
Concentration (mg/L)
10
Figure 3.2 -1. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. dissolved
oxygen of bottom waters.
Bottom Dissolved Oxygen
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
•£ 100
0)
£ 80
°- CO
o 0) 60
£ <
40
20
0
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
246
Concentration (mg/L)
10
Figure 3.2 -2. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. dissolved
oxygen of bottom waters.
65
-------
Surface Dissolved Oxygen
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
• 100
80
o>
- co
a) a) 60
.2 40
20
0
3
O
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
4 6
Concentration (mg/L)
10
Figure 3.2 -3. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. dissolved
oxygen of surface waters.
Surface Dissolved Oxygen
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
•£ 100
0
g 8°
°- co
Q) Q>60
•J <
I 40
Q 20
0
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
246
Concentration (mg/L)
10
Figure 3.2 -4. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. dissolved
oxygen of surface waters.
66
-------
3.2.2 Sediment Contaminants
3.2.2.1 Sediment Metals
Concentrations of sediment metals were measured at 45 stations in the Hawaii
estuaries and bays and at 28 stations in the Oahu urbanized estuaries. The mean
concentration of each metal was calculated with the non-detects (i.e., less than the
MDL) set to 0 (see Table 2.6 for the MDL's). Field replicates and laboratory replicates
were averaged at stations where replicates were analyzed. For comparative purposes,
mean concentrations of metals were also calculated using the subset of samples in
which the metals were detected (Table 3.2 -1, 3.2-2).
Arsenic
Arsenic was detected at 41 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Arsenic
averaged 11.1 ug/g at these stations with a maximum concentration of 50.5 ug/g in
Pohakumanu Bay (Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and
bays had an arsenic concentration less than 6.7 ug/g and 90% of the area had
concentrations less than 25.8 ug/g (Figure 3.2-5). Arsenic was also detected at 27 of
the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary stations. Arsenic averaged 12.1 ug/g at these stations
with a maximum concentration of 27.8 ug/g in Keehi Lagoon Borrow Pit (Table 3.2-2).
Fifty percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had concentrations of 11.6
ug/g or less while 90% of the area had concentrations less than 21.7 ug/g (Figure 3.2-
6). Arsenic concentrations exceeded the ERL at 23 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations
(43% of area) and at 20 Oahu urbanized estuary stations (71% of area), while no
stations had values exceeding the ERM (Table 3.2-1, 3.2-2).
Cadmium
Cadmium was detected at 6 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Cadmium
averaged 0.01 ug/g at these stations with a maximum concentration of 0.17 ug/g in the
Paukauila Stream (Table 3.2-1). Approximately 90% of the area of Hawaii estuaries
and bays had cadmium concentrations less than 0.01 ug/g (Figure 3.2-7). Cadmium
was also detected at 20 of the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary stations. Cadmium averaged
0.16 ug/g at these stations with a maximum of 0.52 ug/g in Pearl Harbor (Table 3.2-2).
Fifty percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had cadmium concentrations
less than 0.07 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less than 0.40 ug/g (Figure
3.2-8). Cadmium concentrations did not exceed the ERL in any of the Hawaii estuaries
and bays or in the Oahu urbanized estuaries (Tables 3.2-1, 3.2-2).
Chromium
Chromium was detected at all of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Chromium
averaged 102.6 ug/g in these stations with a maximum concentration of 689 ug/g in the
Paukauila Stream (Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and
bays had concentrations less than 18.4 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations
less than 186 ug/g (Figure 3.2-9). Chromium was detected at 27 of the 28 Oahu
67
-------
urbanized estuary stations. Chromium averaged 175.6 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized
estuaries (Table 3.2-2) with a maximum concentration of 336 ug/g in Ala Wai Canal.
Fifty percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had chromium concentrations
less than 166 ug/g and 90% had concentrations less than 288 ug/g (Figure 3.2-10).
Chromium concentrations exceeded the ERL at 17 of the Hawaii estuaries and bays
stations (27% of area), while one station in the Paukauila Stream (<1% of area)
exceeded the ERM (Table 3.2-1). Chromium concentrations exceeded the ERL at 23
Oahu urbanized estuary stations (79% of area), with no stations exceeding the ERM
(Table 3.2-2).
Copper
Copper was detected at 29 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Copper
averaged 23.3 ug/g in these stations with a maximum concentration of 201 ug/g in the
Moanalua Stream (Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and
bays had concentrations less than 6.5 ug/g while 90% of the area had concentrations
less than 48 ug/g (Figure 3.2-11). Copper was also detected at 27 of the 28 Oahu
urbanized stations. Copper averaged 129 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized estuary stations
with a maximum concentration of 405 ug/g in the Ala Wai Harbor (Table 3.2-2). Fifty
percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had concentrations less than 121
ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less than 208 ug/g (Figure 3.2-12).
Copper concentrations exceeded the ERL at 9 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations (14%
of area), with no stations exceeding the ERM (Table 3.2-1). Copper concentrations
exceeded the ERL at 24 Oahu urbanized estuary stations (83% of area), with one
station in the Ala Wai Harbor and one station in Pearl Harbor exceeding the ERM (4%
of area; Table 3.2-2).
Lead
Lead was detected at 28 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Lead averaged
3.6 ug/g in these stations with a maximum concentration of 46.5 ug/g in Moanalua
Stream (Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had
concentrations less than 1.0 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less than 7.0
ug/g (Figure 3.2-13). Lead was also detected at 26 of the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary
stations. Lead averaged 42.7 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized estuary stations with a
maximum concentration of 216 ug/g in the Ala Wai Harbor (Table 3.2-2). Fifty percent
of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had concentrations less than 33.9 ug/g and
90% of the area had concentrations less than 78.8 ug/g (Figure 3.2-14). Lead
concentrations did not exceed the ERL or ERM at any of the Hawaii estuaries and bays
stations (Table 3.2-1). In comparison, lead exceeded the ERL concentration at 7 of the
Oahu urbanized estuary stations (20% of area, Table 3.2-2), though no stations
exceeded the ERM.
Mercury
Mercury was detected at 15 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Mercury
averaged 0.13 ug/g in the Hawaii estuaries and bays with a maximum concentration of
5.23 ug/g in the Moanalua Stream (Table 3.2-1). No other station in the Hawaii
68
-------
estuaries and bays had a concentration >0.12 ug/g. Seventy-two percent of the area of
the Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable concentrations of mercury while 90%
of the area had concentrations less than 0.03 ug/g (Figure 3.2-15). Mercury was
detected at 26 of the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary stations. Mercury averaged 0.29 ug/g
in the Oahu urbanized estuaries with a maximum concentration of 1.24 ug/g in the
Kewalo Basin (Table 3.2-2). Fifty percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries
had concentrations less than 0.24 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less
than 0.51 ug/g (Figure 3.2-16). The Moanalua Stream site was the only station which
exceeded the ERL or ERM in the Hawaii estuaries and bays stations (<1% of area)
(Table 3.2-1). Mercury concentrations exceeded the ERL at 21 of the Oahu urbanized
estuary stations (72% of area), while 2 stations (4% of area) had values exceeding the
ERM (Table 3.2-2).
Nickel
Nickel was detected at 41 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Nickel
averaged 76.5 ug/g in these stations with a maximum concentration of 487 ug/g in
Nuupia Pond (Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays
had concentrations less than 8.6 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less than
152 ug/g (Figure 3.2-17). Nickel was detected at all 28 Oahu urbanized estuary
stations. Nickel averaged 115.9 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized estuaries with maximum
concentration of 252 ug/g at two stations in Pearl Harbor (Table 3.2-2). Fifty percent of
the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had concentrations less than 92 ug/g and
90% of the area had concentrations less than 211 ug/g (Figure 3.2-18).
Nickel concentrations exceeded the ERL at 24 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations (40%
of area), while 18 stations (32% of area) had values exceeding the ERM (Table 3.2-1).
Nickel concentrations exceeded the ERL at 25 Oahu urbanized estuary stations (84% of
area), while 21 stations (68% of area) had values exceeding the ERM (Table 3.2-2).
Nickel concentrations in relation to the published ERM values should be interpreted
cautiously since the ERM value has a low reliability (Long et al., 1995). Because of its
unreliability, nickel was excluded from a recent evaluation of sediment quality in
southern Puget Sound (Long et al., 2000). Additionally, a study of metal concentrations
in cores on the West Coast determined an historical background concentration of nickel
in the range of 35 - 70 ppm (Lauenstein et al., 2000), which brackets the value of the
ERM(51.6ppm).
Selenium
Selenium was detected at 23 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Selenium
averaged 0.38 ug/g in the Hawaii estuaries and bays stations with a maximum
concentration of 2.3 ug/g in the Kahului Harbor (Table 3.2-1). Fifty-eight percent of the
area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable concentrations of selenium
concentrations and 90% of the area had concentrations less than 1.1 ug/g (Figure 3.2-
19). Selenium was detected in 19 of the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary stations. Selenium
averaged 1.03 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized estuary stations with a maximum
concentration of 3.9 ug/g in Pearl Harbor (Table 3.2-2). Fifty percent of the area of the
69
-------
Oahu urbanized estuaries had concentrations less than 0.6 ug/g and 90% of the area
had concentrations less than 2.5 ug/g (Figure 3.2-20). Selenium concentrations
exceeded the ERL at one of the Hawaii estuaries and bays stations (1 % of area), with
no stations exceeding the ERM (Table 3.2-1). Selenium concentrations exceeded the
ERL at 7 Oahu urbanized estuary stations (23% of area), with no stations exceeding the
ERM (Table 3.2-2).
Silver
Silver was detected at 27 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Silver averaged
0.11 ug/g in these stations with a maximum concentration of 0.77 ug/g in Kaunakakai
Harbor (Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had
silver concentrations less than 0.01 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less
than 0.23 ug/g (Figure 3.2-21). Silver was detected at all 28 Oahu urbanized estuary
stations. Silver averaged 0.66 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized estuaries with a maximum
concentration of 1.93 ug/g in Pearl Harbor (Table 3.2-2). Fifty percent of the area of the
Oahu urbanized estuaries had silver concentrations less than 0.58 ug/g and 90% of the
area had concentrations less than 1.06 ug/g (Figure 3.2-22). Silver concentrations did
not exceed the ERL or ERM at any of the Hawaii estuaries and bays station (Tables
3.2-1). Silver exceeded the ERL at 4 Oahu urbanized estuary stations (12% area), with
no stations exceeding the ERM (Table 3.2-2).
Tin
Tin was detected at 34 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Tin averaged 1.1
ug/g in these stations with a maximum concentration of 7.1 ug/g in Maunalua Bay
(Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had tin
concentrations less than 0.59 ug/g and 90% had concentrations less than 2.89 ug/g
(Figure 3.2-23). Tin was detected at all 28 Oahu urbanized estuary stations. Tin
averaged 6.0 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized estuaries with a maximum of 14 ug/g in the
Ala Wai Harbor (Table 3.2-2). Fifty percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries
had tin concentrations less than 5.65 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less
than 11.43 ug/g (Figure 3.2-24). There are no ERL or ERM values for tin.
Zinc
Zinc was detected at 41 of the 45 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations. Zinc averaged
47.7 ug/g in these stations with a maximum concentration of 214 ug/g in the Moanalua
Stream (Table 3.2-1). Fifty percent of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had
zinc concentrations less than 19.3 ug/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less
than 86.7 ug/g (Figure 3.2-25). Zinc was detected at all 28 Oahu urbanized estuary
stations. Zinc averaged 189.2 ug/g in the Oahu urbanized estuaries with a maximum
concentration of 362 ug/g in the Ala Wai Harbor (Table 3.2-2). Fifty percent of the area
of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had zinc concentrations less than 181 ug/g and 90% of
the area had concentrations less than 268 ug/g (Figure 3.2-26). Zinc concentrations
exceeded the ERL at 3 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations (<1% of area), with no
stations exceeding the ERM (Table 3.2-1). Twenty-one of the Oahu urbanized estuary
stations exceeded the ERL (68% of area), with no stations exceeding the ERM for zinc
70
-------
(Table 3.2-2).
Additional Metals
In addition to the 11 metals discussed above, aluminum, antimony, iron, and
manganese were measured in the sediments. The mean concentration and frequency
of detection for each of these metals in the Hawaii estuaries and bays are given in
Table 3.2-1 and the corresponding values for the Oahu urbanized estuaries are given in
Table 3.2-2. Not unexpectedly, aluminum and iron were the two most abundant metals,
with mean concentrations ranging from about 11,000 ug/g to 57,000 ug/g. Antimony
was detected in sediments from only 2 samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays, and in
6 samples from Oahu urbanized estuaries.
71
-------
Table 3.2-1. Summary statistics for sediment metal concentrations (ug/g, dry weight) for the Hawaii estuaries and bays
stations (N=45). The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated using all the data, including the non-detects
which were set to 0. Field duplicates and laboratory duplicates for a station were averaged. The "mean when present"
was calculated using the samples which had detectable concentrations of the compound. ERL and ERM values are from
Long et al. (1995), with NV = no value. NA = not applicable.
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Overall
Mean
Concen-
tration
11260
0.024
11.1
0.01
102.6
23.3
22680
3.6
399
0.13
76.5
0.38
0.11
1.1
47.7
Overall
SD
14310
0.12
10.5
0.04
140.5
42.3
28930
7.8
466
0.78
111.5
0.56
0.18
1.7
53.4
Mean
Concen-
tration
when
Present
16890
0.55
12.2
0.11
102.6
36.2
23190
5.9
399
0.39
83.9
0.74
0.18
1.45
52.3
Min
0
0
0
0
5.3
0
0
0
21.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max Frequency ERL
of
detection
48050
0.6
50.5
0.17
689
201
96200
46.5
2438
5.23
487
2.3
0.77
7.1
214
30
2
41
6
45
29
44
28
45
15
41
23
27
34
41
NV
NV
8.2
1.2
81
34
NV
46.7
NV
0.15
20.9*
2.0
1.0
NV
150
ERM
NV
NV
70.0
9.6
370
270
NV
218
NV
0.71
51.6*
25.0
3.7
NV
410
>ERL
No.
Sites
NA
NA
23
0
17
9
NA
0
NA
1
24
1
0
NA
3
>ERM
No.
Sites
NA
NA
0
0
1
0
NA
0
NA
1
18
0
0
NA
0
>ERL
%
Area
NA
NA
43%
0
27%
14%
NA
0
NA
<1%
40%
<1%
0
NA
<1%
>ERM
%
Area
NA
NA
0
0
<1%
0
NA
0
NA
<1%
32%
0
0
NA
0
' The ERL and ERM for nickel have low reliability for the West Coast. See text for discussion.
72
-------
Table 3.2 -2. Summary statistics for sediment metal concentrations (ug/g, dry weight) for the Oahu urbanized estuary
stations (N=28). The mean and the standard deviation (SD) were calculated using all the data, including the non-detects
which were set to 0. The "mean when present" was calculated using the samples which had detectable concentrations of
the compound. ERL and ERM values are from Long et al. (1995), with NV = no value. NA = not applicable.
Metal
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Overall
Mean
Concen-
tration
47150
0.07
12.1
0.16
175.6
128.6
56530
42.7
779
0.29
115.9
1.03
0.66
5.99
189.2
Overall
SD
35450
0.15
6.76
0.17
97.8
86.4
34620
41.3
533
0.25
78.7
1.16
0.43
3.45
79.0
Mean
Concen-
tration
when
Present
52810
0.34
12.5
0.22
182.1
133.3
56530
46.0
779
0.31
115.9
1.52
0.66
5.99
189.2
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
570
0
43.8
0
1.1
0
0.02
0.1
10.7
Max Frequency ERL
of
detection
111000
0.5
27.8
0.52
336
405
117000
216
2648
1.24
252
3.9
1.93
14
362
25
6
27
20
27
27
28
26
28
26
28
19
28
28
28
NV
NV
8.2
1.2
81
34
NV
46.7
NV
0.15
20.9*
2.0
1.0
NV
150
ERM
NV
NV
70.0
9.6
370
270
NV
218
NV
0.71
51.6*
25.0
3.7
NV
410
>ERL
No.
Sites
NA
NA
20
0
23
24
NA
7
NA
21
25
7
4
NA
21
>ERM
No.
Sites
NA
NA
0
0
0
2
NA
0
NA
2
21
0
0
NA
0
>ERL
%
Area
NA
NA
71%
0
79%
83%
NA
20%
NA
72%
84%
23%
12%
NA
68%
>ERM
%
Area
NA
NA
0
0
0
4%
NA
0
NA
4%
68%
0
0
NA
0
' The ERL and ERM for nickel have low reliability for the West Coast. See text for discussion.
73
-------
Sediment Arsenic Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
100
80
re
£60
3 40
E
0
20
Cumulative Percent
95%Confidence Interval
10 20 30 40
Concentration (ug/g)
50
60
Figure 3.2-5. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of arsenic.
Sediment Arsenic Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
100
0) 80
e
a)
a. eo
a)
1 40
20
O
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
10 20 30 40
Concentration (M9/9)
50
60
Figure 3.2-6. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of arsenic.
74
-------
re
o>
!= 100
o>
o
o>
Q.
d>
80
60
S 40
3
20
3
o
Sediment Cadmium Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Concentration (ug/g)
0.5
0.6
Figure 3.2-7. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of cadmium.
Sediment Cadmium Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
O
100
d>
o
o>
0.
d>
I 40
3
80
60
20
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Concentration (ug/g)
0.5
0.6
Figure 3.2-8. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of cadmium.
75
-------
Sediment Chromium Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
0)
11
e Percent
>
•4-i
re
"5
E
D
0
mn
80
60
40
20
n
--••'' j _ f^f
J _/* •»
r^Ss'
1 1 «_»
100 200 300 400 500
Concentration (pg/g)
600
700
800
Figure 3.2-9. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of chromium.
(0
a)
80
Q- 60
a>
3
E
3
o
40 -
20
Sediment Chromium Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
100 200 300 400 500 600
Concentration (ug/g)
700
800
Figure 3.2-10. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of chromium.
76
-------
re
g> 100
o>
80
£ 60
0)
~ 40
_re
1 20
3
O
o
Sediment Copper Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
•Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
50 100 150 200 250 300
Concentration (ug/g)
350
400
450
Figure 3.2-11. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of copper.
Sediment Copper Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
£
< 100
+J
£
03
0_
to
3
E
3
O
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
-Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Concentration (ug/g)
Figure 3.2-12. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of copper.
77
-------
Sediment Lead Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
50 100 150
Concentration (ug/g)
200
250
Figure 3.2-13. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of lead.
Sediment Lead Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
o>
o
o>
a.
o>
^5
_re
3
E
3
O
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
50 100 150
Concentration (ug/g)
200
250
Figure 3.2-14. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of lead.
78
-------
Sediment Total Mercury Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
(0
<100
S 80
o>
a>
60
« 40
3
E
3
O
20
— Cumulative Percent
• - 95% Confidence Interval
0123456
Concentration (ug/g)
Figure 3.2-15. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of mercury.
Sediment Total Mercury Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
MOO
o> 80
e
a)
a- 60
a)
I 40
20
O
-Cumulative Percent
- 95% Confidence Interval
234
Concentration (ug/g)
Figure 3.2-16. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of mercury.
79
-------
Sediment Nickel Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
95% Confidence Interval
100 200 300 400 500
Concentration (ug/g)
600
Figure 3.2-17. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of nickel.
re
£
< 100
+j
8 80
<5
0- 60
0)
1 40
3
E 20
3
o
0
Sediment Nickel Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
100 200 300 400 500
Concentration (ug/g)
600
Figure 3.2-18. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of nickel.
80
-------
Sediment Selenium Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
100
o> 80
o
o>
0- 60
d>
I 40
20
O
— Cumulative Percent
- - 95% Confidence Interval
2 3
Concentration (ug/g)
Figure 3.2-19. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of selenium.
Sediment Selenium Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
100
d>
o
o>
0.
d>
I 40
3
80
60
20
O
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
2 3
Concentration (ug/g)
Figure 3.2-20. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of selenium.
81
-------
re
100
§ 80
o>
O- 60
a>
1 40
20
O
Sediment Silver Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
0.5 1 1.5
Concentration (ug/g)
2.5
Figure 3.2-21. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of silver.
Sediment Silver Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
100
§ 80
a)
a.
a)
I
3
O
60
40
20
0
-Cumulative Percent
•95% Confidence Interval
0.5 1 1.5 2
Concentration (ug/g)
2.5
Figure 3.2-22. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of silver.
82
-------
Sediment Tin Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
100
§ 80
!_
d>
0- 60
d>
I 40
O
20
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
6 8 10
Concentration (ug/g)
12
14
16
Figure 3.2-23. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of tin.
Sediment Tin Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
o>
100
d>
o
o>
0.
o>
I 40
3
O
80
60
20
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
6 8 10 12
Concentration (ug/g)
14
16
Figure 3.2-24. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of tin.
83
-------
Sediment Zinc Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
100
s 80
1_
o>
Q- 60
a>
I 40
20
O
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
100 200 300
Concentration (ug/g)
400
Figure 3.2-25. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of zinc.
re
£
100 -
0) 80
£
d>
Q. 60
d>
4
20 -
O
Sediment Zinc Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
- - - 95% Confidence Interval
100 200 300
Concentration (ug/g)
400
Figure 3.2-26. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of zinc.
84
-------
3.2.2.2 Sediment Organics
Sediment Organics
Concentrations of sediment organic pollutants were measured at 42 stations in the
Hawaii estuaries and bays and in 28 stations in the Oahu urbanized estuaries. The
mean concentration of each organic compound was calculated with the non-detects
(i.e., less than the MDL) set to 0 (see Table 2.6 for the MDLs). For comparative
purposes, mean concentrations of the organic compounds were also calculated using
the subset of samples in which the compounds were detected.
Total PAHs
PAHs were detected at 8 of the 42 Hawaii estuary and coastal bay stations. Total PAHs
averaged 15.9 ng/g in the Hawaii estuary and bay stations with a maximum
concentration of 336 ng/g in the Moanalua Stream (Table 3.2-3). Eighty-seven percent
of area of Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable concentrations of PAHs and
90% of the area had concentrations less than 13.1 ng/g (Figure 3.2-27). No stations
exceeded the ERLs or ERMs for total PAHs, low molecular weight PAHs, or high
molecular weight PAHs. On the average, 89% of the total PAHs in the Hawaii estuary
and bay stations were composed of high molecular weight compounds.
PAHs were detected at 26 of the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary stations. Total PAHs
averaged 1016 ng/g in the Oahu urbanized estuary stations with a maximum
concentration of 9292 ng/g in the Honolulu Harbor (Table 3.2-4). Eight percent of the
area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had undetectable concentrations of PAHs while
50% of the area had concentrations less than 262 ng/g and 90% of the area had
concentrations less than 3457 ng/g (Figure 3.2-28). Two stations exceeded the ERL for
total PAHs, constituting 4% of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries. The ERL for
high molecular weight PAHs was exceeded at four stations, constituting 12% of the
area. No stations exceeded the ERL for low molecular weight PAHs. On the average,
96% of the total PAHs were composed of high molecular weight compounds.
Total PCBs
PCBs were detected at 30 of the 42 Hawaii estuary and bay stations. Total PCBs
averaged 0.95 ng/g in the Hawaii estuary and bay stations with a maximum
concentration of 6.8 ng/g in the Moanalua Stream (Table 3.2-3). Thirty-nine percent of
the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable concentrations of PCBs
while 50% of the area had concentrations less than 0.32 ng/g and 90% of the area had
concentrations less than 1.66 ng/g (Figure 3.2-29). The ERL was not exceeded at any
station (Table 3.2-3).
PCBs were detected at 24 of the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary stations. Total PCBs
averaged 7.2 ng/g in the Oahu urbanized estuary stations with a maximum of 47.3 ng/g
in Pearl Harbor (Table 3.2-4). Twelve percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized
estuaries had undetectable levels of PCBs while 50% of the area had concentrations
less than 3.2 ng/g and 90% of the area had concentrations less than 23.9 ng/g (Figure
85
-------
3.2-30). The ERL was exceeded at four stations, representing 12.1 % of the area
(Table 3.2-4). No stations exceeded the ERM.
Total DDT
DDT or one of its metabolites was detected at 32 of the 42 of the Hawaii estuary and
bay stations. Total DDT averaged 0.79 ng/g in the Hawaii estuaries and bays with a
maximum concentration of 10.2 ng/g in the Paukauila Stream (Table 3.2-3). The
compound 4,4'-DDT was the most frequently detected DDT compound and had the
highest mean concentration in the Hawaii estuaries and bays. Thirty-four percent of the
area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had undetectable levels of DDT and its
metabolites while 50% of the area had concentrations less than 0.21 ng/g and 90% of
the area had concentrations less than 1.18 ng/g (Figure 3.2-31). The ERL for total DDT
was exceeded at four stations representing 3.9% of the area. The ERL for 4,4'-DDE was
exceeded at one station, representing <0.3% of the area. The ERMs were not
exceeded at any stations.
DDT or one of its metabolites was detected at 19 of the 28 Oahu urbanized estuary
stations. Total DDT averaged 2.74 ng/g in the Oahu urbanized estuary stations with a
maximum concentration of 11.9 ng/g in Pearl Harbor. The compound 4,4'-DDT was the
most frequently detected DDT compound in the Oahu urbanized estuary stations, but
4,4'-DDE had a higher average concentration (Table 3.2-4). Thirty-six percent of the
area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had undetectable levels of DDT and its
metabolites, while 50% of the area had concentrations less than 0.77 ng/g, and 90% of
the area had concentrations less than 5.07 ng/g (Figure 3.2-32). The ERL for total DDT
was exceeded at 13 stations, representing 36% of the area. The ERL for 4,4'-DDE was
exceeded at 6 stations, representing 12% of the area. The ERMs were not exceeded at
any station.
Additional Pesticides
Besides DDT, an additional 13 pesticides were measured in the sediments in the Hawaii
estuaries and bays (Table 3.2-3) and in the Oahu urbanized estuaries (Table 3.2-4). Of
these, Aldrin, Endosulfan I, Endosulfan Sulfate, Heptachlor, Lindane (gamma-BHC) and
Mirex were never detected at any of the stations. Of the remaining pesticides,
Alpha-chlordane had the highest average concentration in both the Hawaii estuaries
and bays and in the Oahu urbanized estuaries. Alpha-chlordane was detected at 26
stations in the Hawaii estuaries and bays, with 50% of the area having concentrations
less than 0.17 ng/g and 90% of the area having concentrations less than 0.70 ng/g.
(Figure 3.2-33). In the Oahu urbanized estuaries, alpha-chlordane was detected at 20
stations, with 50% of the area having a concentration less than 0.55 ng/g and 90% of
the area having a concentration less than 1.99 ng/g (Figure 3.2-34). Among the
remaining pesticides, hexachlorobenzene and trans-nonachlor had the next highest
concentrations in the Hawaii estuaries and bays while hexachlorobenzene,
trans-nonachlor, and Endosulfan II had the next highest concentrations in the Oahu
urbanized estuaries. Endrin was detected at one site in Honolulu Harbor. The
concentration at this site exceeded the ERL, representing 4% of the area of the Oahu
urbanized estuaries. Other than for alpha-chlordane, there were an insufficient number
of detects to calculate CDFs for any of these additional pesticides.
86
-------
Table 3.2-3. Summary statistics for sediment organic pollutants (ng/g, dry weight) for the Hawaii estuary and bay stations
(N=42). The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated using all the data, including the non-detects which were
set to 0. The "mean when present" was calculated using the samples which had detectable concentrations of the
compound. ERL and ERM values are from Long et al. (1995), with NV = no value. NA = not applicable.
Analyte Overall mean Overall Mean Min
concentration SD concentration
ng/g dry wt when
present
HMW PAHs
LMW PAHs
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Total DDT
Aldrin
Alpha-chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Hexachloro-
benzene
Lindane
(gamma-BHC)
Mi rex
Trans-nonachlor
14.14
1.81
15.95
0.95
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.15
0.57
0.79
0.00
0.31
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.12
54.01
7.57
61.45
1.37
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.72
0.86
1.74
0.00
0.32
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.45
84.86
19.00
83.75
1.33
0.03
0.00
0.00
1.71
2.09
0.74
1.04
0.00
0.50
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Max Frequency ERL
of
detection
298
38
336
6.80
0.03
0.00
0.00
1.71
4.53
3.99
10.23
0.00
1.30
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
1.93
0.00
0.00
2.85
7
4
8
30
1
0
0
1
3
32
32
0
26
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
8
0
0
8
1700
552
4022
22.7
NV
NV
NV
NV
2.2
NV
1.58
NV
NV
0.02
NV
NV
NV
0.02
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
ERM >ERL
No. Sites
9600
3160
44792
180
NV
NV
NV
NV
27.0
NV
46.1
NV
NV
8
NV
NV
NV
45
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
4
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>ERM
No. Sites
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>ERL
Area %
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
<0.3
NA
3.9
NA
NA
<0.3
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>ERM
Area %
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
87
-------
Table 3.2-4. Summary statistics for sediment organic pollutants (ng/g, dry weight) for the Oahu urbanized estuary stations
(N=28). The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated using all the data, including the non-detects which were
set to 0. The "mean when present" was calculated using the samples which had detectable concentrations of the
compound. ERL and ERM values are from Long et al. (1995), with NV = no value. NA = not applicable.
Analyte Overall mean Overall Mean
concentration SD concentration
ng/g dry wt when
present
HMW PAHs
LMW PAHs
Total PAHs
Total PCBs
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Total DDT
Aldrin
Alpha-chlordane
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan
Sulfate
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor
Epoxide
Hexachloro-
benzen
Lindane
(gamma-BHC)
Mi rex
Trans-nonachlor
977.98
37.71
1015.70
7.17
0.09
0.05
0.03
0.16
1.54
0.86
2.74
0.00
1.17
0.44
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.77
1916.66
59.25
1966.94
11.16
0.48
0.20
0.18
0.56
2.85
0.96
3.42
0.00
1.88
1.25
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.06
0.88
0.00
0.00
1.72
1053.21
55.58
1093.83
8.37
0.09
0.74
0.03
1.47
3.93
1.51
4.04
0.00
1.64
2.47
0.00
0.77
0.00
0.63
0.00
0.24
1.83
0.00
0.00
1.65
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max Frequency ERL
of
detection
9112
196.5
9292
47.32
0.09
0.93
0.03
2.8
10.90
3.66
11.87
0
9.5
5.02
0
1.23
0
0.63
0
0.24
8
0
0
7.7
26
19
26
24
1
2
1
3
11
16
19
0
20
5
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
13
1700
552
4022
22.7
NV
NV
NV
NV
2.2
NV
1.58
NV
NV
0.02
NV
NV
NV
0.02
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
ERM >ERL
No. Sites
9600
3160
44792
180
NV
NV
NV
NV
27.0
NV
46.1
NV
NV
8
NV
NV
NV
45
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
4
0
2
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
6
NA
13
NA
NA
5
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>ERM
No. Sites
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>ERL
Area %
12.1
0
4.0
12.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.1
NA
36.0
NA
NA
16.1
NA
NA
NA
4.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
>ERM
Area %
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
0
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
88
-------
Sediment Total PAHs
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
o>
o
o>
Q.
d>
_re
3
E
3
O
100 ~,
80
60
40
2Q
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
2000 4000 6000
Concentration (ng/g)
8000
10000
Figure 3.2-27. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of total PAHs.
Sediment Total PAHs
Oahu Urbanized Estauries
re
o>
O
100
o> 80
o
o>
0- 60
d>
I 40
20
Cumulative Percent
— - 95% Confidence Interval
2000 4000 6000
Concentration (ng/g)
8000
10000
Figure 3.2-28. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of total PAHs.
89
-------
re
o>
o>
o
o>
Q.
d>
^5
JS
3
E
3
O
100
Sediment Total PCBs
Hawaii Estauaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
10 20 30
Concentration (ng/g)
40
50
Figure 3.2-29. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of total PCBs.
Sediment Total PCBs Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
re
>_
<
a>
o
a>
a.
a>
'^
_re
3
E
3
O
100
80
60
40
20
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
10 20 30
Concentration (ng/g)
40
50
Figure 3.2-30. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of total PCBs.
90
-------
Sediment Total DDT Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
c
ive Percent A
re
D
O
100
80
60
40
20
n
f"'
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
4 6 8 10
Concentration (ng/g)
12
14
Figure 3.2-31. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of total DDT.
re
c
0)
o
0)
CL
0)
^
_re
3
E
3
O
100 -
80 -
40 -
20 -
Sediment Total DDT Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
-Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
4 6 8 10
Concentration (ng/g)
12
14
Figure 3.2-32. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of total DDT.
91
-------
(0
£
^ 100 -
+J
8 80
0- 60
a)
'•5 40 -
20 -
O
Sediment Alpha-chlordane Concentration
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
-Cumulative Percent
• - 95% Confidence Interval
4 6
Concentration (ng/g)
10
Figure 3.2-33. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. sediment
concentration of alpha-chlordane.
(0
<( 100-1
+J
c
o 80
o
Q- 60
a)
H5 40 H
20 -
O
Sediment Alpha-chlordane Concentration
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
95% Confidence Interval
4 6
Concentration (ng/g)
10
Figure 3.2-34. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. sediment
concentration of alpha-chlordane.
92
-------
3.2.3 Sediment Toxicity
Sediment for toxicity testing with the amphipod Ampelisca abdita was successfully
collected at 44 of the 50 Hawaii estuaries and bays stations, and 28 of the 30 Oahu
urbanized estuaries stations (see section 2.6). Control conditions for a successful
toxicity test with this species require a mean of 90% survival in the five replicates in
control sediments, with no replicate less than 80%. Mean control survival met the
standard in all cases (90 to 98%), but three control batches had minimum replicate
survival < 80%. Thus both requirements were not formally met in testing sediments
collected from 17 of the 72 stations. Because the overall control survival met the
standard, and it is the mean value for control survival that is used to calculate the
control-corrected survival values, these 17 samples were included in the CDF analyses
that follow.
The control corrected mean survivorship of A. abdita in successful bioassays of
sediments collected at the Hawaii estuaries and bays stations ranged from 73.1% to
105.4%, across the 44 stations that were included in the analysis (Figure 3.2 -35).
Approximately 10% of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had control corrected
mean survivorship of A. abdita in sediment bioassays < 80%. Lowest survival was in
sediments from Stations 6 (Wahiawa Bay), 13 (Kaneohe Bay) and 49 (Hilo Bay),
although these sediments were not acutely toxic, with control corrected survival values
ranging from 73.1 to 78.3 percent. Approximately 16% of area in the Hawaii estuaries
and bays had control corrected mean survivorship > 100%, indicating slightly (1-5%)
higher survival of amphipods in test sediments than in controls.
The control corrected mean survivorship of A. abdita in successful bioassays of
sediments collected in the Oahu urbanized estuaries was above 90% across all of the
28 stations that were included in the analysis (Figure 3.2-36). Approximately 64 % of
area had control corrected mean survivorship > 100%, with the higher survival in the
range of 1-9%.
93
-------
Percent Survival of Ampelisca abdite
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
re
o>
100 -
0) 80
o
0>
Q.
d>
I 40
3
E
3
O
60 -
20 -
60
— Cumulative Percent
• - 95% Confidence Interval
80 100
Percent Control Corrected Survival (%)
120
Figure 3.2-35. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. percent
control corrected survivorship of Ampelisca abdita.
re
>_
<
+j
o>
a>
a.
I
JS
3
E
3
O
100
80
60
40
20
60
Percent Survival of Ampelisca abdita
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
- Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
80 100
Percent Control Corrected Survival (%)
120
Figure 3.2-36. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. percent
control corrected survivorship of Ampelisca abdita. Note axis differs from 3.2-35.
94
-------
3.2.4 Tissue Contaminants
Residues of a suite of metals, PCBs, PAHs and pesticides were measured in the whole
bodies of holothurians (Holothuria atra and H. whitmaei) at 11 stations in the Hawaii
estuaries and bays and 2 stations in the Oahu urbanized estuaries (see Table 2-4 for
list of compounds analyzed). Residues were not measured at the other stations
because of the unavailability of holothurians. Because of the limited number of samples
and because it is not clear that the sites with holothurians captured for residue analysis
were distributed randomly the tissue residue data are presented as summary statistics
rather than CDFs to estimate areas.
Holothurian tissue residues of the 12 metals are summarized in Table 3.2-5. As
expected, iron and aluminum, which are abundant in volcanic soils, had the highest
concentration. Aside from those two metals, nickel, averaging 8.59 ug/g (wet weight) in
tissue from the Hawaii estuaries and bays and arsenic, averaging 7.55 ug/g (wet
weight) in tissue samples from the Oahu urbanized estuaries, had the highest tissue
metal concentrations. Total metal concentrations varied widely, with the highest
concentrations at Stations 3 and 30 on Kauai and Maui, and the lowest at stations from
Kaneohe Bay. Mercury, cadmium, and silver were undetected in holothurian tissue
samples from either Hawaii estuaries and bays or Oahu urbanized estuaries.
Holothurian tissue residues of total PCBs, PAHs, total DDT, and other pesticides are
summarized in Table 3.2-6. Total PCBs had the highest residue of organic
contaminants but was found at low levels, averaging 2.91 ng/g in samples from the
Hawaii estuaries and bays and 4.82 ng/g in the Oahu urbanized estuaries. Measured
4,4'-DDT constituted 100% of the total DDT and was detected in 3 of the 11 tissue
samples, with maximum values of 2.90 ng/g. Tissue analysis failed to detect
measurable concentrations of any of the following compounds in samples from either
Hawaii estuaries and bays or the Oahu urbanized estuaries: Aldrin, Dieldrin, Endosulfan
I and II, Endosulfan sulfate, Endrin, Alpha-chlordane, Gamma-chlordane, Trans-
nonachlor, Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, Lindane, Mirex and Toxaphene. No PAHs
were detected in tissue samples from any of the sites sampled.
95
-------
Table 3.2-5. Holothurian tissue residues of metals (ug/g wet weight) from 11 Hawaii
estuaries and bays sites and 2 Oahu urbanized estuaries sites. Values are the
averages of all samples at a station, with the samples consisting of individuals or
composites of up to 3 individuals. "Frequency of Detects" is the number of stations
where the metal was detected at a level above the minimum detection limit (MDL). "No.
Stations" is the number of stations in which tissue was analyzed. A total of 13 tissue
samples were analyzed at 13 stations in the small estuaries.
Metal
Hawaii estuaries
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Oahu urbanized
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Mean
(ug/g wet)
and bays
965
4.47
0.00
0.97
1580
0.35
0.00
8.59
1.01
0.00
1.66
4.21
estuaries
74.5
7.55
0.00
0.57
98.4
0.30
0.00
0.13
2.05
0.00
1.85
4.70
SD
2080
2.34
0.00
1.19
3150
0.49
0.00
13.4
0.51
0.00
0.19
5.00
28.1
0.07
0.00
0.37
1.34
0.13
0.00
0.10
1.49
0.00
0.07
0.28
Mean when
Present
965
4.47
0.00
0.97
1580
0.35
0.00
8.59
1.01
0.00
1.66
4.21
74.5
7.55
0.00
0.57
98.4
0.30
0.00
0.13
2.05
0.00
1.85
4.70
Minimum
35.9
0.92
0.00
0.16
56.4
0.08
0.00
0.21
0.40
0.00
1.20
1.40
54.6
7.50
0.00
0.31
97.5
0.20
0.00
0.05
0.99
0.00
1.80
4.50
Maximum
6990
8.70
0.00
3.70
10300
1.80
0.00
40.5
2.10
0.00
1.80
18.4
94.4
7.60
0.00
0.83
99.4
0.39
0.00
0.20
3.10
0.00
1.90
4.90
Frequency
of Detects/
No. Stations
11/11
11/11
0/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
0/11
11/11
11/11
0/11
11/11
11/11
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
96
-------
Table 3.2-6. Holothurian tissue residues of total PCBs, PAHs, total DDT, and
additional pesticides (ng/g wet weight) in samples from 11 Hawaii estuaries and bay
sites and 2 Oahu urbanized estuaries sites. Values are the averages of all samples at a
station, with the samples consisting of individuals or composites of up to 3 individuals.
"Frequency of Detects" is the number of stations where the organic pollutant was
detected at a level above the minimum detection limit (MDL). "No. Stations" is the
number of stations from which tissue was analyzed.
Analyte
Hawaii estuaries
Total PCBs
Total PAHs
Total DDT
Other pesticides
Oahu urbanized
Total PCBs
Total PAHs
Total DDT
Other pesticides
Mean
(ng/g wet)
and bays
2.91
0.00
0.45
0.00
estuaries
4.82
0.00
1.20
0.00
SD
2.82
0.00
1.03
0.00
2.93
0.00
1.70
0.00
Mean when
Present
4.57
0.00
2.50
0.00
4.82
0.00
2.40
0.00
Minimum
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
Maximum
8.10
0.00
2.90
0.00
6.89
0.00
2.40
0.00
Frequency
of Detects/
No.
Stations
7/11
0/11
2/11
0/11
2/2
0/2
1/2
0/2
97
-------
3.2.5 Bacterial Indicators
The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) has a water quality criterion for marine
recreational waters for enterococci of a geometric mean of colony counts of less than 7
colony forming units (cfu) /100 ml of sample water in not less than 5 samples taken over
25-30 days. No single sample shall exceed a count of 100 cfu/100 ml (Section 11-54-8,
HDOH, Amendment and Compilation of Chapter 11-54, Hawaii Administrative Rules,
August 31, 2004). Clostridium perfringens is used by HDOH as an indicator of whether
high levels of enterococci potentially originate from human sources (T. Teruya, HDOH).
A level above 5 cfu/100 ml is considered as potentially indicative of a human related
source (T. Teruya, HDOH). There is no Hawaii marine criterion for fecal coliforms, and
the former freshwater recreational water criterion of 200 cfu/100 ml for 10 samples over
30 days has been replaced by an enterococci criterion. The EMAP sampling took place
on a single sample date for each station, and thus does not formally meet the multi-
sample requirement for the Hawaii enterococci criterion. Additionally, Hawaii has
different criteria for inland waters verus marine waters, and formal interpretation of
bacterial counts would need to consider salinity at the sample site. In the section below,
the cfu values of the criterion are simply used as a relative benchmark for examining the
bacteria data.
Processing of bacteria samples must commence within 6 hours of collection. Samples
were processed by HDOH branch offices on the various islands to reduce sample
holding times. Table 3.2-7 summarizes the results; overall 227 bacteria samples were
collected from 77 stations (three depths at most stations). Of the 227 samples, 28 did
not meet the 6-hour holding time criterion. Of the 199 samples that did meet the holding
time, nine (or 4.5%) of the total exceeded the state 7 cfu/100 ml criterion for
enterococci. Most of these higher values occurred at stations located at the heads of
harbors and/or in proximity to streams. The highest individual sample count was 100
cfu/100 ml for enterococci in surface water from Honolulu Harbor (HI02-0080), which
would be considered an exceedance of the single sample criterion by HIDOH (T.
Teruya, HDOH).
For enterococci, surface water sample colony counts ranged from 0.3 to 56 cfu/100 ml
for the Hawaii estuaries and bays (Figure 3.2-37), and from 0.3 to 100 cfu/100 ml for the
Oahu urbanized estuaries (Figure 3.2-38). An estimated 96 % of the area of Hawaii
estuaries and bays and 87 % of the area of Oahu urbanized estuaries had an
enterococci colony count in surface samples of <7 cfu/100 ml (Figures 3.2-37, 38).
Surface water sample colony counts for the indicator organism Clostridium perfringens
for Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 0.30 to 11 cfu/100 ml across the 49 stations
where counts were measured (Figure 3.2-39). For the Oahu urbanized estuaries,
surface water sample Clostridium colony counts ranged from 0.30 to 21.0 cfu/100 ml
across the 29 stations where counts were measured (Figure 3.2-40). An estimated 99%
of the area of Hawaii estuaries and bays and 88% of the area of Oahu urbanized
estuaries had a Clostridium colony count in surface samples of <5 cfu/100 ml (Figures
3.2-39, 40).
98
-------
There were a total of five stations, all on Oahu, where Clostridium colony counts were
above 5 cfu/100 ml and enterococci counts were above 7 cfu/100 ml. Locations were in
Paukauila Stream (HI02-0008), and within the urbanized estuaries of Oahu, in Pearl
Harbor, the Ala Wai Canal, and Honolulu Harbor (HI02-0051, HI02-0054,HI02-0071,
HI02-0079).
Surface sample counts of fecal coliform colonies ranged from 0.60 to 22.5 cfu/100 ml for
the Hawaii estuaries and bays (Figure 3.2-41), and from 0.60 to 98.0 cfu/100 ml for the
Oahu urbanized estuaries (Figure 3.2-42). Thus, an estimated 100% of area of both the
Hawaii estuaries and bays and the Oahu urbanized estuaries had a mean fecal coliform
count of <200 cfu/100 ml (Figures 3.2-41, 42).
At several stations in the Hawaii bays and estuaries, surface water sample counts of
enterococci and fecal coliforms, and occasionally Clostridium, were higher than counts
from mid-depth or bottom water samples. For example, the surface water sample was
40 to 60 times greater than mid-depth and bottom water samples from Waimea Bay,
Kauai. In a few cases, such as in Kahului Bay on Maui, mid-depth sample counts
exceeded surface or bottom water counts. In the Oahu urbanized estuaries, Station 71
(Ala Wai Canal) had highest counts in surface waters, Station HI02-0073 (Kewalo
Basin) had higher counts near the bottom, and several stations in Honolulu Harbor and
Pearl Harbor had elevated levels of bacteria throughout the water column. Station
HI02-0051 (Pearl Harbor) with a colony count of 98 cfu/100 ml for fecal coliforms had
data only from the shallow water depth, as the total water depth at this station was 0.01
m.
Table 3.2 -7. Summary of enterococci sampling results, with data presented both for all
samples collected and for samples that met the 6-hour holding time criteria.
Island/Island Group
Parameter
All Samples
Total No. Samples
Total No. Samples > 7 cfu/100 ml
Percent of samples above 7 cfu criterion
Total No. Samples > 6 hr holding limit
Samples Within Holding Limits
Total No. Samples < 6hr Holding Limit
Total No. Samples > 7 cfu/100 ml
Percent of samples above 7 cfu criterion
Niihau,
Kauai
16
1
6.3
13
3
0
0
Oahu
137
11
8.0
4
133
7
5.3
Maui
26
1
3.9
10
16
1
6.3
Hawaii
48
1
2.1
28
20
1
5.0
99
-------
Surface Sample Enterococci Colony Counts
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
100 -
•£ 80
-------
Surface Sample Clostridium Colony Counts
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
100 -
ra
£
<
•g 80
0)
e
£
2
60 -
^ 40
5 20 H
- Cumulative Percent
---- 95% Confidence Interval
10 15
Colony Forming Units/100mI
20
25
Figure 3.2-39. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. surface
water sample Clostridium colony counts.
100 -
•£ 80
o! 60
2 40 -
E
O 20
0
Surface Sample Clostridium Colony Counts
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
Cumulative Percent
- - - - 95% Confidence Interval
10 15 20
Colony Forming Units/100mI
25
Figure 3.2-40. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. surface
water sample Clostridium colony counts.
101
-------
IB 10(H
£
<
•£ 80
0)
0)
Q. 60
40 -
20 -
0
Surface Sample Fecal Coliform Counts
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
20 40 60 80
Colony Forming Units/100mI
100
120
Figure 3.2-41. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. surface
water sample fecal coliform counts.
100 H
•£ 80
0)
S2
o! 60
15
40 -
20 -
Surface Sample Fecal Coliform Counts
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
20 40 60 80
Colony Forming Units/100mI
100
120
Figure 3.2-42. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. surface
water sample fecal coliform counts.
102
-------
3.3 Biotic Condition Indicators
Soft bottom-dwelling (benthic) invertebrates are important because they are important
food resources for other motile species that may be consumed by humans. In the
Hawaiian Islands, sedimentary materials from terrigenous sources are often most
prevalent in protected water locations such as estuaries, at heads of bays and close to
stream mouths. Many anthropogenic pollutants are known to adhere to particulate and
sedimentary materials that eventually fall to the bottom and are sequestered in the
sediments. The soft-bottom benthos live and feed in these sediments, and thus may
serve as conduits for contaminants moving up through the food web to the human
population.
Sediments were encountered at all but five stations in the 79 sites sampled. Hard
bottom was the only substrate encountered at these five sites. Hard bottom included
basalt boulders and pahoehoe lava substratum (Stations H102-0004, H102-0030, HI02-
0032), limestone (Station HI02-0012) or coralline rubble (Station HI02-0037).
Sediments were present and sampled at all other locations, including all 29 stations
from Oahu urbanized estuaries.
3.3.1 Infaunal Abundance, Species Richness, and Taxonomic Composition
Benthic species richness on a per sample basis ranged from 4 to 52 species per sample
in the samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays, and from 3 to 43 species per sample
from the Oahu urbanized estuaries. On an areal basis, 50% of the area of the Hawaii
estuaries and bays had a species richness less than 22 species per sample, and 90%
had a richness less than 39 species per sample (Figure 3.3-1). The Oahu urbanized
estuaries had a lower richness, with 50% of the area of these estuaries having fewer
than 8 species per sample and 90% of the area having less than 21 species per sample
(Figure 3.3-2).
The diversity index H' (log base 2) ranged from 0.32 to 4.68 in the samples from Hawaii
estuaries and bays and ranged from 0.58 to 4.39 in the Oahu urbanized estuaries
(Table 3.3-1). On an areal basis, less than 50% of the area of the Hawaii estuary and
bays had an H' of 2.79 while 90% of the area had a value of 3.99 or less (Figure 3.3-3).
In comparison, 50% percent of the area of the Oahu urbanized estuaries had an H' of
1.95 or less while 90% of the area had an H' less than 3.00 (Figure 3.3-4).
Table 3.3 -1 presents a list of the taxa identified in all sediment samples and the number
of stations by island where each taxon occurred. In total, 214 taxa were identified.
Polychaetes comprised 113 taxa (53% of the total) and with crustaceans, (80 taxa, 37%
of the total) were the dominant groups identified in the samples. Some unidentified taxa
(i.e., Nematoda) had high abundance in some samples, and with further taxonomic
treatment could modify the discussion below.
Benthic infaunal density in samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 5 to
103
-------
1927 individuals per 0.0045 m2, and similarly ranged between 8 and 1872 individuals
per 0.0045 m2 in samples from Oahu urbanized estuaries (Table 3.3-1). On an areal
basis, 50% of the area of the Hawaii estuaries and bays had a benthic density less than
270 individuals per 0.0045 m2' and 90% of the area had a density less than 547
individuals per 0.0045 m2 (Figure 3.3-5). In the Oahu urbanized estuaries, 50% of the
area had benthic densities less than 76 individuals per 0.0045 m2 and 90% of the area
had densities less than 513 individuals per 0.0045 m2 (Figure 3.3-6).
Fully 57 % of the polychaete taxa are classified as nonindigenous in origin, 5 percent as
native, 3 percent as cryptogenic and 35 percent as indeterminate or unclassified. In the
crustaceans, 65 percent of the taxa are considered to be native in origin, 4 percent as
nonindigenous, one percent as cryptogenic and 30 percent as indeterminate. The
percentage of nonindigenous species in the other taxa can not presently be determined
either because the taxa were not identified to a sufficiently low taxonomic level to allow
classification (indeterminate taxa) or because the origins of the species have yet to be
determined (unclassified species) (Table 3.3-1).
The number of soft-bottom taxa recorded by island is related to sediment characteristics
as well as to the relative sampling effort by island; Niihau received 3% of the sampling
effort (2 stations), Kauai - 6% (5 stations), Oahu - 60% (18 stations in the extensive
survey and 30 stations in the intensive survey), Molokai -1% (1 station), Maui -11% (9
stations), and Hawaii -19% (15 stations).
The most abundant taxa collected were the Nematoda (5,801 individuals), followed by
the Oligochaeta (2,762 individuals), polychaetes in the family Spionidae (Streblospio
benedicti -1,674 individuals, Pygospio muscularis -1,074 individuals) and
Harpacticoida copepods (1,559 individuals). The polychaete Capitella capitata is
considered an indicator of organic enrichment of sediments (Bailey-Brock etal. 2002).
This species was abundant on Maui (Station HI02-028), Hawaii (Stations HI02-0047,
HI02-0050) and on Oahu (Stations HI02-0067, HI02-0075). Other polychaete species
that are found in association with fine sediment grain sizes (mud bottoms) include
Armandia intermedia, Cossura coasta and Cossura sp. C as well as Sternaspis sp., all
of which were found in the harbors sampled on Oahu, Maui and Hawaii Islands. The
two Niihau stations (Stations HI02-0001, HI02-0002) yielded four specimens of
Parenterodrilus taeniformis which represents a new record for the Hawaiian polychaete
fauna (Bailey-Brock et al. in prep.). The most abundant crustacean species was the
nonindigenous tanaid, Leptochelia dubia.
104
-------
Table 3.3 -1. Summary of the soft bottom taxa identified from 74 Hawaii EMAP stations where sediment was sampled.
Given are the number of stations around a particular island that a taxon was recorded. Data are separated into the 50
sites sampled around 6 islands (the extensive survey) from the 30 intensive survey stations along Oahu's south shore.
"Type" refers to the source of each taxon where Nat = native species, NIS = nonindigenous species, Crypto = cryptogenic
species, I = indeterminate origin, and U = unclassified.
Taxon
HYDROZOA
ANTHOZOA
PLATYHELMINTHES
NEMERTEA
NEMATODA
PRIAPULIDA
POLYCHAETA
Amphiglena mediterranea
Amphiglena sp B
Amphinomidae
Aonides oxycephala
Aonides sp A
Aphelochaeta marioni
Aricidea catherinae
Armandia intermedia
Augeneriella dubia
Axiothella quadrimaculata
Brania rhopalophora
Capitella capitata
Capitellidae spp
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai Total No.
stations Urbanized Individuals
estuaries
I
I
I
I
I
I
NIS
I
I
NIS
I
NIS
NIS
NIS
NIS
NIS
NIS
Crypto
I
4
11
12
49 3
64 3
7 1
2
1
11
3
6
12
2
20
1
1
8
28
21
4
4
13
15
2
1
3
1
2
5
2
3
9
6
4
2
1
12
23
1
1
2
5
1
8
2
12
7
3
2
7
7
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
3
4
2
4 1
12 2
14 1 1
2
4
2
3
2
5 1
1
2
4
4
4
45
37
409
5801
268
3
3
33
3
11
121
2
217
1
1
43
160
181
105
-------
Taxon
Caulleriella acicula
Caulleriella sp A
Ceratonereis tentaculata
Chaetopteridae
Cossura coasta
Cossura sp C
Dipolydora normalis
Dodecacaria /add;
Dorvillea sp D
Eunicidae
Eumida sanguinea
Exogone longicornis
Exogone sp C
Glycera tesselata
Goniada emerita
Grubeosyllis mediodentata
Hesionidae sp D
Hesionura australensis
Hyboscolex longiseta
Laonice cirrata
Linopherus microcephala
Lumbrineridae sp A
Lumbrineris latreilli
Lumbrineris tetraura
Lysidice ninetta
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai
stations Urbanized
estuaries
NIS
1
NIS
1
Crypto
1
NIS
Crypto
1
1
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
2
3
1
8
3
10
3
2
1
1
1
5
13
5
1
1
21
1
1
3
11
1 1
1
16 1
1
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
8
1
5
1
1
4
7
1
2
2
1
4
3
7 1
1
1
1
1
1 1 2
2 3
4
1
1
5281
3
1 1 5
1
323
Total No.
Individuals
62
4
1
151
53
360
54
2
1
4
1
17
450
8
1
3
173
1
2
5
75
1
2
59
3
106
-------
Taxon
Magelona capensis
Magelona sp A
Maldanidae sp A
Marphysa conferta
Megalomma intermedium
Microspio granulata
Microspio sp A
Monticellina cf dorsobranchialis
Monticellina sp A
Myriochele oculata
Naineris sp A
Neanthes arenaceodentata
Neanthes succinea
Nematonereis unicornis
Nereis sp B
Notomastus tenuis
Ophiodromus angustifrons
Ophryotrocha adherens
Ophryotrocha sp C
Paraonella sp A
Parenterodrilus taeniformis
Pholoe sp B
Phyllochaetopterus sp A
Phyllochaetopterus verrilli
Phyllodoce madeirensis
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai Total No.
stations Urbanized Individuals
estuaries
NIS
1
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
1
1
1
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
U
NIS
1
1
NIS
1
1
NIS
NIS
2
7 2
7
1
3
1
2
4
2
17
10 1
5
2
12
2
5
3
1
1
7
2
1
2
2
4
1
4
1
1
3
4
3
4
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1 1
1
1 2
2 1
1 1
6 5
1 1
2
2
3 1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2 1
2
1
2
3
2 1
4
1
1
3
1 1
1
1
2
12
15
13
1
3
1
19
4
7
105
39
6
2
57
12
11
3
1
2
17
5
4
81
14
7
107
-------
Taxon
Pionosyllis heterocirrata
Pionosyllis spinisetosa
Pionosyllis weismanni
Pisione sp A
Plakosyllis quadrioculata
Polygordius sp A
Polynoidae sp E
Polyophthalmus pictus
Prionospio cirrifera
Prionospio steenstrupi
Progoniada sp A
Protodorvillea biarticulata
Protodorvillea egena
Protodrilus sp A
Pseudopolydora antennata
Pseudopolydora corallicola
Pseudopolydora sp C
Pseudovermilia occidentalis
Pygospio muscularis
Questa caudicirra
Questa sp A
Serpulidae
Sabellidae sp 1
Saccocirrus oahuensis
Saccocirrus waianaensis
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai Total No.
stations Urbanized Individuals
estuaries
NIS
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
1
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
Nat
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
Nat
NIS
Nat
1
1
Nat
Nat
18 1
10
4
13 2
1
2
1
7
25
11
1
8
1
12
1
5
3
1
9 1
13
13 2
1
22
3
5
4
4
1
1
2
4
1
1
4
4
2
4
4
4
1
8
1
1
3 9 1
1311
4
2 7 1
1
7
15 1 5
6 4
1 2 1
1
1 511
1
3
3
1
3 1
1251
1 2 4
9 4 1
2
4
345
44
4
101
1
2
1
25
120
13
1
48
1
69
4
10
8
1
1074
95
71
2
834
8
14
108
-------
Taxon
Salmacina clyster!
Schistomeringos rudolphi
Scolelepis sp B
Scolelepis victoriensis
Scyphoproctus djiboutiensis
Sigalionidae sp B
Sigambra tentaculata
Sphaerodoropsis sp C
Sphaerosyllis riser;
Sphaerosyllis sp E
Spionidae
Spio blakei
Sternaspis sp A
Streblospio benedicti
Syllidae
Syllides bansei
Syllides sp B
Syllidia armata
Synelmis albini
Synelmis sp A
Terebellidae sp A
Trichobranchus glacialis
Typosyllis aciculata orientalis
Typosyllis cornuta
Typosyllis variegata
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai
stations Urbanized
estuaries
Crypto
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
1
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
1
NIS
NIS
1
1
NIS
NIS
NIS
Nat
1
2
7 1
2
3
3
3
1
4
24
2
20 2
13
4
2
1
1
2
1
5
2
2
7
14
3
1
1
2
1
2
8
6
4
1
1
3
5
2
1
3
1
1
1
7 1
1
1 3
8 1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1
3
1
3
7 1
1
8
2
5
1
2
6 1
Total No.
Individuals
2
8
9
2
15
3
4
3
112
277
252
43
131
1674
4
1
2
4
1
9
8
4
34
134
12
109
-------
Taxon
OLIOGOCHAETA
SIPUNCULA
ARTHROPODA
Arachnida
Insecta
CRUSTACEA
Halacaridae
COPEPODA -HARPACTICOIDA
COPEPODA - CALANOIDA
COPEPODA - CYCLOPOIDA
BRANCHIOPODA - CLADOCERA
Penilia sp. A.
OSTRACODA - MYODCOPA
Myodocope sp. A.
Myodocope sp. B.
Sarsiella janiceae
OSTRACODA - PODOCOPA
Bairdia hanaumaensis
Bairdia kauaiensis
Cytherelloidea cf. monodenticulata
LEPTOSTRACA - NEBALACEA
Nebalia sp.A.
MYSIDACEA
CUMACEA
TANIDACEA
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai Total No.
stations Urbanized Individuals
estuaries
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
1
1
1
65 3
14
2
6
4
51 2
4
3
6
15
11 1
3
4
3
1
2
4
8
17
2
2
2
1
10
1
2
4
3
1
2
1
3
25 7
3 2
1 2
1
21 4
3
6
5 2
5 1
2
1
1
1
2 1
11 1
7
1
1 1
12 1 1
1
4
1
2
1
1
3 1
2
2762
46
2
10
9
1559
4
4
33
88
114
11
8
10
1
2
5
27
110
-------
Taxon
Anatanais insularis
Apseudes tropicalis
Leptochelia dubia
Leptochelia sp. A.
ISOPODA
Apanthura inornata
Caecianiropsis sp. A.
Cryptoniscus form
Dynamenella sp. A.
Hyssuridae sp. A.
Janira algicola
Joeropsis hawaiiensis
Metacirolana sp. A.
Microcharon sp. A.
Munna acarina
AMPHIPODA - HYPERIIDEA
AMPHIPODA - GAMMARIDEA
Amphilochidae spp.
Ampithoe sp. A.
Aoroides nahili
Atylus nani
Bemlos intermedius
Bemlos macromanus
Corophium insidiosum
Cymadusa cf. hawaiiensis
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai Total No.
stations Urbanized Individuals
estuaries
Nat
Nat
NIS
Crypto.
Nat.
Nat.
1
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
1
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
NIS
Nat
1
5
28
2
3
3
8 1
2
2
3
6
5
2
8 1
1
13
1
3
1
1
6
5
1
2
8
1
2
3
1
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
2 1
9 2
1
1
1
1
2 1
1 1
1
2
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
8 1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
4
8 1
1
3
1
1
4 1
1
2
26
913
3
21
9
13
2
5
15
32
41
19
15
1
58
1
62
2
1
15
72
2
111
-------
Taxon
Dulzura laakona
Dulzura sp. A.
Elasmopus piikoi
"Elpeddo" sp. A.
Eriopisella sechellensis
Ericthonius brasiliensis
Gammaropsis atlantica
Grandidierella makena
Konatopus paao
Leucothoe hyhelia
Mandibulophoxus hawaiiloa
Melita appendiculata
Melita pahuwai
"Paraphoxus" sp. B.
Pereionotus alaniphilias
Photis kapapa
Seba ekepuu
Tethygeneia pacifica
DECAPODA - NATANTIA
Alpheus leptochirus
Alpheus rapax (?)
Leptochela hawaiiensis
Lucifer chacei
Nikoides steinii
Ogyrides sp. A.
Type Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai Total No.
stations Urbanized Individuals
estuaries
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
NIS
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
Nat
4
6
5
5
11
6
2
3
13
4
5 3
2
2
1
1
1
2
4
1
3
1
4
1
1
4
3 1 2
3 1 1
2 2 1
5 114
1 13 1
1 1
1 1 1
3 27 1
2 1 1
2
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1 1
2 1 1
1
2 1
1
4
1
1
83
42
188
40
268
160
3
84
94
8
129
56
2
1
1
1
275
28
1
3
1
7
1
1
112
-------
Taxon
Penaeopsis velatinus
Pontophilus cf. sculptus
Processa hawaiiensis
Processa cf. macrognatha
Peneid larva
Caridean larva
DECAPODA - ANOMURA
Axius sp. A.
Callianassa sp. A.
Calocaris sp. A.
DECAPODA - BRACHYURA
Calappa gallus (?)
Leucosia (?) sp. A.
Lissocarcinus sp. A.
Macropthalamus sp. A.
Nucia (?) sp. A.
Pilumnus sp. A.
Portunus orbicularis
Thalamita auauensis
Megalops larva
Zoea larva
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Gastropoda
PHORONIDA
Type Number of Kauai
stations
Nat 1
Nat 1
Nat 1
Nat 2
I 1
I 9
I 1
I 6 1
I 1
Nat 2
I 1
I 1
I 1
I 2
I 2
Nat 1
Nat 1
I 2
I 6
I 26
I 14
I 8 1
Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai
Urbanized
estuaries
1
1
1
1 1
1
8 1
1
2 3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 5
6 66611
3226 1
231 1
Total No.
Individuals
1
1
1
2
1
12
1
9
1
3
1
8
6
4
2
1
1
3
8
91
78
15
113
-------
Taxon Type
ECHNODERMATA 1
Echinoidea 1
Holothuroidea 1
Ophiuroidea 1
CHAETOGNATHA 1
HEMICHORDATA 1
CHORDATA 1
UROCHORDATA 1
OSTEICHTHYES 1
Number of Kauai Oahu Oahu Maui Hawaii Niihau Molokai
stations Urbanized
estuaries
6
21 6
4 1
12
3 2
3 1
1
5 1
2
8 3
1
10
1
1
2 1
3 1
4
2
2
2
1
Total No.
Individuals
10
214
7
248
14
7
1
5
114
-------
re
c
0)
0)
CL
0)
E
D
O
100
80
60
re 40
20
Number of Benthic Species
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
10 20 30 40
Number of Species
50
60
Figure 3.3 -1. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. total
number of species of benthic infauna.
re
c
0)
e
0)
CL
I
•4-i
_re
D
E
D
O
100 -
80 -
60 -
40
20 -
Number of Benthic Species
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
10 20 30 40
Number of Species
50
60
Figure 3.3 -2. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. total
number of species of benthic infauna.
115
-------
ra
a) 100 -
0)
H
0)
Q.
0)
3
E
3
O
80 -
40 -
20 -
0.5
Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
1.5
3.5
4.5
H1
Figure 3.3 -3. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. H' diversity
of the benthic infaunal community.
Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
ra
g) 100
C 80
0)
o
0)
60 -
40 -
£ 20
3
O
0.5
Cumulative Percent
95% Cinfidence Interval
1.5
2 2.5
H1
3.5
4.5
Figure 3.3 -4. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. H' diversity
of the benthic infaunal community.
116
-------
S 100
C 80
o>
0)
0- 60
I
£5 40
E
Abundance of Benthic Organisms
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
20 -
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
500 1000 1500 2000
Number of Organisms
2500
Figure 3.3 -5. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. total
abundance of benthic infauna.
Abundance of Benthic Organisms
Oahu Urbanized Estuaries
0 -V-
- Cumulative percent
• 95% Confidence interval
500 1000 1500 2000
Number of Organisms
2500
Figure 3.3 -6. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Oahu urbanized estuaries vs. total
abundance of benthic infauna.
117
-------
3.3.2 Hard Bottom Habitat Composition
Underwater biological sample collections were carried out by SCUBA divers at 38 of the
79 (or 48%) completed survey sites (Table 3.3-2). However, only three of these 38
underwater transects were completed at the 30 stations located in the Oahu urbanized
estuaries. The low number of surveys at the stations in the Oahu urbanized estuaries
precluded the calculation of CDFs for data collected at this group of sites.
At most of the harbor sites, surveys could not be completed due to the presence of poor
visibility and/or fine mud substratum. Among the stations in Hawaii estuaries and bays,
dangerous surf found on some reef crest sites along windward coasts also precluded
diver sampling. Several other stations at low energy, poor visibility sites, usually in
proximity to stream discharges, also could not be sampled. At locations where in-water
diver surveys were not completed, all needed biological sample collections were made
using standard methods (i.e., Van Veen grabs, etc.). Where sample sites occurred in
coral reef settings, all biological sample collections were made using divers.
3.3.2.1 Algal Composition
Macrothalloid algae were recorded as the percent cover of each species present. In
total 54 species of macroalgae were seen in the quadrat surveys. The ten most
abundant algal taxa observed are given in Table 3.3-3. The mean algal coverage was
7.4%. Mean algal percent cover ranged between 0 and 70%, with 90% of the area of
Hawaii estuaries and bays having an algal percent coverage less than approximately
14% (Figure 3.3-3). Among the islands, mean percentage algal coverage was as
follows: Niihau - 4.6%, Kauai - 5.9%, Oahu - 9.7% Maui -15.0% and Hawaii - 0.9%.
The lower abundance of macrothalloid algal species around the island of Hawaii is
probably related to the higher abundance of herbivorous invertebrates and fishes
relative to other islands.
Nonindigenous algal species have become a concern in the Hawaiian Islands in recent
years. There are eight species (Acanthophora spicifera, Avrainvillea amadelpha,
Gracilaria salicornia, G. tikvahiae, Hypnea musciformis, Kappahhycus alvarezii, K.
stratium and Halophila decipiens) generally recognized as being prominent nuisance
species; three of these (Acanthophora spicifera, Gracilaria salicornia and Avrainvillea
amadelpha) were encountered in this survey. These three nonindigenous species were
only found at six Oahu sample sites, where they comprised a total of 53% of the algal
cover. Plant abundances of the first two of these species were also among the ten
most abundant algal species. No nonindigenous algae were found at any of the other
survey sites although several are known to commonly occur in the waters around other
islands.
118
-------
Table 3.3 -2. Summary of biological parameters at all stations where underwater transect measurements were carried
out.
EMAP
Station ID
HI02-0001
HI02-0002
HI02-0003
HI02-0009
HI02-0010
HI02-0012
HI02-0013
HI02-0014
HI02-0017
HI02-0021
HI02-0022
HI02-0023
HI02-0024
HI02-0025
HI02-0027
HI02-0028
HI02-0030
HI02-0031
HI02-0032
HI02-0033
HI02-0034
HI02-0035
HI02-0036
Island No. Coral % Coral No. % Algal No. Fish No. Fish Fish No. No.
Species Cover Algal Cover Species Individuals Biomass Invertebrate Invertebrate
Species Species Individuals
Niihau
Niihau
Kauai
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
Maui
Maui
Maui
Maui
Maui
Maui
Maui
Maui
Hawaii
1
0
6
1
6
4
1
6
2
1
0
1
0
4
0
7
3
0
3
6
0
0
9
0.2
0
21.7
11
2
1.1
0.3
7.1
23.4
0.4
0
5.8
0
1.2
0
38.2
1.2
0
4.2
34.5
0
0
59.4
7
1
6
3
5
12
11
3
3
0
5
4
8
0
0
7
4
0
5
1
0
0
0
8.7
0.4
5.9
13.9
3.2
15.8
33.3
2.3
4.3
0
10.3
11.1
9.3
0
0
10.6
30.1
0
69.9
9.3
0
0
0
10
6
9
1
8
4
5
12
13
2
11
8
2
17
0
12
3
2
18
10
1
0
31
42
35
57
2
19
9
31
52
77
13
60
61
4
68
0
61
5
20
107
27
52
0
278
4.72
11.2
7.5
0.01
3.7
0.8
5
12.3
40
0.5
7.3
3.9
2.1
24.3
0
33.1
2.4
0.7
9.6
2.8
3.8
0
186
5
0
3
2
2
5
5
0
2
5
2
2
2
6
0
1
3
1
4
4
2
0
594
30
0
3
8
6
195
93
0
4
31
2
45
2
29
0
1
4
13
6
64
28
0
119
-------
EMAP
Station ID
HI02-0037
HI02-0038
HI02-0039
HI02-0040
HI02-0041
HI02-0042
HI02-0043
HI02-0044
HI02-0045
HI02-0046
HI02-0047
HI02-0050
HI02-0061
HI02-0069
HI02-0078
Island No. Coral % Coral No. % Algal No. Fish No. Fish Fish No. No.
Species Cover Algal Cover Species Individuals Biomass Invertebrate Invertebrate
Species Species Individuals
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Oahu
Oahu
Oahu
MEAN
6
5
3
6
0
8
0
0
3
5
8
0
1
1
0
2.82
7
99
13
43
33
4
4
7
0
1
7
2
5
0
8
0
0
1
7
6
0
5
1
0
11.23
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
3
5
1
0
2
7
4
2.95
0.3
0
0
0.4
0
6.2
0
0
1.8
2.8
0.2
0
17.3
7.2
8
7.44
7
18
8
20
5
13
13
0
18
9
13
1
13
3
0
8.58
67
162
41
107
6
99
74
0
168
46
126
12
130
12
0
56.05
6.5
71.4
6.4
46.7
6.1
26.4
11.5
0
22.8
24.7
111
5.9
58.8
3
0
19.20
4
4
1
5
1
5
5
0
3
2
0
0
1
4
3
2.61
61
106
2
42
1
526
37
0
3
3
0
0
23
20
3
39.08
120
-------
Table 3.3-3. The ten most abundant algal taxa observed on the underwater transects.
Algal abundance represents total number of plants observed, and percent cover
was calculated for stations where the alga occurred. (* = nonindigenous species)
Freq. of
occurrence
1
4
10
5
4
1
2
5
1
1
Algal Species
Sargassum echinocarpum
Sargassum sp.
Padina sp.
Acanthophora spicifera*
Dictyopteris sp.
Gracilaria salicornia*
Microdictyon sp.
Porolithon sp.
Dictyopteris australis
Galaxaura acuminata
Type
Phaeophyta
Phaeophyta
Phaeophyta
Rhodophyta
Phaeophyta
Rhodophyta
Chlorophyta
Rhodophyta
Phaeophyta
Rhodophyta
Algal
abundance
315.0
196.5
144.3
132.2
113.5
99.7
69.5
63.0
57.0
56.0
Percent
cover
1.38
0.86
0.63
0.57
0.50
0.44
0.30
0.28
0.25
0.24
Table 3.3-4. The ten most abundant coral taxa observed on the underwater transects.
Freq. of
occurrence
12
19
14
7
13
9
7
2
2
3
Species
Porites compressa
Porites lobata
Montipora capitata
Montipora patula
Pocillopora meandrina
Montipora flabellata
Pavona varians
Porites evermanni
Leptastrea purpurea
Psammocora stellata
Common Name
Finger coral
Lobe coral
Rice coral
Sandpaper rice coral
Cauliflower coral
Blue rice coral
Corrugated coral
Evermann's coral
Crust coral
Stellar coral
Coral
coverage
946.75
738.00
399.00
120.25
93.75
77.50
28.00
20.25
18.00
10.50
Percent of total
coverage
4.15
3.24
1.75
0.53
0.41
0.34
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.05
121
-------
3.3.2.2 Coral Composition
Corals were found at 26 of 38 (68%) stations surveyed. At sites with corals present, the
number of coral species ranged from 1 to 9 per transect (Table 3.3-4), with a mean of 4
species per transect. Coral coverage at the 26 sites with corals present ranged from
0.2% to 99.7% with a mean of 16.4%.
By island, mean coral coverage at the sampled stations varied; Niihau had corals
present at one of two sites surveyed and mean cover at those stations was 0.1 %. On
Kauai there was one station surveyed for corals and mean coverage along the transect
surveyed was 21.7%. Eleven Oahu stations out of 14 surveyed for corals had corals
present. The mean coverage at the Oahu sites with corals was 4.9% and at all Oahu
sites it was 3.8%. On Maui four out of eight stations had corals present; at those
stations where corals were present mean coverage was 19.5% and considering all eight
Maui stations mean coverage was 9.8%. On the island of Hawaii, corals were present at
9 of 13 stations where the mean coverage was 30.3%. Considering all 13 stations,
mean coral coverage amounted to 21.0%. Coral coverage is largely influenced by the
presence of appropriate hard substratum on which to settle and grow, the degree of
sample site exposure from occasional storm surf, and the proximity of streams. All coral
species seen in this survey are native species.
3.3.2.3 Macroinvertebrate Composition
Diurnally-exposed motile macroinvertebrates were censused in 25 x 4 m transects.
Motile macroinvertebrates were found at 31 of the 38 sites censused. A total of 31 taxa
were identified, with a mean number of macroinvertebrate taxa per transect of 2.6. The
ten most abundant macroinvertebrate taxa are given in Table 3.3-5. Six of the ten most
abundant macroinvertebrate taxa were sea urchins. Mean abundance of
macroinvertebrates was 39 individuals per transect. Fully 24 species (or 77% of the
taxa) are native (16 species being echinoderms), one is cryptogenic (the feather duster
worm - Sabellastarte spectabilis) and six are indeterminate. The cryptogenic feather
duster worm was found only at one station within Pearl Harbor. None of the diurnally-
exposed macroinvertebrates encountered in this study are rare and the sampling method
is probably only accurate for a few echinoderm and mollusk species because of the
normal cryptic habits of most coral reef invertebrates. Thus the data are of limited value
in assessing the status of marine communities in Hawaii.
122
-------
Table 3.3-5. The ten most abundant macroinvertebrate taxa observed on the underwater
transects. Abundance represents the total number of individuals observed, while mean
abundance is for sites where the species occurred.
Freq. of
occurrence
12
10
2
5
9
5
4
4
1
10
Macroinvertebrate
species
Echinometra mathaei
Tripneustes gratilla
Heterocentrotus
Alpheidae sp.
Diadema paucispinum
Eucidaris tribuloides
Echinometra oblonga
Ophiocoma sp.
Sabellastarte spectabilis
Holothuria atra
Common name
Rock-boring urchin
Collector urchin
Red pencil urchin
Snapping shrimp
Long-spined urchin
Slate-pencil urchin
Oblong urchin
Brittle star
Feather duster worm
Black sea cucumber
Abundance
862
226
62
57
42
40
38
36
23
19
Mean per
transect
71.83
22.60
31.00
9.67
4.67
8.00
9.50
9.00
23.00
1.90
St.
Dev.
141.47
24.38
29.00
9.29
5.60
7.32
9.50
5.70
0.00
1.14
123
-------
3.3.3 Fish Species Richness, Abundance and Biomass
The visual censusses of fishes were carried out at 38 of the 79 (48%) Hawaiian NCA
stations and fishes were encountered at 34 of the 38 sites. Of the 38 sites with
successful fish visual surveys, only 3 sites were located among Oahu urbanized
estuaries. Therefore, no CDFs were generated from this portion of the study for fish
indicators.
In total, 110 species/taxa were encountered from the 38 sites. The mean number offish
taxa per transect was 9, mean number of fishes/transect was 56 and mean estimated
biomass was 19 g/m2 per transect. Within the 110 fish taxonomic groups, there are 9
taxa (Coris spp., Rhinecanthus spp., Forcipigerspp., Synodus spp., Cantherhines spp.
Scams sp., Calatomus sp., Sargocentron sp. and Goby spp.) incompletely identified.
Eight of these nine taxa have no known nonindigenous or cryptogenic species in the
Hawaiian fish fauna (Randall 1981, 1987) thus are all considered to be native. One
taxon (Goby spp.) could contain nonindigenous or cryptogenic species thus is classified
as indeterminate. Three species are nonindigenous (blue spotted grouper or
ro\,Cephalopholis argus] the blue lined snapper or ta'ape, Lutjanus kasmira; and the
blacktail snapper to'au, Lutjanus fulvus), having been intentionally released in Hawaiian
waters in the mid-1950's to supplement inshore fishery resources (Brock 1960). Table
3.3-6 lists the ten most abundant fish taxa recorded.
Fish species richness on a per sample basis ranged from 0 to 31 species per transect in
the samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays. On an areal basis, approximately 50% of
the area had a species richness less than 8 species per transect, and 90% had a fish
species richness less than 18 species per sample (Figure 3.3-7).
The fish diversity index H' (log base 2) ranged from 0 to 3.58 in the samples from
Hawaii estuaries and bays. On an areal basis, less than 50% of the area had an H' of
2.5, while 90% of the area had a value of 3.18 or less (Figure 3.3-8).
Fish abundance per transect in samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged from 0
to 278 individuals. On an areal basis, 50% of the area had a fish abundance less than
48 individuals per transect, and 90% of the area had an abundance less than 126
individuals (Figure 3.3-9).
Estimated fish biomass per transect in samples from Hawaii estuaries and bays ranged
from 0 to 18.6 kg per transect. On an areal basis, 50% of the area had a fish biomass
less than 0.6 kg per transect and 90% of the area had a fish biomass less than 4.0 kg
per transect (Figure 3.3-10).
124
-------
Table 3.3-6. The ten most abundant fish taxa observed on the underwater transects.
Abundance represents the total number of individuals observed on all transects.
Freq. of
occurrence
25
17
8
6
8
3
3
5
7
4
Fish Species
Thalassoma duperrey
Acanthurus nigrofuscus
Ctenochaetus strigosus
Chromis vanderbilti
Goby spp.
Chromis agilis
Mulloidichthys
Acanthurus
Acanthurus triostegus
Scams spp.
Common Name
Saddleback
Brown
Goldring
Blackfin chromis
Goby
Agile chromis
Yellowstripe
Whitebar
Convict
Parrotfish
Abundance
309
196
162
138
136
90
89
87
78
66
Mean per
transect
12.36
11.53
20.25
23.00
17.00
30.00
29.67
17.40
11.14
16.50
St.
Dev.
9.95
12.08
15.21
11.34
15.67
18.46
17.78
29.86
14.21
7.30
125
-------
ra
S> 100
g 8(H
£ 60 H
0)
~ 40
3
E
3
O
20 -
Fish Species Richness
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
Cumulative Percent
95% Confidence Interval
10 15 20 25
Number of Species
30
35
Figure 3.3 -7. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. total
number offish species observed on visual transects.
100 -
c 80
0)
O
0)
Q- 60
I
^ 40
3
E
O 20
Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index
Hawaii Estuaries and Bays
-Cumulative Percent
• 95% Confidence Interval
0.5
1 1.5
2
H1
2.5
3.5
Figure 3.3 -8. Percent area (and 95% C.I.) of Hawaii estuaries and bays vs. the H'
diversity index for fishes observed on visual transects.
126
-------
100 -
•£ 80
-------
4.0 References
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 1991. Guide for conducting 10-
day static sediment toxicity tests with marine and estuarine amphipods. ASTM
Standard Methods Volume 11.04, Method Number E-1367-90. ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA.
Bailey-Brock, J. H., B. Paavo, B. M. Barret and J. Dreyer. 2002. Polychaetes
associated with a tropical ocean outfall: synthesis of a biomonitoring program off
O'hau, Hawaii. Pacific Science 56:459-479.
Bailey-Brock, J. H., R. E. Brock and M. McGurr. (In prep.). Protodrilidae of Hawaii and
Niihau in the Hawaiian Islands. Ms. 6p+2 figs.
Bisson, J.W, and V.J. Cabelli. 1979. Membrane filter enumeration method for
Clostridium perfringens. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 37:55-66.
Brock, R. E. 1982. A critique on the visual census method for assessing coral reef
populations. Bulletin of Marine Science 32:269-276.
Brock, R. E. 1998. Community structure and macrobenthos at selected sites fronting
Sand Island, O'ahu, Hawaii, in relation to the Sand Island ocean outfall, year 9 -
1998. Project Report PR-99-07. Water Resources Research Center, University
of Hawaii, Honolulu. viii+41p.
Brock, R. E. 1999. Community structure and macrobenthos at selected shallow-water
sites in relation to the Barbers Point ocean outfall, 1999. Project Report PR-99-
13. Water Resources Research Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. viii+51p.
Brock, R. E. and J. H. Brock. 1977. A method of quantitatively assessing the infaunal
community residing in coral rock. Limnology and Oceanography 22:948-951.
Brock, R. E. and J. E. Morris. 1989. An analysis of the efficacy of artificial reef designs
in tropical waters. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:934-941.
Brock, V. E. 1954. A preliminary report on a method of estimating reef fish populations.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 18:297-308.
Brock, V. E. 1960. The introduction of aquatic animals into Hawaiian waters. Int.
Revue ges. Hydrobiologia 45:463-480.
Bourgeois, P. E., V. J. Sclafani, J. K. Summers, S. C. Robb and B. A. Vairin. 1998.
Think before you sample. GEOWorld. Vol. 11: No 12.
128
-------
Carlton, J. T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653-
1654.
Carlton, J. T. and J. B. Geller. 1993. Ecological roulette: the global transport of
nonindigenous marine organisms. Science 261:78-82.
Cohen, A. and , J. T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States
estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and
Delta. Report for the National Sea Grant College Program, DT and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Report No. PB 96-166525.
Cohen, A. and J. Carlton. 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary.
Science 279:555-558.
Cooper, L. 2000. West EMAP Revised Information Management Plan for 2000. Draft.
14 p. plus Appendices A-D.
Cooper, S. R. and G. S. Brush. 1991. Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia.
Science 254:993-996.
Copping, A. and B. C. Bryant. 1993. Pacific Northwest Regional Marine Research
Program, Vol. 1. Research Plan, 1992-1996. Office of Marine Environmental and
Resource Programs, University of Washington, Seattle.
Culliton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Goodspeed, D. G. Remeer, C. M. Blackwell and
J. J. McDonough, III. 1990. 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's
Coasts, 1960-2010. NOAA, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment,
National Ocean Service, Coastal Trends Series, Rockville, MD. pp 41.
Diaz-Ramos, S., D. L. Stevens, Jr. and A. R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics Methods
Manual. EPA/620/R-96/002. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.
Durning, A. T. 1996. The six floods. WorldWatch November/December 1996. pp. 28-
36.
Englund, R. A., D. J. Preston, R. Wolff, S. L. Coles, L. G. Eldredge, K. Arakai, eds.
2000. Biodiversity of Freshwater and Estuarine Communities in Lower Pearl
Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii with Observations on Introduced Species. Final Report
prepared for the U.S. Navy. Department of Defense Legacy Project Number 106.
Bishop Museum Technical Report No. 16. Honolulu, pp. 167.
Evans, E.G. (Editor). 1974. Pearl Harbor biological survey -final report. Report No.
NUC-TN-1128, Naval Undersea Center, Hawaii Laboratory.
129
-------
Holland, A. F. and A. T. Shaughnessey. 1986. Separation of long term variation in
benthic organisms into major components. In: Oceans 86 Conference Record.
Vol. 3. Monitoring strategies symposium. Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Engineers, Piscataway, NJ. pp. 1056-1061.
Howarth, R. W., J. R. Fruch and D. Sherman. 1991. Inputs of sediment and carbon to
an estuarine ecosystem: influence of land use. Ecological Applications 1:27-39.
Hyland, J. L, L. Balthis, C. T. Hackney, G. McRae, A. H. Ringwood, T. R. Snoots, R. F.
Van Dolah and T. L. Wade. 1998. Environmental quality of estuaries of the
Carolinian Province: 1995. Annual statistical summary for the 1995 EMAP-
Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS ORCA 123 NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD. 143 p.
Hyland, J. L., T. J. Herrlinger, T. R. Snoots, A. H. Ring-wood, R.F. Van Dolah, C. T.
Hackney, G. A. Nelson, J. S. Rosen and S. A. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental
Quality of Estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. Annual Statistical Summary
for the 1994 EMAP- Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97. NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD. 102 p.
Lauenstein, G. G. and A. Y. Cantillo (eds.). 1993. Sampling and analytical methods of
the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and
Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992: Comprehensive descriptions of trace organic
analytical methods, Volume IV NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71,
Silver Spring, MD. 182 pp.
Lauenstein, G. G., Crecelius, E. A. and Cantillo, A. Y. 2000. Baseline metal
concentrations of the U.S. West Coast and their use in evaluating sediment
contamination. Presented at 21st Ann. Soc. Environ. Toxicology and Chemistry
meeting, November 12-15, 2000, Nashville Tennessee.
Lee, H. II, B. Thompson and S. Lowe. 2003. Spatial patterns and associations of
nonindigenous benthos in the San Francisco estuary. Biological Invasions 5:85-
102.
Leppakoski, E. 1979. The use of zoobenthos in evaluating effects of pollution in
brackish-water environments. In: The use of ecological variables in
environmental monitoring. The National Swedish Environment Protection Board,
Report PM 1151. pp. 151-157.
Long, E. R., D. D. MacDonald, S. L. Smith and F. D. Callander. 1995. Incidence of
adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and
estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19:81-97.
130
-------
Long, E. R.,, J. Hameedi, A. Robertson, M. Dutch, S. Aasen. K. Welch, S. Magoon, R.
Carr, T. Johnson, J. Biedenbach, K. Scott, C. Mueller and J. Anderson. 2000.
Sediment Quality in Puget Sound. Year 2 - Central Puget Sound. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring,
MD. NOS NCCOS CCMA Technical Memo No. 147 , and Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, Publication No. 00-03-055. pp. 353.
Macauley, J. M., J. K. Summers, P. T. Heitmuller, V. D. Engle, G. T. Brooks, M.
Babikow and A. M. Adams. 1994. Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP - Estuaries
Louisiana Province -1992. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/620/R-94/002. 82 p.
plus Appendix A.
Macauley, J. M., J. K. Summers, V. D. Engle, P. T. Heitmuller and A. M. Adams. 1995.
Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP - Estuaries Louisiana Province -1993. U.S.
EPA Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/620/R-96/003. 95 p.
Nelson, W. G. 1986. Benthic infaunal sampling in vicinity of the Sand Island ocean
outfall, O'ahu, Hawaii. Spec. Rept. 6:20:86, Water Resources Research Center,
University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 117p.
Oregon Coastal EMAP Proposal. 1999. Monitoring the US West Coast: An initial
assessment of Oregon's estuaries and the Pacific Ocean. A proposal to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency EMAP Program. Submitted by:
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Laboratory Division, 1712 SW
Eleventh Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201. Unpublished, 31 p.
Preskitt, L. B., C. M. Smith, I. A. Abbott, R. C. DeFelice, L. G. Eldredge and J. T.
Carlton. 2001. A Guidebook of Introduced Marine Species in Hawai'i. A
Workshop at the University of Hawaii, May 18, 2001. Sponsored by grants from
the Packard Foundation and the US Fish & Wildlife Service and to the University
of Hawai'i and Bishop Museum, pages A-N+A60, B-iv+B-60.
Randall, J. E. 1981. New records of fishes from the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science
34:211-232.
Randall, J. E. 1987. Introductions of marine fishes to the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of
Marine Science 41:490-502.
Reish, D. J. 1986. Benthic invertebrates as indicators of marine pollution: 35 years of
study. In: Oceans 86 Conference Record. Vol. 3. Monitoring strategies
symposium. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Piscataway, NJ pp.
885-888.
131
-------
Ricker, W. E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics offish
populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada, 191. 382p.
Sanders, H., R. Messier and G. Hampson. 1965. An introduction to the study of deep-
benthic faunal assemblages along the Gay Head-Bermuda transect. Deep Sea
Res. 12:845-867.
Simenstad, C. A., J. A. Estes and K. W. Kenyon. 1978. Aleuts, sea otters, and
alternate stable state communities. Science 200:403-41.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th edition. 1998.
American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Stevens, D. L. Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous
spatial populations. Environmetrics 8:167-195.
Stevens, D. L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for
aquatic resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental
Statistics: 4:415-428.
Strobel, C. J., H. W. Buffum, S. J. Benyi, E. A. Petrocelli, D. R. Reifsteckand D. J.
Keith. 1995. Statistical summary: EMAP - Estuaries Virginian Province -1990 to
1993. U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory,
Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, R.I. EPA/620/R-94/026. 72 p. plus
Appendices A-C.
Strobel, C.J., S. J. Benyi, D. J. Keith, H. W. Buffum and E. A. Petrocelli. 1994. Statistical
summary: EMAP -Estuaries Virginian Province -1992. U.S. EPA Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett,
Rl. EPA/620/R-94/019. 63 p. plus Appendices A-C.
Swartz, R. C., J. H. Bailey-Brock, W. J. Cooke and E. A. Kay. 2000. Benthic faunal
sampling adjacent to Sand Island ocean outfall, O'ahu, Hawaii, September-
October 1999. Project Report PR-2000-06. Water Resources Research Center,
University of Hawaii, Honolulu. xii+209p.
Taylor, J. 1987. Quality assurance of chemical measurements. Lewis Publishers, Inc,
Chelsea, Ml.
TN and Associates, Inc. 2001. Compiling Lists of Nonindigenous Species (NIS) from
the West Coast of the Unites States, Excluding San Francisco Bay. Report to
U.S. EPA/ORD/NCEA. 11 pages, plus appendices, plus spreadsheet.
U.S. EPA. 1994a. Methods for Assessing the Toxicity of Sediment-associated
Contaminants with Estuarine and Marine Amphipods. Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati,
132
-------
OH. EPA 600-R-94-025. June 1994.
U.S. EPA. 1994b. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP):
Laboratory Methods Manual - Estuaries, Volume 1: Biological and Physical
Analyses. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and
Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-91/024. 321-324.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Clean Water Action Plan: National Coastal Condition Report. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development/
Office of Water. Washington D.C. EPA620-R-00-004
U.S. EPA. 2001 a. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP):
National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001-2004. United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Gulf Ecology
Division, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/620/R-01/002.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Environmental monitoring and assessment (EMAP) research
strategy. Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 15p.
U.S. EPA 2001 b. National Coastal Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA/620/R-
01/003. 71 pp.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000. Water Quality - EPA and State Decisions
Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data. Report to the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. Report GAO/RCED
00-54. pp. 78.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2000. Toxicity testing of sediments from the
BEST/EMAP Western Estuary Group monitoring study. Report Submitted by the
USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center, Marine Ecotoxicology
Research Station to the U.S. Geological Survey. Biomonitoring and
Environmental Status and Trends Program, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison, Wl,
10 pp. + 22 tables, 3 figures and 4 attachments.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. H4IIE bioassay-derived 2,3,7,8 -
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents (TCDD-EQ) in fish collected in 1999 from
small estuaries along the western coast of the United States. Report Submitted
by the USGS Columbia Environmental Research Center to the U.S. Geological
Survey. Biomonitoring and Environmental Status and Trends Program, 6006
Schroeder Road, Madison, Wl, 16 pp. + 8 figures, 10 tables.
133
-------
Weisberg, S. B., J. B. Frithsen, A. F. Holland, J. F. Paul, K. J. Scott, J. K. Summers, H.
T. Wilson, R. Valente, D. G. Heimbuch, J. Gerritsen, S. C. Schimmel and R. W.
Latimer. 1992. EMAP- Estuaries Virginian Province 1990 demonstration project
report. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, R.I.
EPA/600/R-92/100.
134
------- |